the houston conservative: News and Commentary

Maureen Dowd simply hates Sarah Palin: Envy is so unbecoming

2009-07-05T09:32:00.002-05:00

Will Malven
7/05/2009

MoDo (rhymes with "Dodo" as in the extinct bird) really hates Sarah Palin. Perhaps it is because she possesses everything that MoDo lacks; a husband, a life, personality, charisma, beauty...

Well whatever the reason, her latest screed (screech?) is not lacking for spiteful invective and the usual undeserved arrogance which so typifies the Leftwing (pseudo)intellectual elitists of the East Coast press corps(e).

Here's a portion of her hate-mail to Sarah:
"Now, Sarah’s Folly

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 4, 2009

Sarah Palin showed on Friday that in one respect at least, she is qualified to be president.

Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy.

Usually we don’t find that exquisite battiness in our leaders until they’ve been battered by sordid scandals like Watergate (Nixon), gnawing problems like Vietnam (L.B.J.), or scary threats like biological terrorism (Cheney).

--------snip-------

What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.

She can hunt wolves from the air and field-dress a moose, but she fears being a lame duck? Some brickbats over her ethics and diva turns as John McCain’s running mate, and that dewy skin turns awfully thin.

Maybe there’s another red Naughty Monkey high heel to drop — there’s often a hidden twist in Sarah’s country-music melodramas. Or is this a reckless high-speed escape from small-pond Alaska, where her popularity is dropping, to the big time Below?"
Dowd: Superficial, sophomoric and spiteful; one can always tell who the Democrats fear most by the level of hatred and invective they generate.

The level of invective and hatred directed by those in the press and the Left towards Sarah Palin is unrivaled in recent history, this pathetic piece notwithstanding, which means that Sarah is a force to be reckoned with.

Whether Palin can make a legitimate run at the presidency remains to be seen. She certainly has her shortcomings as well as her strengths, but invective from a bantam weight flack for the Democrat Party with a BA in English (boy, now there's an awe inspiring academic record) writing in a formerly great newspaper now writhing in its death throes will not impede her efforts.

It never ceases to amaze me what passes for intellectual commentary from those on the Left. Maureen Dowd is the definitive harridan of hatred. Hers is the voice of a shrill harpy whose talent, like her "beauty," is long since spent...if it ever existed; pathetic, pitiable and sad to say, laughable.

Her attempts at being a serious "journalist" have become a source of amusement for those of us who can still reason above the eighth grade level (with all due apologies to eighth graders).

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Vicious, Spiteful, and Panicked: The Press Attacking Sarah Palin

2009-07-04T10:02:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
7/04/2009

Nothing so angers the press as being caught by surprise and yesterday's announcement by Sarah Palin that she was stepping down as Governor of Alaska with no explanation has the long knives out as never before.

She's a "quitter," her political career is "finished," she's "doomed," and any number of negative comments have been coming from pundits both on the Left and the Right. It's a political feeding frenzy of the sort singular to a press scorned.

Of course the most despicable and mean-spirited comments are those coming from the oh-so "compassionate Left." Of note even among the hatred and filth being spewed from those on the Left was the screed appearing on the Huffington Post by one Erik Sean Nelson (of no particular fame or importance beyond that required to be both hateful and boorish-de rigueur for being a Liberal-which needs to be posted here as a reminder of the sort of individual that typifies those on the Left:
Palin Will Run in '12 on More Retardation Platform

Erik Sean Nelson
Huffington Post

In Sarah Palin's resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the "world needs more Trigs, not fewer." That's a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it's kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40's just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.

Look, she says she's resigning as governor because people are making attacks on her and Trig. If she ever did become president, all Osama bin Laden would have to do to defeat the United States is Photoshop a picture of Trig and she'd surrender the country that night. As she said, "That's not politics as usual." It isn't. Politicians don't usually quit for so stupid of reasons.
I have rarely read a more disgusting commentary or pitiful attempt at humor written by a more despicable individual than the above post.

I won't say more than that; let the piece speak for him and itself. It is noteworthy that reaction to the piece was such that in its place is now one of those Liberal attempts at an apology. Notable is the absence of any mention of the people to whom he gave most offense, Sarah Palin and her child Trig.

As the long knives come out so does the expected Democrat hypocrisy. She has doomed her political career by leaving office. Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who pledged to serve out her entire term as senator just before tossing her hat into the presidential campaign? Didn't Barack Hussein Obama quit his job as Senator from Illinois to become President of the United States? Didn't Obama abandon his duties as senator after two short, unimpressive, years to begin his campaign to become TOTUS?

The voices come also from those in the Republican Party who would rather have Conservatives vote their support for Republicans but otherwise hold their silence. So I am forced to ask of John McCain, did he also not leave his duties unattended as he sought to become President?

Who knew it was wrong only for Conservatives, men and women of principle, to set aside their current obligations to seek higher office?

The reaction of those on the Left is understandable even as it is uncouth and hypocritical, they fear Sarah Palin more than any other person in politics...with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh whom they know (or at least pray) will never run for office.

They know that Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with. She is dynamic, attractive, intelligent, witty and has the "common touch" like no one since Ronald Reagan and for that reason she generates abject fear in them. Hence the unending torrent of hatred and venom being spewed from their foul orifices.

Now I am not a Sarah Palin supporter. In my book she is a long way from being "America's Maggie Thatcher" as many of her admirers claim. She is way too light on experience and the fundamental understanding of both foreign and domestic policy I believe should be required in any presidential prospect.

Those are weaknesses which can be overcome with serious effort...the kind of effort that would require one to relinquish other more demanding responsibilities...such as being governor of Alaska. She certainly has the personal attractiveness to become a formidable candidate. The speech she gave at the Republican Convention certainly opened a lot of eyes.

The point of all this is that speculation of the sort in which today's talking heads are engaged is pointless. I sometimes think that pundits talk because they are afraid of becoming irrelevant should they remain silent for more than a moment. It is a symptom of the ignorant to babble on continuously for fear that should silence reign for even a moment people might discover that everything they have been told by those talking heads is nonsense.

Sarah Palin's motivation(s) for her actions will become clear in a short while; probably to the chagrin of those now declaring her political future dead.

Whatever her decision, you may be assured that Democrats and their cheerleaders who run the mainstream media will continue to attack her relentlessly and spitefully. The hatred will continue apace as will their fear of anyone who might disturb their plans to destroy our nation and take away our liberties.

For now it is enough that Sarah has them all in a panic. For that alone I love her.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Happy Fourth of July!!!! May you remember why we celebrate today and recall how different our Founding Father's vision for America was from that of President Obama and his party.

Washington Post Does Emily Latella Imitation Says "Nevermind."

2009-07-02T15:46:00.006-05:00

Will Malven
7/02/2009

UPDATE: Well that didn't take long, looks like the Washington Post publisher couldn't fade the heat. Again from the Politico:

Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar

By MIKE ALLEN & MICHAEL CALDERONE
7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT

Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that "a flyer went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flyer would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do."

Yep, turns out Ms. Weymouth was "Shocked! Shocked I say!" to discover the flyer issued by the marketing department.

I suspect the only thing that shocked Ms. Weymouth was either a.) the fact that they were caught selling access, or b.) the level of reaction to the announcement. Either way the "newspaper" was forced to cancel their plans.

"Earlier this morning, [Executive Editor Marcus] Brauchli sent an e-mail entitled “Newsroom Independence” to his staff explaining his position.

Brauchli said. “A flier was distributed this week offering an 'underwriting opportunity' for a dinner on health care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flier and the description of the event preclude our participation.

"We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."

...If there's anybody watching...

Don't buy the act people. This "news organization," such as it is, has been in bed with the Obama Administration from the start and gone to great lengths to advocate their policies.

The only thing restraining them this time was their being caught.

Who knows this may even shame the journalists at the Post into actually asking a few tough questions of Obama, just to show the world their independence (after they clear the questions with the Obama screeners, of course).

This time I am reminded of that famous line from the Wizard of Oz...

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Our Venal Mainstream Media: Selling Nonconfrontational Access to Obama Administration

2009-07-02T08:38:00.005-05:00

Will Malven
7/02/2009

There is no greater betrayal of the public trust and more serious violation of journalistic ethics than the display of cheerleading and issue advocacy now being displayed by the mainstream media and their subservience to the Obama Administrations agenda.

Politico today reveals a new low for one of the mainstays of our "watchdog" press. It now appears that the Washington Post is selling access to reporters and editors to members of the administration and its advocates.
Washington Post sells access, $25,000+

By MIKE ALLEN
7/2/09 8:04 AM EDT

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.
This revelation following on the heels of ABC's day long "infomercial" broadcast from the White House promoting the Obama Administration's national healthcare plan...a broadcast in which no opposing views were allowed or expressed illustrates just how far the much vaunted "Fourth Estate" has strayed from its self-proclaimed mission as watchdog over our government and the abuses therein.

Not since World War II has there been such close collaboration between the press and an administration to shape the message being put out to the American people.

This administration of "Hope and Change" and its "new era of openness" has been one of the most tightly controlled and scripted in history. The President rarely takes a question which has not been pre-approved by its operatives. The president's dependence on his teleprompters has been so obvious that it has become the butt of jokes and even generated a website alleged to be the TOTUS' (Teleprompter of the United States) blog, Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog.

This scripting and attempted control of the press and the message has become so blatant that it prompted Helen Thomas, the doyenne of the Liberal press to express outrage over the President's latest faux "town hall meeting," in which not only the attendees were carefully screened, but the questions were pre-approved by Obama's staff.

From CNS news:
Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama

Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Penny Starr and Fred Lucas

(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
The pat response from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and other Obama defenders is to say "But look how tough the questions were," as though that absolves them of the charge.

Ummm...Robert, it doesn't matter how tough the questions are if you know them ahead of time and are able to prepare your responses to them.

I never thought I would be cheerleading Helen Thomas, but you go girl! For a hardcore Liberal member of the press known for her hostility to all things Conservative to be so motivated speaks volumes as to the level of the corruption now being demonstrated by our so called "free press" as they have changed their role from inquisitor to advocate.

This lack of skepticism in our press and their consequent failure to fully investigate and inform the American people as to what the Democrats and this President are attempting to "accomplish" is a grave threat to the continued existence of our Republic and our freedom.

The first act of any despot is to take control of the press and the message being broadcast to his nation's citizens. President Obama has not had to do this because the mainstream media has surrendered it independence voluntarily.

It remains up to those of us in the unofficial press, the blogosphere to carry on the tradition of inquisitor and skeptic in the face of this neglect of their duties by the "Fourth Estate."

Hopefully members of the press who retain at least a shred of their dignity and sense of duty to the American people can shame other members of the media into performing their jobs as they are supposed to do.

Ya know it brings an old Cole Porter song to mind, "Love for Sale:"

Love for sale,
Appetising young love for sale.
"...Love that's fresh and still unspoiled,
Love that's only slightly soiled,
Love for sale.

Who will buy?
Who would like to sample my supply?
Who's prepared to pay the price,
For a trip to paradise?
Love for sale..."

The Washington Post - and most of the mainstream media has "Love for Sale" to the Obama Administration.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Obama Supports Marxist Dictators

2009-06-30T12:34:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
6/30/2009

Looks like I'm not the only one who questions Obama's foreign policy. This is from Investors Business Daily:

Political Cartoons of Michael RamirezEditorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily

Get a unique perspective on today's issues with the political cartoons of IBD's Pulitzer Prize Winner, Michael Ramirez.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Obama Sides with Zelaya in Honduras (Surprise! Marxist Authoritarian Obama supports dictator wannabe)

2009-06-29T16:40:00.005-05:00

Will Malven
6/29/2009

Well I think we are all getting a clearer picture of President Obama now and what kind of leaders he admires. He wants to build closer ties to Castro and Cuba. He is buddy-buddy with Ortega in Nicaragua and Chavez in Venezuela. He was very very reluctant to speak out for the freedom fighters in Iran who are seeking to escape the oppression of "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Kameini and those despots on the Iranian ruling council (as of today he has yet to have spoken out in support of the goals of those who have been fighting and dying in Iran).

Now following the ouster of dictator wannabe Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who was attempting to change the Honduran Constitution to allow him to run again for president) President Obama, that champion of despotism, has declared that the coup which ousted president Zelaya was illegal and that Zelaya was still ~~Dictator~~ President.

Zelaya is a close friend and ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who has managed to shutdown virtually all voices of opposition in his country, is working to destroy the last independent news source in Venezuela, and managed to get the Venezuelan Constitution altered to allow him to serve an unlimited number of terms as El Presidente. Chavez has already pledged to oust any leader the military coup puts in place and return Zelaya to office.

Here is the Brietbart report:
Obama says Honduran ouster was 'not legal'
Jun 29 04:22 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says the weekend ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was a "not legal" coup and that he remains the country's president.

Obama spoke to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday after meetings with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Obama said he wanted to be very clear that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president.

Obama pledged the U.S. to "stand on the side of democracy" and to work with other nations and international entities to resolve the matter peacefully.
Now it turns out that President Obama not only believes that Zelaya should be restored to the Honduran presidency, but worked to prevent his ouster.

The Wall Street Journal reports:
WSJ Update: Obama Worked To Prevent Ouster of Honduras President

By Jay Solomon, Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelaya's ouster, said a senior U.S. official. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Barack Obama wouldn't support any nondemocratic transfer of power in the Central American country.

"We had some indication that a move against Mr. Zelaya was afoot," said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. "We made it clear it was something we didn't support."
This revelation of Obama's true feelings should alarm every freedom loving American. Zelaya is not an admirable fellow; he was attempting to rewrite the Honduran Constitution by using a popular referendum after the Honduran Supreme Court had already ruled that the Honduran Constitution could not be amended in that way. The Honduran Supreme Court cancelled the referendum and Zelaya attempted to hold it anyway.

Zelaya's just another one of those South American Marxist dictators that Liberals like Obama love to support (of course he is one of them at heart). Too much you say? Well he has already expressed his contempt for the United States Consttiution as an impediment to the type of government he believes in. He has already taken over the United States banking industry, the automobile industry, and is moving to take over the healthcare industry and the energy sector of our economy (even going to the effort of suppressing information vital to the global warming debate to get his legislation passed). Once his government has control of our economy, what's to stop his efforts to take even greater control of our lives?

Certainly the Democrats in Congress won't stop him, they agree with his vision. They despise the vision of America that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives and fortunes to give us, why would they stop at taking away the last vestiges of our liberty?

President Obama's record is clear, he is no champion of freedom; he is a strong believer in the Marxist authoritarian model of government. He was raised on that philosophy, his pastor of twenty years preached that philosophy and his record in both state and federal government follow that philosophy.

He does not trust the American people, he trusts and believes in government.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Exit Stage Right: The Mark Sanford Affair

2009-06-24T16:26:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
6/24/2009

Okay folks, call me a self-righteous prig, an over-zealous puritan, or just old fashioned, but I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and though I am a flawed human being-far from perfect-I feel entitled to call people down when they misbehave; especially when their misbehavior may have direct impact on my country.

The target of my self-righteous ire today is South Carolina Governor and until today potential front-runner in the 2012 Republican Party Presidential Nominee sweepstakes, Mark Sanford.

Sanford is a man who thrust himself upon the national stage when he took a strong Conservative stand against taking that portion of TARP money which would obligate his state to pay increased amounts of unemployment insurance even after the federal coffers had dried up. For that action, Governor Sanford rightly deserved the attention of all Conservative Republicans.

His name immediately went from being one on a long list of interesting but generally unnoted potential Republican candidates for the 2012 presidential elections to one of the few five or six names of real consequence.

Those of us who look at such things this early in the administration of a newly elected, but highly objectionable Democrat President take this vetting of potential candidates quite seriously and for this Conservative, Governor Sanford was a person of interest.

No more. As far as this Conservative is concerned, Mark Sanford's political career is worm's meat. I do not assert that I am any paragon of virtue, but I do know how to keep from becoming involved in an unsavory and illicit relationship.

As Conservatives we profess that certain aspects of our lives and our community hold greater intrinsic value than others. We believe that God and family are the center of our lives and are more important than career or other more Earthly desires. We accept our imperfection, but we seek to hold ourselves to ever higher moral standards.

Aspiring to and espousing those higher moral standards, we Conservatives are not wrong to expect better behavior from our elected representatives than the "average" Joe with a "mid-life crisis" or a "seven-year itch" or whatever else those who wish to excuse bad behavior call bad behavior.

We elect these people to represent us in our state's or nation's capitols. They are supposed to adhere to higher standard of behavior than one expects of a tomcat in a back alley.

Governor Sanford's "crime" is one of selfishness and self-centeredness. This is "I want it, I want it, I want it!!!" screamed like a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum, not the actions of a careful, measured, mature adult.

Everybody doesn't have an affair, everybody doesn't cheat on their spouses and everybody doesn't lie to the American people or live the hypocrite's life.

Mark Sanford' behavior is that of a spoiled, self-obsessed jerk. He didn't stop to consider how his actions would affect his wife or four children, he only saw what he wanted and pursued it to the exclusion of everything else...including his Gubernatorial responsibilities. He deserves no sympathy or loyalty from Conservatives.

This wrong behavior by the Governor is a symptom of our society in general and it reminds me of What Thomas Paine wrote in the first sentence of his introduction to Common Sense written February 14, 1776 (though he was referring to oppressive government, not obsessive desire):
"...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom."
Our culture has accepted aberrational behavior as normal for so long that even people that ought to know better feel entitled to misbehave.

How a man behaves in his personal life is highly indicative of how he will conduct his political life. If he lacks sufficient moral compass to control his baser appetites how can we expect him to control his avarice for wealth or power in the public arena? In other words, if you cannot keep your marriage vows, how can anyone trust you to keep any other promise or agreement you make?

I hear my less judgmental Conservative friends out there saying..."Democrats do this all the time and they get away with it with very little long-term political fall-out. Liberals always hold Republicans to a higher standard than they accept for themselves." Yes it is "the classic liberal argument" but that does not negate the fact that we on the right adhere, or profess to adhere to a higher moral standard.

That's just the point. We are not Liberals. We do not accept immoral, irresponsible, deceitful behavior as exempt from criticism. We believe morality is important that there is a difference between right and wrong behavior. It is one of the primary differences between Conservatives and Liberals.

We supposedly learn at an early age, just because we desire something does not make it right or permissible to follow that desire. We believe in a higher moral calling than the vain, self-serving, baser instincts to which the lower animals are subject. We are not dogs to couple in the streets, we are men and thus subject to our consciences and our higher reasoning.

This higher morality is the thin veneer of civilization which separates man from beast.

Time for Mark Sanford to take the long walk. He can join Senator Ensign (he at least was separated when he strayed) in his political exile...a victim of his selfish actions.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Obama harshly condemns Iran crackdown on protesters (says "Naughty, naughty.")

2009-06-24T10:52:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
6/24/2009

...I mean come on Barry, where is the leadership? Where is the voice of solidarity with the protesters in Iran? Why haven't you said something like this?

"The Iranian people have a right to free and open elections. Thousands of Iranian are marching in protest because their electoral voices are not being heard by the Iranian ruling council. The brutal measures being used by the Iranian government against its own people are unacceptable to those of us in the international community and will have serious repercussions on any possible future discussions between our two nations.

Today we are all Iranians."
Is that so difficult to say? I seem to recall that following the attacks on 9/11 many voices from many nations all declaring that "Today, we are all Americans," to show support and solidarity with the American people in our time of crisis. Well this is the Iranian peoples' time of crisis and President Barack Obama is behaving like a blushing teen approaching the prom queen to ask for a dance. He's "making a measured response."

The Iranian citizens have been out in the streets fighting and sometimes dying for the same sort of freedom and liberty that we in America enjoy. They have been fighting for the right...the universal right...of self-determination.

And where has our President been? He's been sitting quietly on the sidelines waiting for things to settle down so that he and his good buddy Mahmoud can sit down for a little tête-à-tête. President Obama seems more concerned with maintaining good relations with the despot Ahmadinejad than he is in lending American moral support to those fighting for freedom in Iran.

President Obama's response has been somewhat slow in developing. Rueters, adopting the White House line, is describing President Obama's latest foray into the world of diplomacy with Iran as being "harsh;" I would describe it as his being tepid:

"Obama harshly condemns Iran crackdown on protesters

By John Whitesides and Jeff Mason
Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:03pm EDT

---The Democratic president, facing heavy criticism from Republicans that he was being too timid in backing street protests over Iran's contested election, said the United States was "appalled and outraged" by the violence.

"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost," Obama said
.
He called the video of an Iranian women killed in the streets, which has become a staple of news coverage of the protests, "heartbreaking" and said it made clear the violence against the protesters was "fundamentally unjust.
"
"In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice," he said.
Mr. President Obama, where is your spine? Where is your JFK's "Ich bin eine Berliner?" [Alright, I know that what he said actually translates to I am a pastry, but at least the spirit was there, at least the solidarity was present.] Where is your President Reagan's "Mr. President Gorbachev, tear down this wall?"

In response to the shooting death of the woman known only as "Neda," this weak president could only muster enough courage to say:

"I think there's something fundamentally unjust about that."
Really? Is he joking? Is that the best he can do?

He also keeps repeating "we don't know how this is all going to shake out," as if how we respond as a nation should depend on how events in Iran turn out.

Our nation's response to event in Iran should not be the result of a cold political calculation focused on how it makes the president look in foreign newspapers, it should always be a reflection of our national heritage and our belief in the right of every person in every nation to self-determination. On this President Bush got it right and President Obama is getting it terribly wrong.

Expressions of sorrow or outrage are not the same as expressing your overt and strong support for the people now engaged in a fight for their freedom.

President Obama keeps telling us that he doesn't want to inject himself into Iranian internal politics, that he doesn't want America to become the focus of the Iranian government's propaganda against the struggling protesters...What?

Is he so shallow that he doesn't know that regardless of what America does, the Iranian powers that be will decry "American involvement," whether we speak out in support of the protesters or not? Is he so gullible that he believes the ruling council, which has came into power through acts of brutality and maintains its control through those same acts of repression is an honest broker of news and won't use America as a political "football?"

American didn't sit on the sidelines when Stalin attempted to starve Berlin into submission, we ran the Berlin Airlift. We weren't concerned with how the Soviet Union would portray us in Pravda, we were concerned with preserving the freedom of the people of Berlin.

In the depths of the Cold War when the Soviet Union attempted to place their mid-range ballistic missiles in Cuba President Kennedy wasn't concerned with how he might be portrayed in Pravda. He took a firm (if somewhat tardy) stance against the actions of Nikita Khrushchev and in making that stance forced the Soviet Union to back down (yes I know he made the concession of removing the mid-range missiles from Turkey, but they were old and of little strategic value by then).

When President Ronald Reagan walked out of the talks in Reykjavik over the Strategic Defense Initiative and later, standing at the Brandenburg Gate, told Soviet Premiere Gorbachev, "Tear down this wall," he wasn't cowering fear that the Soviet propaganda machine might blame the unrest on America, he was expressing-as all American Presidents have expressed-American solidarity with those who were engaged in a struggle for freedom and self-determination.

To see an American President acting so tentatively in the face of open and brutal oppression is sickening. That an American Liberal (as our President is) generally takes this ineffectual path is predictable; that more Iranian citizens may die because of it is disgusting and unforgivable.

It was a sad day for America, for freedom, and for the world when this man became the President of the United States. How many more will die in the pursuit of "hope and change?"

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

The Kennedy Healthcare Plan (buying a Pig in a Poke)

2009-06-19T08:02:00.003-05:00

Will Malven
6/19/2009

During his campaign, President Obama told Americans that in his healthcare proposal that they would have access to "the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." Once more he was telling the Americans what they wanted to hear rather than what he knew to be the truth, that there was and still is no way that America could afford to offer that kind of plan.

An examination of the plan-all 600 pages of it-has only begun and the facts don't meet the Democrat rhetoric...not by a long shot. The plan they offer is far from what then Candidate Obama promised his supporters. It is in fact what we Conservatives knew it would be from the beginning, a plan to force everyone into a managed care program that rations healthcare in exactly the same manner that it is rationed in every other nation that offers an entitlement to national healthcare.

This comes from the Wall Street Journal today (by way of my friends at FreeRepublic.com):
Dissecting the Kennedy Health Bill
No, you won't be able to keep your insurance if you like it.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. It's not true.

The president is barnstorming the nation, urging swift approval of legislation that is taking shape in Congress. This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)." These choices would be nice for all of us, but they're not in the offing. Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).

For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).
The President, like all Liberal Democrat politicians is an accomplished and habitual liar so all of this should come as no surprise...although for a lot of his supporters-those gullible enough to believe his rhetoric-it will.

Since he has been in office-a short five months-he has conducted a Sherman's March across the American economy and culture. His congress has doubled the national debt, he has nationalized the American automobile industry-just to benefit his union voters, he has nationalized the banking industry and is now proposing to exert even greater control over our economy with a gross expansion of powers and responsibilities for an already over extended Federal Reserve Commission, he has alienated our closest allies, Britain, Germany, and Israel (heck even the French are having second thoughts about him and his policies) while making romantic advances towards our most dangerous enemies, Iran, Hamas in Palestine, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

This healthcare debacle is just the latest (and most destructive to every American's freedom and well being) in his march towards the Marxism I warned against in an earlier editorial.

The Liberal Democrats in control of our government are systematically destroying every aspect of our culture that created this wealthiest, freest, most generous, and strongest nation in history. If they are not stopped, they will reduce America to just another socialist failure.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Treasury to set record in bond auction next week (deficit alert...Dems at work)

2009-06-19T06:12:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
6/19/2009

Now folks, I thought the Republican Congress was profligate in their spending, throwing tax-payer dollars out the door faster than at any time since the Johnson "Great Society" years...maybe even faster, but over the past seventeen months-and particularly over the past five months with their party's president in office, they have once again proven that Republicans are pikers when it comes to spending the tax-payer's hard earned dollars.

There is no binge spender/shopaholic who can challenge a Democrat Party unfettered by the restraining influence of an opposition president. In April the Treasury Department auctioned off $101 Billion in bonds-an all-time record. In May, not wanting to fail to equal that dubious accomplishment, the Obama Administration again managed to auction off $101 Billion...that's a fifth of a trillion dollars added to our national debt in two months people.

Now Treasury has announced that the June bond auction will be...wait for it folks...$104 Billion. That's right they are setting a new record. "But, but, but the old record is just two months old," you say. "A-ha!" I say, "Never underestimate the spending ability of the Democrat Party."

CNBC has the low-down:
Treasury to Auction $104 Billion In Debt Next Week, a Record

Reuters
18 Jun 2009 03:36 PM ET

The Treasury announced Thursday a record $104 billion worth of bond auctions for next week, part of its herculean efforts to finance a rescue of the world's largest economy.

The sales will exceed the previous record of $101 billion set in auctions that took place in the last week of April and consist of two-year, five-year and seven-year securities. That record was matched by another $101 billion week in May.

Though next week's total was broadly in line with expectations, worries about supply have weighed on the U.S. government bond market, which will see a mammoth $2 trillion worth of new debt issued this year.
Faced with record deficits and confronted by an increasingly concerned debtor China, a nation which has recently began making noise about dumping a large portion of their U.S. debt holdings, the Democrats are now talking about spending even more (non-existent) money on Hillary-Care, Part Deux...$1 Trillion more over ten years, as estimated by their own Congressional Budget Office. The actual cost will probably be double that, a whopping $2 Trillion.

Folks, we're talking about a deficit reaching a frightening 13% of our economy...that's $13 out of every $100 generated by our economy, going just to pay for the deficit. How in the heck is our economy ever going to recover with more than 1/8 of every dollar generated already spent just to finance the deficit?

Democrats are destroying this nation's economy so rapidly that one begins to believe they are doing so intentionally.

For those of you who wish to blame President Bush for this debacle, and I know there are lots of you out there, remember two things: One, the President, whether it be President Bush or President Obama cannot spend one single dollar of tax-payer money on his own. Two, Democrats have been in total control of The House of Representatives and The Senate for close to 2 1/2 years now and they are the only people in Washington who can spend money.

President Bush didn't spend the TARP money, the Democrats in Congress did. President Bush didn't give GM $Billions of money, the Democrat Congress did. President Bush didn't cause this deficit to explode, Democrats in Congress did.

If you want to blame someone for the state of our economy (and you can't bring yourself to blame yourself for your greed for government funded entitlements) then don't blame President Bush and don't blame President Obama, blame the Democrat dominated Congress...it is they who are spending us into oblivion and if it doesn't stop now we will likely be looking back at the Carter economy as a time of great prosperity.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Why Iran's election result is suspect (maybe Liberals are waking up...nah!)

2009-06-18T07:46:00.002-05:00

What is it about Democrats and their inability (or unwillingness) to confront despots? We are told that following the elections in Iran and the absurdly large "victory" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, spontaneous protests have erupted throughout Iran and that they are now being suppressed violently by Iranian police and national security operatives.

In the past, our American Presidents have stood forth resolutely; speaking out in support of such efforts by oppressed peoples in their efforts to exercise the kinds of freedoms and liberties we take for granted over here. They would speak loudly of the right of every human to enjoy self-determination in choosing their leaders. They might cite our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

They would extol the wonders and virtues of free and open elections and the importance of democracy...the dangers lying in wait from despotic regimes such as the caliphate which rules Iran.

No more! Now we have dulcet tones of appeasement and compromise; of "understanding" and diplomacy coming from the "bully-pulpit" of President Barack Hussein Obama. He assures us that:
"it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States."
Really Mr. President, I doubt very seriously that the protestors in Iran are concerned with whether America is a "football," convenient of otherwise, for the government now oppressing them. The Iranian government is fully capable of excusing their undemocratic actions whether America provides them an excuse or not.

President Obama continues reassuring us:

"that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place."

Ah, the despots are investigating the actions of despots. Well, "say no more squire."

We can all relax now, the Iranian caliphate is going to assure the world that their elections were fair and scandal free. We can all go back to the negotiating table secure in the knowledge that the despots are "resolving" any difficulties which may have arisen. I wonder how many people that means will be jailed or killed in resolving those election difficulties?

The Miami Herald has a very good summation of what has occurred in Iran:
Why Iran's election result is suspect

Unexplained police movements and exceptionally fast ballot counting are among reasons cited by those who cast doubt on Iran's presidential election.

BY WARREN P. STROBEL
McClatchy News Service

TEHRAN, Iran -- In American politics, it would be as if President George W. Bush won reelection over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 by taking Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, doing surprisingly well in liberal New York City and besting his 2000 vote totals by 40 percent.

What really happened in last Friday's Iranian presidential election, whose reported results have set off the deepest political crisis here in 30 years, may never be known.

However, unexplained police movements on the evening of the election, the exceptionally fast counting of handwritten ballots and some inexplicable election returns are among the reasons that opposition candidates and analysts cite when they say they suspect the vote was rigged.
Rigged? Hmmm...ya think?

Thirty-two have been killed so far by these "investigators." I can see why our President is so confident now as "the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities." I mean, just because the foreign press is being expelled is no reason to be concerned...kind of like Tiananmen Square..."no worries." Just because they are now "prohibiting coverage of demonstrations and threatening legal action against Iranians who sent videos, news reports and photographs abroad" that's no reason to be concerned.

Obama needs to step up to the plate. We can support the protesters without going to war with Iran...the usual straw argument trumped up by appeasers like President Obama and Democrats in congress. We can take an extreme hard-line positions threatening tough economic sanctions against the Iranian government, we can propagandize the people of Iran extolling the wonders of a free and democratic society, and we can put an end once and for all to the nuclear aspirations of the Iranian regime rather than announcing to the world...as President Barack Hussein Obama has...that Iran "should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power." [Ummm...why is it good for the Iranians, but not good for America...hmmm?]

You defeat oppressive regimes by opposing them, not by appeasing them; history has proven that truism to any willing to learn (obviously not Democrats) for millennia.

The Iranian people need our support, unequivocal, loudly proclaimed, and resolute, not a weak-minded "hands-off" lecture about "playing nice."

God Bless the Iranian People in their struggles to be free from the yoke of oppression.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Lawmakers clash over cost of health care overhaul (Let the games begin)

2009-06-18T06:42:00.003-05:00

Will Malven
6/18/2009

Well, the congressional socialists are preparing to destroy our medical care system with "new" proposals designed to supplant our, very successful, private system of individual responsibility with a government run one-size-fits-all system similar to the demonstrably inferior systems one can find in Europe, Canada, and much of the "industrialized world."

As they begin this exercise in socialized medicine, one refrain continues to be repeated endlessly, the lie-first uttered by President Obama during his 2008 campaign-that you can keep the coverage you have if you are happy with it, or you can opt in to a government run system if you prefer. I doubt there is a more sinister or cynical claim any politician has ever attempted to foist off on the American people.

Any government funded, let's call it what it really is-tax-payer funded-system, offered by these clowns will inevitably lead to the demise of all private healthcare plans; rendering them unaffordable...except for the very wealthy. A government run system will have an unfair advantage over private plans since-until tax-payers revolt-the available funds will be unlimited.

MyWay has the low-down on these hearings:

Lawmakers clash over cost of health care overhaul

Jun 17, 5:21 PM (ET)
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hoping to make history, the Senate set off on its major overhaul of the nation's health care system Wednesday, but its first steps were quickly overtaken by fresh cost concerns and partisan anger. An ambitious timetable that called for completing committee action in early summer seemed in danger of slipping away.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee began work on a bill encompassing President Barack Obama's top legislative priority. It marked the first time since President Bill Clinton's ill-starred attempt in the early 1990s that Congress was tackling such a broad overhaul.
Let's hope that this new proposal, in whatever form it ends up, enjoys the same success as the ill-fated efforts broadly labeled "Hillary-Care" enjoyed in the 90's.

Any proposal that excludes much needed "tort reform" to lower the onerous burden placed on doctors in the form of malpractice insurance and protects the consumer from having to pay for a battery of tests made necessary by the defensive medicine doctors have been forced to practice because of frivolous law-suits, is destined to failure...I hope.

One reason healthcare costs have sky-rocketed over the years is the easy access to tax-payer money that Medicare and Medicaid gave doctors and hospitals. If the patient doesn't have to pay for the tests, then the kind of "defensive medicine" we have seen being practiced becomes painless for both the patient and the care-giver. This has one inevitable result...more and more money being spent by more and more doctors prescribing more and more tests.

Government isn't the answer for the problems in our healthcare system, it is the cause of them.

Ask your members of Congress if everyone is going to get the same gold-plated medical coverage that Congress members enjoy...after all that was the promise being made during the last political campaign...the answer will be a resounding "No." All of those parasites in Washington know that such a plan would be far too expensive were they to offer it to all Americans.

Second, ask those same members of Congress if they will be forced to enter the same plan they are going to offer the American citizens...that answer will also be a resounding "No!" Those prima donnas believe themselves to be special...better than the average citizen...and thus entitled to privileged healthcare.

Lastly, always remember that any such government run system will inevitably lead to rationing of healthcare. It has been the same in all of the nations which have such a system and it always the elderly who suffer the most because of that. After all it was Democrat Richard Lamm, former three term governor of Colorado who said:

"We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."
Thank you Dr. Mengele.

One of the greatest blessings of our current private system of healthcare is that we have the right to expect to be able to sustain our lives by any and all means if we so choose and can afford to do so. In state run systems in which rationing is a daily fact of life, it is almost always the old and infirm who are first to be told "Go home and die."

No thank-you Liberals, I prefer to make life or death choices for myself, not have them made for me by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Bush takes swipes at Obama policies (about time!)

2009-06-18T05:53:00.003-05:00

Will Malven
6/18/2009

In the "It's about damn time" category, former President George W. Bush came out of his self-imposed seclusion and defended his administration on its interrogation policies, the detainment facilities at Gitmo, and the promoting our economy's private sector as the likely source for solutions to our economic woes.

Go, George Go! It's about time that you came out and opposed the inane and destructive policies that this current administration is pursuing. Time for some common sense and "truth-telling" even if it is from our favorite source of humorous malapropisms.

The Washington Times has the report:

Bush takes swipes at Obama policies
Defends interrogations

By Joseph Curl
Thursday, June 18, 2009

ERIE, Pa. Former President George W. Bush fired a salvo at President Obama on Wednesday, asserting his administration's interrogation policies were within the law, declaring the private sector not government will fix the economy and rejecting the nationalization of health care.

"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."

Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Mr. Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.

"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.
Boy the former President is right on the money here. Government doesn't create wealth, it stifles wealth creation, it consumes wealth, and it destroys opportunity.

If congress and the Republican under the Bush Administration were profligate in their spending, this new Democrat paradigm is politicians without any consciences running positively amok. President Obama tells us that we are out of money and in the next breath tells us that we need to spend another $2 Trillion on public healthcare. That's not simply stupid, it endangers the stability of our entire financial structure.

I hope Messrs. Bush and Cheney...and a whole lot more folks come out of their shells and begin to talk some plain common sense to all of this Democrat insanity.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Foundation: Texas economy will benefit from business tax relief

2009-06-16T16:30:00.001-05:00

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation applauds the leadership of Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Dan Patrick, Rep. Rene Oliveira, and all of the legislators whose efforts led to today’s signing of House Bill 4765, which increases the exemption for the state’s gross margins tax.

“Small businesses are responsible for most of the jobs in our modern economy,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy. “This period of economic difficulty makes it all the more important to support them, and we applaud Gov. Perry and our legislators for rising to the challenge.”

During the last several years, Texas has led the nation in job creation, exports, and business climate. Recent analyses indicate that Texas was one of the last states in the country to enter the national recession and will be one of the first states to emerge from it.

“Our research indicates that low taxes are vital to a vibrant private sector,” Heflin said. “Texas’ economy is the envy of the nation because our state leaders have kept taxes and spending low, which has enabled businesses to use more of their resources for job creation.”

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature’s successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas.

– 30 –

Obama Care Will Lead to Socialized Medicine

2009-06-11T06:34:00.003-05:00

Will Malven
6/11/2009

With all of the tall tales being told by Democrats these days about the proposed "new" healthcare system, I guess it's time to again explain why Obama-care is actually a single-payer system, also known as, socialized medicine.

President Obama likes to paint this rosy picture in which he declares that "If you like the coverage you already have, you can keep it." What he doesn't say is the conclusion of that statement, "If you can afford it."

The problem with Obama-care is that it will inevitably cause the demise of the private health insurance system that a vast majority of Americans have and which allows them, within the constraints of their insurance policy, access to whatever doctor, procedure, and facility they choose.

This comes about for two reasons. First, the folks who run businesses and corporations are not stupid. They pay a great deal of money for those insurance packages they offer their employees; usually the cost to the company is two to three times what the employee pays each month. Faced with the choice of cutting overhead and shifting that considerable burden to the taxpayer and off of the company's books, some of those companies will begin to terminate their employees healthcare benefits because they know the federal government will take up the slack.

The price we who are covered by private insurance policies pay is based on the size of the risk-pool of those being covered by such policies. The idea is that with a large enough group of people, the risk and expense of a covered member getting ill is balanced by the premiums being paid by those who remain healthy. The larger the pool of people, the lower the risk to the profitability of the insurance company and therefore the lower the individual's premium.

With government offering an alternative for business, every time a private business drops coverage for its employees, the number of people in the risk-pool shrinks. As that risk-pool shrinks, the insurance company is forced to raise their premiums on those they still cover to maintain their viability as a company.

Now I know you Liberals out there hate private enterprise and the whole profit loss model that our economic system offers, but for the sane folks out there what this means is that eventually, you will lose your private insurance coverage and be forced into the government (taxpayer funded) system.

As companies see their competitors gain an advantage by shifting the cost of providing their employees healthcare benefits to the government and thereby decreasing their overhead, they will have no choice but to follow suit and force their own employees into the governmental system just to remain competitive.

Every time this happens, the risk-pool for those with private healthcare insurance shrinks and the cost goes up to the company and the individual. Eventually only those who can afford to pay the full cost of their coverage will be able to access the superior medical care offered by private insurance and the private healthcare industry.

The end result, and here's the kicker folks, is a two-tiered system of medical care. We will have one huge impersonal government run system for the "masses" and another much smaller system for the wealthy elite.

That's right. We will still have private healthcare for a few of the "elite" of our society, but most of us will be forced to deal with an inferior, uncaring, bureaucratic nightmare system like that of the Canadians and Europeans, in which medical procedures are rationed and the elderly get short shrift.

You may need that transplant or very expensive procedure and with our current private healthcare system, you would probably get it. Under Obama-care you will be told that you are too old to qualify, or that the heart surgery you need is an "elective" procedure and that you will have to wait 8 months to have it done because there are several thousand people ahead of you in the queue.

You may not consider a life-saving procedure "elective," but under the government run single-payer system it very probably is unless it is an emergency. This is not a paranoid Conservative fantasy, this very thing goes on everyday in Canada, Britain and the rest of Europe to thousands of patients.

Oh yeah, and while you are waiting that 6, 8, or 12 months for your elective procedure you may rest peacefully secure in the knowledge that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will get that procedure because, after all, they are more important that you. You will also rest assured that Lance Armstrong (who recently argued before congress that all Americans should be treated equally in battling cancer), Elizabeth Edwards (who made an impassioned appeal for universal healthcare coverage before congress), and all of the rest of the wealthy elite celebrities who are so outspoken in favor of "universal healthcare" will get that same procedure on demand...because they can afford it and the very expensive private healthcare insurance they will continue to be able to afford.

In the end, it will be the little guy, you and I who will be made to suffer. If you don't believe me, just look at what they are contemplating today. They want to add your company paid health insurance premium to your taxable income. For most of us that will mean an increase in taxable income of $8,000-$15,000. It will almost certainly force a majority of Americans into a higher tax bracket and it will add 20%or more to the taxes you already pay.

You want socialized medicine? Well if Obama, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of the Democrats get their way, you'll get it...while they enjoy the best healthcare money can buy...on your dime.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Foundation: Taxpayers fared well in 2009 legislative session

2009-06-02T10:25:00.001-05:00

Key wins are adoption of conservative budget and defeat of higher taxes

Taxpayers fared well this legislative session, according to the post-session assessment of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“The Legislature adopted a relatively conservative budget, needed eminent domain reform, and improved public school accountability, while cutting taxes for small businesses,” said Justin Keener, the Foundation’s vice president of policy and communications. “To taxpayers’ relief, they defeated the expansion of government-run health insurance and several tax increases. Texas remains poised for a bounce back from the global recession thanks to lawmakers’ actions to maintain our state’s competitive edge of low taxes and a reasonable regulatory environment.”

Keener praised the Legislature’s action to reduce the bite of the gross margins tax on small businesses. “While we would have preferred a rate reduction for all businesses, increasing the exemption to $1 million for the next two years and to $600,000 permanently will be a great benefit to the small and startup enterprises that are the backbone of the modern Texas economy,” he said.

While there was not much forward movement on taxpayer protections such as improving the state’s expenditure limit and building upon Texas’ position as a leader in financial transparency, taxpayers dodged several bullets in the forms of billions of dollars in proposed new taxes and fees. The Foundation cited the failure of local-option transportation taxes and the unemployment stimulus legislation as the two biggest bullets that taxpayers dodged.

“During difficult times, Texas families expect their governments to scrutinize their budgets and set priorities in the same way that they have to,” Keener said. “This is not the time to ask citizens to raise taxes and fees, especially when other alternatives are available. The House showed true statesmanship in vetting the tax plans and rejecting them.”

The Foundation also cited the defeat of legislation that would have expanded unemployment eligibility, thereby accepting federal stimulus dollars in return for a likely permanent business tax increase.

“Our research has shown that one-time federal unemployment funds often come with conditions that permanently increase employer taxes,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Fiscal Policy. “Gov. Perry was right to reject these funds, and thankfully the Legislature ran out of time before it could overrule him.”

Heflin praised the Legislature for adopting a budget that stayed within population growth plus inflation, and for not tapping the Economic Stabilization Fund. “The state should have almost $9 billion set aside next session to pay for any emergency situations or tax relief initiatives,” he said.

According to the Foundation’s Bill Peacock, director of the Center for Economic Freedom, eminent domain reform moved forward for the first time since 2005 with passage of HJR 14.

“If adopted by Texas voters, this constitutional amendment will stop local governments from using blight designations to condemn blocks of perfectly good homes and businesses for economic development projects,” Peacock said. “While work still remains to fully address the ramifications from the Kelo Supreme Court decision, private property owners came out ahead this session.”

Texas public school students and taxpayers saw improvements. “The Legislature made considerable strides in education by preserving and expanding Texas’ teacher merit pay program, as well as providing for a meaningful accountability program to better prepare children for work or college,” according to Foundation education policy analyst Brooke Terry.

Despite these advances, Terry said many public school children will suffer due to the Legislature’s inability to lift the arbitrary cap on charter schools.

“More than 17,000 Texas children are on a waiting list to enter a charter school and we are very disappointed that the Legislature failed to lift the cap,” Terry said. “Texas charter schools have demonstrated amazing results by inventing new models to educate students and prepare them for success in college and the workplace.”

Charter schools are public schools supported by legislators in both parties. However, legislation to raise the arbitrary cap on charter schools and to help effective open-enrollment charter schools expand was vehemently opposed by the teacher unions.

"Major bills fail every session leaving work unfinished, yet industrious Texans still go about their business. This session will be no different," Keener said of the sunset legislation for the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Department of Transportation. "The governor and the Legislature have several options before them and we encourage them to take a measured approach when evaluating them."

Justin Keener is Vice President of Policy and Communications for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature’s successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

Bill Peacock is Director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Brooke Terry is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

Legislature should reject local governments’ demand for new taxes

2009-05-29T14:07:00.000-05:00

Statement by Justin Keener, Vice President of Policy and Communications

“In these tough economic times, local governments need to prioritize their spending the same way that Texas families and businesses are. This is not the time – and House Bill 300 is not the way – to create an even greater tax burden on Texas motorists, especially when the current state budget continues to divert well over $1 billion of our gas taxes to non-transportation purposes.

“Local governments already have considerable resources available to address this problem. Our research has shown that their spending has grown much faster than population growth and inflation, and that many communities have chosen to use the transportation penny of sales tax authority on other uses.

“If transportation is in such a crisis condition that the local governments claim it is, they should first put their available resources toward transportation. The evidence is clear that they are not. Our legislators should not let them off the hook for their unwillingness to set priorities.”

Justin Keener is Vice President of Policy and Communications for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the transportation research page of the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

Another Open Letter to Senator John Cornyn

2009-05-29T08:55:00.002-05:00

Will Malven
5/29/2009

Upon reading the Politico article, "Cornyn: Leave Sotomayor alone," in which Ben Smith quotes Senator Cornyn as having called the criticisms of Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich as "racist" and then commenting that:

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials."
a comment which implies that one must be an elected official to offer an opinion about a perspective Supreme Court nominee, I have been motivated once more to write to Senator Cornyn and criticize his choice of words and his crass political motives for said criticism.

I do not see pandering to minorities for votes as one of the duties of a U.S. Senator.

As I promised Senator Cornyn, here is the complete letter:

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I have been a long time supporter of you in your career representing we Texans in the Senate.

You have long fought well and hard against those in the Democrat Party who sought to tear down this great nation.

You have been a champion of our Constitution and the preservation of our rights and liberties.

It is for that reason that I am angered and puzzled that you felt the need to attack those who oppose Judge Sonia Sotomayor as "racists."

According to Politico's Ben Smith, yesterday during your appearance on "All Things Considered" you said:

"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent."
You then went on to state that:

"Neither one of these men [Limbaugh and Gingrich] are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."
Since when are "elected Republican officials" the only people qualified to comment on judicial nominees. Since when is quoting a judicial nominee and commenting on those statements "racist?"

Sonia Sotomayor stands convicted of reverse racism, not by anything that Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich said, but by her own words.

The woman is the most radical Liberal I have ever seen nominated for the Supreme Court. Her view on the right to keep and bear arms stands in direct oppostition of the recent Heller decision.

Her views on judicial activism are an anathema to any who love our Constitution and our national heritage, and the cavalier manner in which she laughed off the assumption that judges don't make law instantly renders her unsuitable to occupy the most powerful judicial seat in the nation.

Her expressed belief that:
"a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
is as racist a comment as any made by any white supremacist during the civil rights battles of the sixties and seventies.

Apparently you are more concerned with your political career and getting the Latino vote than you are in preserving the integrity of our Constitution and insuring that only qualified people occupy seats on the highest court in the land.

I am disgusted in your crass political attitude. I realize that you have only recently been re-elected and therefore feel free to alienate those who supported your campaign, but I and many other Conservative Texans will remember this betrayal of trust.

It is time for all Americans to rise above the kind of knee-jerk cry of "racist" of which you are now guilty.

Perhaps it is time for us Conservatives to abandon the Republican Party for a new more vigorous party filled with people who believe principles out weigh political expedience.

As a life-long Republican the thought of doing so saddens me, but the more I see men and women I thought were conservatives abandon their principles for their chances of being reelected, the more necessary such a move seems.

It is men like you who are destroying the party of Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes.

We Conservative will no longer be taken for granted while cowards like you pander to those who do not believe in the principles for which our Founding Fathers gave the lives, their careers and their fortunes to see come into fruition.

Perhaps a political animal such as you is incapable of conceiving of the kind of sacrifices the signers of the Declaration of Independence made for the sake of their fellow citizens.

Conservative principles are good principles. They espouse the essence of what built this great nation and the ideals for which so many were willing to give their lives.

They are the principles of many, like Limbaugh and Gingrich, who are not "elected Republican officials."

It is time for men like you to remember that "elected Republican officials" work for the people. They are not our rulers, but our employees.

You owe Messrs. Limbaugh and Gingrich as well as your constituents who supported you an apology and a pledge to work for the Constitution rather than your own callow political ends.

I am very disappointed in you sir, and I am disappointed that I have been fooled by you in the past. Rest assured that I will no longer allow you to deceive me with your "I'm a Conservative" act.

You may rest assured that I will remember your every action when you once more are forced to go back to the people a lie about your agenda so that you can be reelected.

Sincerely,

Will Malven
houstonconservative.com

P.S. A copy of this entire e-mail will be posted on my website.

To say that I am disappointed in Senator Cornyn of late would be an understatement.

Apparently ascending to a position of leadership within the Republican Party requires one to leave his courage, his principles, and his sense of duty to the American people and to his constituents at the door and don the robes of cynicism and hypocrisy.

It is truly saddening when I see so many formerly courageous Conservative voices grow so fat and lazy at the public trough that they feel the need to pander for votes. It is saddening to see them become so isolated from their constituents that they forget who and what sent them to Congress in the first place.

It is disturbing to see so many former Conservative lions evolve into weak, spineless old men who are more concerned about the possibility of losing their ride on the taxpayer's gravy train than they are about doing that which is right and principled.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Frightening Woman In America

2009-05-28T09:53:00.003-05:00

Nancy Pelosi is rapidly becoming the most dangerous person in America. She is endangering our national security by impugning the integrity of our personnel in the CIA and by in conjunction with her Democrat allies suggesting the criminalization of actions taken by them under the Bush Administration, thereby discouraging agents from engaging in investigatory actions which might later be called into question by some member of Congress for callow political purposes.

This is bad enough to call into question Madame Speaker's qualifications to sit in the third most powerful chair in our government. Now she has upped the ante in her speech given to students at Tsinghua University in Beijing yesterday by calling for "every aspect of our lives" to be "subjected to inventory."

I hope you understand what she is saying here. She is calling for every single decision you make and every action you take to be subject to governmental review. This sort of suggestion makes even the former Soviet Union or the East German Republic with their Stasi begin to look tame.

According to the report by AP, the Speaker made the following statements:
"I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer. It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right."
A human right? Really? She said this in a nation that has one of the worst records on human rights in history while she glibly avoided any reference to China's abysmal record.

She added that governments would have to be guided in their decisions by science and that:
"They also have to do it with openness, transparency and accountability to the people. Everyone has to have their situation improved by it."
Then she dropped the big bomb. When she was asked how she would get the American people to go along with cutting emissions, she responded that it would be done by "educating children" on energy conservation [indoctrination anyone?] and adults [reeducation camps?] to build more efficient houses and finally she said:

"We have so much room for improvement. Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." [Emphasis added]

If those words don't scare you to death, then you are naive beyond help. What Madame Pelosi is contemplating is the direct intervention of some governmental bureaucrat in "every aspect of" you life.

How much energy are you using? How many television sets do you have? How many hours do you spend watching television? How many radios, stereos, IPods, computers, telephones or any other electrical devise do you have? Do you drive a car? What kind of car do you have? What are your driving habits? Do you carpool? Do you make "unnecessary trips" in your vehicle? The possibilities for intrusion are endless, and the desire of radical Liberals like Pelosi to interfere in your life is very real.

Not very distant from these sorts of questions lay the very real possibilities of restrictions on your choices and freedom. You may only drive a compact car because you are single or you only have one child. You may only have one child. You may only expend so many kilowatt hours of electricity before you are fined. You have too powerful a computer for the things you typically do. Again, the possibilities for control are endless and the desire by some in government is very real.

I never really expected to see this kind of language and attitude coming from an American citizen, let alone from the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi has thoroughly exposed herself as one of the most extreme radical leftists in America today. Her proposal of governmental intervention into the details of how we live our lives are as radical as any adopted by any government in history including the Nazi Regime, the Soviet Union, and Mao Tse Tung's Red China.

Nancy Pelosi is so far out of the mainstream of American beliefs that she now poses a very real threat to every freedom-loving American and she must be relieved of her position and her authority before she has a chance to impose these radical ideas on the rest of America.

Absolutely frightening!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Did You Hear? Judge Sonia Sotomayor “Has a Compelling Life Story”

2009-05-27T18:33:00.003-05:00

So…Judge and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor has a “compelling life story.” I know this because I have been told this ad nauseum by the groveling mainstream media as they fawn over President Obama’s new pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter. As usual, the parrots who pose as “journalists” have received their talking points from the Democrat Party and are dutifully reciting those assigned talking points.

So then if having a “compelling life story” is reason enough to sit on the Supreme Court, then Justice Clarence Thomas should be beatified by these same chattering parrots. Far from praising him though, these same parrots who so loudly adore Sonia Sotomayor’s “compelling story, made every effort to destroy Clarence Thomas. What was Justice Thomas’ sin? He is a Conservative jurist who believes in making judgments based on the original meaning of the Constitution rather than placing his personal imprimatur on the law. Rather than serving as one of the Left wing’s “kept boys,” Clarence Thomas, who also graduated from Yale School of Law chose to serve his conscience and obligation as a jurist, blind to the individual appearing in the court.

For this crime, the crime of not being a Liberal, Thomas was the victim of one of the most vicious witch hunts and lynchings in the history of Congressional hearings. Rather than coming to his defense, the mainstream media chose to join in this witch hunt. Rather than endlessly repeating what a compelling life story Thomas had, they indulged in a hateful campaign which invoked every classic stereo-type of a black man which they had historically decried.

Beyond the point of Liberal hypocrisy-which is so common as to be almost not worth mentioning, what becomes apparent is that a “compelling life story” is not sufficient grounds for Republicans and Conservatives to acquiesce to Judge Sotomayor’s appointment.

The difficulty for Republicans and Conservatives who oppose Judge Sotomayor for very legitimate reasons is that Liberals and Democrats in general control the media. Any criticism of Sotomayor instantly becomes an anti-Latino attack in the press. When Alberto Gonzales was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee by the Bush Administration, he received none of the support which has been thrown to Sonia Sotomayor. Attacks on him were considered fair game by these same Liberal parrots.

Calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, based on her very racist comment:

“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."

is enough to make you the target of attack by the Leftist press and the Democrat attack machine for whom they speak. The fact remains that the above comment is as racist as any comment made by any white man in the height of the civil rights campaigns of the 1950’s. If you fail to perceive the racism in this statement, simply reverse it:

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latina woman.

Any white male jurist who made that statement would be drawn and quartered by the national press rather than lauded by them. He would face public ridicule and be forced to withdraw his name from consideration in abject humiliation.

So here we see the Liberal double standard. A liberal can say pretty much anything he or she wishes and get away with it; possibly even be praised for it, as long as the target isn’t one of the Left’s protected special interest groups.

Still, my concern isn’t that Judge Sotomayor is a racist, since all Liberals are racists at heart I would have assumed that, my concern is that she would use that “richness of experience” to color her decisions. As I stated in my previous commentary “Obama Picks Sotomayor For Supreme Court: Worst Possible Choice” the primary obligation of a Supreme Court Justice-as it is for a Circuit Court Judge-is to be an impartial jurist. Lady Justice is blind, not sympathetic, not empathetic, but an objective evaluator of law.

Even the oath of office for a Supreme Court Justice as laid out by Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code states that principle in unambiguous terms:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."[Emphasis added]

“…without respect to persons…” dictates that the judge is charged to do precisely the opposite of what Judge Sotomayor has said she would do and precisely the opposite of what President Obama said he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee.

In his speech before Planned Parenthood in July of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“…we need somebody who's got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges.”

In what way does that description comport with the Oath of Office requirement that justice be administered without regard to person and impartially?

It becomes readily apparent that all of those Supreme Court Justices who use their own personal agenda, empathy and feelings to render their judgment do so not only to the detriment of all Americans and our system of government, but they also violate their oaths of office.

It is highly probable given the current make up of the Senate and the general cowardice of the Republican minority, who seem more concerned with not alienating Hispanic voters than with adhering to their principles and the Constitution, Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice regardless of her lack of qualifications.

There are many who argue that he presence on the court will carry little impact as she is a Liberal replacing a Liberal, but her approval in spite of her admitted belief in creating law by judicial fiat and her arrogant and cynical rejection of the principles of “originalism” sets up a bad paradigm for a Supreme Court Justice. Apparently a good justice in the eyes of the Left is someone who creates law based on their own wishes and has little to do with interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps those justices on the Right who adhere so slavishly to the letter of the law as laid out by our Constitution should take that to heart and begin creating Conservative law based on their personal beliefs.

I can only imagine the reaction from the press and from the Democrats in Congress if Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy suddenly began creating law. Liberals heads would be exploding all across America. Unfortunately (well actually fortunately) this will never happen because men like Scalia and Thomas are true adherents to the law of our nation.

If only our Liberal brethren were as dedicated to the rule of law.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Obama Picks Sotomayor For Supreme Court: Worst Possible Choice

2009-05-26T08:00:00.005-05:00

Will Malven
5/26/2009

If you had any doubts as to how bad President Obama could be, his latest move is dead solid proof.

Sonia Sotomayor is the worst sort of activist judge. She has been caught on film making the appalling statement that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then compounds her guilt by acknowledging that she made a mistake in admitting that belief on film and thus by inference that she knows her assertion is wrong, but doesn’t care. This alone is enough to disqualify her for the post to which she has been nominated.

Here is the clip in which she makes that statement:

This film clip clearly shows that, not only does she have contempt for the intent of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote, but she finds her contempt for the Constitution to be humorous. Such arrogance is breathtaking.

Anyone holding such a radical belief is unsuited to hold such a powerful position in our government. After all, even the President can be voted out after four years; the position of Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointment.

The position of Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be an interpretive position, not a legislative position. A Supreme Court Justice is like an umpire in a baseball game; either a pitch is in, in which case it is a strike or the pitch is out and it's a ball. The umpire is not supposed to care who the batter is or who the pitcher is; he is not there to make up rules. He is supposed to call the pitches according to the rules as they are written.

The Founding Fathers set up a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" by placing all law-making powers in the hands of our democratically elected Legislative Branch.

The Judiciary Branch's sole responsibility with respect to our laws is to determine whether or not those laws passed by Congress comport with the Constitution as it was written. Sotomayor and her ilk would expand that mandate and their authority into the realm of law-making thus taking that power out of the hands of the people and placing it in the hands of an unelected oligarchy.

That President Obama would appoint such a person is no surprise; Liberals like him know they cannot get their social agenda through the legislature so they want to bypass Constitutional safeguards and have a court that will make law through judicial fiat (proclamation).

That there are many justices so inclined is no surprise either, it is just surprising to encounter one so cavalier in her attitude about doing so and so dismissive of even her own admission that doing so is anti-constitutional.

It may be that Obama plans to use Sotomayor as a stalking horse for his real choice to be announced after she has taken the heat in a bitter Senate showdown. This would enable him to get his genuine nominee passed with far less opposition than they would normally encounter. It would not be the first time that a President has made such a cynical move.

Whether or not this is the case, no one with such a high degree of contempt for our Constitution can be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Sonia Sotomayor must be made a non-starter by Republican Senators and no effort (up to and including a filibuster) can be spared in blocking her or any other similarly inclined nominee.

Republican Senators must be willing to "fade the heat" regardless of how uncomfortable Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media attempt to make it.
Sotomayor poses a direct threat to the very foundation of our nation and our form of government.

“Stop Sotomayor at any and all costs!” This must be the rallying cry of any American who values his Constitutional rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

New York Terror Plot Shows Flaw In Obama Plans for GITMO

2009-05-22T08:43:00.005-05:00

Will Malven
5/22/2009

President Obama has been making slow progress in his views on the handling of inmates being held in the detention facility at Guantanamo as his understanding of the facts grows.

His first, ill-conceived, decision to close the facility at GITMO was made without any consideration of what America should do with the inmates being housed there.

That decision was a leap to pander; an action to keep a promise he made to the most radical of his constituents and it was made before he had even informed himself on the sort of men being housed there.

Since that decision, he has been forced to deal with the unpleasant reality that the individuals being kept at GITMO are "really bad eggs." The "easy vetting" of those detainees has already been done by the Bush Administration and their best efforts still allowed as many as 61 "sleepers" to slip through.

Those who remain are more problematic. They are hard core Islamic Fundamentalist who are determined to attack America and who pose a genuine threat to our national security.

Though he still likes to throw the "Bush/Cheney" boogeyman out to his adoring public as his favorite excuse/whipping boys, as he has gradually become informed about the inmates of the GITMO facility, Barack Obama has been forced to the understanding that President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn't create GITMO just because they are sadistic SOB's and wanted to mistreat a bunch of innocent bystanders. They had a real and legitimate reason for building that facility.

This enlightenment, belated as it is, must come with some personal discomfort as now he is the man in the hot seat and it is he who is forced to make the very tough decisions about how to handle these same enemy combatants.

The most disturbing proposal President Obama has made is his expressed desire to house some of these same inmates in our own "supermax" federal prisons. We are again confronted by the painful realization that this man is clueless about our enemies and why they continue to pose a threat to Americans.

In yesterday's (interminably long) speech, President Obama made reference to the above "supermax" prisons saying,

"Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists."

This comment illustrates the naïveté of those on the Left about our enemies.

The primary concern over housing these terrorists in our own supermax prisons isn't that they might escape and cause havoc; it is that they may recruit other prisoners to their cause. This is not an artificial concern nor is it the paranoid imaginings of a fearful mind, this is based on the very real knowledge our intelligence agencies have acquired about the way in which al Qaeda operates.

In an article on the New York terrorists today's New York Post discusses this threat:

"PATH TO RADICAL ISLAM BEGAN IN JAILS

By PERRY CHIARAMONTE, LORENA MONGELLI in Newburgh, NY and DOUGLAS MONTERO and LUKAS I. ALPERT in New York

May 22, 2009

They were like a million other petty criminals -- until they embraced radical Islam behind bars, launching a terrifying march to a planned mass murder that ended only when authorities sabotaged their sinister plot.

"He was not born Muslim. He's an institutional Muslim," said Richard Williams, uncle of Onta Williams, one of the four Bronx terror suspects.

"He wasn't raised that way."

Richard Williams said that his 32-year-old nephew fell under the sway of dangerously radical Islamo-fascists while serving time on drug charges -- and that he became "brainwashed" after his mother died and his ex-wife fought him for custody of their child."

Beyond this guy, we also have Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber." who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight Christmas of 2001 became a radical Islamist in a British Prison and Jose Padilla who was convicted on August 16, 2007 by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism was a Chicago, Ill. gang member who became a radical Islamist in prison.

We also have the example of Terry Holdbrooks who was a guard at GITMO and was convinced to convert to Islam by these very same inmates.

FBI Director Robert Mueller testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2005 stated that:

"prisons continue to be fertile ground for extremists who exploit both a prisoner's conversion to Islam while still in prison, as well as their socioeconomic status and placement in the community upon their release."

The men about whom we are talking are trained terrorists. They have been trained in an al Qaeda training camp, not just on how to blow things up or fight a guerrilla war, but they are also deeply steeped in Wahabi Islam and trained to recruit others to their radical view of the Muslim faith.

Another falsehood being promulgated by the President and his supporters is that GITMO serves as a symbol for the recruitment of terrorists.

If I remember correctly, GITMO didn't exist in 1993 when Blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and his team bombed the World Trade Center, it didn't exist when the Khobar Towers were bombed, it didn't exist when the American Embassy was bombed in Saudi Arabia and it didn't exist when the USS Cole was bombed.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any increase in the recruitment of terrorists for al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization due to the existence of the detainment center in Guantanamo. What there is a great deal of conjecture and projection being done by the President and those who wish to close GITMO.

What I found most objectionable about President Obama's speech yesterday was his almost continuous blaming of the Bush Administration for the problems he created. This President appears to be congenitally incapable of admitting his own failures.

His problems surrounding the facilities at GITMO are not the fault of President Bush and his administration; they are the direct result of his precipitous, ill-conceived actions upon taking office and his irresponsible promises on the campaign trail.

What Obama is learning that it is easy to stand outside of an administration and take pot-shots at the policy decisions that administration is making when you are ignorant of the facts just to further you political ambitions. It is far tougher to deal with the problems you face as President once you are apprised of the details associated with the policies you attacked so eagerly.

To quote Obama's favorite minister, "The chickens are coming home to roost." His problem is he is not man enough to take responsibility for his own mistakes.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Obama's New CAFE Standards: Dictatorial Government

2009-05-20T08:36:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
5/20/09

What kind of car or truck do you want to drive? Well, Emperor Obama doesn't care. He has decided that he and the loonies from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club will tell you what you can or cannot drive.

The arrogance of those on the Left, while no surprise, is still breathtaking in its scope. For over two hundred years Americans have enjoyed the prosperity and freedom that come from a free market economy. It has always been the will of the consumer which dictated which products would succeed or fail.

As far as I can tell, that system has worked pretty well; giving America the strongest, most vital economy in the world. Americans have enjoyed the highest standard of living, the broadest selection of products, and the greatest freedom of any consumer in the world, but this has gradually been changing as Liberal fringe groups that hold a special cache with our political caste have exercised increasing influence over domestic policies.

With this Obama administration this gradual erosion of the free market system and we consumer's power of choice has been markedly accelerated. We now have an administration in the White House who feels no compunction in dictating to the American consumer what he may and may not buy. Apparently "choice" is only good when it comes to murdering the unborn.

We are told that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is no longer to be questioned; that it is "settled science" even as a growing number of scientists are finding their long silenced voices and expressing skepticism over the conclusions drawn in the IPCC/UN report on Global Climate Change-they were forced to change the name from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" because, for the past decade the average global temperatures have ceased to rise and now show signs of cooling.

But dogma doesn't allow for dissent. In the lofty realms of our government the dogma of global climate change gives the meddlers and "do-gooders" (the people we used to call "our Representatives") who dwell there new, undreamed of powers to legislate and mold our lives and our society into their own peculiar concept of an "ideal society."

People like Obama and Pelosi no longer see the American people as their constituents, they see us as their subjects; subjects to whom they can dictate policy "for our own good."

These new CAFE standards are a perfect example of their arrogant, dictatorial paradigm. "For our own good" they will set fuel efficiency standards at such a high level that, should you wish to drive an SUV, or a high performance vehicle, you will not have that choice...or if you do, you will have to pay an prohibitive price for that luxury.

Have a large family (shame on you, you are consuming more than your "fare share")? Well then you will be forced to squeeze your spouse, your four kids and your dog into a tin-box that is both less comfortable and less safe...but then what would you expect from a society that places no value on the life of the unborn. If your family gets wiped out in an accident, you can always make more kids, right?

The problem with lofty Liberal ideals is that they place no value on the individual. As a person you have no worth unless you are a member of one of the Liberals select minorities or special interests.

Liberalism reduces everything to its lowest common trait. Liberal Education caters to the least of us, rather than demanding the best from us. Liberal Economics seeks to share the misery rather than offer the opportunity to excel. Liberal policy offers the individual the least amount of freedom he will tolerate rather than allowing him maximum freedom possible for him.

If, in spite of their best efforts, the Liberals who now control our government are unable to convince you to drive the vehicle they believe you should drive, they will force you to by making it economically unfeasible for you to drive the vehicle you wish.

When gasoline prices spiked at over $4.00/gallon, Obama's reaction wasn't "This is bad for Americans," it was (paraphrasing here) "The prices rose too fast for the economy to adapt."

Here's the exact comment he made in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood:

CNBC Exclusive: CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood Sits Down with Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama
HARWOOD: As difficult as this is for consumers right now, is, in fact, high gas prices what we need to let the market work, a line incentive so that we do shift to alternative means of energy?
BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..."

HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?"

BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."

Al Gore and his cabal of AGW profiteers believe that the best policy on oil is to force gasoline prices to go so high that you are forced to "economize." They aren't interested in what the American people want; they are interested in what the people "need" (in their opinion).

They are not interested in encouraging increased exploration and production of domestic oil and gas to alleviate our fuel shortage; they are perfectly happy to create an artificial price on gasoline so high that you will be forced to buy these little soap-boxes they have directed the now newly nationalized automobile manufacturers to build.

Obama's plans for our automobile industry and his recent and disastrous handling of our economy should give all freedom loving Americans pause when they begin looking at our nation's healthcare industry.

His ultimate goal is to force all Americans into a European style socialized healthcare system. He plans to drive the cost of private health insurance so high that the individual will be forced to buy into his government run "alternative plan."

We are witnessing the rapid dismantling of an economic/social system which has worked extraordinarily well for the past two centuries (not counting what occurred prior to the establishment of our nation) in favor of a system which has failed in every nation in which it has been instituted.

For those who still deny that Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist I can only point out that the Obama administration now controls the (formerly private) banking system, a vast majority of our automotive industry (with the upcoming GM bankruptcy settlement), and now has its sights set on the healthcare system. Add to that the upcoming "green revolution" now being touted by useful idiots like Henry Waxman (D-CA) and we are looking at government control of close to half of what was formerly a private economy.

This nation is headed for some seriously rough waters ahead and whether or not we can survive it will depend on how Americans react as their rights are gradually eroded by the elite in our government and our society. George Soros and his Democrat Party want you to be their vassals; they want you to be a subject of the state rather than the state subject to your will.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!! [I have my doubts]

President Obama Mystified by His Own Policies

2009-05-19T07:16:00.005-05:00

Will Malven
5/19/2009

As if we needed any further proof (than his non-existent resume) of President Obama's lack of qualifications for the office he holds, the recent spate of reversals in policy by his administration should allay any doubts.

In quick succession, he has reversed himself on releasing the Abu Graihb photos, the use of military tribunals to try the inmates of the Guantanamo Detainment Facility, troop surges (this time in Afghanistan), and most recently his own economic policies.

On Thursday, President Obama proclaimed the growth in long term debt "unsustainable" and likely to cause rampant inflation...isn't that what Republicans have been saying since day one?

Breitbart reports the following:

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ (Update2)

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

While it's nice to see a President so willing to re-evaluate his long held beliefs, wouldn't it have been better for voters to have known about this pathetic lack of grasp of the most important issues of the day before he was elected?

While this openness about his shortcomings is nice, it would be better still if he had the personal integrity to accept responsibility for those failures.

In his all too accurate evaluation of his economic policies he has chosen to attribute the blame for the upcoming economic collapse variously on the Bush Administration (some substantial truth there), the health industry, private enterprise (those evil capitalists) and the American people (we are just too greedy for our own good).

Accompanying his statement Thursday on the failing health of our economy-due largely to profligate spending in his and the Democrat Party's budget plan, Obama said the following:

“Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs.”

Excuse me? I would venture to suggest that most of what is driving us into debt is his $3.6 Trillion budget and his $Trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. In his short five months as President, Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats have doubled the national debt. Doubled it! The entire national debt. Debt previously accumulated from the beginning of our nation to the end of President Bush's administration...let me tell you that is no mean accomplishment.

It took serious effort for him and his fellow Dems to achieve that perilous height.

But...have no fear...he is going to offset that $3.6 Trillion in spending by his proposal to slash $17 Billion in spending. This is like a bad joke (or more aptly, a bad nightmare). $17 Billion? The amount is sadly laughable.

Well, unfortunately a majority of Americans, wrapped up in a cult of personality, bought this pig in a poke and now all of us are going to have to pay for it.

It's nice to see that three months after he and his fellow Democrats passed this $3.6 Trillion budget, they have awakened to the concerns that Republicans expressed before they passed this bloated albatross. China is very likely going to stop financing our national debt and when that shoe falls, inflation in America is going to explode.

Revisiting Obama's words:

"We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt."

I am experiencing déjà vu here. It's as though I have heard these words before...like from the Republicans back in January when this hog-farm was first proposed.

It's all very well, this late awakening, but it would have been nice if these concerns, very clearly expressed by Republicans before the budget became law, had been seen and understood before Democrats acted.

Just as President Bush acted precipitously and ill-advisedly to force through the TARP program without any safeguards on how the money would be distributed or used, on the advice of Hank "Danger Will Robinson" Paulson...and against the advice of most in his own party, the entire Democrat controlled Congress acted without thought.

Legislation passed while congress is in panic mode is rarely well thought out, measured, or effective. The sheer level of incompetence and lack of understanding evinced by their actions doesn't bode well for our nation's economy.

It's what happens when neophytes are allowed to take the helm of the ship of state.

Now these same lemmings are struggling to deal with the mess they created. This crisis cannot legitimately be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration; it is the sole result of unwarranted, heedless actions taken in the heat of the moment without regard to the ultimate consequences of such actions.

Compounding these problems, we have a President that is doing his damndest to destroy the very same private enterprise system which created our (formerly) booming economy and supplant the same with a bloated, incompetent government run system which has failed in every nation which has attempted it.

As I warned when Obama was elected as President:

Fasten your seatbelts folks; this is going to be one hell of a bumpy ride. [Brought to you by your "friends" in the Democrat Party.]

The adolescents are in control of our government and are rapidly destroying the very institutions that built this great nation...it's time to send in the Republican adults to attempt to salvage this increasingly dire situation.

This is what happens when the unprepared, inexperienced and incompetent are elected as "leaders," they invariably lead us into disaster.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Pelosi's Presser Performance: Petulant, Puerile, and Pathetic

2009-05-18T15:35:00.004-05:00

Will Malven
5/18/2009

If anyone had a doubt as to Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) unsuitability for the post she currently holds, the past couple of weeks should allay any doubts.

One would expect that, being third in line for the Presidency, a Speaker of the House would be measured, honest (at least honest for a politician), and respectful of those who work diligently to ensure our national security. Yet, in her bizarre performance at Thursday's "Press Briefing" (I would be more inclined to call it a public nervous breakdown), Madame Speaker displayed the antithesis of those three minimal character traits.

Her over-the-top claim that the CIA "lied" about having briefed her on the techniques they were using and had used to interrogate known terrorists, was anything but measured, honest or respectful.

She lied when she said Congress was told by President Bush that Saddam was an "imminent threat" (his exact words were "before he becomes an imminent threat") the exact opposite of her assertion. She lied when she accused President Bush of lying to get us into a war...providing information you have every reason to believe to be true but which later proves to be false is not "lying" it is not even "misleading," it is being in error.

According to the current head of the CIA, her former congressional colleague Leon Panetta, she lied when she denied having been briefed by the CIA.

According to the Washington Post (hardly a bastion of Conservative sentiment):

"...intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him." [Emphasis added]

Fox news reports that there were over 30 meetings and briefings held by the CIA to inform members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees since the first one which Pelosi attended on September 11, 2002. The CIA briefed all of the four top members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, including (at various times) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KA), and Sen. Richard Shelby, (R-AL).

Yep, Ms. Pelosi exhibited every sign of someone suffering from a nervous breakdown, she was shaking, agitated, confused, nervous, and defensive in a manner that shouted "I'm guilty!" "I'm lying!" When a politician is forced to parse their words as carefully as Pelosi was attempting, it is clear they are lying.

It is time for her to step down from her speakership or for the Congressional Democrat Caucus to remove her. Anyone as unstable as she demonstrated herself to be last week must not be allowed to remain in a place of such potentially great responsibility.

Madame Pelosi must be kept as far away from the Oval Office as she can be kept...in fact she probably shouldn't even be allowed to visit the place in her current state of mind...what little she has.

Face it folks, Democrats made a huge mistake when they initially elected her Speaker of the House over Steny Hoyer. I'm no great fan of a Liberal like Mr. Hoyer (D-MD), but at least he is mentally sound and could be depended on not to destroy the nation through mental incompetence.

It's time for the Wicked Witch of the Left to go home and enjoy her and her husband's ill-gotten $Millions.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!