Wednesday, September 29, 2010


Today's dose of bad government reality comes to us from Vancouver City, Washington.  Councilwoman Jeanne Harris is in definite need of a chill pill.

Ah, petty tyranny....such an unattractive thing:

Not only is Ms. Harris inexcusably obnoxious, but the rest of the council, with the sole exception of Jeanne Stewart, were a study in enabling.  The mayor's half-hearted gaveling of the second man was breathtaking in it's ineffective weakness.  He knew Harris was in the wrong, but did not speak up or even attempt to.  When Ms. Stewart finally called Harris on her incivility, Mayor Leavitt had a perfect opportunity to put Harris in her place. Instead he sat there like a spineless lump while Harris then dressed down her own colleague, to the point of making unsubstantiated allegations that the people who were speaking were supporters of Stewarts. 

In her quickly issued apology - two days after the incident - she states:

Two days after she told another Vancouver City Council member at a public meeting to “get out of here” and “shut up,” Councilor Jeanne Harris publicly apologized.
She said Wednesday in a statement that she had “behaved in a manner that is not normal for me,” and wished to apologize to the council, the mayor and the public.

Hmmmm....Considering the reactions of her colleagues - heads down, eyes averted, refusing to speak or engage - it is far more likely that she was behaving in a manner that is quite normal for her.  Those people have obviously had to deal with that behavior before.    They are taking the "don't attract her attention or you're next" posture.  That is something that comes after having to deal with certain behavior over a period of time.

Here's the kicker, though.  The next day, two of the councillors decided to man up and file a complaint about her treatment of Stewart (apparently it's okay to treat constituents like she did - but that's another post).  They sent a request to the mayor's office for an ethics investigation into her behavior.

Harris took offense to the fact that they filed a complaint without coming to her first.  Apparently she found out about it from a voicemail from a reporter:

“This is rash and uncalled for,” she wrote. “Especially to send out a press release without talking to me first and hearing my side of the story … I take this allegation as a very serious matter and yet no one had the courtesy to call me?”

Yeah, because she's all about courtesy.

Now she is demanding they drop the complaint and ...:

She also asked for an apology and said she won’t be at the Sept. 20 meeting, when the council is supposed to decide on whether to form an ethics committee to investigate the complaint. She said that she will be at a fellowship

Most likely working on her martyrdom.  By the way - the fellowship was a privately funded trip to Germany.  Her position?  "Goodwill Ambassador", of course.  No, really.

The newly minted goodwill ambassador had this to say in an email to her colleagues:

“Looks like I’ve lost two policies and we’ve received numerous rude phone calls that my 19 year old customer service rep has had to listen to. Apparently the gavel incident is now on utube (sic). Thanks for making my life hell.”

Yup, it's all their fault people are calling to protest her boorish behavior and have decided not to do business with her.  It's also their fault that the clip of her acting like a shrewish petty dictator got on youtube.  Who else's fault would it be?

Harris has mentioned a difficult divorce as a contributing factor to her outburst.  It might be feasible to blame a quick outburst on stress, but the prolonged haranguing, the attacks on her peers, and the continued aggression in emails speaks of deeper issues.  This does not seem to be her first outburst, it's just the first one caught on tape and posted on Youtube.

The citizens who were attempting to speak were residents who did not want the light rail to go where it was going.  They wanted to be heard - something Leavitt and Harris have apparently have not given them the opportunity to do. They have every right to be heard.  Which is why Councilwoman Stewart was right to try to call Harris out on her behavior. Which brings us to the question - is Councilwoman Harris drunk with power or cracking under pressure? 

Either way, she should not be in office.


Thursday, September 23, 2010


The latest meme by the administration, which has officially hit the echo chamber that is the neo-pravda media, is an attempt to paint the tea party and conservatives as 'radicals'.  I'll give you a minute to stop laughing....

Yes, the administration that brought us communist Van Jones, Mao lover Anita DunnEcoscience author John Holdren, and 'fisting' fan/NAMBLA supporter Kevin Jennings are pointing the finger of radicalism at the tea parties. 

It's called 'projection'.

I honestly never thought I would see the day when groups of americans gathering together to show their love and support for their country and demand a return to the observance of our founding documents would be called radical, while those who support marxist ideals, the welfare state and global governance are being portrayed as mainstream.  They assert that the call to "Take our country back" is some sort of attempt at a radical overthrow of the administration.  They miss the point entirely.  It is about taking our country back to it's constitutional roots; taking it back to the system that made it great, before it was perverted by the welfare state and yes, to a certain extent, taking it back from the career politicians on both sides of the aisle that have exploited and perverted the system. 

This latest attempt to control and distort the debate is about as transparent as saran wrap.  They cannot run on Obamacare.  they cannot run on the so-called 'recovery summer'.  They cannot run on any of their legislative wins, because of how unpopular they are.  All that is left is demonization of their favorite target, the tea party.  They are preaching to the choir on this one, attempting to motivate their base. Unfortunately, their base seems rather lethargic.  Instead, what they are doing is motivating the so-called radicals they are busy slandering. 

When in heaven's name did it become sound political strategy to demonize a large portion of the voting public?  How can this possibly work in their favor?  Not only did they misread their mandate in 2008, but now they are miscounting their base.  They seem to think that the 53% that Obama won by in 2008 is their new base.  In reality, only about 20% of americans consider themselves democrat/liberal/progressive.  About 40% self identify as conservative/republican, with 36% being fluid, identifying with neither party. 

There is a good chance that they will succeed in stimulating their base with all of the radical rhetoric they are spewing, but this level of discourse has traditionally been rather off-putting for moderates.  This is why most campaigns wait until the final weeks to sling mud.  This election season, there has been no attempt to debate the issues; mud slinging has gone from being the last-ditch 'nuclear option' to the only option for endangered democrats.  While this new tactic might just motivate their base, the demonization merely strengthens the resolve of conservatives to get out and vote.  This will backfire on them, simply because conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2-1 margin.  Add in the disillusioned moderates and the moderates who were on the fence but have been turned off by the negativity, and it's not a pretty picture for democrats.

Bottom line: is it really worth rallying 20% when it also means you will be alienating and energizing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60+% in opposition?  I'm no politician, but the logic seems a 

But, then again, this administration isn't really known for it's math skills.


Friday, September 17, 2010


Here is my ten-year-old daughter's contribution to Constitution Day.  She rearranged these refrigerator magnets to quite cleverly express her support of not just our founding document, but also our nation as a whole.  Can you tell she's been to a few Tea Parties?

That's my girl!

UPDATE:  Big thank you to Michelle Malkin for linking to this post via her Twitter page!!!  It's a thrill to have someone I watch and admire not only respond via email but want to send her followers to one of my links!  Thanks Michelle - you rock!


Thursday, September 16, 2010


The democrats are in a tizzy of rebranding this week.  This is their go-to tactic when things are falling apart.  Don't try to come up with a new message/legislation/platform, just slap a new name on it, hype a different angle and keep on truckin'. 

Rebranding is a not uncommon thing, but it has had a long history with progressives in particular.  Waaaaaay back at the turn of the 20th century, the progressive party took hold.  Unfortunately, their policies eventually fell out of favor and they had to start calling themselves liberals in the mid 1900's.  After a few decades of the same failed policies under the new label, they managed to make the term liberal unattractive, and so they pulled "progressive" back out of the closet, dusted it off, and have been using that term to describe themselves ever since.

More recent examples of their rebranding fervor was just last year, when the highly unpopular health care bill was rebranded.  "Single payer" became "public option" which then became the "consumer option" with a little side trip to "co-op".  

The war on terror became an overseas contingency operation.  Violent attacks on our country by jihadis were no longer terror attacks or suicide/homocide bombers, they were man-caused disasters.  Just a few weeks ago, President Obama declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, while leaving 50,000 active troops in the country.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was rebranded as Operation New Dawn, and voila! we're no longer at war in Iraq (even though we still have troops dying over there).

Just this week, the democrats launched their new website and logo in an attempt to rebrand themselves as...well, no one's really sure.  I just hope they didn't pay a lot of money for the logo design and website, because it sure looks like they didn't.

Now Science czar John Holdren has offered up rebranding for climate change.  Which, you may recall, was once called global warming.  Well, now they want to call it "global climate disruption".  After all, trying to sell us that we were actually changing a global phenomenon like the weather was a little far fetched, so they must be hoping "disruption" is more palatable. 

The other rebranding taking place this week is a rather odd, ham handed thing involving the much debated Bush tax cuts. Nancy Pelosi managed to really paint herself into a corner on the whole tax cut thing.  She was adamant that the cuts would expire, all of them, top to bottom.  Now she is being forced to backtrack because so many economists are warning of dire consequences to the economy if they are allowed to sunset. So what is her brilliant plan?  She gives them a different name and suddenly, instead of a Bush era payoff to the evil rich, they are an Obama-sent gift from above to the poor, suffering middle class.  She used the new term during her weekly press briefing today, talking about extending the "Obama middle income tax cuts".

 Now, maybe the woman is really stressed out - she certainly has reason to be - and is simply confused.  Unfortunately, the more logical answer is that, since they have nothing else to run on and more and more economists are freaking out, this is a feeble attempt to show her party in a compassionate light while denying credit to the evil Bush.  She seems to think that merely extending the tax cuts for a year or two will automatically make them the brain child of this administration, instead of a holdover from the last.  Frankly, it's rather insulting to our intelligence, Madame Speaker.  This is a blatant attempt to steal credit for something to score political points while simultaniously vilifying Bush for having done it in the first place. 

You would think that they would have learned that a tactic like that doesn't work.  After all, they tried that with the Iraq war, and got blasted for it.  But hope seems to spring eternal on Capitol Hill.  Either that, or she's having a nervous breakdown.  It's hard to tell which. 



So, is it me, or does the new Democrat logo that Tim Kaine was all excited about the other day look remarkably like a target? Not to mention it's a little boring. At least Obama's logo had flair, not to mention there was a bit of a Pepsi-inspired pleasant subliminal connection to it. The DNC logo (and the website, really) is very...industrial looking. They should have stuck with the jackass. At least then they would be a moving target.

Just sayin'.


Saturday, September 11, 2010


September 11th is particularly pognant this year. It is a difficult day for many americans anyway; a day to remember and, even nine years later, to grieve. It is a day that we, the citizens of the most powerful country on earth, are confronted by our vulnerability. Nine years and one day ago, the US was on top of the world. We were the gentle giant, leading the world with our innovation and thriving economy. It seemed inconceivable that just 24 hours later, we would be brought to our knees in shared grief, anger and disbelief. The horror of it all is still a raw, gaping wound on the psyche of the country as a whole.

This year, 9/11 will be more emotional for many because of the proposed mosque scheduled to be built two blocks away in a building that was partially destroyed on 9/11 when it was hit with the landing gear of one of the planes. This project is an affront to all who lost loved ones that horrific day. For those who say "It's not the "Ground Zero Mosque" - it's two whole blocks away!" the response is simple - it was destroyed by the same forces that destroyed the Twin Towers. It is Ground Zero. Adding insult to injury, the mosque has been fast tracked, even though a Greek Orthodox church, which was destroyed on September 11, 2001 when one of the towers fell on it, has yet to receive approval to rebuild.

This past week has been a three-ring circus of outrages, from the unyielding determination of the mosque builders to the lunatic in Florida who has threatened to burn a Qu'ran today to the burning of american flags in protest of the qu'ran burning.  The nearly 70% of americans who oppose the mosque have been called "islamophobes", racists, zionists, and a plethora of other insults in an attempt to shut them up. They have even been threatened, if you consider a warning of a potential explosion of rage in the muslim world if the mosque isn't built exactly where Imam Rauf wants it built as a threat.  His assertion that "the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse" is laughable, at best.  The "warning" he issued is quite indicative of exactly which radicals will take over the discourse and from where the violence will come.  Michelle Malkin has an interesting rundown of some other incidents that have caused "explosions of anger" in the muslim world. This threat is nothing new. It is endlessly fascinating that, with all the rhetoric over the years that attempts to paint "radical christians" and right wing extremist opposition as somehow worse than jihadis, there has been no talk of the potential risk of a terrorist attack on the mosque.

Quite frankly, the constant threats have become tiresome, as is the perpetual kowtowing to these extremists. No, they don't represent a majority of muslims, but they certainly seem to be the only voice we hear on the subject. There should be no support whatsoever for the burning of the qu'ran, and the pastor who threatened it dropped the level of the debate to somewhere in the septic tank range. However, his attempt to equate the atrocity of burning the qu'ran with the atrocity of building an islamic center and mosque on the site of a devastating, deadly attack made in the name of islam has some merit. Both acts are an affront to all that is civil and respectful. The fact is, both acts are legal under our constitution, and both acts are morally objectionable. In the case of the pastor, he stepped back from the edge. In the case of the imam, he is refusing to budge from his position.

If the aim of this "cultural center" was really to build bridges between the muslim world and americans, Rauf is definitely going about this the wrong way. Part of building a bridge is to meet halfway. Demanding the submission of the american people to his will is most certainly not what most people would consider compromise. That President Obama is backing Rauf and his demands is not surprising either. After all, this is the man whose idea of compromise is for his opposition to shut up and support his agenda or be demonized.

Staking out a position on the legality of the situation but refusing to comment on the morality of it speaks volumes about Obama's inability to properly unite and lead this country. He may be charismatic, but he lacks empathy and he seems to lack the understanding that he is not just the commander in chief, but our moral leader as well. That he does not understand the pain the mosque is inflicting on his people is indicative of his problems in the polls of late. Because the wound is still raw, we need a leader who understands our pain. Sometimes, a president is like a mother - required to reassure, comfort and defend her children even when she doesn't understand the full extent of their pain. The fact that they are in pain is enough for her to act on their behalf. Instead, Obama comes off as some sort of frustrated step-father, who cannot understand why the child can't move on and has no interest in building a bond by attempting to empathize. It seems that all he sees are petulant children making his life difficult with their ridiculous demands for solace, understanding and protection from that which hurts them. For all of George W. Bush's faults (and there were many) he got this concept, and his approval ratings in the aftermath of 9/11 illustrate that quite clearly.

It is ironic in the extreme that the so-called party of compassion is so very uncompassionate when it comes to this grievous wound to our country. This year, when the hallowed ground of Ground Zero has become a political football for islamic radicals and the progressives who cater to them, our national loss is all the more poignant.

Cross Posted at the Ripley Report


Thursday, September 2, 2010


The NAACP and various left-wing media groups have started up a new website,  The point of this new website?  Why, to monitor and report on any and all examples of "racism" and "extremism" in the Tea Party movement, of course.  They are calling on bloggers and assorted lefties with camera phones to document any wrongdoing on the part of the tea party.

Good luck with that, guys.  Oh, and here's a tip for you - the idiots on the fringes who carry the Obama is Hitler signs are LaRouchies - democrats.  Just a little FYI for ya, 'cause so far you don't seem to have gotten the memo.  

If the NAACP is so interested in rooting out racism on a national level, perhaps they should start here.  Or here.  And don't forget all of these.  It's really amazing that their highly tuned 'racedar' didn't go off over this one - but, then, "death to cracka's" isn't really racist, so it's understandable that they would have missed that.

Even with a $100,000 bounty for video proving claims of racism in the tea party, there has still been no video tape to prove the point, even with the hundreds of cameras present - including ones in democrat hands.  Perhaps the NAACP and their ilk should be focusiing on people like this who make their living off the back of racial prejudice, even when it is a hoax, and even when the result is violence and riots.

These constant, fruitless attempts to smear the tea parties as racist are wearing very thin.  According to a press release from Project 21, a black activist group sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research:

"Progressives have hijacked the NAACP to the extent that the group stands silent as conservative blacks suffer indignities for their beliefs. Some NAACP even egg on this appalling behavior – providing political cover and lapdog services for these elitists," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "As a conservative black man, I have felt more welcomed and at home within the tea party movement than among those of my own who side with the this new NAACP. If a few random signs of President Obama looking like the Joker is indeed racist, then where was the NAACP when conservative blacks are depicted as lawn jockeys, Oreos and Uncle Toms?"

Actually, members of the NAACP themselves are guilty of this.

It's time to stop the race baiting.  The damage being done is damage to themselves.  As long as the NAACP and other progressive groups indulge in these antics, there will never be progress and there will never be healing.  Resorting to baseless name-calling cheapens the NAACP and causes people to question their relevance.  Attempts to make the dissent against the current administration (and just about every other issue) about race does a disservice to their cause. 


  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP