Why is it that when George Bush hesitated a few minutes during the 911 attacks he was crucified by the Lame Stream media and Obama can ignore the oil spill in the gulf for over a week? Is this honest? Isn't this news? Where are the journalists? Don't they have ANY integrity?
Isn't the Lame Stream media suppose to report the news? Apparently, only if it doesn't make President Obama look bad. Obama let BP manage the oil spill without offering any government intervention. Why? After a week, it became obvious that the problem was getting serious. That was Obama's decision!
Where was the News Media?
Why hasn't the media reported that the Obama administration screwed-up? Problem, what problem? Obama botched this and we are beginning to see the disaster play-out on our beaches in the Gulf of Mexico. You can't blame this on BUSH! Where is the outcry?
The Lame Stream media is disgusting! We need STRONG leadership during a disaster. Lucky us, we voted for change. Have you had enough change?
NOBAMA in 2012.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Featured Article - Iran's Nukes...
Gas Us Without Fear of Nukes
By Dick Morris
"If any nation wants to attack the United States with chemical, biological or electromagnetic pulse weapons, it need not fear nuclear retaliation as long as it has no nuclear weapons and abides by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama has announced.
So, as New Yorkers are coughing their lungs out from mustard gas.
In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowed American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse.
His incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons, resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.
The Nuclear Policy Review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday, said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and (who are) meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.”
He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their nonproliferation obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation.
But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.
Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!
Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.
But think about the consequences of his policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?
Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity that has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry.
He has made a big mistake, and the Republicans must pounce on it."
By Dick Morris
"If any nation wants to attack the United States with chemical, biological or electromagnetic pulse weapons, it need not fear nuclear retaliation as long as it has no nuclear weapons and abides by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama has announced.
So, as New Yorkers are coughing their lungs out from mustard gas.
In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowed American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse.
His incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons, resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.
The Nuclear Policy Review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday, said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and (who are) meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.”
He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their nonproliferation obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation.
But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.
Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!
Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.
But think about the consequences of his policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?
Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity that has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry.
He has made a big mistake, and the Republicans must pounce on it."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The "O" World
Obama's Nuke Policy
Barny Frank's Favorites
Obama's Job Creation Numbers
Obama's Union Buddies
Barny Frank's Favorites
Obama's Job Creation Numbers
Obama's Union Buddies
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Featured Article - Progressive Strategy
The Left’s War on Tea Partiers
By Dennis Prager, radio talk show host.
"Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.
But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:
The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.
It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color — and gender (not just “whites” but “white males”) — of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents’ ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as “racist,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “sexist,” “homophobic” and/or “xenophobic.”
You’re against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you’re a racist. You’re a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you’re a racist.
As a Leftist rule of thumb — once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible — white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left — strong and weak — to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.
But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.
And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left’s. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.
Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.
Finally, if one eschews the “racism” explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America’s distinct values — E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) — to blacks and Hispanics.
Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties."
By Dennis Prager, radio talk show host.
"Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.
But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:
The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.
It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color — and gender (not just “whites” but “white males”) — of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents’ ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as “racist,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “sexist,” “homophobic” and/or “xenophobic.”
You’re against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you’re a racist. You’re a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you’re a racist.
As a Leftist rule of thumb — once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible — white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left — strong and weak — to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.
But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.
And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left’s. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.
Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.
Finally, if one eschews the “racism” explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America’s distinct values — E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) — to blacks and Hispanics.
Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties."
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Featured Article - Obama plays the Race Card...
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
By Wesley Pruden
"Race-baiting never goes out of style. Only the races and the baiters change. Drawing the race card is nearly always a sign of desperation, as any number of old white politicians could tell you if they were not all dead.
When George Wallace lost his first race for governor of Alabama, back in the benighted days, he vowed never to be "out-segged" again. He was making polite conversation. Sen. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, whose name was synonymous with mean-spirited race politics in the South, once felt the hot breath of a challenger and called in his campaigners to tell them "it's time to start yelling n——-." Bilbo and his campaigners quickly obliged and the backwoods p——-w——, r———- and w—— t—— obliged with enthusiasm and votes.
Those days are mercifully behind us, but now Barack Obama wants to join the sordid ranks of the race hustlers, like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, if not necessarily the race baiters. Maybe there's only a small distinction between hustling and baiting, but once the toxic stuff is let loose, it doesn't matter what you call it.
The Democratic National Committee released a video clip Monday of the president rousing his troops with what Politico, the Capitol Hill political paper, calls with artful euphemism, "unusual demographic frankness." The auguries for November do not look good, the president concedes, and he wants "young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again." Many of these "surge" voters cast their first ballots in 2008 and then ignored pleas to turn out for gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia (or that famous Senate race in Massachusetts) and the Democrats took a licking.
No candidate, Democrat or Republican, would take the risk — real and even frightening — of drawing the race card unless absolutely necessary, of course, "absolutely necessary" defined as the occasion when his survival is at stake. Mr. Obama's survival is not yet at stake, but if a calamity like the big blowout of '94 falls on the Democrats again this year the president's prospects for re-election in 2012 would dim considerably. Now's the time for unusual demographic frankness of the kind that the Barack Obama of 2008 so eloquently denounced with word if not always in deed."
By Wesley Pruden
"Race-baiting never goes out of style. Only the races and the baiters change. Drawing the race card is nearly always a sign of desperation, as any number of old white politicians could tell you if they were not all dead.
When George Wallace lost his first race for governor of Alabama, back in the benighted days, he vowed never to be "out-segged" again. He was making polite conversation. Sen. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, whose name was synonymous with mean-spirited race politics in the South, once felt the hot breath of a challenger and called in his campaigners to tell them "it's time to start yelling n——-." Bilbo and his campaigners quickly obliged and the backwoods p——-w——, r———- and w—— t—— obliged with enthusiasm and votes.
Those days are mercifully behind us, but now Barack Obama wants to join the sordid ranks of the race hustlers, like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, if not necessarily the race baiters. Maybe there's only a small distinction between hustling and baiting, but once the toxic stuff is let loose, it doesn't matter what you call it.
The Democratic National Committee released a video clip Monday of the president rousing his troops with what Politico, the Capitol Hill political paper, calls with artful euphemism, "unusual demographic frankness." The auguries for November do not look good, the president concedes, and he wants "young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again." Many of these "surge" voters cast their first ballots in 2008 and then ignored pleas to turn out for gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia (or that famous Senate race in Massachusetts) and the Democrats took a licking.
No candidate, Democrat or Republican, would take the risk — real and even frightening — of drawing the race card unless absolutely necessary, of course, "absolutely necessary" defined as the occasion when his survival is at stake. Mr. Obama's survival is not yet at stake, but if a calamity like the big blowout of '94 falls on the Democrats again this year the president's prospects for re-election in 2012 would dim considerably. Now's the time for unusual demographic frankness of the kind that the Barack Obama of 2008 so eloquently denounced with word if not always in deed."
Monday, April 26, 2010
Weekly Tracking Poll
The Rasmussen Reports is an independent electronic publishing firm that specializes in public opinion polling. Here are some current results on some main issues:
Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:
Job Approval Rating Since Election
Judges
Have the rulings by judges regarding religion been correctly interpreted??
Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.
- Strongly Approve... 29%
- Strongly Disapprove... 41%
- Approval Index = ... -12
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:
Job Approval Rating Since Election
Judges
Have the rulings by judges regarding religion been correctly interpreted??
- Strongly Agree... 21%
- Strongly Disagree... 64%
- Don't Know... 15%
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Apathy Kills Freedom
The Civil Right movement didn't destroy America,it strengthened it. Likewise the Tea Party movement. However, the time for watching is over. It's time to act in a positive, non-violent way - similar to the Civil Rights demonstrations of the past.
Remember that Progressives always want to ignore the REAL issues because they cannot support their side of the arguments. They can't rely on the truth. However, we should not confuse the truth with hatred. It's all right to disagree and to demonstrate against this administration - as long as it is peaceful.
Time to Act
But demonstrations can only do so much. We need to act by stepping things up a notch. Now it's time to stand up for what you believe in. Do SOMETHING and try to make a difference. Don't just respond - initiate!
If you're not happy with the direction that America is going, listen up. If you're not a member of your local Tea Party or 912 Project, you're helping the enemy! That's right, apathy kills freedom. Don't contribute to the enemy any longer.
The Pledge
If you've never been politically active, this is going to be a real challenge. You need to take a citizen's pledge to become an active citizen by doing 5 things, as follows:
1. Educate yourself on the issues that YOU care about. This could be government spending, gun rights, deficits, healthcare, expansion of government power - anything! Just begin to learn for yourself what's going on. Make it your personal responsibility to read and study and become as informed as you possibly can.
2. Personally ask the candidates who are asking for YOUR vote where they stand on YOUR issues. Call them, go to them, interact with them. Don't rely on TV or the media to get your answers.
3. Register to vote. AND, remember to vote. One out of every registered voters will NOT vote. If you want to change things in Washington, you need to vote. Note: We are not telling you how to vote - just VOTE!
4. Agree and commit to get two other people to join you with signing this pledge to become an active citizen. Seriously, just two other people.
5. Follow-up on those two people to ensure that they keep their pledge to register, vote and get two other people to make the same pledge.
That's it. It's simple and not too painful. It's all up to YOU! How about it? Will you take the pledge? We need your votes in November. As many as we can muster.
Remember that Progressives always want to ignore the REAL issues because they cannot support their side of the arguments. They can't rely on the truth. However, we should not confuse the truth with hatred. It's all right to disagree and to demonstrate against this administration - as long as it is peaceful.
Time to Act
But demonstrations can only do so much. We need to act by stepping things up a notch. Now it's time to stand up for what you believe in. Do SOMETHING and try to make a difference. Don't just respond - initiate!
If you're not happy with the direction that America is going, listen up. If you're not a member of your local Tea Party or 912 Project, you're helping the enemy! That's right, apathy kills freedom. Don't contribute to the enemy any longer.
The Pledge
If you've never been politically active, this is going to be a real challenge. You need to take a citizen's pledge to become an active citizen by doing 5 things, as follows:
1. Educate yourself on the issues that YOU care about. This could be government spending, gun rights, deficits, healthcare, expansion of government power - anything! Just begin to learn for yourself what's going on. Make it your personal responsibility to read and study and become as informed as you possibly can.
2. Personally ask the candidates who are asking for YOUR vote where they stand on YOUR issues. Call them, go to them, interact with them. Don't rely on TV or the media to get your answers.
3. Register to vote. AND, remember to vote. One out of every registered voters will NOT vote. If you want to change things in Washington, you need to vote. Note: We are not telling you how to vote - just VOTE!
4. Agree and commit to get two other people to join you with signing this pledge to become an active citizen. Seriously, just two other people.
5. Follow-up on those two people to ensure that they keep their pledge to register, vote and get two other people to make the same pledge.
That's it. It's simple and not too painful. It's all up to YOU! How about it? Will you take the pledge? We need your votes in November. As many as we can muster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
