Friday, October 30, 2009


I'm sure there will be many more posts under this heading as more and more of the legislation is read and disseminated, but this first one is quite a doozy.

One of the major reforms to health care the American public has demanded is tort reform. It would save billions if enacted - $54 billion, to be exact.

So, is tort reform one of the ways they are allegedly bringing down costs?

Eh, not so much.

Turns out San Fran Nan has shown her love for trial lawyers. Not only is there no provision for tort reform, but the woman has the gall to actually make sure states can not reduce fees or cap damages without being penalized. So any hope the states may have had for controlling costs is just blown out the window.

Happy lawyers make better donors, eh Nancy?


There is a wonderful site that you should all check out -

This was started by a group of angry Florida voters (no, not me) who are going to use every dime they collect from the website to get Alan Grayson voted out of office in 2010.

""Every penny that we raise is going to go to exposing his policies and who he really is," said Angie Langley, 34, chairman of the recently-formed political action committee behind the Web site. "We are going to flood the district with bumper stickers, yard signs and we are prepared to launch radio and television ads — whatever it takes to make sure this guy is not re-elected." "

Sign me up!

Thursday, October 29, 2009


As I was driving home from a friend's house tonight, I listened to Michael Savage's radio show. I've never listened to him before, so I don't know if the rant he was on was normal or unusual, but boy, was he going off on the Obama administration. During his discussion, he asked a few times "Don't they have children? Don't they know what they are saddling them with?"

I have your answer, Mr. Savage.

Yes, they do have children, and they are fully aware of what they are saddling the nation with, but they also know their children will not be suffering like the rest of us.

What Mr. Savage seems to be missing is that their children will be the next in line to the throne, as it were. Take Joe Biden, for instance - his son, Beau, is "absolutely" considering running for his father's old Senate seat, which is presently being kept warm for him. I'm sure he will win it, too - he has the money, connections, and name recognition. When Ted Kennedy died, there was talk of either his wife or his nephew being appointed to his seat. Let's not forget the Caroline Kennedy fiasco, too, since we're discussing the Kennedy dynasty, and the Roosevelts deserve a mention as well, not just for their link to each other, but for their remarkably politically populous family tree. But this practice isn't reserved to just democrats.

Throughout our history, there have been political dynasties now and again, starting with our second President, John Adams (Federalist),whose son, John Quincy Adams (Democratic-Republican), was our sixth President. In more recent times, of course, there are the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Daleys and countless others on national, state and local levels. We now have a deeply entrenched political class, and they make it very difficult to join the ranks. Just ask Sarah Palin.

Even though we have been developing a political aristocracy for many, many years in this country, it seems that, from about the 1960's onward, it has truly come to fruition. Perhaps this is because of the romantic allure of the Kennedy dynasty, or maybe it's due to a certain arrogance the we peons couldn't possibly manage to run a country as well as they. I vote the latter.

But, even if the children of our politicians decide politics are not for them, they are still a part of the new aristocracy, and will never find themselves subjected to the garbage their parents are forcing down our throats. Some of the massive, seemingly untraceable rivers of cash that are flowing out of Washington must surely be trickling into their coffers (let's not forget their favorite community organization is ACORN, a notorious money laundering outfit - and one that is not as cut off from funding as they let on), and their vast network of connections will ensure that whatever the money doesn't fix, the connections will.

What we keep forgetting is that these people already live in a different America. Sure, it seems to more and more closely resemble Europe in the 1700's (complete with Bubbles) than it does the America we grew up in. But make no mistake - when they talk about remaking America, it is not their America that is being remade. They will continue with their cocktail parties and trips to Martha's Vineyard; hobnobbing with celebrities and being oh so fabulous in their taxpayer funded Nirvana. Hardship for thee, but not for me....

So yes, Mr. Savage, they do have children and grandchildren, and no, they don't worry about the effect their socialist/communist agenda will have on them.

They have political immunity.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009


According to the Washington Times, the Obama administration has managed to make the White House into the worlds fanciest VFW hall. For a mere $30,400 private donation or $300,000 bundle, you, too, can have VIP access to the White House and senior White House officials.

The perks include:
  • A birthday visit to the Oval Office
  • A round of golf with Dear Leader
  • Lavish receptions at the White House
  • A game of bowling with the family at the White House alley
  • A private screening of your favorite movie in the basement theater

The DNC has also availed themselves of the White House prestige by hosting fundraisers on the premises, much as peons like you and I might rent out a VFW hall. Well, except that when we host a party, we don't require our guests to pay thousands of dollars to attend, as a general rule.

George W. Bush held fundraisers at Camp David and his Crawford ranch, but drew the line at the White House. This is probably because of all the flack Bill Clinton got for selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom. It will be interesting to see if the Neo Pravda media pick this story up. Fox didn't break it, so there is a chance, at least.

Considering Clinton got a lot of grief for his sale of access to the White House, there is certainly precedence for going after Obama on this, but the odds are good he will get a pass on this, too.

For me the piece de resistance was the quote from the deputy White House communications director, Dan Pfieffer:

""This administration has across the board set the toughest ethics standards in history. As a result, we have reduced special-interest influence over the policymaking process to promote merits-based decision-making," he added."

I haven't laughed so hard in years!


Well, my idiot congressman, Alan Grayson, has opened his trap again, and this time even democrats are distancing themselves. In a radio interview last month, Grayson called Linda Robertson, an aide of Ben Bernanke, a "K Street whore".

This is utterly beyond the pale.

Grayson is a putz of the highest order, without doubt. According to Rep. Weiner D-NY, he is "one fry short of a Happy Meal." House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer calls his comment "inappropriate and unfair".

He refuses to apologize for his comment, of course - why break with tradition, eh? His assistant states that Grayson was commenting on Robertson's career, not her personal life. Interesting spin - I wasn't aware whoring was a hobby.

District 8 residents are calling for petitions to recall Grayson from office. Sure, he's up for re-election next November, but apparently many people don't want to wait that long.

Count me among them.

The man is completely out of control and is making a laughingstock of himself, the office he holds, and the people of the district he represents.

Recall Alan Grayson.

Sunday, October 25, 2009


Troy NY is embroiled in a major voter fraud scandal. So far, 38 absentee ballots have been fraudulently cast and subsequently thrown out. Needless to say, accusations are flying. A special prosecutor, Trey Smith, has been appointed to investigate the allegations. There is little doubt that there will be arrests and prosecutions, and substantial jail time is involved.

At the center of this whirlwind is the Working Families Party. This is an ACORN affiliated group co-founded by Bertha Lewis, CEO of ACORN. One would think that this would indict the democrats, and there are many who believe 'rogue' democrats are at fault.

"As soon as I heard it -- I was mad, disappointed, frustrated," says Troy Democratic Chairman Frank LaPosta. He blames what he calls "a rogue group of Democrats," and says what happened "is beyond comprehension."

According to, "Because of the unique nature of New York State election law, candidates are allowed to be endorsed and appear on the voting machine ballot as the candidate of multiple parties, winning the cumulative total of all votes cast for that candidate on multiple party lines. Minor parties such as the Conservative, Liberal and Right to Life Party have played significant roles in New York politics."

But this little caveat is the opening needed for there to be some finger-pointing over who is to blame for the fraudulent votes. Bob Mirch, the majority leader of the Renssaeler County legislature, is a Republican leader who often runs candidates on the WFP line in order to work the system to garner additional votes for conservative candidates. This process is not unlawful, and is viewed as simply a legal way of gaming the system. But Republican/Conservative use of the WFP is why there are those who are placing the blame on Republicans, namely Rensselaer County Democratic Chairman Tom Wade and Troy City Council President Clem Campana:

"A former 18-year Democratic county elections commissioner himself, Wade puts the blame not on his party's political operatives, but on Mirch, and is calling for a countywide investigation of absentee ballots. He says he does not know if the allegations are true.
"I have known Bob Mirch long enough and well enough to know he would not pay private investigators to provide information that was not beneficial to his political agenda. This entire investigation is a smokescreen to cover a back-door pay raise" the legislature granted itself, he claimed. He calls the allegations "a diversion" created by Mirch for political reasons. But the accusations and affidavits are now the province of Trey Smith, a lawyer and former prosecutor, who has been appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate the scandal. Many of the people we talked to in Troy believe his findings will eventually lead to prosecutions."

It sounds like the usual liberal projection, though. Expect the Neo Pravda media to follow this line of thinking - at least until the investigation proves otherwise. Then you can expect them to not report it at all. Mirch's use of the WFP to level the political playing field, though necessary, has given his liberal opponents temporary cover.

By all accounts, the fraud would have tipped the election in favor of Democrats, so that in itself should tell you who is at fault, but this is a country where innocence is presumed, so a full investigation must be concluded first.

It will be interesting to see how Bertha Lewis tries to distance herself from this if it gains steam (I wonder which employee will be taking the fall), but, more importantly, how will the White House distance themselves? Patrick Gaspard, the White House's political director, was Bertha Lewis's right hand man during his time with ACORN, worked with ACORN in upstate NY to set up WFP and sat on the board with Bertha Lewis.

I'm sure there is no relation to Obama whatsoever. Hey, I managed to write that with a straight face - I must be getting really jaded....

Patrick Gaspard is a highly regarded member of the Obama administration (the Huffington Post calls him Obama's 'Glue Man') who has a long history with democrat politics and union organizations. Gaspard's involvement in SEIU, WFP and ACORN fly in the face of Obama's assertion that he's 'barely aware' of ACORN's numerous ethics and criminal issues. This man is Bertha Lewis' direct contact with the White House. She has Gaspard's ear and he, in turn, has Obama's. The American Spectator has a great piece on Gaspard and his relationship with both Lewis and Obama.

The voter fraud in Troy and the WFP's connections to ACORN could potentially sound the death knell for the unholy beast that is ACORN and all of it's many affiliations. But, just like in horror movies, sometimes the beast rises again and, considering the political clout backing the organization, that scenario isn't too far fetched.

It certainly bears watching.

Saturday, October 24, 2009


Today President Obama declared the swine flu outbreak an emergency. More than a thousand people have died in the U.S. so far this year, nearly a hundred of which were children. The declaration enables the hospitals to, among other things, open off-site facilities to keep non-flu victims from catching the virus while waiting in the ER.

Because, after all, the swine flu epidemic is particularly virulent and the number of casualties is off the charts.

Unless you consider how many people die of the 'regular' flu each year. In the United States alone, 36,000 people on average die from the flu yearly. I'm not saying the deaths from swine flu aren't important, but, in the grand scheme, the numbers just don't add up to an emergency epidemic.

So why has Obama declared it an emergency?

To pass health care, of course.

If there isn't a real emergency, they need to gin one up. But, just like global warming, people aren't buying it.

If only they tried reasoned debate and true bipartisanship, they might be more successful at passing their schemes. Unfortunately, they only know how to operate using intimidation and deception, and so, here we go again -

Crisis, crisis, crisis!

Thursday, October 22, 2009


The NY-23 race has heated up even more. Sarah Palin has endorsed Doug Hoffman, the Independent candidate.

This race was already garnering national attention due to the 'Republican' (I use the term loosely) candidate, Dede Scozzafava. She is in a bit of hot water after calling the police on a reporter from the Weekly Standard after he had asked her some pretty basic questions - the answers to which showed a rather far-left perspective. Some are calling for her to step aside and allow another Republican to run, and the lead she had been enjoying is slipping fast. The Democrat, Owens, is leading, but Hoffman is picking up steam.

Hoffman is a 9/12er who stands for fiscal conservatism, strong defense and lower taxes. He appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show today, and Rush Limbaugh was talking him up as well. Palin's endorsement is the cherry on top.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. The RNC and Newt Gingrich have endorsed Scozzafava, even made excuses for her bad behavior and liberal bent. It seems the 'R' after her name is more important than her actual beliefs. But now that the public is turning against her, they have a decision to make. Stick with a seriously flawed candidate who is slipping badly in the polls, get her to step down and replace her with a better option (not a good idea with only 12 days to go to election), or maybe throw their support behind the true conservative in the race.

This race is a major litmus test - will the republican voters migrate en masse to the Independent candidate, or will he end up splitting the ticket and handing the seat to the democrats? Is this a legitimate movement that can go the distance in the polls, or will it peter out before election day? Sarah, Glenn and Rush are betting it's the former. It's risky, because NY is notorious for their progressive republicans, but the polls are encouraging, and hopefully Palin's endorsement, in conjunction with Beck and Limbaugh, will put him over the top.

Sarah has a lot riding on this election now. She has thrown her lot in with an unknown Independent, and this first foray is vitally important. If he wins, she wins, too, and her 'brand' will be in even stronger demand. If he loses, she will be called voting booth poison and will be ridiculed on a whole new level.

It's a risky proposition for her, so why is she doing it?

I'd say the Huntress is stalking a RINO.

Lock 'n load!


Kudos to ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN on standing up to the White House today.

Never thought I'd see it happen.

One can only imagine they saw the strong-arm tactics, looked at how quickly the administration turned against former allies when they voiced a differing opinion and saw the writing on the wall.

There, but for the Grace of God, go I....

I'm sure tomorrow it will be Fox-bashing as usual, but lets all savor this moment of clarity and solidarity, shall we? It's great to know that even they have limits to how much power they think the White House can grab.


Our Unifier-in-Chief is giving us the warm fuzzies again. Mr. 'There are no Red States, no Blue States, only the United States' is socking it to the republicans again.

This is the guy who the libs keep saying is so bipartisan. *cough, cough* bullhockey *cough, cough*

I personally find his comment funny.

"“Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know, the other side, they just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.”"

Thinking for themselves? Really? These are the same 'sheeple' who are in lockstep on their message. They are the people who parrot whatever the White House tells them to say without question, blindly defending the asinine decisions coming out of Washington.

Huh. Okaaayyy....

Meanwhile, conservatives are openly rebelling against RINOS and liberals in conservative clothing. Wasn't it this administration that was just saying a few months ago that the GOP was in disarray? But now, suddenly, we have a hive mentality. Hey, isn't that a liberal concept? From American Thinker:

"Because the opponents of the hive mentality of mass media have a thousand different opinions and beliefs, mass media finds its opposition incomprehensible and unconquerable. The idea that ten million free Americans could have almost as many viewpoints simply does not occur to people manufactured from childhood with a single viewpoint presented in cartoons, classrooms, college campuses, comedies, and corporate bureaucracies.
The nihilism which passes for thought and belief in the world of leftism relentlessly imposes itself within these bureaucracies of sameness and communal sentiment. The same sheep of sixties radicalism, who listened to the same music, sported the same Marxist murderers on their t-shirts, and who protested the same eternal faults in free societies now have become the big babies governing our big institutions. These eternal infants cannot crush what they cannot understand.

But the President seems to think conservatives are in lockstep. Am I the only one who feels like we are living in the Bizzarro world?

If it wasn't so offensive, it would be hilarious.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


Barack Obama truly is the permanent candidate.

For a few months after the inauguration, he stayed busy glad-handing the DC social set and 'thanking' major supporters, with an occasional directive coming down to Congress from on high, but when the going got tough, Obama hit the trail.

Needless to say, things have really not gotten much better. In fact, the heat is turning up, with even supporters starting to criticize.

Predictably, our Candidate-in-Chief is off fundraising and campaigning. Now that the election cycle is really kicking in, I expect to see more campaign and fundraising events and less governance. After all, campaigning is what he does best, and he needs the affirmation of the adulation. All of the recent criticism must surely be wearing on him, and he seems to be diving into full blown campaign mode with relish.

After all, its not like there is more pressing business to attend to.

Well, except trying to destroy Fox News and cramming overpriced, under servicing health care 'reform' down our throats. At least the economy is great and Afghanistan is taken care of. Amazing how our president is backing away from the fight against the people who masterminded 9/11, and yet is jumping into the Fox News fray with fangs bared. So Presidential.

The Fox News attack actually makes sense, though, when put in the campaign context. Vilifying Fox creates a bad guy the nation can rally against. Obama used Bush to great effect during the 2008 campaign, even though he was running against McCain. Casting Fox as the villain of the 2009 campaign actually serves a few purposes.

First, we are distracted from the backdoor dealings on health care. Second, he rallies his base against big bad Fox. And third, he is able to give the 'Bush is the bad guy' meme a much needed rest. A word to the wise, though, oh Enlightened One - yes, the distraction part is working, and some of the (shrinking) base may be rallying, but people are tired of excuses and are looking for you to lead, so be careful of a multi-pronged backlash from a burned-out public tired of scapegoating and a press who might be irked at being called, yet again, the White House lapdog.

Forget the Fox war and endorse democrats not from the campaign trail, but from the Oval Office when you take a quick break from governing. You know, the thing you were elected to do? Heck, you could film the endorsements with your new White House news crew when you are out in the Rose Garden sneaking a smoke!

Time to get off the trail, Mr. President. Remember, you won.

Oh, and by the way, when you are out on the stump for whatever cause you are speechifying for that day, when you say 'cable news', we all know you mean Fox. Please stop underestimating our intelligence.


Well, well, well...Sarah Palin is going to be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey on Nov. 16th, according to AP.

On the one hand, I'm disappointed that she is going to contribute to Winfrey's ratings, which are sure to skyrocket on that day. Winfrey refused to have anything to do with Palin during the campaign, saying she didn't want to be political (yeah, because going on the campaign trail with Obama was as apolitical as it gets). But on the other hand, I would just love it if that interview contributed to Palin's book setting sales records. Of course, considering it hit #1 on a number of bestseller lists 7 weeks before it is even released is pretty impressive and speaks well for actual sales without Oprah's help.

Honestly, considering the pre-sales numbers, I'm not sure why Palin decided to go on Winfrey's show. She certainly doesn't need the exposure, and sales for the book will be quite brisk without Winfrey's help.

Perhaps she is looking to change the minds of Winfrey's core followers. It is a good idea to try to win over the critics, but I just don't think Oprah's audience can be swayed. Those who were upset by Winfrey refusing to interview Palin during the campaign, feeling that Winfrey, an outspoken supporter of women's rights, should have given Palin the fair shake other left-wing 'reporters' like Katie Couric denied her, have already left her audience.

Winfrey has a chance to win back those viewers if she gives Palin a fair interview. It's an interesting choice - give Palin a fair interview and win back disaffected viewers, or attack her and try to discredit her to score points for her political cronies.

I would like to think she will give a fair interview, but the ties to the White House run deep, and Palin is seen as a major threat to the denizens of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not to mention the NeoPravda Media apparatchik would probably nominate Winfrey for a prize if she manages to damage Palin in the interview. Honestly, considering the current climate, I'm surprised the White House is allowing Winfrey to give Palin a forum at all.

So the question is, will Winfrey stick to her winning formula of friendly but probing interviews that will give people a fuller, more honest view of Sarah, or will she follow Couric and Gibson's lead and patronize and try to stump her to score political points?

Whatever the outcome, watching two of the most famous women in America go head to head should be fascinating.

Monday, October 19, 2009


The lovely weather we here in Florida have been experiencing for the past couple of days has been just wonderful. Low 70's during the day, chilly enough for a jacket at night. I look forward to this weather not just because it is a rare opportunity to shut off the air conditioning (thus saving a few bucks on the power bill), but also because the cool weather is just so refreshing after summers featuring 90+ temps and 90%+ humidity.

It is extremely rare for such cool weather so early in the season, and there are cold weather records being broken all over the country, from Pennsylvania to Nebraska to California.

The record cold temps across the country has had no effect on cooling the ardor of the global warming alarmists, however.

Politicians in Europe and the US are still eagerly looking forward to the Global Climate Treaty talks in Copenhagen this December, and there is a general consensus that this time the US will sign on the dotted line.

Pressure must be brought to bear on our representatives to stop approval in the event this treaty goes to the Senate for consent. Our Constitution requires our Senate to consent to any foreign treaties with a two-thirds majority before being sent to the President for ratification. Once the President signs on, it's a done deal.

This treaty must not be implemented.

Lord Christopher Monckton, an outspoken critic of Al Gore and global warming, has been making a concerted effort over the past weeks to educate Americans on the pitfalls of the coming Copenhagen treaty. He has requested a debate with Gore on numerous occasions, but Gore refuses to engage - just like he refuses to take questions when he speaks, probably to avoid embarrassing situations like this. The questioner in the video clip is filmmaker Phelim McAleer, who's new movie, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" is a rebuttal to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". The Hollywood/political elite refuse to allow the movie to be screened, but you can purchase it online at McAleer's website Check it out. I could go on for days about the erroneous 'facts' in Gore's movie, but I'll just link up to the findings of the British court McAleer was referencing in his chat with Gore.

Gore's touting of a scientific 'consensus' is just as false as his movie. Even the IPCC has defectors. The fact is, there is still room for debate, no matter what Mr. Gore says.

Which is why the upcoming Global Climate Treaty is so frightening.

This agreement isn't really about saving the planet. It's about redistribution of wealth and creating a global government. According to Lord Monckton, who has read the treaty, if we sign on, we will be ceding our sovereignty to a global government.

All for a theory that our own Senate acknowledges is unproven, although the House is still in deep denial. Why is our government going along with Gore and the Europeans? Simple.

Money and power.

This is the greatest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen, and it is our wealth that will be spread around. They have not proven that CO2 is causing global warming, and they cannot prove their schemes for 'carbon offsets' are effective in neutralizing CO2 'footprints' even if CO2 were the culprit for climate change, which is highly debatable. At least, it would be debatable, if someone would be willing to debate it. Al Gore's motives are easy to see - he founded the carbon offset company favored in the cap and trade legislation.

We must raise our voices to protest this treaty and ensure our government does not ratify it. This goes beyond taxation, although the tax issue is a weighty one. This comes down to our right to be a free nation.

This treaty is a major, irreversible step towards global governance.

Spread the word. Share the links.

Save our Republic and stop the insanity.

Thursday, October 15, 2009


In my research for various posts, I have had to read a fair amount of congressional legislation. In all of the bills I have read, there is one thing that is consistent. On the title page of all of the bills is the name of the bill and its sponsors, and then there is this phrase:

"And for other purposes"

Those four little words have cost us literally billions of dollars.

That phrase is how a military spending bill can also be used to finance non-military things like the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network and the Edward M. Kennedy educational institute. In this one bill alone there are 778 earmarks, to the tune of $2.6 billion. That's $2.6 billion that is NOT going to training, protecting or arming our troops, in a time when we are involved in not one but two hot wars. You can be sure that $2.6 billion will be counted in the overall cost of the wars, though, when opponents talk about the cost of war being too high.

The phrase 'And for other purposes' should be outlawed from legislation.

Lawmakers like to call earmarks 'sweeteners' - a way of enticing support for a less than popular bill. The problem is, all of these sweeteners have given this country a near fatal case of fiscal diabetes from all of the 'goodies' it has been force fed for the past few decades.

This administration touts 'transparency' and 'accountability', and yet continues to support the plague of earmarks flowing out of Washington. Instead of billions in sweeteners, how about crafting truly bi-partisan legislation that a majority can get behind without having to be coerced.

Stop laughing, it could happen....

Those earmarks are nothing more than vote buying mechanisms for congressional re-election bids, and the fact that the cumulative effect is crippling our country is a minor concern to legislators desperate to stay in office, no matter the cost.

Wouldn't it be a refreshing change if our federal legislators left the local pet projects to local and state governments where they belong and instead concentrated on doing what was best for the country as a whole?

Wednesday, October 14, 2009


The Obama administration is saying that they will have a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan in 'coming weeks'. Let's hope the casualties are kept to a minimum until Dear Leader makes up his mind on who to cater to - the Norwegians, or his own countrymen.

I understand that this is a very important decision, and something that shouldn't be rushed into, but when Obama let McChrystal's report languish on his desk for 5 weeks with no consultation or consideration, there was simply no excuse for the delay. Now that Obama is finally talking to his generals and military advisers, taking a little time (weeks, not months) to make an informed decision is a necessary evil. At least progress is being made in understanding the situation on the ground, which will hopefully translate into a thoughtful, successful approach to winning the war in Afghanistan.

Senator Inouye D-HI has done an about-face on supporting the war in Afghanistan. His recent trip to the region and discussions with Gen. McChrystal have garnered his full support of McChrystal's plan, and he is now pressuring the administration to implement the plan. He is joined in his support by none other than Sen. Diane Feinstein.

These two democrats actually listened to McChrystal's plan and saw the sense of it. They know the Taliban, as well as Al-Qaeda, are the enemy, and they see that McChrystal's plan is more than just bombing, it's building, too. Building a democracy, building a country, and building hope for the future for Afghans. With any luck, our esteemed leader will see the wisdom of this and follow through.

Unfortunately, there are rumors that VP Joe Biden still has his ear, even after Obama reportedly rejected his proposal of withdrawal and surgical strikes of terrorist strongholds.

Don't get me wrong - surgical strikes are something I support. But if surgical strikes are the only thing we would be doing, it would cause more harm than good, turning the Afghan people against us and potentially leaving a power vacuum that would be filled by the Taliban, just as it was when the USSR finally pulled out of the region in the late 1980's. The key here is not just eliminating the enemy, it's empowering the Afghan people to resist oppressive groups like the Taliban even after we leave. Even the radicals over at Code Pink see the truth in this.

The biggest question about all of this is, why in God's name would they listen to Joe Biden over generals in the field?

At this point, given his track record, the administration would be wise to consider whatever Biden proposes, and then do the exact opposite.

Success would be practically guaranteed.

Friday, October 9, 2009


I considered adding this as an update to my recent post of Afghanistan, but this is far too important to relegate to update status.

Please, I urge you to read this account of a devastating attack on Combat Outpost Keating and then donate to the fund the American Legion has started. Our troops need our support, and morale is, at best, low. Remind them that our support and generosity aren't just for our enemies these days. Let them know their sacrifice is acknowledged and appreciated.

The men were donating blood during the battle for their fallen comrades.

Talk about duty, honor and sacrifice.

God bless them all.


Congratulations, President Obama, on your Nobel Prize win.

I just have one question - FOR WHAT?

Thursday, October 8, 2009


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on PBS's 'The Charlie Rose Show' Monday, said, "Somewhere along the way, a Value Added Tax plays into the - of course we want to take down the health care cost, that's one part of it, but in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a Value Added Tax as well."

So what is a value added tax, anyway?

Well, the short answer is that it is a consumption tax that is added at each stage of production according to the value added to the product and included in the cost to the consumer.

The long answer? VAT is common around the world, and ranges from 5% all the way up to 25%, and would effect every good purchased. According to the Washington Post,

"a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor."

So a VAT would pay for our many entitlements, but we would feel it every time we purchased something. Don't forget, that VAT is in addition to whatever state sales taxes might be applicable. This is a hefty tax, and, although it technically is levied on manufacturers, the purchasing public will really be paying the price.

This is also a major redistributive mechanism, because a VAT of between 10-14% would generate enough revenue that families making under $100,000/year (about 90% of households) would be exempt from paying income tax, and even those in high tax brackets would enjoy a slight reduction in tax rates. Provided, of course, that the greedy little piggies at the Washington trough allow exemptions and reductions. I don't recommend you hold your breath on that one.

They will most likely attempt to spin it as a tax on all those mean old corporations who are - gasp - profiting from their endeavors. How dare they?! Businesses aren't supposed to make dirty old money, they're supposed to take care of us and give us stuff and be really, really nice and...hey, is that a unicorn peeping out from behind that pretty rainbow?

Back in the real world that all of us outside of D.C. have to live in, a VAT means that, while they can technically say with a straight face that this isn't a tax on the middle class, this is a tax on the middle class, and a big one, at that.


First on the docket today is the vote to force Charlie Rangel D-NY to step down from his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means committee. Mr. Rangel has hidden assets and cheated on his taxes - which has a special irony, since he is responsible for writing tax code - as well as bribing 119 members of congress, including three members of the ethics committee charged with investigating his criminal acts (to the tune of about $20,000 each). The result of the vote was predictable. One of his biggest supporters is none other than Nancy Pelosi, she of the 'most ethical Congress ever'.

Yeah, riiiiiight....

Although that particular vote illustrates the corruption and cronyism rife in Washington, the shenanigans surrounding the health care reform attempts takes the underhandedness of our current government to a whole new level.

As everyone knows, the democrats are currently enjoying a super majority, and, technically, can ride roughshod over the republicans and pass any legislation they want. And yet, curiously, they have been unable to pass health care reform. Why is this? Well, if you ask the democrats, it is because of the republicans being the 'party of no' and holding up the bills.

Let me reiterate: they have a Super Majority, including a filibuster-proof Senate. They don't need even a single vote from the republicans.

Even so, they still don't have the votes.

So what are they going to do? Well, there is a possible plan percolating that would bypass the voting process, so that when midterm elections come around next year, democrats can deny voting for this mess while still managing to get it implimented.

This is CYA (cover your ass) on a whole new level. They know this bill is unpopular and those in purple districts will face defeat in the voting booth if they support the bill, so they are trying to eat their cake and have it, too.

This plan is incredibly sneaky and underhanded. The Max Baucus bill will be part of the scheme, but the CBO estimate that came out yesterday claiming the bill will be deficit neutral is a preliminary report, as the bill still needs to be mashed together with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which the CBO has scored at costing over $600 billion over the next decade.

The 'mashing together' of the two bills will be done solely by Harry Reid D-NV, who will be able to add or subtract key points at his discretion, with no oversight. Those changes will not be voted on; the votes getting them out of committee, before his changes, will be binding, even though he may completely change the bills into something completely unrecognizable from what was originally voted on.

They will then use a previously voted in House bill (another option not mentioned in the Heritage article below is the House-passed Cap and Trade bill - two birds, one stone) as a shell for the health care legislation. This will be ground into the HELP/Finance committee bill to create a craptastic sausage of 'reform'

The Heritage Foundation explains the process best (I strongly suggest reading the whole article):

"Step One: “The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday.” Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee’s Vapor Bill. Senate Finance Committee’s progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.
Step Two: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. has confirmed that “the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people. This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.
Step Three: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.
Step Four: This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE."

The Baucus plan is rife with taxes, which is why it is deficit neutral. And where it doesn't tax, it passes on costs to states, to the tune of $14 billion over ten years. States like California, already on the brink of collapse, simply cannot sustain such expenditures. The other taxes are aimed at medical devices, insurance providers and hospitals, among others, but, really, all those 'fees' (liberalese for taxes) will be passed on to consumers.

So, although technically they aren't raising our taxes, believe you me, we will ALL be paying for this mess. The fact that we have no say in the legislation, and won't even know what the bill truly entails until after President Obama signs it into law illustrates the contempt our 'betters' in Congress hold for the public.

The desperate measures the administration is stooping to in order to pass this legislation speaks volumes about the true purpose of this legislation - power and control. If it was a good bill that would win over a majority of voters, it wouldn't have to be passed in the dark of night, unread. Heck, the darn thing isn't even written yet, and they want to vote on it.

How can they constitutionally pass legislation that isn't even written, and the few bits that are on paper will be radically altered after it is voted on?

Not only are they refusing to read the bills, now they aren't even bothering to write them!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009


This is just insane. Kevin Jennings, our 'Safe School' Czar, is apparently inspired by NAMBLA supporter and gay activist Harry Hay. For those not aware of what NAMBLA is, it is the North American Man Boy Love Association. This is a group that advocates for men having homosexual relationships with under aged boys. Harry Hay was a big proponent of "intergenerational relationships" - aka pedophilia - and was enthusiastic in his support of NAMBLA..


This Harry Hay booster is also the man who wrote the foreword for Queering Elementary Education, as well as authoring 4 books dealing with homosexuality and it's place in our schools. He also founded GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), who sponsored a lovely 'education' program for high school kids that taught deviant behavior.

Our 'Safe School Czar'.

Jennings has already admitted that he advised an under aged boy who was having a relationship with an older adult male who had picked him up in the restroom of a bus stop to use a condom. That's it. Use a condom. Jennings said he thought the kid was 15, but it turns out, according to the now adult victim, he was 16. There are those who will argue that the boy was technically of age, what's the big deal, but the point is Jennings thought he was under aged.

Because, after all, safe sex is the most important part of a confession of statutory rape.

As an educator, he was required to report victimization of a minor child to the proper authorities. Instead, he merely advised the victim to use protection, implicitly giving his approval of the act.

Is this really someone we want involved our school system?

If Jennings doesn't bow to pressure and step down, the administration should remove him from office. Bodily, if necessary.

This unapproved czar system has to stop. Contact your representatives and tell them to vote for the Czar Accountability and Reform Act of 2009.

Enough is enough.

Monday, October 5, 2009


General Stanley McChrystal, the head of NATO forces in the Afghan theater, has thrown down the gauntlet, and President Obama is rather peeved. In a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British international security think tank, McChrystal once again made the case for a surge of upwards of 40,000 troops. He also went on Sunday's 60 Minutes to promote his plan.

Critics are attacking McChrystal for circumventing the usual political channels and going to the public to force his will on the administration.

I wonder, could his more strident pleas for reinforcements and his tactic of turning to the public for help against a beta-male administration be more about saving our troops and winning a war than 'forcing his will'?

The men and women under his command are much more than just boots on the ground for General McChrystal. A good general is like a good father, looking out for the welfare of his children, working to keep them safe but still allowing them to take the risks that often bring success. They are his troops, and it is his job to use them wisely, keep deaths and injuries to an absolute minimum and make as much progress towards victory as possible, not just for prestige, but because those men and women are under his care. They are his responsibility, and people are dying.

I'd say that's reason enough to make waves, wouldn't you?

He wrote a report after a few months in the field, assessing the situation and making recommendations on how to proceed. What he saw did not make him happy, and he was blunt in his assessment to the President. That report then sat on Obama's desk for a month as he flitted around the country, pushing for health care reform. Contact between the president and general have been minimal - never a good idea during a hot war.

Hey, Mr. President, if you really want to save some lives, how about doing some of that 'multitasking' you are so big on and pay attention to the plight our troops are in.

Obama himself hired McChrystal, and one would assume he made sure to put someone in position who reflected his views. But as with many other aspects of this administration, that assumption of common sense seems to have been completely unfounded. But ignoring the issue is not the way to go, and I think that McChrystal was doing what he needed to do to protect his troops.

What other alternative did he have, faced with a Commander in Chief who is more interested in winning the Olympics for his hometown than winning a war for his country?

Let's face it, the past nine months have shown us that the only way to get Obama's chin out of the air and actually listen to others' opinions is to forcefully demand his attention, and that is what McChrystal did. When people are dying, you do what has to be done to get the mission accomplished.

There are those who say that Obama is favoring VP Joe Biden's plan to rely on Predator strikes, special forces missions and training the Afghans. Those are good ideas, but it's just not enough. And, quite frankly, I have yet to understand why Biden is considered such a foreign policy wonk, but Obama's poor judgement of people has reached epic proportions, so I can't really say I'm surprised. Apparently our self-righteous 'representatives' in Washington believe that 36 years on the Foreign Relations Committee has far more weight than 30+ years in the field.

McChrystal is advocating a counter-insurgency plan, along the lines of the surge in Iraq. We need more boots on the ground because, just like Iraq, the politicians under staffed, under estimated and under funded. Which is why wars are usually lost when politicians wage them instead of generals. They are unwilling to spend the necessary amounts of blood and treasure, for fear of losing re-election. Generals just want to win the war, and good ones want to do it with as little loss of life as possible. And, as any good general knows, winning the hearts and minds of the people is vital to success - pushing forward relies heavily on being sure you will not be attacked from the rear. Building a strong relationship with local leaders' support and protection is essential - something a community organizer should know.

The problem here, as in Iraq, is foreign insurgents. It's one thing to estimate the number of locals willing to fight, but how do you estimate foreign fighters? All you can do is compensate as it happens.

Which is what McChrystal is doing.

So let him do it.

The surge won Iraq, whether the left wants to acknowledge it or not, and it can win Afghanistan, too.

But if Obama wants to 'cut and run', he needs to make the decision soon, before more American lives are lost.