With a moment of silence and the dedication of a Pentagon memorial and a ceremony where the Twin Towers once stood, the United States on Thursday marked the seventh anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks which led the country into two wars.
On September 11, 2001 commercial airplanes commandeered by Islamic terrorists ripped through the twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Within little more than two hours, 2,975 people were dead.
Some were crushed and incinerated in the twin infernos. Three hundred New York firefighters and police officers died, trapped as they tried to rescue people from the horror of the collapsing towers. Still other victims worked at the Pentagon or were passengers on the planes.
All 19 Muslim terrorists died; many from Saudi Arabia. Credit for the 9/11 attacks was claimed by terrorist network al- Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan.
Yet today millions of people around the world do not blame Muslim terrorists, they blame the United States government for this atrocity and killing of thousands of its citizens. A survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations conducted by the Maryland-based WorldPublicOpinion.org found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington. Millions of people around the world do not. Just 46% of the people who were questioned believed al-Qaeda was really behind the attacks; 15% said the U.S. government, 7% said Israel and 7% said there was some other perpetrator. As many as 25% said they did not know who was behind the attacks.
Incredibly even in Europe where one might expect truth of the tragic slaughter to be accepted there are many who are willing to absolve Muslims for the attack. Unbelievably al Qaeda was condemned by only 56% of Britons and Italians, 63 % of French and 64% of Germans. Astonishingly the United States government was blamed by 23% of Germans and 15% of Italians.
As might be expected, people in the Middle East were especially likely to place the blame for the attack on someone other than al Qaeda. However in some cases more in the Middle East actually recognized al Qaeda responsibility than did Europeans; though of course deniers thought Israel was behind the attacks. In Egypt 43% blamed Israel and 31% in Jordan. Perhaps out of pride for the Muslim "accomplishment", a mere 27% of Palestinians were willing to blame Israel. We regard Turkey as our friend but 36% of Turks also put the blame on Israel.
Home of most of our illegal immigrants, Mexico, counted as many as 30% believe the country they want to live in was behind the September 11th massacre and only 33% named al Qaeda.
Would you believe that the only countries with overwhelming majorities blaming al Qaeda were Kenya with 77% and Nigeria with 71%?
Liberals are found of pointing out the number of countries around the world that loathe the United States and attribute this to the Bush administration. Our prospective “savior”, Barack Obama, says he will change that, presumably by the power of his charm which captivates millions of Americans. But the truth is the liberals are really responsible for the low public opinion of us around the world. Films like Fahrenheit 9/11 and other Hollywood bilge mold international opinion, partly because many want to have a bad view of the United States anyway, and partly because there is no counter weight to the anti-American propaganda.
As we mourn the lost lives on 9/11, we should also recognize it is the liberals and other leftists among us who encourage the world fanatics to harm our country by continuing to bash it. When Islamic terrorists see so many here disapprove of America’s actions to protect itself, they are emboldened to join our domestic detractors but in violent ways not merely with words. It is no surprise that to many in the world Barack Obama is looked upon as a hero and want him to become president; he stands for appeasement and not for standing up to defend America against terrorism at home and abroad.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Will Obama “correct” his mistake?
The other day I posited to a discussion group the possibility that Democrats might replace Joe Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate and no one thought that was a possibility. Of course this still may not happen but Democrats are not above throwing anyone under the bus if they think it will help their election prospects. After all, there is precedent for this at the state and national levels.
Frank Lautenberg unexpectedly returned to politics in 2002, after New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli, withdrew his candidacy for reelection, because of corruption charges. The selection of Lautenberg by the New Jersey Democrat machine (later confirmed by the Democrat New Jersey Supreme Court) was ironic because there had been serious bad blood between Lautenberg and Torricelli when the two had served together in the Senate. Democrats don’t worry about this sort of thing when power is on the line.
Senator George McGovern was in the same situation when it was necessary to replace his Vice President running mate, Senator Thomas Eagleton, in 1972, after it was learned that Eagleton suffered from a mental illness and was on medication for it. Democrats have no problem with ethos if they believe it would be best to throw one of their own overboard.
Now we come to Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s uninspired choice to complete the Democrat ticket for November. Biden is supposed to fill the foreign policy void in Obama’s resume. As ridiculous as this may sound, is this not an admission that Obama’s lack of expertise in this area would compel him to allow Biden to make decisions about international problems? – “Joe how do you feel about taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities?”, or “Joe should we support Israel when they decide to do the job on Iran for us?”
But the problem more risky to Joe Biden’s career as a prospective Vive President on the Obama ticket is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Since Sarah has used up the oxygen in the campaign trail, there is no room for the niceties of “good old boy” politics on the Democrat side. It could very well dawn on the Democrats that helping Obama make calls on issues like Iran, Israel and Russia is not as important as winning the election. If this happens then Joe Biden is history on the national ticket and he can continue to ride the train from his Delaware home to the Senate chambers instead of to the Vice President’s office.
Biden’s present short comings as a campaign partner are known even to Biden. At a rally in Nashua, N.H., ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports “a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, ‘not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past.’”
Biden responded "Make no mistake about this Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."
The McCain campaign did not miss the opportunity to point out the obvious. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt told the press: "Barack Obama’s most important decision of this election, and Biden -- the candidate he selects -- suggests, himself, that he wasn’t the right man for the job, and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice. Biden certainly has a credible viewpoint on this."
With Democrat party history; why should it shock anyone to see Obama “correct” his mistake and appoint someone else to replace Joe Biden?
Frank Lautenberg unexpectedly returned to politics in 2002, after New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli, withdrew his candidacy for reelection, because of corruption charges. The selection of Lautenberg by the New Jersey Democrat machine (later confirmed by the Democrat New Jersey Supreme Court) was ironic because there had been serious bad blood between Lautenberg and Torricelli when the two had served together in the Senate. Democrats don’t worry about this sort of thing when power is on the line.
Senator George McGovern was in the same situation when it was necessary to replace his Vice President running mate, Senator Thomas Eagleton, in 1972, after it was learned that Eagleton suffered from a mental illness and was on medication for it. Democrats have no problem with ethos if they believe it would be best to throw one of their own overboard.
Now we come to Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s uninspired choice to complete the Democrat ticket for November. Biden is supposed to fill the foreign policy void in Obama’s resume. As ridiculous as this may sound, is this not an admission that Obama’s lack of expertise in this area would compel him to allow Biden to make decisions about international problems? – “Joe how do you feel about taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities?”, or “Joe should we support Israel when they decide to do the job on Iran for us?”
But the problem more risky to Joe Biden’s career as a prospective Vive President on the Obama ticket is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Since Sarah has used up the oxygen in the campaign trail, there is no room for the niceties of “good old boy” politics on the Democrat side. It could very well dawn on the Democrats that helping Obama make calls on issues like Iran, Israel and Russia is not as important as winning the election. If this happens then Joe Biden is history on the national ticket and he can continue to ride the train from his Delaware home to the Senate chambers instead of to the Vice President’s office.
Biden’s present short comings as a campaign partner are known even to Biden. At a rally in Nashua, N.H., ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports “a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, ‘not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past.’”
Biden responded "Make no mistake about this Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."
The McCain campaign did not miss the opportunity to point out the obvious. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt told the press: "Barack Obama’s most important decision of this election, and Biden -- the candidate he selects -- suggests, himself, that he wasn’t the right man for the job, and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice. Biden certainly has a credible viewpoint on this."
With Democrat party history; why should it shock anyone to see Obama “correct” his mistake and appoint someone else to replace Joe Biden?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Would you like to make money and SAVE the planet?
If I were a businessman I would invite you to join me in forming a business to sell carbon credits or carbon offsets as they are sometimes called. You don’t have to invest any money, just have a tree or two.
I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle which mentions that “Evan Smith wrapped a forester's measuring tape around the trunk of Tree 10525, a towering Douglas fir, to figure out its diameter. Then he used a screwlike (sic) device to remove a thin wood sample from the trunk so he could measure its rings. The bigger the fir, the more it would be worth to Smith.”
Not as lumber, which you might expect, - but as carbon.
Carbon credits or offsets have become popular among environmentalists and pseudo environmentalists over the past several years. They are voluntary payments made to carbon credit sellers ostensibly to reduce the level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those selling these credits are to use the money received for the purpose of taking some action to reduce those nasty carbon dioxide emissions that are purported to cause global warming. Al Gore, who actually invented carbon credits (unlike the internet) as part of the hoax has a company that sells carbon credits; Al is a costumer for his company. He “buys” credits so he can continue to use his electric power-thirsty huge 25,000 sq. ft. house as he goes about the world encouraging the rest of us to cut greenhouse emissions. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is another one who buys carbon credits so he can continue to use his Hummers without “guilt.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another customer.
So why did Evan Smith measure his tall Douglas fir? Well tree 10525 is part of the Garcia River forest in Mendocino County, one of two privately owned California forests that have been recruited into the war against climate change as certified sources of carbon offsets. Evan did this because, according to the SF Chronicle, “California broke new ground this year by including forests as carbon reduction projects - with the result that forest owners can potentially earn some money not just by cutting timber but by leaving it standing.”
The business is pretty lucrative and labor costs are non-existing. So far Garcia River and Van Eck, the current certified suppliers, have contracted to sell more than 800,000 tons of offsets. A major customer, unlike the minor ones like Schwarzenegger, Gore and Pelosi, is PG&E who forecast that it would pay about $9.71 per ton for Garcia River carbon offsets each year. We might not get $8 million a year like Garcia River from PG&E but we would be able to pay for a martini or two and possibly some Johnny Walker Blue.
Both the price and demand for offsets from trees is likely to ”grow” (no pun intended) as either the Obama or McCain administrations take steps to “combat climate change”. For instance, California is currently developing a "cap and trade" system that would limit greenhouse gas emissions by large businesses, while letting them buy credits for CO2 reductions made by other entities. The Federal government under Obama or McCain would inevitably do the same since both candidates have swallowed the global warming cool-aid.
Such a system - which might also be adopted by the federal government someday - would take demand for forest offsets to a whole new level. Laurie Wayburn, executive director of the Pacific Forest Trust, a company that manages the Van Eck forest, one of two California's two certified offset forests, said "This could create a new economics for forest landowners based on conserving resources.”
I propose that those of us who have one or more trees come together and form a “certified” resource so we can offer to sell carbon credits to the people who circus master P.T. Barnum reputedly referred to as “one born every minute.” [FYI: this was actually uttered by David Hannum, spoken in reference to Barnum's part in a big hoax.] All we have to do is to agree to let our trees grow bigger.
Just as the certified forests owners, we merely have to have a goal of increasing the size of the trees to increase their carbon density over time. That means allowing trees to get bigger than usual before they are cut or thinned so the trees can grow faster and larger. Anyone having Redwood trees would be especially welcomed into our business venture because as a Yale forestry school graduate who works for the Conservation Fund said, “A lot of trees grow fast, but redwoods store a heck of a lot more carbon on a given acre than almost any other species.”
Just imagine the business potential. Car buyers could go back to SUV’s and someone taking a plane flight might purchase offsets from our trees to compensate for the greenhouse gases generated by burning jet fuel during the flight. The possibilities are endless because there are so many green people who want to save the planet.
I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle which mentions that “Evan Smith wrapped a forester's measuring tape around the trunk of Tree 10525, a towering Douglas fir, to figure out its diameter. Then he used a screwlike (sic) device to remove a thin wood sample from the trunk so he could measure its rings. The bigger the fir, the more it would be worth to Smith.”
Not as lumber, which you might expect, - but as carbon.
Carbon credits or offsets have become popular among environmentalists and pseudo environmentalists over the past several years. They are voluntary payments made to carbon credit sellers ostensibly to reduce the level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those selling these credits are to use the money received for the purpose of taking some action to reduce those nasty carbon dioxide emissions that are purported to cause global warming. Al Gore, who actually invented carbon credits (unlike the internet) as part of the hoax has a company that sells carbon credits; Al is a costumer for his company. He “buys” credits so he can continue to use his electric power-thirsty huge 25,000 sq. ft. house as he goes about the world encouraging the rest of us to cut greenhouse emissions. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is another one who buys carbon credits so he can continue to use his Hummers without “guilt.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another customer.
So why did Evan Smith measure his tall Douglas fir? Well tree 10525 is part of the Garcia River forest in Mendocino County, one of two privately owned California forests that have been recruited into the war against climate change as certified sources of carbon offsets. Evan did this because, according to the SF Chronicle, “California broke new ground this year by including forests as carbon reduction projects - with the result that forest owners can potentially earn some money not just by cutting timber but by leaving it standing.”
The business is pretty lucrative and labor costs are non-existing. So far Garcia River and Van Eck, the current certified suppliers, have contracted to sell more than 800,000 tons of offsets. A major customer, unlike the minor ones like Schwarzenegger, Gore and Pelosi, is PG&E who forecast that it would pay about $9.71 per ton for Garcia River carbon offsets each year. We might not get $8 million a year like Garcia River from PG&E but we would be able to pay for a martini or two and possibly some Johnny Walker Blue.
Both the price and demand for offsets from trees is likely to ”grow” (no pun intended) as either the Obama or McCain administrations take steps to “combat climate change”. For instance, California is currently developing a "cap and trade" system that would limit greenhouse gas emissions by large businesses, while letting them buy credits for CO2 reductions made by other entities. The Federal government under Obama or McCain would inevitably do the same since both candidates have swallowed the global warming cool-aid.
Such a system - which might also be adopted by the federal government someday - would take demand for forest offsets to a whole new level. Laurie Wayburn, executive director of the Pacific Forest Trust, a company that manages the Van Eck forest, one of two California's two certified offset forests, said "This could create a new economics for forest landowners based on conserving resources.”
I propose that those of us who have one or more trees come together and form a “certified” resource so we can offer to sell carbon credits to the people who circus master P.T. Barnum reputedly referred to as “one born every minute.” [FYI: this was actually uttered by David Hannum, spoken in reference to Barnum's part in a big hoax.] All we have to do is to agree to let our trees grow bigger.
Just as the certified forests owners, we merely have to have a goal of increasing the size of the trees to increase their carbon density over time. That means allowing trees to get bigger than usual before they are cut or thinned so the trees can grow faster and larger. Anyone having Redwood trees would be especially welcomed into our business venture because as a Yale forestry school graduate who works for the Conservation Fund said, “A lot of trees grow fast, but redwoods store a heck of a lot more carbon on a given acre than almost any other species.”
Just imagine the business potential. Car buyers could go back to SUV’s and someone taking a plane flight might purchase offsets from our trees to compensate for the greenhouse gases generated by burning jet fuel during the flight. The possibilities are endless because there are so many green people who want to save the planet.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Hollywood adds its clout to the bash Sarah juggernaut
To paraphrase Cal Thomas; “What is it about Sarah Palin that has gotten Hollywood’s knickers in a twist?”
Annette Benning believes that the selection of Sarah Palin represents “bizarre” politics. She also said “I think it's exciting to see a woman chosen to be on a major ticket. But the idea that people, who voted for Hillary, who tend to be Democrats, would change and vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin seems to me bizarre.”
Why did Annette Benning find it “bizarre”? Because “Sarah Palin's politics are to the right of McCain's,” she explained.
Diane English, the writer-creator of the 1990s TV series “Murphy Brown,” in which Candice Bergen’s character had a child out of wedlock and the real life Bergen ridiculed then-Vice President Dan Quayle, said “I just wish our show was on the air right now we'd be having a lot of fun with this.”
Candace Bergen gave her assessment of Palin’s nomination acceptance speech: “I heard her [RNC] speech, and it's scary.”
Another political analyst, Jamie Lee Curtis, wrote in The Huffington Post, “The scariest thing I hear about the Palin nomination was that she would appeal to voters because they would be able to relate to her and she to them. I couldn't hold my own for one minute in a debate on any issue with someone like a Barack Obama or Joseph Biden and neither can Sarah Palin. When the call comes at 3 a.m. I want a mind who (sic) was at the top of their class, who has gravitas and a real intellect. I want a leader who is a scholar who can hold the history of civilization in his head and will read and learn from the past as he charts the future.”
Intellectual giant and political expert Alex Baldwin said “Palin is Bush.”
The symbol of decency and modesty, Lindsey Lohan, said “I keep hearing about the issues related to 'teen pregnancy' — it’s all related to Sarah Palin and her 17-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter. Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views.”
Oprah, the recognized daytime TV talk-show diva has a website praising Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, and who welcomed the Illinois senator and his wife Michelle to her stage sofa, did not put out the welcome mat for Sarah Palin. She has issued a written statement that she will not allow Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin anywhere near her Chicago soundstage. She says she has “made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates.”
Hosts of ABC’s “The View” also added their perspicacious observations about Sarah Palin. Whoopi Goldberg said on the show that it was legitimate to question how Palin would raise her children and govern. And co-host Joy Behar told a vulgar joke while showing a video of Palin’s daughter, Bristol, and Bristol’s fiancé. Goldberg posted an article on her wow-o-wow Web site titled “Sarah Palin Is a Very Dangerous Woman” in which she accused Palin of wanting “to secede from the United States.”
In a typical demonstration of “Whoopi wisdom”, Whoopi has linked Sarah’s speech to a German Nazi rally, writing, “This girl is dangerous to me. This is a very dangerous woman… I just found the whole thing sad and very musty and very much like a Bund rally, but maybe that was just me.” (Duh, do you think Whoopi?)
Sarah Palin also gets under media executives’ skin. NBC News President Steve Capus told Broadcasting & Cable, “What people who are politically motivated are trying to do is take every outrageous blogger that exists online and lump them into traditional media. That's not a sophisticated analysis of journalism. That's someone making a political argument.”
CNN President Jonathan Klein also jumped on board the Democrat train: “It's a time-honored marketing ploy, and every time they bash the media, it means they're [Republican] not talking about a vision or a plan . . . But the best antidote to cynical marketing is solid reporting.” (You should try "solid reporting" on your network sometime Mr. Klein.)
No doubt the left is worried about the impact Sarah Palin has on the election and Hollywood reflects that concern. I might also add that liberal news media executives also need to straighten out their knickers.
Annette Benning believes that the selection of Sarah Palin represents “bizarre” politics. She also said “I think it's exciting to see a woman chosen to be on a major ticket. But the idea that people, who voted for Hillary, who tend to be Democrats, would change and vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin seems to me bizarre.”
Why did Annette Benning find it “bizarre”? Because “Sarah Palin's politics are to the right of McCain's,” she explained.
Diane English, the writer-creator of the 1990s TV series “Murphy Brown,” in which Candice Bergen’s character had a child out of wedlock and the real life Bergen ridiculed then-Vice President Dan Quayle, said “I just wish our show was on the air right now we'd be having a lot of fun with this.”
Candace Bergen gave her assessment of Palin’s nomination acceptance speech: “I heard her [RNC] speech, and it's scary.”
Another political analyst, Jamie Lee Curtis, wrote in The Huffington Post, “The scariest thing I hear about the Palin nomination was that she would appeal to voters because they would be able to relate to her and she to them. I couldn't hold my own for one minute in a debate on any issue with someone like a Barack Obama or Joseph Biden and neither can Sarah Palin. When the call comes at 3 a.m. I want a mind who (sic) was at the top of their class, who has gravitas and a real intellect. I want a leader who is a scholar who can hold the history of civilization in his head and will read and learn from the past as he charts the future.”
Intellectual giant and political expert Alex Baldwin said “Palin is Bush.”
The symbol of decency and modesty, Lindsey Lohan, said “I keep hearing about the issues related to 'teen pregnancy' — it’s all related to Sarah Palin and her 17-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter. Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views.”
Oprah, the recognized daytime TV talk-show diva has a website praising Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, and who welcomed the Illinois senator and his wife Michelle to her stage sofa, did not put out the welcome mat for Sarah Palin. She has issued a written statement that she will not allow Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin anywhere near her Chicago soundstage. She says she has “made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates.”
Hosts of ABC’s “The View” also added their perspicacious observations about Sarah Palin. Whoopi Goldberg said on the show that it was legitimate to question how Palin would raise her children and govern. And co-host Joy Behar told a vulgar joke while showing a video of Palin’s daughter, Bristol, and Bristol’s fiancé. Goldberg posted an article on her wow-o-wow Web site titled “Sarah Palin Is a Very Dangerous Woman” in which she accused Palin of wanting “to secede from the United States.”
In a typical demonstration of “Whoopi wisdom”, Whoopi has linked Sarah’s speech to a German Nazi rally, writing, “This girl is dangerous to me. This is a very dangerous woman… I just found the whole thing sad and very musty and very much like a Bund rally, but maybe that was just me.” (Duh, do you think Whoopi?)
Sarah Palin also gets under media executives’ skin. NBC News President Steve Capus told Broadcasting & Cable, “What people who are politically motivated are trying to do is take every outrageous blogger that exists online and lump them into traditional media. That's not a sophisticated analysis of journalism. That's someone making a political argument.”
CNN President Jonathan Klein also jumped on board the Democrat train: “It's a time-honored marketing ploy, and every time they bash the media, it means they're [Republican] not talking about a vision or a plan . . . But the best antidote to cynical marketing is solid reporting.” (You should try "solid reporting" on your network sometime Mr. Klein.)
No doubt the left is worried about the impact Sarah Palin has on the election and Hollywood reflects that concern. I might also add that liberal news media executives also need to straighten out their knickers.
Monday, September 8, 2008
By dumb luck or not, Republicans have come up with the right combination
John “Hannibal” Smith, played by George Peppard of “A-Team” fame, used to say, “I love it when a plan comes together. In similar fashion, I love it when a Republican presidential campaign comes together.
Cal Thomas asks “What is it about Sarah Palin that has gotten the liberal media’s knickers in a twist?” The answer is not a simple one.
Of course there are some obvious replies: Sarah is a woman (and what a woman!), she is a “mom” and a working mother, Sarah is a reformer like John McCain purports to be and did I mention Sarah is a woman?
But the real problem for Democrats is and will be that Sarah is gritty, she hails from the state where self reliance and individualism are the norm, she is not an eastern elite and she doesn’t care a whit what the Washington press corps thinks. It also doesn’t help Democrats that Sarah is a young, attractive, unapologetic conservative and comes from a place farthest from the east coast establishment and that she is able to relate to most Americans better than the stammering (away from a teleprompter) Obama and the career senator from Delaware. Perhaps the worst nightmare for the Democrats is that Sarah has awakened the masses of potential Republican voters who are not happy with the choice of McCain.
So what is the “plan” that has “come together” ala The A-Team; it is the synergistic combination of a soft Republican and a hard line conservative. While McCain does his thing to attract wish washy voters who think it’s great to “work with those on the other side of the aisle”, Sarah appeals to those of us disappointed with the McCain’s role as a “maverick” in the senate. After all what makes McCain a “maverick” is his departure from traditional conservative ideals and his penchant for introducing legislation no self respecting conservative would advance. Some of us cannot forgive McCain for the anti-First Amendment McCain-Feingold law and for the attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Many are also not happy with McCain’s acceptance of the ridiculous idea that you and I are causing climate change and therefore we must exchange our lifestyle for sack cloth and ashes.
I would like to think creating a combination of John McCain and Sarah Palin is the work of really smart Republican “operatives” but unfortunately a dearth of such foresighted advisors on the Republican side makes that difficult to accept. Sometimes people get lucky, why else are there lottery winners. Nonetheless, putting shear good fortune aside, we can revel in the notion that a good plan has come together.
Cal Thomas asks “What is it about Sarah Palin that has gotten the liberal media’s knickers in a twist?” The answer is not a simple one.
Of course there are some obvious replies: Sarah is a woman (and what a woman!), she is a “mom” and a working mother, Sarah is a reformer like John McCain purports to be and did I mention Sarah is a woman?
But the real problem for Democrats is and will be that Sarah is gritty, she hails from the state where self reliance and individualism are the norm, she is not an eastern elite and she doesn’t care a whit what the Washington press corps thinks. It also doesn’t help Democrats that Sarah is a young, attractive, unapologetic conservative and comes from a place farthest from the east coast establishment and that she is able to relate to most Americans better than the stammering (away from a teleprompter) Obama and the career senator from Delaware. Perhaps the worst nightmare for the Democrats is that Sarah has awakened the masses of potential Republican voters who are not happy with the choice of McCain.
So what is the “plan” that has “come together” ala The A-Team; it is the synergistic combination of a soft Republican and a hard line conservative. While McCain does his thing to attract wish washy voters who think it’s great to “work with those on the other side of the aisle”, Sarah appeals to those of us disappointed with the McCain’s role as a “maverick” in the senate. After all what makes McCain a “maverick” is his departure from traditional conservative ideals and his penchant for introducing legislation no self respecting conservative would advance. Some of us cannot forgive McCain for the anti-First Amendment McCain-Feingold law and for the attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Many are also not happy with McCain’s acceptance of the ridiculous idea that you and I are causing climate change and therefore we must exchange our lifestyle for sack cloth and ashes.
I would like to think creating a combination of John McCain and Sarah Palin is the work of really smart Republican “operatives” but unfortunately a dearth of such foresighted advisors on the Republican side makes that difficult to accept. Sometimes people get lucky, why else are there lottery winners. Nonetheless, putting shear good fortune aside, we can revel in the notion that a good plan has come together.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
McCain and “Sarah” have it all over Obama and Biden
I think things have gotten to the point where Governor Sarah Palin has achieved sufficient favorable public recognition we can now simply refer to her as "Sarah" and those of us who admire her can use her name alone as a term of endearment and respect.
Few accolades of a person are as significant as comments made by arch enemies. For example, Democrat strategist and CNN commentator Paul Begala claimed that John McCain's choice of Vice President is "shockingly irresponsible" and suggested that McCain is "out of his mind." Of course, you can believe this if you think Begala is noted for his desire to help Republicans.
On CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 program, Begala said Sarah Palin had no experience in foreign policy. And that it was "shockingly irresponsible to place her a heartbeat away from the Presidency. When it was pointed out that, if anything, Barack Obama had even less experience, and that Barack Obama is actually the one running for President, Begala did not bother to respond.
Ignored by Begala and all Democrats and their media cohorts is that not only has Sarah Palin been to Iraq, but she went there in her capacity as the head of the Alaska National Guard. Obama visited Iraq as the head of nothing. Further, Sarah Palin as Governor has actually negotiated with foreign governments on behalf of Alaska, most notably Canada, Russia, Japan, and South Korea. Can Barack Obama point to an official negotiation with a foreign government? Actually if he did negotiate with foreign nations, he would be violating the US Logan Act which leaves negotiations with foreign governments on behalf of the United States to the President.
Democrats and liberal newscasters like to say Sarah Palin doesn't have a great deal of experience. But in criticizing Sarah on this basis merely underscores the lack of experience of their candidate for President.
It's true Sarah Palin, if elected, would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. That may be the case but heartbeat separation is not a problem in this regard for Democrats because if Obama were elected, we would have the most inexperienced American President in the last century to run the country at one of the most critical periods in the nation's history. Is Senator Joe Biden any different in lack of executive experience than Obama?
It's not likely the McCain campaign would be concerned about the "lack of experience" argument. After all, there is more executive experience in the Republican Vice President nominee than in both of the Democrat nominees.
One note: You can count on in-the-tank-for-liberals reporters asking foreign policy "gotcha" questions as a matter of routine between now and election day (something they somehow never got around to doing with Barack Obama). By the way, do you think Obama knows who the president of Uruguay is?
For the record, liberals like Begala are not the only ones to absurdly criticize Sarah; we can't forget academia is also in the Socialist/Liberal camp. Don't believe me? Check out the following from Politico.
From Politico: "Scholars question Palin credentials by David Mark,
Fred Barbash Presidential scholars say [Sarah Palin] appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era. So unconventional was McCain's choice that it left students of the presidency literally "stunned," in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency.
[...] "I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history," said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.
[...] "If she had been around for two terms as governor - or been a senator - it would have been an incredible choice," said historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. "Who else could he have found who appealed to the conservative base … and as someone who was a reformer?"
[...] Palin . . . is a total "wild card," said Stanford historian David Kennedy.”
Do you suppose it’s more than personal ideology that is behind the concern of these "historians?"
The McCain campaign issued the following statement:
"The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain."
Hmm, I guess it is personal ideology by these eminent Professors. Have you seen any indication that Kennedy, Goldstein, Goodwin, and Dallek show the same concern about Senator Obama's lack of experience? Of course not; Obama is a liberal and a Democrat.
The Obama people have taken umbrage at the notion Obama has not done much in the Senate during the 150 days or so he was actually there. Well let's see what Barack Obama did legislative wise.
109th Congress, Obama introduced the following bills:
S.2125: A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sponsor: Sen. Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456
S.3757 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen. Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/27/2006) Note: For further action, see H.R.5929, which became Public Law 109-333 on 10/12/2006.
As far as I can tell, in the 110th Congress Obama did not introduce any bills
Of course, Obama took advantage of the work of others and "co-sponsored” a number of bills and Amendments but that takes little more effort than asking an aide to add your name to the sponsorship list.
--So much for Obama's contribution to the legislative process during his 150 days in the senate chambers.
Believe it or not Obama responds to this issue of his lack of executive experience by referring to his oversight of his presidential campaign; which itself is doubtful.
The Democrat unqualified Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, actually compared his executive experience to that of Sarah Palin while being interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN in this way:
"AC: Some Republican critics say you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this [Hurricane Gustav]. They've in fact said that Governor Palin has more executive experience as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state like Alaska. What's your response?
BO: Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin's town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we've got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I've passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak indicates to extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.”
If you read what he said above, it is clear that not only did Obama not even bother answering the question, but the answer he did give was nonsensical. His response only refers to Sarah Palin as a Mayor, overlooks her position as governor, and even as a Mayor she has more executive experience than Obama had as a Community Organizer. Sarah Palin is and has been a governor for about 2 years. As a governor, she operates a $9 billion budget, and manages $13 billion in revenue. The state of Alaska also employs 25,000 people. His answer just shows how shallow Obama is. If his executive experience consists of running a campaign (which incidentally he does NOT run), how does that compare to Sarah’s experience as governor? As to the legislation he's passed post-Katrina, this is yet another lie coming form Obama. Even if he did, how does passing legislation (which he did NOT do) compare to having executive experience?
The Obama/Biden campaign has a problem, and it’s a pit bull with lipstick.
Few accolades of a person are as significant as comments made by arch enemies. For example, Democrat strategist and CNN commentator Paul Begala claimed that John McCain's choice of Vice President is "shockingly irresponsible" and suggested that McCain is "out of his mind." Of course, you can believe this if you think Begala is noted for his desire to help Republicans.
On CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 program, Begala said Sarah Palin had no experience in foreign policy. And that it was "shockingly irresponsible to place her a heartbeat away from the Presidency. When it was pointed out that, if anything, Barack Obama had even less experience, and that Barack Obama is actually the one running for President, Begala did not bother to respond.
Ignored by Begala and all Democrats and their media cohorts is that not only has Sarah Palin been to Iraq, but she went there in her capacity as the head of the Alaska National Guard. Obama visited Iraq as the head of nothing. Further, Sarah Palin as Governor has actually negotiated with foreign governments on behalf of Alaska, most notably Canada, Russia, Japan, and South Korea. Can Barack Obama point to an official negotiation with a foreign government? Actually if he did negotiate with foreign nations, he would be violating the US Logan Act which leaves negotiations with foreign governments on behalf of the United States to the President.
Democrats and liberal newscasters like to say Sarah Palin doesn't have a great deal of experience. But in criticizing Sarah on this basis merely underscores the lack of experience of their candidate for President.
It's true Sarah Palin, if elected, would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. That may be the case but heartbeat separation is not a problem in this regard for Democrats because if Obama were elected, we would have the most inexperienced American President in the last century to run the country at one of the most critical periods in the nation's history. Is Senator Joe Biden any different in lack of executive experience than Obama?
It's not likely the McCain campaign would be concerned about the "lack of experience" argument. After all, there is more executive experience in the Republican Vice President nominee than in both of the Democrat nominees.
One note: You can count on in-the-tank-for-liberals reporters asking foreign policy "gotcha" questions as a matter of routine between now and election day (something they somehow never got around to doing with Barack Obama). By the way, do you think Obama knows who the president of Uruguay is?
For the record, liberals like Begala are not the only ones to absurdly criticize Sarah; we can't forget academia is also in the Socialist/Liberal camp. Don't believe me? Check out the following from Politico.
From Politico: "Scholars question Palin credentials by David Mark,
Fred Barbash Presidential scholars say [Sarah Palin] appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era. So unconventional was McCain's choice that it left students of the presidency literally "stunned," in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency.
[...] "I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history," said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.
[...] "If she had been around for two terms as governor - or been a senator - it would have been an incredible choice," said historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. "Who else could he have found who appealed to the conservative base … and as someone who was a reformer?"
[...] Palin . . . is a total "wild card," said Stanford historian David Kennedy.”
Do you suppose it’s more than personal ideology that is behind the concern of these "historians?"
The McCain campaign issued the following statement:
"The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain."
Hmm, I guess it is personal ideology by these eminent Professors. Have you seen any indication that Kennedy, Goldstein, Goodwin, and Dallek show the same concern about Senator Obama's lack of experience? Of course not; Obama is a liberal and a Democrat.
The Obama people have taken umbrage at the notion Obama has not done much in the Senate during the 150 days or so he was actually there. Well let's see what Barack Obama did legislative wise.
109th Congress, Obama introduced the following bills:
S.2125: A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sponsor: Sen. Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456
S.3757 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen. Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/27/2006) Note: For further action, see H.R.5929, which became Public Law 109-333 on 10/12/2006.
As far as I can tell, in the 110th Congress Obama did not introduce any bills
Of course, Obama took advantage of the work of others and "co-sponsored” a number of bills and Amendments but that takes little more effort than asking an aide to add your name to the sponsorship list.
--So much for Obama's contribution to the legislative process during his 150 days in the senate chambers.
Believe it or not Obama responds to this issue of his lack of executive experience by referring to his oversight of his presidential campaign; which itself is doubtful.
The Democrat unqualified Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, actually compared his executive experience to that of Sarah Palin while being interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN in this way:
"AC: Some Republican critics say you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this [Hurricane Gustav]. They've in fact said that Governor Palin has more executive experience as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state like Alaska. What's your response?
BO: Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin's town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we've got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I've passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak indicates to extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.”
If you read what he said above, it is clear that not only did Obama not even bother answering the question, but the answer he did give was nonsensical. His response only refers to Sarah Palin as a Mayor, overlooks her position as governor, and even as a Mayor she has more executive experience than Obama had as a Community Organizer. Sarah Palin is and has been a governor for about 2 years. As a governor, she operates a $9 billion budget, and manages $13 billion in revenue. The state of Alaska also employs 25,000 people. His answer just shows how shallow Obama is. If his executive experience consists of running a campaign (which incidentally he does NOT run), how does that compare to Sarah’s experience as governor? As to the legislation he's passed post-Katrina, this is yet another lie coming form Obama. Even if he did, how does passing legislation (which he did NOT do) compare to having executive experience?
The Obama/Biden campaign has a problem, and it’s a pit bull with lipstick.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Finally, we are back to conservatism vs. liberalism
With the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice President Candidate on the Republican ticket, the presidential race is less about Democrat vs. Republican, than it is about Liberal vs. Conservative. Democrats and Republicans both agree that Washington is “broken” and both sides want “change.” Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that government is the answer while John McCain and Sarah Palin believe that government is the problem. Clearly, change can be for good or for bad.
The speech by Sarah Palin marks the well-defined line in the sand that conservatives have wanted for months to have John McCain draw. It was interesting to watch Palin (and the warm-up acts of Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani) frame the battle for the oval office. It was a reminder, once again, that conservatism is the road to better government and a healthier America.
Thomas Jefferson said “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Nothing could be clearer in this election than that it is shear common sense we don’t need a bigger government; we need a smaller government as envisioned by Jefferson, Monroe and all the others who are responsible for our country’s constitution.
At the Republican convention the point was made that no candidate in the last 100 years was less qualified to be president than Barack Obama. As David Freddoso wrote (The Case Against Obama), “Barack Obama doesn't represent "change" in American politics at all. In reality, he is a shameless product of Chicago's corrupt political Machine -- and a far-left liberal in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale -- but with charm and political savvy that rival those of Bill Clinton.””
What kind of president would Obama make after only 150 days experience in the U.S. Senate and a history of avoided taking unpopular stands in the state Senate by voting "present" about 130 times -- or simply by absenting himself from tough votes altogether?
Obama is one of the most cynical presidential candidates ever to aspire to national office and his rise to the nominee of the Democrat Party is a lesson in deliberate political ambition. First Obama cooperated with Chicago's Democratic Machine and then he developed relationships with the likes of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant '60s bomber Bill Ayers. He also engaged in an exchange of favors and payback with corrupt developer (and convicted felon) Tony Rezko.
Obama’s rise to prominence is no accident. According to David Freddoso Obama won his first election (to the Illinois State Senate) “by having his lawyers knock all his opponents --including the black, female incumbent -- off the ballot on technicalities, so he could run unopposed.” Chicago insiders know the “Chicago Machine” made a U.S. senator" out of Obama.
But worst of all Obama has very bad ideas that would permanently change America. If he is elected President, America will be a very different place from the one we know now: both militarily and economically, and under the thumb of a Supreme Court full of judges who believe in the notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that says whatever they want it to say.
Along with too many other elected politicians Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits - while sending his own children to an elite private school.
If you are in favor of killing unborn children, Obama is your man. He voted to deny medical care to babies born alive after abortion in a bill too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. Obama also vowed to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 to end all restrictions on government abortion funding.
Obama seems to believe democratic elections are not for everyone. He wants, and has voted, to abolish secret-ballot elections in the workplace when Union leaders coerce employees to sign Union cards; thus allowing unions to intimidate and harass workers who don't support them.
The “change” Barack Obama's calls for in his campaign as the cure for ills of society is higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage.
Obama claims to give us “new politics” but in less than four years as a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted for some of the worst special-interest legislation to move through the congress. If you vote for Obama, you are voting for the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007; according to the respected National Journal Obama beat out Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and the previous title-holder, John Kerry. Is this who you want for our next president?
The speech by Sarah Palin marks the well-defined line in the sand that conservatives have wanted for months to have John McCain draw. It was interesting to watch Palin (and the warm-up acts of Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani) frame the battle for the oval office. It was a reminder, once again, that conservatism is the road to better government and a healthier America.
Thomas Jefferson said “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Nothing could be clearer in this election than that it is shear common sense we don’t need a bigger government; we need a smaller government as envisioned by Jefferson, Monroe and all the others who are responsible for our country’s constitution.
At the Republican convention the point was made that no candidate in the last 100 years was less qualified to be president than Barack Obama. As David Freddoso wrote (The Case Against Obama), “Barack Obama doesn't represent "change" in American politics at all. In reality, he is a shameless product of Chicago's corrupt political Machine -- and a far-left liberal in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale -- but with charm and political savvy that rival those of Bill Clinton.””
What kind of president would Obama make after only 150 days experience in the U.S. Senate and a history of avoided taking unpopular stands in the state Senate by voting "present" about 130 times -- or simply by absenting himself from tough votes altogether?
Obama is one of the most cynical presidential candidates ever to aspire to national office and his rise to the nominee of the Democrat Party is a lesson in deliberate political ambition. First Obama cooperated with Chicago's Democratic Machine and then he developed relationships with the likes of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant '60s bomber Bill Ayers. He also engaged in an exchange of favors and payback with corrupt developer (and convicted felon) Tony Rezko.
Obama’s rise to prominence is no accident. According to David Freddoso Obama won his first election (to the Illinois State Senate) “by having his lawyers knock all his opponents --including the black, female incumbent -- off the ballot on technicalities, so he could run unopposed.” Chicago insiders know the “Chicago Machine” made a U.S. senator" out of Obama.
But worst of all Obama has very bad ideas that would permanently change America. If he is elected President, America will be a very different place from the one we know now: both militarily and economically, and under the thumb of a Supreme Court full of judges who believe in the notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that says whatever they want it to say.
Along with too many other elected politicians Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits - while sending his own children to an elite private school.
If you are in favor of killing unborn children, Obama is your man. He voted to deny medical care to babies born alive after abortion in a bill too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. Obama also vowed to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 to end all restrictions on government abortion funding.
Obama seems to believe democratic elections are not for everyone. He wants, and has voted, to abolish secret-ballot elections in the workplace when Union leaders coerce employees to sign Union cards; thus allowing unions to intimidate and harass workers who don't support them.
The “change” Barack Obama's calls for in his campaign as the cure for ills of society is higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage.
Obama claims to give us “new politics” but in less than four years as a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted for some of the worst special-interest legislation to move through the congress. If you vote for Obama, you are voting for the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007; according to the respected National Journal Obama beat out Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and the previous title-holder, John Kerry. Is this who you want for our next president?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
