Thursday, April 30, 2009
Here are my comments on the superb essay below by Thomas Patric Burke, a constitutional scholar: Thomas Jefferson -- God, we could use another one of him -- understood that if the "right" were perceived to come from the government that the government could take them away. (Obama and others believe they come from them). "Endowed by the Creator" (and define Him -- or Her -- as you will) means they are part of our nature as being "created" (natural) beings and can't be taken away. People like John Jay (who told Geo. Washington the President must be a "natural born citizen") were so much more thoughtful and informed than most of our current political leaders. They were not politically correct. They were so much better than that. When absolutely necessary, the Constitution can be amended. Otherwise, it should be left alone
Notes from Wynnewood Institute (Pennsylvania)
April 21, 2009
Why Do We Have a Constitution?
Why do we have a Constitution? What is the purpose of constitutional government? Many people seem to believe that its purpose is merely to ensure that the business of the country is taken care of in an orderly way. On this view, what the Constitution produces is order.
But to produce order in a society, a constitution is not necessary. The nations of Europe were highly ordered societies, by some measures even excessively ordered, long before the introduction of constitutions, which first took place on the continent only during the nineteenth century.
In the case of the United States, many believe the reason for having a constitution was to unify the Thirteen Colonies into a single nation. But again many nations have been created or unified in the course of history without benefit of a constitution. The countries of Europe were unified either by force or by simple political agreement.
Historically the reason for having a Constitution has been to limit the power of government. Without a constitution the power of government is unlimited. The kings of England were absolute monarchs until William and Mary accepted the constitutional subordination of royal power to parliament in 1689.
Throughout Europe rulers had absolute power until the movement for constitutional government was initiated by a series of revolutions beginning in 1848. In every case, the reason for establishing a constitution was to replace the existing absolute power of government with limited power that respected the natural rights and natural freedom of individuals.
This was also the purpose of the American Constitution, as it was of the individual colonial constitutions that preceded it.
A move to enlarge the powers of government is therefore always a move against the Constitution -- not only against the particular existing constitution but against the very idea and purpose of constitutional government.
This is why those who wish to increase the power of government over its citizens prefer not to have a constitution. If they are forced by circumstances to have one, they prefer to have one that is "living" and therefore pliable to their schemes. But paradoxically a "living" constitution is a dead one.
When with this in mind we examine what the Federal Government has done in its current effort to remake the economy, it is seems evident that the immense powers it has arrogated to itself represent a fundamental attack on the very principle of constitutional government. If we wish to maintain our Constitution, that can only be done by insisting that there are some things the Federal Government and its agencies cannot do.
A first requirement is respect for property, since property is the first protection of freedom and defense against government. A related requirement is respect for contracts. Where does the government get the right, for example, to depose the president of a corporation, even as a condition of its receiving financial aid? That is a right that belongs to its shareholders and should never be done without their voluntary consent.
After 9/11 the argument has been made by some that even the defense of the nation against militant Islam and terrorism does not justify us in taking extreme measures such as war or torture. Those who make that argument should also be prepared to agree that it applies also in the economic sphere, and even in an economic crisis the power of government should remain within strictly limited bounds.
The first task of the American president is "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That is his oath. To preserve the Constitution means to act within its limits. Even to salvage our economy, an unlimited government will be a bad bargain.
Thomas Patrick Burke
Other Wynnewood Notes and writings can be read at www.wynnewood.org/research.
Coming Wynnewood Events:Monetary Policy and the Shadow Banking System
A Seminar with Uli Kortsch, Monday, April 27, 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.
The Philosophical Basis of the Free Society: Friedrich HayekA Course with Prof. Thomas Patrick Burke
Thursdays, April 30 to June 4, 7:30 to 9.30 p.m. Six sessions.
To learn more about these events visit our website at www.wynnewood.org.
Send us an email with your comments. Comments may be posted on the Wynnewood Institute's website. The Institute reserves the right to withhold comments that are poorly written or offensive.
The Wynnewood Institute is an independent, academic, non-partisan and non-profit organization with 501 (c)(3) status. Thomas Patrick Burke, Th.D., is its President. See our website at www.wynnewood.org.
To continue its work, the Institute relies on the generous support of its members and donors. Become a Member of the Wynnewood Institute.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Psy Ops employed by BOzo’s handlers are extreme, extremely UNsubtle, and, to me, impart two messages:
Whoever *They* are, they are in a BIG hurry to annoint this idiot in our minds as a superhuman figure who does not even catch a super duper flu; and
They know they have to work overtime to convey that misguided notion because he is so pathetically lacking in any qualities of leadership, intelligence and accountability.
The big news is “Flu Pandemic” and what does he do? He goes golfing while his DHS dupe is busy explaining why she isn’t stopping Mexicans who may be infected at the borders and why she has taken to accusing our veterans of homicidal lunacy, and Louis Caldera, formerly an “independent director” of the flawed and failed Indymac, his White House Military Office director is telling planes to fly low and close to buildings in downdown Manhattan.
Discounting the obvious fact that he should NEVER even conceived of such an insane idea let alone allowed it, the fact that no one in that still-traumatized area was appropriately warned defies logic, and obviously, even to the dimmest of countenances, the incident was both cruel and foolish. Unless, of course, it was by DESIGN. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a coincidence, and even these fools have better judgment than that, so one can only conclude that indeed, it WAS by design.
Both that whacked out picture and the Deification Project are literally sickening to behold. I have a strong stomach but the sight and sound of these things, combined with increasingly ill conceived events like the flyover, have literally made my hair stand on end. Just WHY and HOW we as a nation have managed to allow a coup installing this lame excuse for a sentient being into our White House I will never know, but now that it has occurred, the implications are clear.
The Psy Ops are in full swing, as is evidenced by yesterday’s intimidating and terrorizing “fly by”–what, they never heard of PHOTOSHOP???
In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration’s James Johnston said the agency was aware of “the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes” in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor’s office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.
The only thing one can be sure of is that NONE of this stuff is accidental, or the result of “poor judgment,” although doubtless there is plenty of that going around these days. But the rest of it REEKS of evil psy ops gone mad and in case anyone has not yet wakened from their kool aid stupor, now would be the time to do so. It may already be too late.
As they say, For What It’s Worth…something’s happening here…and it isn’t pretty.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Asking a retired US Army Sergeant to translate your anti-American slogans into English did not work out well for these Syrian protestors.
Now, as you see, she's published a book about her experience in the past election. Kathy is a "keeper," and I'd urge you to buy and read her book, which you can do at: http://broadsideofthebarn.com/.
If you're a blogger or other online activist, Kathy has many valuable lessons to teach you. I hope you'll bring this book to the attention of your friends and fellow bloggers. Kathy is a member of TeamSarah.org.
Rockingham NH County Commissioner, Maureen Barrows, recommends An Independent Call stating that it is…"A must read for anyone interested in the day to day life of a volunteer in a political campaign...attention to detail is brilliant."
An Independent Call - $14.00
Friday, April 24, 2009
The MSM's biggest failing is the simpleminded, predictable way in which it presents information and commentary. It assumes everything Left is "right," while everything Right (traditional and pro-American) must be "wrong." Yuval Levin brings that point him in a brilliant essay on "The Meaning of Sarah Palin," published in the February, 2009, Commentary magazine. I hope you'll read all of Levin's piece, excerpts of which follow in (bold-face), along with my comments in italics.
Levin says, "The reaction of the intellectual elite to Sarah Palin was far more provincial than Palin herself ever has been, and those who reacted so viscerally against her evinced little or no appreciation for an essential premise of democracy: that practical wisdom matters at least as much as formal education, and that leadership can emerge from utterly unexpected places. The presumption that the only road to power passes through the Ivy League and its tributaries is neither democratic nor sensible, and is, moreover, a sharp and wrongheaded break from the American tradition of citizen governance."
Levin points out that Ivy League graduates, the Washington, DC establishment, and the media elite have a wildly exaggerated view of their own capabilities. They believe that people like them are the only ones who should be in positions of power. Of course, that's totally in conflict with the traditional American view that values "citizen legislators," people who are like those they govern. Snobbism -- elitism -- scorns ordinary Americans.
Levin adds, "Barack Obama, who actually has far less experience in executive governance than Palin, was not dismissed as unprepared for the presidency. Palin may have been elected governor of Alaska, but his peers in Cambridge had elected Obama editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is thoroughly fluent in the parlance of the college town, and in the eyes of the new American elite, Washington is the ultimate college town."
In an early campaign commercial, one of Obama's Harvard Law professors (Lawrence Tribe) said his former student was "brilliant." What Prof. Tribe meant is that Obama went to . . . Harvard. Actually, Obama, who refuses to release any of his college grades, has never evidenced what normally passes for brilliance. He passes himself off at times as a constitutional law expert, but in that field he's published exactly as many articles (or even footnotes) on the Constitution as Sarah Palin: zero. The difference between them is that she's been a reformist governor -- and he hasn't reformed anything.
Levin continues, "In the face of unprecedented attack, Palin succeeded where almost no vice-presidential candidate ever has before in winning sustained support for the ticket. This suggests Palin’s potent combination of cultural populism and social conservatism might provide the road map a Republican politician will need in the future to make headway against the Democratic tide. But that road map will only take that Republican politician so far. The rest of the journey requires the articulation of a broader vision for American families, American prosperity and freedom, and American security; a vision of conservatism, not only a nimbus of populism."
Polls show that, contrary to some media reports, Palin got McCain -- a weak candidate -- many more votes than she cost him. Her cultural populism and social conservatism are a good foundation for a future presidential run -- but only a foundation. She needs to present a coherent "vision of conservatism," and articulate how her views and policies will help American families, prosperity, and security. If Sarah Palin can do that, she might just turn out to be unbeatable.
Sarah, in your 2012 campaign, hire Yuval Levin!
Levin's piece on Sarah Palin is getting great reviews from readers. Here's one from an emerging national hero, Patriot Rose:
Great article! This needs to be used as responses to smears and malicious comments directed towards her. Dailey Kos and DU was the "devils plot" for all the Obots to get their material We need a centralized clearing house website to state "Shame on You" for maligning the backbone of our country. I agree with him on all the hype about Barack Obama being a scholar when we have never seen any article he has published or his college transcripts. The Conservatives have to really go after him this time around demanding his transcripts and birth certificate. As just an everyday American piss ant, what I have noticed is Americans are turning to is the founding documents of our country and patriotism. They are hanging on to these precious comforting legacies of American tradition.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What does the class hostility shown by the Obama Campaign, the MSM, and the Hollywood pinheads toward Gov. Sarah Palin mean to YOU? It means they also hate you, your family, and the people around you. In the eyes of Obama-philes, more than 299 million Americans -- the non-elitists -- are somehow ineligible to hold the nation's highest offices. [Note: This is cross-posted with my other blog, one focused on Sarah Palin. The vast majority of the time the posts here will differ from those on the other site.]
Conservative Joke of the Day:
Question: "Would you have water-boarded Khalid Sheik Muhammed?"
Answer: "Only if we'd run out of boiling oil."
When this news about class warfare gets fully understood, Barack Obama is going to start looking like a one-term president, a fate that America-dissing imposter richly deserves. The following is from James D'Troy, a superb analyst of the way Sarah's middle-class (non-elitist) status is used against her by Obama/Axelrod, the compliant media, and the collected nutcases of Hollywood. James's analysis shows the causes of what's widely known as "Palin Derangement Syndrome," in which irrational hatred of Gov. Palin springs up in our culture. The fascinating thing is how much more sophisticated and insightful James's essay is than anything produced by the MSM:
"As for the issue of class, I've had some debates on another board about this very issue . . . [The following is] lengthy . . . but I feel it addresses many of the issues of class. . . . The person whom I was arguing with has his quotes bracketed with my responses following them in quotations.
[Quote: By what standard is Palin a lower class woman (unless you know something about her morals that the rest of us do not)?]
"Nice assumption, lower class = low morals...lower class wasn’t the right term, more working class-lower middle/middle class if anything. Her husband, Todd, is definitely working class-oil worker, commercial fisherman-snowmobile racer-whom she helped for a considerable time supporting. Her own family, is lower middle to middle class-mother a secretary, father a high school science teacher, you should like that part..."
[Quote: Economically, she is quite well off perhaps not compared to McCain or Obama, but certainly more so than your average Joe Sixpack (and much of the elitist "mainstream media" for that matter).]
"Actually, as far as income, at best she’s middle to upper middle class now, rather nice she was able to work up that far, as opposed to her income working for her husbands fishing business, or her salary on the Wasilla City Council-$6000.00/annum, Wasilla mayoral salary-$75,000/annum, not bad but well within working-class/middle class standards (do you have any idea how much my plumber & electrician made this year?) and not nearly as high as those in the elitist mainstream media.
"The Palin family’s adjusted gross income of $166,080 for 2007 makes them better off than many Americans but it also puts them no higher than the middle class even by Obama's definition of ‘middle class’ which appears to set the ceiling for middle class at around $250,000 per couple. "Even by Washington, NY, LA, or Chicago standards, $166,080 is not a lot of money with five kids. There are ‘journalists’ in DC who make more than the governor's $125,000 salary. True, not all but still a fair number. We can talk about the Palin’s total family wealth(property, fish share rights, etc.) estimated at anywhere from $1-3 million which is not considered uncommon for a working/middle-upper middle class family depending upon the housing market.
"Yet, you’re still not grasping the concept of 'class'. It isn’t solely about income, it’s about education and educational pedigree, social circles, social activities, religion, and occupation. It’s the difference between public high school, community colleges & University of Idaho (state uni.) paid by scholarships, financial aid, part-time & full-time work, and bank of Mom & Dad Heath vs. Punahu (private high school), Occidental (private uni.), Columbia (private uni.), and Harvard Law (private grad. school) paid by the bank of Grandma & Grandpa Dunham, and racist Saudi advisers c.f. Khalid Al-Mansour.
"It’s also the difference between choices exercised how to spend money; on guns, ATV’s and dirt bikes/snowmobile racing for off-roading vs. trips to martial law Pakistan, Asia & Africa. It’s the difference between a non-denominational church vs. Episcopalian (National Cathedral, Washington DC) or for some reason overlooked a racist, anti-Semitic black separatist church hating whitey.It’s the difference between working on a fishing boat with your spouse vs. working at a Law firm and university(Chicago) with your fellow lawyer wife and terrorist Bernadine Dohrn.
"It’s about expectations for your children: no college vs. college vs. military service vs. married after high school vs. prep school in tony Washington DC. It’s about where you live: small town America(Wasilla & Juneau-Pop. 30,000) vs. Kenwood, Chicago, Illinois-with neighbors like Bill Ayers and Louis Farrakhan. Class can be seen in the choices people make from their cars, hobbies, to spending habits, to even the type of dog they own (rottweiler vs. "Bo" the First Dog) It’s all more complex than your post allows.
[Quote:Most of the contempt aimed at Palin was due to her lack of intellect, education, and (most damning, IMHO) curiosity about the world.] "No, most of the contempt was aimed at her perceived inexperience (although vis-a-vis Obama, she had more than him all without the disturbing links to numerous left-wing bigots and Chicago slimeballs), her supposed ethical improprieties(trooper-gate, etc), her working-class background (How Williams, Couric, and Gibson, and the media loved the Obamessiah European tour!!!), lack of Ivy League education, perceived religious beliefs (the 'evil spirits' prayer), pregnant teen-age daughter (How White Trash of the Palin family!!!!) or c.f Andrew Sullivan, was Palin hiding another birth?), allegations about Palin seeking to ban books, and overall alleged lack of sophistication that didn’t meet the elitist standards of the mainstream media, which did not show her in the best light c.f. Charlie Gibson’s (Princeton B.A.) [and Katie Couric, B.A. University of Virginia] edited and sneering interview vs. the kid gloves treatment Obama received.
"More importantly, you should worry less about whether someone has been to Europe or outside the US, and worry more about their records and the responsibilities they’ve shouldered and whether they can do the job. The fact that Obama spent most of his life around people who were left-wing ideologues and/or bigots(mother, bio-father, step-father, uncle ‘Frank’, Chandoo Brothers, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid Al-Mansour, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, Michille Obama, Father. Pflegler, Rev. Wrong, Raila Odinga, et al.) sans the last two running as POTUS is something conveniently ignored by the media, and people like you and the Americans who voted for style over substance.
"However, what is indisputable is that culturally, economically, and socially, Palin, was brought up in a working class-middle class environment and for most of her life has been part of that working class-middle class social and economic circle, recent history notwithstanding. That makes her set of experiences totally and completely in line with what the majority of most Americans experience and can relate to as opposed to Obama, whose life has been so bizarre and ideologically vested, that the only way one can illustrate the degree to which it is bizarre and ideological is to compare it to a right-wing analog.
"In spite of that, it was all ignored because even though Sarah Palin was closer and better representative of the majority of Americans, the media wanted to showcase the narrative of a black man becoming president. In addition, what is also indisputable is that the message sent from the East Coast media, political, and social elite to the nation and especially the white working classes through Palin’s media ravaging was that although they want nothing to do with ‘small town/rural America’, they still wanted to rule over them."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Is Obama really "one of us?" Last year Barack and his wife, according to his 2008 tax return, made $2.7 million. How many people reading this fall into that category? I think it's safe to assume the answer is "no one."
Obama is one of those rich people he pretends to trash, but has done everything in his power to emulate. He's spent a lifetime having things handed to him, especially his education at a prestigious prep school in Hawaii, as well as his years at Columbia and Harvard. In his campaign, he talked about "working" his way through Harvard Law School. In fact, he was talking about two cushy summer jobs.
His wife, Michelle, recently talked about a new experience for her: meeting military families. I suggest her next move might be going to Wasilla, Alaska and meeting a true military family, the Palins. Apparently, the Obamas have never really known people in the military or their loved ones. I guess you don't run into a lot of such people at Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton -- or in the U.S. Senate.
Sarah Palin's slogan in the 2012 presidential race may well be: "Sarah . . . she's one of us." Obama's slogan could be: "Barack . . . he's one of them." He has nothing substantial in common with 299 million out of 300 million Americans. And that's why he and his cronies detest Sarah Palin . . . and take every opportunity to smear her.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
John C. Goodman, President, National Center for Policy Analysis, "A Prescription for American Health Care." (available at www.imprimis.hillsdale.edu). Goodman says:
"I'll start with the bad news: When we get through the economic time that we're in right now, we're going to be confronted with an even bigger problem. The first of the Baby Boomers started signing up for early retirement under Social Security last year. Two years from now they will start signing up for Medicare. All told, 78 million people [more than one-quarter of the nation's population] are going to stop working, stop paying taxes, stop paying into retirement programs, and start drawing benefits. The problem is, neither Social Security nor Medicare is ready for them. The federal government has made explicit and implicit promises to millions of people, but has no money put aside in order to keep those promises. Some of you may wonder where Bernie Madoff got the idea for his Ponzi scheme. Clearly, he was studying federal entitlement policy."
Steve adds: Some of my friends, especially those in the PUMA movement (mostly Hillary backers who tend to be supportive of Sarah Palin -- more or less), tell me they have some sympathy with Republicans' call for limited government, but they "want" some form of universal health care. Mr. Goodman and I tell them that's all well and good, BUT THE COUNTRY HAS NO ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. My PUMA buddies hope we're mistaken, but mathematics is mathematics.
We hear about the $20 trillion-plus national debt we'll have within the next decade, but that's basically peanuts. As economic historian Niall Ferguson (Oxford-Harvard-Stanford) pointed out (in Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire), the 78 million baby boomers are going to confront the nation with $70 trillion-plus in entitlement costs (for Social Security and Medicare).
Where are we to get that $70 trillion (in addition to the $20 trillion in debt Obama will leave for the next generation)? Are we supposed to borrow it from Communist China? Sorry, they don't have $90 trillion to lend us. Anyway, they aren't stupid enough to give us money we could never repay.
Universal health care? We can't afford it -- and neither can those nations that already have some form of such care. We are heading for a fiscal calamity that will make the current situation look like "the good ole days."
In the future, how will we pay for things like education, infrastructure improvements, and national defense? The answer is that we won't. All the federal resources we have -- plus many we don't have -- will go to paying for Social Security and Medicare. Taxes -- not just "taxes on the rich" -- will have to rise stratospherically to pay for the entitlements. The American way-of-life will become no more than a fond memory.
The "hope" and "change" Obama promised the American people looks suspiciously like the pie-in-the-sky returns Madoff promised his "investors." When the bill Obama is chalking up comes due, the American economy is going to start looking like New Orleans after Katrina.
At that point, we'll all be hoping that the dramatic change we see is merely an illusion. But it won't be.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
RiverDaughter, a friend sent me your column, one of many I've seen. I thought this one was beautifully written, but I found myself thinking, "Bright as this woman is, she just doesn't get it." The Democratic Party is no longer the Party of John F. Kennedy or even of Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do with such people. It is completely and fully the corrupt Party of Barack H. Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. It doesn't want (because it believes it doesn't need) people like you and those who made the heartfelt comments to your essay. It won without you in 2008 and, to an extent, in 2006. It believes it will do so again next year and in 2012. Meanwhile, you're all thinking, "Gee, how can we reform the Democratic Party?" RiverDaughter, that's a little like asking, "How can we make a cesspool into drinkable water." Remember who was it that smeared Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? Hint: for the most part, it certainly wasn't Republicans. It was good, loyal Democrats. Eighty percent of people in the active military voted for McCain-Palin. Those are the people who defend this country, and defend our rights to write what we believe on our blogs. Unlike you, they don't believe the Republican Party (in toto) is "morally bankrupt." I'd suggest all PUMAs follow their lead.
What I'm saying about your suggestion to have under-funded candidates run in the Democratic primaries is that they will be totally outspent and, if necessary, smeared beyond the imagination (remember Sarah Palin?). Go check out on opensecrets.org to see who's funding Obama, Dodd, Pelosi, and rest. It's not the Great Unwashed. It's our beloved Wall Street bankers and union bosses dedicated not the "general welfare," but to their own bank accounts. My point? The Democratic Party -- the liberalism of "gimme, gimme, gimme" -- is the source of most of our problems and the solution to none. Our country had an unfunded liability (Social Security and Medicare mainly) of more than $80 trillion, and the Democrats' solution to that is borrow trillions more from Communist China. I'm going to write more about this on my very Republican blog (this one). Thanks for providing your soap box.
Below you'll find a big chunk of Riverdaughter's column Saturday: Forest and trees and The Marshall Plan. I urge you to read it.
I was going to write today about the PUMA movement and principles. I believe that a successful movement is based on principles. I also believe that we are at a time in our nation’s history when the public is so fed up with the two party system that there is a window of opportunity to make a real change and the political principles of either party aren’t as relevant at the present time. Our social safety net in this country is so fragile that it only takes a couple of missed paychecks or a catastrophic illness to put a family into insolvency.
The steady erosion of our quality of life has happened under the auspices of both parties through deregulation, regressive taxation, union busting and the outright fraud perpetrated by the financial industry and their cronies in the business management field. Before the election last year, we knew that the Republican party was morally bankrupt but who would have suspected before November 2008 that Democrats would also seek the path of least resistance and sell us out? Well, *us*. We believed it because we watched it happening in real time with our eyes wide open and our minds unclouded by propaganda. But now, many more people know it too.
In order to make change happen we need to threaten the current power structure. By threaten I don’t mean by the use of any form of sabotage or physical violence. I mean we have to make sure that our elected officials know that we will toss them out and then we must do it. The question is how do we do this?
The answer is in motivating voters to go to the polls to vote out people who do not put the general welfare first. The public doesn’t like Republicans, even if the GOP has been more successful at channeling the rage into tea parties. But the GOP is not in power right now and as long as Democrats feel they are safe, they are going to try to ride this recession out without biting the hands that feed them. But once Democratic voters start to turn their attention towards their own party, then there will be hell to pay. The question is, can we engage people outside the Democratic party to join us? Yes, I think we can.
I think we have all had the experience of knowing people who say they do not vote for any party. They vote for the individual. And this may be true, although I think some of these people are influenced by the last voice they hear on the way into the voting booth. But the truth is that there are very few Democrats running for office who haven’t sworn to uphold the party machine that gets them elected. And once you buy into this machine, your chances of balking at the money that flows to you is very slim. Without that money, you can’t run. But is this true?
If it is true that people vote for the individual, what is it they really want? I would say that most people want to be treated fairly. They want to feel like they have as much right to representation as someone with wealth and connections. The reason why people want fairness is because deep down inside, we Americans believe profoundly in promoting the General Welfare. We believe that this country was founded because we wanted to be free from a power that did *not* see our General Welfare as important to its own survival. Isn’t this the same situation we find ourselves in today? The power is not a foreign one; it is homegrown. But our welfare is completely incidental to its own. We need to be rid of this power.
This is an idea that can potentially attract voters from many different political persuasions. The recession is having a profound effect on Republicans no less than Democrats. And when it comes right down to it, no one wants to see the end of Social Security. Why? Because it is an insurance policy against risk. Now that Republican households are just as vulnerable as Democrats’, there are a lot more of us who want to keep it in a “lock box.”
We need to bring this home to Democrats in a very simple way, because, after all, THEY are the ones with the reins of power. We need to primary as many of them as we can. We need to register as Democrats again, find out what the local requirements are for Congress and Senate and just enter our names as an alternative to whoever is running as the blessed party candidate. Getting our names on that primary ballot doesn’t take a party endorsement. In fact, I wouldn’t expect one. But in a primary, you don’t need to be known or popular or a politician to be an active citizen interested in public service. Those of you who are unemployed can look forward to a nice salary and health benefits. All you need to be is another name on that ballot under the Democratic party. Call yourself a PUMAcrat. Throw some coffees and cocktail parties. Then see what happens.
Now, there will probably be campaign ads against you saying you aren’t connected enough. In this environment, that could be a plus. There will be people digging up dirt about you and your family and your unpaid car registration. Tell them those without sin can cast the first stone. There will be people who will say you don’t know enough about the issues. Um, if you are reading blogs instead of the mainstream media, you can run circles around anyone making that claim.
If we manage to upset some races around the country, it may put the fear of God into our party officials and the tide may turn in our favor.
If we don’t do it, we can look forward to social unrest. It’s coming. The financial aces who have been riding high on our 401K contributions are busily tunneling out our economy. To them, it’s all global now. What happens in the US is collateral damage as they race to the bottom chasing lower and lower labor costs. It’s very short term thinking but they aren’t worried about it right now. It is time to focus our elected officials’ attention.
It’s either reform now or socialism later.
Friday, April 17, 2009
By Tom Blumer (in Newsbusters.com)
April 14, 2009
I could of course be commenting on the poor quality of the alleged journalism. But in this case I'm talking about their ratings, which is of course largely caused by said poor journalism.
Three weeks ago (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted that the Big 3 networks' evening newscasts' combined ratings had dropped about 17% since the collective high they achieved during the week of January 26, the first full week after Barack Obama's inauguration.
Make that 21%. In the 25-54 demographic, the drop has been 30%.
And it's not just a seasonality thing. The collective drop compared to last year is over 4%, continuing a long-term decline the nets surely hoped they might prevent if they could just get their guy elected to the White House. No dice, guys.
Here [above] is an updated week-by-week graph for each network since the first of the year, followed by some demographic and overall info (based on info found at the Evening News Ratings Category at Media Bistro's TV Newser):
Do you think any of them are wondering if they maybe, just maybe, should have started paying attention to that Tea Party thing a bit earlier than, say, tomorrow morning?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
NOTE: On Friday evening, I'll be posting a piece on "The MSM's Decline and Fall." It will deal with how the major news networks and publications are drowning in a fetid pool of bias and bile -- and what we can do to accelerate the process of their demise.
Note: On my other blog (on Wednesday) I have a provocative piece about "Michelle Obama: How Many Abortions?" As the saying goes, "Enquiring minds want to know."
I don't recall them asking for such verification by Michelle Obama about the parentage of Malia and Sasha. Why not?
Overall, the media avoid asking any searching questions about Sasha and Malia -- and perhaps on whether Michelle aborted any of her fetuses and, if so, why. When has Michelle been asked why she subjected her children to Rev. Wright's hate-filled sermons denigrating women and white people? Was that a sign of responsible parentage by the Obama's?
And why hasn't she been queried about the real nature of her "community relations" job -- at $300,000 per year -- at the University of Chicago hospital? Reportedly, her job was to increase the hospital's earnings by discouraging poor people from seeking care. If that wasn't her job, then what exactly was her function?
Obama has admitted to using cocaine earlier in his life. When did he stop, if in fact he ever stopped? And, did he ever sell cocaine or heroin or other mind-altering drugs? And if so, to whom? When Michelle indicated that, prior to Obama's triumphs, she had "never been proud of [her] country," was that meant as a slam against the Clinton presidency?
Why hasn't Obama ever been asked if Joe Biden's story was true about his being offered the job of Secretary of State? Or is that just another in Biden's long string of lies about himself? Why doesn't at least one reporter dig into that story?
Also, why hasn't Obama been asked about his two enthusiastic endorsements of Blagojevich? Why did he change his mind about the appointment of machine politician Roland Burris? Why does there appear to be a strong correlation between companies that donated to Obama's last two campaigns (2004 for the U.S. Senate and 2008 for the presidency) and the amount of bailout money they received?
Of course such questions would never be posed to "The Great One" or TGO's angry, sour wife. When Michelle appeared on "The View," she presented the "enquiring" ladies there with a list of questions they were not allowed to ask. Sarah constantly gets asked "no win" questions right out of the "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-spouse?" category.
The media doesn't do contrasts between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, mainly because she has solid executive-style achievements and basically he has none. Why don't we hear more about his signal lack of success as a "community organizer?" Why don't we hear more about his dismal records as an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator, where he rarely even showed up in DC?
Amazingly, we know a great deal about Sarah Palin and her family. Essentially, however, we know nothing about the Obamas and their lives together. Presumably, there are reasons why they keep their lives such a secret, but if we're waiting for the MSM to help us there, we're almost certainly waiting in vain.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Recently, CBS reporter Bob Orr did a story about Curtis Dunn's daughter, Pamela Hamill, who has been working for many years to clear her father's name. You can see it -- and I urge you to go there -- at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/24/eveningnews/main4890564.shtml
CBS Evening News: Daughter Says Truck Driver Was "Haunted" By The Event, And That He Hadn't Been Drinking
March 24, 2009 by Bob Orr
[In the online version, there's a sidebar that says the following -- note the words in boldface:]
"'72 Biden Car Crash Dispute: There was debate if the man who broadsided a car causing Vice President Biden's first wife and infant daughter to die, was intoxicated. Bob Orr reports the driver's daughter wants his name cleared."
(CBS) Just a week before Christmas, 1972, the wife of newly-elected Sen. Joe Biden and the couple's baby daughter were killed - and their two sons badly injured - when the Biden family car was broadsided by a truck at an intersection in Delaware.
The truck driver, Curtis Dunn, was never charged in the crash. But, his daughter Pam Hamill says, he too, suffered, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
"He grieved over that," Hamill said. "He was haunted and was tormented by that for years."
Dunn died in 1999, but since then his family has endured widespread rumors and reports that he had been drinking just before the collision.
At least twice, Biden himself has made public references to alcohol being involved in the crash. In 2007 Biden said the truck driver "allegedly ... drank his lunch." And multiple news outlets, including CBS News, have reported that Dunn was drunk.
Hamill disputes that - saying her dad had not been drinking.
"The truth is, it was a tragic accident," she said. "No alcohol was involved."
The police reports have been lost, but Delaware Judge Jerome Herlihy, who investigated the crash, supports Hamill's claim.
He told CBS News, "There was no indication that the truck driver had been drinking."
And last fall, a spokesman for Biden said that the senator "fully accepts the Dunn family's word that these rumors were false."
Now Pam Hamill simply wants the record to be cleared, and her father's reputation restored
"He was a good, hard working man and wonderful father," she said
Note that in the sidebar CBS talks about a "dispute" and a "debate" concerning the accident's cause. There is no dispute; there is no debate. There is Biden's false version, and there is the version of everyone else, including Delaware authorities, Pamela Hamill, and a person who was among the first on the accident scene (more about him tomorrow).
Senator Biden's spokesman speaks about "rumors" regarding the accident. If those rumors come from anyone other than Biden himself, that person has never been identified. Apparently, Biden's rumors and lies serve some purpose in his political life.
As for Katie Couric, reporter Bob Orr noted that "multiple news outlets, including CBS News have reported that Dunn was drunk." He doesn't identify Katie Couric as the one who made that "report." If Orr had done so, he probably would have qualified for the next edition of "Profiles in Courage." Or perhaps CBS would have re-assigned him to their Butte, Montana operation.
Also, Katie might have had to explain if her obvious animosity toward Biden V-P opponent, Sarah Palin, had anything to do with her network's obvious desire to protect Biden and his running mate, Obama.
As Pamela asked me [noted in an earlier column], what if Sarah Palin has made such an outrageous lie about an innocent motorist? Would Katie Couric and CBS have waited seven months to make even a tepid correction? And would they have pretended, as they did with Biden, that the issue was open to dispute and debate? No, they would not have. They would have used the incident to eviscerate the Alaska governor.
More about this story on Monday . . .
Friday, April 10, 2009
Last September, as the vice-presidential debate neared, I wrote about Biden as a chronic prevaricator and self-aborbed windbag. Right after the column appeared, I received the following note from Mr. Dunn's daughter, Pamela Hamill.
"Steve, Please research Joe Biden's false account of the 1972 accident that tragically took the lives of his first wife Neilia and baby daughter Amy. Vice President Biden says "A guy who drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch" killed them. This urban legend he has created has been accepted by the media as the truth. My father [Mr. Dunn] passed in 1999 and is not here to defend his honor.We have to be his voice and set the record straight. We are certainly not trying to equate Biden's loss to our father's heartache but this untruth is a character assassination.
"[However.] Can you imagine if Sarah Palin was vilifying an innocent man who cannot defend his honor? This is one gaffe the media is allowing him to get away with so far. I am currently speaking to CBS and Katie Couric about the false account she reported of 'drunk driver killing his wife and daughter' at the Democratic National Convention and again at the Inauguration. I am waiting to hear back from them as well as our Vice President. For the full story, google 'Inside Edition' + 'Pam Hamill.'
The most detailed story concerning the long-ago accident and Biden's lies about is the September 20, 2008, by Rachel Kipp, a reporter for The [Wilmington, DE] News-Journal. Kipp's article is detailed, but very worth reading. I've highlighted key parts.
No DUI in crash that killed Biden's 1st wife, but he's implied otherwise
By RACHEL KIPP
The News Journal
Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.
Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."
The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing.
"To see it coming from [Biden's] mouth, I just burst into tears," Dunn's daughter, Glasgow resident Pamela Hamill, 44, said Wednesday. "My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."
Biden spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that the senator "fully accepts the Dunn family's word that these rumors were false."
It's unclear who first suggested alcohol was a factor in the crash, but since Barack Obama tapped Biden to be his running mate on Aug. 23, The New York Times, National Public Radio and The Economist have run stories that characterized Dunn as a drunken driver.
"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.
"If it were some part of a cause of the accident, there would have been a charge, simply because if you're driving under the influence and kill someone in the process -- whether it's the wife of a U.S. senator or anybody else -- there's going to be a charge," he said.
Herlihy said investigators discussed several possible causes for the crash, including that Biden's first wife, Neilia, turned her head and didn't see the oncoming truck as she exited the intersection of Limestone and Valley roads on Dec. 18, 1972.
Neither Biden's book nor his campaign Web site directly addresses the alcohol issue, but the senator has done so publicly on at least two occasions.
The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.
"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries."
Biden told a similar story when addressing an audience at the Bob Carpenter Center at the University of Delaware a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them," Biden said, according to a transcript archived on his Senate Web site.
Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.
Asked about Biden's accounts of the accident, Wade warned against writing anything that would "infer, paraphrase, or be anything less than precise on such a personal and tragic subject."
After the 1972 accident, Biden never sought any records from the time of the crash, nor did he seek any further investigation, Wade said.
"In remarks he made at the University of Iowa he said 'allegedly -- and I never pursued it.' " Wade wrote in an e-mail. [Steve comments: An who "allegedly" made such an accustation? Of course, the only one who did so was Biden himself.]
"Nor did he encourage reporting on it then or at any other time. He has never called it or thought of it as anything other than an 'accident.' His focus was his grief over the loss of his wife and daughter and his concern for the recovery of his sons."
News reports from 1972 said Neilia Hunter Biden pulled away from a stop sign at Limestone and Valley roads about 2:30 p.m. when the tractor-trailer driven by Dunn, which was coming down a hill on Limestone Road, hit the side of her station wagon. Dunn freed himself from the truck and was the first to reach the Biden car, according to a report by the The Evening Journal, a precursor to The News Journal.
Neilia Biden and 13-month-old daughter Naomi, whom the family called Amy, were declared dead at a hospital. Son Beau, now Delaware's attorney general, broke his leg, and son Hunter suffered head injuries. Joe Biden, who had been elected to his first term in the Senate just a month before, took his oath of office at the boys' bedside.
Two days after the crash, Herlihy, a neighbor of the Bidens in the late 1960s who still considers the senator "a friend," told the paper that there was no evidence that Dunn "was speeding, drinking or driving a truck with faulty brakes." No criminal charges related to the crash were ever filed against Dunn, who lived in North East, Md.
Hamill, one of seven children, was 8 years old at the time of the accident. She remembers her father watching news reports of the crash while wearing a sling to support a shoulder injury he suffered in the accident.
She said Dunn was always "solemn" around the Christmas holidays. Years later, when her brother planned to get married on Dec. 18, Dunn told the family "I don't celebrate on that day," Hamill said.
"We're not trying to equate Sen. Biden's loss to my father's heartache," Hamill said. "But we wanted it to be known that our father never forgot that tragic day."
Hamill said it wasn't until the Inside Edition report that she became aware that the Delaware senator had said alcohol played a role in the accident. Dunn did not consume any alcohol the day of the crash, Hamill said.
She said she immediately called Biden's office after being contacted by Inside Edition and is waiting for the senator's response.
"The family feels these statements are both hurtful and untrue and we didn't know where they originated from," Hamill said.
As Hamill watched a recording of the Inside Edition report Wednesday, she gasped when the clip of Biden's comments from Iowa came on screen.
After reading a News Journal account of Biden's 2001 speech at UD, Hamill sent Biden a letter on behalf of her father. The newspaper story included Biden's description of getting the call that his wife and daughter had died, but not his comments about Dunn.
Hamill said her note to the senator described how Dunn was affected by the accident.
Printed on the senator's letter head and dated Oct. 11, 2001, the response from Biden reads:
"I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge your thoughtful and heartfelt note," Biden wrote. "All that I can say is I am sorry for all of us and please know that neither I nor my sons feel any animosity whatsoever."
Link to story: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2008-09/msg00683.html.
Steve adds: The News Journal story tells the real story. However, the number of people who read is at most in the tens of thousands. With stories like those on CBS News, the number of people who hear and view ttem is well up in the millions.
Tomorrow: How CBS News and Katie Couric have helped perpeutate Biden's lies.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
As some of you know, I'm in contact with Pamela Hamill, whose father was the truck driver in the accident that cost the lives of Joe Biden's first wife and his daughter. As you may also know, Pamela has asserted -- correctly, verifiably -- that Biden's lies over the year have defamed her father and misled tens of millions of Americans about the circumstances of the accident. I'll be writing more about later this week.
Frankly, Joe Biden, vice-president of the United States, is a chronic liar. Or, as Karl Rove recently put it, Biden is "a lair and a blowhard." Currently, the vice-president is lying about a private meeting he supposedly had with George W. Bush, where the former Delaware Senator claims he criticized the then-President for lack of leadership. As Rove and others affirm, no such meeting ever took place. Biden made it up.
In the vice-presidential debate, Biden even lied about the Wilmington, Delaware restaurant where he supposedly met with the common folk of that city. In fact, said restaurant -- Katie's Diner -- had been closed for more than 15 years. Biden's contact with the common people of Wilmington was a fantasy.
At another point in the debate Biden scolded Gov. Palin, a supporter of the Iraq War, for ignoring the financial costs. He said that, every month, the struggle in Iraq was costing more than the entire war in Afghanistan. In fact, the Iraq War was costing $10 billion per month. The total cost of the war in Afghanistan had been $172 billion.
He also told a perplexed Gov. Palin that he hadn't really voted for the war in Iraq. That was an outright lie. In fact, at the time when the War Authorization was being debated, Biden had asserted that Saddam Hussein "must be eliminated."
But Biden's worst lies -- and he has a multitude of them throughout his career -- are the ones he told about the accident that killed his wife and daughter, which I'll write more about this weekend.
You may ask, "Gee, why aren't we hearing about Biden's lies in the MSM?" That's a very good question. The answer may be that the MSM is so in the tank to people like Obama and Biden that they have no interest in informing the public. Katie Couric repeated the Biden lies about the Hamills as recently as the last Demcoratic Convention. (More tomorrow)
In other words, it was peanuts. It was nothing. It was irrelevant. It was a phony issue used by Obama to deflect attention from an Administration dedicated to undermining the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't worth a minute of our nation's time.
Okay, regarding the real issues, the $700 billion TARP bailouts and the $748 billion Stimulus: How much was the debt those huge expenditures imposed on every American, male and female, young and old ? About $5,000 for every man, woman, and child!
Of course the MSM played along with Obama's game. It treated the AIG bonuses, a drop in the bucket compared to Obama's ocean of spending, as the only issue that mattered. The U.S. Congress, which had authorized the bonuses, did its best imitation of a lynch mob.In other words, five thousand bucks each -- versus 56 cents each. And the nation went into a frenzy for the 56 cents -- and basically ignored the $5,000.
This is the true meaning of a technique Obama-Axelrod-Emanuel excell at: deflection, or making us obsess on irrelevancies. Deflection means tilting at windmills. It means fidding while pocket change while the economy burns. It means getting the public to rely on rage instead of reason.
Wake up America!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Host: THE YOUTUBE FORUM
Type: Party - Night of Mayhem
Start Time: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 8:30 pm
End Time: Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 10:00 am
Description: "How to Bring the Internet Resistance to the Ground and Ways We Can all Work Together."
W.A.M. Strategist and Tsunami Media founder, Jacquerie.
This program is dedicated to a current vlogger (sallee5) who was suspended for exercising her 1st Amendment Rights. Anyone who would like to call in and comment about the outrage of her suspension please participate. 8:30 PM EST. Call-in Number: (718) 508-9104. Caution! Danger Zone! Please come locked and loaded! Molon Labe!
Second, if you're disturbed by the current economic situation and wondering what caused it, please read the following story in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice.
The story by an MIT economist is called "The Quiet Coup," and it appears in the May 1 issue of The Atlantic. If you ever wondered why investment banks (which no longer exist as such) and other financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, Merrill-Lynch, AIG, and Citigroup contributed millions of dollars to candidate Barack Obama, the Atlantic piece will give you great insight. (You may have noticed that said financial institutions have gotten hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money, while, say, autoworkers, are getting squat. Guess why.)
Also, Glenn Beck has discovered one of my favorites, Niall Ferguson, an economic historian at Oxford, Standford, and Harvard -- and that's saying a lot for a guy (Ferguson) who's basically conservative. On today's (Tuesday's) Beck program on FOX, Niall discussed how he predicted -- in 2004 -- that debt would eventually crush the U.S. economy (in his book "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire).
Another piece that predicted exactly what would happen (in 2005 in the magazine Foreign Affairs is by Brad Setser and Nouriel Roubini. It's called "How Scary is the Deficit?" It's at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60840/brad-setser-et-al/how-scary-is-the-deficit
At the time, some economists made fun of Setser and Roubini for suggesting that the unthinkable might happen -- i.e., that both housing prices and the stock market might tank. None of those critics is laughing anymore.
Basically, what Setser, Roubini, and Ferguson point out is that the U.S., under Clinton and Bush, made a "Deal with the Devil," Communist China. They would finance trillions of dollars of our debt, and in exchange, we would send all the money (plus some more) back to China to keep their factories humming 24X7. Obama's "solution" to the Deal/Devil is to increase sharply the borrowing from China -- the better to keep those Chinese factories going (while ours of course shut down).
The "good news" about Obama's policies for those of us in the current generation is that the truly crushing part of the debt will be paid off by future generations, specifically, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, who may end up not liking us very much when they find out we've arranged to have them pay our bills. I wonder what Malia and Sasha will say to daddy (and mommy) when they find that out?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
With TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) and the Stimulus Package, Obama has essentially thrown money (nearly $1.5 trillion) in the direction of his favored groups (bankers, unions, and big city governments) -- and done little or nothing for the American people.
How much is $1.5 trillion? Basically, it adds up to $5,000 for every American -- men, women, and children. In other words, if the Obama Administration had been so inclined, which it was not, it could have sent a family of four nearly $20,000. The "Octomom," with a total of 14 children, would have received $75,000.
Instead, Obama has favored financial institutions, the same ones that caused the global economic crisis. AIG has received nearly $175 billion, the equivalent of nearly $600 from every Americans. Other firms, including the Bank of America, have also received huge sums. Famously, of course, AIG executives received $165 million in "Chris Dodd bonuses." That adds up to about $555 from every American. By the way, did you receive even $1 as a bonus?
Of course, Obama/Geithner pretend that this is "free money." They don't link it to taxpayers. Instead, they imply that the government has a money tree that it can pluck to give payments to favored groups. They forget to mention the huge campaign "donations" Obama and other leftists received from financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill-Lynch, and other entities. (Note: Goldman Sachs received the government money indirectly, the better to protect its executives' huge bonuses.)
In fact, giving every American $5,000 would have produced much better results. Because part of the money would have been spent and part invested, the results would have been much better. People would have bought houses, cars, and other goods. How would it have helped, say, banks? Frankly, a lot of the money would have been deposited, which is exactly what banks need. With a big infusion of deposits, banks would have had a great deal more money to lend.
As usual, Obama's politically driven approach has shortchanged the American people. Americans want to believe in the man, but he's giving them precious little reason to do so.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
"The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war."
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our Country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-- James A Garfield (Assassinated President of the United States)
One of our challlenges -- and one of Sarah Palin's -- is the fact that we're all "nice" people. Well, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel are NOT nice. They are not good. They are not moral. They are not fans of "right reason" and the Western tradition. They are agents of political mass destruction. We need to make sure that, in the battle for the presidency, "the last man standing" (and, of course, I mean "the last woman") is Sarah Palin.
I wrote today on my other blog how Obama, with his wild spending, is throwing his own children, Sasha and Malia, under the bus, undermining their chances to realize The American Dream. Sarah cares about her children. If Obama cares about his, he has a funny way of showing it. In fact, I believe deeply he cares about one thing on earth, and "its" initials are BHO.
The real enemies of our country -- North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and some others -- are going to "love" having Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. President. His solution to evil nations is to attempt to talk them into submission. In that effort, he will fail, and it will put our country in danger.