Just Another One of Those "Fishy" Blogs
New Editorial!! Want Texas Independence? Stop Taking Federal Money!
Will Malven
7/28/2009
Wow! The natives (senior citizens) are getting restless out there in AARP land.
The AARP held a "town hall meeting" with President Obama today and proved once again that the organization nothing more than a water-carrier for the Democrat Party and this President.
The audience was carefully selected to be supportive of the President and the questions carefully screened and prepared for. Once more we have seen this "most carefully scripted President in history" performing before a sympathetic audience.
A quick visit to the AARP Bulletin webpage lets us read the AARP's position on "health care reform." It reads like it was lifted directly from one of President Obama's speeches.Where We Stand: Health Reform Now
By A. Barry Rand, CEO
Source: From the AARP Bulletin print edition July 1, 2009
All Americans should have affordable health care choices. But our current health care system costs too much, wastes too much, makes too many mistakes and gives us back too little value for our money. Moreover, roughly 47 million people, more than 7 million of them ages 50 to 64, are left out of the system altogether because they don’t have health insurance.
This has to change. For too many people, lack of affordable, quality health care is closing the door on the American dream. Moreover, our current health care system is unsustainable, not just for individuals but also for employers and government. I know from experience that unsustainable growth in health costs places a huge burden on American businesses. If these costs aren’t restrained, total spending on health care will rise from 16 percent of GDP in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025 and 49 percent in 2082, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s a price tag that we as a nation simply can’t afford.
AARP's health policy priorities
It’s also why health care reform is AARP’s top priority. We simply can’t fix the economy without restructuring the delivery of health care, expanding access and cutting costs. For families and workers, the loss of jobs has been compounded by pay cuts and reduced insurance coverage. Among the most vulnerable are people 50 to 64 who lack employer-sponsored insurance. For too many of them, the individual insurance market is often unavailable at any price because of exclusions for preexisting conditions..."
Gee Barry, do you think you could be in the pocket of the Democrat Party any deeper?
AARP has been flacking for Democrat policies for decades under the guise of doing for America's senior citizens. Doing for?...more like doing to. Though they claim impartiality, their arguments come directly from the Democrat Party playbook. They claim that they don't support any specific one of the plans now being reviewed in Congress, but one only has to read the CEO's statement to know where the organization's allegiance lies.
Remember, no one in Congress has read the complete bill...NO ONE! In an address at the National Press Club luncheon, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) said:[remember, this guy is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee]“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.'
What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Yeah, that's right John, you don't need to know what it is you are voting on, just vote for it and hope for the best...YEEESH! With representation like that in Congress, no wonder we are in such dire straits. Here's a clue for you John, if you can't read the bill without two lawyers, maybe it's a bad bill.
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of these "health care reform" bills, most having to do with the inevitable rationing of health services that universal coverage necessitates. Every nation that has gone the route the President is now attempting to take us has been forced to ration access to health care, often with tragic results for those who are forced to wait months instead of weeks for diagnostic and remedial services.
Fortunately we don't have to look to Canada or Europe to see the natural results of government run health care, we have an American test case in Massachusetts which has established a state mandated coverage system. Nick named "Romney care," because it was one of former Governor Mitt Romney's most touted accomplishments during the Republican Presidential primaries. Under Romney care the average time to see a doctor has risen from 23 days, before universal coverage, to 50 days. The Boston Globe tells the story:
...Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a Texas-based consulting and physician recruiting firm, surveyed 1,162 doctors' offices in 15 metropolitan areas, trying to replicate what new patients would experience if they were searching for a doctor for a nonurgent appointment, including a heart checkup, a skin exam to detect possible cancer, knee injury or pain, a gynecological exam, and a complete physical exam...
Here is a chart from the Merritt-Hawkins health care study:
Everywhere this sort of government run or government mandated health care has been attempted, you will find the same sort of results. Longer wait times for critical health care services.
Another of the promised results of Obama care and its congressional variants is that it will lower health care costs. That promise is implied in the position statement of AARP's CEO I excerpted above in which he mentions the rising health care costs. Again we can look to Massachusetts for real world American data and the data tell us that costs have risen under Romney care.
The question is, why is AARP so strongly supportive of these initiatives when any of them will result in longer waiting times and higher costs? Won't both of these problems hurt senior citizens rather than help them? Could it be that the Democrat Party agenda is more important to them than providing us senior citizens with better services? It looks that way to me.
Fortunately there are alternatives to the AARP. RetireSave is a grassroots seniors' issues advocacy group which claims over 400,000 members. If you want a more objective view of what is going on with issues directly affecting us, RetireSafe looks like a good place to start.
For a senior citizens advocacy group that provides other services like Medicare Insurance prescription discounts and other senior discounts, the American Senior Association looks to be our best bet. I am currently investigating how they perform and what sorts of benefits they offer and I will report back at a later date. ASA memberships are just $15.00 per year, so cost is not much of a concern.
There is no justification for an organization like the AARP claims to be to hold a biased political position or to be an advocacy group for one party. It is inexcusable; especially when the policies they are advocating would do more harm to senior citizens than good. We must not be held hostage to one single group like AARP.
I hate to give my seal of approval to any organization before I have fully checked them out, but the ASA seems to be a legitimate alternative to AARP's biased and unhealthy relationship with the Democrats.
Besides, it is never a bad thing for groups like these to have competition. The more of us who leave AARP to ASA, the more power ASA will have to lobby Congress on our behalf and to negotiate deals with private businesses to provide discounts to their members. It will also send a strong message to AARP that their members are not happy with their Left-wing agenda and it will send a strong message to Congress that AARP does not speak for a majority of us American seniors.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
Labels: AARP, American Seniors Association, ASA, senior citizen issues
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Senator Cornyn Newsletter: No on Sotomayor
Will Malven
7/24/2009
Credit where credit is due. I was very critical of Senator Cornyn's initial statement regarding President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be a Justice on the Supreme Court in which he said he wished to maintain an open mind until the confirmation hearings.
Although very little new was learned as a result of those hearings, Judge Sotomayor has had her day in the sun (such as it was) and the time for declaration has come. I am very pleased to say that Senator Cornyn has stated in his latest newsletter that he cannot support her nomination.
Judge Sotomayor's own statements condemned her for an activist, Liberal adjudicator who has repeatedly expressed opinions that demonstrate an undue sensitivity to racial issues.
I understand the need for a US Senator to be somewhat more reserved than a blogger like me in expressing his opinion even when the issues are relatively clearly defined as they have been in the Sotomayor nomination, so it is very pleasing to see this announcement from the Senator.
It will make little difference in her confirmation how Senator Cornyn votes as Democrats and some "RINO" Republicans have already made their intent to confirm her clear, but it is good see that some Republicans are still willing to stand up to the all too common Liberal accusations of "racism" every time someone votes contrary to their social edicts.
Here is Senator Cornyn's statement:"Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor. I had the opportunity to ask Judge Sotomayor to explain some of her troubling past statements and her judicial philosophy to determine what kind of justice Judge Sotomayor would be if confirmed. Unfortunately, I cannot support Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation because she failed to convince me that, as a Supreme Court Justice, she will adhere to a restrained judicial philosophy that delivers fair, impartial, and equal justice for all. Issues of deep importance to Texans are sure to come before the Supreme Court in the coming years, like whether or not to weaken the Second Amendment right of Texans to keep and bear arms. I am also concerned that the Court will fail to protect the Fifth Amendment private property rights of Texans from cities and states that want to condemn their property for non-public uses, and that the Court will expand the right to abortion and other liberal social policies that appear nowhere in the Constitution.
Thank you Senator Cornyn. You had me worried a bit given the pressure I'm certain you received from some in the Latino community. Would that those same voices were as loud and insistent when Judge Miguel Estrada was opposed by Democrats simply because he was a Latino.Nov. 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye toward voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible. [All three memos are available here. Emphasis added]
At least with Sotomayor there are legitimate concerns about her willingness to substitute her own opinion for what the Constitution says. At least there is no memo circulating between Republican Senators stating that they must oppose her because she is a Latina like there was circulating among Democrats during the Estrada Hearings.
Funny how it is always the those on the Left, always so ready to toss out the epithet of racist, who turn out to be the real racists.
Anyway, kudos to Senator Cornyn for voting his conscience and resisting the knee-jerk race-vote lobby.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/23/2009
Once again we see that Democrats in Congress will go to any lengths to prevent the truth from getting out about the Obama-care health care bill now in Congress. Proof once more that Democrats care nothing about the American people or solving their problems, they care only about controlling us.
Roll Call has the low-down on these devils and their efforts to keep the voters out of the loop:
Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing
July 23, 2009
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.
House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
Democrats don't want you to see it because it shows just how screwed up the health care plan really is. It is a bureaucratic nightmare of huge proportions.
The flow chart resembles a game board designed up by some crazed, uninformed, Liberal politician (which of course it was) with a maze of arrows and colored blocks, each of which represents some bureaucratic hurdle consumers must overcome before they receive treatment.
I doubt very seriously the famous cartoonist Rube Goldberg could have designed anything more complicated...or ridiculous.
Governmental interference caused the current financial crisis and Democrats are attempting to solve the problem with governmental interference.
Governmental interference caused the health care crisis and true to form, Democrats are hide bound to "solve" it with...you guessed it...more governmental interference.
Here's a clue to you Democrats out there. No matter how much you wish it were so, the federal government has never accomplished anything better, more efficiently, or cheaper than private enterprise...NEVER!!!
Given that undeniable fact; proven over and over again, why on Earth would anyone look to our federal bureaucracy to solve a problem as complex, far reaching, and intrusive on the individual's privacy as health care?
One can only surmise that it derives from profound and over-arching stupidity. Certainly there appears to be enough of it to go around within the Democrat Party; beginning with our current president and the majority leaders in both houses of Congress.
Well, I'm doing my little part to get the message out to Republicans and all American citizens. With the web and all of the alternate news sources it has, Democrats will fail in this effort to censor Republicans in Congress and once more prove that they oppose the free flow of information of value to their own constituents.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!Labels: Cowardly Democrats, health care, Obama Care, Republicans
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Surprise! Obama Lies about healthcare bill, slanders doctors and Cambridge policeman
Will Malven
7/23/2009
President Obama is a master at speaking a lot of words while saying nothing, but last night's performance was simply amazing. He held a one hour "press conference" in which he took just 11 questions and spent 41 minutes answering them. Wow! Just wow.
As for the content of his statement and answers, has there ever been a more accomplished liar in the White House? Obama puts even Bill Clinton to shame in the ease with which he lies.
The topic of this alleged "press conference" was the floundering congressional health care reform bill, the text of which can be found here.
To say that the president put his spin on the plan would be an understatement of historic proportions.
When asserting that this plan will broaden coverage to every American without increasing federal costs, our Liar in Chief uses an interesting rhetorical ruse...he is claiming credit for doing something for the American people while nothing is done until after he is firmly ensconced in the White House for his second term. When it comes time to pay the piper President Obama will be untouchable.
I've already covered the old canard about "you can keep your present coverage if you are happy with it" in previous blogs, Kennedy healthcare plan: buying a pig in a poke and Lawmakers clash over cost of health care overhaul (let the games begin),
but I have listed it here again with some of the other more memorable lies Obama told last night (it would be impossible to list them all).- "Six months ago, I took office amid the worst recession in half a century. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse."
The recession of 1980-1982 was much deeper.
- "As a result of the action we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. And we passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones;"
Excuse me? This economy has lost 2.5 million jobs in the past four months. The President Obama and Democrats in Congress promised that the "stimulus" package would provide a quick injection of money into the economy. They are now claiming that it was never intended as a quick fix.
- "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade – and I mean it.
A lie by omission. The Congressional plan is back-loaded with much of the cost to the federal government occurring after 2012 (after the 2012 Presidential elections have concluded). Interestingly, the number of Americans this plan will cover will not increase until that same time. The truth is that according to the CBO the current congressional plan will increase the national deficit by $239 Billion between the years 2010 and 2019. Virtually all of that additional tax-burden will accrue after 2012.
- "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket.
This is a lie by implication. Obama is implying that the plan currently before Congress will prevent healthcare costs from "skyrocketing." But the Director of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf (a Democrat appointee) testified before Congress that the bill would increase federal costs:
CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – HEALTH
By David Clarke and Edward Epstein
July 16, 2009 – 12:52 p.m.
The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.
That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills.
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, who has not yet released a bill, said his panel is acutely aware of the long-term cost concern. “Clearly our committee will do what it can,” he said. “We are very seriously concerned about that issue. We very much want to come up with a bill that bends the cost curve.”
Uh-oh Mr. President looks like you have a little difficulty with the facts.
- If you already have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it.
As long as nothing changes in your plan. If your insurer makes any change to the terms, conditions, or benefits (like copays or deductibles) your policy is no longer qualified and you will be forced to move to a "qualified plan" as defined by a commissioner. Additionally, said insurer cannot enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day the new healthcare plan comes into effect. Pages 16 & 17 of the bill.
- "...we know that we're spending -- on average we, here in the United States, are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries where they're just as healthy and I've said this before, if you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you'd want to figure out how to get that deal."
People in those other nations are not getting the same health care Americans are getting, that is why they all come to our nation to get treatment for conditions that their own nation's health care system either won't provide or ration thus requiring long waiting times.
As I said, this is just a smattering of the many lies he interspersed in his mostly meaningless blather as he avoided answering any questions of genuine substance.
Additionally during this performance, he managed to slander the Cambridge Police for properly arresting Professor Henry Gates saying they "
acted stupidly."
He also slandered doctors, accusing them of prescribing treatments based on how much money they would be paid rather than assigning treatment based on the needs of the patient.
The President's performance really was spectacular; a tour de force of blaming, lying, and obfuscation.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/17/2009
It has been over a month since the citizens of Iran took to the streets to protest the stolen elections that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the nation's presidency and still President Barack Hussein Obama has not spoken out in support of their desire for self-determination.
Oh yeah, he has criticized the methods being used to put down the protestors. He has called the actions of the Iranian government and the Ruling Council "appalling" (a really strong condemnation in diplomatic speak, similar to regular people saying "You've been really, really bad so straight to bed and no supper for you.") and he has described their actions as violating "basic international norms," (can you imagine using such strong language?) but he has never bothered to express support for the aims of the protestors and their desire for the basic human right of self-determination.
The American President is a coward who is more concerned with his image and standing with dictators than he is with the rights and liberty of individuals. This comes as no surprise as he seems to be most comfortable with those leaders who rule over despotic regimes. After all, his domestic policies resemble that same paradigm of ruling the nation rather than governing.
Far from "improving America's image overseas," he has become a symbol of weakness and cowardice to those who believe in freedom and individual liberty. Obama is most comfortable with top-down government. His agenda of government run healthcare, government run banking, and government run industry more resembles those of the failed socialist states of the cold war than the paradigm set forth by our Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
Even those in Iran like former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani have shown more courage in the face of their oppressive government than Obama has from America. He spoke out yesterday against the continued violence being used by the ruling council to suppress protests by the Iranian people.
Perhaps that is because our President envisions taking similar actions against the American people as our own protests continue to gain popularity and momentum in the face of his aggressive socialist agenda.
From the Washington Post:Rafsanjani says Iran in crisis after election
By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl
Reuters
Friday, July 17, 2009; 8:45 AM
TEHRAN (Reuters) - In apparent defiance of Iran's supreme leader, a powerful cleric declared his country in crisis after a disputed poll, and tens of thousands of protesters used Friday prayers to stage the biggest show of dissent for weeks.
Clashes erupted later in central Tehran between police and followers of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, who still contests the election result that showed hardline President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad had been re-elected by a wide margin.
"Police fired tear gas and beat supporters of Mousavi in Keshavarz Boulevard," a witness said, adding that protesters were carrying hundreds of green banners -- Mousavi's campaign color -- and chanting 'Ahmadinejad, resign, resign'."
Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a moderate who backed Mousavi's election campaign, said many Iranians had doubts about the official result of the June 12 vote.
"I hope with this sermon we can pass through this period of hardships that can be called a crisis," said the influential cleric, leading prayers for the first time since the poll.
America has a long and distinguished history of supporting those struggling to free themselves from the yoke of oppression, but apparently President Obama doesn't share that history...or sentiment.
Obama's fellow Democrats have been just as silent as Obama. None of the Democrat leaders in Congress have shown any willingness to stand up for freedom or express support for the people of Iran.
No wonder Obama won't speak out in support of the Iranian struggle for freedom. No wonder he has supported Honduran dictator wannabe Zelaya against the wishes of the Honduran Congress, Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran Military, and Honduran people. No wonder he has allied himself with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega, and Cuba's Castro...they are kindred spirits...they share his ideology and his desire to rule from above.
Obama's vision for America more resembles Ahmadinejad's Iran or Castro's Cuba than the Republic our forefathers fought and died for.
Our nation throughout its history has been known as a bastion of freedom and Liberty throughout the world. The oppressed of the world have long looked to America as (to quote Ronald Reagan) "that shining city on the hill" whose system they could point to as exemplifying the rewards of freedom and self-government; a vision towards which they could aspire. Under Obama and the Democrats in Congress, that vision is rapidly disappearing under the weight of debt and mismanagement.
Obama is more interested in "holding talks with Ahmadinejad with no preconditions" than he is in supporting the Iranian people's struggle for freedom. He believes in talking. He believes that despots are reasonable men with whom one can negotiate in good faith. He believes that through the power of his own intellect and persuasiveness, he can lead men like Ahmadinejad to see reason.
He grossly over estimates his powers of persuasion just as he grossly over estimates his own intellect. Obama is the consummate "mark" that every con-man looks for; greedy (in his case for success and the power that comes with it), arrogant, and painfully naive, men like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Ortega, and Castro can see him coming from miles off.
Like Neville Chamberlain in his dealings with Hitler, Obama is destined to leave every negotiation certain of his success only to discover he is missing his wallet, shirt, and underwear and wondering how he got that way...certain to blame others for his failings.
This is not a good time to be a victim of oppression hoping for help in your battle for freedom.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
For Sotomayor speeches over shadow record
Will Malven
7/16/2009
These hearings have been a study in circumspection, dissembling, and redefinition. It has been very reminiscent of watching the Clintons' performance during the Whitewater investigations.
It seems that Judge Sotomayor is the most imprecise public speaker in history. Every statement with which she has been confronted she has explained away by saying some variation of "What I really meant to say was..." fill in the blank with whatever explanation is most suited to alleviate the concerns of which ever Senator is doing the asking.
The problem remains, what she actually said in her speeches paints the picture of an arrogant, racist, activist judge who has no problem with imposing "the richness of her experience" or with "making policy" from the bench rather than following the Constitution.
Democrat Senators, President Obama, and even Judge Sotomayor have repeatedly cited her record as a tough law and order judge and former prosecutor as proof that she is suited to occupy Justice Souter's empty chair.
If she was applying for a seat on a lower court, they might be right. She has an admirable record on law and order issues, but her record on individual rights and the protections given all citizens under the Constitution is far more worrying, as exemplified by her latest decision to be overturned by the current Supreme Court (a 5-4 decision). Even those Justices who voted against overturning the Ricci decision were very critical of the manner in which the Sotomayor and her two colleagues reached their decision and the cursory examination given the underlying issues surrounding the case.
The real problem with using her record as a lower court judge however, lies in the constraints or lack thereof which rest on a Supreme Court Justice. As a lower court judge, Sonia Sotomayor was constrained in her decisions and the latitude with which she could stray from established precedent by the decisions and rulings made in the Supreme Court. Her position on any given issue was regulated more by existing law than by any opinion she might personally hold.
As a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Sotomayor will face no such constraints. She may say that the concept of stare decisis carries weight or that previous decisions by the Supreme Court deserve careful consideration, but the truth is that she is not constrained in any way in how she addresses the Constitution or any issue on which a previous bench of justices has ruled.
As a Supreme Court Justice she will be free to impose her personal beliefs on the rest of her fellow American citizens without limit. As an example, if she opposes Second Amendment rights, she can ignore the previous court's Heller decision and rule that no citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, that the Second Amendment only addressed those right as they impinge on the need for a militia. We have no way of knowing whether she will or not, but she would be well within her rights to do so and in her past rulings she has indicated that she does not hold the Second Amendment in the same esteem that she might the First Amendment.
Because of this almost absolute power and freedom from judicial restraint, her writings and speeches must carry greater weight than those who defend her seem willing to give them.
Sotomayor has been far less than honest during these hearings. Rather than defend what she has said, she has attempted to explain away almost every controversial statement she has made.
She didn't really mean that she "would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she was just attempting to inspire young Latinas in the audience to aspire to greater heights. Or as she explained it to Senator Cornyn (R-TX) today:"I didn't disagree with what I understood was the basic premise that Justice O'Connor was making, which was that being a man or a woman doesn't affect the capacity of someone to judge fairly or wisely. What I disagreed was with the literal meaning of her words because neither of us meant the literal meaning of our words. My use of her words was pretty bad in terms of leaving a bad impression. But both of us were talking about the value of experience and the fact that it gives you equal capacity.
She didn't really mean that the Court of Appeals makes law when she said:"...court of appeals is where policy is made…and I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t “make law,”[dismissive quote motion with hands] I know [laughter] uh…I know. I’m not promoting it I’m not advocating it…I’m, you know...[silly looking conspiratorial grin accompanied with another dismissive hand gesture and a chuckle]."
She actually meant:"that statement was made absolutely expressly that that was the context of the kind of policy I was talking about, which is the ramifications of a precedent on all similar cases."
Okay..........hmmm....maybe she's telling the truth, although her facial expressions and general demeanor when she made those statements lend to my skepticism, but what has become abundantly clear is that her thinking is sloppy.
Sotomayor is careless in her speech and imprecise in her reasoning. She is seemingly prone to saying one thing while meaning something completely different. For that reason, she has been forced to explain repeatedly statements which, on the surface at least, seem to run contrary to the charge the Constitution lays upon each Justice to interpret the law, not make it.
One thing is obvious; she is going to be confirmed rather handily and not just by Democrats. There are a number of Republicans who seem more interested in scoring points with their constituents prior to voting for Judge Sotomayor than they are in stopping someone who will endanger our nation by creating law from the bench.
It is disturbing that someone like Sonia Sotomayor who is clearly a tool of Obama and like minded people, who prefer to rule rather than govern, can be seated on the highest court in the land, but it is reassuring that, at least in this case, she will be replacing a justice who was very much of a like mind.
Unless Justice Kennedy loses his nerve and his independence, the balance on the court will remain unchanged. Under this President that is a good thing, because he aspires to accrue greater power than any of his predecessors since Roosevelt.
There will be further battles in the future. As Obama's policies continue to fail and his popularity and that of Democrats in Congress continues to fall, there will be mounting pressure from dissatisfied Democrat constituents to alter the course upon which they have steered this American ship of state.
Perhaps then a candidate like Judge Sotomayor will face a less certain future than she herself faces. Perhaps Democrat members of Congress, fearing for their careers and reelection, will begin to have second thoughts about who the Empty Suit in Chief is nominating for the Supreme Court.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/14/2009
There has been a huge kerfuffle in the press and within the Democrat Party over the revelation, by CIA Director and Democrat hack, Leon Panetta that the CIA withheld information on a secret program and that Vice President Dick Cheney had instructed them to do so...except we now know that the program never got beyond the planning stage and that the idea...and that's all it was...was to organize special ops groups to kill or capture members of the al Qaeda leadership...truly a noble idea if I've ever heard one.
So why are Democrats in Congress so outraged that this proposal, and that's all it ever was, came about? Why the self-righteous indignation over the suggestion that the CIA set out to kill or capture the people responsible for all of the most deadly and heinous attempts to kill Americans?
Well, we know that during the most difficult days of the war in Iraq they were feeding talking points and propaganda to the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know that the voice of the radical Muslim movement, Al Jazeera, has been quoting them in their efforts to excite anti-American sentiment among the general Muslim population, so it comes as no surprise that Democrats are now taking the side of the terrorists against America.
It is only reasonable to assume that if the leadership of the Democrat Party are outraged that Dick Cheney wanted to kill the leaders of al Qaeda and didn't want to tell the sieve known as the United States Congress, because they support the leaders of al Qaeda and their goal to destroy America.
I'm sorry; I don't see the upside for the Democrat Party to come out in support of al Qaeda and against the idea of killing their leaders.
Here's the report in the Washington Post:
CIA Had Program to Kill Al-Qaeda Leaders
Agency Didn't Tell Congress About Bush-Era Plan to Use Assassins
By Joby Warrick and Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The CIA ran a secret program for nearly eight years that aspired to kill top al-Qaeda leaders with specially trained assassins, but the agency declined to tell Congress because the initiative never came close to bringing Osama bin Laden and his deputies into U.S. cross hairs, U.S. intelligence and congressional officials said yesterday.
The plan to deploy teams of assassins to kill senior terrorists was legally authorized by the administration of George W. Bush, but it never became fully operational, according to sources briefed on the matter. The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney had urged the CIA to delay notifying Congress about the diplomatically sensitive plan -- a bid for secrecy that congressional Democrats now say thwarted proper oversight.
The program, which was terminated last month, touched off a political firestorm last week when several Democrats said the CIA had misled Congress by not disclosing its existence. CIA Director Leon E. Panetta gave lawmakers their first overview on June 24, within hours of learning about it, the officials said.
Some officials familiar with the program said certain elements of it were operational and should have been disclosed because they involved "significant resources and high risk," as one intelligence official described it. But others said the initiative never advanced beyond concepts and feasibility studies.
This purely political gambit by Democrat Party leadership to give cover to Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is simply another in a long line of cynical partisan efforts to distract the American public from the failures, in both domestic and foreign policy, of President (and "Apologizer in Chief") Barack Obama and our Democrat Party controlled Congress.Rampant unemployment which far exceeds administration predictions and threatens to destroy our nation's economy, a one trillion dollar deficit accrued in the pursuit of a pork-laden "stimulus bill," and ruinous taxes to promote unneeded and destructive legislation are all the legacy of this President and this Congress.A humiliating performance by the President as he travels around the world deriding his own nation and apologizing for non-existent transgressions in an effort to curry favor with despotic regimes is threatening to derail Democrat Party plans to dominate our government and subjugate the American people, as they are awakening from the hypnotic trance and cult of personality that led them to vote for this least qualified and least competent president in historyDemocrats are once more attempting to "Wag the Dog" as President Clinton did during his impeachment; attempting to distract the American people from their disastrous tenure.
Some few Democrats are intelligent enough to see the down side of such an investigation. Senator Chuck Schumer isn't quite as eager as Senator Durbin to press for an investigation. He sees that Democrats are vulnerable to the accusation of partisanship which will appear to help al Qaeda and damage the Democrat Party...a party that is already vulnerable to accusations of weakness in the face of foreign threats to our nation.
Frankly I support the idea of a full investigation of all of these allegations. Let's see if Democrats have the guts to pursue Madame Pelosi's unfounded allegations against the CIA. Americans need to know if the CIA has been lying to Congress or if the Speaker of the House (and second in line for the Presidency) and Democrats in Congress are lying to them for political gain.
Let's have all of the cards put out on the table. Congress should hold public hearings so that we do not have to depend on "leaks" to the press from gutless "unnamed sources" who have political axes to grind. Let's have a full airing of Pelosi's evidence. Let's find out who is working for our national security and who is, for political gain, working against the CIA and our nation's best interests.
Democrats are fond of telling us the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" so let's shine a little sunlight on these Democrat Party allegations.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Dodging bullets and shrapnel okay but smoking not
Will Malven
7/13/2009
More on the Liberal fascist state of Obama and Democrats...I just have to comment on the absurdity of this latest push by "Liberal do-gooders" to take cigarettes away from our troops.
Seems that some Brainiac in the Pentagon's Veterans Department figured out that smoking is bad for you...do tell. I wonder what they think about dodging bullets and defusing IED's.
In the Liberals' world, there is always someone thinking up some means of limiting an individual's freedom..."for their own good." In this case I can guarantee you the individual or individuals involved have never been closer to the battle field than seeing it on the television from their living room...but as usual for Liberals, that doesn't prevent them from being "experts" on a soldier's life (pardon me for using "soldier" as a stand in for all members of the various services, no disrespect intended).
This is from USA Today:"Ban on tobacco urged in military
By Gregg Zoroya
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.
Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.
The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. "We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith says."
So, here we have a bunch of young men who are in prime condition, trained and battle hardened, capable of fighting in a fluid combat situation and able to make snap life-or-death decisions and improvise tactics when confronted by unpredicted and unpredictable situations, but who cannot be allowed to make their own decisions about whether or not to smoke cigarettes.
Nope, only a Liberal do-gooder in an office back in Washington D.C. is capable of making that decision...go figure.
I looked up this Jack Smith who heads the Pentagon's Department of Clinical and Program Policy, and I'm sure he is a good egg (most do-gooders are "good eggs," well meaning and misguided) it's just that, like most of these good eggs, this one is cracked a bit.
The guy is an M.D. who served for 30 years in the Navy as a surgeon and Commanding Officer of Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, so give him his "props," he's earned them. He also has a degree in Medical Management from Tulane which probably tells you how he began to go wrong-it's like an MBA for doctors. Here's his bio at the DOD.
Doctor Smith (does that name give anyone else the "willies," as in the evil "Doctor Smith" of the old "Lost in Space" series?) anyway, Doctor Smith has done a lot of good for a lot of people throughout his career, so I'm not going to trash him too severely, just his "do-gooder" attitude.
Being a doctor, especially a military doctor who has seen a lot of casualties and probably saved a lot of sailors' lives, is a career which lends itself naturally to engendering the individual with a God complex. It must be hard to prevent it when one is faced with life or death decisions, but it doesn't excuse his "do-gooder" actions.
This is the essence of being a Liberal, the overwhelming desire to control the thoughts and actions of other people "for their own good." They can't help it. It comes from the natural arrogance, usually born of ignorance, that being a good Liberal requires. After all, they know better than you what is in your best interest.
It's kind of like the derisive laugh a Liberal emits when confronted by a well reasoned argument with which he cannot deal...he laughs as though to imply that the argument is absurd, when in reality he has just been slapped down by a conservative during a political discussion. Logic is the one facet of thinking which escapes Liberals completely.
It is a truism that anytime a "do-gooder" (Liberal or otherwise) says he wants to do something "for your own good," look to your freedom and liberty because some part of it is about to be taken from you..."for your own good."
Liberals hate freedom. Liberals hate individual liberty. Liberals love to control other people and their behavior (and thoughts-as in "hate crimes" legislation). Who knew God made Liberals all-knowing and all-wise?
Somehow I doubt he did, since they tend to be on the forefront of those who deny His existence.
There is one aspect of life with which everyone...including doctors must come to terms...everyone dies and there is nothing that any human can do to prevent it.
No one, not even the best intentioned "do-gooder" can eliminate all risks in life so why don't you "do-gooders" just back off and allow individuals to make their own decisions. Yes many of them will make bad decisions, but that is their God given right. It is up to them to deal with the consequences (and us sometimes) as we provide their care if they are in the military, but after their sacrifices don't you think maybe they have earned that right?
Even if it costs the American tax-payer a little more money, these people have chosen to risk their lives in service to us. To me that's a pretty good bargain for the ability to sleep peacefully at night in our own beds.
Hey Defense Secretary Gates, LEAVE THE TROOPS' CIGARETTES ALONE!!! You and they have far more important things to occupy your time...like surviving on a battlefield and achieving victory.
God save us from the do-gooders.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
The Old Democrat "Bait and Switch"
Democrats in Congress and White House are attempting the old "bait and switch" routine on the American public
Will Malven
7/13/2009
As Obama's poll numbers begin their inevitable plummet from the lofty heights every new President has enjoyed during his first year in office and chinks in his seemingly impenetrable armor of popularity begin to appear, Democrats are looking to their usual bait and switch routine to distract the American voter from the dismal policy choices and program failures of the Obama Administration.
Most notably, the Cirque du Democrat is centering its attention once more on the Bush Administration and more trumped up claims of keeping secrets from the informational sieve known as Congress and torturing "poor hapless" terrorists to extract information and prevent further attacks against the American people (very damning that-going to any lengths to protect the American people) shame, shame.
All of this is occurring as our Actor in Chief plays the innocent on stage, publicly stating that "We need to look to the future, not the past," even as his own White House urges further efforts in those investigations. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
This tableau being acted out is the most cynical of political plays. Its success rests on contempt for the intellect of the American voter. It is a bet that if Democrats in Congress can gin up a huge display of sanctimonious outrage over trumped up events which either never occurred, or occurred with such rarity or such mildness as to be the glaringly apparent exception rather than the rule.
On Sunday's ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) told that Congress should investigate the allegations (reported by the New York Lies Times and made by two anonymous sources that Vice President Dick Cheney-"Satan" to you Democrats out there) instructed the CIA to withhold information about an alleged "secret program," of unknown type, which never came into existence beyond the planning stage. Durbin's comment was the usual Democrat hyperventilation. "to have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate, it could be illegal."
Can you say "Red Herring" Dick? Sure, I knew you could.
Somehow I have difficulty in reconciling the phrase "massive program" with a proposal which was "never implemented." I also have some difficulty with the concept of concealing something which "never got beyond the planning stage."
That allegation from "unnamed sources" seems designed more to give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) political cover for her, as yet unexplained, claim that the CIA had "lied to Congress many times" than any attempt to find out the truth. In fact we know for a fact that Democrats have repeatedly blocked Republican attempt to get at the truth on Pelosi's outrageous claims.
Reports are that this unexplained plan, one of many ideas floated by individuals in the CIA and the Bush Administration in the days following the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, contemplated the capture or killing of al Qaeda leaders...surely a noble and valuable proposal had it ever come into fruition.
Meanwhile, it appears that Attorney General Eric Holder is planning a witch hunt over the torture allegations which Democrats have made against the former Bush Administration even as his own President has clearly stated that he opposed the idea and that he wanted to look to the future rather than the past.
Thus we are confronted by two equally distasteful possibilities, either the President is lying about his wishes and is actually in favor of these investigations so that the increasingly dissatisfied public is distracted from his failures on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, or his Attorney General is out of his control and is preparing to initiate his own propaganda offensive against the former Republican Administration against the President's express desires.
Either way it emphasizes the incompetence of this President and his Democrat Administration (as if this clown's incompetence needs emphasizing).
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Global Governance: The real Left-wing agenda
Will Malven
7/11/2009
When President Obama, Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and most Leftwing politicians speak of the "global economic crisis," or of "global climate change" they actually are interested in exercising control over your life.
It also happens that they are pursuing some sort of socialist world government.
No, I am not one of those kooks who sees "black helicopters" outside every window. Nor am I one who perceives the hidden hand of "Bilderbergers," "the Rothschilds," "the Trilaterals," "the Illuminati," "the Council on Foreign Relations," "Skull and Bones" or even the Masons behind every assassination, crisis, or change in the geopolitical landscape. I find these conspiracy theory aficionados to be as dangerous and destructive to the political discourse and the sanity or our nation...
...But I am one who begins to worry when I hear Left-wing politicians reciting the mantra of "Global Governance" on a regular basis; especially when I see the magnitude and rapidity with which this Democrat President and his Democrat Congress are now moving our nation towards socialism and dependence on government.
This "Global Governance" theme is one which has appeared periodically throughout history. Particularly, under different names, it has been the goal of every despot in every dictatorship or kingdom that has sought to dominate other nations.
In recent history, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have all had their moment in the spotlight trying to dominate the lives of those in other nations either overtly through war, or covertly through propaganda and subversion.
Today we face a new threat from those on the Left, who have traditionally been the enemies of freedom. These people use a different lexicon. They use words like "Global Warming," "Climate Change," and "Global Economic Crisis" to engender fear among the populace and enable them to pass sweeping legislation.
They use words like "crisis" and "emergency" to press for the passing of (often very ill-advised and poorly written) legislation without giving those voting or even the people for whom they are supposed to be working and "protecting" the time or opportunity to review said legislation, insisting that "time is short" or "lives will be placed at risk" should anyone demand the time to examine that which is being promoted and passed.
In recent weeks we have seen this technique being used to pass irresponsible, massive spending bills, both to "stimulate the economy" and to "reduce greenhouse gasses." The air of "emergency" permeates the discourse in Congress, egged on by a national press corps which has long since left impartiality behind and has become an active participant in promoting this agenda.
We are constantly being bombarded with this Leftist propaganda and told that we are "uncaring," "unfeeling," and "selfish" should we oppose their agenda or even demand an explanation of what impact these new laws will actually have both on the lives of the American people and on the problem at which they are nominally directed.
Once and a while, one of these leaders of the new agenda let slip their true intentions. This week was a great week for these revelations as Climate Change Alarmist and Profiteer Al Gore, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Pope Benedict XVI all referred to the need for "global governance.
These revelations don't happen by mistake, these Leftists (and yes I include the Pope in that description...the Vatican has long been a bastion of socialist thought and the concept of the redistribution of wealth-both very un-Christian ideas) all understand that concepts which are initially so alien to the human psyche that they are rejected out of hand, if repeatedly promoted, gradually evolve from being abhorrent to being ignored to being accepted and eventually embraced. The pattern has been repeated often over the years.
Global Warming pimp Albert Gore Jr. let slip the true intent behind his long campaign to "fight manmade global warming" in a speech he gave on July 8th of this year before an Oxford (England) crowd at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment when he stated:...it is the awareness itself (of global climate change)that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements." [Emphasis added]
The Times Online has the six minute clip of what I'm sure was an interminably long speech from the lugubrious doomsayer in its article (which interestingly fails to mention the above reference) Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change.Interestingly, two days later Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a similar comment in reference to the "global economic crisis," telling his audience at the G8 Summit in Italy:"Our view is that all of these systems of national regulations have to be fixed, but there also has to be international coordination. There has to be an international peer review for national regulations. So there is transparency. There is peer review and peer assessment.
We undergo that in Canada. It is very useful when we have undergone it and we think all countries need to be part of that. It does not...it does not detract...it does not detract from national sovereignty." [Riiigghht! That's why you stuttered when you said it.]
"Nation states are clearly going to exercise their rights to regulate their financial system, but in a globalized economy we are going to have to take global responsibilities. And there is going to have to be some semblance of global governance on these questions. [Emphasis added]
Well, Harper is a Conservative in the George W. Bush mold...meaning he's moderately to the Left of Center with some few "right-wing" views (like not recognizing "gay marriage"). He's no Ronald Reagan of the North or anything like that.
On almost the same day, the Pope, Benedict XVI also chimed in on the need for some form of a "true world political authority" to work for "the common good." The New York Times reports:Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the ‘Common Good’
By RACHEL DONADIO and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 7, 2009
VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “true world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.”
He criticized the current economic system, “where the pernicious effects of sin are evident,” and urged financiers in particular to “rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity.”
He also called for “greater social responsibility” on the part of business. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty,” Benedict wrote in his new encyclical, which the Vatican released on Tuesday.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Now I know that some of you Liberals and some of you Libertarians and Paulites out there are screaming..."But, but, but President George H. W. Bush repeatedly used the term "New World Order" when he spoke of the global geopolitical situation!"
Well keep your knickers on folks, yes he did do so and quite often during the first gulf war, but to anyone who reads those invocations in context, the inescapable conclusion was that he was referring to the geopolitical situation in the post Soviet Union world. HIs frame of reference was specifically that of the military balance of power and the fact that the fall of the Soviet Union left America in a singular situation, that as the sole major global military power with all of the responsibilities that status entailed.
What clearly was not being referenced, in contrast to that which is now being proposed was some sort of one world government. What clearly was not being discussed was the end national sovereignty. That particular fascination rests pretty much with those on the Left side of the political spectrum...those who still believe that the United Nations exists as something other than a convenient venue for America bashing...in other words those who still reside in a Leftist fantasy world.
When Liberals...as most Democrats appear to be these days...begin talking of "global governance" and members of our Supreme Court openly admit that they believe foreign law should advise how our own Constitution should be interpreted, folks you better look to your nation.
If you believe in America as the single greatest force for good in the world over the past century, if you understand that America has never fought for territorial gain, has never occupied a foreign nation and retained control of it. If you look at America's sacrifices in blood and treasure in the defense of freedom of other nations with a sense of pride and if you are one of those who believes patriotism to be a virtue rather than a character flaw, then you had best look to your country and your congress.
YOur nation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama Administration and its supporters and being replaced with a sort of European/African socialist state in which individual liberty and freedom are sacrificed "for the good of the people."
It is the antithesis of everything in which our Founding Fathers believed and it will turn this nation from the greatest economic, military and moral power on the planet into a third-rate nation with a third rate economy filled with a subjugated population who share lives of quiet desperation while the elite of our society...meaning the ruling class...meaning Democrats...live lives of luxury.
If you don't believe me just look at the former Soviet Union. They too sacrificed their liberty and freedom "for the good of the people."
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/08/2009
Well I guess President Obama found out how impressed "former President" Vladimir Putin is with his agenda of "Hope and Change" during this week's visit. Basically as Obama was landing in Moscow, Mr. Putin was transmitting a highly complementary message to former President Bush.
Here is Reuters report:
"Putin praises Bush hospitality during Obama visit
Tue Jul 7, 2009 4:22am EDT
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praised the hospitality and openness of U.S. former President George W. Bush in a telegramme sent hours before meeting his successor Barack Obama.
"During the last years we have been working on strengthening Russia-U.S. cooperation. Although there were differences between our countries, I always valued your openness and sincerity," Putin said, congratulating Bush on his 63rd birthday on July 6.
"With special warmth I recall your hospitality in the Crawford ranch and your family estate in Kennebunkport," Putin wrote, referring to their 2007 meeting at the Bush family vacation home when the two leaders went fishing and ate lobster.
Bush had said he "was able to get a sense of his soul" when he first met Putin and since then their warm rapport has helped limit the damage from a series of rows that returned ties between their administrations to chilly Cold War lows."
OUCH!!!! Talk about "In your face!"
It is, of course, understandable why he would behave this way. For all of his faults, President Bush conducted a well reasoned, sane, and consistent foreign policy that men of substance and capability, like Putin, could understand and rely on. The Russians don't understand the soft voiced capitulation that narcissistic Liberal appeasers like Barack Obama advocate. They understand that only an arrogant ass like Obama could believe that he could sway despots like Ahmadinijad, Kim, Chavez and the rest by dent of his inherent superiority and persuasiveness.
A pragmatic realist is much to be preferred.
Maybe this explains Obama's rude behavior in not associating with Russian dignitaries during his second (and final) night in Moscow. Yep, believe it or not President Obama, our "Neophyte in Chief" chose to snub those Russian dignitaries by indulging himself in a "family night out" his second day in Moscow. According to his apologizers spokesmen, he was resting up for his demanding trip to the G8 talks in Italy.
Here is the New York Times report:Family Night for Obamas Miffs Some in Moscow
By PETER BAKER
Published: July 7, 2009
MOSCOW — If Paris is for lovers, it looks like Moscow is for families.
After passing on dinner with the French president to go on a date in the City of Light with his wife last month, President Obama took leave of his Russian hosts on Tuesday night to seclude himself in his Moscow hotel with his wife, Michelle, and their daughters.
The first family enjoyed a relaxed evening at the O2 Lounge, the super-chic, super-pricey rooftop club at the new Ritz-Carlton, although no doubt the Secret Service first cleared the place of most if not all of the swaggering tycoons and leggy models who flock to such Moscow venues.
They could not ask for a more scenic vista. The glass-enclosed O2 offers a panoramic view of Moscow, including Red Square and the Kremlin, all the more striking as the lingering summer sun sets after 10 p.m. The club is “a place to see and be seen,” as its Web site says — that is, unless you are a visiting president who after a day and a half of blinis, beluga and bilats (the diplo term for “bilateral meetings”) just wants to hang out with the clan.
The decision to brush off the Russians on one of his two nights here miffed some in the Moscow government who did not understand why he would not devote the scarce time to his hosts. Mr. Obama had dinner with President Dmitri A. Medvedev on Monday and lunch with him on Tuesday. But with the second dinner slot unavailable, he ended up having breakfast Tuesday with Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, a known night owl not given to American-style early morning business meals.
Well what does one expect when we've got a "prol" in the White House. Just further proof that this Empty Suit in Chief has no business being President of any nation, let alone this greatest nation on Earth.
Imagine the arrogance and diplomatic obtuseness this sort of foreign policy faux pas requires. Imagine the selfishness and self absorption this behavior reflects...I mean the man is the head of state for God's sake, but then I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
After all this is the idiot who gave the British Prime Minister a box of DVD's (that couldn't even be watched in Britain), and the Queen of the United Kingdom an IPod.
[If you recall, Prime Minister Brown brought President Obama a very symbolic gift intended to illustrate the United Kingdom's special relationship with America. A handcrafted pen set carved from the wood of the HMS Gannet, sister ship of the HMS Resolute, the ship from which the Presidential "Resolute" Desk was built.
One must wonder if Obama was sending his own message to the British-sort of a Kenyan "Up yours!".]
President Obama is supposed to be a servant of the people of the United States, not some Third Ward bumpkin on a holiday jaunt to Moscow. He represents the American people when he is travelling, if he want's to enjoy a private outing with his family, he needs to do it on his own time, not while he is on a very important diplomatic mission to one of the great powers.
President Bush, or for that matter, Presidents Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, or Carter or any of their predecessors never would have behaved in such a rude and inappropriate (inconsiderate) manner. They understood the importance of every action a head of state makes and the potential impact that inattentiveness or carelessness can have.
It is unbelievable that this "Community Organizer" should inhabit the same house that our greatest President have lived in. I guess it just shows that you can take the "Community Organizer out of the South Side of Chicago, but you can't take the South Side of Chicago out of the Community Organizer.
So this clown, this is the guy Democrats brag about having elected? This is the guy who is going to "restore America's reputation with the rest of the world?"
You Libs, don't make me laugh!
Long Live Our America Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/05/2009
MoDo (rhymes with "Dodo" as in the extinct bird) really hates Sarah Palin. Perhaps it is because she possesses everything that MoDo lacks; a husband, a life, personality, charisma, beauty...
Well whatever the reason, her latest screed (screech?) is not lacking for spiteful invective and the usual undeserved arrogance which so typifies the Leftwing (pseudo)intellectual elitists of the East Coast press corps(e).
Here's a portion of her hate-mail to Sarah:"Now, Sarah’s Folly
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 4, 2009
Sarah Palin showed on Friday that in one respect at least, she is qualified to be president.
Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy.
Usually we don’t find that exquisite battiness in our leaders until they’ve been battered by sordid scandals like Watergate (Nixon), gnawing problems like Vietnam (L.B.J.), or scary threats like biological terrorism (Cheney).
--------snip-------
What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.
She can hunt wolves from the air and field-dress a moose, but she fears being a lame duck? Some brickbats over her ethics and diva turns as John McCain’s running mate, and that dewy skin turns awfully thin.
Maybe there’s another red Naughty Monkey high heel to drop — there’s often a hidden twist in Sarah’s country-music melodramas. Or is this a reckless high-speed escape from small-pond Alaska, where her popularity is dropping, to the big time Below?"
Dowd: Superficial, sophomoric and spiteful; one can always tell who the Democrats fear most by the level of hatred and invective they generate.
The level of invective and hatred directed by those in the press and the Left towards Sarah Palin is unrivaled in recent history, this pathetic piece notwithstanding, which means that Sarah is a force to be reckoned with.
Whether Palin can make a legitimate run at the presidency remains to be seen. She certainly has her shortcomings as well as her strengths, but invective from a bantam weight flack for the Democrat Party with a BA in English (boy, now there's an awe inspiring academic record) writing in a formerly great newspaper now writhing in its death throes will not impede her efforts.
It never ceases to amaze me what passes for intellectual commentary from those on the Left. Maureen Dowd is the definitive harridan of hatred. Hers is the voice of a shrill harpy whose talent, like her "beauty," is long since spent...if it ever existed; pathetic, pitiable and sad to say, laughable.
Her attempts at being a serious "journalist" have become a source of amusement for those of us who can still reason above the eighth grade level (with all due apologies to eighth graders).
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Vicious, Spiteful, and Panicked: The Press Attacking Sarah Palin
Will Malven
7/04/2009
Nothing so angers the press as being caught by surprise and yesterday's announcement by Sarah Palin that she was stepping down as Governor of Alaska with no explanation has the long knives out as never before.
She's a "quitter," her political career is "finished," she's "doomed," and any number of negative comments have been coming from pundits both on the Left and the Right. It's a political feeding frenzy of the sort singular to a press scorned.
Of course the most despicable and mean-spirited comments are those coming from the oh-so "compassionate Left." Of note even among the hatred and filth being spewed from those on the Left was the screed appearing on the Huffington Post by one Erik Sean Nelson (of no particular fame or importance beyond that required to be both hateful and boorish-de rigueur for being a Liberal-which needs to be posted here as a reminder of the sort of individual that typifies those on the Left:Palin Will Run in '12 on More Retardation Platform
Erik Sean Nelson
Huffington Post
In Sarah Palin's resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the "world needs more Trigs, not fewer." That's a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it's kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.
Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.
She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40's just to mix up some chromosomes.
She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.
Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.
This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.
Look, she says she's resigning as governor because people are making attacks on her and Trig. If she ever did become president, all Osama bin Laden would have to do to defeat the United States is Photoshop a picture of Trig and she'd surrender the country that night. As she said, "That's not politics as usual." It isn't. Politicians don't usually quit for so stupid of reasons.
I have rarely read a more disgusting commentary or pitiful attempt at humor written by a more despicable individual than the above post.
I won't say more than that; let the piece speak for him and itself. It is noteworthy that reaction to the piece was such that in its place is now one of those Liberal attempts at an apology. Notable is the absence of any mention of the people to whom he gave most offense, Sarah Palin and her child Trig.
As the long knives come out so does the expected Democrat hypocrisy. She has doomed her political career by leaving office. Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who pledged to serve out her entire term as senator just before tossing her hat into the presidential campaign? Didn't Barack Hussein Obama quit his job as Senator from Illinois to become President of the United States? Didn't Obama abandon his duties as senator after two short, unimpressive, years to begin his campaign to become TOTUS?
The voices come also from those in the Republican Party who would rather have Conservatives vote their support for Republicans but otherwise hold their silence. So I am forced to ask of John McCain, did he also not leave his duties unattended as he sought to become President?
Who knew it was wrong only for Conservatives, men and women of principle, to set aside their current obligations to seek higher office?
The reaction of those on the Left is understandable even as it is uncouth and hypocritical, they fear Sarah Palin more than any other person in politics...with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh whom they know (or at least pray) will never run for office.
They know that Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with. She is dynamic, attractive, intelligent, witty and has the "common touch" like no one since Ronald Reagan and for that reason she generates abject fear in them. Hence the unending torrent of hatred and venom being spewed from their foul orifices.
Now I am not a Sarah Palin supporter. In my book she is a long way from being "America's Maggie Thatcher" as many of her admirers claim. She is way too light on experience and the fundamental understanding of both foreign and domestic policy I believe should be required in any presidential prospect.
Those are weaknesses which can be overcome with serious effort...the kind of effort that would require one to relinquish other more demanding responsibilities...such as being governor of Alaska. She certainly has the personal attractiveness to become a formidable candidate. The speech she gave at the Republican Convention certainly opened a lot of eyes.
The point of all this is that speculation of the sort in which today's talking heads are engaged is pointless. I sometimes think that pundits talk because they are afraid of becoming irrelevant should they remain silent for more than a moment. It is a symptom of the ignorant to babble on continuously for fear that should silence reign for even a moment people might discover that everything they have been told by those talking heads is nonsense.
Sarah Palin's motivation(s) for her actions will become clear in a short while; probably to the chagrin of those now declaring her political future dead.
Whatever her decision, you may be assured that Democrats and their cheerleaders who run the mainstream media will continue to attack her relentlessly and spitefully. The hatred will continue apace as will their fear of anyone who might disturb their plans to destroy our nation and take away our liberties.
For now it is enough that Sarah has them all in a panic. For that alone I love her.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
Happy Fourth of July!!!! May you remember why we celebrate today and recall how different our Founding Father's vision for America was from that of President Obama and his party.
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/02/2009
UPDATE: Well that didn't take long, looks like the Washington Post publisher couldn't fade the heat. Again from the Politico:Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar
By MIKE ALLEN & MICHAEL CALDERONE
7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT
Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."
With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that "a flyer went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flyer would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do."
Yep, turns out Ms. Weymouth was "Shocked! Shocked I say!" to discover the flyer issued by the marketing department.
I suspect the only thing that shocked Ms. Weymouth was either a.) the fact that they were caught selling access, or b.) the level of reaction to the announcement. Either way the "newspaper" was forced to cancel their plans."Earlier this morning, [Executive Editor Marcus] Brauchli sent an e-mail entitled “Newsroom Independence” to his staff explaining his position.
Brauchli said. “A flier was distributed this week offering an 'underwriting opportunity' for a dinner on health care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flier and the description of the event preclude our participation.
"We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."
...If there's anybody watching...
Don't buy the act people. This "news organization," such as it is, has been in bed with the Obama Administration from the start and gone to great lengths to advocate their policies.
The only thing restraining them this time was their being caught.
Who knows this may even shame the journalists at the Post into actually asking a few tough questions of Obama, just to show the world their independence (after they clear the questions with the Obama screeners, of course).
This time I am reminded of that famous line from the Wizard of Oz...
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
Will Malven
7/02/2009
There is no greater betrayal of the public trust and more serious violation of journalistic ethics than the display of cheerleading and issue advocacy now being displayed by the mainstream media and their subservience to the Obama Administrations agenda.
Politico today reveals a new low for one of the mainstays of our "watchdog" press. It now appears that the Washington Post is selling access to reporters and editors to members of the administration and its advocates.Washington Post sells access, $25,000+
By MIKE ALLEN
7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."
The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.
And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.
This revelation following on the heels of ABC's day long "infomercial" broadcast from the White House promoting the Obama Administration's national healthcare plan...a broadcast in which no opposing views were allowed or expressed illustrates just how far the much vaunted "Fourth Estate" has strayed from its self-proclaimed mission as watchdog over our government and the abuses therein.
Not since World War II has there been such close collaboration between the press and an administration to shape the message being put out to the American people.
This administration of "Hope and Change" and its "new era of openness" has been one of the most tightly controlled and scripted in history. The President rarely takes a question which has not been pre-approved by its operatives. The president's dependence on his teleprompters has been so obvious that it has become the butt of jokes and even generated a website alleged to be the TOTUS' (Teleprompter of the United States) blog, Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog.This scripting and attempted control of the press and the message has become so blatant that it prompted Helen Thomas, the doyenne of the Liberal press to express outrage over the President's latest faux "town hall meeting," in which not only the attendees were carefully screened, but the questions were pre-approved by Obama's staff.
From CNS news:Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Penny Starr and Fred Lucas
(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
The pat response from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and other Obama defenders is to say "But look how tough the questions were," as though that absolves them of the charge.
Ummm...Robert, it doesn't matter how tough the questions are if you know them ahead of time and are able to prepare your responses to them.
I never thought I would be cheerleading Helen Thomas, but you go girl! For a hardcore Liberal member of the press known for her hostility to all things Conservative to be so motivated speaks volumes as to the level of the corruption now being demonstrated by our so called "free press" as they have changed their role from inquisitor to advocate.
This lack of skepticism in our press and their consequent failure to fully investigate and inform the American people as to what the Democrats and this President are attempting to "accomplish" is a grave threat to the continued existence of our Republic and our freedom.
The first act of any despot is to take control of the press and the message being broadcast to his nation's citizens. President Obama has not had to do this because the mainstream media has surrendered it independence voluntarily.
It remains up to those of us in the unofficial press, the blogosphere to carry on the tradition of inquisitor and skeptic in the face of this neglect of their duties by the "Fourth Estate."
Hopefully members of the press who retain at least a shred of their dignity and sense of duty to the American people can shame other members of the media into performing their jobs as they are supposed to do. Ya know it brings an old Cole Porter song to mind, "Love for Sale:"Love for sale,
Appetising young love for sale.
"...Love that's fresh and still unspoiled,
Love that's only slightly soiled,
Love for sale.
Who will buy?
Who would like to sample my supply?
Who's prepared to pay the price,
For a trip to paradise?
Love for sale..."
The Washington Post - and most of the mainstream media has "Love for Sale" to the Obama Administration.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
