Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Boy, was the State of the Union speech boring last night. Even his own people couldn't stay awake. Well, except for Nancy Pelosi, who was doing her annoying jack-in-the-box/seal clap routine. Granted, political speeches generally are boring, but this one was particularly so because it was just a rehash of every other speech he has given for the past year.
I guess you could say that speaks to his convictions. Unfortunately, even his own party is starting to reject his agenda - after all, he may not be up for reelection this year, but they are.
He has offered to listen to other ideas for health care reform. Okay, how about the many options the Republicans have offered up that are languishing in committees in both Houses? The problem with them is that they don't require a massive new bureaucracy and entitlement, so the democrat leadership aren't interested.
He blames Bush and the Republicans and literally in the next sentence calls for bipartisanship. Nice.
He calls for spending freezes because of our faltering economy - to start next year. What about this year, champ? We're hurting now.
He mentions Cap and Trade, too. Great....more billions spent on 'science' that is looking more and more dubious with every passing day. He argues that green jobs will stimulate the economy. I think Spain would argue with that - for every green job they created, they lost 2.2 regular jobs. Yeah, that will help - help make us nostalgic for the good old days of 10% unemployment....
He barely mentioned foreign affairs or the two wars we are waging. I suppose national security isn't important enough to rate more than 5 minutes. Perhaps he didn't want to dwell on it and risk alienating our enemies. Wouldn't want to offend the terrorists, now would we?
All in all, it was the same old schtick.
He is going to continue to ram his agenda down our throats, he is going to continue to bankrupt the country and risk massive inflation by printing money to pay for his agenda, and he is going to continue to ignore the fact that there are people out there in the world who want to kill as many of us as possible.
The only new thing was his announcement to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'. As a free society, everyone has a right to be who they are, and if you are gay and want to fight and possibly die for your country, so be it. No one should have to pretend to be something they're not, especially when you put your life on the line every day. Our military fights for the freedom of all Americans, so all Americans should be able to join the ranks.
For those who are wary of the gayification of the military, rest assured - I'm pretty sure the more flamboyant characters won't be signing up and sashaying to the front lines wearing guyliner, platform boots and sparkly glamoflage. There have been gays in the military throughout history, and there are gays in our military now. As a free society, if they want their peers to know their orientation, they should be allowed to speak about it without fear of reprisal. The stigma of homosexuality isn't what it was 20 years ago - most young people these days have known at least one gay person - and, as I said earlier, it's their country, too, and if they want to serve it, they should be allowed to do so.
So aside from 'don't ask, don't tell', the speech was pretty much the same old, same old. Dear Leader is hell bent on bankrupting our children and forcing us all to be subservient to the Nanny State.
I have to say it's actually a little bit of a relief that he has decided not to 'pivot' and head back to the center. That means the republicans are pretty much guaranteed to take the House come November, and possibly make the Senate a 50/50 split.
Now that's a state of the union I can get behind!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The President is expected to propose a freeze on discretionary spending in his State of the Union tomorrow. The pundits are having a field day, trotting out campaign video of Candidate Obama lambasting John McCain for suggesting the same thing and crowing about another example of liberal hypocracy.
Yes, yes, it's hypocritical, but that is just a little minor side issue. The bigger issue is what is and isn't being cut and how much is really coming off.
The freeze will basically keep discretionary spending at 2010 levels until 2013. What is not being mentioned is how much funding went up in the past year under the democrats. Much like stores are accused of jacking up prices before declaring a sale, our federal government has jacked up spending before demanding a freeze. To the tune of about 12%. That should keep them until the freeze is over (then prepare for another huge increase to make up for three years of no increases).
So who doesn't make the cut, you ask? Well, the military, for one. This actually comes as quite a surprise. Not that the Pentagon couldn't afford to trim $30 or $40 billion, but usually the military is the first place liberals go to make cuts - deep ones. All entitlements are exempt, of course. Too bad they won't rescind the Welfare reform repeal they legislated last year. The reforms of the 1990's were so successful because states were no longer getting paid to increase their welfare rolls. Welfare became a fiscal burden to the states instead of a subsidy bonanza - they couldn't afford it anymore, so they cut programs. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have reinstituted those payoffs to states for increasing their rolls with the passage of the stimulus bill. How about cutting that?
The other objectionable 'mandatory' spending item is international aid. Now, for emergency situations like Haiti, I think a certain amount of aid is necessary. However, Obama pledged $900 million to Hamas last year, for example, to help them rebuild after the latest skirmish with Israel. No money was pledged to Israel, but Hamas, a terror group that has been previously unrecognized by our government because of it's stance against Israel, is offered nearly a billion dollars. That money will most likely go to rebuilding their depleted munitions stores instead of infrastructure and aid to it's citizens. I say every terrorist for themselves - cut the payout.
Any and all international aid not related directly to emergency circumstances should be halted immediately. The rest of the world may feel the pinch of a few years without (or reduced) American aid, but it gives us a chance to save ourselves. The world economy is sinking. We are the strongest swimmers out there, but we are being dragged down by all of the hangers on. It's time to focus on saving ourselves first, so we can then help everyone else. A three year pinch is a heck of a lot more desirable to tanking the economy that drives the globe.
So don't get caught up in the hypocrite hype. There are much bigger (and more expensive) issues at stake. We need more than just politically expedient freezes. We need deep, meaningful cuts. It's time to get to the red meat.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Is it just me, or is the spin coming from the White House rather....insane?
In the wake of Scott Brown's stunning victory last week, the democrats seem to have been shocked into a state of absolute denial. It's been nearly a week, and they are still grasping at straws. Voters were polled on why they elected Scott Brown. Overwhelmingly, they oppose the health care bill - by 78%.
But, according to Robert Gibbs, David Axlerod and even President Obama himself, health care wasn't the issue. George Bush's policies are.
Hmmm...let me get this straight - the people of Massachusetts, hardcore democrats that they are, hate the Bush policies, so they turn around and elect a republican who, according to Coakley and Obama, voted "in lock step with republicans". Does that make sense to you? I myself am quite confused.
But it seems we're not nearly as confused as the democrats.
Let's give them another week. Maybe they will come up with a rational argument. Stranger things have happened, and the impossible sometimes becomes possible - right, Mr. Brown?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Huffington Post has breaking news that could mean the recall of Senator-elect Scott Brown.
According to the HuffPo, the scandal-ridden new senator not only posed nude - nude, I say - in Cosmopolitan Magazine in the early 1980's when he was a college student, but it turns out the scandal-ridden fruit doesn't fall far from the scandal-ridden tree.
Brown's wife, Gail Huff, apparently has a "racy" streak herself. Turns out Mrs. Brown went topless in a music video. Sure, it was in 1984 and all you see is her bare back as she dives into the water, but it's still a scandal.
Just ask the Huffington Post.
But it gets worse.
Apparently the Browns pathological clothing aversion is genetic and was passed down to their two scandalous daughters. Featured on the HuffPo is a scandalous picture of the two little lolitas in - gasp -
While, of all things, on vacation!
But wait, there's more.
Apparently, Mrs. Brown has also had a secret life while her husband has been on the campaign trail. It turns out the duplicitous Mrs. Brown is actually a career woman. I know, I know, I had to sit down when I heard that, too. I'm sorry to say that it gets worse, so you might want to brace yourselves.
This alleged job she holds is the sneakiest, most undercover employment you could ever imagine.
She's a veteran on-air reporter for a Boston news channel.
Start the recall process immediately! How dare the people of Massachusetts saddle us with these horrible people who are attractive, have no morals and actually work for a living!
Praise God, hallelujah! The beast that is Obama Care is dead!!
After a desperate last ditch (closed door, natch) negotiation among House democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally admitted defeat. For now.
"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
Fear not, I'm sure a monster like that won't die easily, but hopefully it's next incarnation will be bipartisan and more palatable to the American people. Hope springs eternal!
Here's the line that made me choke:
"We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."
Isn't this the same bill they have been trying to rush through under cover of darkness? Didn't they set, like, 4 different timetables for it? Wasn't it absolutely going to be on Obama's desk for his signature by the time he gave his State of the Union address? Nah, no rush....
Perhaps now they will focus on jobs and the economy (hey, at least the K Street lobbyists had a banner year - it's a start, right?)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Well, last night was a ton of fun, but it's time to get back to business. As Beck says, "Watch the other hand".
What is the other hand doing today while we're all busy celebrating?
Nationalizing the student loan industry.
The House has already passed the bill with their other hand back in September under cover of 'defunding' ACORN. Those who were impressed by the House's quick action on ACORN during the height of the pimp scandal should look a little deeper. Pelosi needed to make the nationalization more palatable so she added the 30 day defunding of ACORN to get it passed.
She really is the Queen of the Poison Pill.
So now the legislation is working it's way through the Senate, and Obama is pushing for it's passage.
There are a number of reasons to oppose this bill, the main one being American abhorrence to nationalization of anything. I also have a problem with the government deciding who gets a loan or not. I prefer private lenders handle it.
Yes, technically the government subsidizes 80% of student loans, but what that really means is that they guarantee a low interest rate and make up the difference to the private lending institutions if interest rates go up. It is a way to make loans affordable. Nationalization is a horse of a different color. We would have to go directly to the federal government for any and all student loans under this plan and take what they offer at the rates they set.
Why do they want to do this, you ask? Simple. Obama promised free college on the campaign trail (sure, he promised tax cuts to do it, but this is muuuuch better - so very progressive of him), and this is step one in making that happen. This is the only way they can do it - if they nationalize, the taxpayer will eat the cost of the whole loan directly, thus saving us from having to bail out any more of those nasty old banks.
You might want to make sure you don't default, though - remember, the same people who gave you the loan also run the IRS!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scott Brown is the new freshman Senator from Massachusetts!
Coakley officially conceded at 10:00 pm. At that time, with 92% of precincts reporting, Brown wins 52% - 47%. Coakley is giving her speech, surrounded by supporters - lots of long faces. Oh, sorry, that was just John Kerry.....
A message has been sent to Washington. They will deny, deny, deny, but deep down, they know it is a referendum on the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda - most especially ObamaCare. I can't wait to see the spin tomorrow. I will make sure to take my Dramamine and report on the more outrageous efforts.
I have a feeling that democrats will be bleeding support for ObamaCare as the new reality (and panic attacks) sets in. Even the California delegation is shaking in their shoes. They have been put on notice.
For the first time in a long time, hope is welling up inside me. This puts a whole new face on everything. The bluest of blue democratic strongholds has been taken. The sacred inner sanctum of liberalism has been breached. If this were a war, today was D-Day. This is not just potentially the death knell of health care, but also Cap and Tax, amnesty, universal voter registration, and a plethora of other horrifying possibilities.
Of the People, by the People and for the People. Learn it, love it, live it.
WE SURROUND THEM!!!
UPDATE: Here's a great clip from Jon Stewart (Warning: adult content):
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
The past year under Progressive rule has been quite an eye opener for me. I am of the generation that was required to read George Orwell's 1984 in high school (it being, conveniently enough, 1984), and have been uneasy about all of the correlations between that book and our current government. Not that I'm saying things are that bad already - far from it - but I can see the ideas and plans being planted today that will eventually produce Orwellian fruit.
During the Bush administration, the biggest threat to personal liberty, in the eyes of Progressives, was the Patriot Act, which authorized surveillance of the American people's electronic communications for security reasons. Ironically enough, some actually cited 1984 in their arguments. Big Brother! Big Brother! they screamed in protest. How dare you listen to our phone calls - you are invading my free speech!
But the most obvious change is the gargantuan nanny state the Progressives under Obama are trying desperately to foist upon the American people. Their brazen determination in passing the highly unpopular health care bill is exhibit number one. That bill would give the government control over our own bodies. Interesting how they have conniptions about Big Brother listening in on a phone call, but Big Brother making very personal decisions on their physical well-being is a-okay. One can only imagine that if Obama had proposed the Patriot Act, it would have passed with little objection.
If that isn't enough, now they are talking about controlling our thoughts.
I know, I know, crazy right? Unfortunately, toes have already been dipped into that particular bath, and the water seems just fine. NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd has already broken ground on the Thought Police 'thinkcrime' concept with her article on the unspoken but still, apparently, thought addition of 'boy' to Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" Those on the right dismissed her accusation as crazy talk, and rightly so, but the left embraced her hypothesis, happy to put words not just in someone else's mouth, but in their minds, thus opening them up to castigation and derision.
A recent report from CNS News on President Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission nominee, Chai Feldblum, highlighted this mindset. Her views are actually a twofer for the progressives - attacking the right to think your own thoughts in the privacy of your own mind, and attacking religion at the same time!
In an article, titled "Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion", which was published in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006 she writes:
“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.
I beg your pardon, Ms. Feldblum, but we do tolerate people's private beliefs, even if they are racial in nature, provided those beliefs do not enter into a public forum and discriminate as a result. If I want to hate, say, smurfs because their blue skin reminds me of democrats, that is my own business. I probably should go into therapy, but that's a private matter, because those are my private thoughts. If I were to then refuse to hire or serve smurfs at my business because of their liberal blue tint, well, then Ms. Feldblum can take issue with me.
Reading 1984 in high school was a revelation for me. In the Cold War era that I grew up in, there really were places like George Orwell described in his books (Animal Farm was based on Stalin's Soviet Russia). The irony of it all is that the man was a socialist, but he abhored the totalitarian state, as his books Animal Farm and 1984 illustrated so profoundly.
These books need to be required reading again in our schools, because the totalitarianism Orwell so opposed is coming to fruition under the careful nurturing of the Progressive Agenda.
Progressives know full well that knowledge is power, and so they have been making sure for decades that We the People, under their Progressive-controlled academia, are powerless. Perhaps it's time that parents have their own required reading list for their teenaged children, with books like 1984 and Animal Farm at the top of the list.
I know I will., so that when my kids go to college and are fully immersed in the liberal doctrine, they will recognize Big Brother when they see it. I hope to God I'm not alone.
Monday, January 18, 2010
There has been a running commentary in the politics of the past few years that Glenn Beck touched on today. Anyone not neck deep in democratic dogma is ridiculed as being stupid. The left have for years portrayed themselves as the educated class. And yet, the left makes just as many downright stupid comments as the right.
A perfect example of this is 2008 Vice Presidential nominees Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Joe Biden is the original Gaffe Machine. He has suffered from foot-in-mouth disease for decades. And yet, who is universally known as the 'idiot'? Sarah Palin, of course. There's even a bumper sticker to prove it! Biden, however, is a well-educated senior statesman, or so we're told.
The liberals are always squawking about their intelligence. But then one of them says something like this, and blows the whole theory out of the water (via Fox Nation):
Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said THIS about Ted Kennedy's Senate seat...“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner."
Now that's an idiot.
UPDATE: David Schuster shows us his IQ.
Speaking of intelligence, let's not forget this
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
This is great. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
The democrats, in their desperation at the situation in Massachusetts, have come out with a smear ad attacking Scott Brown's scary, shadowy, fringe (apparently possibly satanic) moneymen (via Weasel Zippers):
SCOTT BROWN’S DEAL WITH THE DEVILOoooooooh.....scaaaaarrrrry! (Which is scarier - the devil or Karl Rove? trick question - Karl Rove is the devil, silly!) How dare Brown?! Who did he sell out to? Who will he owe?
Will Republicans Sell Out To National Tea Party Movement Backfire At Home?
And If He’s Elected, Who Will He Owe?
“Scott Brown made a deal with the devil – and he should have held out for a better one…Brown’s embrace of radical tea party groups for funding coincides nicely with his willingness to accept the millions in television ads from shadowy out-of-state organizations with links to Karl Rove…”
Um, the American People, you liberal idiots.
How did Brown make $1.3 million in 24 hours? Small donors. Coakley, on the other hand? Health care industry lobbyists. But Brown is the shady one with ulterior motives. Riiiight....
Perhaps if Brown's opposition at the DNC took a few minutes to read the Constitution, they would finally understand that the American people are exactly who he should 'sell out to' and most certainly the only ones he should 'owe'.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
I read a surprisingly good article by Peggy Noonan a few days ago. I'm not a big Noonan fan - she was a Reagan republican (literally - she worked for him from 1984-86) who has evolved into an Obama endorsing, Palin hating RINO. But her piece had some remarkably insightful passages, and at the end, I found myself agreeing with her.
The piece is titled "The Risk of Catastrophic Victory", and it is about just that - victories that trigger catastrophes. The democrats are facing their catastrophic victory right now:
Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.She believes that the question now isn't whether the Republicans will win seats or how many, it's whether they deserve the victory. She mentions a "well respected Republican congressman" who talked to her about a bill he wants to introduce to control the growth of entitlements and long term government spending:
If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, "You didn't even waste our time successfully."
I asked if his party was doing anything to get behind the bill, and he got the blanched look people get when they're trying to keep their faces from betraying anything. Not really, he said. Then he shrugged. "They're waiting for the Democrats to destroy themselves."This is where the Republicans run the risk of catastrophic victory, according to Noonan - standing back and allowing the democrats to destroy themselves (possibly bringing the country down with them) with nothing in the pipeline to pull us out of it and set things right.
As Newt Gingrich said the other night, Republicans need to " be the alternative party, not the opposition party". They have already tried to submit numerous health care bills, but the democrats refuse to consider them, so they are all still languishing in committees. If the Republicans take back the House in November, hopefully those bills will eventually be dusted off and reconsidered.
But they need more than just health care solutions. On America's top priorities list, health care comes in a distant second to the economy. Their first order of business has to be a detailed plan to fix the economy. They need to run on this, and the plan must be detailed but simple legislation that is easy to explain and easy to comprehend, with common sense, proven tactics to control spending, cut the deficit, create jobs and empower small business again. The bill(s) must be written and available online for the public to peruse at will prior to the election and implimented as soon as possible after the elections. That will keep their victory from becoming catastrophic. I think they may have finally realized that and are working on their plans, if Gingrich's quote is anything to go by.
Noonan ends the piece with a very astute analogy:
Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: "Rocky," "Raging Bull." They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of "Saving Private Ryan." "Earn this," he said to the man whose life he'd helped save.Amen.
Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious.
The other thing that caught my eye about this piece is a startling insight into the thinking of this administration:
I am wondering if the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don't understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. Just so, but in democracy you do this by garnering and galvanizing public support. But they think it's weaselly to be well thought of.She just misses the mark on this one. It isn't that they think it is weaselly to be well thought of - anyone with the level of hubris displayed by this crew couldn't possibly conceive of being considered weaselly. Besides, let's face it - they won the election because they made it into a popularity contest and ran what they considered to be a super-cool candidate - truly a style over substance affair.
The real truth, I think, is that the patience she mentions speaks to their own disdain and anger. They are filled with it, and, as commonly happens with people, they project their own opinions, values and feelings onto other people. They expect people to be angry and hate them, because they seem to be always angry and hate filled themselves. Everything is a personal attack, because whenever they attack, they make it personal. And so they are patient with the anger of others - it is an expected reaction.
Their disdain adds a dimension to their anger, because they feel that those who oppose them simply don't understand what is good for them. To them, the anger and frustration is completely understandable - simple minds lash out at the unknown. That is why, when they do get an angry response, they can easily dismiss it. Remember, they are the party of 'consensus' - they believe most everyone thinks exactly the way they do, which is why they call protesters 'fringe' - it is inconceivable to them that they are anything more than a tiny minority.
They are marinated in an elitist group think, and so wholeheartedly believe that if you think outside their accepted realm, you simply don't know any better and must be 'corrected'. That is what they are doing right now - they are pushing their agenda through because they feel that the only reason they are facing opposition is because we just don't know what is good for us. Since they do, they figure they will have to pass the agenda against our protests. Once it becomes the law of the land and we are confronted with the rainbow and unicorn filled utopia they will have created, we will come to our senses.
Our anger means nothing to them. Their sinking polls mean nothing. They feel they are making history (they seem almost desperate to), and that they will be vindicated and embraced in time.
Our only hope is that this juggernaut will be sabotaged by some democrats who have a clearer view of the reaction to their actions; whose own sense of self-preservation will outweigh their party ties and their quest to make history, no matter how bad or damaging.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
CNN's Jack Cafferty goes off on Obama, Pelosi and Congressional democrats in general:
It seems Pelosi has gone too far with her laughing about campaign promises as just a means to an end, not something to be held to, and her arrogant insistence that the whole health care process has been transparent. Even the left-wing neoPravda media now know just how stupid she thinks the American people are.
Welcome to the resistance, Jack! I'm glad you took the red pill....better late than never!
UPDATE: Jack must really be disillusioned. Make sure you watch to the end - he makes a comment about Pelosi that is just priceless:
At least the hookers were free!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Nancy Pelosi must go.
She is a danger to this country - her tactics since becoming Speaker of the House are foul, underhanded, and quite possibly treasonous. She is implementing her radical agenda against the protests of a majority of Americans. Her response to the many outrages she has committed against them is to deride, ridicule, slander and patronize.
Her response to a reporter's question on whether she will allow C-Span to cover the health care negotiations that will be taking place in some back room under cover of darkness with no bipartisan consensus was to be expected.
The woman actually laughed - laughed - when the reporter mentioned Obama's campaign promise to allow C-Span to broadcast the open, transparent, public-approved negotiations. She made a blatant dig at Obama and his remarkable record of broken campaign promises by saying, "There are a number of things he was for during the campaign."
Silly Americans, she seemed to say, don't you know we will say anything to get elected?
My response? Silly politician, don't you know we can fire you for your insolence?
Now, granted, the odds of Pelosi being voted out of office in San Francisco are about equal to the odds of, say, Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin being voted in to take her seat. So she will always be a fixture in the House, like it or not.
But we can join together and boot her out of the Speaker chair.
Although President Obama is getting the most heat for the radical nature of the current administration's agenda, the real force behind it is Pelosi. She is the one breaking arms and making deals - Harry Reid is dancing to her tune and following her lead in his efforts to further her agenda. Not that Obama isn't culpable, mind you. The fact that he is stepping back and allowing Pelosi and Reid free rein (all the while giving lip service to a 'new era of bipartisanship') is the main reason he is taking the heat for their actions. A leader he is not, and that will come back to haunt him in 2012, if not sooner.
The hyperpartisanship that has become such a blatant feature of this Congress is entirely due to Pelosi. It began in 2007 when she took over as Speaker, but, since the democrats won a supermajority and the White House, she has really gotten out of control.
She seems to be drunk with power, and rightly so. There is not a single person in a position of power even attempting to rein her in.
Why? Because her agenda is their agenda, but she can take the heat because the odds of her being voted out of office are slim to none (although, at least in my case, hope springs eternal). I'm sure Harry Reid is wishing it was the same for him.
The damage she is doing to this country is inexcusable. She must be removed from the Speaker position in November. Conservatives must take control of the House. It is the only hope this country has to get the train back on the tracks.
The great part about unseating her is that there is a good chance that people like Alan Grayson or, God willing, Barney Frank will be removed in that effort. We need to act locally but think nationally (and believe me, as a constituent of Grayson's, I will be working overtime to make sure he is a one-termer). For every Grayson or Frank removed brings us one step closer to prying that gavel out of her power grabbing fingers.
It's time to take a page from the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook the liberals have been following. It's time to make Pelosi the figurehead of the democrat movement and invoke Rule #13. It's time to pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Wouldn't it be sweet, sweet poetic justice to use her own tactics to neutralize her?
However it's done, though, Nancy's gotta go.
Monday, January 4, 2010
As the wife of a man who has to travel by air fairly frequently for work, situations like the Detroit bombing attempt really put me on edge. Not only did we narrowly miss a catastrophe on Christmas Day, but now it turns out that just yesterday there was a security breach at Newark Airport.
A man was seen walking the wrong way past security screening to the 'sterile' boarding areas. It caused much delay and the man has yet to be found. Flights that had boarded were cleared and the passengers re-screened. Needless to say it caused major delays. Hopefully they will identify and locate the person soon.
It is amazing how one pair of C4 skivvies can do so much to set us back on our heels. Where I once had a vague feeling of unease, I now am on red alert.
Who knows if reports of more underwear bombers are true or not, but we know these crazies are nothing if not persistent, so I wouldn't be surprised. But after Christmas Day, I just don't have the confidence in the security systems in place. It's as if 9/11 never happened. Why?
Bureaucracy, plain and simple. There are so many chefs in that kitchen that it is standing room only.
The problem with this bureaucracy is that lives hang in the balance. Much like ObamaCare, actually. But twice as frightening.
As someone once said, we have to get it right every time - they just have to get it right once. We were incredibly lucky to have averted disaster due solely to weapons malfunctions. They are working out the kinks, and the next time we might not be so lucky.
Part of the problem lies with the Bush era Office of the Director of National Intelligence for not putting the puzzle together (even though it was like a wooden toddler puzzle), but a larger part resides with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The sheer number of missed opportunities to catch Abdulmutallab is staggering, and they all happened on Obama's watch. Yes, the ODNI should have put the pieces together, but just one of the many instances where he slipped under the radar (or was completely ignored in the interest of fairness or some such idiotic politically correct claptrap) should have alerted at least one of the agencies to the danger. But none of them were.
Do they just not get it? The terrorists weren't attacking us because George W. Bush was president. They are attacking us because America is the 'Great Satan'.
They hate us because we are rich, we are free, and we are Israel's greatest ally. It's time for the Obama administration to realize this and act accordingly. Actually, they've done quite a lot recently, at least as far as making us less rich, less free and less of a friend to Israel, but those aren't the changes we need, and they don't seem to be doing much to garner goodwill with the terrorist factions out for American blood.
Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and trying to cut a deal with him to get information on potential bombers in the works is a joke. He has 'lawyered up' and won't say a word, because he was taught how to work the system. This man is an al Qaeda operative - he has acknowledged it and so has al Qaeda. That makes him an enemy combatant - an enemy soldier attacking civilians. A war criminal. He should be tried as such before a military tribunal. Al Qaeda has studied our civilian courts and know how to exploit them - they want us to try them civilly. We are playing into their hands.
To those who use the 'Bush tried Richard 'Shoe Bomber' Reid, among others, civilly' argument, please just stop. I'm so sick of this administration using this argument. Didn't Obama run against everything Bush? Wasn't the whole point of the 2008 election to illustrate how Bush did nothing right? I find it appalling how they cherry pick things that he did to justify doing the same thing, while in the same breath talking about how horrible Bush was and how flawed his decision making was. Which is it? I personally didn't agree with trying Richard Reid civilly. He was also an al Qaeda operative who tried to slaughter civilians and should have been tried by a military tribunal. Just because he doesn't wear a uniform and didn't sign paperwork to join al Qaeda doesn't mean he isn't an enemy soldier. This isn't World War II, where armies were massed against each other and certain rules of engagement were observed. This is terrorism, the next step in guerrilla warfare. It is war, they are soldiers, and our governement needs to acknowledge this.
And waterboard the jihadi right out of Abdulmutallab, too, while you're at it - if there's a chance he has information on future plots, we need to know right now. It's nice to know I'm not alone in my thinking on that particular point.
Perhaps if more of our bureaucrats were forced to fly commercial, there would be more done to make it truly safe.
In the meantime, every time my husband boards a flight, I live in fear. It seems to me the terrorists are more successful than we give them credit for.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
I've spent the last couple of weeks in hibernation mode. As the storm lashed outside the comfort of my den, I kept busy being a wife and mother. I think it's good to take time every now and again to remember who we are.
I have reflected on 2009 as we said goodbye. Pardon my squooshyness, but I have quite a bit about 2009 that was good.
I celebrated my 5-year anniversary at my job. Sure, it doesn't sound all that impressive, but I work for a builder/developer that has seen a 80% cut in staff over the past 2 years. Not only do I still have a job, but I got a raise and new bonus structure going into 2010. I have busted my ass and put up with a lot of crap over the past 5 years of employment; it's nice when the "big guys" notice and appreciate.
My husband managed another year with our family business. 2009 was ugly, but it wasn't as ugly as 2008. It actually became official; our business (also in the building industry) survived the crash. Towards the end of 2009, business actually picked up and jobs are on the schedule already for the first full month of 2010. We did it; by the grace of God and our own personal sacrifice, the company stayed afloat in the storm.
My husband and I celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary in 2009. In some ways, it feels like we've been together forever and in other ways, it seems like we just fell in love yesterday. As I reflect on the last 10 years of marriage, it really does blow my mind. All the struggle and crap we've endured proved to only grow us stronger and closer together. We spent most of the last 2 weeks of 2009 focused on each other and our daughter. I am blessed beyond words.
I am glad that I spent the last couple of weeks of 2009 in hibernation to reflect upon that which is of vital importance. I feel rested, refreshed and rejuvenated as we say officially say hello to 2010 tomorrow as we all head back to work and school.
I have a good feeling about 2010. I believe that all that "change" people yammered about in 2008 will finally come to pass in 2010. Real "change"; good "change". I believe that I am not the only person who came to see what is of vital importance. I believe that more people than I can imagine are ready to take 2010 by the horns. I believe that more people than I can imagine are ready for action; ready to take back control over their lives and the lives of their children.
Enough with the lies. Enough with corruption. Enough with legalized theft of our money and our freedoms.
This is America. We are Americans. The home of the brave and the land of the free. We believe in hard work. We believe in justice. We believe that which does not break us only serves to make us stronger.
We're Americans. This is our country. In 2010, we're taking it back.
Friday, January 1, 2010
From my family to yours, we wish you a happy, healthy, prosperous New Year!
2010 promises to be an exciting new year. Will the democrats continue their big-spend, bigger tax agenda, or will they finally take out their ear plugs and listen to the people? Will it be in time to win them some elections in November, or are the voter's memories longer than they give them credit for?
Is the Great Recession going to recede, or are we going to hit a double dip in the economy?
Is the Christmas Day wake-up call going to force the changes we need to keep us safe, or are we going to shrug it off as a lone-wolf one-off and continue along our merry way, hoping appeasement and drone strikes will take care of it all?
I'm excited about the new year, because there are just so many possibilities. I'm hoping that this year our elected officials will give me very little to blog about, because they will have gotten the message from their constituents over their Christmas break. Considering most of them went anywhere but to their home districts, though, I'm sure I'll have plenty to write about between now and November.
I hope you join me in the new year!