Monthly Archives: January 2009

Politics

No-Class Obama At White House Website

I guess I’ve been spoiled in expecting The White House website to be an accurate and civil presentation of content. The website now isn’t much different from other left-wing websites. He did win the election. To continue to bring up his predecessor in the way that he does shows that this president is not going to stop campaigning, and doesn’t have the class to show a modicum of respect for his predecessor.

For example, under the Additional Issues page titled Katrina, this is what follows:

President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.

President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration’s “unconscionable ineptitude” in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims. Obama visited thousands of Hurricane survivors in the Houston Convention Center and later took three more trips to the region. He worked with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to introduce legislation to address the immediate income, employment, business, and housing needs of Gulf Coast communities.

President Barack Obama will partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild now, stronger than ever.

The Katrina affected people want to know what you are going to do for them. Could you answer that without rewinding a few years? I expect more from my president. Behaving like an adult would be a good start.

related link: New White House site slams Bush

UPDATE 03/08/09: The website has been revised. Don’t know when it happened, but it finally did happen. They still talk about the past, with nothing substantive as to what the administration is going to do for or about Katrina victims beyond the unchanged last line.

Fairness Doctrine, Politics

Fairness Doctrine Sleight Of Hand

Referring to the little war going on over the Fairness Doctrine. Why is it that only Republicans seem to favor free speech nowadays? I can say that because there is not one Democrat that is a co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. And Democrats’ opinions are all over the place. Some agree that regulating free speech, including and especially political speech, is necessary and should be content-neutral, like Barack Obama, and some are, oh, I’ll call them deniers, like Craig Aaron, who think that Republicans’ concern that the Fairness Doctrine will find its way back under an Obama administration ‘is completely imaginary.’ That, and that he says there are no bills pending to reinstate it, so there’s nothing to worry about.

And then there’s this guy (girl?), NewsCorpse, who must be a superdenier when he says . . .

Conservatives fear that Liberals want to destroy talk radio. Oh please! They can have talk radio. It’s last century’s broadcasting platform.

Aaron says . . .

Let’s review: It wasn’t in the Democratic Party platform. No bill has been introduced in the Democrat-controlled Congress. No FCC rules are pending. And President-elect Barack Obama has stated unequivocally that he “does not support re-imposing” the Fairness Doctrine.

See if you can spot a reason for concern here. A denier will say that Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine.

And Obama’s position is . . .

‘He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.’

I like the part where he defines restricting the airways as opening up the airwaves. Now that you know Obama’s position on the Fairness Doctrine, did he not make that perfectly clear? He isn’t in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. He is in favor of ‘network neutrality.’ Know what that is? That’s Democrat-speak for the Fairness Doctrine.

Where in the First Amendment does it say that the government should make speech content neutral? If the government MAKES anything about speech, or makes any law regarding the content of political speech (the very kind of speech that the 1st Amendment was drawn up to protect), then IT ISN’T FREE is it? It is regulated.

I don’t know what Aaron was doing when he said that no FCC rules are pending. Is that supposed to make you feel complacent, and satisfied that there isn’t anything coming out of the FCC to cause concern? He is either not informed on WHY there is nothing coming out of the FCC, or he knows why and is being deceptive about it. You make the call.

So, if the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 is so trivial and even unnecessary, then what is the problem with allowing it to come to the Senate floor for a vote? If it is so inconsequential, that nobody really wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, then there shouldn’t be any opposition to INSURING that it won’t be reinstated, either in its original form or in some other form.

links: Huffington Post | News Corpse | The First Amendment Needs Protecting

Fairness Doctrine, Politics

Democrats Still Attacking Limbaugh

My friends at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have a petition going. ‘Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We’ll send Limbaugh your comments. When members of the Republican Attack Machine like Rush Limbaugh kick into action, we need a strong grassroots response.’

What could possibly be accomplished by a campaign like this? Do they really believe that their hate mail will cause Rush to accept and support Obama’s so-called stimulus plan? The DCCC is showing just how shallow they and their grassroots are when it comes to the arena of ideas. And I’m sure that Rush will be more than happy to point that out.

Rush’s response, “I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? ”

Once again, like Harry Reid tried a couple years ago with the infamous letter he sent to ABC, the political party is attacking a private citizen based on lies. Limbaugh is not attacking Obama. He is attacking Obama’s so-called economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the lemmings that believe their tripe can’t tell the difference.

Won’t you help them? Here’s my message. Your mileage may vary.

Since President Obama’s so-called economic stimulus plan is mostly a democrat party / special interest stimulus plan, and as proscribed, has more pork in it than economic stimulus, then I too hope he fails. Not as president, but in passing this plan as he has proposed it. Which is the exact context that Limbaugh’s comment was meant.

Be sure to send my comments to Limbaugh. Thanks for your help.

All those (like Craig Aaron at the Huffington Post) who believe that Democrats don’t want the return of the Fairness Doctrine please raise your hand.

link: DCCC

Media, Politics

Obama's Listening Tour Hits Snag With Iran

Yesterday, President Obama had his first TV interview with a journalist since becoming President of the United States with Al-Arabiya TV, which is based in Dubai. He proposes a listening tour of sorts with no preconditions, unlike his predecessor. I guess that rules out Iran, because Iran does have preconditions. Two of them.

  1. Get all our troops out of the Middle East
  2. End our support of Israel.

Was Barack preoccupied with getting elected last October when Iran set the preconditions? Too preoccupied to realize the position of Iran, one of the most dangerous terrorist-supporting states in the world? So what is his excuse now, now that he is President, for still not knowing that Iran has preconditions? Especially two that he can not agree to.

link: Iran’s Vice President Sets Two Preconditions for Talks with US

Fairness Doctrine, Media, Politics

The First Amendment Needs Protecting

For years now, ever since Air America Radio first went bankrupt, when they learned that there wasn’t a viable market out there for their product, the Left has been longing for the return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. As is always the liberal left’s way, if you don’t like the message, you shoot the messenger. In this case it goes like this, if you can’t compete in the market place, you kill the market. Not satisfied that the Left has hit the trifecta, the House, the Senate, and The White House without the Fairness Doctrine, the probability of its return has never been greater.

The truth is, the Fairness Doctrine does not need any legislators or votes for it to return. It was only suspended back in the eighties. All the FCC Commissioners have to do is to decide, on its own, to reinstate it. And all they need to do that is to have a majority of Commissioners on the FCC to make that decision. Right now there is an open seat and the FCC is split evenly with two Republicans and two Democrats.

Now there is nothing stopping President Obama from picking a Democrat to fill that vacancy, and nothing from stopping a 3-2 decision to reinstate it. Nothing except the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34) introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (D-SC).

For an idea of what the Obama administration has in mind where organizations like ACORN and Media Matters are concerned, please check this newsletter from the Center for Individual Freedom.

Not surprisingly, not one of the 28 co-sponsors have a ‘D’ beside their name. The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 does only one thing. It would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine, and nothing else.

‘SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

‘Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’.

Elections have consequences, and the possible curtailment of freedom of speech as described above is one of them. This ought not be a partisan issue. This is a freedom of speech issue, a constitutional issue.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) says . . .

the Left’s intention and goal is to silence millions of conservative Americans who disagree with the Left’s warped vision for America.

“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation…”

The entire text of the bill is one of the shortest considering that it will protect the free speech rights guaranteed to all of us in the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Time is now to petition your senators to voice your support for the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34)

related links:  CFIF.ORG | S. 34:Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009

S. 34: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009
Introduced Jan 6, 2009
Sponsor Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]
Status Reported by Committee
Last Action Jan 7, 2009: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 12.
(Powered by GovTrack.us.)
2008 Election, Economy, Media, Politics

Forget Persuasion, Attack Limbaugh Instead

1 Comment

President Obama is not having an easy time with his nearly trillion dollar so-called stimulus plan, despite getting a jump-start from President Bush. In theory, as in rhetoric, doing something to stimulate the ‘economy’ is what is needed. But if what you propose is, in reality, not an economic stimulus but rather a seismic shift from free markets and limited government, to government control of markets and industry with ‘no exit plan’ (that sounds familiar), then I would hope that he would encounter opposition from Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between. And that includes Rush Limbaugh.

Rather than trying to persuade Republicans on Capital Hill on the efficacy of his plan, he shifts the focus to a private citizen, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. Speaking with Republicans in Washington on his first week, Obama said . . .

You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.

Echoing chief of staff Rahm Emanual’s ‘rule one,’ he stresses the urgency for action. Never mind what kind of action. Obama said . . .

We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly.

Having been brought into the discussion on Obama’s economic plan, Rush Limbaugh responds in an interview on Byron York’s blog at National Review Online.

Before I get to Rush’s response, which is below. Harken back to the campaign. Remember how the media virtually ignored and discounted Obama’s alliances with radicals like William Ayers? They characterized them as mere fleeting associations that were of no pertinent significance. The role the media played in Obama’s campaign and subsequent election is the reason people like you and I were not informed, and Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw didn’t know (or didn’t want to know) about just who he (Obama) is. ‘We don’t know a lot about him,’ said Brokaw. (Why didn’t you ask, Tom?)

In his response, Rush puts Obama’s so-called stimulus plan and motivation into proper perspective in the name of Saul Alinsky. In Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, he writes  . . .

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Ask yourself, is this not what we are seeing?

Rush’s response follows:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

“If we don’t get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can’t let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That’s how things don’t get done in this town.”

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn’t Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn’t they have to buy the new furnishings? What’s the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet’s office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

And here’s how the Huffington Post and Think Progress lie about what Obama, and Rush, said.

related links:

Politics, War On Terror

President Obama's First Rash Decision

No, I’m not going to begin counting them. But President Obama’s decision to close Club Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay’s Camp Delta, the tropical resort where the world’s worst terrorists are being held, without first deciding what he plans to do with them is putting the cart before the horse. Sound like good judgment to you? Of course not.

His decision to close Gitmo within 12 months had more to do with political expediency than national security. Clearly, pacifying his far left base is more important to him. Either that, or he is more incompetent as a Commander in Chief than anyone has imagined. You can decide which, and there is no good answer.

Letting them go, or affording them the same Constitutional protections as U.S. citizens, which would end with the same result, so that they can again take up arms against us  does not make me feel safer. It does, however, make terrorists feel safer. Prisoner #372 probably likes the idea.

Cairo, Egypt: An Internet posting purportedly by al-Qaida in Yemen says the group’s No. 2 is a Saudi national who is a former Guantanamo detainee.

link: Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen

Economy, Politics

Stimulus Bill Is $825 Billion Pork Bill

Of the $825 billion of what the administration is calling an economic stimulus bill, only $275 billion of it goes towards actual economic stimulus. The rest is merely spending money on projects that generate no stimulus to the economy. Like Rahm Emanual said a short time ago, let’s not miss our chance to advance our agenda during the economic crisis.

Here is his exact quote from the Sunday CBS show Face The Nation, November 9, four days after the election . . .

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

And this is exactly what is happening.

No longer are they described as a stimulus. They are described as investments. Which is democrat-speak for big spending programs that advance the party agenda, NOT providing an economic stimulus.

Among those “priority investments” are:

— $650 million to help Americans upgrade to digital cable reception after the official transition to digital television transmission on Feb. 17, 2009.

— $44 million to repair and improve the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C.

— $276 million to upgrade and modernize information technology at the State Department.

— $3.1 billion to fund “infrastructure projects” on federal land, including $1.8 billion for the National Park Service, $650 million for the U.S. Forest Service, and $300 million for the National Fish Hatcheries.

— $600 million for NASA, including $400 million for projects such as “satellite sensors that measure solar radiation critical to understanding climate change.”

— $1.9 billion for the Department of Energy for “basic research into the physical sciences,” including nuclear physics and fusion energy.

— $209 million for maintenance work at the federal Agricultural Research Service’s research facilities across the country.

— $400 million in repairs to various “national treasures,” including $200 million for revitalizing the National Mall, $150 for maintenance at the Smithsonian Institution, and $50 million to make up for a lack of philanthropic support for the arts.

— $850 million for “wildland fire management,” including $550 million to states for “volunteer fire assistance,” “city forest enhancements” and “wood to energy” projects.

— $400 million for “habitat restoration” projects to be doled out by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

— $2.7 billion for “rural water and waste disposal” grant programs for providing loans for digging wells or extending municipal water services in rural areas.

— $2 billion to provide day care services to 300,000 additional low-income children, ostensibly while their parents are at work.

— $1.2 billion to create an estimated 1 million summer jobs for young people.

— $2.5 billion to upgrade government-owned housing projects with new insulation, windows, and furnaces.

— $6.2 billion to weatherize the homes of low-income people to make them more energy efficient.

— $2.4 billion for projects demonstrating carbon-capture technology.

— $600 million to “prepare our country for universal healthcare” by training more doctors, dentists, and nurses.

— $1.5 billion to build new “Community Health Centers.”

— $20 billion to provide “nutrition assistance” for middle-income families and to lift restrictions on how long people can receive food stamps.

— An undisclosed amount to “provide 100 percent federal funding through 2010 for optional State Medicaid coverage of individuals (and their dependents) who are receiving unemployment benefits or have exhausted those benefits.”

related links:

Politics

Tax Evader Approved For Treasury Post

The Obama campaign wasn’t lying when they said there was going to be change in his administration. But who knew that this is what they meant?

The Senate Finance Committee has cleared the nomination of Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite unhappiness over his mistakes in paying his taxes.

That’s right, not paying taxes for a number of years in a row were simply ‘mistakes.’ After all, Geithner ended up paying taxes for the years that the IRS told him to pay for.  Which did not include taxes for the years 2000 and 2001 which were also not paid. Taxes for those years were not paid until the day before President Obama announced that he was his choice for Treasury Secretary.  Oh hell, those years were just a simple oversight.

Right, in much the same way that Sandy (socks) Burger was just a sloppy worker (Bill Clinton’s explanation), and stealing documents from the National Archives and stuffing them in his socks, and hiding them on a construction site, and picking them up later in the evening, was just normal for good ole’ Sandy.

I’m not seeing change here. I’m seeing more of the same.

link: Senate panel approves Geithner for treasury post

Economy, Fair Tax

Fair Tax YouTube Ad

This video makes a good case for what is wrong with the current tax system. At the same time, it makes the case for the Fair Tax.

Tim Geithner, President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, would have already been confirmed if the Fair Tax was in place. Because under the Fair Tax, there are no tax returns to file and NOT paying your taxes becomes impossible.