Category Archives: Politics

Economy, Energy, Iran, Media, Politics, Russia, Venezuela

The Language Of Politics, Can We Talk?

Ever wondered why we haven’t already achieved energy independence? There is no one you can find in Washington, from any party, that won’t say they are for energy independence. Everyone is for energy independence. So what’s the problem?

The problem is the political language barrier. Probably first invented by President Clinton when his Lewinsky defense was, ‘it depends on what the definition of IS is.’ The political parties today are not speaking the same language and the media is speaking the dialect of the Left. It presumes that the other side is just stupid and there is no common ground to be found.

Energy Independence, the Right– The whole point of energy independence as far as conservatives and most Republicans are concerned is primarily a security issue. The fact that we are buying 70 percent of the oil what we currently use from foreign sources, most of which don’t like us very much, is a point not forgotten by those on the political right. Conservatives are reminded of the gas lines and rationing that went on here under the Carter administration after Iran started using their oil as a weapon against us. Like Russia, btw, is doing to its neighbors today and Chaves has threatened to do to us. To mitigate this concern, to become energy independent means to develop enough of our own resources to protect our own national security should the middle east one day shut off the valves. Or, if Iran blows them up.

There would be two other benefits to becoming energy independent. One would be a private sector, high paying, job creation project in states all over the country that wouldn’t increase our national debt one thin dime. It would also stop the annual flow of $700 billion to countries that would just as easily cut us off and sell to China or any other country, and keep that money right here in our own country, and putting it to work in our own economy.

Unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to find a liberal speaking to the national security aspect of oil resources in the United States.

Energy Independence, the Left– to the left it means energy replacement. That is to say, not to use fossil fuels. To be energy independent does not mean to have and use our own resources as opposed to someone else’s. It means to not use our own resources in favor of some technology of the future that has yet to be developed. The ‘green’ lobby, high on the list of political allies to Democrats, is leading the agenda to this definition of energy independence. This is fine and dandy in a perfect world. But it totally ignores the security aspect of not having enough of our own resources if, say tomorrow, OPEC or an oil producing State decides to cut production or worse, cut us off, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

A fact that can’t be ignored is the fact that fossil fuels are the fuel for the worlds’ economic engine and will stay that way unless and until some other source can be brought to market. To not exploit our own resources, as a bridge to some technology of the future and our own national security, is just as irresponsible as forcing us to limit the use of fossil fuels, no matter where they come from, to the detriment of our economy.

While developing this post, other terms and words have come to light that play a major role in inhibiting economic, social, and political progress. Here is a list of some that came out of the news in just the last 3 days. It is what we, as conservatives, are up against.

  • Spending / Investing
  • Bipartisan / the political right ignoring their principles and voting with Democrats.
  • Shovel Ready / Shovel ready in a few years
  • Economic Stimulus/ big government stimulus
  • Opening up the airways / Restricting the airways
  • Tax Cuts / Income redistribution
  • Tax Incentives / Tax Increase ($18b on Oil Companies)
  • Employee Free Choice Act / Employee No Choice Act
Economy, Politics

Obama 'Reaches Out' On 'Stimulus' Bill

President Obama deserves an academy award for this line . . .

“I’ve done extraordinary outreach to Republicans because they have some good ideas and I want to make sure those ideas are incorporated,” Obama said.

He is talking about the so-called economic stimulus plan that passed the House and goes to the Senate tomorrow. This is the very same bill that Nancy Pelosi made sure that Republicans would have no input on.

The House vote showed bi-partisan support for not supporting the bill. It included all the Republicans and 11 Democrats. Obama doesn’t need Republicans to pass this Democrat-created bill.  What he needs to pass this bill is Democrats.

link: Obama to meet Congressional leaders again on stimulus

Economy, Media, Politics

NYT, More Than Just Economic Stimulus

Isn’t it odd that the media is not talking about what is in this so-called $825 billion economic stimulus plan? You know why. It’s because the bill contains way more pork than economic stimulus. Breaking another of his campaign promises to cut pork out of every bill he signs, the New York Times is making a feign attempt of real journalism by pointing out Obama’s real plan. But only after it already passed in the House.

As President Obama and Congress barrel toward the latest emergency program to resuscitate the American economy, one question is looming over their search for a cure: Can the government fashion a fast and efficient economic stimulus while also seizing the moment to remake America?

For now, Mr. Obama and his aides are insisting they can accomplish both goals, following their mantra of using the urgency of the economic crisis to accomplish larger – and long-delayed – reforms that never garnered sufficient votes in ordinary times.

What’s this ‘remake America’ crap? It’s simple, and it also explains why all the pork is in the bill, including support for his wacko base in the name of ACORN, which was already rejected last year when the Obama campaign first suggested the $700 billion ‘stimulus’ package.

Pushing this bill through Congress is Obama’s attempt of following Rahm Emanual’s advice. What he calls ‘rule one.’

“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.”

Key point in the Times’ article regarding the plan is their analysis that much of the pork in the bill contains ‘reforms that never garnered sufficient votes in ordinary times.’ This is exactly what Rahm Emanual means in not letting our current economic crisis to ‘go to waste.’

The AP calls the stimulus plan as a ‘bill to fuel Obama’s priorities.’ It ‘makes quick work possible.’ They don’t have the courage to say that the plan is not an economic stimulus plan.

Says al-AP Jan 18, 2009:

The economic crisis that will dominate Barack Obama’s first 100 days as president, and beyond, will give him a rare chance to enact big portions of his agenda that otherwise might have languished for months or years.

Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt has a new president been poised to pack so many ambitious, costly – and, under more normal circumstances, highly contentious – projects into one fast-moving bill.

Touting this plan as an ‘economic stimulus’ is fraudulent on its face. It represents more a big government stimulus than an economic one. Write your senators and tell them not to approve this plan as it is currently written. Remove the pork and instead, put the Democrats’ wish list for America into separate bills and let Congress vote on them individually. Make them live up to their claim of openness and transparency.

link: NYT, A Stimulus Plan With Dual Goals: Reform and Recovery | Stimulus bill to fuel Obama’s priorities | Contact Your Senators

Politics, War On Terror

Obama Praises Iraqis On Elections

No criticism from here on this. Election day in Iraq goes peacefully in the first election under total Iraqi control.  This is part of ‘the plan’ you know.  President Obama rightly praises the Iraqi people. What? He forgot to mention  his troops and their families and Gen. Betraeus, all of whom also made this day in Iraq possible. Whether it was a tactical omission (so as not to offend Iraqis his base) or one born of inexperience remains to be seen. If we don’t soon see some praise for our troops for this then we will know which it was.

Obama said . . .

“Millions of Iraqi citizens from every ethnic and religious group went peacefully to the polls across the country to choose new provincial councils,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House. “It is important that the councils get seated, select new governors and begin work on behalf of the Iraqi people who elected them.”

Obama also noted that the U.S. provided technical assistance to the Iraqi electoral commission, as did the U.N. and other international groups.

Gen. David Petraeus . . .

who heads the U.S. Central Command, praised the Iraqi government for its efforts in making the elections “an event of which all Iraqis should be proud and an effort the world should applaud.”

Not only should the world (I’d settle for the UN) applaud Iraq’s election day, but a free Iraq will serve as an example of what a free people can do for themselves and their economy. Also part of the plan.

link: Obama praises Iraqis on provincial elections

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: