Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Can We Dispense, Now, With The Myth That They Feel Our Pain?

Saturday, August 07, 2010 0


[img via Moonbattery]

Honestly, I don’t care about the frequency with which our King and his Queen vacation from the tough grind of their having to talk out of both sides of their mouths. And I’ve long since grown accustomed to taking a shiv in the back at the 4th rib from the Monarchy on a fairly routine basis. And I’m fine with them going places I’ll never be able to afford to see or gettingreally cool stuff I’d never dream of being worthy of owning…but, can we please stop now with the nonsense of being asked to believe that our rulers are just private folk; simple and humble and understated like the rest of the riff raff that walks the streets and pays their bills?

Please?

And could someone please tell the White House and that Gibbs creature to shut the hell up already?

The first lady is paying for her own room, food and transportation, and the friends she brought will pay for theirs as well. But the government picks up security costs, and the image of the president’s wife enjoying a fancy vacation at a luxury resort abroad while Americans lose their jobs back home struck some as ill-timed. European papers are having a field day tracking her entourage, a New York Daily News columnist called her “a modern-day Marie Antoinette” and the blogosphere has been buzzing.

The White House said it would not comment. “The first lady is on a private trip,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said this week. “She is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. And I think I’d leave it at that.”

Nothing about the President and the First Lady is “private”…I mean, I know they have forgotten that we are their employers and all…but it’s not like they can turn turn their lives on and off like a switch. And, how ever much of their glamorous lives they pay for on their own, we’re still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR money to make sure nothing happens to them while they do it. There’s really no need to rub it in our faces…is there?

Millions are out of work, millions are on food stamps, and millions more on welfare. Our idea of a vacation is the phone being disconnected long enough to miss a few days worth of collection calls. Do we really need to be asked for some level of interest or concern for what the Queen is doing in Europe when she could be here…spending that time on the poor folk from whence she wants us to believe she comes, and believes she is well-suited to relate to?

Enough already.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

48 Hours. Have You Done What You Can?

Sunday, May 02, 2010 0
48 Hours. Have You Done What You Can?: "

“Freedom means you take chances. Freedom means you fight. Let’s send Jim DeMint some reinforcements. Let’s send Jim DeMint Marlin Stutzman.”

48 hours from now, people head to the polls in Indiana.

Let me let you in on a little secret. When I endorse and support a candidate, I get a lot more angry emails than I do supportive. That’s the way it works.

For the past several months I have gotten the crap kicked out of me for supporting a guy too young to run for the Senate and too conservative to play well with others.

People did not like me endorsing Marlin Stutzman, but I did because I believe in him.

There are three good men in the race, but Marlin Stutzman is the best man to send to the Senate. I am proud to endorse him. I’m proud to stand with Jim DeMint on this one. But we need your help to get him the nomination.

Here’s the problem — this is a race between Coats and Stutzman now. A lot of people like Dan Coats. That’s fine. I get beat up every day from people thinking I’m too hard on him. Never mind his actual record in the Senate or that he fled Indiana ten years ago to become a lobbyist and live in North Carolina.

I get it. Most of you do too.

We’re in a fight for our future. How does voting for Coats help in that fight when we’re going to have to fight for his seat all over again in six years. Do you really think he’s going to serve twelve in the Senate? He’ll be 73 at the end of his term should he win. The same guys who told us he’s the best choice for Republicans also told us Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were the best choices.


You know, I pick candidates because they are not just conservative in temperament or in instinct, but they are conservatives through and through. We got into the mess we are now in because of Republicans. Read that last sentence again.

Republicans became about the party, not the principle. They lost their way. And many of them don’t even want to head back to their principles. They are comfy. They are cushy. And we are all just a minor annoyance soon to burn out and go away.

I get flack, a lot of flack, for this from Republicans, from friends, from colleagues — but the fight for freedom is too important to not sometimes say, “Hey, I found this candidate and we should support him even though there are other people running.” Part of my job, and I’m not sure how I fell into it, but part of my job is to catapult good men and women into the arena to fight for freedom. And I’ve done that with my friend Marlin Stutzman like I did with my friend Marco Rubio — neither were high in polls when I picked them and now Marco has won his primary by default and Marlin has victory within reach.

Marlin is pro-life. He’s pro-second amendment. He’s for small businesses and families. He has the potential to be in the arena a lot longer than those he is running against and his record compared to theirs shows me that he is consistently right on our issues and will fight unapologetically — not cave or fold or waver or bend or yield when the winds from Washington blow a different way. The other candidates say that too, but they all have records and I’ve studied them. Marlin is the best. Marlin is most likely to stand with conservatives even when that means standing up to Republican leaders.

In 48 hours, we have the opportunity to raise up a new conservative leader. We have the opportunity to raise up one of those guys we always say we want to run for office and who did run for office. Let’s not now turn our back on Marlin because I assure you he will not turn his back on us.

Have you done all you could? Will you do all you can? Freedom means you take chances. Freedom means you fight. Let’s send Jim DeMint some reinforcements. Let’s send Jim DeMint Marlin Stutzman.


"

Friday, April 30, 2010

Paul Ryan on GM’s “so-called repayment”

Friday, April 30, 2010 0
Paul Ryan on GM’s “so-called repayment”: "

Via HotAir, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on “crony capitalism.”



You may have read reports from the Obama Administration or seen ads on TV claiming that General Motors has fully paid back what it owes you the American taxpayer.


These claims struck me as odd and misleading. The federal government still owns over 60% of this auto company. This so-called repayment is actually a transfer of $6.7 billion from one taxpayer-funded bailout account to another.


As this is your money, I think you deserve some clarity on this shell game. My colleagues Congressmen Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett and I have asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to provide an updated, accurate, and honest account of the taxpayer money that is still propping up General Motors.


If anyone is owed a clear and honest explanation it is those hit hardest by the downturn in the auto industry, including those I serve in Janesville, Kenosha, Oak Creek and the surrounding communities in Southern Wisconsin.


It is time to put an end to the crony capitalism in Washington.


Ed’s exit question: “Does the FTC not concern itself with government-owned businesses? Crony capitalism, indeed.”



"

Republicans joust in Indiana


Indiana Flag

Five men are seeking to be the Republican nominee in the Indiana Senate race to replace Evan Bayh. Three have a likely chance to win. From where is each getting his support?

SurveyUSA polled the race for the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics, and I have the news release. The top line has been spread out far and wide: Don Bates and Richard Behney are negligible at 6 and 4 precent, so we turn our attention to the top three candidates. Dan Coats leads at 36, followed by John Hostettler at 24, and Marlin Stutzman at 18. But let’s dig beyond that.

All three lead Democrat Brad Ellsworth in the general election according to the poll, but their profiles in the primary are different. Coats and Hostettler do better among voters lacking a favorable view of the Tea Party Movement, 47-34 and 27-21 respectively, while Stutzman does better among the Tea Party supporters by a 20-8 margin. Those who do not consider themselves Tea Party members also favor Coats and Hostettler more, 36-30 and 27-21 again. Stutzman does better among the Tea Party members as well, drawing 23% of the Tea Party members, and only 18% of the non-members. Stutzman is apparently the Tea Party candidate.

On the other hand, Hostettler is the candidate of Independents. He leads among all Independents with 35%, but drops to 19% among Strong Republicans. He also beats Coats and Stutzman among 2008 Obama voters polled. Stutzman does best among Independents leaning Republican, which sounds to me like a Tea Party-friendly category.

Lastly Coats sounds like the mainstream, establishment Republican pick, as he leads overall and among Strong Republicans.

A three way primary with Republicans and Independents both voting allows for a complicated web of relationships, to be sure.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Hyperbole Surrounding AZ’s New Law; Talk About Epistemic Closure!

Thursday, April 29, 2010 0
The Hyperbole Surrounding AZ’s New Law; Talk About Epistemic Closure!: "

I figured that I may as well jump on the new buzz word band wagon and use the term epistemic closure. Even though I’m totally not into the term. It sounds icky and like something contagious. Nevertheless, epistemic closure is pretty much what all of the hysterical, over the top shrieking about Arizona’s law is; the result of living in a vacuum and being so ideologically close-minded that you have no problem accepting, and repeating, misinformation. The need to be righteously indignant takes over any logic or reason.


Even sports writers are getting into the mix, asking the heads of sports leagues to boycott Arizona. It’s infuriating and not just because it is forcing me to write about sporty things. Says Kevin Blackistone, a national sports columnist:


The University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., should lose the BCS National Championship Game scheduled to be played there next January unless Arizona legislators rescind soon and for good an anti-immigration law they just passed that gives police the right to stop and search for documents anyone police suspect of being in the country illegally.


After all, that law means racially profiling people who appear to be Hispanic, no matter what Arizona lawmakers claim. That means making an entire group of people, as the NCAA spokesman said, uncomfortable in Arizona because of their heritage. That’s unquestionably wrong.


We all should be uncomfortable with that, however. As Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles wrote earlier this month, comparing the law to Nazi Germany: “The Arizona legislature just passed the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law.


He then goes on to try to tie in apartheid and the tired, old bashing of South Carolina and the Confederate flag. Yawn.


First, Mr. Blackistone (who calls himself Professor on twitter) should read the actual law before spouting off about it. Or, in the alternative, he should stick to writing about sports and the successes of others. That’s far preferable than resorting to the sad Godwining of oneself by pulling the Nazi card.


He’s not alone there; Joy Behar, in one of her standard fits of hysterical and inane shrieking, also broke out the Hitler card. (there is a video clip at the link, if you choose to expose yourself to it. I can’t in good conscience force one to be subjected to her. She’s enough to make me a misogynist):


On her April 26 broadcast, HLN’s Joy Behar suggested the new Arizona immigration law that would allow local law enforcement to arrest immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. is comparable to “World War II Germany.”


“Do you think it’s kind of – doesn’t it feel like sort of Nazism a little bit?” Behar asked. “I don’t want to overstate it, but ‘may I see your papers,’ you know?”


It’s not surprising that Behar is clueless, as always. This is the same woman who said that a black President is “traumatic” for white men. No, Joy. While many know that Obama’s policies and the Left’s agenda are traumatic for the country, most people don’t focus on the density of a person’s melanin count. It’s a thing called equality. We treat everyone the same way. Post-racial; y’all should try it sometime.


Which brings us to Obama and his irresponsible and erroneous comments regarding the Arizona law.


The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”


What? I’m no constitutional lawyer, but even I know that is baloney. So, not only is the President of the United States purposely trying to sway public opinion against a state, but he is doing so with false information.


As Allahpundit notes, people who have read, and understand, the bill have weighed in and put that issue to bed. Byron York explains in his article refuting Obama’s statement that the statute “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Note that Obama is concerned only with “fairness”.


What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”


Gee, no mention of randomly harassing people slurping on ice cream cones there. He goes onto say:


Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.


Bingo. And there is your epistemic closure. It’s a carefully measured law, wherein a state is desperately trying to fix a problem that is devastating to their state. Instead of reading the law and actually trying to grasp an understanding of it, the immediate reaction is to fly off the handle, full of righteous indignation, and screech Nazi and Racists ™ ! Meanwhile, the only laws on the books that I am aware of in regards to skin pigmentation or ethnicity are laws that grant the same extra protection.


This is exactly why there is no having a dialogue with the left. Intellectual honesty isn’t their strong suit. Of course, this wouldn’t even be an issue if the federal government was doing its job — its primary job, in my opinion — and protecting our borders, not leaving states to resort to trying to do it themselves with far more limited resources.


That’s not really “fair”, is it, Obama? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to address that honestly, however. I know how you can’t spare your laser-like focus — on yourself.


(cross-posted at NewsReal)



"

SWAT Troops against an Army of Grandmas.

SWAT Troops against an Army of Grandmas.: "

I am given to understand that the video below was the result of local police in Illinois being overruled by the Feds. Whether true or not, this is still so pathetic that it just makes me kind of sad:



You know, I remember a day when we had a President who wasn’t fundamentally afraid of the American people, and so do you.


Picture of vicious counter-revolutionary agents requiring a full riot gear-equipped police presence after the fold.



Grow either up, or a spine, Mr. President. Just do either one quickly; the rest of the world is taking notes.


Moe Lane


Crossposted to Moe Lane.



"

Monday, November 02, 2009

The Vilification of Rush

Monday, November 02, 2009 0
The Vilification of Rush

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Media Outlets Neglect to Mention that Doctor Photo-Op Was Staged

Tuesday, October 06, 2009 0
Media Outlets Neglect to Mention that Doctor Photo-Op Was Staged: "

In his latest push for a health care overhaul bill, President Obama spoke to doctors in the White House Rose Garden yesterday. Painting a nice picture of the event were many media outlets that neglected to mention the White House's doctoring (forgive the pun) of the audience in an attempt at a powerful photo-op.


Doctors attending the event were instructed to show up in white lab coats to give observers the feeling that doctors stand behind the President's health care plans.


"White Coats in the Rose Garden, as Obama Rallies Doctors on Health Overhaul," read a New York Times blog post headline. "The roughly 150 doctors assembled wore white lab coats under the brilliant fall sun," the Washington Post recalled. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote, "Obama faced rows of smiling doctors, all wearing white lab coats." NBC News also noted the white coats donned by the doctors in attendance.


But none of these media outlets mentioned that the White House had to hand out lab coats to a number of the doctors in attendance who showed up in business attire. Apparently trying to drive home the image of medical professionals applauding the President, the White House would not start the press conference until all of the doctors were dressed in the "spiffy" outfits, in the President's words.


The Washington Post and the New York Times included pictures in their respective stories showing white-coated doctors listening to and conversing with the President.


According to the Associated Press, the Obama offered nothing new in his address to the doctors, so the event was clearly an opportunity to show the country that medical professionals support his plan. Many major media outlets declined to note the botched attempt to enhance the 'doctors-support-the-plan' image of the event, playing right into the White House's objectives.


Rather than cover the clear attempt by the President to use visuals to enhance the public perception of support from the industry, media outlets chose to rehash White House talking points.

"

Monday, October 05, 2009

Bloomberg group petitions Obama for more gun control

Monday, October 05, 2009 0
Bloomberg group petitions Obama for more gun control: "A report from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition urges Obama to adopt more gun controls."

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Michael Moore's 'Capitalism' a Bust at the Box Office

Sunday, October 04, 2009 0
Michael Moore's 'Capitalism' a Bust at the Box Office: "

Michael Moore is destined to really hate capitalism, for his new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story" appears to have totally flopped at the box office.

This comes despite all the gushing and fawning by Moore-loving media members prior to the film's October 2nd release.

Take heart, fellow capitalists, for according to Deadline Hollywood this could be a flop of epic proportions:

Michael Moore's purposefully controversial and politically polarizing documentary Capitalism: A Love Story was distributed by Overture Films and wound up in 7th place. It went wide into 962 theaters this weekend after opening on September 23rd in a limited release of 4 theaters. The pic about the financial crisis made $1.6M Friday and $2M Saturday (+33%) for a $5M weekend and $5.4M cume. Just for comparison purposes: Moore's most recent Sicko did $4.4 mil its opening weekend from only 441 theaters (and that was with him guesting on The Tonight Show and announcing he'd been subpoenaed by the Bush administration for the health care documentary). And his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9M its opening weekend from 868 venues.) So, as much as the left loves Moore, and the right detests him, and he always uses the ensuing controversy to self-promote, the money angle is only what interests me. The fact is that Capitalism: A Love Story looks like its domestic total will fail to crack $20M and end up his worst performing film since his Oscar-winner Bowling For Columbine in 2002.

All together now: aaaaaaaawwwwwww!

For those that want to keep track of the developing train wreck, daily tallies are available here

"

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Freedom means Freedom to dissent…

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 0

Since when has expressing ones displeasure become “un-American”? If you listen to the likes of Speaker Pelosi expressing any form adversarial tone toward House Bill 3200 qualifies you as a swastika wearing, astro-turfing, shill of the Insurance companies. And certain media personnel have gone as far as to insinuate that using the term “socialism” is code word to slur President Obama’s race.

It amazes how the historical champions of the first amendment turn a deaf ear when those that are dissenting are not part of their ideological click. Why am I expected to view the 60’s radical with reverence for their contribution to the national discourse, yet disrespect the members of this so called “mob” for their dissent. Seems a bit duplicitous to me.

For years I have watched the parade of anti-“something” protestors have their activities covered by ABC, CBS, and NBC and said nothing. I watched a Code Pink member throw red paint at a sitting Secretary of State and shook my head. Cindy Sheehan in her Crawford Texas tent, oh well if that's her deal. Supreme Court rules its freedom of speech to burn the American flag in protest… I grit my teeth but okay.

My point is save your righteous indignation if you disagree with those opposing the Healthcare legislation. You do not get to change the rules of free speech just because you disagree with the message.

After all, you control all the levers of government power, you are going to do what you want anyway. You won the election… lead. We will all find out together what this display of dissent is all about soon enough… we still have the right to vote… right?

 
◄Design by Pocket Distributed by Deluxe Templates