Sonia Sotomayor’s life story is one thing. It’s a picture perfect American success story. That is, in the America that she grew up in.
Take away the liberal heart-string tugging of her life’s story as a qualification to the Supreme Court, and what you have is a judge whose decisions have been overturned 60% of the time. A judge that upheld racial discrimination in a case now in the Supreme Court, where it is anticipated she will be overturned again.
It is not right-wing spin to say that her version of justice is not ‘blind.’ It’s just that you won’t see it put that way in the mainstream media. An automatic dis-qualifier for anywhere in the judiciary, let alone the Supreme Court.
President Obama picked an ideological soulmate with his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. His idea of the U.S. Constitution seems to be in line with hers. Being overturned 60% of the time turns out to be a resume enhancement for an Obama Supreme Court nominee.
Which begs the question. Will future generations of Americans have the same opportunities that she had in an Obama-remade America?
So goes the position of the United Nations, at least as far as the United States is concerned. Reacting to North Korea’s third nuclear bomb test after several missile tests including another missile test today, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said . . .
If North Korea’s leaders continue to act provocatively, “they’re going to find that they will pay a price, because the international community is very clear: This is not acceptable. It won’t be tolerated, and they won’t be intimidated,”
Rice said the United States would pursue within the U.N. Security Council a new resolution on North Korea, “a strong resolution with teeth.”
{emphasis added}
Well, it seems we are intimidated. Does this mean that the first three nuclear bombs are free? And when Kim Jong Il does it again, then what? Meanwhile the President wants to scale back our missile defense program. Is this the part that Vice President Joe Biden was talking about after the election, that Obama would be tested soon and hey, we might make the wrong decision. But hang in there will ya? We love you man. What?
SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea warned South Korea and the United States on Wednesday that Seoul’s participation in a U.S.-led program to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction is equal to a declaration of war.
Biden’s remarks made the transition from campaign promises and speeches to a bit of the real world before being sworn in. Planned or not. I don’t know about you but he didn’t do anything for me that said that either he or Obama had a clue in dealing with the world’s worst and most dangerous dictators. Take the U.S. World Apology Tour 2009 for example.
There’s two ways to look at this. Is no decision better than the wrong decision? And, how many ‘free lives’ do they get?
Nearly a month ago, April 29th, President Obama held his second televised press conference marking his first 100 days. There were thirteen questions given and answered.
What surprised me, well not really, was how challenging the press conference really was. It was anything but challenging.
One question was most penetrating ‘what has surprised, troubled, enchanted, and humbled you about the Oval Office?’
Another was about Chrysler Corporation.
Is bankruptcy the only option for Chrysler, and what about plant closings announced by GM? Obama says he’s more hopeful now than a month ago that there will be a deal that “maintains a viable Chrysler auto company.”
In less than a month, look at the difference between what he said then and what he has done to Chrysler, their secured creditors, and the UAW.
What is noteworthy about this press conference is what the President was not asked.
The country is currently in an economic upheaval. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on turning the economy around. After all that ‘economic stimulus,’ why is the GDP shrinking and is it a sign that the stimulus is not working? Was Not Asked!
The fact that you inherited a national debt to the tune of $1.3 trillion dollars when you took office 100 days ago, and have made the case that that kind of debt is the wrong path for the country, how is it that increasing that debt to over $10 trillion dollars in ten years is the right path for the country? Was Not Asked!
Judging from criticisms of the previous administration for more than doubling the size of government spending and government bureaucracy, how will a budget four times that size and with 8,000 plus earmarks in it help our economic recovery? Was Not Asked!
Health care is a hot political issue and an important part of your presidential campaign platform. Beyond the list of problems of health care in general, what is your national health care plan and how does it differ from that which Secretary Clinton tried in the early 90’s? Was Not Asked!
For this being only his second press conference, with so much that has happened since his last one, do you think that the media lived up to its ‘watchdog’ status? Is the media serving you well when out of 13 questions posed, none of them included the four most obvious ones?
On May 21, 2009, former vice president Richard B. Cheney, a member of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and a member of their Board of Trustees, spoke at AEI on the serious and ongoing threat terrorism poses to the United States. He also answers the criticism being levied upon the country and the Bush administration by President Obama over the prosecution of the war on terror. Even to the point of criminalizing the prosecution of it.
How history repeats itself. Didn’t we see what happens when political opposition becomes a criminal offense in the last century?
I haven’t seen his speech elsewhere in the media, outside of 10 second sound bites, so here it is below.
‘It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.’
‘Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.’
‘Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy. As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations–and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration–the missing twenty-six words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”
If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs–on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.’
VP Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, speaks to the issue as raised by President Obama. ‘He has a Sept. 10th mentality.’
Latest budget deficit total for California now is $24 billion. I don’t know how this got out, it is from AP, but it is also over 50% correct in why California is where it is today. Writer Juliet Williams says . . .
The gap has two primary causes: The state has been living beyond its means for years by spending generously on all sorts of programs that the voters, the politicians and the special interests wanted. And the recession has hammered California’s economy.
As one industry after another becomes a target for government intervention by an administration that sees nothing wrong with that, could states be far behind? But that’s beside the point. The point is, you can expect the same results nationally to the administration’s economic model as what California is facing today with theirs. Only worse.
There’s a lot of truth to the lore that as California goes, so goes the nation. I’m old enough to remember when the bikini came out in Hollywood and on California’s beaches. That was good. Liberating. Just ask any teenage boy.
As for the ‘over 50% correct’ comment. Williams errs by putting the voters first, when in reality it should be last, after politicians and special interests.
It was California voters that tried on many occasions to reign in Sacramento’s feelgood spending. And it was the 9th Circus Court of Appeals that overturned the voters time after time, in favor of politicians and special interests and against the voters. But blaming the voters, you know, those stupid voters, for not knowing whats best for them is, in this case, a deflection of guilt to the wrong party. On second thought, now I see why this article got out. Never miss an opportunity to blame the voters.
The ‘news‘ that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is making of herself over being briefed on CIA enhanced interrogation might seem to you like this is the first time you’ve heard of it. That’s because it is.
This issue came up in 2007 when the Democrats began turning up the heat on Bush and his ‘torture’ camp at Club Gitmo. And by turning up the heat, I mean politicizing the war effort. They have done the same in every area of the prosecution of the war including methods of espionage. The New York Times, the newspaper of choice for al Qaeda, took the pleasure in publishing how the NSA’s tracking of financial transactions were effective in locating and identifying terrorists.
Back then, the bullseye was Bush and Cheney. The media never mentioned the fact that Democrats in oversight positions, including Nancy Pelosi, then ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also approved the same methods in 2002 that today she is calling torture.
Two years later, the media is giving it some notice only because Nancy Pelosi called the CIA liars. What has changed from 2007 to today? Barack Obama’s campaign was in full torture mode and running against Bush who, by the way, was not in the race. And that’s where the media put the ink. What else happened is that Obama beat out Hillary Clinton over war issues. By comparison, Hillary was a hawk. And Obama beat John McCain, Democrats’ favorite Republican.
Not on the basis of this one example, but in the cumulative, it could be argued that had the media done its job two years ago and reported on how Obama and Pelosi were politicizing the war, and did it every time he did so, we may have had ‘President Hillary Clinton’ today. Or the other democrat, McCain. But not Barack Obama.
More than one precedent was set on November 4th, 2008. The other one was the media’s successful campaign in picking the candidates for both sides and also in helping to elect Barack Obama. What happened was the media watchdog died. The media has assumed another role.
Reporting on California voters’ response to higher taxes and bigger government with a resounding NO yesterday, the arrogance of the LA Times just drips from the page. Try this for a headline.
It gets funnier, or worse, when they recount several attempts by Californians to govern themselves as ‘periodic voter revolts.’
Californians are well known for periodic voter revolts, but on Tuesday they did more than just lash out at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature over the state’s fiscal debacle.
By rejecting five budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction that has brought California to the brink of insolvency.
It is just a shame that the lack of respect for Californians that the LA Times demonstrates, and in such a politically biased way, will go unnoticed. Well, maybe except for their subscribers. They’ve noticed.
But have no fear. Or rather, maybe a little fear is healthy in the short term. The $21 billion question is, is California next on the bailout list? Should they be on the bailout list?
In an effort to be the Harry Houdini of Washington, after voting for the very policies that he is deriding, President Obama is pulling another one over on the media and the American people. Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque, his message was clear.
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Becoming the greatest show (fraud?) on earth, our President is deriding the very policies that he ran on , proposed, voted for, and coerced Congress into passing, while accepting zero responsibility for any of it. Ta da!
Mission accomplished. Meanwhile . . .
Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.
Rush . . .
This is the guy who has just saddled us with $11 trillion in budget deficits for the next ten years, warning that his own policies have wrecked the US economy and that they cannot be continued. He threw himself under the bus. We can’t continue Obamaism. Just barely over a hundred days into his administration, Obama has condemned his own administration, and nobody in the Drive-By Media gets this.
[t]he president of the United States, after a mere 100-plus days, has just thrown his own administration, all of his policies, under the bus, just condemned them, just ripped them to shreds. I mean he has been more forcefully critical of his own policies than he ever was of George W. Bush.
If it is not in the mainstream media, did it really happen? Take this week’s summit with health care CEO’s on Monday for example.
The president said Monday that six major health care organizations had pledged to “cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.”
But three days later, The New York Times reported that those organizations said they never committed to specific annual cuts, just to cut spending gradually, and that the president’s description has their members up in arms.
Today, President Obama’s address to the nation repeats his script from Monday, saying with a straight face that he had a $2 trillion pledge from these health care organizations. Words, just words. Even though they were lying words, he says them so well.
Today’s performance also shows two things about President Obama. He doesn’t mind lying to the American people, and he still is in campaign mode. Just like his Democrat predecessor.
I hate to sound like a broken record when it comes to Obama and what motivates him, but until the media takes on that responsibility I’ll be happy to oblige. And it is what motivates him that he is careful not to let you see.
News Flash! ‘Social Security’ is running out of money. A better example of an oxymoron cannot be made when it comes to ‘Social Security.’ And Wall Street is not to blame. The blame lies in the robber barons on Capitol Hill.
For years, the Social Security trust fund has taken in more than it spent on benefits, resulting in a cushion of billions of dollars that the government could spend on other programs while giving the trust fund an IOU.
Emphasis added. Notice the assumption that spending money from your retirement fund is OK because, hey, you’re not retired yet. You don’t need it now. In the private sector, its called a felony. Now the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world is about to collapse. The fact that the Johnson administration was taking retirement money from individual citizens didn’t seem to bother anyone.
It was in the Johnson administration in the 60’s that politicians thought it was a shame that they couldn’t use that money for things like his ‘Great Society.’ And the Great Society got us Medicare, Medicaid, and the War (without an exit plan) on Poverty. Since then, politicians in both parties became drunk on spending from this big pot of gold which is now almost empty. It provided the seed money to greatly expand government programs and entitlement programs to levels that would, long term, be unsustainable on their own.
Warnings that this time would come have been sounded by economists and conservatives for years. Efforts to reform Social Security, to reverse the trend to insolvency, fell on deaf ears during the 16 years of Clinton and Bush. The spineless in Washington lack the will to fix it as it was originally intended to be.
But have no fear. The good news is President Obama doesn’t think it is a problem. Have you heard him or his teleprompter say that the Social Security system needs fixing yet? In fact, the bad news coming out today about Social Security is playing right into his hands.
There is no need to try to save Social Security. Individualism, the very concept of saving for your own future, is so last century. President Obama’s fix for Social Security is to simply continue nationalizing those industries that the country depends on. Soon, the news of collapse will be so intense that America will look to him to save us from peril. Enter Barack Obama and his teleprompter, and Americans will succumb to Obama’s new and improved socialist America. Of course he won’t call it that. But that’s what we’ll get.
Trying to save the Constitution and this country as we know it is just too much work when half the population, Washington, and the media no longer take it seriously. That’s the way it seems after continuing barrages of bad economic news. It is Rahm Emanual’s ‘rule one‘ on steroids. Taking advantage of a crisis is one thing. Prolonging chaos to keep the crisis going to advance an agenda is quite another.
