Saturday, October 31, 2009
PJTV Video: "Victicrat: "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Victim" http://www.pjtv.com/v/2619
Friday, October 30, 2009
Oct 29, 7:11 PM (ET)
WANTAGE, N.J. (AP) - Police in New Jersey are trying to determine who fired a bullet that struck CNN commentator Lou Dobbs' home as his wife stood nearby. State police Sgt. Stephen Jones says Dobbs' wife and driver were outside the home Oct. 5 when they heard the gunshot. Jones says the bullet didn't penetrate the siding and fell to the ground outside.
Dobbs mentioned the bullet earlier this week on CNN and his radio show.
Dobbs says he had been receiving threatening phone calls for weeks. On his radio show, he connected the gunshot to his advocacy for a crackdown on illegal immigration and to his opponents' rhetoric.
The home is on a farm in Wantage, about 50 miles northwest of New York City.
It is small-game hunting season, but no hunters were seen in the area.
Why isn't this story the lead on every newscast? Why isn't it a headline in every newspaper? A couple of months back, Big Media and Leftist Democrats were apoplectic claiming that Tea Party Patriots and others who protested at town meetings were a threat to their safety. All of the angry verbal exchanges made them fear for their physical security. But, were any of those folks targeted by violent attacks? No.
Now, a radio and television commentator whose views are hard to pigeonhole but who is certainly on the conservative end of the spectrum is the victim of a drive-by shooting. His wife was close enough that she hit the ground. The Dobbs house was struck by the bullet. Do you think this could be linked to Statist?Leftist pundits and politicians who marginalize people like Dobbs and accuse them of racism over political disagreements? Could the responsibility be laid at the door of the Southern Poverty Law Center which has turned from being an information center focused on the KKK, Skinheads and Neo-Nazis to just another Leftist advocacy group that accuses mainstream Conservatives of hate speech over issues such as illegal immigration (the SPLC supports the law breakers in this case)? Could we possibly say that a White House that accuses every political opponent of ill will and ulterior motives is responsible for this sort of violence?
I pray that Lou Dobbs and his wife will face no more attacks and will be able to go about their daily business. Was this the act of a nut acting of his own volition or someone who felt the President, the press or their Congressman had declared folks like Dobbs to be fair targets? Has lumping legitimate political thought (you know, the things the Founders believed in) into the same category as Neo-Nazi rants legitimized such violence in the minds of some? Something tells me Big Media won't ask these questions.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
CNSNews.com - White House Says No ‘Veracity’ to Argument That Forcing Individuals to Buy Health Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Robert Gibbs, Press Stooge for President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama, is out of his league responding to constitutional concerns about the Democrats' desire to take over the American health care system and force Americans to buy insurance.
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that there is no "veracity" to the argument that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force individuals to buy health insurance.
Oh really? Maybe Gibbs should actually read the Constitution. Since the White House Press Secretary is a constitutional illiterate like his boss, let's make it simple. The Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. Any power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to take over any industry, control medical care, or force American citizens to buy any product. That isn't complicated. Maybe inconvenient for the tyrant class, but there is little confusion for those who honestly read the document.
"I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of--I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they're commentating on," said Gibbs.
First, Gibbs will never be confused for a scholar in any field except maybe the profession of bumbling stooge. Secondly, the "case law" canard is a Leftist/Statist standard. No matter how clearly the Constitution reads, they will claim that no one knows what the Constitution means until a federal court has made a decision. The use of federal courts to define the Constitution is a huge reason for the assault on individual liberty and the growth of government that has been the hallmark of so-called Progressives. The fact that activist judges are willing to place ideology ahead of the Constitution does not erase the document itself. It says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Whether some sleazy constitutional scholar endorses the fact or not, there is no constitutional authority to use force to control Americans in their health care decisions.
In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
The health care debate is about far more than how medical care will be delivered. Individual liberty is in grave danger. The provisions of this hostile takeover of freedom essentially subjugate and enslave the America public. Sadly, many Americans no longer treasure liberty. They will fall for any offer of security or public largesse even if they lose control over their own lives. To those people, I offer the words of Samuel Adams:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,go home from us in peace.We ask not your counsels or your arms.Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you,and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction
machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo?
Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.
Candy bars and plastic ware to keep your leftovers fresh must be REALLY evil compared to the rapacious insurance companies.
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
Two percent? Yes, that is obscene, but not in the way Statists who seek to control everyone's health care frame the charge. It is an obscenity to the corporations' stockholders. Even at the typical six percent, the health insurance industry is not breaking the bank.
_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."
_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.
_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.
Well, there you go. When will the Leftist-Statist-Democrats begin bashing Big Beer, Big Detergent, and Big Plastic? The answer is, as soon as those industries stand between these vile demogogues and some aspect of American life they want to control. The insurers' profits are far from obscene. However, the behavior of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the other would-be rulers of your life is beyond obscene. It is criminal.
Health insurance companies operate within the arena of growing health care costs, many of which can be laid directly at the feet of government. They are impacted by the lack of competition. They are impacted by government managed markets. They are impacted by the lack of control over ambulance chasers. They are impacted by the inability to offer different levels of coverage.
President Obama claimed he wanted a robust, comprehensive debate on health care. But, to paraphrase Joe Wilson, "he lied!" No matter how much the numbers and the realities refute the claims made by Obama and the leadership of the Kremlin on the Potomac they continue to attack the messenger. Everyone is a tool of Big Insurance or Big Pharma or simply hypnotized by Fox News. The truth is, Democrats are losing the health care debate in the arena of honest debate. The American people are not as ignorant as Democrats like to think. As many legislators found out over the summer, their constituents understood the issues better than the professional politicians. Maybe it is time they begin to heed their betters out here in Real America.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.
Big Media may see this as contradictory, but the two sets of numbers make perfect sense. One uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that Big Media has tried to ignore during the Tea Party uprisings and Town Hall discussions was that the increasingly vocal Patriots are rooted in ideas, not party politics. During the September 12 March on Washington, I saw thousands upon thousands of signs, bumper stickers and t-shirts, but only one that was overtly GOP. That was one guy who was working the street trying to sign folks up for the Republican Party. Real America is disgusted with corrupt politicians, Constitutional infidelity and partisan hacks who have zero respect for the American people (for example, the kind of people who keep changing the name of nationalized healthcare to various euphemisms in hopes of finding one that sounds respectable).
Conservatism is on the ascent. Many Republicans realize they have lose their way, but many have not. Some want to play the same political games as they have played in the past. Some want to give half-measures of socialist programs to appear "bipartisan." A few haven't been paying attention since last election day and still want to hitch their wagon to the O-Train.
We The People have risen up and are in the process of re-establishing the GOP as the Conservative party. In recent years, I have found I am more likely to call myself an independent than a Republican because of the party's recent sorry state. Many others have abandoned the label for similar reasons. So, when GOP identification falls it doesn't mean Americans are less Conservative. To the contrary, it means there is a growing group of folks who demand that the Republican Party stand on principle and fight to defend the Constitution and individual liberty. According to Gallup, there's a change in the air.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Obama's Fourth Reich hoped to squelch growing criticisms of the White House by attacking a news operation and warning other networks not to pick up stories that originated on Fox. The dutiful Big Media was done the O-Train's bidding and discarded all pretense of legitimate journalism. However, even some members of the state media felt compelled to cover the ACORN scandals and Obama's communist, conspiracy nut homeboy Van Jones after those stories became huge due to Fox News, talk radio and the alternative media. When Obama tried to kick Fox out of the White House press pool, the other bureau chiefs finally said "no." That was a stinging rebuke for The One.
What is truly remarkable about the goofy Left's visceral hatred of Fox News is the fact that the network comprises a small voice in the vast media chorus (though its ratings are incredibly high--guess they aren't out of touch with Real America). Krauthammer notes:
Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be
comical -- and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.
Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no
defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its
fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?
This is a bit like the administration's claim that the free market needs competition from the government. Such logic only makes sense to an economic illiterate. Fifteen hundred health insurance companies compete for business (though their ability to compete is constrained to a large degree by, you guess it, the government), but the only REAL competition would come from a government "option." In media, one network presents all sides rather than the Statist talking points and it has undue influence on American journalism. Only in Obama World are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman legitimate journalists and Bret Baier a Republican stooge.
Krauthammer's best zinger was aimed at Anita Dunn, White House Mistress of Disinformation. Dunn is the empty skirt who rated the 20th century's most prolific mass murderer, Mao Tse-tung, as one of her two favorite political philosophers.
Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?
The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?
The truth is that Anita Dunn's comments, Obama's associations, Van Jones' moonbat rantings, Rahm Emmanuel's exhortation to "not let a crisis go to waste," Michelle Obama's "first time proud comment and all of the other lunacy that has emanated from Team O is all part of a disturbing reality. That is who they are. That is who HE is. And it is that crushing realization more so than even the health care takeover or cap-and-tax scheme that has more Americans telling the Big O that he can keep his "change." Let's hope Fox News keeps reporting the truth about this gang of extremists. Who knows, maybe some of the other networks will put their profession and their country ahead of their Leftist ideology. Stranger things have happened.
This month, it was O’Brien’s turn against NBA legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Michael McKean, of "Spinal Tap," "Laverne & Shirley" and "Saturday Night Live." McKean, a previous winner, ended with $24,800, followed by Abdul Jabbar with $8,800 and O'Brien with $6,200.
A CNN insider defended the journalists: "They are reporters, not trivia experts. And the buzzer is complicated. It's not activated until Alex [Trebek] finishes the last syllable of the question. If you hit the button too soon, nothing happens."
....Wolf was blitzed last month, coming in last with minus-$4,600, behind comic Andy Richter, a past winner who racked up $68,000 for charity. "Desperate Housewives" star Dana Delany came in second.
One really doesn't need to be well-read or flexible of mind to read a teleprompter. It is really not much of a shock that Wolfie and Soledad got thumped by a collection of jocks, comedians and actors. Reading DNC talking points and blaming every dissenting word on a vast rightwing conspiracy does not take a lot of smarts.
After CNN's recent fact check piece on a Saturday Night Live skit that mildly tweaked President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama (or simply The One if you are a CNN devotee), we can probably look forward to an investigative report on Dick Cheney's influence on Jeopardy's question selection process. Come to think of it, Jeopardy probably outsourced the job to Haliburton.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"It's not the color of Obama's skin that we oppose. It's the color of his policies. It's not his blackness. It's his redness."
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Nixon took the oath as a minority president, 43 percent, in a hostile city, with both houses of Congress against him and a national press corps that had loathed him since he exposed the establishment golden boy Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, 20 years before.
Obama took the oath with close to a filibuster-proof Senate, a near 80-seat majority in the House, the media at his feet, not his throat, and a city in adulation that had voted 93 to 7 for Barack Hussein Obama.
The hatred of Nixon was as irrational as it was deep. The hardcore Left never forgave Nixon for his exposure of traitor Alger Hiss. Despite overwhelming evidence followed by irrefutable evidence gleaned from the Venona project, some still consider Hiss some sort of political victim. He was a Communist sympathizer and one who sold out his own country. It is those who continue to support Hiss' memory who have some 'splainin' to do.
Nixon's administration ended the war in Vietnam (which had been escalated by two Democrat presidents), pushed the concept of affirmative action, created the EPA, signed the Endangered Species Act and instituted FDR-style price controls to combat inflation. Nixon's presidency may well have been one of the greatest triangulations in history. He ended the war with honor (though the Democrats in Congress will later make sure both victory and honor were sacrificed), stood up for law and order, and extolled traditional values while signing a series of "progressive" (i.e., socialist) expansions of the federal government.
Obama, on the other hand, is a hardcore Leftists with a team of Fellow Travelers in unconstitutional positions of authority and more positioned in leadership positions throughout the House and Senate. He has a Big Media establishment that consists mostly of people who dream they could be his Monica. Trust me, if Obama sends Chris Matthews a blue dress the name of the Leftist sycophant's MSNBC show "Hard Ball" will take on a whole new meaning.
Whereas Nixon's was pilloried for exposing Communists in high places, Obama's relationships with communists, socialists, and other extremists are downplayed or ignored. Nixon built his reputation uncovering the types of dangerous anti-American activity that is now a resume' enhancer in the Obama White House.
Tricky Dick came unraveled and allowed his paranoia, distrust, anger, and ego get the best of him. However, prior to Watergate, the folks who sought to bury Nixon opposed his patriotism and defense of his country. The radical Left sought to use the legitimate social upheaval of the 1960s (such as the Civil Rights movement) as a veil to mask their desire to drag the United States further into nanny-state socialism. Nixon supported civil rights, but opposed much of the Left's radicalism.
Obama believes he has a mandate to destroy the very foundations of America. Although many saw through his "hope" and "change" nonsense as the Marxist tripe that it was, Obama did his best to mask his true intentions. He lied. The Obama opposition comprises folks who want to defend the Constitution, federalism, and American values that have made this nation the envy of the world. Nixon saw himself as the protector of American greatness. Obama doesn't see America as great. Instead, he presides over a nation that believes is arrogant, greedy, and a source for more ill than good.
At first, the comparison of Obama's enemies list to Nixon's seemed appropriate. However, further analysis shows Barry Obama to be a President who is not under siege, but rather a small man who is unwilling to tolerate dissent in a democratic republic. Brother Buchanan is right. My apologies to Tricky Dick.
Friday, October 23, 2009
I don't think Big Media is any less in the tank for the Obama administration than it was yesterday and I have no doubt they will continue to be shills for the O-Train. However, the White House Press Pool decision was not a total surprise. Earlier in the week, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper confronted Obama Press Stooge Robert Gibbs:
Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one -
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say -
Gibbs: ABC -
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That's our opinion.
Gibbs was obviously referring to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, neither of whom claim to be journalists. They are Conservative commentators and clearly advertise themselves as such. Notice that Gibbs and Obama don't have a problem with alleged journalist Andrea Mitchell who has become increasingly nasty in interviews with non-Democrats. Or with Chris Matthews who gets funny feelings running up his leg when Obama speaks (Michelle O may want to keep an eye on that situation). Or with Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow who refuse to admit they are hardcore Leftists while shilling for the most extreme Left political positions. Or Rick Sanchez who is nothing but a Democrat bomb thrower. Or the condescending Charlie Gibson. Or the snarky Katie Couric. In other words, opinion journalism is only a threat to their vision of Amerika when it disagrees with Obama's leftist ideology.
How bad is the White House temper tantrum and partisan sniping? Hardcore Leftist reporter Helen Thomas even criticized Obama for their asinine attacks.
This situation is worth watching. For today, Big Media did the right thing and stood up for a free press. Will they continue to stand firm against a White House that seems intent on a Castro-Chavez style, state-controlled media? Stay tuned.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Representative Lynn's letter is a great history refresher for all Americans. She set the stage by recounting the circumstances that prompted the move for independence in 1776 and the principles that provided the bedrock of our Constitution. Masterfully, she points out the dangerous path that our nation now walks:
So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness. The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights and the enumerated powers.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as
the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; the rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Amen, sister! As the federal government attempts to erase all remnants of legitimate federalism it is the duty of the state governments to demand their sovereignty. The 10th Amendment is a powerful statement on the limits of the federal government in the united States of America. It is time each state erect a giant middle finger and direct it at the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Representative Susan Lynn's letter is also posted at the Tenth Amendment Center website. If you need more information about the 10th Amendment, how it has been abused, and how "we the people" can reclaim it, spend some time at the Tenth Amendment Center.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
“Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House: Don’t create an enemies list,” Alexander said.
Describing the actions of Vice President Spiro Agnew and Nixon operative Chuck Colson, Alexander said he sees “symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.”
Alexander read off a list of examples he says support his contention, including: a reported effort by the White House to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a supposed effort by the Health and Human Services Department to put a “gag order” on the insurer Humana, the White House move to take on Fox News, Obama’s repeated criticisms of banks and investment houses, his alleged “taking names” of “bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts,” and the president’s move to make insurers the bogeyman of the health care debate.
Alexander claimed that the incipient White House “enemies” campaign extends even to Congress. He suggested that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was the victim of a sort of payback, saying that after Kyl suggested the stimulus plan wasn’t working, the White house subsequently wrote the governor of Arizona that, “If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it.”
He said that after he and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) questioned the power of White House “czars,” they both were “called out” on the White House blog.
“This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants,” Alexander said. “If the president and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they’re likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of us who served in the Nixon White House know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.”
Senator Alexander is exactly right. Mr. Hope and Change has taken an active role in further dividing American citizens during his nine months in office. Democrats developed a mass case of the vapors when George W. Bush drew a line in the sand in regard to Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Barry Vladimir Hussein Milhous Soetero Obama wants to play nice with world dictators, but is engaged in a public relations war with American citizens who dare to disagree with The One.
No one is allowed to dissent from Obama. If you take him on, he will try to ruin you. The problem is that President Barry seems to have jumped the shark. The peak of Obama-mania is long past. He cannot bully the entire country. It is clear that this windbag intends to try to smear his political opponents. In the tradition of the legendary dictators, Obama embraces the "Big Lie" and repeats it over and over hoping repetitive dishonesty can replace facts. It is difficult to be the bearer of the "new tone" when you are tossing battery acid on your dissenters.
Obama seems to have a lot of Nixon in him. He is thin-skinned and makes every disagreement personal. However, there is a huge difference. Nixon won re-election by a record landslide. Wanna take bets on whether Barry pulls that off?
Here is video of Senator Alexander's statement from Fox News:
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The "Manufacturing Czar" does not believe in the free market and quotes Chairman Mao. This is the guy who is supposed to oversee job creation in America? What's next? Wavy Gravy as the Dental Czar? Madonna as the Virginity Czar? Kanye West as the Bluegrass Czar? John Walker Lindh as the Youth Patriotism Czar?
The real question is now this: does Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama actually know anyone who loves America and the American way? You know, capitalism, free markets, individual liberty, federalism, the Constitution, baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie? Of course, according to David Ass-elrod and Rambo Emmanuel Obama's den of thieves represent "mainstream America" while Tea Party protesters are a fringe element.
Keep the Commies coming, Barry! Your vision of hope and change is clearly the same communist utopia that has left misery and destruction around the world. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled in 2008. Don't bet on Real America allowing the Demo-fascists to repeat that victory in 2010.
Monday, October 19, 2009
"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.' The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing." --Ronald Reagan
These words come from Ronaldus Maximus' landmark "A Time For Choosing" speech which he delivered in 1964 in support of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Goldwater did not win, but Reagan eventually won twice. Conservatism, at times consigned to the closet by a rudderless Republican party, has remained at the forefront ever since. Even when the GOP sticks the people with the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, the core understandings of Conservatism beat strongly in the hearts of patriotic Americans.
While politicians debate issues on the margins and value the give-and-take of political compromise, Real America focuses on deeper principles. As Reagan said, it isn't about left or right, but rather about whether our nation is headed up or down. Real American understands that President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama is an unrepentant Leftist who wants to push the United States into a State-dependent mode that is foreign to those who truly love this country. They understand that this White House is viciously leading attacks on every source of dissent in America. They do not tolerate honest debate.
The Obama plan for America will take this great nation down into the depths of dependency and slavery. Greater freedom and liberty are the keys to America digging out of its current problems. However, the individual is the enemy to Statists like those in the Obama administration. Liberty has never been in more grave danger than it is right now. Are you willing to stand up and be counted?
Some Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If conservatives are homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If liberals are homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced..
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
World Net Daily reports that Anita Dunn is quite proud of the way the Obama campaign contolled media content. She detailed the O-Train's tactics during a conference with the Dominican Republic's government. Of course, Dunn's recitation of Obama's media manipulation tactics was not shocking. The video shown by Glenn Beck on Thursday was even more troublesome.
Yep, that Mao. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, the one who accused Fox News of journalistic dishonesty, has a political philosophy grounded in the ideology of murderous communist dictator Mao Tse-tung. Now, isn't that special? Of course, I'm sure President Obama is shocked, shocked I tell you.
Never has a White House been staffed by so many people who utterly reject the principles and foundations on which the United States was built. Clearly, the insiders of the Democrat party, including their highest ranking officials, media sycophants, and financial sources, inhabit the far Left of the political spectrum. Those who love this country need to spread the word far and wide. Most Americans who vote for Democrats are voting for a party that no longer exists. There are no Scoop Jacksons or Daniel Patrick Moynihans. The typical Democrat voter is not anti-American, anti-capitalism and anti-liberty. However, they are gulled into voting for individuals who are all of those things.
The stories of Obama's radical friends must be told continually. One could be an oversight, two an accident and three a coincidence. But, it seems nearly everyone who is close to this man is grounded in radicalism. That tells us a lot about the man who was elected the 44th president and what he has in store for America. Change, indeed.
Juan Williams' uses MSNBC demogogue/NBC sports babbler Keith Olberman to make his point. Olberman is mean-spirited an vicious. Whereas Rush Limbaugh uses satire, parody and wages fights on principle, Olberman is just a vile, name-calling cretin. Of course, you may not have known that since it seems few people action watch his show (Mark Levin refers to Olberman's show as "Countdown to No Ratings").
In case you have missed some of Olberman's shining moments, check the links below:
Olbermann: Without 'Fascistic Hatred,' Malkin Is Just a 'Mashed-Up Bag of Meat with Lipstick'
Olbermann: Rush Spawning Beck 'Like Spreading Syphillis'
Olbermann Guest Dan Savage: Beck, Bachmann 'Actively' Trying to 'Get the President Killed'
Olbermann Calls ‘Dead’ Reagan ‘Lousy President,’ Slams Moderate Dem for Lumping Left w/ Right
Olbermann Jokes O’Reilly Is ‘Female Dog,’ Slams Right’s ‘Annihilating’ Obama But Suggested Bush Belonged ’in Hell’
Olbermann Ignores Fmr 'Worst Person' Novak's Death, Once Suggested Will Go to Hell
Yet, NBC allows this jerk to announced NFL games. Divisiveness, huh? How about a football league run by Statist Democrats? The NFL is the PR loser in this kerfuffle. Rush will still rule the golden EIB microphone and provide a daily dose of Conservative vitamins to millions of Patriots (not the New England kind).
Now, according to Newsbusters, braying jackass Al Sharpton is threatening to sue Rush Limbaugh. Newsbusters quotes from CNN:
"Mr. Limbaugh's blatant and defamatory statements regarding the Crown Heights Riots falsely give the impression that Rev. Sharpton was present during the violence that occurred when in reality he had been called in by the family after the violence," Sharpton’s statement says.
"In terms of Freddie's Fashion Mart, Rev. Al Sharpton, along with local elected officials supported the protests. However, a lone gunman who disagreed with the nonviolent nature of the protests entered the store and killed seven people and himself… For Mr. Limbaugh to imply that Rev. Sharpton has anything to do with someone that killed people and himself is blatantly wrong," the statement continues.
Is this going to be Sharpton's defense? Good luck, though I know Big Media will do its best to spin this into Crazy Al being a meek and peaceful Gandhi-like figure rather than the frothing demogogue that he is. It was Sharpton who whipped up anger against Jews and Koreans. It was Sharpton who pronounced non-Blacks as "interlopers" who took advantage of poor Blacks. It is Sharpton who has dedicated his life to the proposition that Blacks and Whites should never get along. That is, unless the Whites are Statists or Marxists who are willing to provide goodies for Sharpton to peddle to his acolytes.
Sharpton was intentionally involved in driving hatred in specific situations, but he can't be held responsible for the ensuing violence? This comes from the same Big Media that blamed Rush for the Oklahoma City bombings. These same lying cretins connected Rush to the murder of the King of Abortions last year. In fact, they have accused him of trying to cause the assassination of President Obama.
Most people who watch the Big Media no longer believe them. The small core who actually does find credibility in Big Media are typically the Leftist Moonbats. Most Americans know that a man who makes a daily case for Conservative ideals and sometimes uses satire and absurdity to do so is not a threat to anyone except Statists and out-of-touch elites. They also know that a scumbag (with apologies to scumbags) who drops into tense situations with a bull horn and no conscience can create havoc.
Good luck with your legal action, Crazy Al. Rush Limbaugh is not some skittish CEO who actually believes you are the spokesman for Black America and a legitimate Civil Rights advocate. Limbaugh knows you are a phony and has his own bully pulpit with which to take you on. To paraphrase Sheriff Brodie, "you're gonna need a bigger bull horn."
Saturday, October 17, 2009
As soon as Limbaugh's name was leaked as a possible owner, the racial McCarthyites went to work.
...Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr.
Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.
Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL.
Al Sharpton and Je$$e Jackson should be seen as the biggest villains in the Black community. Neither has contributed anything positive to their race, while they jostle for lead position as the "spokesman" for all Black people. They are both hustlers and con men. Neither works to improve the lives of Black people. Instead, they build a power base by accusing every political opponent of the Democrat party as a "racist." When a confrontation involving a black person and a white person occurs, Jackson and Sharpton are quick to make sure it is not merely a dispute between two people. Any problem is a product of centuries of racism. By treating Black people as perpetual victims and helpless pawns, these sleaze merchants do more to hold back members of their race than any gang of toothless, backwoods Klansmen could ever do.
Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "
Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.
Michael Wilbon conducted a couple foolish diatribes on the silly ESPN program he shares with Tony Kornheiser. Wilbon and Kornheiser should stick to their normal "Beavis and Butthead" repartee and avoid discussing the complex. All Wilbon could do was use phony "quotes" and out-of-context comments. Look, Wilbon, we get it. You are a political Leftist and the extent of your knowledge is what Keith Olberman tells you to think. Don't embarrass yourself. Stick to second-guessing coaches.
The airheads in sports media have really had it out for Rush Limbaugh since the Donovan McNabb comments that cost Rush his position on ESPN. The "McNabb incident" is indicative of the Big Lie that the American Left has learned from their fellow travelers across the Marxist world. Limbaugh basically said two things about Donovan McNabb:
- He was overrated. If you go back to that time, Limbaugh was certainly not the only one who held that opinion of McNabb. In the period where the Philadelphia Eagles were regularly reaching the NFC Championship game, many pointed out it was the defense and not the quarterback who spurred their success. And since when is calling a player "overrated" a sign of racism? This happens on a daily basis on local and national sports broadcasts. Could it be that this event was racist ONLY because the words were spoken by Rush Limbaugh?
- The other part of the statement was that the media hyped McNabb because they wanted a Black quarterback to be successful. Now, whether this is true or not, how is this a racist statement? It is analysis. Maybe it is right, maybe it is wrong. Rush's point involved the "race consciousness" of the media. Most in the sports media are Leftist Democrats and they see everything in terms of race. How many times have you heard the hyping of an individual as "the first Black fill-in-the-blank?" No matter how removed we are from segregation, Big Media is still consumd by race. Take Sonia Sotomayor. Despite her extreme statements and ridicule of the constitutional role of federal judges, any criticism of her was chalked up to racism. After all, she is the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
The McNabb kerfuffle was a non-incident. Rush Limbaugh referred to a good, but not great quarterback as overrated and poked the media for its hyper-sensitive to race. That was the real crime. Big Media, even in the sports departments, is so full of phonies that they react angrily when they are exposed and ridiculed. The race grievance industry got involved and instructed the dumb masses that Rush Limbaugh had launched a racist attack. The Big Media echo chamber repeated the Big Lie over and over until it became holy writ. Orwell nods.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Last week, Sean Hannity invited "documentary" (wink, wink) director Michael Moore on his Fox show. Hannity gave Moore nearly an hour of air time. More people saw the Leni Riefenstahl of the American Left that night that will buy tickets to watch his latest half-baked propaganda piece. Moore was able to spew his non-sequitors and lies about capitalism (which he clearly could not define) and explain his goofy point-of-view.
Meanwhile, constitutional scholar and talk radio host Mark Levin wrote a book last spring, Liberty and Tyranny, that spent 13 weeks atop the New York Times best-seller list and has remained in the top ten for most of six months. Levin's book has sold over a million copies, which is extremely rare for political non-fiction. The Old Gray Lady provided only a short, half-hearted review of the book. None of the major networks gave one second of coverage to the 13-week number one book on a news program, news magazine show, or morning gab fest.
You see, whereas Hannity was willing to debate Moore and his kooky Leftist ideology, Big Media knows that they cannot intellectually refute the rock solid arguments made by Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny. Levin is not some slob with outlandish pronouncements. He is a clear communicator who has written the best explanation of Conservatism in recent memory. So, despite the incredible success of Levin and his book, Big Media has chosen to pretend Liberty and Tyranny does not exist.
The moral of the story is quite simple. Conservatives know their ideas and their foundations are solid and they can defend them against wacky Leftists. Statist Moonbats realize they only way their anti-liberty, anti-American ideologies can appear plausible is to prevent side-by-side comparisons at all costs. I'm still hoping someone in Big Media will grow a pair and belatedly bring Levin on to discuss his book. That will be "must see TV."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
The man had achieved nothing in life, but knew how to build a brand and deliver a speech. He parlayed those ancillary talents into becoming the 44th President of the United States. Why should it be a surprise that the same gaseous platitudes and Miss America philosophy could result in winning the Nobel Peace Prize? After all, Nobel committee members admitted that Jimmy Carter's Nobel Prize was largely awarded for his verbal tirades against President Bush and American foreign policy. Who does America bashing better than Obama? He has no peer in that field, so he was a natural winner.
The Milli Vanilli president is the emptiest suit to ever enter the political world. Becoming the biggest phony in American politics is truly an achievement. He projects American weakness. The world loves that. He rejects American exceptionalism. That is endearing to the international community. He believes America has been a force for ill around the globe. That makes him part of the in-crowd among the one-worlders.
His "dedication" to peace is clear. He unilaterally nullified agreements to provide defense systems for Poland and the Czech Republic. The Poles and Czechs don't feel safer. He will not meet with the Dalai Lama during the Tibetan leader's trip to America. Obama does not want to offend Red China. He believes the world will be more peaceful if no nuclear weapons exist. Hitler did not have nukes. Mao did not have nukes. Stalin did not have nukes for most of his tenure. Tojo did not have nukes. The man has no understanding of the "peace through strength" principle. He is willing to treat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an equal and negotiate with the terrorist state of Iran. He calls on Israel to give up more land to the terrorists who are attacking them on a daily basis. Obama is praised by Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Moammar Quadaffi. Even French President Nicholas Sarkozy has commented on Obama's weakness and naivete. This is not a picture that will create and preserve greater peace.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
But, I have a better idea. PLEASE, Rush, BUY the Washington Redskins! Daniel Snyder has been a disaster for we Redskin fans. Coaches come and go, players come and go, but that clown with far more money than football intellect remains. We need the Maha-rushee to take over this show. The decision making will be crisper and imagine how sick Democrats will be watching the Redskins, owned by America's Truth Detector, winning Super Bowls while he wins minds and hearts.
Come on Rush, I want to sing "Hail to the Redskins" during the Super Bowl again. Even the Rams have won since the 'Skins last did. Turning D.C.'s football team into a winner again would be the cherry on top for one of America's greatest patriots.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
In Saturday's Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore published his interview with Mackey to talk about the uproar over his health care proposals and other issues. One thing is clear, John Mackey is not the typical CEO.
Mr. Mackey has flown into Washington, D.C., for a board meeting of the Global Animal Partnership, a group that advocates for the humane treatment of animals. There was no private jet: He arrived on Southwest Airlines from Austin, Texas, and he bought the "Wanna Getaway" bottom basement fare. "I barely got the last aisle seat," he says. While in town he stays in the bedroom of his regional president, who lives in Maryland.
For the 12th straight year, Mr. Mackey's company has been praised as one of the "100 Best Companies to Work For" by Fortune Magazine. Whole Foods sells healthy food, practices "socially responsible trade," and prides itself on promoting foods that are grown to support "biodiversity and healthy soils." Mr. Mackey donates 5% of company profits to charity and has been one of America's loudest critics of runaway compensation on Wall Street. And he pays himself $1 a year. He would seem to be a model corporate citizen.
Mackey is not your typical Right Wing Conspiracy member. He runs his business on a set of values that are rare in corporate America. But, what makes him even more impressive is that he doesn't demand that government force other companies to adopt the same policies. Mackey's "controversial" health care statement stirred the Leftist Loons precisely because it provided a path for expanding health coverage without a government takeover.
What Mr. Mackey is proposing is more or less what he has already implemented at his company—a plan that would allow more health savings accounts (HSAs), more low-premium, high-deductible plans, more incentives for wellness, and medical malpractice reform. None of these initiatives are in any of the Democratic bills winding their way through Congress. In fact, the Democrats want to kill HSAs and high-deductible plans and mandate coverage options that would inflate health insurance costs.
The Whole Foods health-care story has been largely ignored by proponents of a government-run system. But it could be a template for those in Washington who want to drive down costs and insure the uninsured.
Mr. Mackey says that combining "our high deductible plan (patients pay for the first $2,500 of medical expenses) with personal wellness accounts or health savings accounts works extremely well for us." He estimates the plan's premiums plus other costs at $2,100 per employee, and about $7,000 for a family. This is about half what other companies typically pay. "And," he is quick to add, "we do cover pre-existing conditions after one year of service."
Whole Foods also puts several hundred dollars into a health savings account for each worker.This money can be used to cover routine medical expenses, like drug purchases or antismoking programs. If that money is not used in a year, the workers can save the money to pay for expenses in later years.
This type of plan does not excite proponents of a single-payer system, who think that individuals can't make wise health-care choices, and that this type of system is "antiwellness" because it discourages spending on preventive care.
Mr. Mackey scoffs at that idea: "The assumption behind that is that people don't care about their own health, and that somebody else has to—a nanny or somebody—has to take care of me because people are too stupid to make these decisions themselves. That's not been our experience. We find our team members [employees], not surprisingly, seem to care a whole lot about their health."
Here is the problem: President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and the Democrats in the Kremlin on the Potomac do not want a solution to the current problems that impact the availability and cost of health care. They want to control it. It is that simple. These Statists believe that the only solution is to give your health responsibility to the people who have created more debt in eight months than the previous 44 presidents ran up in 220 years.
You can read more about Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and his views on CEO pay, labor unions and other issues here.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Now that creeping socialism has morphed into sprinting Marxism under President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama, Czarina Pelosi, and Court Jester Reid some states are starting to remember that they have every right to tell the Kremlin on the Potomac to pound sand. The New York Times reports on the growing 10th Amendment movement across America. It seems the trigger for many is the Democrats' desire to make it a criminal offense to not purchase health insurance. Funny, but the Constitution does not seem to provide such authority to Congress.
Congress' powers are clearly outlined in Article I of the Constitution. And what of those things not mentioned in the Constitution? See the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Got it? Members of Congress who introduce bills or vote for bills that fall outside the parameters of the Constitution are violating their oath of office. The government does not belong to them. The Constitution is still in effect and "We The People" have every right to demand that these arrogant tyrants remain within their lawful boundaries. During the town hall meetings in August, more than one Congressperson and many Statist pundits talked about legislators living in fear. My response? Good! We are citizens not subjects. When they seek to take away individual liberty and freedom from American citizens we should be loudly engaged. If they want to "turn down the temperature" they can start by recognizing their authority is limited by the Constitution. But, as long as they desire to rule over the people they cannot expect politeness and civility from their victims.
The 10th Amendment is the ultimate trump card for the states against an abusive and invasive federal leviathan. However, that powerful statement was unnecessary in the eyes of Founding Father James Madison, who wrote in Federalist No. 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
No constitutional amendment has changed that principle. It has been attacked by successive waves of legislators who do not wish to abide by the constraints of limited government. But, there it remains. As long as liberty's flame flickers in the hearts of Americans, it is never too late to reclaim the birthright bequeathed to us by the Founders and protected by successive generations of brave soldiers.
Hopefully, a new awareness of the precarious state of American liberty will lead to a revitalized and committed Republican party that will wrest the federal government from the clutches of the Statists who currently hold the keys. In the meantime, it is our duty to support courageous state legislators and governors who are willing to fight for their legitimate powers. If you want to learn more about the 10th Amendment in action, check out the Tenth Amendment Center and their on-going fight for the rights of the states and of the people.
The topic of the former president’s inflammatory accusation came midway through the CNN correspondent’s live interview during the 8 am Eastern hour. Crowley had first asked Carter about the revamp of his presidential museum and library. Before turning to the Obama/race issue, she also prompted Mrs. Carter, who was also present, to comment on the future of mental health care.
Carter was clearly defensive about his allegation when Crowley brought it up. The correspondent put her question this way: “Mr. President, let me ask you first- domestically, you made some remarks recently about how you felt about the protesters that were protesting against President Obama. You said, overall, you thought the protesters were upset that there was a black president, that there was racism involved.” The former president interrupted, “By the way, that’s not what I said.”
The Democrat continued that “I said, those on the fringe element that had vituperative personal attacks on President Obama- those were the ones that I included.” Crowley attempted to read her paraphrase again, but Carter shot back, “No, it wasn’t. If you read the remarks carefully, you’ll see that’s not what I said. I
said those that had a personal vituperative attack [sic] on- on President Obama
as a person- that was tinged with racism, but I recognize that people who disagree with him on health care or the environment, things like that- the vast majority of those are not tinged by racism.
”That’s not what you said the first time around, Mr. Carter. MRC’s Brent Baker transcribed the key portion from the interview in question from NBC Nightly News on September 15:
CARTER: I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the south and I’ve seen the south come a long way and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the south's attitude toward minority groups, at that time particularly African-Americans, that that racism [unintelligible word] still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people, not just in the south, but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me
Crowley replied to Carter’s version of what he said, “So you think they were taken out of context. You didn’t mean that most of those protesters out there were racist.” Carter answered, “I meant exactly what I said. That I actually said, if you look at the transcript, is just what I just repeated to you.”
Jimmuh Cahtuh is a disgrace and the biggest embarrassment to ever inhabit the White House. He is a man who exploited race for his own benefit when segregation was still popular in Georgia and, less than a decade later, portrayed himself as a champion of civil rights. The real Jimmy Carter is an anti-semitic political opportunist with no soul.
The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry by Steven Hayward
National Review interview with Steven Hayward about The Real Jimmy Carter.
A diluted Republican message is the watermark of Rubio's Republican primary opponent Charlie Crist, the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s anointed
candidate in the race. Crist campaigned around Florida supporting President Obama’s “stimulus” spending spree and, after an “environmental summit” last
year, proposed his own version of a “cap-and-trade” plan which the state legislature rejected.
“The United States does not need two Democratic parties,” Rubio insists, and, despite the Democrats’ stranglehold in both the House and the Senate, the makeup of Republicans who did get elected proves Rubio’s point. The group of conservatives in the U.S. House -- known as the Republican Study Committee -- now has 113 members, which means it represents well over half the total GOP (177) members in the House...
...“I think next year’s elections, especially in the Republican primaries, are going to be a lot like a political Halloween,” Rubio said. “A lot of people are going to come dressed to the party like conservatives, but in fact, in the real…world, they haven’t been that, not in a principled way.
It’s exactly the kind of race Republican ‘leaders’ like the NRSC (not to mention the chairman of the Republican party in Rubio’s own state) are saying Rubio can’t win, and exactly the reason why Rubio is running -- because he sees a disconnect between party leaders and constituents. For example, Rubio says the majority of Americans don’t want to see their government adapting a Western European style invasion into the economy.
One thing that has been clear at the Tea Party events I have attended, including the Million Patriot March in D.C., is that grass roots Conservatives are as angry with phony Republicans as they are with Leftist Democrats. Simply placing an (R) after the name does not impress the revived political awareness of Real America. True Conservatives who will legislate on principle are valued. Polished politicians with no soul can keep moving.
Can Rubio win? All indications are that he can, as discussed by George Will in The Washington Post. However, whether Rubio or Crist is likelier to win the Florida seat is irrelevant. Crist's loyalty to Conservatism will be based on the most recent poll. If the political winds dictate, he will support the Democrats at every turn. When Republicans support Leftist/Statist legislation, they give legitimacy to those who disrespect the Constitution and the American people. The RINOs are the reason the GOP took a beating in 2006 and 2008. The last thing Republicans need to do is elect more.