Filed under: US Politics
The Presidential Report Card reflects the unrepudiated positions of the presumed Democratic and Republican nominees for President of the United States. Their respective positions were gathered from published votes, policies, and public statements and relevant documents. Candidates’ positions were gleaned from actual votes, actions and policies, rather than from contemporary statements that differ from past policies or statements, unless repudiated. No coordination was done with any candidate or with any campaign supporting or opposing either candidate.
Sarah Palin’s reputation survived her interview with ABC News’ Charlie Gibson.
The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.
On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous “lipstick on a pig” reference.
I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.
It wasn’t even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.
But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson’s aim to humiliate Palin.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His worldview?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose — to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.
I couldn’t answer it — and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson’s question.
I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called “Bush Doctrine,” which means that there is no “Bush Doctrine.” It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that — the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?
That’s the Bush Doctrine? “The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?”
Isn’t that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the “Bush Doctrine” when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: “If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him.”
And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?
That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.
All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.
This year it is more obvious than ever. The press’s beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.
Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: “Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.”
We might call it the media’s Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.
Dennis Prager
Filed under: Humor (If one can laugh at such a serious situation), US Politics
The following ’speech’ was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.
The speech George W. Bush might give: Normally, I start these things out by saying ‘My Fellow Americans.’ Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don’t know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you’re really not fellow Americans any longer. I’ll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There’s been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I’m quitting is simple. I’m fed up with you people. I’m fed up because you have no understanding of what’s really going on in the world. Or of what’s going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out. Let’s start local. You’ve been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.
Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there’s increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don’t give me this ‘blood for oil’ thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would’ve already seized Iraq ’s oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don’t give me this ‘Bush Lied…People Died’ crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could’ve easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be ‘discovered.’ Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ‘ Clinton ‘ established that policy. Bet you didn’t know that, did you? Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan, a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he’s going to destroy us. While he’s doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it’s okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That’s not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don’t care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That’d be fine, as long as they weren’t also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven’t gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you’re not. That’s because you’ve got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I’m disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of ‘Survivor.’
Instead, you’ve grown impatient. You’re incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat’s political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it’s easy enough to find the truth. It’s all over the Internet. It just isn’t on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you’d be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you’re too stupid to leave a city that’s below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I’ve come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I’m going back to Crawford. I’ve got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I’m done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney’s quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that’s it. God bless what’s left of America.
Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.
PS – You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.
Filed under: US Politics
This is an article written by Charlie Reese, a former columnist for the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. Very interesting perspective on the state of our Nation!
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices. 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese
You couldn’t get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after143 days of experience.
You couldn’t become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn’t get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143days of experience.
You couldn’t join the military and become a colonel after 143 days ofexperience.
You couldn’t get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT…. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days?
We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that’s all it is – a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public seems to feel comfortable with this and is campaigning for him. We wouldn’t accept this in our own line of work, yet some are OK with this for the President of the United States of America!
Filed under: Uncategorized
I met and spoke with Sarah Palin about two years ago at our downtown Park Strip. It is a place for walking, carnivals, political outdoor things and such. She was cooking hotdogs at a fund raiser and introducing herself to the public as a Governor hopeful.
She came by and said the usual “Hi, I’m Sarah Palin and I am running for Governor”… and I expected her to keep on to the next person but she asked me who I was and what I did in Alaska and we ended up talking for 15 minutes about me, Air America (she was all agog!) and my career in the Army and AAM. She is a pilot (Super Cub) I’m told although all she told me about that was that she loved flying.
As I watched her over the next six months as she successfully ran for Governor I was really impressed. I was impressed greatly even before that after she resigned a good position (Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission) because a fellow Commission member (Chair of the Alaska Republican Party) misused their office and position. He was using the FAX, computers, printing room and all to promote the Republican endeavors while in a State job. That is a huge no-no in any government employment position.
She resigned and made her point and within weeks Randy Ruderich (the above bad guy) found his [butt] out on the street and a subsequent investigation found him guilty and he was fined $12,000. Small change actually but a giant point was made.
Next she went after our most horrible Governor ever, Governor Murkowski, and damned if she didn’t beat him! All of us here in Alaska , except the Democrats, are sick of our State’s corruption. That fact was shouted to the heavens after she was elected with an overwhelming point spread.
After she got into office she started after corrupt legislators and with the FBI’s help we’ve put four of them in prison, indicted six more and the “Corrupt Bastard’s Club” as they arrogantly called themselves (even had hats made with CBC on the front!) suddenly found it no fun anymore. Club membership is now in the toilet!!
The current flap which has cost her a ten point loss of popularity (she’s still 82%!) was over firing a popular Commissioner of Public Safety who is responsible for our Alaska State Troopers. She fired him for no STATED reason which was her prerogative as the Gov. He served entirely at her option. She and her whole family had a bad, bad experience with a rogue Trooper who was married to Sarah’s sister. His name is Trooper Wooten. This dimwit Trooper had threatened Sarah’s father (death threat!), threatened Sarah (“I’ll get you too”), tasered his 12 year old stepson, drove drunk in his AST cruiser, got a pass by a fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time while in civvies and just a host of other things not yet released to the public. He got away with it and got another pass by the Commissioner’s appointed AST Trooper Internal Affairs investigator with a tiny slap on the wrist. Five days off without pay to be exact!!
This maverick Trooper is still on the payroll but only just. The Union intervening saved his malcontent [butt]. He’ll yet get his I’m sure. Incredible heat is being heaped on the Troopers. Public heat, not the Governors office.
The Democrats had the audacity to appoint a obviously biased investigator, Rep. “Gunny” French (so called because he lied about being in the USMC while running for the Legislature) is a staunch liberal and under the orders of Senate President Lyda Green who hates Sarah. She hates Sarah because after being elected Governor Sarah told the whole Legislature in one of her first meetings with them that, quote; “All of you here need some Adult Supervision!!!”. Sarah was seriously [POed] and not afraid of anyone there. That played wonderfully well with Alaskans after all of our corruption and after all of her successful battles against a seriously entrenched corrupt government here in Alaska . It [POed] the whole Legislature though! They have stayed [POed] but also afraid of her because of her popularity.
She reminds me personally of our Alaska wolverine which will fight anything in it’s path if it see’s fit to do so. No respect at all for size or position. Wife Cindy is in this category too. Unfortunately.
In closing I must tell you that she is the best, most moral and most focused leader I’ve seen since President Reagan. I feel, really strongly, that like Alaska the rest of our country will love her within a few weeks. Put simply, she represents middle America like NO leader we’ve ever had. I think McCain made a totally brilliant move in choosing her. She’s a maverick who is probably tougher and more focused than McCain himself…. and she won’t be a total “Yes Man” or more appropriately, woman. McCain will love her.
In 2012 she will be President.
My best to all of you in the hurricane belt. I hope you are all OK. We just had another mini Air America reunion here in beautiful Soldotna , Alaska along the Kenai river. We’ll be doing this every year now I guess. Like our Flying Tiger pal’s before us there are not that many Air Ameri ca guys left. I’m 71 myself this September 16. Where the hell did the years go so fast?
My best to you old buddy
Semper Fi,
George W. Murray
Filed under: Uncategorized
Before you dismiss out of hand the importance of Sarah Palin being Commander of the Alaska National Guard, consider this:
Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Its on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden’s and certainly by far exceeds Obama’s.
She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force
(ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. Given Alaska ’s proximity to Russia ,she may have security clearances we don’t even know about.
According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.
She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.
Filed under: US Politics
The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers’ Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich. ;
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that i s fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become ‘adverse parties’ of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or s park t he spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
Filed under: Uncategorized
This was the happiest convention I have attended.
In seven conventions going back to 1984, I have never seen delegates as happy.
I have seen them eager, energized, committed, determined but the underlying mood last night was sheer joy.
There was joy that Senator McCain had had the courage to pick Governor Palin.
There was joy that she and her family had come through the week of attacks smiling and eager to campaign.
There was joy that Governor Palin’s Wednesday night speech completely vindicated Senator McCain’s choice.
There was joy that 37 million Americans had seen her speech. That is almost as many as watched Senator Obama’s acceptance speech (39 million).
There was deep inspiration from Cindy McCain’s story of adopting a child from Bangladesh and her commitment to the poor and the weak around the world.
There was awe at the film about Senator McCain’s service to country and inspiration from the personal parts of his speech.
There was joy at Roberta McCain saying “he’s a momma’s boy” and admiration for her energy and enthusiasm at 96 (sort of knocks down the age issue).
Finally there was joy that we had nominated two real people of great authenticity to take on the poseurs on the other ticket.
It was appropriate in St. Paul, the city of F. Scott Fitzgerald, that the modern Great Gatsby found himself facing a ticket with a real war hero and a real governor.
Obama’s long voyage of self discovery and posturing may be about to collide with a team that can’t be intimidated and is not afraid to tell the truth.
Now that is a cause for joy.
I am writing this newsletter from St. Paul, MN, where Alaska Governor Sarah Palin electrified the crowd at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night. And I think it’s safe to say she showed the entire country a fresh new face of conservative reform.
There was a lot of build-up to Governor Palin’s speech, both in the media and among the professional Republican political class. Everyone was telling us that the speech was the Governor’s big moment; if she could perform well Wednesday night, she would break free of the despicable, sustained partisan and personal attacks being leveled at her by everyone from the left-wing blogs to the elite media.
Palin Survived. Now the Left REALLY Has to Destroy Her But the pundits and the consultants were wrong. Palin’s success last week doesn’t mean the left-wing is going to give up attacking her.
Palin’s success means that now the left really has to destroy her.
Why? Because she’s proved that she is an intelligent, articulate and mortal threat to the left’s claim that it is the sole, legitimate voice of women and blue-collar, working Americans.
Sarah Palin is a mother of five who is also an accomplished woman.
She is a lifelong member of the NRA who is also an intelligent, articulate professional.
She is pro-life in her words and in her deeds, and she controls an $11 billion budget and 15,000 Alaska state employees.
Simply put, the left has a greater vested interest in destroying her than any presidential or vice presidential candidate the Republican Party has nominated in the last fifty years.
The media will try to downplay her accomplishments as when Ron Allen of MSNBC tried to get me to accept that she had too little experience.
We’ve seen this kind of desperation before, of course.
Those of us who lived through the effort by the elites to destroy Clarence Thomas when he was nominated to sit on the Supreme Court by George H. W. Bush have an unsettling idea of the fight that lies ahead.
The left and the elites regarded Thomas – an African-American who is also a conservative – as a threat to their ability to be the arbiters of what African-Americans and other minorities should believe.
Allowing Thomas to ascend to the high court would show that skin color does not dictate political affiliation – just as allowing Sarah Palin to become vice president would show that being a woman and a blue-collar American does not dictate political party.
So they threw mud at Thomas. They called him a traitor to his race.
Just like what’s happening now with Governor Palin. We’ve seen this before.
The road ahead promises to be bumpy. But the good news is that if Governor Palin survives the next few months as a national figure of competence and reform, then the left suddenly has a tremendous problem.
It’s a problem that is bigger than just losing the election (which is what will happen if she is a star in November).
The left’s problem will be that, at 44, Sarah Palin represents potentially 30 years of Republican Party leadership and transforming the party and America.
The stakes are high, and the race is on.
It’s time to brace ourselves for the coming war against Sarah Palin – and its time to win it.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
Filed under: Who Is Obama?
From Rush Limbaugh’s radio show…..
Hey, folks, you want to tweak the Drive-By Media with me right now?
You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states.
You heard this? And everybody chalked it up to, ‘Well, he’s tired.’
You know, this is a Dan Quayle moment. I mean, Dan Quayle goes out there and misspells ‘potato,’ and we still hear jokes about it.
Barack Obama says he’s gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it’s been such a long campaign, he’s been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states.
Well, I have here a printout from a web site called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins.
‘Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations Commission on human rights called combating.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference
Obama said he’s going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states.
So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?
Filed under: Uncategorized
I’ll be honest with you. I’d been giving consideration to third-party candidates. As a conservative with a renewed pledge to bear the legacy of America’s Founders, I wasn’t going to simply concede to the McCain ticket unless he made a credible (and what might be viewed as a radical) choice for vice president.
McCain is a good man, solid in character, and fully capable to lead our country into the future. But America also needs a fresh, reputable outsider who isn’t afraid to confront Washington corruption, government gridlock or partisan paralysis. When I heard Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was McCain’s choice, I knew she was a woman whom Americans could support and trust. Sarah is tough, smart, competent, credible and confident enough to fight those even in her own party. I believe she even will help to keep McCain accountable and in check.
Gov. Palin comes from a small town with small-town values. Sarah was sworn in as Alaska’s youngest and first female governor, in 2006. This mother of five was tired of seeing government running amuck and awry and stepped into public service to reform it. And she has a clear and long record of doing just that: bucking the status quo, cutting taxes and government waste, reducing big government, establishing ethics committees, pursuing alternative energy, and being pro-family and pro-life (as witnessed by her choice to cherish her baby with Down syndrome and to support her 17-year-old daughter keeping her baby and marrying the father).
The fact is far-left liberals don’t know how to respond to strong, conservative female political leaders. They hail Hillary but try to impale Palin. But Sarah has sparred them many times before and has come out of the ring without a scratch. Sarah is so tough that she inspired a new tongue-in-cheek Web site (www.PalinFacts.com), which parallels the “Chuck Norris Facts” folklore Web site (www.ChuckNorrisFacts.com). It gives some mythical, yet complimentary “facts” about Sarah Palin’s life, potential, character and career.
Here are three of my favorites:
– Sarah Palin once carved a perfect likeness of the Mona Lisa in a block of ice using only her teeth.
– Sarah Palin doesn’t need a gun to hunt, because she can throw a bullet through an adult bull elk.
– And my favorite: Sarah Palin is courageous and tough enough to shave Chuck Norris’s beard — and face off against his third fist disguised as a chin.
All joking aside, one real fact about Gov. Palin is that both Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are shaking in their boots over her candidacy and prospective appointment to the vice presidency. Obama talks about change, but McCain further lived out his commitment to reform with his choice of Palin to be his running mate. Obama chose government-as-usual Sen. Biden. McCain chose Washington outsider and corruption confronter Gov. Palin.
Obama and Biden not only know that Palin supersedes Biden’s finesse and potential but also that (if called to the task) she’s even more qualified and tenured in life and government to assume the presidency than Obama himself. As Pat Buchanan explained: “The lady has more executive experience than McCain, Joe Biden and Obama put together. None of them has ever started or run a business as Palin did. None of them has run a giant state like Alaska, which is larger than California and Texas put together.” And I might add that none is better suited to serve as president of the Senate than “Vice President Palin,” who would keep it more accountable to “us the people.”
Forget the cheap talk about change; Gov. Palin is a proven reformer who can help us restore our country and rectify constitutional revisionism and apostasy. Sarah is small-town civil and Texas tough, with a Southern elegance and an urban savvy. If McCain is a maverick, then there’s no doubt that Sarah is (if you will) the maverette! Even Oprah seems to be acknowledging the power in Sarah’s prowess by refusing to have this hockey mom turned VP nominee on her talk show until “after the campaign is over” — though she’s had Barack (and Michelle) Obama on twice.
Gov. Palin comes to civil service in the spirit of our Founding Mothers. She represents an early-American patriotic spirit that I believe lies sleeping among millions of Americans today and needs to be reawakened. She is the type of revolutionary who will help to wake up and revitalize America and about whom I write in my new book (available now at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble), “Black Belt Patriotism”: “Today, we see women incredibly active in every arena of society. They are often wearing multiple hats, as mother, homemaker, professional, spiritual leader, and community leader. Many serve God, family and country with the same fervor as those valiant female patriots of yesteryear. Women like Abigail Adams, Margaret Corbin, ‘Molly Pitcher,’ Catherine Ferguson, Dolly Madison, Mercy Warren, Martha Washington, and Betsy Ross.”
Well done, Sen. McCain. You have rallied the conservative base and others who were still on the fence. You have thrown a political Hail Mary into the end zone of the District of Columbia and scored a touchdown.
So move over, Mr. Smith, because Mrs. Sarah is going to Washington. Give ‘em hell, Sarah! Give ‘em hell!
Chuck Norris
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation.
I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you.
I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska s quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of change , but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a minority girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don t want her representing me to the rest of the world.
You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.
During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: Above your pay grade? Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.
If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.
My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood, the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way that I see it; When the devil is for you, we should question whether or not we should be against you.
In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color. It is because these items and many, many others like them. Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based. It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Gregg, Bruce Nast, Don Kuehnle, Chuck Whitcomb
Filed under: US Politics
This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who get the PELL Grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required) plus other federal grants to go to school?
One student from the Dominican Republic told me that she didn’t want me to find a job for her after she finished my program, because she was getting housing from our housing department and she was getting a PELL Grant which paid for her total tuition and books, plus money leftover.
She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program (check it out – I did) for immigrants and it pays for child care and all sorts of needs while they go to school or training. The one student I just mentioned told me she was n ot going to be a US Citizen because she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and that she ‘loves HER country.’
I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the US is giving her and then not even bothering to become a citizen and she told me that it doesn’t bother her, because that is what the money is there for!
I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE a US citizen, you don’t qualify for their program. And all the while, I am working a full day, my son-in-law works more than 60 hours a week, and everyone in my family works and pays for our education.
Something is wrong here. I am sorry but after hearing that they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish – enough is enough. That’s a real slap in the face. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation — not even close. I don’t care whether this offends someone or not but this is MY COUNTRY. IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP — please pass this along. I am not against immigration — I just expect immigrants to come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past — and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Filed under: Who Is Obama?
One of the knocks on Barack Obama is that his résumé is, so to speak, paper-thin. But that is not entirely accurate. Obama, in fact, has held some major job titles which are noteworthy all by themselves: United States Senator, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Harvard Law Review President-each of these titles puts him in rarefied company. Tack on a few Illinois State Senate terms, and his resume actually appears solid. Yet, in spite of these prestigious positions, Obama has increasingly resorted to making claims of accomplishment that are so patently inflated that even his cheerleaders at CNN and the New York Times are taking notice. Why?
It seems that Obama recognizes that while his résumé titles are impressive, his actual accomplishments are weak. It’s as if he were jockeying to be the next company CEO with little to show for his prior high-profile management positions. So, he does what anyone else does who has spent years coasting on charisma without doing any heavy work: he pads his résumé–stretching the truth here, stealing credit there, and creating the illusion of achievement during his lackadaisical, undistinguished tenure in previous jobs.
A few examples? Take Obama’s first general election ad. We are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” with a citation at the bottom to only one Senate bill: The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the Senate by a 91-3 vote. Six Senators did not vote-including Obama. Nor is there evidence that he contributed to its passage in any material way. So, his claim to have “passed laws” amounts to citing a bill that was largely unopposed, that he didn’t vote for, and whose passage he didn’t impact. Even his hometown Chicago Tribune caught this false claim. It’s classic résumé-padding–falsely taking credit for the work of others.
Or take one of Obama’s standard lines: his claim of “twenty years of public service.” As pundit Michael Medved has pointed out, the numbers don’t add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate (two of which he’s spent running for President), plus seven years in the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we generously throw in his three years as a “community organizer” (whatever that means, let’s count it as public service), that still adds up to just thirteen.
Obama’s other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School, writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the ego to consider any of those stints “public service.” Which of them is Obama including?
Obama made yet another inflated boast last month during his visit to Israel . At his press conference in Hamas rocket-bombarded Sderot, Obama talked up “his” efforts to protect Israel from Iran :
“Just this past week, we passed out of the US Senate Banking Committee – which is my committee – a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.” (Emphasis added.)
Nice try. But as even CNN noted, Obama is not even on that committee. That is one peculiar “mistake” to simply have made by accident. Again, his claiming credit for the work of others just looks like clumsy, transparent résumé embellishment.
Would someone with Obama’s stellar list of job titles resort to making stuff up? He seems to think he has to. In spite of the many impressive positions he’s held, he’s done almost nothing with them. If he wants to claim specific, relevant accomplishments, his only resort is to stretching the truth.
Look at his record: he’s now completed over half of a Senate term; yet, is there even one signature issue he has taken hold of, other than his own presidential run? Similarly, as the New York Times recently pointed out, Obama spent twelve years on the University of Chicago Law School faculty–singularly famous for its intellectual ferment and incubator of scholarship–and produced not even a single scholarly paper. He was President of Harvard Law Review, but wrote nothing himself. Even as a state legislator for seven years-or community organizer for three years, there is little that shows his imprint.. OK, to be fair, he did write two books. About himself.
For all his glowing job titles, Obama has never gotten much done. Is it any wonder that his spokesmen respond with sweeping generalities when asked what Obama has actually accomplished relevant to the presidency?
Obama has held several serious positions from which a serious man could have made a serious impact. But Obama made none. He remains a man of proven charisma, but unproven skill–and not for lack of opportunity. He’s treated his offices as if they were high school student council positions-fun to run for, fun to win, affirmations of popularity, heady recognition from superiors, good resume-builders for stepping up to the next position of power, and…well, that’s about it-actual accomplishments are not expected; heavy lifting is never on the agenda.
Obama’s record of accomplishment is thin not because of lack of opportunity, but in spite of it. For twenty years, Obama has walked the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but has left no footprints other than those from his runs for whatever office came next.
It’s been said that some people want to be President so they can do something; and some want to be President so they can be something. Obama has accomplished nothing noteworthy despite the golden opportunities and positions he’s had; why should we believe he’d be a different man in the White House?
No company would hire anyone with Obama’s empty track record, pattern of underachievement and padded résumé to be CEO. Is America really ready to hire him as President?
Jerusalem Post Article
Here is a report about Obama from a black columnist. He definitely brings a different light to this newly minted politician.
It’s an amazing time to be alive in America . We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.
Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.
Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial ‘beauty.’
Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists – something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on ‘the rich.’ How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, ‘All praise and glory to God!’ but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have ‘hijacked’ – hijacked – Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban – ban – on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of ‘bringing America together’ means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and – yes – they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream.
It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.
Kind of scary, wouldn’t you think—
Ken Blackwell – Columnist for the New York Sun
