Thursday, March 10, 2011
Living in an elitist left wing bubble
So this is how they talk at the White House. It is just amazing how smug and elitist the left wing really is! Does the radical left live in some type of alternative universe where they are so intelligent that whatever they think must be correct even though they have no evidence to prove it. Thank goodness for this clip. Now we all actually have proof of what an elitist outfit NPR is. I truly do not want one of my tax dollars to go to NPR. They can raise all their money from union dues and the other rich left wing groups like the grant they already received from George Soros. We have now seen behind the curtain and it is not pretty.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Its not just that he was wrong.
Although he was. It is that he is wrong about so many things and cannot admit his error.
He was wrong about Gitmo. The American government needed a place to store enemy combatants and chose, reasonably Gitmo. The left, of which Obama channels, howled in protest that we were not respecting OUR ENEMIES rights and then, somehow, tried to judo this minimally controversial subject to the clearly anti-American rant accusing our government, without the inconvenience of any evidence, of not respecting the rights of American citizens. The left, who unconditionally voted for Obama, and is ever distasteful of America (see Terry's previous rants about American corporations who have the temerity to attempt to make profits) of course lapped this up from the Nation and MSNBC water bowl. However the uncommitted, moderate Americans who voted for unspecified hope and change must now see the error or their ways. We shall see.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama approved Monday the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.
It was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office will remain open for some time to come. But even while announcing a resumption of military commission trials, Obama reaffirmed his support for trying terror suspects in U.S. federal courts - something that's met vehement resistance on Capitol Hill.
The same cognitive dissidence which can somehow reconcile the above contradiction seems also to have no issue protesting as draconian, proposed cuts in spending. The February US Federal deficit was a record and greater than the total 2007 deficit.
A leader and reasonable citizens looking for one would understand that the Federal gravy train must end, but apparently the rabid left prefer to believe that nothing need change except taxing the rich, just like Gitmo must close for no apparent reason. Its early, and polls are contradictory, but hopefully the remainder of those who voted for Obama will see the light and lead our leader to fiscal responsibility.
The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year. The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country three straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
He was wrong about Gitmo. The American government needed a place to store enemy combatants and chose, reasonably Gitmo. The left, of which Obama channels, howled in protest that we were not respecting OUR ENEMIES rights and then, somehow, tried to judo this minimally controversial subject to the clearly anti-American rant accusing our government, without the inconvenience of any evidence, of not respecting the rights of American citizens. The left, who unconditionally voted for Obama, and is ever distasteful of America (see Terry's previous rants about American corporations who have the temerity to attempt to make profits) of course lapped this up from the Nation and MSNBC water bowl. However the uncommitted, moderate Americans who voted for unspecified hope and change must now see the error or their ways. We shall see.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama approved Monday the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban.
It was the latest acknowledgement that the detention facility Obama had vowed to shut down within a year of taking office will remain open for some time to come. But even while announcing a resumption of military commission trials, Obama reaffirmed his support for trying terror suspects in U.S. federal courts - something that's met vehement resistance on Capitol Hill.
The same cognitive dissidence which can somehow reconcile the above contradiction seems also to have no issue protesting as draconian, proposed cuts in spending. The February US Federal deficit was a record and greater than the total 2007 deficit.
A leader and reasonable citizens looking for one would understand that the Federal gravy train must end, but apparently the rabid left prefer to believe that nothing need change except taxing the rich, just like Gitmo must close for no apparent reason. Its early, and polls are contradictory, but hopefully the remainder of those who voted for Obama will see the light and lead our leader to fiscal responsibility.
The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year. The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country three straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Funny
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent..."
Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says..
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state ... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.
" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent..."
Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says..
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state ... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.
" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!
A Tale of Two Former Presidents
President Clinton has recently been lauded as a "One man Peace Corps" and "The president of the world." The international community loves Bubba as he represents the best of America in the post cold war era. At the same time, another former president had to cancel his travel plans for fear of arrest as a war criminal.
As the world grows smaller, the importance of our soft power waxes. To regain and retain our moral authority, we need leaders that are admired the world over. Fortunately, we have one now. Let us commit, as a nation, to never again electing a president that advocates an arrogant, unilateralist approach to international affairs. If we want to advance American interests and Western ideals, we simply can't afford it.
Bush's Swiss visit off after complaints on torture
Sat, Feb 5 2011
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.
Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.
Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say.
Human rights groups said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in the Swiss city on Monday for alleged mistreatment of suspected militants at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba where captives from Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts in the so-called War on Terror were interned.
Leftist groups had also called for a protest on the day of his visit next Saturday, leading Keren Hayesod's organizers to announce that they were cancelling Bush's participation on security grounds -- not because of the criminal complaints.
But groups including the New York-based Human Rights Watch and International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) said the cancellation was linked to growing moves to hold Bush accountable for torture, including waterboarding. He has admitted in his memoirs and television interviews to ordering use of the interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
"He's avoiding the handcuffs," Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.
The action in Switzerland showed Bush had reason to fear legal complaints against him if he travelled to countries that have ratified an international treaty banning torture, he said.
Brody is an American-trained lawyer specialized in pursuing war crimes worldwide, especially those allegedly ordered by former leaders, including Chile's late dictator Augusto Pinochet and Chad's ousted president Hissene Habre. Habre has been charged by Belgium with crimes against humanity and torture, and is currently exiled in Senegal.
"President Bush has admitted he ordered waterboarding which everyone considers to be a form of torture under international law. Under the Convention against Torture, authorities would have been obliged to open an investigation and either prosecute or extradite George Bush," Brody said.
Swiss judicial officials have said that Bush would still enjoy a certain diplomatic immunity as a former head of state.
Dominique Baettig, a member of the Swiss parliament from the right-wing People's Party, wrote to the Swiss federal government last week calling for the arrest of Bush for alleged war crimes if he came to the neutral country.
Bush, in his "Decision Points" memoirs on his 2001-2009 presidency, strongly defends the use of waterboarding as key to preventing a repeat of the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Most human rights experts consider the practice a form of torture, banned by the Convention on Torture, an international pact prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Switzerland and the United States are among 147 countries to have ratified the 1987 treaty.
"Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case. The message from civil society is clear - If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going," the Paris-based FIDH and New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said in a joint statement on Saturday.
Sami El Hadjj, a former Al Jazeera journalist and former detainee at Guantanamo, had been due to speak at their news conference in Geneva on Monday, where they will release the 2,500-page complaint.
"I'm surprised he (Bush) would even consider visiting a country that has ratified the torture convention and which takes its responsibilities seriously," said Brody.
"I think George Bush's world is a very small place at the moment," he said. "He may enjoy some kind of impunity in the United States, but other countries will not treat him so indulgently."
As the world grows smaller, the importance of our soft power waxes. To regain and retain our moral authority, we need leaders that are admired the world over. Fortunately, we have one now. Let us commit, as a nation, to never again electing a president that advocates an arrogant, unilateralist approach to international affairs. If we want to advance American interests and Western ideals, we simply can't afford it.
Bush's Swiss visit off after complaints on torture
Sat, Feb 5 2011
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.
Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.
Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say.
Human rights groups said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in the Swiss city on Monday for alleged mistreatment of suspected militants at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba where captives from Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts in the so-called War on Terror were interned.
Leftist groups had also called for a protest on the day of his visit next Saturday, leading Keren Hayesod's organizers to announce that they were cancelling Bush's participation on security grounds -- not because of the criminal complaints.
But groups including the New York-based Human Rights Watch and International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) said the cancellation was linked to growing moves to hold Bush accountable for torture, including waterboarding. He has admitted in his memoirs and television interviews to ordering use of the interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
"He's avoiding the handcuffs," Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.
The action in Switzerland showed Bush had reason to fear legal complaints against him if he travelled to countries that have ratified an international treaty banning torture, he said.
Brody is an American-trained lawyer specialized in pursuing war crimes worldwide, especially those allegedly ordered by former leaders, including Chile's late dictator Augusto Pinochet and Chad's ousted president Hissene Habre. Habre has been charged by Belgium with crimes against humanity and torture, and is currently exiled in Senegal.
"President Bush has admitted he ordered waterboarding which everyone considers to be a form of torture under international law. Under the Convention against Torture, authorities would have been obliged to open an investigation and either prosecute or extradite George Bush," Brody said.
Swiss judicial officials have said that Bush would still enjoy a certain diplomatic immunity as a former head of state.
Dominique Baettig, a member of the Swiss parliament from the right-wing People's Party, wrote to the Swiss federal government last week calling for the arrest of Bush for alleged war crimes if he came to the neutral country.
Bush, in his "Decision Points" memoirs on his 2001-2009 presidency, strongly defends the use of waterboarding as key to preventing a repeat of the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Most human rights experts consider the practice a form of torture, banned by the Convention on Torture, an international pact prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Switzerland and the United States are among 147 countries to have ratified the 1987 treaty.
"Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case. The message from civil society is clear - If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going," the Paris-based FIDH and New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said in a joint statement on Saturday.
Sami El Hadjj, a former Al Jazeera journalist and former detainee at Guantanamo, had been due to speak at their news conference in Geneva on Monday, where they will release the 2,500-page complaint.
"I'm surprised he (Bush) would even consider visiting a country that has ratified the torture convention and which takes its responsibilities seriously," said Brody.
"I think George Bush's world is a very small place at the moment," he said. "He may enjoy some kind of impunity in the United States, but other countries will not treat him so indulgently."
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Will on the Very Weak GOP Field
Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and the spotlight-chasing candidates of 2012
By George F. Will
Sunday, March 6, 2011;
If pessimism is not creeping on little cat's feet into Republicans' thinking about their 2012 presidential prospects, that is another reason for pessimism. This is because it indicates they do not understand that sensible Americans, who pay scant attention to presidential politics at this point in the electoral cycle, must nevertheless be detecting vibrations of weirdness emanating from people associated with the party.
The most recent vibrator is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who won the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa and reached that year's national convention with more delegates than Mitt Romney, and who might run again. Huckabee, now a Fox News host, was asked by Steve Malzberg, a talk radio host, this:
"Don't you think it's fair also to ask [Barack Obama] . . . how come we don't have a health record, we don't have a college record, we don't have a birth cer - why, Mr. Obama, did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. It's one thing to say, I've - you've seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Don't you think we deserve to know more about this man?"
Huckabee should have replied, "I've seen paranoia, goodbye." Instead, he said:
"I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya. . . ."
Huckabee thereupon careened off into the (he thinks) related subject of Obama having sent back to the British Embassy in Washington a bust of Winston Churchill that Obama's predecessor had displayed in the Oval Office: ". . . a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists."
The architects and administrators of the British Empire were imperialists? Perish the thought. A contemporary of William Jennings Bryan once said of the three-time Democratic presidential nominee, "One could drive a prairie schooner through any part of his argument and never scrape against a fact." But an absence of facts means there is no argument.
A spokesman for Huckabee dutifully lied, saying his employer "simply misspoke": "The governor meant to say the president grew up in Indonesia." Obama did not really grow up there - he spent just five of his first 18 years there and the other 13 years in Hawaii. But obviously Huckabee, with his dilation on the Mau Maus, was deliberately referring to Kenya. Unless Huckabee thinks the Mau Maus were Indonesians, which he might count as another "one thing that I do know."
Republicans should understand that when self-described conservatives such as Malzberg voice question-rants like the one above and Republicans do not recoil from them, the conservative party is indirectly injured. As it is directly when Newt Gingrich, who seems to be theatrically tiptoeing toward a presidential candidacy, speculates about Obama having a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mentality.
A magazine article containing what Gingrich calls a "stunning insight" is "the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama." Gingrich begins with a faux question: "What if he is so outside our comprehension" that he can be understood "only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior?" Then Gingrich says this is not just a question, it is "the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
To the notion that Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama's natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America's academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson. A question for former history professor Gingrich: Why implicate Kenya?
Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon - Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
By George F. Will
Sunday, March 6, 2011;
If pessimism is not creeping on little cat's feet into Republicans' thinking about their 2012 presidential prospects, that is another reason for pessimism. This is because it indicates they do not understand that sensible Americans, who pay scant attention to presidential politics at this point in the electoral cycle, must nevertheless be detecting vibrations of weirdness emanating from people associated with the party.
The most recent vibrator is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who won the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa and reached that year's national convention with more delegates than Mitt Romney, and who might run again. Huckabee, now a Fox News host, was asked by Steve Malzberg, a talk radio host, this:
"Don't you think it's fair also to ask [Barack Obama] . . . how come we don't have a health record, we don't have a college record, we don't have a birth cer - why, Mr. Obama, did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. It's one thing to say, I've - you've seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Don't you think we deserve to know more about this man?"
Huckabee should have replied, "I've seen paranoia, goodbye." Instead, he said:
"I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya. . . ."
Huckabee thereupon careened off into the (he thinks) related subject of Obama having sent back to the British Embassy in Washington a bust of Winston Churchill that Obama's predecessor had displayed in the Oval Office: ". . . a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists."
The architects and administrators of the British Empire were imperialists? Perish the thought. A contemporary of William Jennings Bryan once said of the three-time Democratic presidential nominee, "One could drive a prairie schooner through any part of his argument and never scrape against a fact." But an absence of facts means there is no argument.
A spokesman for Huckabee dutifully lied, saying his employer "simply misspoke": "The governor meant to say the president grew up in Indonesia." Obama did not really grow up there - he spent just five of his first 18 years there and the other 13 years in Hawaii. But obviously Huckabee, with his dilation on the Mau Maus, was deliberately referring to Kenya. Unless Huckabee thinks the Mau Maus were Indonesians, which he might count as another "one thing that I do know."
Republicans should understand that when self-described conservatives such as Malzberg voice question-rants like the one above and Republicans do not recoil from them, the conservative party is indirectly injured. As it is directly when Newt Gingrich, who seems to be theatrically tiptoeing toward a presidential candidacy, speculates about Obama having a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mentality.
A magazine article containing what Gingrich calls a "stunning insight" is "the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama." Gingrich begins with a faux question: "What if he is so outside our comprehension" that he can be understood "only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior?" Then Gingrich says this is not just a question, it is "the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
To the notion that Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama's natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America's academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson. A question for former history professor Gingrich: Why implicate Kenya?
Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon - Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
IBD
The conventional wisdom — that the GOP 2012 field falls short of someone able to take back the White House — hearkens back to the days when Democrats begged the GOP to nominate a former actor. What passes for conventional wisdom these days, says President Obama, despite a failed stimulus, an unpopular health overhaul and lackluster and apologetic leadership abroad, just may lead to his re-election if for no other reason that the GOP has fielded no candidate of sufficient stature or ability to challenge him.
Of course, this could be a combination of Democrats whistling past what could be their political graveyard in 2012 and squeamish Republicans still in awe of the man who glibly rode a populist wave into the White House.
Liberal columnist Eugene Robinson says: "Republicans are assembling what looks like a remarkably weak field of candidates for the 2012 election — an odd assortment of the uninspiring and the unelectable." Really.
We think the GOP field is quite strong and that even the least of the possible candidates has more experience than a former community organizer who became Illinois state senator, then a half-term U.S. senator who spent most of his time running for president.
The biggest thing the GOP contenders demonstrate is that, unlike the incumbent, they have a clue about what's going on in the country and world and what they intend to do about it. Many are or have been governors and have balanced budgets and signed paychecks rather than just make speeches.
Obama was a strong candidate, but we've seen that strong candidates can produce weak presidents. The one we were waiting for rivals our worst president, Jimmy Carter. Now he has a record he must defend. No more "hope and change" rhetorical flourishes read from a teleprompter. We've been there and done that.
Potential candidates include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, both of whom know a little about balancing budgets and can more than hold their own in debates with the president.
We have Sarah Palin, who knows more about producing energy than all the Energy Department's 100,000 employees laid end to end. Texas Gov. Rick Perry knows how to run a state well with lower taxes and less regulation and has a clue about how to protect our borders. And Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have more business experience between them (or even by themselves) than Obama's entire Cabinet.
New on the scene are Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who demonstrate politicians can keep their promises and have the fortitude to deal with unions and those who ride the wagon rather than pull it.
Throw into the ring the possible hats of Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann and Marco Rubio, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and even possibly Gen. David Petraeus, who knows how to win a war or two, and you realize the GOP in fact has an embarrassment of riches on its hands.
A weak field? We can't imagine any of them bowing to a foreign leader or public-sector unions. And we remember 1980 when Democrats couldn't wait to run against Ronald Wilson Reagan, whom they dismissed as a likable but unelectable former actor.
Instead of agonizing over who can be elected, Republicans need to realize one of their own, perhaps even a name not now being considered, must be elected. Maybe none of these candidates is the next Reagan, but what's clear is that this nation cannot afford four more years of the second Jimmy Carter.
Of course, this could be a combination of Democrats whistling past what could be their political graveyard in 2012 and squeamish Republicans still in awe of the man who glibly rode a populist wave into the White House.
Liberal columnist Eugene Robinson says: "Republicans are assembling what looks like a remarkably weak field of candidates for the 2012 election — an odd assortment of the uninspiring and the unelectable." Really.
We think the GOP field is quite strong and that even the least of the possible candidates has more experience than a former community organizer who became Illinois state senator, then a half-term U.S. senator who spent most of his time running for president.
The biggest thing the GOP contenders demonstrate is that, unlike the incumbent, they have a clue about what's going on in the country and world and what they intend to do about it. Many are or have been governors and have balanced budgets and signed paychecks rather than just make speeches.
Obama was a strong candidate, but we've seen that strong candidates can produce weak presidents. The one we were waiting for rivals our worst president, Jimmy Carter. Now he has a record he must defend. No more "hope and change" rhetorical flourishes read from a teleprompter. We've been there and done that.
Potential candidates include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, both of whom know a little about balancing budgets and can more than hold their own in debates with the president.
We have Sarah Palin, who knows more about producing energy than all the Energy Department's 100,000 employees laid end to end. Texas Gov. Rick Perry knows how to run a state well with lower taxes and less regulation and has a clue about how to protect our borders. And Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have more business experience between them (or even by themselves) than Obama's entire Cabinet.
New on the scene are Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who demonstrate politicians can keep their promises and have the fortitude to deal with unions and those who ride the wagon rather than pull it.
Throw into the ring the possible hats of Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann and Marco Rubio, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and even possibly Gen. David Petraeus, who knows how to win a war or two, and you realize the GOP in fact has an embarrassment of riches on its hands.
A weak field? We can't imagine any of them bowing to a foreign leader or public-sector unions. And we remember 1980 when Democrats couldn't wait to run against Ronald Wilson Reagan, whom they dismissed as a likable but unelectable former actor.
Instead of agonizing over who can be elected, Republicans need to realize one of their own, perhaps even a name not now being considered, must be elected. Maybe none of these candidates is the next Reagan, but what's clear is that this nation cannot afford four more years of the second Jimmy Carter.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Fascist:
any person regarded as having right-wing authoritarian views Authoritarian governments are characterized by formal, centralized government control of it's citizens.
It is when fascist people come together and they form a party and what they do is get people to join them. They believe in glorifying the state/ country. They didn't want democracy.
NOT ME SAYS JIM G. there is always an underlying current of prejudice in the sissy Liberal accusation of Fascism. I'm Conservative, I'm against centralized government, we are for treating everyone equal and for individual responsibility. Nothing in the above for me. Nothing about my beliefs supports prejudice, in fact I/we soundly reject it!
OK, glad we got that clarified.
Next: Socialism
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Yep sounds like Baxter, Crazy Rich and Terry. For the collective good. Take a higher proportion of taxes so they may be redistributed, centralized government spending and control. Pretty much Obama's policies and results. Spread the wealth around, and who is going to do the spreading? Mr. Proletariat himself, President Obama which an assist from Nancy and Harry.
I'm not engaging in demagoguery, I'm defining. Social Justice=Socialism.
any person regarded as having right-wing authoritarian views Authoritarian governments are characterized by formal, centralized government control of it's citizens.
It is when fascist people come together and they form a party and what they do is get people to join them. They believe in glorifying the state/ country. They didn't want democracy.
NOT ME SAYS JIM G. there is always an underlying current of prejudice in the sissy Liberal accusation of Fascism. I'm Conservative, I'm against centralized government, we are for treating everyone equal and for individual responsibility. Nothing in the above for me. Nothing about my beliefs supports prejudice, in fact I/we soundly reject it!
OK, glad we got that clarified.
Next: Socialism
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Yep sounds like Baxter, Crazy Rich and Terry. For the collective good. Take a higher proportion of taxes so they may be redistributed, centralized government spending and control. Pretty much Obama's policies and results. Spread the wealth around, and who is going to do the spreading? Mr. Proletariat himself, President Obama which an assist from Nancy and Harry.
I'm not engaging in demagoguery, I'm defining. Social Justice=Socialism.
What a dumb ass.
From Brother Baxter: And he doesn't drink!
The GOP has come up with a whopping $60B in spending cuts, leaving a $1.54T gaping hole. The federal government is bringing the lowest percentage of GDP that it has in 60 years. The obvious deficit-cutting opportunity comes in new taxes, such as a VAT.
And Federal Spending has done what?...you, you Dumb Ass, you conveniently forget to provide information on the amount, the growth, anything about Federal Spending over the (take your pick) past 5, 10, 20 years, total, per person, entitlement outlays, anything...anything.
And...as you continue to...lie...the $60B, umm....why isn't it larger, who stands in the way? Who's party is trying to find ways to regulate our exploding budget and who is engaging in demagoguery? (answer this, one of you Libs!)
And...why is it better to have a certain percentage of tax receipts taken by the Federal Government? Why don't you ever research the total taken out of personal income including state, federal, sales, FICA and other various taxes? On what basis do you arrive at your Orwellian conclusions? How come you won't tell the truth Mr. Objective Oracle of Moderation?
The GOP has come up with a whopping $60B in spending cuts, leaving a $1.54T gaping hole. The federal government is bringing the lowest percentage of GDP that it has in 60 years. The obvious deficit-cutting opportunity comes in new taxes, such as a VAT.
And Federal Spending has done what?...you, you Dumb Ass, you conveniently forget to provide information on the amount, the growth, anything about Federal Spending over the (take your pick) past 5, 10, 20 years, total, per person, entitlement outlays, anything...anything.
And...as you continue to...lie...the $60B, umm....why isn't it larger, who stands in the way? Who's party is trying to find ways to regulate our exploding budget and who is engaging in demagoguery? (answer this, one of you Libs!)
And...why is it better to have a certain percentage of tax receipts taken by the Federal Government? Why don't you ever research the total taken out of personal income including state, federal, sales, FICA and other various taxes? On what basis do you arrive at your Orwellian conclusions? How come you won't tell the truth Mr. Objective Oracle of Moderation?
The Supreme Idiots
How is it that the Supreme Court says it's okay to demonstrate at the funeral's of our soldiers. Men and women who have given their all for their country.
Yet it is illegal according to the same Supreme Court that we can't advertise cigarette's on television?
I just wonder? Lost faith in the court, me too.
Yet it is illegal according to the same Supreme Court that we can't advertise cigarette's on television?
I just wonder? Lost faith in the court, me too.
Lisa! you are going to really have to help out Baxter on this one!
As I have said all along Baxter, this is bad, really bad, I mean how (and I know you will) can you ignore the following? Are you blind?
See below the growth to trillions. Anyone worried? Now the congress is trying to limit spending. Really they are, the REPUBLICAN congress has proposed budget cuts, real ones, granted they are only $60 B or so, but they are real. Now if we look at our true problem, the growth of government spending, which the Liberals ignore, their thought being that, tax increases alone will solve our deficit problems (it must be their view, for they scream about ANY budget cuts), one ponders the question...well first a consideration...they argue that tax increases are the salve that our country needs, yet and here is the question...now even Baxter a recently thinner man, will have difficulty performing the necessary gymnastics to get around this...well another thing...they state that if we would JUST INCREASE TAXES, we would not spend correspondingly more and our budget issues would be solved...if we had increased taxes in the past 5 years, we still would have had a huge deficit due to an even greater, whoppingly greater, growth of government spending, even if we wer to ignore the economic hurt caused by such increases.
The budget was balanced during Billy's term, however a better read is that when fiscally conservative Republicans are in charge there is a better chance at a balanced budget.
They are trying to cut spending and balance the budget and Lisa and Baxter and Eric and Terry are screaming. What? Why? Are you idiots? The house is on fire, why are you trying to add logs? Are you stupid? Lisa, you should be spending your time protesing the loss of your future by their (read Liberal politicians) overspending and refusal to even consider reasonable budget cutting measures.
The logic of liberal Democrats is mystifying, they claim to be fiscally responsible yet scream when any attempt is made to manage the budget. Your spokesman, Michael Moore: "Everyone's money is...everyone's". There is no deficit, just that darn private property problem. How did that work our in the Soviet Union? Is that what you want?
Control of Congress Budget Balanced? Deficit/Surplus
President Dwight Eisenhower (Left office Jan. 20, 1961)
1960 Democrat YES $301 million
1961 Democrat No --$3.3 billion
President John F. Kennedy (Assassinated Nov. 22, 1963)
1962 Democrat No --$7.1 billion
1963 Democrat No --$4.8 billion
1964 Democrat No --$5.9 billion
President Lyndon B. Johnson (Left office Jan. 20, 1969)
1965 Democrat No --$1.4 billion
1966 Democrat No --$3.7 billion
1967 Democrat No --$8.6 billion
1968 Democrat No --$25.2 billion
1969 Democrat YES $3.2 billion
President Richard M. Nixon (Resigned Aug. 9, 1974)
1970 Democrat No --$2.8 billion
1971 Democrat No --$23.0 billion
1972 Democrat No --$23.4 billion
1973 Democrat No --$14.9 billion
1974 Democrat No --$6.1 billion
1975 Democrat No --$53.2 billion
President Gerald Ford (Left office Jan. 20, 1977)
1976 Democrat No --$73.7 billion
1977 Democrat No --$53.7 billion
President Jimmy Carter (Left office Jan. 20, 1981)
1978 Democrat No --$59.1 billion
1979 Democrat No --$40.7 billion
1980 Democrat No --$73.8 billion
1981 Democrat No --$78.9 billion
President Ronald W. Reagan (Left office Jan. 20, 1989)
1982 Split No --$127.9 billion
1983 Split No --$207.8 billion
1984 Split No --$185.3 billion
1985 Split No --$212.3 billion
1986 Split No --$221.2 billion
1987 Split No --$149.7 billion
1988 Democrat No --$155.1 billion
1989 Democrat No --$152.6 billion
President George H.W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 1993)
1990 Democrat No --$221.0 billion
1991 Democrat No --$269.2 billion
1992 Democrat No --$290.3 billion
1993 Democrat No --$255.0 billion
President William J. Clinton (Left office Jan. 20, 2001)
1994 Democrat No --$203.2 billion
1995 Democrat No --$163.9 billion
1996 Republican No --$107.4 billion
1997 Republican No --$21.9 billion
1998 Republican YES $69.2 billion
1999 Republican YES $125.6 billion
2000 Republican YES $236.2 billion
2001 Republican YES $128.2 billion
President George W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 2009)
2002 Split No --$157.8 billion
2003 Split No --$377.6 billion
2004 Republican No --$412.7 billion
2005 Republican No --$318.3 billion
2006 Republican No --$248.2 billion
2007 Democrat No --$160.7 billion
2008 Democrat No --$458.6 billion
2009 Democrat No --$1.41 trillion
President Barack Obama
2010 Democrat No --$1.55 trillion
See below the growth to trillions. Anyone worried? Now the congress is trying to limit spending. Really they are, the REPUBLICAN congress has proposed budget cuts, real ones, granted they are only $60 B or so, but they are real. Now if we look at our true problem, the growth of government spending, which the Liberals ignore, their thought being that, tax increases alone will solve our deficit problems (it must be their view, for they scream about ANY budget cuts), one ponders the question...well first a consideration...they argue that tax increases are the salve that our country needs, yet and here is the question...now even Baxter a recently thinner man, will have difficulty performing the necessary gymnastics to get around this...well another thing...they state that if we would JUST INCREASE TAXES, we would not spend correspondingly more and our budget issues would be solved...if we had increased taxes in the past 5 years, we still would have had a huge deficit due to an even greater, whoppingly greater, growth of government spending, even if we wer to ignore the economic hurt caused by such increases.
The budget was balanced during Billy's term, however a better read is that when fiscally conservative Republicans are in charge there is a better chance at a balanced budget.
They are trying to cut spending and balance the budget and Lisa and Baxter and Eric and Terry are screaming. What? Why? Are you idiots? The house is on fire, why are you trying to add logs? Are you stupid? Lisa, you should be spending your time protesing the loss of your future by their (read Liberal politicians) overspending and refusal to even consider reasonable budget cutting measures.
The logic of liberal Democrats is mystifying, they claim to be fiscally responsible yet scream when any attempt is made to manage the budget. Your spokesman, Michael Moore: "Everyone's money is...everyone's". There is no deficit, just that darn private property problem. How did that work our in the Soviet Union? Is that what you want?
Control of Congress Budget Balanced? Deficit/Surplus
President Dwight Eisenhower (Left office Jan. 20, 1961)
1960 Democrat YES $301 million
1961 Democrat No --$3.3 billion
President John F. Kennedy (Assassinated Nov. 22, 1963)
1962 Democrat No --$7.1 billion
1963 Democrat No --$4.8 billion
1964 Democrat No --$5.9 billion
President Lyndon B. Johnson (Left office Jan. 20, 1969)
1965 Democrat No --$1.4 billion
1966 Democrat No --$3.7 billion
1967 Democrat No --$8.6 billion
1968 Democrat No --$25.2 billion
1969 Democrat YES $3.2 billion
President Richard M. Nixon (Resigned Aug. 9, 1974)
1970 Democrat No --$2.8 billion
1971 Democrat No --$23.0 billion
1972 Democrat No --$23.4 billion
1973 Democrat No --$14.9 billion
1974 Democrat No --$6.1 billion
1975 Democrat No --$53.2 billion
President Gerald Ford (Left office Jan. 20, 1977)
1976 Democrat No --$73.7 billion
1977 Democrat No --$53.7 billion
President Jimmy Carter (Left office Jan. 20, 1981)
1978 Democrat No --$59.1 billion
1979 Democrat No --$40.7 billion
1980 Democrat No --$73.8 billion
1981 Democrat No --$78.9 billion
President Ronald W. Reagan (Left office Jan. 20, 1989)
1982 Split No --$127.9 billion
1983 Split No --$207.8 billion
1984 Split No --$185.3 billion
1985 Split No --$212.3 billion
1986 Split No --$221.2 billion
1987 Split No --$149.7 billion
1988 Democrat No --$155.1 billion
1989 Democrat No --$152.6 billion
President George H.W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 1993)
1990 Democrat No --$221.0 billion
1991 Democrat No --$269.2 billion
1992 Democrat No --$290.3 billion
1993 Democrat No --$255.0 billion
President William J. Clinton (Left office Jan. 20, 2001)
1994 Democrat No --$203.2 billion
1995 Democrat No --$163.9 billion
1996 Republican No --$107.4 billion
1997 Republican No --$21.9 billion
1998 Republican YES $69.2 billion
1999 Republican YES $125.6 billion
2000 Republican YES $236.2 billion
2001 Republican YES $128.2 billion
President George W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 2009)
2002 Split No --$157.8 billion
2003 Split No --$377.6 billion
2004 Republican No --$412.7 billion
2005 Republican No --$318.3 billion
2006 Republican No --$248.2 billion
2007 Democrat No --$160.7 billion
2008 Democrat No --$458.6 billion
2009 Democrat No --$1.41 trillion
President Barack Obama
2010 Democrat No --$1.55 trillion
What we find is that the median household income that would produce total federal tax receipts of $2,161.745 billion ($2,161,745 million) is $47,211. Since the median household income was $49,077 in 2009, this result strongly suggests that household median income fell rather dramatically in 2010.
And that brings us to today, just a day before mid-term elections in the United States. Here, most polling and prediction markets indicate that the current majority Democratic Party will lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives and will lose a significant number of seats in the U.S. Senate.
If our household median income projection for 2010 is any indication, a major reason why these political events will occur is because of the elected members of the Democratic Party's collective decision to pursue President Barack Obama's poorly considered health care reform legislation, which derailed the recovery in jobs, and a number of extraordinarily ineffective economic stimulus and bailout plans.
Their pursuit of these schemes have come at the expense of pursuing more effective alternatives that could generate both genuine economic growth and jobs, which we would recognize in the form of a median household income that grows robustly from year to year.
In other words, they are destined to lose on 2 November 2010 because they have led the United States down the wrong path and worse, have shown no signs that they intend to get on the right one, much less any real willingness to even recognize that they're on the wrong one.
And that brings us to today, just a day before mid-term elections in the United States. Here, most polling and prediction markets indicate that the current majority Democratic Party will lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives and will lose a significant number of seats in the U.S. Senate.
If our household median income projection for 2010 is any indication, a major reason why these political events will occur is because of the elected members of the Democratic Party's collective decision to pursue President Barack Obama's poorly considered health care reform legislation, which derailed the recovery in jobs, and a number of extraordinarily ineffective economic stimulus and bailout plans.
Their pursuit of these schemes have come at the expense of pursuing more effective alternatives that could generate both genuine economic growth and jobs, which we would recognize in the form of a median household income that grows robustly from year to year.
In other words, they are destined to lose on 2 November 2010 because they have led the United States down the wrong path and worse, have shown no signs that they intend to get on the right one, much less any real willingness to even recognize that they're on the wrong one.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
GOV. Walker Kicked out of Marquette!!!
Gov. Walker now it seems cheated on a college paper at Marquette and was kicked out, before his senior year. Another Tea party intellectual, along with Beck, Hannity, and of course Palin the dean of intellectualism.
Look Governor public sector people always take less pay for more benefits and job security is that news to anyone.
My Friend Haggerty is right when bargaining is between politicans and civic employees the ground rules get sketchy and we need to look at that. My sister teaches in Wisconsin, they are willing to pay more for health benefits but don't take away bargaining rights.
Wisconsin 2nd in the country in ACT scores, seems like they do a pretty good job.
And by the way why are your three pet unions exempt from this " new reality"
Oh I forgot they backed you in your election.
I am so sick of this balancing the budget on people who played no part in this economic crisis. Where are the perp walks WALL STREET?
Look Governor public sector people always take less pay for more benefits and job security is that news to anyone.
My Friend Haggerty is right when bargaining is between politicans and civic employees the ground rules get sketchy and we need to look at that. My sister teaches in Wisconsin, they are willing to pay more for health benefits but don't take away bargaining rights.
Wisconsin 2nd in the country in ACT scores, seems like they do a pretty good job.
And by the way why are your three pet unions exempt from this " new reality"
Oh I forgot they backed you in your election.
I am so sick of this balancing the budget on people who played no part in this economic crisis. Where are the perp walks WALL STREET?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)