Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama supporters...... be honest now. Read the 20 following and tell me how you would have reacted:
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" (translated "5 of 4") in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had miss-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had stated he had campaigned in all 57 states, what would the media have said and how long would it have been a standing joke kept alive on SNL?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day", would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had propos ed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again 10 times within years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all the above in just 6 months -- so be patient-- you've still got 3 years and 6 months to come up with an answer...
If Laura Bush had gone to feed the homeless during a recession, while wearing in tennis shoes that only cost $540, would the media have gushed all over that one? And just to prove that I don't make this stuff up: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html
Friday, July 17, 2009
- hard work
- fair play
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Just an update about Nick and I. There is NOTHING NEW going on with us. We have been very, very lazy and have not worked on our house or gone anywhere or done anything worth blogging about in a while, other than the 4th of July. This has also given me more time to read Townhall, which may be a bad thing for anyone who reads this! Doing nothing has been really nice actually, but it makes for a boring blog... not that we're that interesting to begin with.
Here's one thing I can leave you with, a riddle...
A thousand blankets absorbing the storm. What am i?
CALIFORNIA BEGETS A NATIONAL LOSS OF INNOCENCE
Today, there are tens of billions of dollars flowing into California’s treasury for education, counseling and human development programs. So one might logically conclude that the Golden State would have by now found the formula for the near elimination of crime. Investigative reporter, Jack Cashill, in his book, “What’s the Matter With California?” reports that, in 1953, there were 276 murders in the entire state. Over the years 2003-07, there were more murders in L.A. County than troops killed in Iraq. What could be the root cause for this? Cashill’s answer: fatherlessness.
Cashill points out that, in 1960, California fatefully passed the Aid to Dependent Children Act, which made it a money-making endeavor for a teenager to get pregnant, move out of her parents’ home and receive funds for her own apartment and expenses. The state’s policy unwittingly subsidized the breakup of countless at-risk families and led to vast numbers of black and Latino children being born out of wedlock, many of whom have grown up to be gangsters. (In 1970, California also passed its No-Fault Divorce law and began recording 275,000 divorces annually.) Controlling for both inflation and the population differential, by 1979, two decades after the Aid to Dependent Children Act, the state was collecting three times more real tax dollars, yet the criminals were committing roughly three times the crime. And the crime rate continued to climb. Over the last 15 years, the state’s prison population rose from 23,264 in 1993 to 168,035 in 2008—a seven-fold increase, and based on demographic research, it is closely related to the increase in the number of unwed children having children. Appallingly, the recent report on new births in the United States from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released in March, revealed a new high of 4.3 million babies born in 2007 with 40 percent born to unwed mothers, a figure that will likely only fuel the crime wave American children will face.
Yet the California media, both television and Hollywood, have been relentless in their campaign to mainstream the culture of illegitimacy and single-parenthood while they’ve heaped invective on conventional suburban two-parent America. The media’s role in promoting fatherlessness was first fully exposed in the early 1990s when the then-popular television show “Murphy Brown” was called out publicly by Vice President Dan Quayle for glamorizing unwed motherhood when the show’s title character, played by Candice Bergen, had a child out of wedlock. Predictably, media pundits across the country took the bait and heaped scorn on the vice president. Their universal contempt demonstrated how pervasive and pernicious the media campaign had been. Considering that responsible studies clearly show that there is no stronger correlation to an eventual life of crime than to that of being born to an unwed mother, it is not surprising that a culture of illegitimacy combined with the enormous earning power of illegal drug sales—popularized and spread across the country by academia, media and pop culture—has spread crime throughout California.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
by David Harsanyi
Can you believe the gall of these Sarah Palin cultists? Presidential aspirations? This is a woman who named one of her kids "Track," for God's sake. (Well, if it really is her kid.)
William Buckley once wrote that he rather would "entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
But running government is no longer a suitable vocation for the bumbling proletariat. It's for folks with schoolin' and such. It's a job for herculean thinkers with degrees from Ivy League schools. In other words, no one from Alaska need apply.
Former sports reporters certainly won't do. We need former constitutional scholars. Who else, after all, has a better understanding of how to undermine the document?
Really, where would we be if a bumpkin like Palin were president? With her brainpower, we probably would be stuck with a Cabinet full of tax cheats, retreads and moralizing social engineers.
If Palin were president, chances are we'd have a gaffe-generating motormouth for a vice president. That's the kind of decision-making one expects from Miss Congeniality.
The job of building generational debt is not for the unsophisticated. Enriching political donors with taxpayer dollars takes intellectual prowess, not the skills of a moose-hunting point guard.
The talent to print money we don't have to pay for programs we can't afford is the work of a finely tuned imagination, soaring gravitas and endless policy know-how.
Palin is so clueless she probably would have rushed through some colossal stimulus plan that ended up stimulating nothing.
If Palin were president, no one doubts this nation would have continued the Bush-era policy of indefinite detention of enemy combatants and the CIA's program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights. Be thankful you have a president who makes you think this nation doesn't.
If Palin were commander in chief -- and, again, can anyone imagine anything so preposterous? -- the United States still would be fighting endless and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's true that Palin's first veto as Alaska governor was of a bill that would have blocked state employee benefits and health insurance for same-sex couples, but does anyone doubt her true intentions?
If she were president, brave American soldiers still would be living under the dark specter of "don't ask, don't tell." Palin even might have instructed her Justice Department to file a brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. Such is the depth of her depravity.
Does anyone believe that Palin possesses the competence to nationalize entire industries without the consent of the people? A housewife from Wasilla isn't equipped with political brawn to shake down banks and bondholders.
Palin never would be able to convince Americans that a trillion-dollar government-run health care plan would save taxpayers money or have the rhetorical ability to convince even a single person that a European-style cap-and-trade scheme has any benefit at all.
Palin is such a goofball that she probably believes oil will continue to be a vital American energy source.
And how is anyone as simplistic as Palin going to help change the habits of all these fatsos in America? We need a mommy ... but, you know, not a real mommy.
For Palin, though, there is hope.
Just because you're the target of a revolting elitist hit job doesn't mean you're ready to be president. I don't believe Palin has thought deeply enough about serious issues. She certainly has proved to be unable to defend herself adequately on intellectual grounds.
To this point, at least, Palin hasn't offered much more than populist sloganeering. Her popularity often seems fueled by charisma alone.
So, judging from Barack Obama's success, she has all the makings of a future president.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
I have been in denial these past months, since November 4th, 2008 to be exact. On that day, America elected the most liberal (and now we know the most autocratic and big spending) President in US History. Elected him over every Democrats' favorite Republican, a war hero whose body was broken for this country, a man who defined the word "Moderate", Senator John McCain. This happened even though the majority of the country describes itself as right of center.
In fact, a poll a few weeks ago showed that the majority of Americans are opposed to abortion, just months after electing a President who had voted in favor of infanticide just a few years earlier in his political career. By infanticide, I mean the murder of living, breathing infants - not just some mother's "choice". I’ve said it before but only 8% of Americans hold Obama’s radical view that mother should be allowed to murder their infants at any stage of the pregnancy for any reason. And I bet much fewer share his opinion that the infant should be murdered after birth if it was the mother’s intention to kill it all along.
Why did we do that? It is partly because Obama ran an exceedingly deceitful campaign. It is also partly because we had a media that was blatantly biased and refused to investigate him. The media also worked very hard to discredit Sarah Palin, the only real threat to his taking the White House. Really what they have done to her is shocking, but I won't go into that… yet. This post is about Republicans. We lost because we are a broken party and I have been ignoring the signs all along.
I have been hoping that Republicans will rise again and make a credible case -
against socialized medicine,
against the arbitrary taxing of energy (via the cap and trade bill),
against the Global Warming lies,
against amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants,
against the takeovers/bailouts of GM and other private industries,
against a $6 BILLION "Volunteerism" bill,
against the nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court…
Its not hard, Obama is underhanded and unoriginal. Big government initiatives have been tried before here and elsewhere and didn’t work nearly as well as the good old-fashioned, independent American way, and the way Obama handled the GM handouts and the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin was deceitful and unfair… and those are just the tip of the iceberg. That’s what you get when you elect a politician who cut his teeth in Chicago.
There was one brief, beautiful shining moment back in February when Republicans in the House stood together and voted "NO" on the Stimulus bill, but guess what they followed it up with less than 24 hours later?
"Republicans in the Senate came out with a plan to have the government fix mortgage interest rates at four percent, and use taxpayers' money to cover the losses that lenders would otherwise sustain.” ~Thomas Sowell
Whack!!! (That was the sound of me hitting my forehead.)
Democrats have their anti-establishment rhetoric and political favors that they use to gain leverage. They have the media on their side… over 80% of reporters vote Democratic. They have movie stars that make it seem like the “glamour” party. They get to play the racist and sexist cards and seem credible (although this is a myth that is patently FALSE, but I won't go into that here either.) They pretend to be the party of the underdog, first by creating a permanent voting underclass and then by stealing from hardworking Americans to grow that underclass in to a political faction.
We Republicans (really I mean Conservatives) have only our principles:
- A Deep Respect for LIFE, which is given to us from God (see Terry Schiavo, abortion, euthanasia).
- A Belief in Free Market Principles and Free Market Solutions
- A Belief in a small, decentralized Governing System, which is the most effective method for preserving Freedom. By the by, ever wonder why Democrats like a Centrally Managed System so much? Well, its incredibly efficient if you want to make sure that there is NO dissent and only ONE view being heard because you only have one avenue that you need to work through to get your views worked into mainstream opinion.
- A Belief that we have the right to Self Defense and to Own Guns and Weapons
- A Belief that All People Should be Judged According to ONE Standard, there should not be special rights for certain groups.
- A Strong Military to protect the wealth that we, as Americans, have rightfully earned.
- The Belief that you entitled the fruits of your labor, that you work for yourself, and NOT the US Government
- The Understanding that RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITY, RIGHTS without personal RESPONSIBILITY is just SLAVERY because you loose all choice.
- The belief that America should be moving towards Energy Independence in order to reduce our reliance on tyrants (you know Obama’s best friends in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela?)
- The Knowledge that Government Entitlement programs reward failure and punish success, destroy the groups that they supposedly help and are immoral because they involve taking from the wealth producers. Why is it stealing if a poor person robs you, but its not stealing if the government takes your money involuntarily and gives it to a poor person? Either way you are parting with your money and possessions without your consent.
- A belief in the sanctity of marriage and the traditional (ONE mother and ONE father) family, and that values should be passed to children from their parents, and NOT through government programs.
I hate to jump on the Bush bashing bandwagon (say that 5 times fast!), but he broke our party. He wasn’t all-bad, and I defended him when I thought he needed defending, but I never had a problem criticizing him. He was too moderate for me, and if people had taken the time to actually pay attention to his actions instead of his rhetoric, they would have realized just how middle of the road he actually was.
We can all admit that Americans are easily swayed by the media glitz (see November 4, 2008 when we voted in our first black American Ido... ooops, I mean President), who had the US convinced that Bush and his “conservatism” were the reasons why our country was faltering. The real problem was Bush’s and the Republican Party’s LACK of conservatism.
- Would a true conservative expand entitlement programs (Medicaid/Medicare) the way he did?
- Would a true conservative try to obtain amnesty for all of the illegal immigrants who have already shown that they have ZERO respect for America and American law?
- Would a true conservative further expand the Department of Education via the “No Child Left Behind Act” and take yet another responsibility away from the states?
- Would a true conservative send out “stimulus” checks and initiate the TARP?
- Would a true conservative have attempted to pass a “Gay Marriage” amendment, forcing all states to adhere to ONE standard and definition of marriage? You can all guess which side I fall onto in this one, but I absolutely respect the right for other states to have put this to a vote and come out on a different side, as long as its not forced onto my state via the Federal government!
You get the idea… and the result, we have a Republican Party that doesn't know it's "business."
I have started at least 4 or 5 of these posts in the past few months on the Obama led AIG Bonus lynch mob (i.e. congress), Government Motors, Obama BOWING to the King of Saudi Arabia, and a few others, but I haven’t posted them for a few reasons:
The first is that I wonder if they are being read, but since I haven’t been posting I’ve received a lot of complements on them, so I guess people are reading them even if they don’t comment.
The second is just that I have been busy! I have a two full time jobs, as an engineer and as a wife. It takes a lot of time to research this stuff and make it sound somewhat coherent, as opposed to the wendy ramblings that they start out as. And sometimes by the time I get everything together, it’s been weeks and is irrelevant.
The third, and most important, is that I don’t think people understand why I am so outraged at Obama’s maneuverings, and the GOP is not giving me any help at all in this matter. The party is broken and we currently don’t have anyone to lead us out of the wilderness and make a case for conservatism, and Sanford’s affair announcement a few weeks ago really made that point hit home for me.
We are Reagan’s party after all, and he was the greatest modern president! Everyone went on and on about Obama’s “landslide” victory in November. He won by 1% more than George W. Bush in 2004… wow, bravo. Do you know how the electoral counts played out in 1980 and 1984? In 1980, he lost only FOUR states, and by 1984, he won EVER SINGLE STATE except for Minnesota. I’m pretty sure that that is considered a landslide. Magic happens when we have a true conservative is running for President.
The Democrats have us beat on rhetoric, and we can’t win by compromising our principals and trying to imitate them. Our slogan can't be - “Vote for us, we’re not as bad as the Democrats!”
We need a new Reagan, a person who understands and can articulate the traditional America values that made our country a “shining city on a hill”; he or she would be unbeatable come election day. Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter, and will set our country up for complete and total failure. Who will pick up the broken pieces of our country when Obama is done with it?