We had an election. We worked hard to make a difference in Washington and in our local elections. We thought we sent a clear message and that both the Democrats and Republicans would 'get it'. The Republicans keep saying they got it. It appears they didn't.
I'm watching what is going on in this lame duck session and I am more disgusted than ever. It seems to me that the Republicans are simply playing a tricky shell game. They are moving targets, hiding behind a "good" vote in order to shove through a "bad" vote.
I picture a group of the Republican top dogs sitting around discussing the START treaty. They want it to go through but know the public is against it, that there are extremely valid reasons to wait until next year. Maybe the START treaty was a benign, so they thought, vote they could "give" Obama and crew if they gave the Republicans a victory in another area.
Discussion ensues as to how they're going to appease the voters yet obtain their objective... The current powers-that-be in the Republican hierarchy scrutinize the records of each of their co-horts, checking to see how strong they are in their home states and decide Georgia's Johnny Isakson is on point, is to be one of the designated sacrifices to get the thing through. They allowed him to vote the way they think the public would like on a requisite number of votes and now it's his turn to give one up for the team.
They know they have Scott Brown, Olympia Snow and the liberal end of the Republican Party, they just have to come up with a few more to get it through. Then they can beat their chests to the public and say they really didn't want the START treaty to pass. Lindsey Graham, who has been sliding in the estimation of conservative voters, is allowed to be the one to act like he's righteously indignant, is in tune with the tea party/9-12, etc. conservatives.
Isakson says he can't go it alone, his fellow Georgian Saxby Chambliss is going to have to vote, too. He also wants to make sure he's going to get some pet project included somewhere along the line if he's going to take one for the team. Negotiations start.
I have come to believe that on each of the votes that "we" have lost during the lame duck session, and prior, that type negotiation, or something very similar, has happened. These past few weeks Republicans have handed over victory after victory to the Democrats and Obama. It would be interesting to track the pattern of who votes on the Dem side on various controversial bills over time to see how the shell game works. They've always played it, but now it seems they've gotten a little sneakier.
As with any shell game the shill running the game is faster well able to fool most of us. Even knowing we're being duped it's virtually impossible to catch them at their game.
Yes, we busted the Omnibus bill, sent the Dems packing on that one. But we could have had it all. We could have held them off until the next session. If the Republicans stood strong we would have started fresh instead of ending the year with a whole lot of horrific baggage.
I guess we're going to need to work even harder to get rid of the rest of them and hope they haven't corrupted the new bunch we just sent to Washington by the time we send them some support in two years. I didn't expect things to change overnight, but I certainly wanted to believe that more would have gotten the message.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Dem administration advancing 'North American Union' agenda
- from back on the 16th, but I'm just now reading it... so I'm just now sharing with you. Reprinted with permission.
By Jerome R. Corsi
(c) 2010 WorldNetDaily
Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.
The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision."
"Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries," the State Department declared. "The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of 'hold the line' and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management."
At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness," to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. "Beyond the Border Working Group."
The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.
Under the Bush administration's SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different "shadow government" bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.
WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North America Community" called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.
In his 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community," American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored "Building a North American Community," called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.
The language of the documents declaring "A New Border Vision" with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor's book.
The 2005 CFR report "Building a North American Community" called on page xvii of the Foreword for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that "A New Border Vision" for the U.S. and Canada would involve "a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries."
Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for "A New Border Vision" with Mexico specified five areas of "joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel," namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.
Under "setting policy," the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through "an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level."
This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic "working groups" established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.
CTV News reported that the draft declaration of "A New Border Vision" with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:
* An integrated cargo security strategy;
* A joint approach to port and border security and screening;
* Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;
* A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;
* A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.
Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada "intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries."
The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.
The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as "the eurozone."
The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
WND has reported analysts have believed the North American integration plan will proceed incrementally, largely below the radar, since the SPP was declared "dead" by one of its chief architects, American University Professor Robert A. Pastor, who for nearly 15 years has been a major proponent of building a "North American Community."
By Jerome R. Corsi
(c) 2010 WorldNetDaily
Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.
The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision."
"Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries," the State Department declared. "The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of 'hold the line' and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management."
At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness," to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. "Beyond the Border Working Group."
The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.
Under the Bush administration's SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different "shadow government" bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.
WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North America Community" called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.
In his 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community," American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored "Building a North American Community," called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.
The language of the documents declaring "A New Border Vision" with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor's book.
The 2005 CFR report "Building a North American Community" called on page xvii of the Foreword for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that "A New Border Vision" for the U.S. and Canada would involve "a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries."
Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for "A New Border Vision" with Mexico specified five areas of "joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel," namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.
Under "setting policy," the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through "an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level."
This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic "working groups" established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.
CTV News reported that the draft declaration of "A New Border Vision" with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:
* An integrated cargo security strategy;
* A joint approach to port and border security and screening;
* Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;
* A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;
* A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.
Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada "intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries."
The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.
The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as "the eurozone."
The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
WND has reported analysts have believed the North American integration plan will proceed incrementally, largely below the radar, since the SPP was declared "dead" by one of its chief architects, American University Professor Robert A. Pastor, who for nearly 15 years has been a major proponent of building a "North American Community."
Friday, December 17, 2010
Remarks on the House floor by Congressman Paul Ryan (WI-01)
Senior Member of the House Ways and Means Committee; Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee
December 16, 2010
Let me address just a few of the issues that I have been hearing here on the floor. I'm hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying "We just can't afford these tax cuts." Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a "tax cut". What we're talking about here is not cutting taxes; we're talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases.
Second point: "We – meaning the government – can't afford this?" Whose money is this after all? Is all the money that is made in America Washington's money, government's money? Or is it the people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax: "This is going to give a windfall to these people. All this money going to these privileged people who have built these businesses, made all this money." It's their money! We have a country built on equal, natural rights, where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, earn success – and yes, pass it on to your kids. What on earth is wrong with that? That's the American dream.
To my friends on my side of the aisle, who simply do not like some of the spending in this bill: I do not like it either. Let's cut the spending next year when were in charge. There is junk in the tax code, everybody agrees with this. This is advancing some of the junk in the tax code and what I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle next year: let's get rid of the junk in the tax code when we are in charge. Right now – let's not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.
If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: we need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy. We need prosperity in the country. We need job creation. We need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes.
Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. It's only a two year extension [of current tax rates]. We're not talking about a pro-growth economic package. We're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the American people in about two weeks. The last thing you want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off and lose jobs. So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do and that is exactly what we are going to be advancing.
We need economic growth. We need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing, and I think that's exactly the message that voters sent us. Let's prevent this tax increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year. Let's make sure that when people go home for Christmas, they know that they are not going to have a massive tax increase a few days later.
This is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. This is not a bill that is going to turn it around. Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn our economy around.
December 16, 2010
Let me address just a few of the issues that I have been hearing here on the floor. I'm hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying "We just can't afford these tax cuts." Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a "tax cut". What we're talking about here is not cutting taxes; we're talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases.
Second point: "We – meaning the government – can't afford this?" Whose money is this after all? Is all the money that is made in America Washington's money, government's money? Or is it the people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax: "This is going to give a windfall to these people. All this money going to these privileged people who have built these businesses, made all this money." It's their money! We have a country built on equal, natural rights, where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, earn success – and yes, pass it on to your kids. What on earth is wrong with that? That's the American dream.
To my friends on my side of the aisle, who simply do not like some of the spending in this bill: I do not like it either. Let's cut the spending next year when were in charge. There is junk in the tax code, everybody agrees with this. This is advancing some of the junk in the tax code and what I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle next year: let's get rid of the junk in the tax code when we are in charge. Right now – let's not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.
If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: we need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy. We need prosperity in the country. We need job creation. We need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes.
Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. It's only a two year extension [of current tax rates]. We're not talking about a pro-growth economic package. We're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the American people in about two weeks. The last thing you want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off and lose jobs. So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do and that is exactly what we are going to be advancing.
We need economic growth. We need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing, and I think that's exactly the message that voters sent us. Let's prevent this tax increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year. Let's make sure that when people go home for Christmas, they know that they are not going to have a massive tax increase a few days later.
This is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. This is not a bill that is going to turn it around. Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn our economy around.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
President George W. and Laura Bush to Sign Books in Atlanta!
signing
George W. and Laura Bush
Decision Points
Thursday, December 16, 2010 • 11:30 AM
>>Borders – Atlanta - Buckhead
3637 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. C | Atlanta, GA | 404.237.0707
Customers MUST have a wristband in order to attend the event. A limited number of wristbands will be distributed on Wednesday, December 15th beginning at 10:00 am at the Borders Buckhead while supplies last. One wristband per person. EACH customer must purchase one copy of both Decision Points and Spoken From the Heart to receive a wristband, with a limit two books of each title per person. For
George W. and Laura Bush
Decision Points
Thursday, December 16, 2010 • 11:30 AM
>>Borders – Atlanta - Buckhead
3637 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. C | Atlanta, GA | 404.237.0707
Customers MUST have a wristband in order to attend the event. A limited number of wristbands will be distributed on Wednesday, December 15th beginning at 10:00 am at the Borders Buckhead while supplies last. One wristband per person. EACH customer must purchase one copy of both Decision Points and Spoken From the Heart to receive a wristband, with a limit two books of each title per person. For
Monday, December 13, 2010
Net Neutrality: Will Netflix destroy the Internet?
The FCC is slated to make some decisions on the issue on net neutrality on December 21. Given a looming video-inspired bandwidth crunch, it's important those rules are less about "rights" than economics.
READ FULL STORY
READ FULL STORY
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Change the future... become a Hollywood star!
Want to really make a impact on the future? I've put some thought into all the things we're doing to turn this big American boat around and headed back in the right direction. We are doing a lot of the right things. In some cases we're feeling our way slowly, making a few rookie mistakes, but overall our tugboats are changing the course the country has drifted onto.
It took us a long time to get here and we missed a lot of the slow nudges that got us where we are today so we can't expect to fix things overnight.
I started noodling on how we could keep the country on course long after you and I have passed on. What could we do to have a long-term, ongoing impact?
Here's a few things I came up with.
Raise our children to take over the media. We need news reporters, commentators, media outlet owners, producers, and worker bees.
Raise our children to be movie 'stars', producers, directors, buy up or start companies and be the most needed behind-the-scene workers.
Raise our children to be teachers, college professors, instructors and to be involved if they can't go into the field. We need more conservatives in the PTO / PTA's. Let 'em join the Unions, work their way up the ranks then turn them into feed and cloth the hungry organizations or some sort of organization that could have a positive impact on something other than wallets.
We already have plenty of kids who are headed into politics I'd imagine. Every child is taught that they could be the next President!
What we need is to take a page out of the lib playbook. They've infiltrated or flooded the outlets that capture our children's minds and every day they twist and shape the future.
I know we can't really train or force our children in the directions I mentioned above. We're not raising robots or mindless individuals who go where we point. In fact, if we steer them in one direction chances are they'll rebel and end up as 3-piece suit wearing bankers or corporation owners! Which is not a bad thing by any means.
However, we can talk to them while we're watching television and plant the seeds that it would be great to have more balanced reporters, movie stars who had strong values, teachers who understood the Constitution. We could talk about how great it would be to be a Robert Murdock who puts value on fair and balanced reporting. We could point out the conservative movie stars who were able to 'make it' like Kelsey Grammar or Jon Voight (although we do need to find some younger examples for upcoming kids I'd think!).
I wonder if our college conservatives are considering anything other than the normal career paths? I can't imagine how tough it would be as a college age kid to try and go into the Arts!
Anyone else have ideas for shaping our future?
It took us a long time to get here and we missed a lot of the slow nudges that got us where we are today so we can't expect to fix things overnight.
I started noodling on how we could keep the country on course long after you and I have passed on. What could we do to have a long-term, ongoing impact?
Here's a few things I came up with.
Raise our children to take over the media. We need news reporters, commentators, media outlet owners, producers, and worker bees.
Raise our children to be movie 'stars', producers, directors, buy up or start companies and be the most needed behind-the-scene workers.
Raise our children to be teachers, college professors, instructors and to be involved if they can't go into the field. We need more conservatives in the PTO / PTA's. Let 'em join the Unions, work their way up the ranks then turn them into feed and cloth the hungry organizations or some sort of organization that could have a positive impact on something other than wallets.
We already have plenty of kids who are headed into politics I'd imagine. Every child is taught that they could be the next President!
What we need is to take a page out of the lib playbook. They've infiltrated or flooded the outlets that capture our children's minds and every day they twist and shape the future.
I know we can't really train or force our children in the directions I mentioned above. We're not raising robots or mindless individuals who go where we point. In fact, if we steer them in one direction chances are they'll rebel and end up as 3-piece suit wearing bankers or corporation owners! Which is not a bad thing by any means.
However, we can talk to them while we're watching television and plant the seeds that it would be great to have more balanced reporters, movie stars who had strong values, teachers who understood the Constitution. We could talk about how great it would be to be a Robert Murdock who puts value on fair and balanced reporting. We could point out the conservative movie stars who were able to 'make it' like Kelsey Grammar or Jon Voight (although we do need to find some younger examples for upcoming kids I'd think!).
I wonder if our college conservatives are considering anything other than the normal career paths? I can't imagine how tough it would be as a college age kid to try and go into the Arts!
Anyone else have ideas for shaping our future?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
As Races End, Tea Party Plans for Next Phase
Tea-party leaders, cheering as some of their movement's most prominent figures won U.S. Senate seats in Kentucky and Florida, said Tuesday's elections were only the beginning of their quest to transform government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591081953307288.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTopStories
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591081953307288.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTopStories
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Republicans, Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, Pajamas Media...
Yowzer, this "alert" paints us all as bad, bad, people... Ya'll need to quit complaining about voter fraud, it's upsetting the left ... Hey, according to these guys, it never happens, we're making it up...
You do know this kind of stuff is used to stir up their base, right? We knew it was going to be a tough election, can't begin to imagine what's going to happen between now and 2012 election...
From Minority News (Black Radio Network):
POLITICAL TURMOIL
Editors Note: The following was released today by Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy, of Project Vote a national nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) that works to empower, educate, and mobilize low-income, minority, youth, and other marginalized and under-represented voters.
WASHINGTON - As the hotly contested November election nears, it should be no surprise that voter intimidation and suppression schemes are ramping up too. Even beyond the usual partisan pre-election hysteria, this year the Tea Party has made "voter fraud" a rallying cry. Never mind that it's been proven time and again that voter fraud is largely a myth; it excites the right-wing base...
http://www.blackradionetwork.com/page.php?storyID=17939
You do know this kind of stuff is used to stir up their base, right? We knew it was going to be a tough election, can't begin to imagine what's going to happen between now and 2012 election...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Fired for wearing a USS George H W Bush shirt and hat
There's a much better story / video on World Net Daily, but for some reason the code isn't working on here, just keeps vanishing. So, here's a link: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=220049
I heard about this yesterday, or maybe the day before and didn't follow up to look at the details. Unfortunately, I am so used to this kind of story I just glanced and kept on going. But you know, if we don't pay attention to every story, if we don't speak up, if we don't keep fussing or commenting when things like this occur, then sooner or later it will become commonplace and people will just accept the new norm... so, I'm sharing and fussing.
Back in the 60's and 70's it was supposedly all about 'free speech', the rights of the individual... ah, how times haven't changed. Now they're mouthing the same words and thoughts, but the reality is glaring and many of those who might have been participated in the sham back then have wised up. It was and is really all about conformity, shutting down speech and expressions that don't promote a certain point of view. The intolerance of the unions, the left, the "I know better than you" crowd is, well, um, intolerable. I am fine if others want to speak their mind, but when they step over the line to stop me from speaking mine simply because they disagree, then they're nothing but dictators.
Think back to the 60's and 70's if you're old enough or have done some studying of that period of time. Everyone had to hate the war, wear the same type clothes, like the same kind of music, hate those money-grubbing capitalist pigs, hate the chemicals and pesticides, and so on. False words back then that captured the minds of the young, false words now that are doing the same thing... except those 60's and 70's "rebels" are now in positions of power and they're corrupting the minds of the young. Difference being they're now the rich fat-cats in many cases.
I'm so glad that we have a venue to speak our minds... and that many of us don't expect everyone to conform... that we truly believe in individual responsibility... that we've wised up...
Friday, October 22, 2010
Two stories to ponder...
Union Leads in Outside Spending
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is "now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections" and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates. Said the head of AFSCME's political operations: "We're the big dog. But we don't like to brag."
AND
Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that "hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority." Said Biden: "We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we'll keep control of the House. The only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has]."
---
Money. ONE group is funneling $87 plus million to Democrats while Biden blathers about anonymous donations backing Republicans. One is a fact, the other is more Biden smoke. I thought it was interesting to see both stories, somewhat counter to each other, in the same email update (Teagan Goddard's Political Wire).
The Dems are laying the groundwork for the thrashing they're going to try and give the Republicans if they wrest control of House and / or Senate from Dems. I'm sure Democratic operatives already have strategies in place across the country for the way they're going to attack Republicans, blame them, attempt to twist things to bamboozle the American public over the next two years.
Think about how the try to blame the MINORITY Republicans for every lost vote, how they cast them as the party of no, the ones who have stopped Obama's agenda. Barf. Ooops, I guess that wasn't exactly an elegant response.
They conveniently forget that they held Congress for the last two years of Bush's term and stopped the reforms of Freddie Mac / Fannie May that Bush wanted... and blame Bush for all the problems we're experiencing.
I can see the slime oozing as they speak sometimes.
If we thought the last two years were bad, wait until we have the ability to really do something. The plans are being laid and the media is being primed. We need to be prepared, too.
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is "now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections" and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates. Said the head of AFSCME's political operations: "We're the big dog. But we don't like to brag."
AND
Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that "hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority." Said Biden: "We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we'll keep control of the House. The only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has]."
---
Money. ONE group is funneling $87 plus million to Democrats while Biden blathers about anonymous donations backing Republicans. One is a fact, the other is more Biden smoke. I thought it was interesting to see both stories, somewhat counter to each other, in the same email update (Teagan Goddard's Political Wire).
The Dems are laying the groundwork for the thrashing they're going to try and give the Republicans if they wrest control of House and / or Senate from Dems. I'm sure Democratic operatives already have strategies in place across the country for the way they're going to attack Republicans, blame them, attempt to twist things to bamboozle the American public over the next two years.
Think about how the try to blame the MINORITY Republicans for every lost vote, how they cast them as the party of no, the ones who have stopped Obama's agenda. Barf. Ooops, I guess that wasn't exactly an elegant response.
They conveniently forget that they held Congress for the last two years of Bush's term and stopped the reforms of Freddie Mac / Fannie May that Bush wanted... and blame Bush for all the problems we're experiencing.
I can see the slime oozing as they speak sometimes.
If we thought the last two years were bad, wait until we have the ability to really do something. The plans are being laid and the media is being primed. We need to be prepared, too.
Mara Liasson may have safest job in the country...
NPR has placed themselves in an untenable situation.
After the debacle of Juan Williams absurd firing, any of their analysts or reporters who want to make money as contributors on Fox News should now have carte blanche. NPR can't fire Mara Liasson. If they do, they prove what everyone knows, not just the conservatives --- it's a lib media outlet.
Of course, they should also have to fire Mara Liasson based on their rationale for firing Juan. She expresses her opinions sitting right next to Juan every Sunday and at other times, too.
NPR would also have to fire Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and well, Vivian Schilling, NPR's CEO.
One of the reasons given for firing Williams in an internal NPR email by Schilling was "analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts."
Right after issuing that she spoke publicly about the situation making references to Williams psychiatrist, inferring he was seeing one regarding his views. Views I might add that are shared by most libs and conservatives and even many Muslim Americans. Schilling rambled on, giving her opinions about the situation and, in my opinion, she opened NPR up to a slam-dunk lawsuit from Williams. Slam-dunk as long as the case doesn't end up in front of a lib activist judge.
If NPR is serious about the reasons they gave for firing Williams, then they need to clean house. I've been listening to NPR for countless years. My drive back and forth to work used to take 45 or more minutes each way. I enjoyed NPR then and still have it on my radio dial and listen to some of the shows. I had to quit listening to some of the shows I used to enjoy simply because there was so much Bush bashing, trashing of conservatives, and now they go after the Tea Party and others.
Listen to NPR for any length of time and Schilling's assertion that views are expressed by those they interview, not their reporters and analysts is cow poop.
All day yesterday I saw examples on TV and via the Internet of their so-called balanced reporters and analysts bigoted comments in regards to conservatives. They are down-right nasty in some of the comments they've made on ABC, NBC, CNN and other outlets. Newsbusters has documented a list that is damning and they only touched on a few examples.
The hypocrisy of NPR is appalling.
The donation of over a million dollars by George Soros with all the stipulations he included is interesting, possibly sinister.
I'd like to see what would happen if George Bush, Karl Rove or some other conservative NPR and friends likes to trash made a donation with similar restrictions. What if they wanted NPR to hire 100 conservative reporters? Sponsor conservative programs? How many of you think that all of a sudden there's be a policy violation of some sort that kept them from accepting the money with strings?
NPR needs to 'fess up, get honest. Then they need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off tax-funded welfare. If they have programming that America wants to hear then they should be able to survive without living off the federal teat and begging for money.
Speaking of begging for money, this is their annual fund-raising week. I would bet that every lib out there is ponying up right now to ensure they have a big week just to make a point. I would also bet that phone lines are going to be tied up with people complaining about the firing of Juan Williams.
I need something to make me giggle... I think I'm going to call and make a nice donation to NPR this week with some strings... re-hire Juan Williams, fire Schilling.
-----
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dismisses Tea Parties as 'Cockamamie'
NPR's Nina Totenberg on Friday night was unsure as to whether the tea parties have "any legs are not" since "at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it." On Inside Washington she called the anti-tax and anti-spending rallies "a good stunt," before declaring Americans "pay relatively small taxes" and then lecturing those unappreciative protesters about how taxes provide, as if they want taxes totally eliminated, "a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." To which, Newsweek's Evan Thomas chimed in: "I'm all for paying more taxes."
Christine M. Flowers: Foul air at National Public Radio
By Christine M. Flowers
Philadelphia Daily News
AFEW months ago, Mississippi Public Radio temporarily dropped "Fresh Air," the program hosted by local legend Terry Gross. The reason given was the program's "gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature." Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/20101022_Christine_M__Flowers__Foul_air_at_National_Public_Radio.html#ixzz135NBwGBr
Terry Gross and Bill O'Reilly: Round Two
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Sept. 21, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: About a year ago, I appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, hosted by Terry Gross (search), to talk about my book, "Who's Looking Out for You," now out in paperback. The interview became very, very controversial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html
After the debacle of Juan Williams absurd firing, any of their analysts or reporters who want to make money as contributors on Fox News should now have carte blanche. NPR can't fire Mara Liasson. If they do, they prove what everyone knows, not just the conservatives --- it's a lib media outlet.
Of course, they should also have to fire Mara Liasson based on their rationale for firing Juan. She expresses her opinions sitting right next to Juan every Sunday and at other times, too.
NPR would also have to fire Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and well, Vivian Schilling, NPR's CEO.
One of the reasons given for firing Williams in an internal NPR email by Schilling was "analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts."
Right after issuing that she spoke publicly about the situation making references to Williams psychiatrist, inferring he was seeing one regarding his views. Views I might add that are shared by most libs and conservatives and even many Muslim Americans. Schilling rambled on, giving her opinions about the situation and, in my opinion, she opened NPR up to a slam-dunk lawsuit from Williams. Slam-dunk as long as the case doesn't end up in front of a lib activist judge.
If NPR is serious about the reasons they gave for firing Williams, then they need to clean house. I've been listening to NPR for countless years. My drive back and forth to work used to take 45 or more minutes each way. I enjoyed NPR then and still have it on my radio dial and listen to some of the shows. I had to quit listening to some of the shows I used to enjoy simply because there was so much Bush bashing, trashing of conservatives, and now they go after the Tea Party and others.
Listen to NPR for any length of time and Schilling's assertion that views are expressed by those they interview, not their reporters and analysts is cow poop.
All day yesterday I saw examples on TV and via the Internet of their so-called balanced reporters and analysts bigoted comments in regards to conservatives. They are down-right nasty in some of the comments they've made on ABC, NBC, CNN and other outlets. Newsbusters has documented a list that is damning and they only touched on a few examples.
The hypocrisy of NPR is appalling.
The donation of over a million dollars by George Soros with all the stipulations he included is interesting, possibly sinister.
I'd like to see what would happen if George Bush, Karl Rove or some other conservative NPR and friends likes to trash made a donation with similar restrictions. What if they wanted NPR to hire 100 conservative reporters? Sponsor conservative programs? How many of you think that all of a sudden there's be a policy violation of some sort that kept them from accepting the money with strings?
NPR needs to 'fess up, get honest. Then they need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off tax-funded welfare. If they have programming that America wants to hear then they should be able to survive without living off the federal teat and begging for money.
Speaking of begging for money, this is their annual fund-raising week. I would bet that every lib out there is ponying up right now to ensure they have a big week just to make a point. I would also bet that phone lines are going to be tied up with people complaining about the firing of Juan Williams.
I need something to make me giggle... I think I'm going to call and make a nice donation to NPR this week with some strings... re-hire Juan Williams, fire Schilling.
-----
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dismisses Tea Parties as 'Cockamamie'
NPR's Nina Totenberg on Friday night was unsure as to whether the tea parties have "any legs are not" since "at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it." On Inside Washington she called the anti-tax and anti-spending rallies "a good stunt," before declaring Americans "pay relatively small taxes" and then lecturing those unappreciative protesters about how taxes provide, as if they want taxes totally eliminated, "a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." To which, Newsweek's Evan Thomas chimed in: "I'm all for paying more taxes."
Christine M. Flowers: Foul air at National Public Radio
By Christine M. Flowers
Philadelphia Daily News
AFEW months ago, Mississippi Public Radio temporarily dropped "Fresh Air," the program hosted by local legend Terry Gross. The reason given was the program's "gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature." Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/20101022_Christine_M__Flowers__Foul_air_at_National_Public_Radio.html#ixzz135NBwGBr
Terry Gross and Bill O'Reilly: Round Two
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Sept. 21, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: About a year ago, I appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, hosted by Terry Gross (search), to talk about my book, "Who's Looking Out for You," now out in paperback. The interview became very, very controversial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Love Chris Christie! Video with Meg Whitman, shutting up a heckler...
We hafta clone this guy somehow.
Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
In a fascinating interview on CNN, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) makes clear he's not a big fan of Andrew Cuomo (D).
Said Spitzer: "The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there and that is his reputation from years in Washington."
"When his father was governor, he was the tough guy. He has brass knuckles and he played hard ball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody's been willing to stand up to him. When it appeared he was going to win, it was inevitable. If it appears not to be inevitable, things may change."
"He has a lot of folks, he's really been on the wrong side of who may stand up and say, wait a minute, he may not want to pretend he plays that game. He does, and he's worse at it." Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
Said Spitzer: "The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there and that is his reputation from years in Washington."
"When his father was governor, he was the tough guy. He has brass knuckles and he played hard ball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody's been willing to stand up to him. When it appeared he was going to win, it was inevitable. If it appears not to be inevitable, things may change."
"He has a lot of folks, he's really been on the wrong side of who may stand up and say, wait a minute, he may not want to pretend he plays that game. He does, and he's worse at it." Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
----
Seems to me there are a LOT of nasty, hard-hitting, rotten eggs in political office AND running for political office. It's amazing how much I've learned since starting to pay attention to those who shape our future. So glad for the Internet which gives us the ability to read all sides of issues (usually it's more than two sides, more like a circle of swirling opposing ideas!).
I know it takes someone with high regard for their own abilities to run for office. You also have to have super strong skin and the ability to think fast, talk smart. But some of these people are certifiable or psychopaths it seems. Not saying Cuomo is either, don't know much about him... Thought it was interesting that a fellow Dem, albeit one with questions attached to his reputation, would come out with the above.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Fantastic ad, please watch and share
Someone just zapped a link to this on Twitter... sorry, didn't catch who it was or I'd say thanks on here. This is a great ad, hope you'll help make it viral, spread it around.
Note: I haven't checked out Citizens for the Republic, but watched a few of their videos, saw their president talking with Cavuto on Fox News. Seems like a group I could get behind...
Note: I haven't checked out Citizens for the Republic, but watched a few of their videos, saw their president talking with Cavuto on Fox News. Seems like a group I could get behind...
Ms. Big Stuff Murkowski
Change the lyrics very slightly... and think Lisa Murkowski... or maybe even Barack Obama. Big Stuff. Who do you think you are?
Jean Knight, Mr. Big Stuff
(Oh yeah, ooh)
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now because you wear all those fancy clothes (oh yeah)
And have a big fine car, oh yes you do now
Do you think I can afford to give you my love (oh yeah)
You think you're higher than every star above
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now I know all the girls I've seen you with
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit
You made 'em cry, many poor girls cry
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
I'd rather give my love to a poor guy that has a love that's true (oh yeah)
Than to be fooled around and get hurt by you
Cause when I give my love, I want love in return (oh yeah)
Now I know this is a lesson Mr. Big Stuff you haven't learned
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna break my heart
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna make me cry
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Just who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
Jean Knight, Mr. Big Stuff
(Oh yeah, ooh)
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now because you wear all those fancy clothes (oh yeah)
And have a big fine car, oh yes you do now
Do you think I can afford to give you my love (oh yeah)
You think you're higher than every star above
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now I know all the girls I've seen you with
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit
You made 'em cry, many poor girls cry
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
I'd rather give my love to a poor guy that has a love that's true (oh yeah)
Than to be fooled around and get hurt by you
Cause when I give my love, I want love in return (oh yeah)
Now I know this is a lesson Mr. Big Stuff you haven't learned
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna break my heart
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna make me cry
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Just who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
Morning laugh... and rant...
Murkowski Campaign Misspells its Candidate's Name
Given that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) hopes thousands of Alaskans will write her name onto their ballots, she can't be happy that her campaign pulled an ad after urging voters to go to "LisaMurkwski.com", the Washington Post notes.
Ironically, the ad aimed to inform voters how to correctly file a write-in ballot.
-----
Loved it that Republicans are punishing Murkowski. She is the poster child for "it's all about me, Me, ME". She is putting her own ego above that of not just the people of Alaska, but the Republican party as a whole, conservatives across the country and the overall future of our country.
Ya know, sometimes you just have to be willing to put your own hurt and anger aside and try to channel your better side. She probably could have used her loss and status to garner respect and a good job of some sort, maybe even come back in a few years to run for another seat successfully. The fact that she chose to hurt and lash out rather than do the right thing shows that she is not someone we want in office. The sense of entitlement that some of our political 'elite' have is shameful.
One note on the Murkowski name misspelling -- from what I've heard, it's doubly critical for her because if anyone misspells her name on the ballot, it's tossed. SO, if someone puts an "a" instead of the "o" or a "y" instead of the "i", the ballot is tossed. Let's hope that there are a lot of ballots tossed, or better yet, so few that they give her ego the beating it deserves.
If Joe Miller loses and the seat goes to a Democrat because of her ego, she will be a pariah forever. I hope Joe Miller trounces both his opponents.
Given that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) hopes thousands of Alaskans will write her name onto their ballots, she can't be happy that her campaign pulled an ad after urging voters to go to "LisaMurkwski.com", the Washington Post notes.
Ironically, the ad aimed to inform voters how to correctly file a write-in ballot.
-----
Loved it that Republicans are punishing Murkowski. She is the poster child for "it's all about me, Me, ME". She is putting her own ego above that of not just the people of Alaska, but the Republican party as a whole, conservatives across the country and the overall future of our country.
Ya know, sometimes you just have to be willing to put your own hurt and anger aside and try to channel your better side. She probably could have used her loss and status to garner respect and a good job of some sort, maybe even come back in a few years to run for another seat successfully. The fact that she chose to hurt and lash out rather than do the right thing shows that she is not someone we want in office. The sense of entitlement that some of our political 'elite' have is shameful.
One note on the Murkowski name misspelling -- from what I've heard, it's doubly critical for her because if anyone misspells her name on the ballot, it's tossed. SO, if someone puts an "a" instead of the "o" or a "y" instead of the "i", the ballot is tossed. Let's hope that there are a lot of ballots tossed, or better yet, so few that they give her ego the beating it deserves.
If Joe Miller loses and the seat goes to a Democrat because of her ego, she will be a pariah forever. I hope Joe Miller trounces both his opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)