I was initially going to write something cogent, pointed and uni-topical, but I had too much I wanted to get down and couldn’t decide. So, here we go.
3350 camera digital polaroid 1. If my staffer did this, I would have fired her without discussion. Period. Verbal reprimands are for forgetting to send out the mail.
2. On a somewhat related note, the Tennessee General Assembly needs to go home, really. Please. Now.
3. The Gallup poll showing voter ideological self-identification broken down as 40% conservative, 35% moderate, and 21% liberal should give the rabid Obamanistas pause, especially since there wasn’t a conservative on the ballot in 2008, but it won’t (and look at that trend line - liberal ideas have been as popular as Vanilla Ice since about 1992).
4. The White House is now blocking access to its visitors list? That’s rather transparent. No, wait … I’ll go check on some new pending legislation instead, because it’s made easily accessible 5 days before…oh, darn. I want my change back.
5. I’m glad that ABC has finally caved, and is going to anchor news from within the White House. They can move in right next to the MSNBC set.
This week an interesting thing happened in Virginia. Creigh Deeds, a state senator, defeated former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe to win the party’s nomination for governor. Not only is this a setback for the Bill Clinton legacy (his lone bright spot appears to be … Bill Richardson?), but also for conventional campaign wisdom. Deeds was outspent 2 to 1 by McAuliffe, and despite a former president campaigning around the commonwealth with McAuliffe, Deeds won in a landslide, getting nearly half the vote.
What this says is that message and vision are important, and unlike money, never reaches a saturation point. In the Tennessee GOP primary, we have a similar situation. There will be one candidate who will attempt to spend more money than God has printed and three others who won’t be able to come close. Like your average Virginian, the average Tennessean is a savvier voter. This is especially the case for GOP primary voters. It simply will not work. In a four-way, regionally divided race, Bill Haslam’s monetary advantage is not going to be enough.
The silver lining for the mayor from Knoxville is that we now have a case study in how carrying former elected officials around the state to build support doesn’t always work. It seems that the mayor’s plan to campaign with Al Gore to tout his gun rights record have therefore been scrapped.
For all the bluster otherwise, the Obama administration has made it clear that it intends to meddle extensively in American business at the most basic of levels, from health care to taxation to corporate governance. Rules pertaining to management compensation are now being seriously debated in the Congress, a debate the topic of which ought never see the light of day. The federal government has never ventured into the realm of internal corporate governance - that has historically been the province of the states. But now, the central government is looking to decide the “structure” of compensation, as if the average Democrat in Congress (or more absurdly, the White House) knows a damn thing about how businesses function or how to create a cent of wealth.
They are, however, experts in 1) taking the productivity and gains of others, and 2) redistributing it to their constituencies, which largely explains how union bosses’ compensation are getting a free pass at the same time corporate management is being targeted for extermination. In essence, the federal government is going to tell shareholders what powers they can and cannot delegate to the board of directors. If your world view is sufficiently skewed, this probably makes more sense to you than it does to me.
The Obama administration is striking repeatedly at the heart of what has always made America tick, that resulted in the break from a colonial power and establishment of a list of grievances, and eventually, the Bill of Rights - economic freedom. There is no political freedom without economic freedom, and the process does not work in reverse. It is the freedom to rise above material want that allows one to pursue happiness. The ability to create, by the most cherished subcategory of artist, the entrepreneur, is what makes everything else, to include the laundry list of hare-brained social engineering programs, possible. It has been made clear through every conceivable policy heretofore proposed that the present occupant of the White House isn’t in the freedom business. Because the concept of freedom embodies individuality, he doesn’t trust it. His goal is a nation of collective dependents - a nation of pride castrated, baby birds.
There is one thing rational folks ought to be able to agree on. The government does nothing well. It is inefficient even in the activities where it is clearly authorized to act. The waste in the defense department is exhibit one. Why anyone would propose the government implicate itself in anything else, even for a moment, boggles the rational mind. Even for those statists who proclaim the need for everything from universal health care to a well-regulated business class, it has to be apparent that government at all levels has a massive proclivity for wastefulness and inefficiency. What makes people excel is incentives, which cannot exist within the bounds of state bureaucracy. When you evacuate incentives from those running the government and then command those who are now eligible to then become dependent on that government, you are creating a vacuum that sucks out the very essence of a man’s soul. People without incentives relying on people without incentives is a superbly perverse notion.
The message is clear, even as the White House tries to muddle it. The private sector cannot be trusted and it must be dealt with. The prescription is for a cure that will consume the very essence of the country they claim to want to save. WIthout a vibrant, free economy the United States is France. Sadly, for many in power, that is a seemingly preferable alternative.
Let’s see. We have audio, video and written statements by the nominee herself. It is not Republicans who are spinning on the Sotomayor nomination. They couldn’t if they wanted to, because with the F5 magnitude Barack Obama is spinning
“I think that when she’s appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is,” Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.
The president’s damage control underscored how the White House is eager to stay on message as the battle to publicly define Sotomayor picks up.
Obama’s top spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters about Sotomayor: “I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”
Nonsense? As in, the actual things she said, clearly, and knowingly? You cannot have it both ways - she cannot both intelligent and eloquent and suited for the Supreme Court and then be conveniently misunderstood when her beliefs become suspect. And poor, poor Robert Gibbs, having to reach the lowest common denominator when having to spin a bad statement. Alas, it was just “word choice”. Apparently, there was no thought behind what she said whatsoever. Right. And she doesn’t really believe appellate courts should make policy, either.
Earlier in the week, Newt Gingrich said it well. If you take the following statement made by Sotomayor
“I would hope that a wise 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.”
and then imagine say, Supreme Court nominee Antonin Scalia making this statement
download misery divx with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
There would be hell to pay, and rightly so. The only issue on which a jurist should be measured is the validity of her understanding of the Constitution and her intellectual ability in interpreting it. Unless you are prepared to say one race is intellectually superior to another, her statement is completely out of bounds. Empathy is as relevant as hair color.
Sotomayor will be confirmed - I have no doubt about that, because the Democrats have the votes, and there isn’t an independent bone in a one of them. What Sotomayor’s nomination does is give us a clear view into Obama’s real views on race and the kind of people he wants to associate into his government. Put in context, this administration is quickly becoming one of the more race-centered ones in history, putting race prominently on the front lines in the most questionable of ways, and doing it in the most devastating way by apparently making it a cornerstone of legal appointments. Attorney General Eric Holder thinks race should be more prominent, mere weeks ago calling us all “cowards” on the subject. Despite overwhelming evidence (the standard is a mere preponderance), the Justice Department has dropped its pursuit of civil sanctionsdownload what women want online against the Black Panthers who used weapons and racial slurs to intimidate voters at the polls in Philadelphia last November. And now we witness the appointment of Sotomayor, who believes the “richness” of her experience somehow makes her a better scholar, and who a prominent liberal constitutional scholar has deemed lacking in intellectual firepower
to be an effective member of the court. Jonathan Turley had this to say (watching Chris Matthews get all verklempt was an added bonus)
But I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy. You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We’re selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I’ve read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don’t speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I ‘ll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed. I am in the sense that Diane Wood, Harold Coe, were not the ultimate people to prevail. These are people that are blazingly brilliant. They would have brought to the court intellects that would frame in the conceptual way.
This nomination tells us a lot about the president, and it’s not much good.
It’s out, and it’s available. Today on Legislative Plaza, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has released its assessment of the state’s budget, and has easily found $580 million in (unfortunately) inedible pork the General Assembly ought to answer for. The report can be found here.
More pictures can be found at my Facebook page (no need to be a user to see them - I don’t think …). Notable attendees were Comptroller Justin Wilson, Senators Tim Burchett and Mike Faulk, Shelby County DA Bill Gibbons (the next governor of Tennessee), and Judson Phillips, chief organizer of the Tennessee Tea Party movement (there were more … but I don’t want this post to turn into a CMA acceptance speech).
The brief talk, followed by a question-and-answer session, seems to register with his audience.
On her way out, Maxine Gernert, the newly elected chair of the McMinn County Republican Party, whispers to Adam Nickas, Gibbons’ driver and (as they say in the political trade) “body man” charged with getting him to the places where he needs to be and making sure he shows up on time, “How exciting! He gives the sense of being authentic.”
On the other hand, there are dissenters. Bryan Jackson, a retired economics teacher, challenges Gibbons on his opposition to a state income tax. “I can’t support anybody for governor who’ll take the income tax off the table,” Jackson tells the candidate affably but firmly.download fifth element the dvd
“Well, it’s off the table,” says Gibbons, who cites what he says is the haphazard condition of the state of California, which has the highest per capita state income-tax rate in the nation. Gibbons isn’t about to espouse a remedy that engendered a long-running legislative war in the early part of this decade and virtually eroded the GOP base of Sundquist, the last Republican from Shelby County to hold the office of governor.
Sounds good to me. Of course, I would have preferred the title of the piece to have been “The Man Who Will Be Governor”, but as we all know, the perfect is no more than the enemy of the good.
Of course, I am one of those crazy people who believe that terrorists should be kept away from American soil. Guantanamo Bay is as good as anywhere off the mainland, and I commend that Democrats for now refusing to authorize funding to shut it down.
Alas, motives complicate things.
Anyone with the political memory longer than your average MoveOn.org goldfish will recall that President Obama made a repeated campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay holding facility, and mere moments into his administration, made good on it by signing an executive order shutting Gitmo within a year. Democrats near and far, from California, to Nevada to Illinois, crowed that American policies were that of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. Things are bad there. Gitmo is a terrorist recruting tool. Enemy combatants’ rights are being violated, etc., etc., etc.
And then comes the miraculous change of heart. We cannot put those held in Gitmo inside the United States proper, begging the question of course as to whether rights were really being violated and confirming, as a rational member of civilization might conclude, that the prisoners there are not good guys and are in fact right where they should be. Even their own fundamentalist Islamic governments think they are bad news, refusing to take them off our hands.
So, what gives? Reid, Durbin, and all other Senate pols Democrat now are unwilling to fund the decommissioning of Gitmo, irrevocably selling out completely on the miniscule credibility they may have possessed on the issue. President Obama, realizing now at this juncture that the closing of Guantanamo Bay would be a bad idea for America’s security does not want to further anger his already emotionally distraught sycophantic liberal base. Thus, Congressional Democrats take the hit. First, the CIA has conspired against Speaker Pelosi, and now this - someone’s having a bad week.
On the upside, even if it is for the clumsiest of political motives, you can count this part-time political observer happy that the president has decided that Bush, Cheney, et al were right on the Guantanamo Bay issue. Despite blatant missteps at the beginning, it is a net positive that the White House is taking national security seriously. Certainly Obama could whip the caucus into shape if he really wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, but for once, it’s nice to see him take the right stand, even if it involves putting his party in a precarious position and covering his own political tail feathers.
We can’t quite call it leadership, but it’s a start.
Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer discuss the ramifications of the “solution” advanced by many a blue state governor to balance their budgets - tax the wealthythree kings movie
And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, “Rich States, Poor States,” published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.
Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Research also showed that Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, three states that recently increased taxes on top income earners, now rank 46th, 49th, and 50th in percentage of wealthy filers compared to the national average. I suppose this might surprise some people, but it shouldn’t. Voters, and producers, vote with their feet, especially voters of means who can more easily move. If you scare away the biggest tax payers you endanger your own tax base. Read more from the article - it is truly compelling stuff.
The mayor from Knoxville seems to believe that education is suffering in Tennessee because … no one cares? From The Daily Times in Maryville
Tennessee is getting the schools it deserves, according to Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam. He wants that to change.
Haslam, who is seeking the Republican nomination for Tennessee governor, compared the state’s academic performance with that of the former Soviet Republics during a breakfast at the Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. He said the educational culture of the state must change before student performance will improve.
I agree the bar needs to be set higher. However, saying that the magic bullet is “care” doesn’t sound much like a policy position to me. What’s next? Happiness for unemployment.
Don't forget - today is the last day to give to Bill Gibbons for TN Governor b4 the deadline! Donate online - http://nuburl.com/3v3 days ago
Heh. Does Obama have plans for small businesses? Yeah, he does. They need to be dealt with ... this "town hall" should be on Comedy Central. 2009-05-14
thanks everyone for their thoughts and good wishes on her birthday. Enjoyed a yummy birthday dinner courtesy of one my best girlfriends. Time for a little writing work (deadlines know no birthdays) and then perhaps a few quiet moments on the deck on this gorgeous Tennessee night!
is thankful for the pure joy that comes from running barefoot and catching fireflies in the backyard with her precious daughter while thunderstorms start to roll in.
enjoyed a "girls' night in" last night with my fellow playgroup mamas and is looking forward to dinner out tonight with another great group of girlfriends!
Notable Quotables
Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.
Sometimes I watch the Maury Povich show and I think to myself, “If I wasn’t already married, I would definitely be chasing one of these fine young men who has fathered multiple children with numerous women!” Nothing is more manly than repeatedly demonstrating that your sperm is capable of swimming through the internal terrain of women whose self-esteem is lower than that of the average Detroit Lions fan.
Now that I have discovered that the record holder for baby production lives right here in the great state of Tennessee, I must admit that my heart has quickened just a bit. Desmond Hatchett has fathered 21 childrenfly away home download free by eleven different women for whom discernment and wise life choices are certainly core strengths and he resides in Knoxville! Desmond (Mr. Hatchett if you’re nasty) is several years younger than me, so it may be time to gain some cougar skills and track this fine gentleman down!
I love how he speaks with pride that he knows the names and ages of all of his children, who range in age from newborn to eleven years old. That’s sweet. Dude must be going to birthday parties all the time!
Hatchett has been ordered by the Knox County Juvenile Child Support Court to provide half of the earnings from his minimum wage job to his various baby mamas. This will average out to about $1.98 per kid every month. As a mother of a three-year-old and another one who will be arriving in about three months, I know that this will buy you about seven diapers or two jars of baby food. Let it come as no surprise that the state of Tennessee is now picking up the tab to keep these children fed and healthy.
The kids certainly need to receive food and health care, as it is not their fault that they are the product of two irresponsible people. And, while Desmond Hatchett deserves all of the negative press he is receiving for his procreating hobby, the mothers must be held accountable as well. One of the moms said, “He’s a heavy milk drinker and milk is not cheap.” You knew this man had other children by many other women. His track record for providing the finer things in life was not well-established, and yet you selected this man as someone with whom you would have unprotected sex. Sorry … I refuse to see you as the victim in this situation.
Following his election in November, President Obama promised a new era of openness and sharing in the federal government.
Pointing out that the Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive in American history, Barack Obama has vowed to drastically increase government openness with a new level of transparency and accountability.
Amusing pledge coming from a guy who has sealed or refused to reveal all possible education, health and birth records. But, maybe he’s had a change of heart?
I’ve noticed watching Obama’s already frequent press conferences that he is very selective about the questions he answers. He has told a reporter not to waste his time on a chosen topic and instead pick another question. He has walked away from the podium when he does not care for a particular query. Perhaps he has found a way to make his meetings with the press even a little more comfortable … which is tough to do when you are already surrounded by people who never asked a single tough question of you during the campaign and who enjoyed “thrills up their leg” at the mere sound of your voice and who admit their “knees quaked a bit” at the prospect of reporting on your candidacy.
The Obama news conferences tell that story, making one yearn for the return of the always-irritating Sam Donaldson to awaken the slumbering press to the notion that decorum isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
The press corps, most of us, don’t even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who’ve been advised they will be called upon that day.
That’s great. Make sure you only take friendly questions and don’t be pestered by anyone who wants to challenge the concept that you have any idea what you are doing. We shouldn’t be surprised, though. He kicked journalists off his campaign plane who represented newspapers that were not always friendly to him.
Yes, the path is definitely being established for great transparency.
For some reason, taxes are on my mind a lot this morning. I guess there’s nothing like a rainy Saturday to provoke thoughts about how the government is wasting thousands of dollars every time I blink my eyes. I do understand that there are important services provided by the federal government, such as national security, highway construction and maintenance, postal service, etc. that require our money. Although I know this will NEVER happen during the Obama administration and unfortunately had no chance of happening under the previous “Republican” administration, I would be thrilled to see the following changes to our tax structure:
1. Every American contributes 10% of his or her income to the federal government. I don’t care if you make $200 or $2 million … you give 10%. We all use the services provided by D.C., we should all contribute to their cost. No more tax brackets. Just 10% across the board for everyone.
2. End automated withdrawal of taxes. We should be forced to write a check every month or quarterly to the government. I think there would be a much greater demand for accountability from the taxpayers if we actually saw the money leave our checking accounts on a regular basis. Wait a minute … what exactly are they using all of this for? I need to contact my Congressman!
That’s it. Beyond any other legislation, making these changes to the way we pay our federal taxes would make me happy. After that, we can worry about opting out of social security or at least raising the minimum age needed to receive benefits. eliminating the federal Department of Education, taking government out of the marriage contract, removing nanny laws such as those regarding drugs and seat belts, and other ways in which the government unnecessarily involves itself in our lives.
Ah, the exciting and completely arbitrary 100-day mark of the Obama administration. Since everyone else is talking about this landmark, at least when they are not discussing the pig flu that is sweeping the globe faster than the macarena, I thought I would reflect for a moment as well.
I must admit, I’m a bit stumped. What exactly has he accomplished? What do his supporters point to and say, “See … that’s why I voted for this guy!”? Yes, I know he has sparkly approval numbers. That’s lovely for him. But, what has he DONE? I’ve come up with my own list.
1. Break campaign promises. President Obama promised while a candidate for his current office that he would place any non-emergency legislation before the American public in an online format for five days before signing the bill. He’s one for eleven so far on that count. Were all of these laws considered to be “emergency” needs for the country? Not really. Don’t forget his extended weekend to Chicago to celebrate Valentine’s Day while the stimulus bill waited for his signature.
2. Gift neat little gadgets without proofreading. What an impressive diplomatic move on our part! Take a popular television commercial for Circuit City and incorporate into our foreign policy with Russia! Darn … if only the guys at the State Department would have made sure that the button said “Reset” instead of “Overcharge.” That would have been a totally brilliant move in geopolitics. Historians would have written books about it!
3. Appoint someone who doesn’t pay his taxes to supervise our tax collection. I know that Secretary Geitner is not the only Cabinet appointee who failed to pay Uncle Sam, but his omission is certainly the most offensive. The man who is now in charge of tax policy cannot even be trusted to follow the laws himself. But, I guess we can make exceptions for Obama’s chosen ones.
4. Treat a REAL federal responsibility like a silly matter of semantics. While President Obama is all excited about the idea of running private companies, inflating our tires, hiring our teachers, buying our refrigerators, and tracking us all with GPS devices supposedly intended for tax collection purposes, he is failing to take seriously the most important duty of the federal government, which is to protect the homeland. We now have someone in charge of this crucial responsibility who thinks that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada and that acts of terrorism should be referred to as “man-made disasters.”
5. Pass the buck. When Harry Truman was president, he kept a sign on his desk that read, “The Buck Stops Here.” President Obama should have a sign that reads, “Looking for Someone to Blame.” In his first press conference, he deferred to Secretary Geitner to share “clear and specific plans” instead of explaining his proposals for economic recovery and their potential effects. Later, when asked about prosecuting members of the Bush administration, he said that he would leave it up to Attorney General Holder. These men work for you, sir. Ultimately, everything lies at your feet. Kind of scary, huh? Stop protecting yourself by associating the tough stuff with others.
6. Pass the buck, part two. President Obama doesn’t just make his administration’s decisions the responsibility of others before they happen, but also after the fact. At the end of the day, it is the president’s problem if a federal agency decides that Air Force One needs some Glamour Shots over lower Manhattan at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers and with a known chance of panic among the area’s residents and workers. Don’t get all pissy about it. Take responsibility for it! You found out that one of your planes was taken for some publicity photos at the same time as we did? That’s comforting … and not quite believable.
7. Make up languages. While speaking in Europe, President Obama uttered the phrase, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian.” I thought he was the most brilliant, sophisticated, cosmopolitan president that we’ve ever had?
8. Ignore your role as head of your party. As the sitting president, you are considered the head of your party. Every high school textbook teaches this as one of the eight roles of the presidency. As soon as Senator Specter announced he was jumping ship and joining the Democratic Party to save his political hide, President Obama offered his full supportusual suspects the dvd . His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, indicated that this will include campaign stops and fund raising. It seems more than a bit inappropriate to be playing favorites amongst your party’s candidates. If no other Democrats appear on the primary ballot, then go for it. Otherwise, this promise is simply unprofessional and unfair.
So, of which of these accomplishments should we be most proud as a nation? So many wonderful choices!
“That’s some rough girls from Rutgers…Man, they got tattoos … That’s some nappy headed hoes there, I’m going to tell you that.”
He is fired from his nationally syndicated radio show and his TV simulcast and met with weeks of public outrage and condemnation.
Jamie Foxx says:
“Who is Miley Cyrus? The one with all the gums? She’s got to get a gum transplant! [Miley should] make a sex tape and grow up. Get like Britney Spears and do some heroin. Do like Lindsay Lohan … and get some crack in your pipe … That’s what I want.”
A female voice added that the sex tape should be “with [her] dad” and another participant in the radio show called Cyrus a “white bitch.”
What happened to Jamie Foxx? He apologized on The Tonight Show and The Bonnie Hunt Show an chalked up his comments to “being a comedian”. And, that seems to be about it.
Foxx makes hurtful statements about an underage female’s appearance, encourages her to do drugs, accepts discussions of incest between said girl and her father, and allows her to be called a bitch on his show. He apologies on a couple of talk shows and now all is well.
Why isn’t Fox being run from the airwaves just like Imus? His comments, and those made by others on his show, are at least as offensive as those spoken by Imus two years ago.
For the record, I don’t think that either man should be fired. I do, however, fully advocate turning them off. A drop-off in listeners and movie attendees for Foxx would be a wonderful consequence!
I never listened to Imus, so I had no problem tuning him out. And, I’ve never been a Jamie Foxx fan. He isn’t that funny and his singing is painful. So, I now will gladly change the station whenever he comes on the air.
Awwww! Isn’t that sweet? Our President shares a cool handshake and a smile with a socialist dictator who has shown a complete disregard for human rights and squashed all dissenting opinions in his country. But, hey, Chavez has proclaimed that he is best buddies with Communist leader and all-around-swell-guy (at least when he’s not arresting those with opposing voices and putting them up for sham trials, sanctioning torture, repressing freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. or sending people to jail for using the Internet) Fidel Castro. So, he must be OK, right?
This photo is not an example of a new president negotiating with our adversaries after years of a “dangerous cowboy diplomacy.” Instead, it is a sad display of a leader who shows that he will be completely unwilling to stand firm and advocate for American values of freedom and democracy.
It’s one thing to say you want to talk with world leaders whose goals and ideals are in complete opposition to our own, and who have even predicted the downfall of the United States. I get the need for diplomacy and agree that it was needed in greater and more effective doses during the past administration. However, it’s quite another to laugh and share a warm, friendly moment. It is either arrogant or naive (or both?) on the part of President Obama, and puts us in a very weak position.
let me start by stating that I acknowledge the limited effectiveness of a day of rallies. Protests in and of themselves have proven to do very little. However, I continue to hope that maybe … just maybe … enough momentum can be gained by these efforts that a real awakening can occur.
OK, that being said, those of you who are labeling the tea parties as being comprised of a bunch of racist neo-Nazis who left the tea party to head straight to a cross burning are completely asinine. (I doubt most Klan morons couldn’t even spell Atlas Shrugged
, let alone read it or even bother to crack the cover. And, before you respond, I know that a lot of people attending the tea parties today haven’t read it, either.) Most of the men and women who took part in the rallies/protests today had never taken part in such a demonstration before. A great majority of them were the working-class Americans for which liberals have such great pity because they aren’t smart enough to vote in their own economic interests. They were not Republican or Democrat. Were almost all of the protesters white? Yes. Were almost all of the protesters who took to the National Mall time and again to protest the Iraq War white? Again, yes. Does that automatically make either cause wrong? No. What else have you got as evidence of supposedly racist intentions other than the fact that most of the people who showed up today were pale faces?
Please don’t give me that garbage that today was really a protest against a black president. There were more comments and signs targeted at the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Dodd than President Obama. I think it’s no more complicated than the fact that years of disgust with the spending of both Democrats AND Republicans have finally reached a boiling point. The Democrats just have been particularly good at it for the past two plus years (counting when they took over Congress) without taking any responsibility or blame for the problem (yeah, Barney Frank’s hands are really clean when it comes to the Freddie and Fannie debacle).
Second, the “teabagging” jokes are so juvenile. Guess what? We get the reference. You aren’t pulling one over on the naive conservatives. “Ha, ha … Sean Hannity likes to teabag in public!” “Giggle, giggle … Newt Gingrich is a teabagger!” Come on! Are you all twelve-year-olds who have been watching too many reruns of Beavis and Butthead?
Disgusting. Just disgusting. We have allowed Somali pirates to interrupt our commerce and humanitarian efforts. What is our response? We have the FBI in negotiations WITH PIRATES, President Obama is reading updates on the situation, and Secretary of State Clinton has the giggles.
Foreign policy is off to a wonderful start for the Obama administration. A “Restart/Overcharge” button for the Russians. A YouTube video and flowery letter for Iran. A stern finger wagging for North Korea as it threatens to set off a type of missile that it never has constructed before, and a reliance on an United Nations Security Council that can reach no decision on consequences after the fact. And now, pirates from Somalia have deemed the United States weak enough to attack one of our ships. Lovely.
President Obama has shown a complete lack of leadership and just gives the impression he has no idea what to do. These are serious matters, Mr. President, that require some real resolve. Your face should be prominent as you defend America and promise to protect her at all costs.
Let me help. Ask for a minute of TV time, stare into the camera and say, “The United States of America WILL NOT allow any of our people or property to be harmed by a rogue band of pirates. Be warned. Surrender now or your minutes on this earth are numbered.”
Two days ago, A.C. Kleinheider over at the Nashville Post posted an entry entitled “Libertarian Republicanism the Wave of the Future?” We certainly need at least to trend in this direction, and away from the in-your-personal-business, big government actions of late. Steps towards a reduction in government intrusion would be a return to real conservatism.
If you call yourself a conservative of the Reagan or Roosevelt (T, not FD) model, I hope you would agree with me that any imposition on freedom of the individual is a step in the wrong direction. As I have stated many times in the past, I consider my political philosophy to be “individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility.” If you are an adult who has no plans to harm others through your actions, why should the government be able to tell you what to do? For this reason, I am opposed to:
1. seat belt laws for adults
2. motorcycle helmet laws for adults
3. most drug-possession related laws for adults
and many other restrictions on our freedoms. Again, I am referring to grown-ups who can make their own decisions! Do you want to speed your two-wheeled death machine at 100mph and splatter your brains all over the interstate? Go for it. You want to sit in your basement and fry your brain with chemicals while watching old zombie movies? Why not?
I also do not get how some conservatives can LEGITIMATELY argue that their efforts to interfere with gay relationships is consistent with an ideology that, at its roots, embraces freedom. I am frustrated time and again with people who are concerned about two (or ten) adults of the same sex who want to be together when there are much more pressing problems that should be concerning us.
President Obama has lied about many of the campaign promises he made to middle-class voters (transparency in government, taxes, job creation, Iraq, etc). He has proposed programs that will bankrupt us for generations to come. He is making us look weak and apologizing for our country during his grand European tour (I won’t call on Americans during the town hall meeting, I won’t visit the cemetery of our fallen WWII heroes, etc). Still, there are some Americans who find it a good use of their time to hold up signs outside of a court house in Iowa or actually list gay marriage as one of their top policy concerns. Please!!! Can we focus on a real problem??
Your religious convictions state that homosexuality is a sin and that those who participate in such an act are going to hell. I get that. However, it is not the role of the government to codify the tenets of the Bible. Also, it is not your job to judge. I am a Christian who has spent a lot of time reading the Bible and I am pretty sure there is Someone a lot more important than you who will issue judgment.
Conservatives don’t want government running our health care or our schools. I agree on both counts. I want as much privatization as possible. So, why do you want government dictating marriage? If marriage truly is one of the most important relationships that our world offers (which I believe it is), why do you want government making the decisions?
Let’s get back to reading the Constitution and going after our government when it works to tear down the founding principles of our great country. Otherwise … leave people alone.
This is how it should be. In a ruling this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman. Certainly, there will now be an effort in the state legislature to create a constitutional amendment “protecting” marriage. And, that’s OK, too. These are exactly the types of decisions that should be made within a state’s borders. Will the exceptions to the full faith and credit clause as well as the Defense of Marriage Act prevent the gay marriages that take place in Iowa from being honored in other states? Yes. I’m good with that, too. You can then either work to change the laws in the state you wish to live or remain in a state that is legally accepting of the union.
I still want government out of marriage altogether. I don’t want it sanctioning my marriage to Nathan or restricting a marriage between two men or two women. It’s none of the government’s business. Come on, conservatives. Let’s be consistent. If we say we don’t want the government dictating our lives, let’s mean it. If two consenting adults want to make a pledge of commitment, why should Washington, D.C. or Des Moines or Nashville care? If a woman wants to have her partner of twenty years beside her in the hospital, why should lawmakers be offended? Limited government is a beautiful thing. Let’s give it a try.
When government gets its hands out of marriage completely, I truly will celebrate.
