It is a slow day in the East Texas town of Woodville.
It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through town.
He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar bill on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has lately had to offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the hotel proprietor, paying for the rooms that she had rented when she brought clients to that establishment.
The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs, after inspecting the rooms.
He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not satisfactory...... Pockets the money and walks out the door and leaves town.
No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is conducting business today.
If that doesn't scare the heck out of you, then I don't know what will.
Special thanks to Brent B.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Finally the U.S. flexes a little
Air Force test fires missile from Calif coast
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. – The Air Force says it has successfully launched an unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile from a California base, firing it to targets in the Pacific Ocean.
Lt. Raymond Geoffroy (JEFF-rey) said the ICBM was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 3:01 a.m. Monday.
He said it carried three unarmed re-entry vehicles that hit their targets near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles away.
On clear mornings, missile launchings from Vandenberg can be seen as far away as Los Angeles, 140 miles to the southeast, but fog along the coast made Monday's launch difficult to see even in the immediate area, Geoffroy said.
The Air Force said the launch was an operational test to check the weapon system's reliability and accuracy.
Test data will be used by United States Strategic Command planners and Department of Energy laboratories.
"More likely the test will be echoing in the minds of N Korean and Iranian dictators."
The Stranger
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. – The Air Force says it has successfully launched an unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile from a California base, firing it to targets in the Pacific Ocean.
Lt. Raymond Geoffroy (JEFF-rey) said the ICBM was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 3:01 a.m. Monday.
He said it carried three unarmed re-entry vehicles that hit their targets near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles away.
On clear mornings, missile launchings from Vandenberg can be seen as far away as Los Angeles, 140 miles to the southeast, but fog along the coast made Monday's launch difficult to see even in the immediate area, Geoffroy said.
The Air Force said the launch was an operational test to check the weapon system's reliability and accuracy.
Test data will be used by United States Strategic Command planners and Department of Energy laboratories.
"More likely the test will be echoing in the minds of N Korean and Iranian dictators."
The Stranger
White firefighters win Supreme Court appeal
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
Read entire article here.
"Finally Supreme Court gets one right."
The Stranger
Read entire article here.
"Finally Supreme Court gets one right."
The Stranger
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Climate Change Climate Change
Well it looks like everyone else is wising up to the global warming scam.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
It's time to look behind the curtain
All right I am sick and tired of the economic shell game. Everybody Republicans and Democrats alike are scrambling to come up with reasons for our economic woes. Some say that healthcare costs incurred by smokers and obese Americans is placing a strain on our economy. Excuse me, but last time I checked it was my constitutionally protected right to have a smoke and a Twinkie if I want to.
Why are we ignoring the 14 to 22 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. In 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. That is just California. It's estimated that California houses nearly a third (31%) of the nations illegal aliens. If you extrapolate based on those numbers that means the total estimated cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants is approximately 4.2 billion dollars per year, much more than the approximated 80 million dollars incurred by smokers and obese Americans. Why then I ask are we not doing something about these criminals? How can I say that all illegal immigrants are criminals, well it's sort of implied in the name "illegal" immigrant.
This is just healthcare costs, add to that the expenses incurred for financial aid, as well as education, and these criminals are robbing the American taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars every year. Do I feel sorry for the disenfranchised citizens in other countries? Yes I do, I also feel it is their responsibility to stand up and work for change in their own system. You can,t just go where the grass is greener, or eventually you will trample all the grass.
I like to break things down to their simplest form. Lets say I lose my job, and my family is in financial trouble, but my neighbors are doing fine. Would it be acceptable for me and my family to sneak over and move into my neighbors house? Of course not, it would be my responsibility to find work and support my family. Why can we not seem to apply this common sense on an
international level. Take the people of Iran for example, they are not happy with their situation, but they're not fleeing to greeener pastures they are trying to affect change. I applaud them for that.
Another favorite target are American businesses, they are too greedy, they are being mismanaged. I'm sorry but as ugly as it may be greed is an inherent part of capitalism. The
solution is not for the government to step in and help protect the monopolies these companies have on their services and products. We already have a system of checks and balances to protect against greed and mismanagement, it's called the American consumer. If a company gets overly
greedy, or is being mismanaged consumers stop using their services or products. At this point the company in question has a choice, either make improvements to win back their consumers, or fail and be replaced.
The fact is these supposed issues are nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real issue, the unfair trade practices our government has promoted. Here are some stats on trade for the last five years.
China:Exports to:
2004: 34,744,053,000
2005: 41,925,281,000
2006: 55,185,707,000
2007: 65,236,121,000
2008: 71,457,073,000
Total: 268,548,235,000
Imports from:
2004: 196,682,034,000
2005: 243,470,105,000
2006: 287,774,353,000
2007: 321,442,867,000
2008: 337,789,782,000
Total: 1,387,159,141,000 (176,574,278,000)* (1,210,584,863,000)**
Trade deficit: 1,118,610,906,000 (942,036,628,000)**
Japan:Exports to:
2004: 54,243,120,000
2005: 55,484,472,000
2006: 59,612,714,000
2007: 62,703,458,000
2008: 66,579,152,000
Total: 298,622,916,000
Imports from:
2004: 129,805,199,000
2005: 138,003,696,000
2006: 148,180,776,000
2007: 145,463,343,000
2008: 139,248,199,000
Total: 700,701,213,000
Trade deficit: 402,078,297,000
Germany:Exports to:
2004: 31,415,882,000
2005: 34,183,656,000
2006: 41,319,095,000
2007: 49,650,956,000
2008: 54,732,310,000
Total: 211,301,899,000
Imports from:
2004: 77,265,574,000
2005: 84,750,871,000
2006: 89,082,049,000
2007: 94,164,096,000
2008: 97,552,900,000
Total: 442,815,490,000
Trade deficit: 231,513,591,000
Britain:Exports to:
2004: 36,000,233,000
2005: 38,587,772,000
2006: 45,410,107,000
2007: 50,228,663,000
2008: 53,775,110,000
Total: 224,001,885,000
Imports from:
2004: 46,273,823,000
2005: 51,032,621,000
2006: 53,513,018,000
2007: 56,857,542,000
2008: 58,619,220,000
Total: 266,296,224,000 (16,372,304,000)* (249,923,920,000)**
Trade deficit: 42,294,339,000 (25,922,035,000)**
France:Exports to:
2004: 21,263,284,000
2005: 22,410,379,000
2006: 24,217,407,000
2007: 27,412,546,000
2008: 29,186,901,000
Total: 124,490,517,000
Imports from:
2004: 31,605,739,000
2005: 33,842,058,000
2006: 37,039,632,000
2007: 41,552,711,000
2008: 43,997,090,000
Total: 188,037,230,000
Trade deficit: 63,546,713,000
Italy:Exports to:
2004: 10,684,740,000
2005: 11,524,325,000
2006: 12,546,042,000
2007: 14,149,624,000
2008: 15,478,613,000
Total: 64,383,344,000
Imports from:
2004: 28,097,275,000
2005: 31,009,260,000
2006: 32,655,071,000
2007: 35,027,630,000
2008: 36,143,410,000
Total: 162,932,646,000
Trade deficit: 98,549,302,000
Canada:Exports to:
2004: 189,879,866,000
2005: 211,898,689,000
2006: 230,656,014,000
2007: 248,888,145,000
2008: 260,914,364,000
Total: 1,142,237,078,000
Imports from:
2004: 256,359,836,000
2005: 290,384,293,000
2006: 302,437,859,000
2007: 317,056,763,000
2008: 335,555,269,000
Total: 1,501,794,020,000 (176,574,278,000)* (1,325,219,742,000)**
Trade deficit: 359,556,942,000 (182,982,664,000)**
Total exports to G7 countries 2004-2008: 1,796,277,639,000
Total imports from G7 countries 2004-2008: 3,262,576,823,000
(369,520,860,000)* (2,893,055,963,000)**
Trade deficit: 1,466,299,184,000 (1,096,778,324,000)**
* Amount of cost attributed to crude oil
** Excludes crude oil purchases
Now I understand that some international trade is necessary, but look at those deficit numbers that is money that will never make it back into our economy. Once again I would like to break this down into it's simplest form. Let's say there are only two people left on earth me and joe, and joe and I own the last two restauraunts on earth. If joe eats at my restauraunt once a month,
but I eat at his place every day there is no way I can prosper.
Another thing that bothers me are the products we are importing. We are importing billions
of dollars worth of produce, grains, and meats. How can we possibly justify this when American farms are failing on a daily basis, and in a political climate where "green" industries are being touted as the salvation for America. I don't think you can find a "greener" industry than agriculture.
Another import we are spending billions per year on is iron and steel products. You only have to look at Pennsylvania to see the insanity of this. You have cities reduced to virtual ghost towns by the closing of steel manufacturers. This isn't because these companies were poorly managed, it's simply that they couldn't compete with unchecked foreign suppliers.
In the late 90's I was working for a fastener manufacturer, at the time they were buying steel from a mill in Dong Bu Korea. The price they were paying for their steel was the same price we were getting for our scrap metal, granted we were scrapping nearly half of what we purchased because of damage and defect, but when you're paying only a quarter of the normal price you can afford to throw away half the product. Also when they scrapped the material they were making back their money anyway.
Now you can't blame businesses for buying these products, they will do whatever they can to increase their bottom line, and that's how it should be. It's up to our government to say enough is enough, it's time to level the playing field for American businesses. Reduce trade set higher tariffs, I don't care how they do it, but we need to stop hemmoraging money or we will never stabilize our economy.
The Stranger
Why are we ignoring the 14 to 22 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. In 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. That is just California. It's estimated that California houses nearly a third (31%) of the nations illegal aliens. If you extrapolate based on those numbers that means the total estimated cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants is approximately 4.2 billion dollars per year, much more than the approximated 80 million dollars incurred by smokers and obese Americans. Why then I ask are we not doing something about these criminals? How can I say that all illegal immigrants are criminals, well it's sort of implied in the name "illegal" immigrant.
This is just healthcare costs, add to that the expenses incurred for financial aid, as well as education, and these criminals are robbing the American taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars every year. Do I feel sorry for the disenfranchised citizens in other countries? Yes I do, I also feel it is their responsibility to stand up and work for change in their own system. You can,t just go where the grass is greener, or eventually you will trample all the grass.
I like to break things down to their simplest form. Lets say I lose my job, and my family is in financial trouble, but my neighbors are doing fine. Would it be acceptable for me and my family to sneak over and move into my neighbors house? Of course not, it would be my responsibility to find work and support my family. Why can we not seem to apply this common sense on an
international level. Take the people of Iran for example, they are not happy with their situation, but they're not fleeing to greeener pastures they are trying to affect change. I applaud them for that.
Another favorite target are American businesses, they are too greedy, they are being mismanaged. I'm sorry but as ugly as it may be greed is an inherent part of capitalism. The
solution is not for the government to step in and help protect the monopolies these companies have on their services and products. We already have a system of checks and balances to protect against greed and mismanagement, it's called the American consumer. If a company gets overly
greedy, or is being mismanaged consumers stop using their services or products. At this point the company in question has a choice, either make improvements to win back their consumers, or fail and be replaced.
The fact is these supposed issues are nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real issue, the unfair trade practices our government has promoted. Here are some stats on trade for the last five years.
China:Exports to:
2004: 34,744,053,000
2005: 41,925,281,000
2006: 55,185,707,000
2007: 65,236,121,000
2008: 71,457,073,000
Total: 268,548,235,000
Imports from:
2004: 196,682,034,000
2005: 243,470,105,000
2006: 287,774,353,000
2007: 321,442,867,000
2008: 337,789,782,000
Total: 1,387,159,141,000 (176,574,278,000)* (1,210,584,863,000)**
Trade deficit: 1,118,610,906,000 (942,036,628,000)**
Japan:Exports to:
2004: 54,243,120,000
2005: 55,484,472,000
2006: 59,612,714,000
2007: 62,703,458,000
2008: 66,579,152,000
Total: 298,622,916,000
Imports from:
2004: 129,805,199,000
2005: 138,003,696,000
2006: 148,180,776,000
2007: 145,463,343,000
2008: 139,248,199,000
Total: 700,701,213,000
Trade deficit: 402,078,297,000
Germany:Exports to:
2004: 31,415,882,000
2005: 34,183,656,000
2006: 41,319,095,000
2007: 49,650,956,000
2008: 54,732,310,000
Total: 211,301,899,000
Imports from:
2004: 77,265,574,000
2005: 84,750,871,000
2006: 89,082,049,000
2007: 94,164,096,000
2008: 97,552,900,000
Total: 442,815,490,000
Trade deficit: 231,513,591,000
Britain:Exports to:
2004: 36,000,233,000
2005: 38,587,772,000
2006: 45,410,107,000
2007: 50,228,663,000
2008: 53,775,110,000
Total: 224,001,885,000
Imports from:
2004: 46,273,823,000
2005: 51,032,621,000
2006: 53,513,018,000
2007: 56,857,542,000
2008: 58,619,220,000
Total: 266,296,224,000 (16,372,304,000)* (249,923,920,000)**
Trade deficit: 42,294,339,000 (25,922,035,000)**
France:Exports to:
2004: 21,263,284,000
2005: 22,410,379,000
2006: 24,217,407,000
2007: 27,412,546,000
2008: 29,186,901,000
Total: 124,490,517,000
Imports from:
2004: 31,605,739,000
2005: 33,842,058,000
2006: 37,039,632,000
2007: 41,552,711,000
2008: 43,997,090,000
Total: 188,037,230,000
Trade deficit: 63,546,713,000
Italy:Exports to:
2004: 10,684,740,000
2005: 11,524,325,000
2006: 12,546,042,000
2007: 14,149,624,000
2008: 15,478,613,000
Total: 64,383,344,000
Imports from:
2004: 28,097,275,000
2005: 31,009,260,000
2006: 32,655,071,000
2007: 35,027,630,000
2008: 36,143,410,000
Total: 162,932,646,000
Trade deficit: 98,549,302,000
Canada:Exports to:
2004: 189,879,866,000
2005: 211,898,689,000
2006: 230,656,014,000
2007: 248,888,145,000
2008: 260,914,364,000
Total: 1,142,237,078,000
Imports from:
2004: 256,359,836,000
2005: 290,384,293,000
2006: 302,437,859,000
2007: 317,056,763,000
2008: 335,555,269,000
Total: 1,501,794,020,000 (176,574,278,000)* (1,325,219,742,000)**
Trade deficit: 359,556,942,000 (182,982,664,000)**
Total exports to G7 countries 2004-2008: 1,796,277,639,000
Total imports from G7 countries 2004-2008: 3,262,576,823,000
(369,520,860,000)* (2,893,055,963,000)**
Trade deficit: 1,466,299,184,000 (1,096,778,324,000)**
* Amount of cost attributed to crude oil
** Excludes crude oil purchases
Now I understand that some international trade is necessary, but look at those deficit numbers that is money that will never make it back into our economy. Once again I would like to break this down into it's simplest form. Let's say there are only two people left on earth me and joe, and joe and I own the last two restauraunts on earth. If joe eats at my restauraunt once a month,
but I eat at his place every day there is no way I can prosper.
Another thing that bothers me are the products we are importing. We are importing billions
of dollars worth of produce, grains, and meats. How can we possibly justify this when American farms are failing on a daily basis, and in a political climate where "green" industries are being touted as the salvation for America. I don't think you can find a "greener" industry than agriculture.
Another import we are spending billions per year on is iron and steel products. You only have to look at Pennsylvania to see the insanity of this. You have cities reduced to virtual ghost towns by the closing of steel manufacturers. This isn't because these companies were poorly managed, it's simply that they couldn't compete with unchecked foreign suppliers.
In the late 90's I was working for a fastener manufacturer, at the time they were buying steel from a mill in Dong Bu Korea. The price they were paying for their steel was the same price we were getting for our scrap metal, granted we were scrapping nearly half of what we purchased because of damage and defect, but when you're paying only a quarter of the normal price you can afford to throw away half the product. Also when they scrapped the material they were making back their money anyway.
Now you can't blame businesses for buying these products, they will do whatever they can to increase their bottom line, and that's how it should be. It's up to our government to say enough is enough, it's time to level the playing field for American businesses. Reduce trade set higher tariffs, I don't care how they do it, but we need to stop hemmoraging money or we will never stabilize our economy.
The Stranger
Cheaters GOP vs Dems
Okay first of all I think what Gov. Mark Sanford did was deplorable, and he should step down because of it. Now with that said what I am wondering is why are the mainstream media and the left jumping all over this? I thought traditional family values were just so much hate speech. How come when it was Slick Willy (Bill Clinton) getting a hummer in the White House it was just a personal issue between him and his wife. Hmmmm do I smell more liberal hypocrisy? Let's see if Gov. Sanford fairs as well as former President Clinton.
The Stranger
The Stranger
Saturday, June 20, 2009
An oldie but a goodie................or
How to build an Oligarchy
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a timekeeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant AdministrativeOfficer, and a Legal Secretary. Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cut back overall cost."
So they laid off the night watchman.
And the machine rolls on.........................
The Stranger
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sooooo True
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy outof freedom. What one person receives without working for, another personmust work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybodyanything that the government does not first take from somebody else . Whenhalf of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because theother half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets theidea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get whatthey work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. Youcannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers , 1931 to 2005 ~~~
~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers , 1931 to 2005 ~~~
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Temp Work Helps Mask Joblessness Among Americans
Look at that, they have saved or created 1.2 million jobs............................ for about 5 weeks.
This is a pretty good article.
This is a pretty good article.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sotomayor: Never thought about rights of unborn
President Obama's Supreme Court nominee has made an astonishing admission -- she has never considered whether an unborn child has any rights.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) says he had a "good meeting" with Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday that covered a broad range of issues, but none of his concerns about the high court nominee were eased.
DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, says he remains deeply disturbed with her view of the Second Amendment. "She was unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights," the senator offers.
According to DeMint, Sotomayor -- a Catholic -- also indicated she does not share her church's commitment to protecting the unborn.
"When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it," he says. "This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings."
Given Sotomayor's comments on gun rights and the unborn, DeMint questions whether the nominee has what he believes is required of a Supreme Court nominee -- an "unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans."
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow
Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) says he had a "good meeting" with Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday that covered a broad range of issues, but none of his concerns about the high court nominee were eased.
DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, says he remains deeply disturbed with her view of the Second Amendment. "She was unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights," the senator offers.
According to DeMint, Sotomayor -- a Catholic -- also indicated she does not share her church's commitment to protecting the unborn.
"When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it," he says. "This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings."
Given Sotomayor's comments on gun rights and the unborn, DeMint questions whether the nominee has what he believes is required of a Supreme Court nominee -- an "unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans."
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Chicagoland politics
One must wonder these days if the Democrats are wrapping themselves around Chicagoland rough and tumble politics, or are they wrapping themselves around the politics of hyper-inflation experiencing third world thugocracies.
In Chicagoland politics, like third world thugocracies, opponents of government get gunned down, thrown in jail, threatened by the powers of government, etc. We saw this happen a few months ago when a bank executive wrote a letter to the editor in his local newspaper criticizing TARP. Barney Frank demanded he appear before Congress to answer questions unless he recanted his position.
We see it again today, very starkly,
Roll Call reports Senator Max Baucus, the Democrat leading the fight for socialized healthcare, is threatening businessmen that appearing with Republicans will be harmful to their business interests.
People are not explicitly being denied their right to peacefully assembly and petition government. They are simply made to fear that should they exercise their constitutional rights, harm will come to them, their families, or their businesses.
It is the Chicago way. And these same people will not now go on the record because they fear the power of Congressmen who do not respect differing opinions.
But it is not just the Chicago way. It is also the way of the third world thugocracy. And what makes me think this is more third world thugocracy that your basic Chicago cement shoes, is that in thugocracies, in addition to rounding up political opponents, throwing them in jail, harming businesses, or putting bullets in heads via hired hit men, the thugocracy also seeks to deny the opposition basic services — something that does not happen in Chicago.
In the summer of 2008, Congressman Thad McCotter took to the well of the United States House of Representatives to ask tough questions of Nancy Pelosi. Her response? Order the C-SPAN cameras turned off.
Later that summer, when Republicans took to the floor of the House of Representatives to demand a vote on off shore drilling, what did the Democrats do? They turned off the power, locked the doors, and dared the GOP to do anything. But the GOP stayed and resisted. The GOP scored big points.
The same is happening with Democrats outside Washington. In New York State, when Republicans took over the State Senate this past week, Democrats turned out the power, cut the internet lines, shut down the phone lines, and fled.
Robert Mugabe would be proud.
This should also be a sign of just how manifestly wrong the Democrats are and where the Democrats are heading. In third world thugocracies the governments typically set the countries on a path toward hyperinflation after bullying opponents, whistle blowers, and businesses into silence.
Think about it — if we add healthcare to Obama’s already prolific spending, we’ll each be taking whole uncut sheets of greenbacks straight off the U.S. Mint’s printer to pay for a burger and fries at McDonalds.
The only way to address this is for businessmen to overcome their fears and speak out. But until they do, we are all going to have to be strong and unite in opposition to the thugocracy. And we must because we can see in the third world what we will otherwise become.
In Chicagoland politics, like third world thugocracies, opponents of government get gunned down, thrown in jail, threatened by the powers of government, etc. We saw this happen a few months ago when a bank executive wrote a letter to the editor in his local newspaper criticizing TARP. Barney Frank demanded he appear before Congress to answer questions unless he recanted his position.
We see it again today, very starkly,
Roll Call reports Senator Max Baucus, the Democrat leading the fight for socialized healthcare, is threatening businessmen that appearing with Republicans will be harmful to their business interests.
Top aides to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called a last-minute, pre-emptive strike on Wednesday with a group of prominent Democratic lobbyists, warning them to advise their clients not to attend a meeting with Senate Republicans set for Thursday.
Russell Sullivan, the top staffer on Finance, and Jon Selib, Baucus’ chief of staff, met with a bloc of more than 20 contract lobbyists, including several former Baucus aides.
“They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who attended the meeting.
“Going to the Republican meeting will say, ‘I’m interested in working with Republicans to stop health care reform,’” the lobbyist added.
People are not explicitly being denied their right to peacefully assembly and petition government. They are simply made to fear that should they exercise their constitutional rights, harm will come to them, their families, or their businesses.
It is the Chicago way. And these same people will not now go on the record because they fear the power of Congressmen who do not respect differing opinions.
But it is not just the Chicago way. It is also the way of the third world thugocracy. And what makes me think this is more third world thugocracy that your basic Chicago cement shoes, is that in thugocracies, in addition to rounding up political opponents, throwing them in jail, harming businesses, or putting bullets in heads via hired hit men, the thugocracy also seeks to deny the opposition basic services — something that does not happen in Chicago.
In the summer of 2008, Congressman Thad McCotter took to the well of the United States House of Representatives to ask tough questions of Nancy Pelosi. Her response? Order the C-SPAN cameras turned off.
Later that summer, when Republicans took to the floor of the House of Representatives to demand a vote on off shore drilling, what did the Democrats do? They turned off the power, locked the doors, and dared the GOP to do anything. But the GOP stayed and resisted. The GOP scored big points.
The same is happening with Democrats outside Washington. In New York State, when Republicans took over the State Senate this past week, Democrats turned out the power, cut the internet lines, shut down the phone lines, and fled.
Robert Mugabe would be proud.
This should also be a sign of just how manifestly wrong the Democrats are and where the Democrats are heading. In third world thugocracies the governments typically set the countries on a path toward hyperinflation after bullying opponents, whistle blowers, and businesses into silence.
Think about it — if we add healthcare to Obama’s already prolific spending, we’ll each be taking whole uncut sheets of greenbacks straight off the U.S. Mint’s printer to pay for a burger and fries at McDonalds.
The only way to address this is for businessmen to overcome their fears and speak out. But until they do, we are all going to have to be strong and unite in opposition to the thugocracy. And we must because we can see in the third world what we will otherwise become.
Gee. Barney Frank seems testy.
Boy Mr. Frank is really pissed. I think maybe these politicians have gotten too used to the main stream media towing the company line.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Here SHE is, the USS New York
Well she has been built and christened, now on Nov. 2nd she will be commisioned into service in New York Harbor. The 9-11 terrorists attacked the WTC because they symbolized what America stands for. Once again the WTC (USS New York was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center) symbolizes what we as a nation stand for. Taking the fight to the enemy before they bring it to us.
It is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.
Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite , LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept 9, 2003, 'those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence,' recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. 'It was a spiritual moment for everybody there.' Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that
when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the 'hair on my neck stood up.' 'It had a big meaning to it for all of us,' he said. 'They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back.'
The ship's motto?
'Never Forget'
Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite , LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept 9, 2003, 'those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence,' recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. 'It was a spiritual moment for everybody there.' Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that
when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the 'hair on my neck stood up.' 'It had a big meaning to it for all of us,' he said. 'They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back.'
The ship's motto?
'Never Forget'
(I Won't)
The Stranger
Iraqi accused in 5 US soldier deaths freed
BAGHDAD – The surprise release of a Shiite militant linked to the killing of five U.S. soldiers in Iraq is part of a high-stakes gambit that could result in freedom for five British hostages and a political role for a major Shiite extremist group with reputed ties to Iran.
Laith al-Khazali, a leading figure in the Asaib al-Haq, or League of the Righteous, was freed from U.S. custody over the weekend and taken to his home in Baghdad's Sadr City district, according to Iraqi officials involved in negotiations for his release.
Al-Khazali and his brother Qais were arrested in March 2007 and accused of organizing a bold raid on a local government headquarters in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers on Jan. 20, 2007.
Danny Chism, whose son, Spc. Johnathan Bryan Chism, was among the Americans killed, was outraged upon hearing that al-Khazali had been released. "Somebody needs to answer for it," he said from his home in Donaldsonville, Louisiana. Read entire article here.
So this is how were gonna stop terrorism? Where in the hell are these politicians getting their advice from, Syria? You don't release criminals accused of terrorist attacks to avoid further acts of terror. Come on people WTF that's like saying if we just released all of our prisoners there would be no more crime. Once again we see the extent of liberal hypocrisy. Liberals in America constantly bash Conservative Christians, they're called intolerant, hatemongers, and homophobes. In this article we see the liberal government trying to include Shiite Muslims in the world political process. WTF! First of all Shiites aren't a political party they are a religous group. What if I said the Southern Baptist Convention should play a bigger part in world politics? I'll tell you what, the liberals would shit their pants. Do the liberals really believe that Islam would welcome their brand of tolerance. The gay agenda is heavily promoted by the left, but according to Sharia law homosexuality is forbidden and in most cases punishable by death. Liberals also greatly enjoy their freedom of speech Sharia law however makes no real provisions for free speech by non-muslims, it does however state that if you in any way insult Allah, or Muhammad you will be put to death. Maybe these moronic bleeding hearts should brush up on their quran as well as sharia law before tearing down our culture to replace it with a religious dictatorship.
The Stranger
Laith al-Khazali, a leading figure in the Asaib al-Haq, or League of the Righteous, was freed from U.S. custody over the weekend and taken to his home in Baghdad's Sadr City district, according to Iraqi officials involved in negotiations for his release.
Al-Khazali and his brother Qais were arrested in March 2007 and accused of organizing a bold raid on a local government headquarters in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers on Jan. 20, 2007.
Danny Chism, whose son, Spc. Johnathan Bryan Chism, was among the Americans killed, was outraged upon hearing that al-Khazali had been released. "Somebody needs to answer for it," he said from his home in Donaldsonville, Louisiana. Read entire article here.
So this is how were gonna stop terrorism? Where in the hell are these politicians getting their advice from, Syria? You don't release criminals accused of terrorist attacks to avoid further acts of terror. Come on people WTF that's like saying if we just released all of our prisoners there would be no more crime. Once again we see the extent of liberal hypocrisy. Liberals in America constantly bash Conservative Christians, they're called intolerant, hatemongers, and homophobes. In this article we see the liberal government trying to include Shiite Muslims in the world political process. WTF! First of all Shiites aren't a political party they are a religous group. What if I said the Southern Baptist Convention should play a bigger part in world politics? I'll tell you what, the liberals would shit their pants. Do the liberals really believe that Islam would welcome their brand of tolerance. The gay agenda is heavily promoted by the left, but according to Sharia law homosexuality is forbidden and in most cases punishable by death. Liberals also greatly enjoy their freedom of speech Sharia law however makes no real provisions for free speech by non-muslims, it does however state that if you in any way insult Allah, or Muhammad you will be put to death. Maybe these moronic bleeding hearts should brush up on their quran as well as sharia law before tearing down our culture to replace it with a religious dictatorship.
The Stranger
Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower
by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and Morgan Roach
A common theme that runs through President Obama's statements is the idea the United States must atone for its past policies, whether it is America's application of the war against Islamist terrorism or its overall foreign policy. At the core of this message is the concept that the U.S. is a flawed nation that must seek redemption by apologizing for its past "sins."
On several occasions, President Obama has sought to apologize for the actions of his own country when addressing a foreign audience--including seven of the 10 apologies listed below. The President has already apologized for his country to nearly 3 billion people across Europe, the Muslim world, and the Americas.
The Obama Administration's strategy of unconditional engagement with America's enemies combined with a relentless penchant for apology-making is a dangerous recipe for failure. The overall effect of this approach has been to weaken American power on the world stage rather than strengthen it.
President Obama's personal approval ratings across much of the world may be sky high, but that has not translated into greater support for U.S.-led initiatives, such as the NATO mission in Afghanistan, which is heavily dependent on American and British troops. The U.S. is increasingly viewed as a soft touch internationally, which has encouraged rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear and missile programs.
As President Obama embarks this week on his second major overseas tour, which will take him to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany, and France, the world does not need yet another apology from the President. Rather, it is looking for strong and principled leadership from the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. American leadership is not a popularity contest, nor should it be an exercise in self-loathing. Rather, it is about taking tough positions that will be met with hostility in many parts of the globe. Above all, it demands the assertive projection of American power, both to secure the homeland and to protect America's allies.
The following is a list of the 10 most significant apologies by the President of the United States in his first four months of office as they relate to foreign policy and national security issues.
1. Apology to France and Europe ("America Has Shown Arrogance")
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]
So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
2. Apology to the Muslim World ("We Have Not Been Perfect")
President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]
My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that.
3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas ("At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms")
President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]
All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.
The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.
4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders ("Some Restoration of America's Standing in the World")
News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]
I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership.
I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. Just to try to crystallize the example, there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. "Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade." Well, if there's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's an easier negotiation. But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in.
5. Apology for the War on Terror ("We Went off Course")
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us--Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens--fell silent.
In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach--one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
6. Apology for Guantanamo in France ("Sacrificing Your Values")
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]
Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In France: "Liberté"--absolutely--"egalité, fraternité." Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others. And that's why we can never sacrifice them for expedience's sake. That's why I've ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. That's why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.
In dealing with terrorism, we can't lose sight of our values and who we are. That's why I closed Guantanamo. That's why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don't believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.
7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament ("Our Own Darker Periods in Our History")
Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]
Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited--without exception or equivocation--the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.
Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.
Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.
8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas ("The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors")
Opinion editorial by President Obama: "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16, 2009.[8]
Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.
9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA ("Potentially We've Made Some Mistakes")
Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.
So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.
10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington ("A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies")
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.
So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.
Nile Gardiner is the Director of, and Morgan Roach is Research Assistant in, the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.
A common theme that runs through President Obama's statements is the idea the United States must atone for its past policies, whether it is America's application of the war against Islamist terrorism or its overall foreign policy. At the core of this message is the concept that the U.S. is a flawed nation that must seek redemption by apologizing for its past "sins."
On several occasions, President Obama has sought to apologize for the actions of his own country when addressing a foreign audience--including seven of the 10 apologies listed below. The President has already apologized for his country to nearly 3 billion people across Europe, the Muslim world, and the Americas.
The Obama Administration's strategy of unconditional engagement with America's enemies combined with a relentless penchant for apology-making is a dangerous recipe for failure. The overall effect of this approach has been to weaken American power on the world stage rather than strengthen it.
President Obama's personal approval ratings across much of the world may be sky high, but that has not translated into greater support for U.S.-led initiatives, such as the NATO mission in Afghanistan, which is heavily dependent on American and British troops. The U.S. is increasingly viewed as a soft touch internationally, which has encouraged rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear and missile programs.
As President Obama embarks this week on his second major overseas tour, which will take him to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany, and France, the world does not need yet another apology from the President. Rather, it is looking for strong and principled leadership from the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. American leadership is not a popularity contest, nor should it be an exercise in self-loathing. Rather, it is about taking tough positions that will be met with hostility in many parts of the globe. Above all, it demands the assertive projection of American power, both to secure the homeland and to protect America's allies.
The following is a list of the 10 most significant apologies by the President of the United States in his first four months of office as they relate to foreign policy and national security issues.
1. Apology to France and Europe ("America Has Shown Arrogance")
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]
So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
2. Apology to the Muslim World ("We Have Not Been Perfect")
President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]
My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that.
3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas ("At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms")
President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]
All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.
The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.
4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders ("Some Restoration of America's Standing in the World")
News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]
I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership.
I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. Just to try to crystallize the example, there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. "Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade." Well, if there's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's an easier negotiation. But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in.
5. Apology for the War on Terror ("We Went off Course")
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us--Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens--fell silent.
In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach--one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
6. Apology for Guantanamo in France ("Sacrificing Your Values")
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]
Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In France: "Liberté"--absolutely--"egalité, fraternité." Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others. And that's why we can never sacrifice them for expedience's sake. That's why I've ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. That's why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.
In dealing with terrorism, we can't lose sight of our values and who we are. That's why I closed Guantanamo. That's why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don't believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.
7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament ("Our Own Darker Periods in Our History")
Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]
Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited--without exception or equivocation--the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.
Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.
Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.
8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas ("The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors")
Opinion editorial by President Obama: "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16, 2009.[8]
Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.
9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA ("Potentially We've Made Some Mistakes")
Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.
So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.
10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington ("A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies")
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.
So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.
Nile Gardiner is the Director of, and Morgan Roach is Research Assistant in, the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Obama fashions a government of many czars
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a "czar" responsible for tackling it.
A bank bailout czar? Herb Allison. Energy czar? Carol Browner.
There's a drug czar, a U.S. border czar, an urban czar, a regulatory czar, a stimulus accountability czar, an Iran czar, a Middle East czar, and a czar for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which in Washington-speak has been lumped together into a policy area called Af-Pak.
There are upward of 20 such top officials, all with lengthy official titles but known in the media as czars, and next week there will be one more, when Obama appoints a czar for cyber-security who will be charged with improving the security of computer networks.
"In short, America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber-security," Obama said on Friday.
Experts say Obama's reliance on czars can be helpful by focusing attention on a big issue and making someone responsible for it, but that it can also lead to turf fights and add another cumbersome bureaucratic layer.
Or, as Republican Senator John McCain likes to say, Obama has "more czars than the Romanovs," who ruled Russia for three centuries.
On cyber-security specifically, some with deep knowledge of U.S. national security issues say having a central coordinator in charge would be helpful.
Ken Wainstein, who was former President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser, said the issues inherent to cyber-security cross many different government agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security to the ultra-secret National Security Agency, to the Defense Department, and on.
"It's a big issue that has a lot government players so it needs some coordination," said Wainstein, now at the law firm O'Melveny & Myers.
"It also helps to raise the profile of the issue within the bureaucracy to ensure the issue is addressed aggressively. Our cyber systems are being attacked on a regular basis," he said.
'OUTSIDE FORMAL CHANNELS'
Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political science professor, said that in some respects Obama looks to be relying on a formula from his successful election campaign last year -- making top people responsible for various parts of his sprawling operation.
"It does seem to facilitate going outside formal channels and creating ad hoc solutions," he said. "I think it makes sense. It's the way he operates."
Many analysts are carefully watching what happens at Obama's State Department, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in overall charge but has a number of top envoys working on many central issues.
Veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke has the Afghanistan-Pakistan portfolio, Dennis Ross is the Iran point person and George Mitchell is the Middle East envoy.
Buchanan said it is up to Obama to make sure they all work together and that rival power centers do not develop that compete for the president's favor.
"The key is whether the president is adept at managing the kind of pathologies that can flow out of setting up these rival power centers," Buchanan said.
Linda Fowler, a professor of government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, said presidents often appoint czars in a symbolic move to show they care about an issue. They also are trying to control a sprawling bureaucracy, she added.
"Presidents of both parties have done this because they are all dealing with this problem, this huge bureaucracy that has built up over the last 100 years. All presidents seem to have this idea that if they can just get it in the right direction, they can redirect the Queen Mary," she said, referring to the massive ocean liner.
Didn't the russians try a system like this? Hmmm how did that work out for them?
A bank bailout czar? Herb Allison. Energy czar? Carol Browner.
There's a drug czar, a U.S. border czar, an urban czar, a regulatory czar, a stimulus accountability czar, an Iran czar, a Middle East czar, and a czar for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which in Washington-speak has been lumped together into a policy area called Af-Pak.
There are upward of 20 such top officials, all with lengthy official titles but known in the media as czars, and next week there will be one more, when Obama appoints a czar for cyber-security who will be charged with improving the security of computer networks.
"In short, America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber-security," Obama said on Friday.
Experts say Obama's reliance on czars can be helpful by focusing attention on a big issue and making someone responsible for it, but that it can also lead to turf fights and add another cumbersome bureaucratic layer.
Or, as Republican Senator John McCain likes to say, Obama has "more czars than the Romanovs," who ruled Russia for three centuries.
On cyber-security specifically, some with deep knowledge of U.S. national security issues say having a central coordinator in charge would be helpful.
Ken Wainstein, who was former President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser, said the issues inherent to cyber-security cross many different government agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security to the ultra-secret National Security Agency, to the Defense Department, and on.
"It's a big issue that has a lot government players so it needs some coordination," said Wainstein, now at the law firm O'Melveny & Myers.
"It also helps to raise the profile of the issue within the bureaucracy to ensure the issue is addressed aggressively. Our cyber systems are being attacked on a regular basis," he said.
'OUTSIDE FORMAL CHANNELS'
Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political science professor, said that in some respects Obama looks to be relying on a formula from his successful election campaign last year -- making top people responsible for various parts of his sprawling operation.
"It does seem to facilitate going outside formal channels and creating ad hoc solutions," he said. "I think it makes sense. It's the way he operates."
Many analysts are carefully watching what happens at Obama's State Department, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in overall charge but has a number of top envoys working on many central issues.
Veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke has the Afghanistan-Pakistan portfolio, Dennis Ross is the Iran point person and George Mitchell is the Middle East envoy.
Buchanan said it is up to Obama to make sure they all work together and that rival power centers do not develop that compete for the president's favor.
"The key is whether the president is adept at managing the kind of pathologies that can flow out of setting up these rival power centers," Buchanan said.
Linda Fowler, a professor of government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, said presidents often appoint czars in a symbolic move to show they care about an issue. They also are trying to control a sprawling bureaucracy, she added.
"Presidents of both parties have done this because they are all dealing with this problem, this huge bureaucracy that has built up over the last 100 years. All presidents seem to have this idea that if they can just get it in the right direction, they can redirect the Queen Mary," she said, referring to the massive ocean liner.
Didn't the russians try a system like this? Hmmm how did that work out for them?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Are we safer yet Mr. President?
By EILEEN SULLIVAN and H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Eileen Sullivan And H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of government and civilian nuclear facilities and their activities in the United States, but U.S. officials said Wednesday the posting included no information that compromised national security.
However, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, questioned about the disclosure at a House hearing, expressed concern with respect to a uranium storage facility at the department's Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The facility holds large quantities of highly enriched uranium, which if obtained can be used to fashion a nuclear weapon.
"That's of great concern," said Chu, referring to the Y-12 site. "We will be looking hard and making sure physical security of those sites (at Y-12) is sufficient to prevent eco-terrorists and others getting hold of that material."
But later Chu told reporters that while the disclosure may be embarrassing "there's no secret classified information that's been compromised (and) the sites and everything are public knowledge" already available elsewhere.
But, he added, the list "gathers it up" in a single document, and that is of some concern.
The 266-page document was published on May 6 as a transmission from President Barack Obama to Congress. According to the document, the list was required by law and will be provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive."
Chu said he had no details as to how the document was released, beyond that it involved the government printing office. "Someone made a mistake," said Chu, appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee .
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the document had been reviewed by a number of U.S. agencies and that disclosure of the information did not jeopardize national security. He said the document is part of an agreement on nuclear material inspection under the IAEA's nuclear nonproliferation effort.
"While we would have preferred it not be released, the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Commerce and the NRC all thoroughly reviewed it to ensure that no information of direct national security significance would be compromised," LaVera said in a statement.
An Energy Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly, said none of the sites on the list are directly part of the government's nuclear weapons infrastructure.
In addition tothe Y-12 facility, the document includes some facilities at the Energy Department's Hanford nuclear site in Washington state and various civilian nuclear fuel processing sites including uranium enrichment facilitates, according to government officials.
Uranium stored at the Y-12 site is scheduled to be moved into a new $549 million high-security warehouse in 2010, said Y-12 spokesman Steve Wyatt. The 300-by-475-foot, fortress-like warehouse, under construction since 2004, will replace several aging vault-like storage facilities.
Beth Hayden, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the agency reviewed the document as it relates to civilian facilities with NRC licenses and "we are confident that information of direct national security significance was not compromised."
The NRC has jurisdiction over commercial nuclear power plants and civilian uranium processing and storage facilities.
The publication of the list was first reported in an online secrecy newsletter Monday. The document had been posted on the Government Printing Office Web site, but has since been removed from that site.
In a statement, the Government Printing Office said Wednesday: "Upon being informed about potential sensitive nature of the attachment in this document, the Public Printer of the United States removed it from GPO's Web site pending further review. After consulting with the White House and Congress, it was determined that the document, including sensitive attachment, should be permanently removed from the Web site."
The GPO said it processes and produces approximately 160 House documents during the two-year congressional cycle, and the list was received by the agency in the normal process and produced under routine operating procedures.
The document includes both government and civilian nuclear facilities, all of which have various levels of security, including details and location of nation's 103 commercial nuclear power reactors, information readily available from various sources.
The document details the location of the nuclear sites and what is being done there.
For instance, there are nuclear reactors at the Westinghouse Electric Company in Pittsburgh, Pa. This facility is currently working on research into what happens when there are accidents with the nuclear reactors. The project started in 2006 and is expected to end in 2012, according to the document.
__
Associated Press reporter Pamela Hess in Washington and Duncan Mansfield in Knoxville, Tenn., contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON – The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of government and civilian nuclear facilities and their activities in the United States, but U.S. officials said Wednesday the posting included no information that compromised national security.
However, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, questioned about the disclosure at a House hearing, expressed concern with respect to a uranium storage facility at the department's Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The facility holds large quantities of highly enriched uranium, which if obtained can be used to fashion a nuclear weapon.
"That's of great concern," said Chu, referring to the Y-12 site. "We will be looking hard and making sure physical security of those sites (at Y-12) is sufficient to prevent eco-terrorists and others getting hold of that material."
But later Chu told reporters that while the disclosure may be embarrassing "there's no secret classified information that's been compromised (and) the sites and everything are public knowledge" already available elsewhere.
But, he added, the list "gathers it up" in a single document, and that is of some concern.
The 266-page document was published on May 6 as a transmission from President Barack Obama to Congress. According to the document, the list was required by law and will be provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive."
Chu said he had no details as to how the document was released, beyond that it involved the government printing office. "Someone made a mistake," said Chu, appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee .
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the document had been reviewed by a number of U.S. agencies and that disclosure of the information did not jeopardize national security. He said the document is part of an agreement on nuclear material inspection under the IAEA's nuclear nonproliferation effort.
"While we would have preferred it not be released, the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Commerce and the NRC all thoroughly reviewed it to ensure that no information of direct national security significance would be compromised," LaVera said in a statement.
An Energy Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly, said none of the sites on the list are directly part of the government's nuclear weapons infrastructure.
In addition tothe Y-12 facility, the document includes some facilities at the Energy Department's Hanford nuclear site in Washington state and various civilian nuclear fuel processing sites including uranium enrichment facilitates, according to government officials.
Uranium stored at the Y-12 site is scheduled to be moved into a new $549 million high-security warehouse in 2010, said Y-12 spokesman Steve Wyatt. The 300-by-475-foot, fortress-like warehouse, under construction since 2004, will replace several aging vault-like storage facilities.
Beth Hayden, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the agency reviewed the document as it relates to civilian facilities with NRC licenses and "we are confident that information of direct national security significance was not compromised."
The NRC has jurisdiction over commercial nuclear power plants and civilian uranium processing and storage facilities.
The publication of the list was first reported in an online secrecy newsletter Monday. The document had been posted on the Government Printing Office Web site, but has since been removed from that site.
In a statement, the Government Printing Office said Wednesday: "Upon being informed about potential sensitive nature of the attachment in this document, the Public Printer of the United States removed it from GPO's Web site pending further review. After consulting with the White House and Congress, it was determined that the document, including sensitive attachment, should be permanently removed from the Web site."
The GPO said it processes and produces approximately 160 House documents during the two-year congressional cycle, and the list was received by the agency in the normal process and produced under routine operating procedures.
The document includes both government and civilian nuclear facilities, all of which have various levels of security, including details and location of nation's 103 commercial nuclear power reactors, information readily available from various sources.
The document details the location of the nuclear sites and what is being done there.
For instance, there are nuclear reactors at the Westinghouse Electric Company in Pittsburgh, Pa. This facility is currently working on research into what happens when there are accidents with the nuclear reactors. The project started in 2006 and is expected to end in 2012, according to the document.
__
Associated Press reporter Pamela Hess in Washington and Duncan Mansfield in Knoxville, Tenn., contributed to this report.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
A Climate of Hate
From the time the Warren Commission report cited it for fostering the assassination of JFK up through the recent murder of an abortionist in Kansas, the left loves to writes about and decry what they refer to as a “climate of hate.”
Lately little more than code for “conservatives are talking,” the phrase “climate of hate” is ubiquitous, both in traditional media and on the left side of the internet. Each and every time a figure on the left is murdered, threatened, jostled on the subway, slips in the shower and gets a boo boo, or is just feeling a little blue, there is a blog and media blitz blaming Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and company for creating a “climate” of hate. Democrat blogging mothership DailyKos warns stridently and often of the murder and mayhem daily unleashed by the festering madness of conservative talk radio. Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo never miss the chance to sell the notion that rhetoric begets violence. The criticism of Obama paints a target on his back just as surely as Bill O’Reilly’s prolife position was directly responsible for the Kansas murder.
One can only conclude, therefore, that the left is trying to kill you.
Yesterday, a gunman murdered one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Kansas. There’s little surprise that the left, like their President, haven’t much to say about the murdered soldier. The anti-war left has been creating a climate of hate with regard to our troops individually and our military at large for years, with an increasingly brazen message the last few years. Blogs which continue to wring hands over fears of right-wing “hate” in the form of prime time cable news pundits can’t spare a pixel or two to reflect on the environment they’ve helped create spending 5 years calling our men and women in uniform murderers, rapists, and baby-killers. I’d normally advise against, but today I suggest you take a few minutes and peruse that liberal flagship to see the mixture of “hate” and “fear of hate” blogs. Enlightening.
When Sarah Palin was on the campaign trail the mainstream press were deeply concerned (one could tell by empathetic brow-furrows and “this is my serious voice” tonality) that her campaigning against Barack Obama was fostering a climate of hate; that she was stirring up rabid righty anger and an urge to kill in her audience. They were certain of it, you see, because some dude in one of her audiences may have yelled something unintelligible about Obama that one time.
What does it take to create a climate of hate? If you are talking about Obama, you need only Palin stating actual facts about his life and career, or radio DJs using his actual middle name. That’s enough to be thought architects of assassination. If you are talking about Palin, however, there doesn’t seem to be a line the left considers too far. Time magazine can go as far as explaining “Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin”, with a bit of a light-hearted twist, and yet no accusations fly. Search for “hate Sarah Palin” at Google for a few more eye-openers. There is a “Hate Palin” cottage industry of t-shirts, hats, coffee mugs and more, not to mention the articles and blog posts which indulge. When hate directed at a person is so common as to be a marketing tool, is that not a climate of hate?
Sarah’s problem, of course, is being a smart, successful, conservative woman. On the left this is just about the worst thing a person can be, running just slightly behind black Republican. Yesterday, Playboy posted, and then removed, an “article” titled “So Right It’s Wrong - Ten Conservative Women We Hate To Love” by Guy Cimbalo. The premise was explicit. The author took ten conservative women and grotesquely elaborated on why he wanted to “hate f***” them. Yes. Hate. The screenshots are here and decidedly NOT safe for work. Although Politico would have you think otherwise, the posting was a virtual rape fantasy. Even celebrity gossip blog Jezebel could identify the misogynist tone which somehow escaped the notice of pretty much the whole left side of the blogosphere, other than Tommy Christopher. When a writer at Playboy feels comfortable writing something this vile, something the left was happy to let stand, Politico pointed to as a lightly humorous romp, and AOL deemed so uncontroversial they yanked Tommy Christopher’s story, is that not a climate of hate?
Conservative women aren’t the only group for which the left routinely expresses hate. Christians are roundly derided. Christians are mocked in movies, TV shows, and online routinely. Backward. Racist. Homophobes. They are called co-conspirators to murder. Is this not a climate of hate? How do you not hate someone who is murdering your ideological allies? If Maher is right that Glenn Beck’s show paints a target on Obama, then why is it not the case that Maher paints a target on Beck? Or on Christians with his never-ending crusade against them?
The viciousness with which conservative women are discussed on the left borders on horrific. The blatant calls for violence against our military are pervasive. The mockery and derision directed at Christians and conservatives is habitual. And all this from the same left who have spent decades decrying climates of hate as breeding grounds for violence. This is their calculus. They are clear about it. They believe it.
So if they are so sure that creating a climate of hate results in bloodshed, then what, I wonder, is their objective when they routinely create climates of hate?
Lately little more than code for “conservatives are talking,” the phrase “climate of hate” is ubiquitous, both in traditional media and on the left side of the internet. Each and every time a figure on the left is murdered, threatened, jostled on the subway, slips in the shower and gets a boo boo, or is just feeling a little blue, there is a blog and media blitz blaming Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and company for creating a “climate” of hate. Democrat blogging mothership DailyKos warns stridently and often of the murder and mayhem daily unleashed by the festering madness of conservative talk radio. Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo never miss the chance to sell the notion that rhetoric begets violence. The criticism of Obama paints a target on his back just as surely as Bill O’Reilly’s prolife position was directly responsible for the Kansas murder.
One can only conclude, therefore, that the left is trying to kill you.
Yesterday, a gunman murdered one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Kansas. There’s little surprise that the left, like their President, haven’t much to say about the murdered soldier. The anti-war left has been creating a climate of hate with regard to our troops individually and our military at large for years, with an increasingly brazen message the last few years. Blogs which continue to wring hands over fears of right-wing “hate” in the form of prime time cable news pundits can’t spare a pixel or two to reflect on the environment they’ve helped create spending 5 years calling our men and women in uniform murderers, rapists, and baby-killers. I’d normally advise against, but today I suggest you take a few minutes and peruse that liberal flagship to see the mixture of “hate” and “fear of hate” blogs. Enlightening.
When Sarah Palin was on the campaign trail the mainstream press were deeply concerned (one could tell by empathetic brow-furrows and “this is my serious voice” tonality) that her campaigning against Barack Obama was fostering a climate of hate; that she was stirring up rabid righty anger and an urge to kill in her audience. They were certain of it, you see, because some dude in one of her audiences may have yelled something unintelligible about Obama that one time.
What does it take to create a climate of hate? If you are talking about Obama, you need only Palin stating actual facts about his life and career, or radio DJs using his actual middle name. That’s enough to be thought architects of assassination. If you are talking about Palin, however, there doesn’t seem to be a line the left considers too far. Time magazine can go as far as explaining “Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin”, with a bit of a light-hearted twist, and yet no accusations fly. Search for “hate Sarah Palin” at Google for a few more eye-openers. There is a “Hate Palin” cottage industry of t-shirts, hats, coffee mugs and more, not to mention the articles and blog posts which indulge. When hate directed at a person is so common as to be a marketing tool, is that not a climate of hate?
Sarah’s problem, of course, is being a smart, successful, conservative woman. On the left this is just about the worst thing a person can be, running just slightly behind black Republican. Yesterday, Playboy posted, and then removed, an “article” titled “So Right It’s Wrong - Ten Conservative Women We Hate To Love” by Guy Cimbalo. The premise was explicit. The author took ten conservative women and grotesquely elaborated on why he wanted to “hate f***” them. Yes. Hate. The screenshots are here and decidedly NOT safe for work. Although Politico would have you think otherwise, the posting was a virtual rape fantasy. Even celebrity gossip blog Jezebel could identify the misogynist tone which somehow escaped the notice of pretty much the whole left side of the blogosphere, other than Tommy Christopher. When a writer at Playboy feels comfortable writing something this vile, something the left was happy to let stand, Politico pointed to as a lightly humorous romp, and AOL deemed so uncontroversial they yanked Tommy Christopher’s story, is that not a climate of hate?
Conservative women aren’t the only group for which the left routinely expresses hate. Christians are roundly derided. Christians are mocked in movies, TV shows, and online routinely. Backward. Racist. Homophobes. They are called co-conspirators to murder. Is this not a climate of hate? How do you not hate someone who is murdering your ideological allies? If Maher is right that Glenn Beck’s show paints a target on Obama, then why is it not the case that Maher paints a target on Beck? Or on Christians with his never-ending crusade against them?
The viciousness with which conservative women are discussed on the left borders on horrific. The blatant calls for violence against our military are pervasive. The mockery and derision directed at Christians and conservatives is habitual. And all this from the same left who have spent decades decrying climates of hate as breeding grounds for violence. This is their calculus. They are clear about it. They believe it.
So if they are so sure that creating a climate of hate results in bloodshed, then what, I wonder, is their objective when they routinely create climates of hate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
