Dr. Asten: Except these protesters are Amurican, and they're not intimidating people to not exercise their right to vote...
It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest
John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.
Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.
I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).
Have a great day...
11 August 2009
Jay Bookman: The "mob" uses lies and distortions...
...I just can't point them out...
Jay Bookman, not to be confused with Florida Evans' building superintendent from the TV series, Good Times, ridicules the "mob" in a blogpost for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, specifically talking about an article on the conservative website, Human Events which cites an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. His entire post centers on a paragraph which says that a person who has the same condition as reknown scientist, Stephen Hawking, who has Lou Gherig's disease, would not stand a chance in the British health system, based on the point-system used by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The fact that Dr. Hawking still lives in the UK and and breathes there too, does not render IBD's criticism of the British healthcare system moot.
The section of the House Bill, 1233 (pages 425-430), which talks about "end-of-life counseling," or advanced care planning, has met the ire of not only SarahCuda, but several older men and women, who are concerned that the Obama Administration is advocating euthanasia. Based on my reading of the bill, it mandates a counseling session between the individual and their practitioner if one hasn't occurred in the past 5 years. It discusses several programs available to the individual, and makes plans for the patient if s/he becomes unable to communicate their wishes, due to health problems. These plans, between the patient and under the guidance of a trained healthcare official, are subject to change as the patient's condition deteriorates or progresses. It does not mention any bureaucracy being created to determine whether an elderly person lives or dies, it does mention the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. In my view, the talking point coming from some on the Right about Obama's "death panel" is wrong. Keith Olbermann took Sarah to task recently in a Speshul Komint, essentially blaming her for any violence that may come from any future town halls. There was no Speshul Komint from Keith when he was comparing President Bush and Republicans to Nazis and Fascists. Also notably absent are Speshul Komints from Keithy over shenanigans by Code Pink and the anti-war movement.
That was the only thing about ObamaCare that I believe the Right got wrong. There are, however, more things about the bill where the Right's opposition would gain a little traction, like the costs. If the Right continues to hammer the expense into the minds of the electorate, this plan is toast. No plan by the White House, nor Democratic members in Congress, have been able to prove that revolutionizing 15% of the economy will be deficit neutral. When you start getting flak over the costs of the program, you can best bet the vulnerablility of the plan has been exposed. I've perused several left-wing blogs, who've spared no expense in poking fun at Kenneth Gladney, but they don't mention how much the program will cost over the longterm, and how the proposals used to pay for it, will not adequately pay for the expansion of the healthcare system. This seems to be an indication of how Obamists will plan to focus the debate on ObamaCare, and George Soros is waiting in the wings...
Obama holds a town hall meeting of his own today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He will be limited on what he can say about the bill, as it hasn't been finalized (not that it's stopped him before). The Obama White House is changing its strategery to reshape the debate on ObamaCare. They've released a new website at whitehouse.gov called "Reality Check," which serves as a ObamaCare Media Matters, of sorts, and shows videos of several members of the Obama Administration trying to "correct conservative misinformation" about ObamaCare (yea, that'll convince people...getting members of the White House to convince me the plan's well worth the anticipation. Liberals didn't believe "spin" coming from the Bush White House, but they want me to believe it coming from Obama? They really think I'm stupid...). Dorothy Rabinowitz has other thoughts...
Have a great day...
Jay Bookman, not to be confused with Florida Evans' building superintendent from the TV series, Good Times, ridicules the "mob" in a blogpost for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, specifically talking about an article on the conservative website, Human Events which cites an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. His entire post centers on a paragraph which says that a person who has the same condition as reknown scientist, Stephen Hawking, who has Lou Gherig's disease, would not stand a chance in the British health system, based on the point-system used by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The fact that Dr. Hawking still lives in the UK and and breathes there too, does not render IBD's criticism of the British healthcare system moot.
The section of the House Bill, 1233 (pages 425-430), which talks about "end-of-life counseling," or advanced care planning, has met the ire of not only SarahCuda, but several older men and women, who are concerned that the Obama Administration is advocating euthanasia. Based on my reading of the bill, it mandates a counseling session between the individual and their practitioner if one hasn't occurred in the past 5 years. It discusses several programs available to the individual, and makes plans for the patient if s/he becomes unable to communicate their wishes, due to health problems. These plans, between the patient and under the guidance of a trained healthcare official, are subject to change as the patient's condition deteriorates or progresses. It does not mention any bureaucracy being created to determine whether an elderly person lives or dies, it does mention the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. In my view, the talking point coming from some on the Right about Obama's "death panel" is wrong. Keith Olbermann took Sarah to task recently in a Speshul Komint, essentially blaming her for any violence that may come from any future town halls. There was no Speshul Komint from Keith when he was comparing President Bush and Republicans to Nazis and Fascists. Also notably absent are Speshul Komints from Keithy over shenanigans by Code Pink and the anti-war movement.
That was the only thing about ObamaCare that I believe the Right got wrong. There are, however, more things about the bill where the Right's opposition would gain a little traction, like the costs. If the Right continues to hammer the expense into the minds of the electorate, this plan is toast. No plan by the White House, nor Democratic members in Congress, have been able to prove that revolutionizing 15% of the economy will be deficit neutral. When you start getting flak over the costs of the program, you can best bet the vulnerablility of the plan has been exposed. I've perused several left-wing blogs, who've spared no expense in poking fun at Kenneth Gladney, but they don't mention how much the program will cost over the longterm, and how the proposals used to pay for it, will not adequately pay for the expansion of the healthcare system. This seems to be an indication of how Obamists will plan to focus the debate on ObamaCare, and George Soros is waiting in the wings...
Obama holds a town hall meeting of his own today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He will be limited on what he can say about the bill, as it hasn't been finalized (not that it's stopped him before). The Obama White House is changing its strategery to reshape the debate on ObamaCare. They've released a new website at whitehouse.gov called "Reality Check," which serves as a ObamaCare Media Matters, of sorts, and shows videos of several members of the Obama Administration trying to "correct conservative misinformation" about ObamaCare (yea, that'll convince people...getting members of the White House to convince me the plan's well worth the anticipation. Liberals didn't believe "spin" coming from the Bush White House, but they want me to believe it coming from Obama? They really think I'm stupid...). Dorothy Rabinowitz has other thoughts...
Have a great day...
10 August 2009
Cynthia Tucker: Obama opposition is rooted in racism...
Dr. Asten: Even if the victim of Obama thuggery is black?
I take a break from politics on the weekends, since I write so many blogs Monday-Thursday. Many of the issues I blog about on Mondays have generally been covered by the punditry before that time. One news item that I did not hear at all in the Obamedia is a story from St. Louis where members of the Service Employees Insurance Union (SEIU) engaged in a beatdown of an ObamaCare opponent, who also happened to be black. As predicted, there was no response from the race-pimping crowd (not that I was looking for one to begin with). The SEIU claims they were the victims in the encounter, but as Ace says, they don't offer a counterpoint to the events that happened. h/t: Kevin Jackson
I can't tell you how many times my white friends, that oppose Obama, are being maligned by my black friends, who support him. My black friends claim my white friends' disapproval is rooted in racism, after eight years of "slavishly" supporting former President Bush (I'm still looking for evidence of that claim). The intent is to browbeat whites into submission, similar to the rhetoric that emanates from the racists of the New Black Panther Party. Invoking the race card to demonize and marginalize opponents of Obama is a nice tactic, not ingenious, but it does not diminish the fact that his proposals are going to have a detrimental effect on this country for the long term. It's a good idea that we NOT give Obama time to sit by and allow this nation to go down the crapper. Obamabots may continue to be deluded into thinking that President Bush is still to blame for the deficit reaching $1.3Trillion, but their browbeating, and outright thuggery, will not silence me...nor anyone else. I don't mind being a martyr for my causes.
Another argument used by my black Obama-supporting friends is whether the people who are criticizing Obama will run for public office. I, indeed, have considered running for political office in the near future. Gwen Ifill's book, which I reviewed last week, gave me even more inspiration to run for office, Barack's rise to the presidency is commendable, as is Massachussetts' governor, Deval Patrick, but their times in office has not. I will stick my money where my mouth is, but the difference between Obama and I, is I'm not going to campaign for a job and bitch and moan because I was ill-prepared.
The reason why the Left believes their protests against Republicans and conservatives are authentic is because these groups are standing in the way of turning this nation into a statist and socialistic one. They pride themselves on trying to make regular, everyday Amuricans ashamed of being in the greatest nation in the world. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, and proud of this nation. When she's threatened by forces domestic and foreign, I will stand against it. The oath taken by military members does not cover their enlistment or commission, for me, it's an oath taken for life.
They want you to keep quiet and allow Obama to invoke his agenda...don't allow them to get what they want! They're threatened and they don't like it one fucking bit!
Have a great day...
I take a break from politics on the weekends, since I write so many blogs Monday-Thursday. Many of the issues I blog about on Mondays have generally been covered by the punditry before that time. One news item that I did not hear at all in the Obamedia is a story from St. Louis where members of the Service Employees Insurance Union (SEIU) engaged in a beatdown of an ObamaCare opponent, who also happened to be black. As predicted, there was no response from the race-pimping crowd (not that I was looking for one to begin with). The SEIU claims they were the victims in the encounter, but as Ace says, they don't offer a counterpoint to the events that happened. h/t: Kevin Jackson
I can't tell you how many times my white friends, that oppose Obama, are being maligned by my black friends, who support him. My black friends claim my white friends' disapproval is rooted in racism, after eight years of "slavishly" supporting former President Bush (I'm still looking for evidence of that claim). The intent is to browbeat whites into submission, similar to the rhetoric that emanates from the racists of the New Black Panther Party. Invoking the race card to demonize and marginalize opponents of Obama is a nice tactic, not ingenious, but it does not diminish the fact that his proposals are going to have a detrimental effect on this country for the long term. It's a good idea that we NOT give Obama time to sit by and allow this nation to go down the crapper. Obamabots may continue to be deluded into thinking that President Bush is still to blame for the deficit reaching $1.3Trillion, but their browbeating, and outright thuggery, will not silence me...nor anyone else. I don't mind being a martyr for my causes.
Another argument used by my black Obama-supporting friends is whether the people who are criticizing Obama will run for public office. I, indeed, have considered running for political office in the near future. Gwen Ifill's book, which I reviewed last week, gave me even more inspiration to run for office, Barack's rise to the presidency is commendable, as is Massachussetts' governor, Deval Patrick, but their times in office has not. I will stick my money where my mouth is, but the difference between Obama and I, is I'm not going to campaign for a job and bitch and moan because I was ill-prepared.
The reason why the Left believes their protests against Republicans and conservatives are authentic is because these groups are standing in the way of turning this nation into a statist and socialistic one. They pride themselves on trying to make regular, everyday Amuricans ashamed of being in the greatest nation in the world. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, and proud of this nation. When she's threatened by forces domestic and foreign, I will stand against it. The oath taken by military members does not cover their enlistment or commission, for me, it's an oath taken for life.
They want you to keep quiet and allow Obama to invoke his agenda...don't allow them to get what they want! They're threatened and they don't like it one fucking bit!
Have a great day...
Democrats 2003: Dissent is patriotic!
Democrats 2009: Dissent is manufactured!
As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.
Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.
I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.
Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."
Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.
Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.
They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...
Have a great day...
As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.
Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.
I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.
Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."
Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.
Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.
They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...
Have a great day...
04 August 2009
J. Asten: Obama's policies on gays are under the radar...
...when they should be in the forefront...
There is news that the 2010 census will, for the first time, include unmarried gay couples. To me, this is a step in the right direction, as I believe all citizens should be counted in the official census. This policy reversal should be celebrated by all, especially the White House, who in recent days needs all the positive news it can get. But, as James Withers says in the blog, it's typical Obama, in that all his policy moves occur below the fold. With a group that hasn't seen Obama embrace them fully, policies like this, that signify inclusion should cause Obama to move away from his modus operandi.
As I said upon Obama's inauguration, when the president is right, he will be praised. He should be celebrated for the moves he's made thus far on GLB"t" issues, such as extending benefits to the partners of GLB"t" federal employees, even if it doesn't go far enough. Though he still insists he's a friend of the GLB"t" movement, I believe the movement will alow him to punt only so many times (we're gonna have a problem if he goes through with repealing a ban on enlistment based on HIV status). The president should be used to acting "now" without waiting for Congress to act, or at least have time to read bills. Obviously, equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and "transgendered" is not as high a priority as selling our future to the highest bidder.
Ok, I'm calm...
I call on the president to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" despite his belief that Congress must act first. He should use the bully pulpit, or the Blue Goose, to stand on the side of freedom (for once in his fledgling administration) and explain why this disastrous policy needs to be placed on the ash heap of history. Considering his reaction to the pleas of soon-to-be former 2LT Dan Choi, we already have our answer...
For the record, I disagree with Debbie Schlussel about the impending doom this extension of recognition will cause.
This marks my 100th post on Blogger.com...there'll be drinks and finger foods on the table in the back.
Have a great day...
There is news that the 2010 census will, for the first time, include unmarried gay couples. To me, this is a step in the right direction, as I believe all citizens should be counted in the official census. This policy reversal should be celebrated by all, especially the White House, who in recent days needs all the positive news it can get. But, as James Withers says in the blog, it's typical Obama, in that all his policy moves occur below the fold. With a group that hasn't seen Obama embrace them fully, policies like this, that signify inclusion should cause Obama to move away from his modus operandi.
As I said upon Obama's inauguration, when the president is right, he will be praised. He should be celebrated for the moves he's made thus far on GLB"t" issues, such as extending benefits to the partners of GLB"t" federal employees, even if it doesn't go far enough. Though he still insists he's a friend of the GLB"t" movement, I believe the movement will alow him to punt only so many times (we're gonna have a problem if he goes through with repealing a ban on enlistment based on HIV status). The president should be used to acting "now" without waiting for Congress to act, or at least have time to read bills. Obviously, equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and "transgendered" is not as high a priority as selling our future to the highest bidder.
Ok, I'm calm...
I call on the president to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" despite his belief that Congress must act first. He should use the bully pulpit, or the Blue Goose, to stand on the side of freedom (for once in his fledgling administration) and explain why this disastrous policy needs to be placed on the ash heap of history. Considering his reaction to the pleas of soon-to-be former 2LT Dan Choi, we already have our answer...
For the record, I disagree with Debbie Schlussel about the impending doom this extension of recognition will cause.
This marks my 100th post on Blogger.com...there'll be drinks and finger foods on the table in the back.
Have a great day...
Liberals: Did you know The Joker was racist?
Dr. Asten: Is that why all his victims were white?
I received an email from the White House a week ago telling me to be on guard against the misstatements surrounding ObamaCare during Congress' August recess. I was peeved that the White House has yet to give me a response to the issue I initially emailed them about (Gays in Iraq), and that they had the gall to send me this shit. Anyway, liberals are pissed off at a new photo of President Obama being photoshopped to look like the late Heath Ledger's rendition of the Batman villain, The Joker. The newsrag, LA Weekly laments that the Joker's garb never included a noose (awww...trying to go for "racism" for the win...). Does anyone else get the impression that ObamAid drinkers will go to great lengths to paint any criticism of Obamessiah as racist?
In my mind, this is different from my defense of President Bush during his administration. I, and other pro-Bushites, were defending him from incessant liberal attacks, comparing him to Hitler, Mussolini, and other over the top machinations. When conservatives answered and rebuffed the many hyperbolic comments of liberals, people like Secretary of State Clinton squawked the following:
I guess liberals remain confused in their worldview. This is not King Louis XVI's France or Charles I's England, where dissent was treated as a threat against the state. Or, they may be confused about what actual protests are, instead of bitching for the hell of it. I think it has less to do with griping and complaining about a photoshop of Obama, as was evidenced throughout Bush's years as president, as history has shown (Oh lookie, President Bush also has a picture of him as Heath Ledger's Joker, do liberals think that's racist too?), and more to do with liberals' frustrations over their inability to effectively defend Obama's agenda, as we saw with Behar's moral equivalence to the Bush Administration on yesterday's episode of The Spew.
Media Matters (on occasion) had the gall to try and convince people not to believe their lying eyes when a photo of Obama standing in front of Professor Gates, who was being helped by Sgt. Crowley, by pointing to Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah earlier this year. The Media Matters post has now disappeared down the cyber memory hole, to cover up their embarrassment. You can tell a person's character by the way they treat their mothers, and old people. The photo, which is below, tells you all you need to know.
Bill Sammon tells a story in Strategery about a time when President Bush went to Chile and one of his Secret Service agents was caught behind the Chilean detail. The president reached through the detail to bring his Secret Service agent closer to him. John Kerry, on the other hand, during a ski trip during the campaign of 2004, blamed an accident he had on his Secret Service agent. There is also a photo of President Bush helping an ailing Robert Byrd, I presume after Senator Byrd referred to the Vick dogfighting saga as "barbaric."
Now to the photos...
You be the judge...
Have a great day...
I received an email from the White House a week ago telling me to be on guard against the misstatements surrounding ObamaCare during Congress' August recess. I was peeved that the White House has yet to give me a response to the issue I initially emailed them about (Gays in Iraq), and that they had the gall to send me this shit. Anyway, liberals are pissed off at a new photo of President Obama being photoshopped to look like the late Heath Ledger's rendition of the Batman villain, The Joker. The newsrag, LA Weekly laments that the Joker's garb never included a noose (awww...trying to go for "racism" for the win...). Does anyone else get the impression that ObamAid drinkers will go to great lengths to paint any criticism of Obamessiah as racist?
In my mind, this is different from my defense of President Bush during his administration. I, and other pro-Bushites, were defending him from incessant liberal attacks, comparing him to Hitler, Mussolini, and other over the top machinations. When conservatives answered and rebuffed the many hyperbolic comments of liberals, people like Secretary of State Clinton squawked the following:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”
I guess liberals remain confused in their worldview. This is not King Louis XVI's France or Charles I's England, where dissent was treated as a threat against the state. Or, they may be confused about what actual protests are, instead of bitching for the hell of it. I think it has less to do with griping and complaining about a photoshop of Obama, as was evidenced throughout Bush's years as president, as history has shown (Oh lookie, President Bush also has a picture of him as Heath Ledger's Joker, do liberals think that's racist too?), and more to do with liberals' frustrations over their inability to effectively defend Obama's agenda, as we saw with Behar's moral equivalence to the Bush Administration on yesterday's episode of The Spew.
Media Matters (on occasion) had the gall to try and convince people not to believe their lying eyes when a photo of Obama standing in front of Professor Gates, who was being helped by Sgt. Crowley, by pointing to Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah earlier this year. The Media Matters post has now disappeared down the cyber memory hole, to cover up their embarrassment. You can tell a person's character by the way they treat their mothers, and old people. The photo, which is below, tells you all you need to know.
Bill Sammon tells a story in Strategery about a time when President Bush went to Chile and one of his Secret Service agents was caught behind the Chilean detail. The president reached through the detail to bring his Secret Service agent closer to him. John Kerry, on the other hand, during a ski trip during the campaign of 2004, blamed an accident he had on his Secret Service agent. There is also a photo of President Bush helping an ailing Robert Byrd, I presume after Senator Byrd referred to the Vick dogfighting saga as "barbaric."
Now to the photos...
You be the judge...
Have a great day...
Geithner: Let us look to Europe for inspiration...
Dr. Asten: Yes, because they have such a wealth of knowledge...(/sarc)
As the Wall Street Journal article says, "Joe the Plumber's vindication draws nigh." I doubt Sam will get the apology due him by Helen Jones-Kelly, the Ohio DFACS, Democratic Ohio governor Ted Strickland, and liberals who thought it was racist when Obama's tax philosophy was inadvertently revealed on the campaign trail. The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury officials are scrambling for ways to pay for their pet projects. Soaking the rich will not bring the deficit to manageable levels, Democrats hoped that crap-n-trade would raise enough revenue, but that went up in smoke after businesses pressured Democrats to give up $646B in proposed revenue. There is no other choice but to soak the middle class, which is feeling a small brunt already with the increase in cigarette taxes.
One of the means Democrats and Obama Treasury officials are mulling is an adaptation of the European style "value added tax," or VAT. European officials, according to the WSJ, love this tax because it raises so much money with little notice from the taxpayer. According to its Wikipedia entry, the VAT, in contrast to sales tax, is "neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer." Michigan had a similar tax, called the "single business tax," or SBT, but it was repealed last year by the Michigan state legislature, approving a voter-approved initiative. I wonder if this example, like the government-run healthcaretravesties programs in Maine and Massachussetts, will force Democrats into having second thoughts...I won't hold my breath.
While liberals bend steel, run faster than locomotives, and leap tall buildings in single bounds trying to protect their dear Obamessiah from criticism, back on Earth, people are not happy. In fact, there are increasing numbers of protests to ObamaCare, and other Obama pet projects. Not learning anything from their attempts to demonize and marginalize the Tea Parties, liberals are claiming that conservatives are "hijacking" the meetings these congressmen have with their constituents. My friend Zandar (who I believe has no relation to the ally of COBRA, the enemy of GI Joe) believes they're ambushes (way to channel the Mike Stark, my boy...), and in one post, Zandar compares it to *gasp* "terrorism" (Hide the damn children!)! Here, yet again, Zandar and liberals blame the GOP and conservative groups when the ire of their hateful rhetoric should be directed at Democrats, who have yet to come up with a final bill (I wonder if dodgeball is a fan favorite of liberals...).
I think the thing being overlooked by the self-proclaimed smarter-than-you crowd is the fact that there is no plan to pay for theexpansion overhaul of our healthcare system. No amount of wordplay will change the fact that ObamaCare will lead us on the path to European-style healthcare, and its magnificent problems. I believe Obama and Democrats would have been in a better position to pass this crap if all of their political capital wasn't spent on shoving Porkulus and crap-n-trade. All this money is being spent, yet there seems to be no end to it, and definitely no accountability. Liberals want to continue to use the screen play to keep us all distracted, and the quarterback is being sacked every time.
You see when Democrats and their anti-war liberal friends were ambushing Republicans, it was genuine...nowadays, it's terrorism. That should show you that we're on the right track.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Keith Olbermann...fresh off vacation!
Have a great day...
As the Wall Street Journal article says, "Joe the Plumber's vindication draws nigh." I doubt Sam will get the apology due him by Helen Jones-Kelly, the Ohio DFACS, Democratic Ohio governor Ted Strickland, and liberals who thought it was racist when Obama's tax philosophy was inadvertently revealed on the campaign trail. The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury officials are scrambling for ways to pay for their pet projects. Soaking the rich will not bring the deficit to manageable levels, Democrats hoped that crap-n-trade would raise enough revenue, but that went up in smoke after businesses pressured Democrats to give up $646B in proposed revenue. There is no other choice but to soak the middle class, which is feeling a small brunt already with the increase in cigarette taxes.
One of the means Democrats and Obama Treasury officials are mulling is an adaptation of the European style "value added tax," or VAT. European officials, according to the WSJ, love this tax because it raises so much money with little notice from the taxpayer. According to its Wikipedia entry, the VAT, in contrast to sales tax, is "neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer." Michigan had a similar tax, called the "single business tax," or SBT, but it was repealed last year by the Michigan state legislature, approving a voter-approved initiative. I wonder if this example, like the government-run healthcare
While liberals bend steel, run faster than locomotives, and leap tall buildings in single bounds trying to protect their dear Obamessiah from criticism, back on Earth, people are not happy. In fact, there are increasing numbers of protests to ObamaCare, and other Obama pet projects. Not learning anything from their attempts to demonize and marginalize the Tea Parties, liberals are claiming that conservatives are "hijacking" the meetings these congressmen have with their constituents. My friend Zandar (who I believe has no relation to the ally of COBRA, the enemy of GI Joe) believes they're ambushes (way to channel the Mike Stark, my boy...), and in one post, Zandar compares it to *gasp* "terrorism" (Hide the damn children!)! Here, yet again, Zandar and liberals blame the GOP and conservative groups when the ire of their hateful rhetoric should be directed at Democrats, who have yet to come up with a final bill (I wonder if dodgeball is a fan favorite of liberals...).
I think the thing being overlooked by the self-proclaimed smarter-than-you crowd is the fact that there is no plan to pay for the
You see when Democrats and their anti-war liberal friends were ambushing Republicans, it was genuine...nowadays, it's terrorism. That should show you that we're on the right track.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Keith Olbermann...fresh off vacation!
Have a great day...
03 August 2009
Obama: Don't disturb me while I play my fiddle...
...pour some more of that ObamAid for people to drink!
The conversation I had with my brother got me thinking. Obama supporters leap over obstacles to play moral equivalence to problems during the Bush Years. In a segment on The Spew, Michelle Malkin had to field questions from the resident dingbat, Joy Behar, who still believes President Bush still sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While the rest of the nation is in reality, people like Behar, and my brother, believe we have to "get the pus out," even though most of that was done by not only Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, et al. It's like an ex-girlfriend who's already gotten what she wanted and more from her ex-boyfriend, but still isn't satisfied.
Let me just call it for what it is. It's a rhetorical dodge from the issues surrounding Obama and Democrats' increase of the federal deficit. The Left tried their damndest to marginalize the Tea Parties that broke out on Tax Day and throughout Independence Day weekend, calling them every name in the book, but these movements against Obama's desire to nationalize the private sector are taking hold. I would caution Obama acolytes, like my brother, to read the political tea leaves and, for once, side with tax payers instead of the emanations coming from the White House. One example is the president's desire to shove ObamaCare on the electorate before Congress' August recess, despite the electorate being largely opposed to it. Ed Morrissey has a few videos of Democratic congressmen who've faced fierce opposition from constituents in their districts, to several provisions in the healthcare bill.
At least the electorate is becoming aware of the bill of goods they were sold. It seems foolish for Democrats to continue to blame the GOP for stalling their agenda, when they have overwhelming majorities in Congress. The people are even more upset at more emanations coming from the White House that a tax increase isn't being ruled out. While Obama wants people to act as if he's had no government experience whatsoever, he also has the gall to claim that he's never signed a bill that's increased taxes. I think my friends who are smokers take issue with that claim...one commenter notes Obama's use of the word "yet," which indicates he plans to do so sometime in the future.
Rush Limbaugh noted in his book, See, I told you so, noted how Obama's predecessor, Bill Clinton promised no tax increase on the middle class during the campaign of 1992, taking a shot at liberals' tricking President Bush 41 into doing so, but raised them shortly after he was inaugurated. The electorate did not like it then either, and I highly doubt the electorate would allow it to pass this time. Obama should pay a political price for demanding the passage of Porkulus and a $33 billion expansion in S-CHIP, then demanding the middle class ante up to pay for it, while his political supporters continue to be drunk on the ObamAid.
Obama's supporters have drawn the line...they're daring us to cross it. They want this crappola passed regardless of the damage it'll cost, what are YOU gonna do about it?
Have a great day...
The conversation I had with my brother got me thinking. Obama supporters leap over obstacles to play moral equivalence to problems during the Bush Years. In a segment on The Spew, Michelle Malkin had to field questions from the resident dingbat, Joy Behar, who still believes President Bush still sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While the rest of the nation is in reality, people like Behar, and my brother, believe we have to "get the pus out," even though most of that was done by not only Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, et al. It's like an ex-girlfriend who's already gotten what she wanted and more from her ex-boyfriend, but still isn't satisfied.
Let me just call it for what it is. It's a rhetorical dodge from the issues surrounding Obama and Democrats' increase of the federal deficit. The Left tried their damndest to marginalize the Tea Parties that broke out on Tax Day and throughout Independence Day weekend, calling them every name in the book, but these movements against Obama's desire to nationalize the private sector are taking hold. I would caution Obama acolytes, like my brother, to read the political tea leaves and, for once, side with tax payers instead of the emanations coming from the White House. One example is the president's desire to shove ObamaCare on the electorate before Congress' August recess, despite the electorate being largely opposed to it. Ed Morrissey has a few videos of Democratic congressmen who've faced fierce opposition from constituents in their districts, to several provisions in the healthcare bill.
At least the electorate is becoming aware of the bill of goods they were sold. It seems foolish for Democrats to continue to blame the GOP for stalling their agenda, when they have overwhelming majorities in Congress. The people are even more upset at more emanations coming from the White House that a tax increase isn't being ruled out. While Obama wants people to act as if he's had no government experience whatsoever, he also has the gall to claim that he's never signed a bill that's increased taxes. I think my friends who are smokers take issue with that claim...one commenter notes Obama's use of the word "yet," which indicates he plans to do so sometime in the future.
Rush Limbaugh noted in his book, See, I told you so, noted how Obama's predecessor, Bill Clinton promised no tax increase on the middle class during the campaign of 1992, taking a shot at liberals' tricking President Bush 41 into doing so, but raised them shortly after he was inaugurated. The electorate did not like it then either, and I highly doubt the electorate would allow it to pass this time. Obama should pay a political price for demanding the passage of Porkulus and a $33 billion expansion in S-CHIP, then demanding the middle class ante up to pay for it, while his political supporters continue to be drunk on the ObamAid.
Obama's supporters have drawn the line...they're daring us to cross it. They want this crappola passed regardless of the damage it'll cost, what are YOU gonna do about it?
Have a great day...
Books I've Read...
It's been a while since I've made you, my dear readers, privy to some of the books I've read over the past year. I pride myself on being well-read, and able to accurately summarize the books I read, and challenge you to read, not only books that I've read, but others as well. I should note for any new readers of mine, that I read mostly political history books, but my husband has convinced me to sprinkle a few other ones in the mix as well.
1. Bamboozled, by Angela McGlowan
This book tells how the Democratic Party has always been the party of "segregation yesterday, segregation now, segregation forever." They fought tooth and nail to deny blacks equal treatment under the law after Reconstruction, with Democratic President Andrew Johnson calling the idea "radical." Beleagured by the successful agenda of the Radical Republicans in Congress, the Democratic terrorist arm, the Ku Klux Klan began intimidating not only blacks, but white Republicans, from exercising their right to vote. In the aftermath of the Election of 1876, which resulted in Democratic presidential nominee, Samuel Tilden, winning the popular vote and the Republican presidential nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes, winning the electoral one, came the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction. The compromise allowed Hayes to succeed Grant as president if he withdrew the US Army, who were enforcing the Republican equality agenda for blacks against Democratic governments hellbent on denying them, from the South.
Blacks consistently voted for Republicans until the Election of 1932, when they believed the effects of the Great Depression affected them, and were sold a bag of crap by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That's not to say blacks' standard of living in the US did not increase under Roosevelt, and subsequently under Harry Truman, but no significant civil rights legislation passed over their desks, just a few bone throwing moves like FDR's appointment of Mary McLeod Bethune's appointment to the National Youth Administration in 1936 and Truman's integration of the US Armed Forces in 1948. In 1954, the Supremes' decided to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and many Democratic governors in the South, like Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox(D-GA) used their political power to try and stem the tide of racial equality. While Democrats love to claim that Republicans are racists, history shows that more often it has been Democrats who've stood on the side against equality.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. This coupled with Columbia professor, Eric Foner's Short History of Reconstruction opened my eyes about the Democratic Party, which campaigns for minority votes, and then sails the minority down the river.
2. Never Again by former US Senator, US Attorney General, and Missouri governor and state attorney general, John Ashcroft
This book gave an insider's account of Ashcroft's time as both Missouri's attorney general and its governor to his election as a US Senator and appointment as US Attorney General. It tells how during his US Senate reelection bid in 2000, how he felt when his Democratic opponent, also a former governor, Mel Carnahan, was killed in a plane crash shortly before the November 2000 general election. His subsequent appointment to the US Justice Department by President Bush was seen by some, to include my father, as a cave to groups opposed to racial equality, and would set the civil rights movement backwards. At the time, I was agnostic about President Bush and John Ashcroft, although I did poke fun at the fact that a dead Mel Carnahan was able to oust Ashcroft from his senate seat and that Bush's appointment was to make him feel better.
Ashcroft then talks about the messes he had to clean up, from the almost botched Timothy McVeigh execution to Robert Hanssen's spy scandal to Lynne Stewart's coddling of terrorists, at Justice upon being confirmed (I should also note his oath of office was administered by Justice Clarence Thomas, a justice most hated by blacks...and white liberals.), culminating in the September 11th attacks. He frequently cited the "wall," the barrier that prevented federal intelligence agencies from discussing information with federal law enforcement (and vice versa) created during the Carter years and heightened by the Clinton Administration, being a main reason to the inability to read the tea leaves. The PATRIOT Act, was one of his pet causes, which saw this "wall" fall, and lead to subsequent arrests of alleged terrorists and the cessation of terror plots against the homeland.
I enjoyed this book because it cut through the media and liberal spin (I know they're one in the same) about the Bushites alleged desire to foist a theocracy upon the nation by enacting martial law and stealing civil liberties. Rational people understand the danger of buying into liberal fearmongering about the Bush years, even though several protocols were in place to keep civil liberties intact. He didn't have the intention of engaging in political vendettas, as the 82nd Attorney General has mulled. His goal was to keep the US safe from terror, and he did just that...
3. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama by PBS political commentator and journalist, Gwen Ifill
During the Election of 2008, the blog Sweetness and Light uncovered a bombshell...that the moderator of the campaign season's only vice presidential debate was penning a book whose success depended on the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President. What the blogger was hoping was that PBS would see the obvious conflict of interest and replace the moderator with an uninterested party, you know, like FNC does with its political debates. In the introduction of the book, she brushes it off, claiming she'd been penning the article for a while, as if that made the controversy any less legitimate.
Although I stated in my last post that this book was entirely an Obama puff piece, it's major theme was one that I kept repeating after Obama won the presidency, that his election marked a major milestone in Amurica's progress on race relations. Black politicians have the double goal of maintaining their ethnic credibility while playing to black and white powerbrokers. She does a profile on three black politicians: Obama, Massachussetts governor Deval Patrick, and one of which I heard of during my time in Montgomery, Alabama, Artur Davis. She starts off with President Obama, and his rise from a community organizer to the 44th President, brushing off his controversial ties to Jeremiah Wright, using a relative of Obama's comments in regards to his association with Bill Ayers...he couldn't help it. She hardly gives voice to Republican minorities who made their own breakthroughs, like Colin Powell, JC Watts, Michael Steele, or Condi Rice. It was all Democrats all the time.
I found this book interesting as well, because the men she profiles all had the same theme, they didn't let the political powerbrokers determine their political fate. Many of the Democratic powerbase wanted Hillary Clinton to face the Republican nominee, but the Obama mantra whipped the grassroots into a frenzy. Deval Patrick had never been elected to public office prior to his election as governor. Artur Davis revoked the advice of Lou Reed, the black Alabama Democratic powerbroker to oust Earl Hilliard from his seat in Congress. They were all told to wait their turn, and they all gave the powerbrokers a collective "FUCK YOU" and went on to successful elections, their time in office, on the other hand...the jury's still out. I should note that yours truly was inspired by their stories and plans to run for public office someday...
Of course this isn't an exhaustive list of all the books I've read throughout the past year, and there will be more book reviews to come. If you decide to pick up any of these books, and enjoy them as I did, let me know.
Have a great day...
1. Bamboozled, by Angela McGlowan
This book tells how the Democratic Party has always been the party of "segregation yesterday, segregation now, segregation forever." They fought tooth and nail to deny blacks equal treatment under the law after Reconstruction, with Democratic President Andrew Johnson calling the idea "radical." Beleagured by the successful agenda of the Radical Republicans in Congress, the Democratic terrorist arm, the Ku Klux Klan began intimidating not only blacks, but white Republicans, from exercising their right to vote. In the aftermath of the Election of 1876, which resulted in Democratic presidential nominee, Samuel Tilden, winning the popular vote and the Republican presidential nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes, winning the electoral one, came the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction. The compromise allowed Hayes to succeed Grant as president if he withdrew the US Army, who were enforcing the Republican equality agenda for blacks against Democratic governments hellbent on denying them, from the South.
Blacks consistently voted for Republicans until the Election of 1932, when they believed the effects of the Great Depression affected them, and were sold a bag of crap by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That's not to say blacks' standard of living in the US did not increase under Roosevelt, and subsequently under Harry Truman, but no significant civil rights legislation passed over their desks, just a few bone throwing moves like FDR's appointment of Mary McLeod Bethune's appointment to the National Youth Administration in 1936 and Truman's integration of the US Armed Forces in 1948. In 1954, the Supremes' decided to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and many Democratic governors in the South, like Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox(D-GA) used their political power to try and stem the tide of racial equality. While Democrats love to claim that Republicans are racists, history shows that more often it has been Democrats who've stood on the side against equality.
Overall, I enjoyed this book. This coupled with Columbia professor, Eric Foner's Short History of Reconstruction opened my eyes about the Democratic Party, which campaigns for minority votes, and then sails the minority down the river.
2. Never Again by former US Senator, US Attorney General, and Missouri governor and state attorney general, John Ashcroft
This book gave an insider's account of Ashcroft's time as both Missouri's attorney general and its governor to his election as a US Senator and appointment as US Attorney General. It tells how during his US Senate reelection bid in 2000, how he felt when his Democratic opponent, also a former governor, Mel Carnahan, was killed in a plane crash shortly before the November 2000 general election. His subsequent appointment to the US Justice Department by President Bush was seen by some, to include my father, as a cave to groups opposed to racial equality, and would set the civil rights movement backwards. At the time, I was agnostic about President Bush and John Ashcroft, although I did poke fun at the fact that a dead Mel Carnahan was able to oust Ashcroft from his senate seat and that Bush's appointment was to make him feel better.
Ashcroft then talks about the messes he had to clean up, from the almost botched Timothy McVeigh execution to Robert Hanssen's spy scandal to Lynne Stewart's coddling of terrorists, at Justice upon being confirmed (I should also note his oath of office was administered by Justice Clarence Thomas, a justice most hated by blacks...and white liberals.), culminating in the September 11th attacks. He frequently cited the "wall," the barrier that prevented federal intelligence agencies from discussing information with federal law enforcement (and vice versa) created during the Carter years and heightened by the Clinton Administration, being a main reason to the inability to read the tea leaves. The PATRIOT Act, was one of his pet causes, which saw this "wall" fall, and lead to subsequent arrests of alleged terrorists and the cessation of terror plots against the homeland.
I enjoyed this book because it cut through the media and liberal spin (I know they're one in the same) about the Bushites alleged desire to foist a theocracy upon the nation by enacting martial law and stealing civil liberties. Rational people understand the danger of buying into liberal fearmongering about the Bush years, even though several protocols were in place to keep civil liberties intact. He didn't have the intention of engaging in political vendettas, as the 82nd Attorney General has mulled. His goal was to keep the US safe from terror, and he did just that...
3. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama by PBS political commentator and journalist, Gwen Ifill
During the Election of 2008, the blog Sweetness and Light uncovered a bombshell...that the moderator of the campaign season's only vice presidential debate was penning a book whose success depended on the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President. What the blogger was hoping was that PBS would see the obvious conflict of interest and replace the moderator with an uninterested party, you know, like FNC does with its political debates. In the introduction of the book, she brushes it off, claiming she'd been penning the article for a while, as if that made the controversy any less legitimate.
Although I stated in my last post that this book was entirely an Obama puff piece, it's major theme was one that I kept repeating after Obama won the presidency, that his election marked a major milestone in Amurica's progress on race relations. Black politicians have the double goal of maintaining their ethnic credibility while playing to black and white powerbrokers. She does a profile on three black politicians: Obama, Massachussetts governor Deval Patrick, and one of which I heard of during my time in Montgomery, Alabama, Artur Davis. She starts off with President Obama, and his rise from a community organizer to the 44th President, brushing off his controversial ties to Jeremiah Wright, using a relative of Obama's comments in regards to his association with Bill Ayers...he couldn't help it. She hardly gives voice to Republican minorities who made their own breakthroughs, like Colin Powell, JC Watts, Michael Steele, or Condi Rice. It was all Democrats all the time.
I found this book interesting as well, because the men she profiles all had the same theme, they didn't let the political powerbrokers determine their political fate. Many of the Democratic powerbase wanted Hillary Clinton to face the Republican nominee, but the Obama mantra whipped the grassroots into a frenzy. Deval Patrick had never been elected to public office prior to his election as governor. Artur Davis revoked the advice of Lou Reed, the black Alabama Democratic powerbroker to oust Earl Hilliard from his seat in Congress. They were all told to wait their turn, and they all gave the powerbrokers a collective "FUCK YOU" and went on to successful elections, their time in office, on the other hand...the jury's still out. I should note that yours truly was inspired by their stories and plans to run for public office someday...
Of course this isn't an exhaustive list of all the books I've read throughout the past year, and there will be more book reviews to come. If you decide to pick up any of these books, and enjoy them as I did, let me know.
Have a great day...
ObamAid Drinkers: Leave Obamessiah Alone!
Dr. Asten: Hell, no!
I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.
Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.
Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.
In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...
Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.
This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...
Have a great day...
I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.
Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.
Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.
In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...
Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.
This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)