Friday, September 04, 2009

Save Us From The "Czars."

Let's review.

Obama appoints some 50 "Czars" with no vetting or confirmation, and these people are in charge of billions of dollars of tax money.

The MSM reporters have no interest in even googling these people.

Glenn Beck decides that might be a good idea.

Beck and our own Gateway Pundit easily finds that the “Green jobs” czar Van Jones is a Truther. A truther, if you're not familiar, is someone who believes 9-11 was an inside job perpetrated by our own government.

Jones now says he never believed that, even though the spokesman says that the petition Jones signed was verified by personally speaking with each person that signed it. Wow. He must be taking lessons from Obama. Just pretend that your past statements don't reflect what you believe. The people will buy it. No worries!

Let's not stop there though. 9-11 trutherism is just a part of Jone's resume and he is not alone:

We have already established that the czars and officers are Leftwing extremists with wildly radical views that make even the likes of Nancy Pelosi look moderate. The FCC's new 'chief diversity officer' believes that the Communist revolution in Venezuela that brought Hugo Chavez to power is a good model for the United States. Another czar actually advocates for the concept that animals have the right to legal representation. And yet another is a self-avowed, self-described Communist who serves as the 'green energy czar.' His name is Van Jones.

The fact that Barack Obama has formulated an inner circle of the most extreme radicals in the country bodes ill for citizens who value liberty and the Constitution.

Let's not forget that this man is in charge of allocating billions of dollars of our tax money as well.

Maybe, just maybe, this will sound the alarm in the MSM and some brave true journalist will actually investigate these "Czars," with so much power and not accountability.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Update on the President's speech to schoolchildren

Jake Tapper of ABC News just tweeted that so far school districts in six states, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois (Obama's home state!), Viginia, and Texas are now refraining from showing students the President's speech on Tuesday. That's 4 blue states and 2 red states.

I keep trying to tell you guys that this isn't about "rightwingers."

Keep checking for updates. I have a feeling there will be more.

Democrats, You Reap What You Sow

On Wednesday ABC’s Good Morning America correspondent Jake Tapper reported, "Since taking office, President Obama's approval ratings have fallen more steeply than any other newly-elected president in modern history."

There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that Obama campaigned and ran as a moderate and called for a new civility and bi-partisanship, and then proceeded to govern in a complete opposite fashion from that.

He quadruped the deficit, hit the ground running in expanding the government, and appointed some 50 "Czars," many that are far left extremists, that were never elected nor confirmed or approved by anyone. He rammed through a $787 billion stimulus bill that didn't stimulate anything. He then insists on adding a $1 trillion dollar health care bill to a deficit expected to reach $9 trillion in 10 years. All this with no bi-partisanship in sight.

Many Democrats implore Americans to give Obama more time. They feel that conservatives are constantly trashing the President, and that the Tea Parties are nothing more than a way to bring Obama down.

What do I say to that? I say, Welcome to our world for the last eight years. Those that bemoan the division in our country now defined by the townhalls and tea parties, are the same people who smeared, vilified, and disrespected our President for eight years. NOW you want everything to be "kum ba ya" since your guy is in charge? It just doesn't work that way.

I don't agree with disrespectful signs towards any President, but it's hard to take the Democrats seriously when they cry out against "Nazi" signs that the LaRouch people are carrying around, when they themselves said nothing about the paper mache Hitler/Bush masks at anti war rallies or the term "Bushitler" we endured endlessly. The "Birthers" (those that don't believe that Obama was born here) are ridiculous, but so were the "Truthers" (those that believed 9-11 was an inside job). Both are 2 sides to the same coin. The difference is that Republicans don't name them as Czars.

Personal smears regarding our President, no matter who he or she is, is unacceptable to me, but sometimes people reap what they sow. The left sowed disrespect, smears, and lies about Pres. Bush for eight years and NOW they are upset when some of that is being thrown at Pres. Obama?

Cry me a river.

I hear people say "You guys only want to tear down Obama." Well, what did you guys do for eight years?

If Pres. Bush had governed as far right his first year as Pres. Obama has governed far left his first year, the left and the media would have EXPLODED.

Americans really believed that Obama would be more gracious to Republicans. They believed that he would govern from the middle. Now that it's clear that his is a far left agenda, Americans are rising up against it. It's clearly not just Republicans either.

If I could make my fellow citizens be more respectful of Pres. Obama, I would. But the left can hardly complain about behavior that they themselves mastered for eight years.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Pres. Obama to speak to the nation's schoolchildren

You probably have heard by now that Pres. Obama is going to be beamed into all schools K-12 on Sept. 8th for 20 minutes to give a speech on the importance of education.

Someone sent me this a while ago and I didn't think much of it. But it has turned into a controversy, with many parents vowing to keep their kids home from school that day.

I talked about this with Claver on the radio this morning on KCHN. First, this is just another thing to put in the file "what if Bush has done that," and how the left would have gone nuts, but that file is about 2 stories high and will continue to grow the next few years.

I don't think this would bother me at all if it were just Pres. Obama speaking. It's the "kits" that they are sending out to the teachers to go along with it that is bothering me (see "Menu of Classroom Activities" here). The White House has already changed one of the suggestions in the kit:

It said, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the President."

Now it says "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short term and long term education."

Even they realized how the first question was all about the President.

After the speech the teachers can ask:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

The problem here, and it would have been a problem with Bush as well, is that students have parents of different political stripes. Students that don't like the President and his policies would probably reflect that in their answers and in their writing. I'm betting for some "creative" answers, especially in jr high and high school. I'm thinking there will be some doozies.

What if their teacher is pro-Obama? Will they feel some resentment toward the kids that obviously don't like our President or make jokes in their answers? Will that affect their grades maybe?

That's the problem with putting politics into our school system.

It's fine for the President to encourage a good education. I have no problem with that, and I'm sure that is all that he will do. I'll be shocked if he tried to slip in some political propaganda. He isn't stupid. But it's the questions afterward that will cause problems. I teach my kids to always show respect. I don't allow them to make jokes about Pres. Obama, even though I disagree with him. But to pose specific questions like the ones above, will surely bring out the smart alec in the kids of conservative parents and others.

I don't think one should keep their kids out of school though. President Obama will not say anything that would offend any of us. The questions are the problem. I can't very well tell my kids not to express their feelings or opinions.

I guess I will hope for the best, but I'm not going to keep my kids from getting their education because Obama has decided that he has to be everywhere all the time.

Update: The left is just appalled that we would be upset at a President speaking directly to our schoolchildren. They seem to remember that the first Pres. Bush spoke to schoolchildren. I guess they forgot to also look up the Democrat's reaction to that:

From Oct. 4th, 1991 Washington Post:

"..Representative William D. Ford, the Michigan Democrat who heads the House Education and Labor Committee, demanded that Education Secretary Lamar Alexander appear before the committee to defend his "spending scarce education dollars to produce a media event." And the House majority leader, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, said, "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the President."


I'll be on KHCN 1050 am on "The Christian Politician" 9:30am central this morning! Listen live here:

Here Comes Compromise

So Pres. Obama sees his legacy on a health care bill slowly swirling down the drain. He realizes it's past time for him to step up to the plate and do something. As early as next week Obama will go on TV (again!) to sell Americans on his health care reform.

My prediction? He will drop the public option and promise no abortion coverage. These are two things that Americans, for the most part, don't like. The left will go freakin crazy, but he knows they have no where to go. They will support him for re-election no matter what.

But for right now, he needs to pass health care reform. He needs this to be his victory. If he has to give up the public option and abortion to do it, he will.

If he doesn't do that or if he tries to keep those things and just put another spin on them, he will lose.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Wake Up America

Many people see Glenn Beck as some "The sky is falling" loon, that just scares people to get ratings. But what if the person sounding the alarm wasn't a TV host? What if he was an expert and came from our own government? What if he was so alarmed that he quit his job so that the could educate Americans on what is happening right before their very eyes?

Meet Dr. Alan Carlin and David Walker

Dr. Alan Carlin, a federal Environmental Protection Agency official, wrote a report in March, 2009 that criticized the EPA’s process of formulating regulations, the report was squashed both internally and publicly. Emails from EPA officials state that “a very negative impact on our office” made use of the report impossible. To protect the bureaucracy, Dr. Carlin was told to cease his criticisms.

Such officials must often make a choice: to remain silent and keep their jobs, or to resign and speak the truth. Faced with this dilemma, on March 12, 2008, David Walker chose to resign.

David Walker is the former Comptroller General of the United States, and former head of the Government Accountability Office. As the nation’s chief accountant he was appointed by President Clinton. He resigned near the end of George W. Bush’s second term. He had no authority to decide how a single penny of government funds should be collected or distributed. His job was to count those funds.

Read about his report at the link when he plotted economic trends. This was his assertion:

When Walker plotted these trends, and considered demographics among many other factors, what he found was “chilling.” If fundamental reforms are not begun now, he concluded, the United States will experience a financial and political collapse comparable to the fall of Rome.

Not only are we not looking at fundamental reforms, we are expanding government and entitlements. We are rushing head long into the fire.

The bottom line is this: mandated fiscal entitlements, projected into the future, are over 52,000 billion dollars. That will equal 90% of all household wealth in the U.S., and will place a burden of over 450 thousand dollars on every household in the land. This is almost ten times the present median household income level.

This unsustainable.

I don't care who we blame it on. Blame it on Bush, blame it on Clinton, blame it on Obama, blame on Democrats, blame it on Republicans. I don't care. But for God's sake, wake up America! We have are in a canoe and we can hear the rushing waters of the waterfall up ahead. If we don't turn around....Will we even recognize what is left at the bottom of the waterfall?

I Like It

Michael Steele "Seniors Bill of Rights" TV ad

Starts today nationwide. Pretty good.

We Were Wrong

Watching Glenn Beck as he outlines how our freedoms are being taken away bit by bit, inch by inch, every day in this country, it occurred to me that we Republicans were wrong on a number of things during the Bush administration.

We were wrong about The Patriot Act. We were wrong about warrantless wiretaps. You see, we believed at the time that these things were necessary to protect us in the war on terror. We trusted Bush on this.

We were WRONG.

We should never trust ANYONE in the government to restrict our freedoms in any way. Now that we have someone in office that we Republicans don't trust, we should see that.

Democrats now should see that any power that the Obama administration retains will be a power that will be retained if and when we have another Republican President. Not a pretty thought for you Democrats out there, is it? Imagine if a Republican President had 50 Czars that had no vetting and no confirmation. A lot of power with no accountability. You liberals would be pretty upset by that, wouldn't you? And you would have good reason to be.

It's time for people, of all political stripes, to demand that our government not grab more control over our lives. We have GOT to stop trusting our government just because our guys are in charge.

Isn't this ONE thing we can all agree on?

Monday, August 31, 2009

The Kennedy Whose Death We Should Be Honoring

Everyone who knew Eunice Kennedy loved her. I've never heard or read one harsh word spoken against her. She was a woman of great faith, of great compassion, and life dedicated to serving God and others.

She was a loving mother and a devoted wife. She founded the movement that became Special Olympics. She saw people with disabilities as God saw them, as precious human beings, special and wonderful in their own way.

Oprah put Eunice right up there with Obama:

Eunice Shriver lived as a champion, and I admired her so much. She was the first (and besides Barack Obama, the only) person who ever inspired me to say, "If you run for president, I'll campaign for you." This was in the 1980s. I believed then and still do that she would have made a great president. She embodied the idea of leader as servant.

She didn't run for President or Congress though. She did much better. She went out and made a difference, not by a vote or a campaign, but by her sheer determination, by her own hands. She never sought the limelight. Never needed the adoration of the public. Her work and her family were her fulfillment.

She had money of course, but she didn't live the socialite lifestyle. If she was a liberal, and she certainly saw herself as one, then I wish most liberals were like her. The Democrat party could learn a lot from her.

But on one key issue she differed from most of her family, but of course, not from her Catholic faith. This woman understood the sanctity of life, and wasn't going to let being a Democrat get in the way of the truth:

Along with her husband, Sargent Shriver, Eunice belonged to America’s dwindling population of outspoken pro-life liberals. Like her church, she saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life.

In 1990, Shriver wrote a letter to The New York Times denouncing the misuse of a quotation by President Kennedy used out of context by a pro-choice group. During Bill Clinton's 1992 Democratic U.S. presidential campaign, she was one of several prominent Democrats who signed a letter to The New York Times protesting the Democratic Party's pro-choice plank in its platform.

She lived her faith consistently. If only the rest of the Kennedys had followed her lead. Not only in faith, but in a life well lived. An honorable life filled with compassion, love, and faith. There were no skeletons in her closet, no youthful indiscretions, no shame.

A true role model.

This is the Kennedy we should have spent days and days covering on TV. This is the Kennedy that deserved the wall to wall coverage and well earned praise.

But in death, just as in life, we tend to not appreciate the angels among us.

Palin Power Continues...

From Politico:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin this week will begin accepting and rejecting the more than 1,070 invitations she has received for paid speeches and political appearances since she resigned from office, aides said.

Twenty speakers’ bureaus made offers to represent her. She has signed with Washington Speakers Bureau, which represents everyone from George and Laura Bush to Bob Woodward and Katie Couric to Alan Greenspan, Colin Powell and Rudy Giuliani.

More than 950 requests for speeches have poured in for Palin, and over 120 candidates for office have asked her to appear, including folks running for Senate, House and state Legislature, aides said.

I am loving it.... Make the money girl, you deserve it. Spread the truth. Because that is what you do.

The Good Wife

I just finished reading a fiction novel titled "The Good Wife." It was about the wife of a member of Parliament in Britain. It got me to thinking about the "good wives" of our politicians. The ones who have had to face their husband's adultery in the glare of the spotlight. There have been quite a few recently.

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards, Jenny Sanford, Wendy Vitter, Silda Wall Spitzer,and Dina Matos McGreevey.

All except Dina McGreevey stayed with their husbands. Since her husband's desires were for men, she hardly had a choice.

One wonders why all these women stay. Many argue that Hillary stayed for political reasons. She wanted to be President and she needed the political connections and popularity of Bill to do that. If she were divorced that might hurt her chances.

If that is true, it makes her defeat by Obama even more tragic for her. She endured all that humiliation and still didn't win.

But for the rest, and perhaps for Hillary as well, it seems clear to me why they stayed.

The children.

It's why so women many stay. I can't imagine another reason that would cause strong capable women, who could certainly make it on their own, to stay with men who not only had betrayed them, but did it in the public eye with the world watching. I cannot begin to imagine their pain. Vitter and Spitzer's wives have the added disgust of their husbands cheating with prostitutes. Elizabeth Edwards has to endure a child born to her husband's mistress. Insult to injury. My heart truly goes out to them for what they have suffered. Many women understand the pain of adultery, but imagine if it was done with the whole world knowing the details. These are strong women.

The thing about children is that you can't change who their father is. You can't divorce that. What women see when they look at divorce is that no matter what a scoundrel your husband was or is, most children still look up and love their Dad.

A mother's love cannot be measured. When they think of divorce, they see a life where their children might have to have a trophy step-mother. They see a life of dating again. They see the pain of other children who have gone through divorce.

And they decide to stay.

They touch their children's faces as they lay sleeping, and they know in their heart that if they can forgive their husbands, if they can put away their pain, if they can pick up the pieces of this marriage, then these children can have a mended family. These children can have their mom and dad together.

It's a tough and rough road. It takes a strong woman. It takes an unselfish woman.

I'm not saying that women who have divorced are not all those things, or that they chose wrong. Each marriage has it's own story. I cannot judge those who see a failed marriage as better than what they were living. I've seen too many marriages that were better ended to judge that way.

But you have to admire these women. To put up with so much. To carry on despite it all. In the south we call them "steel magnolias."

Some women might say, "I would never put up with that." But for our children, we will put up with just about anything.

No one can know how it will all turn out for these women. But if I had to guess, I would bet turns out well. Wounds will heal. Scars remain. I think their husbands will realize what incredible women they married. Life goes on, and it is and always has been what we make of it. These women will make it. They will endure. They will learn to love their husbands again and their husbands will embrace it.

Love can make it all happen.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

CIA, Interrogations, and The Lies Of the Obama Administration

Once again Obama has lied to us when in April he said he wanted to look forward and not backwards and wouldn't prosecute CIA interrogators involved in interrogations after 9-11. Attorney General Eric Holder also lied:

"Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past," the president added. "For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted."

At the time, Holder added: "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."

I'm beginning to wonder how many times the American people, both right and left, are going to put up with such blatant lies from this administration. The left has had their share of lies from Pres. Obama as well, with him keeping warrantless wiretapping and rendition, and the fact that not a single member of his foreign-policy and national-security team opposed the war, which is probably why we are still in Iraq and are ramping things up in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from his rhetoric during the campaign where he said, “I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.” Well, I think everyone's pretty confused actually.

Let's boil this down to a few key points:

From The WSJ:

Regardless of whether one believes CIA-inflicted waterboarding, sleep deprivation or severe psychological coercion (suggesting that harm could come to a family member of a taciturn al Qaeda detainee) constitute torture, such actions may have produced an intelligence bonanza and saved thousands of lives.

There are those who argue we could have gotten the information in a different way, and nothing justifies waterboarding. I happen to agree with them. I don't think we should have done it, but I also realize that one can't dispute the fact that it worked.

9-11 was such a horrible and tragic time in our history. We were confronted with an enemy that didn't mind, in fact relished, dying in order for Americans to die as well. There is no doubt in my mind that any administration, Republican or Democrat, would not have done anything differently in the CIA to get information to keep us safe. It's clear now that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on these techniques, including waterboarding, and didn't protest at the time. She can't admit it, but she obviously thought we should do ANYTHING to get information to keep us from being attacked again as well. That is why I am convinced that neither side of the aisle would have done anything differently, no matter how much they bray about it now.

It's fine for us to look back, farther away from the horror of 9-11, and decide that we need to do things differently next time, if there is a next time. And as much as I might disagree with what interrogators did, I think the idea of prosecuting them for participating in interrogation techniques that as Holder said was "was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," is just flat out wrong.

This is political. Nothing else. It smells of an administration that wants attention focused on anything else, but themselves, and no "profanity-laced screaming" from CIA director Leon Panetta is going to change it.

I don't suppose the Obama administration thought that maybe the attention would be focused on the fact that they lied about not prosecuting AND the fact that the interrogations did work.

This is an administration that is still playing the campaign game and not understanding that it's time to govern. It shouldn't be about proving your opposition wrong. Leadership is about leading forward. We thought Obama realized that, but now it seems clear he does not.

No Conscience

I couldn't bear to watch any of the Kennedy funeral. But I am not surprised to read over at HotAir that one of Kennedy's grandson prayed for universal health care.

No, it doesn't surprise me that they are politicizing Kennedy's death, or using a child and the prayers of the faithful to further a political agenda.

Nothing surprises me out of this family. Especially after learning more of the details of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. As I wrote earlier, it was just last week I learned that she survived under the water in an air pocket for up to 2 hours, and could have been saved. Then today I find out that when Kennedy went back to his hotel room he called the front desk at 2:25am to complain about noise coming from a room next door saying that he couldn't sleep.

No conscience. That is what is clear. This man had no conscience.

So for all of you who think that votes or causes make up for all the women he used, the faith he spat upon, and the death he caused....It does not.

I hope we are done talking about him. May God have mercy on his soul.