How sad is it that it takes the Prime Minister of an former communist country, the Czech Republic, to point out that we are following the road to socialism, which is the road to ruin? Isn't that the duty of the er, republican party? What am I missing here?
With that being said, this man, Daniel Hannan, an MP in the United Kingdom, and an member of the European parliament (MEP), say what they should be saying! He says it, though, with greater force, intellect, and clarity than anyone this author has heard since Ronald Reagan...T
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The other, second point is that he is right. Roosevelt DID cause the great depression to last for over a decade! GDP was no larger in 1940 than it was in 1930. Anyone who had money would have been a fool to invest it when FDR was taking %90 of all cash in the system!
Also, no, Financial Times, it's NOT just "a view held by a small handful of right wing economists" that FDR is to blame - unless you include Milton Friedman and thousands of mainstream economists worldwide!...T
European Union hopes for a new era in relations with the US were thrown into chaos on Wednesday when the holder of the EU presidency condemned American remedies for the global recession as “the road to hell”...
“The US Treasury secretary talks about permanent action and we, at our spring council, were quite alarmed at that . . . The US is repeating mistakes from the 1930s, such as wide-ranging stimuluses, protectionist tendencies and appeals, the Buy American campaign, and so on,” he told a European parliament session in Strasbourg. “All these steps, their combination and their permanency, are the road to hell.”
Other leaders of EU member states, including Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, disagree with US calls for big fiscal stimuli to battle the recession. But they have couched their opposition in more diplomatic language than Mr Topolanek’s.
Mr Obama has vigorously opposed the view that the Great Depression was caused by too much spending, rather than too little, a view held by a small handful of rightwing economists.
Full article in new window
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Image by genetew via FlickrI think as part of a Giuliani/Petraeus ticket this could be unbeatable. Really it is unlikely that one with no political experience can capture the presidency. (unless, of course, you are a communist community organizer and radical with no public record, and with the slobbering, drooling support of the drive-by media...)
By 2012 republican divisions should be gone thanks to Osama, Pelosi, and Reid, oh my! Yes, and Giuliani would be a great president in his own right. He is much more conservative than given credit for, even on social issues, where he has pledged a strict constructionist court, and especially an economics and libertarian issues. Yes, and he is the only American Pol with the intellectual stamina to tame the executive branch and impose his will on congress.
So it's early, I know! Here, anyway, is to Rudy/David in 2012!...T
Signs of our collective weakness emerged after 9/11 when only part of the American population took seriously that we were at war with an evil and motivated enemy determined to destroy our way of life. Since then, al Qaeda has refused to quit despite debilitating losses.
Clearly, our national will is wilting away.
Following the tragic lead of Europe, too many Americans no longer want to engage our external threats head-on. And on the domestic front, we are confronting the economic crisis of our lifetime with the same full-steam-ahead spending-spree mind-set that got us into the mess to begin with.
We say: Let's create more government dependency, reward the incompetent and print more money.
That's doubling down on stupidity.
We are a trust-fund nation (picture Tori Spelling in the Lifetime Channel role of her career) whose BMW has run out of gas in the middle of the Mojave Desert after a pointless 115-miles-per-hour joy ride. The credit cards are maxed out. We're out of cell phone range. And dad, who just got taken by Uncle Bernie Madoff, wouldn't take the call anyway.
The silent generation, which learned valuable lessons from the Depression and World War II, is not here to guide us through these difficult times. The narcissistic baby boomers, who probably think this song is about them, are now firmly in charge. And that's the rub.
What is scaring us - even though many of us won't admit it - is that we elected a president who wants more than anything to be liked. What else explains his headlong rush to persuade foreign governments - even enemy regimes - to embrace us? And what else justifies his infatuation with Hollywood?
And even that he doesn't quite get right. I still can't believe that the president of the United States traveled across the country - without his teleprompter crutch - and made fun of the Special Olympics on national television.
When the going gets tough, the weak go on Leno.
I can't get out of my head that the leader of the free world gave the British prime minister 25 films on DVD that don't even work in U.K. machines.
I can't wrap my head around the fact that the commander in chief tried (for a minute anyway) to require injured warriors to pay to have private insurers take care of their treatment.
I can't believe the president would allow the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to dictate the terms of his budget - and Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, the symbols of government kowtowing to Wall Street - to be spokesmen for his financial bailout.
And did President Obama really produce a YouTube video to appease President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran?
Yes, he did.
These aren't beginner's mistakes. These are his core incompetencies.
The media that got him elected knows it is responsible for the gathering debacle, and so Jon Stewart, a so-called comedian and exemplar of the groupthink of the governing elite, is desperately hunting for scapegoats. Now that their secular savior is in charge, the "Dissent is Patriotic" bumper-sticker crowd is figuring out ways to stamp out criticism.
I admit, I am now officially freaking out.
The last time I felt this hopeless was when the Democratic Party and its cohorts in the media sold us on the false premise that we lost the war in Iraq. In the process, they also sought to demonize the very man that led us out of our peril.
His name is Gen. David H. Petraeus.
Less than two months into the Obama presidency, which appears to be lost somewhere in the Mojave Desert, I have decided to try to soothe my anxieties by placing my hope in a political surge.
In the election of 2010, Republicans should run heroic veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom who exhibited the will and fortitude to defeat the enemy and to rebuild a torn nation, even while too many of their fellow countrymen wrote them off.
And in 2012, the man President Obama's staunchest allies called "General Betray Us" should come in with guns blazing and defeat the man whose only weapon to lead us to victory is a teleprompter.
Full article in new window
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Janet Napolitano: Islamic Terrorism Not Politically Correct; Prefers To Call It "Man-Caused Disaster"
Note: re-posted from "Transylvania Phoenix" - see link at bottom -
This development is stunningly ignorant, yet entirely predictable. Any of you go to university in the last 15 years? When I did, I wasn't allowed to use the term "Frontier" because it implied, oh yes my friends, that people beyond said frontier were not as civilized as people behind said frontier.
When challenged to give me an example of a nomadic civilization that has absorbed a static one (with the temporary yet significant exception of the Mongols), the teacher could not do so, and the students never looked at her, or me, the same way ever again. That is, metaphorically, what we need to do to Osama and his socialist brown shirts - in force. To arms!...T - Thanks to Shallow Kitty for the link -
George Orwell was not only a brilliant author -- he was a true prophet.
INTERVIEW WITH HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO
"Away From the Politics of Fear"
Janet Napolitano, 51, is President Obama's new Homeland Security Secretary. She spoke with a reporter from the German newspaper DER SPIEGEL about immigration, the continued threat of terrorism and the changing tone in Washington.
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. The complete interview here
Say "Liberal" and flush the toilet. Man-made disasters do exist: like the American sheeple electing a super-majority of corrupt socialist liberals in the Legislative, then electing a disciple of Saul Alinsky and friend of the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers as President of the United States of America.
Full article in new window
Monday, March 16, 2009
I think I'm beginning to understand. Why does the phrase "Life imitates art" keep popping into my head?...T - Thanks to Mata Hoti -
A Democrat's Confession
I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
I voted Democrat because I believe oil company's profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a hybrid.
I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my rectum that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher
Full article in new window
Thursday, March 12, 2009
See, it's not just me. It's not just bloggers calling Obama a socialist, a communist, and even worse. Read what Rush Limbaugh says in his introduction to the WSJ piece by Daniel Henninger that quotes from Obama's own budget, proving that these leftists know full well their policies will not produce revenue, just retribution. Read what Rush has the courage to call Obama - A Stalinist -
"Daniel Henninger is a brilliant guy. His column is consistently superb, and this one really nails who Obama is. It's why, during the campaign, Obama made the "moral" argument for taxing the achievers even when it was pointed out to him that this would necessarily depress revenues and therefore deny his big government the resources to do the big things he wants to do.
This was never about economics, not principally. It's about "social justice." His education plan is Maoist (no surprise given the Ayers/Klonsky influence), and he is otherwise a Bolshevik. I'm also quite sure, given his character traits, that he would be a Stalinist if he thought he could get away with it ... and he's working on that, too. I wonder what the country will look like in his 10th or 15th year as president?"
Finally, here is Henninger's take on Obama's motivation -
"The White House says its goal is simple 'fairness.' That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 (click to view) makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, 'it is our duty to change it.' "
The full article is linked below. Sadly, I couldn't agree more...T
Full article in new window
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Welcome home Pat. Welcome back to the movement you, and many others, watched burn as you fiddled. Welcome home because we need your voice now to sound the clarion call: "This guy Obama is a fanatic!"
Speak loudly, clearly and with passion republicans, before it is too late: "Mr. Obama sir, you have no mandate to destroy the liberty of the american people to provide for themselves, and you shall be opposed, and ultimately defeated!"...T
It was the winter of conservative discontent.
Barry Goldwater had gotten only 38 percent of the vote, and his party had suffered its worst thrashing since Alf Landon fell to FDR in 1936.
Democrats held 295 House seats, Republicans 140. They held 68 Senate seats to Republicans' 32, and 33 governors to the GOP's 17.
Democratic registration was twice that of the GOP. The liberal press was gleefully writing the obituary of "The Party That Lost Its Head."
Decades might pass, it was said, before the GOP recovered from its fatal embrace of right-wing radicalism and foolish rejection of the leadership of Govs. Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton.
Wrote Robert Donovan in the opening lines of his book, "The Future of the Republican Party":
"The devastating defeat of Barry Goldwater at the hands of voters in all sections of the country but the Deep South has damaged, weakened and tarnished the party. For years to come ... the two-party system will be crippled."
Donovan and all the rest were wrong. The GOP came roaring back in 1966 to capture 47 House seats and eight new governorships. In 1968, Nixon led the party out of the wilderness and into a White House it would hold for 20 of the next 24 years.
Full of hubris in 1965, Lyndon Johnson had seized his moment. He had launched a Great Society that would outdo his beloved patron FDR. He would dispatch 500,000 troops to Vietnam to "bring the coonskin home on the wall" and create a "Great Society on the Mekong." Those were heady days of "guns-and-butter."
By 1968, LBJ's coalition was shredded. Gov. George Wallace had torn away the populist right. Sens. Gene McCarthy, George McGovern and Robert Kennedy had rallied the antiwar left against him. LBJ and Hubert Humphrey were left to preside over a shrinking center.
Why did LBJ fail? He overloaded the circuits. He tried to do it all. He misread a national desire for continuity after Kennedy's death as a mandate for a lunge to the left and a great leap forward with the largest expansion of government since the New Deal.
By 1968, racial riots had torn apart almost every great city. The most prestigious campuses had been rocked by student violence. Thousands of antiwar demonstrators had taken to the streets. And 100 to 200 body bags were coming home from Vietnam every week.
By the winter of 1968, Lyndon Johnson was a broken president.
History never repeats itself exactly. But Barack Obama is making the same mistakes today that LBJ made in 1965.
He has ordered 17,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan, as the situation deteriorates and the NATO allies pull out. He has no exit strategy. He has read a repudiation of George Bush as a mandate for a government seizure of wealth and power that exceeds anything attempted in the Great Society.
Fully half of the $3.55 trillion in spending Obama will preside over this year will not be covered by tax revenue but by red ink. The money will have to be borrowed from abroad or printed by the Fed.
Not only is Barack running a deficit four times as large as Bush's largest, he has called for $1 trillion in new taxes on America's most successful, who have already seen their savings and pensions ravaged.
He wants a cap-and-trade system to deal with a global-warming or climate-change crisis many scientists believe is a hoax. He is going to provide health care for all, including immigrants, millions of whom arrive uninsured every year. He is going to plunge scores of billions more into education, though education has eaten up the wealth of an empire, as SAT scores sink further and further below the apogee of 1964, before LBJ and the feds barged in. He is going to ask Congress for authority to spend another $750 billion rescuing the banks.
He is going to find the cure for cancer. He is going to ensure every kid gets a college education. He is going to drop half of all wage-earners off the tax rolls, while the top 2 percent, who already pay 40 percent of all income taxes, are forced to cough up more.
Obama is misreading the election returns. When America voted to cancel the White House lease of Mr. Bush, it did not vote Barack Obama a blank check.
By misinterpreting his mandate, Obama has accomplished something John McCain could not -- unite the Republican Party and instill in it a new esprit de corps. For the Obama budget is an insult to the core belief of the party -- that free people, not coercive government, should shape the character of society.
By daring Republicans to fight on the issue of a $1.75 trillion deficit, Obama has liberated the GOP from any obligation to him. He has come out of the closet as a radical liberal spoiling for a fight over an agenda of radical change.
Sooner than any might have thought, we have clarity.
Full article in new window
Sunday, March 08, 2009
-Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
-Great Socialist Leader Barack Insane Osama, 2009
Monday, March 02, 2009
Paul Harvey, born Paul Harvey Aurandt in Tulsa on Sept. 4, 1918, had a voice like a cannon at Gettysburg, like Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill or General Anthony Clement McAuliffe answering the German surrender ultimatum with the expletive "Nuts!" His distinctive baritone was soothing and comforting, the optimistic, can-do voice of Middle America, the voice of hope decades before Barack Obama knew the meaning of the word.
Listening to Paul Harvey, who died Saturday at age 90, was like eavesdropping on radio in its golden age, which wasn't just radio's golden age, of course, but America's. Like many of his listeners, Paul Harvey did it all: wrote his own copy, read his own commercials, even invented his own vocabulary (Reaganomics, skyjacker, guesstimate, to name a few of his neologisms). When it came to selecting news copy Paul Harvey applied what he called his "Aunt Betty" test. Aunt Betty was an old fashioned Missouri housewife (his sister-in-law, actually), and no story too complicated or dull for Aunt Betty made it onto the newscast.
A Paul Harvey newscast was in startling contrast to the network or public radio news. From the opening salvo of "Hello Americans! Paul Harvey…Stand by for News!" -- the absence of any theme music or bells and whistles let you know you were in for 15 minutes of honest, man-to-man talk. Paul Harvey gave it to you straight, but without the doom and gloom that hung over other conventional newscasts. In the midst of recession, national tragedy, or malaise, Paul Harvey showed you the silver lining amid the dark clouds and raised America's collective spirit -- not like a preacher (though he was descended from five generations of Baptist preachers), but as America's most trusted news source.
What a contrast to the negative nabobs of negativism further down the dial. If you had to pin down Paul Harvey, he probably leaned more to the right of center than to the left, but only because he believed in core conservative values like self-reliance, religious faith, the free market, and the industry and ingenuity of the American people. But while Paul Harvey loved to preface stories with "There is good news today…" Paul Harvey News and Comment was not a vacuous "Good News" newscast. There was a fine line between locating the good in the news and being willfully naïve. With an audience of 22 million dedicated listeners, Paul Harvey was anything but naïve.
IN THE TWENTY or so years I listened to Paul Harvey I do not ever recall hearing him say a negative word about any celebrity or government official -- which was one reason you came away from a Paul Harvey broadcast feeling better about yourself and your country. And perhaps a hankering to run out and buy a new vacuum cleaner. Certainly being one of the most trusted and respected journalists of your day helps when you are trying to peddle your sponsors' wares.
As popular as his newscasts were, equally beloved was a segment called "The Rest of the Story." I remember crawling in from college football practice at 5:30 p.m. -- this was the early 1980s -- and collapsing on a locker room bench while over the loudspeaker came The Voice halfway through his evening broadcast, which wasn't news at all, but a feature story where some famous person's identity was revealed in a surprise, twist ending. It might be the story how one man single-handedly brought Philadelphia back from the dead following the Great Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793 (George Washington), or the misanthrope who wished to drown the human race (Mark Twain).
Talk about a surreal scene: fifty exhausted college football players from all across the country lying all over a locker room floor in silence waiting for Paul Harvey to reveal the identity of today's subject. "And now you know…the rest of the story…Paul Harvey…Good Day!" Only then would we hit the showers.
His few Eastern establishment critics -- and I do mean few -- would probably have called Paul Harvey a second-rate newsman, an anti-intellectual populist, and a snakeskin salesman who peddled not only vacuum cleaners, but false hope and optimism while ignoring the real challenges America faced. But it doesn't matter what they say, because they only talk to themselves.
The Voice spoke to all of us.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Answer = The democrats, entirely. Who tried to fix it before the disaster hit? G. W. Bush - that's who.
The video record above shows, in their own words, that George Bush tried to warn Congress, beginning in 2002 and then ongoing until denouement, that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done.
But congress refused to listen, siding instead with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd, the latter two leading successful filibusters against reform of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac, the first leading a public campaign accusing reform minded republicans of "discrimination" and "racism" against low income Americans - when not busy running a male prostitution ring out of his basement...
This video merely states the public record.
No absolution for the Clinton administration either, which promoted and supported these lax lending policies with threats to withhold funding if they they were not implemented, as Freddie and Fannie are federal creations that must conform to their federally appointed boards - Clinton appointees all. Hello, Franklin Raines?!
A warm "F You!" to leftist radical organisations such as Acorn, which lead protests in the streets against these institutions they deemed "not liberal enough" in their lending policies - try standing up to Jesse Jackson when he blackmails your company with the public threat of "racism!"
Community organizers - God help us if one of these fanatic leftist communists ever gets hold of executive power in the United States of America because, well...oh never mind...
A final "stick it where the sun don't shine" to the MSM drive-by press, which knows all of this, and continues to sweep it under the rug in the name of socialism, to the extent that they had Time Warner threaten a lawsuit (proprietary rights) if it was not taken off. This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada.
For the record, everyone...T special thanks to shallow kitty for the link!