Friday, February 26, 2010


Yesterday was a glorious day. The Republicans finally had their day in court, and they came well prepared. It's not as though this is new to them. They have been trying to get their ideas on the table for over a year, and have been dismissed, ignored and shut out for the same amount of time. The Republicans looked intelligent, thoughtful, articulate and committed, while Obama looked more obvious that ever before. His contempt, antipathy, arrogance and loathing was so apparent it was almost laughable, except for the fact this man is in the White House.

After a year of anguish, frustration and sorrow for Americans who have felt their sovereignty slipping away, Obama's dog and pony show "summit" was a sight to behold.

Erick Erickson of Red State has a great piece on this today:

The Sham Wow Summit
by Erick Erickson, Febryary 26, 2010

There are many reasons the Republican Party is often referred to as the Stupid Party. Many Republicans thought that after the President overshadowed the GOP at their Baltimore retreat last month, going to Blair House yesterday would just be another PR disaster.

It was anything but.

The GOP won the day so convincingly that even the traditional media had to praise the party for talking issues.

Contrast that with Barack Obama who scowled, berated, lied, and harassed the attendees — not to mention filibustered them.

In the most ironic moment of the day, Barack Obama lectured Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor on having the Democrats’ 2,700+ page health care bill on his desk at the meeting. Obama called it a “prop.” At the same time, Democrats were in the newspapers admitting that, in effect, Barack Obama was using the GOP as a prop in a vain effort to show bipartisanship on health care.

There is bipartisanship on health care. There is bipartisan opposition to it. The Democrats must realize today that they would get nothing out of the meeting. They will now try to force health care deform through Congress on a majority vote in each house.

Only a couple of years ago, Barack Obama praised the filibuster claiming it was what the founding fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Now he is intent on ignoring the filibuster and ramming through health care deform.

If nothing else, today shows the American public that the Republicans have a better agenda, better ideas, and are willing to stand up and oppose a reckless scheme that will increase health care costs.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010


Republicans have their flaws, God only knows, but during this past year they have been joined at the hip - in unison against Obama, his cronies, and his government run healthcare. That took a lot of courage.

They should be praised and encouraged, not spanked as Glenn Beck did at CPAC this past weekend. After over a year of negativity and bashing from this president, Americans, especially Republicans, needed a good old fashioned Reagan speech. Just think back to last year's CPAC. Republicans were a party in turmoil, with the lowest ratings ever, and no hope for the future. In less that one year, it's a completely different story. But, a third party will ensure another Obama term, and if we are to fix and take back the Republican Party, it cannot be done with negative attacks. At this point, with the elections close at hand (including the primaries) intimating is not going to do it. Take a stand, no time for playing games or being vague. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. And do it goes....

From Mark Levin, "No conservative endorses overthrowing this government. That would be nuts. And, no conservative endorses the opposite extreme - doing nothing. That would be nuts too." The ballot box is our weapon, unlike most other world nations.

Mark Levin, continues, "For too long we left it to others to determin the outcome of elections. While we wrung our hands and complained. And therefore the nature of our society is transforming. We've kept to ourselves. We've largely kept quiet. We basically went along with whatever comes. But it's different today. The accumulation of 80 years of abuse and torment and misconduct is now at our doorstep. Today we see as a people that we, each of us, are the target of powerful individuals and groups that seek to punish us. To steal our liberty and our private property and now they want control over our very bodies. They call this health insurance reform.

"And as a young person who went to CPAC, and as I got older and would go to CPAC, the speeches you remember are the speeches that show promise and inspired and motivated. I heard Reagan speak at CPAC two or three times. He did two things, amoug others, but two primary things that always remained with me. He defined our enemies and he defined us in very coherent, logical, step by step arguments. No tricks, no games, no diversions, no self-flagulation. He was a serious man. Positive man with a great sense of humor but he was very serious when it came to getting our message across to the American people...

"Reagan used to have this amendment - the 11th amendment - about not attacking fellow Republicans, and yet he would challenge establishment, liberal Republicans all the time. That's how he became Governor and ultimately how he became President. But what he meant by that was ... conservatives ... conservatives. Ronald Reagan would never have loosely generalized about conservatives and the Republican Party because like a surgeon, like a real thinker, and like an activist he wanted the distinctions to be known, he wanted the distinctions to be clear, he wanted to promote our principles and he wanted to contrast them with those who either had no principles or were promoting something else. Carpet-bombing the Republican Party ... takes out a awful lot of good people, too many good people...

"It's time to unite, ladies and gentlemen. We have a common foe. We're on the move. You're on the move. We're doing exactly what we should be doing. We are in fact taking back the Republican Party. We are in fact attracting people to the conservative movement who were not before conservatives, or didn't feel that they were. We're now going through the electoral process like Sherman went through Georgia, sorry ladies and gentletmen in Georgia, no attack on you, just a historical fact. We blew out the left in VA, we blew them out in NJ, we blew them out in MA and blew up the Kennedy seat. And now we're swinging back around to other states. Politics, very much like military operations without the physical violence. We want to stay on the battlefield, we to own the battlefield, we want to take back our government. Now is the time to unite!

"Can't wear the clown nose, and not wear the clown nose at the same time.... Stop dividing us. What I see across the horizon today in my forty years or so conservative activism is unity like I've never seen before. And it's not unity because of hate for Mitch McConnell or Boehner or what ever. It's contempt for this president, and Pelosi and Reid and what they're doing to this nation. That's what's happening, that's what's going on and when Republicans deserve a lashing they should get it. But right now they're holding the fort and they deserve reinforcements. They won't always, but when they do, they ought to get it." Mark Levin, February 22, 2010

Using the latest label "Progressive" rather than their more accurate name Liberal (which they rightfully deserve) only lets them off the hook, and the Libs love it.

C. Edmund Wright has an interesting couple of pieces on this in American Thinker:

Glenn Beck vs. C. Edmund Wright
by C. Edmund Wright, February 23, 2010

In the spirit of FOX News: I report, you decide.

Glenn Beck acknowledged on his Monday afternoon television show that some folks did not approve of his keynote address to CPAC. The example he chose to express that displeasure was our Monday piece, "CPAC's Odd Ending."

Beck claimed on his show that my words made his case. I respectfully disagree and in fact submit the opposite. Here's why: In response to this article, Beck came right out and said words I have never heard him say before. His wording indicates that he does in fact think of the GOP as his team. He disavowed any third party movement almost totally on two different occasions. This will certainly come as a surprise to many of his regular viewers.

He claimed that he of course always meant this, but he has rarely if ever said these words...which was precisely the point of my article.

So, in the cool, unemotional format of print transcript, I invite the readers to decide as I quickly respond to Beck's comments from Monday's Glenn Beck Show.

BECK: Not everybody was in love with my speech at CPAC. Some are saying I wasn't quite partisan enough ... which I intentionally steered away from ... this [CPAC] isn't really talking to the Democrats.

WRIGHT: Actually, Mr. Beck, I did praise a lot of your speech, and I did not use the word partisan. Having said that, the fact that you admit that you weren't talking to Democrats almost admits that you were knowingly talking to Republicans. Hmmm. This is a far cry from your average TV show, where you go to great lengths to equate the two parties as equally corrupt and equally progressive. Not a major point, but I submit a small admission on your part already.

BECK: It seems that some people think that I was wanting some sort of third party. Nope.

WRIGHT: Memo to the Beck supporters who think he is a third-party guy: He said "nope." I think I may have forced this. He's never said this before that I can remember. 1-0.

BECK: I just think the American people ... just want a party that stands for something.

WRIGHT: I concur, and while I realize that you probably had your people read my piece, had you read it or any other of my works, you would know that you and I agree on this and that I have been a long time critic of the Republican Party apparatus -- as have many other writers here at AT.

BECK: You know -- it's holding your own side's feet ...

WRIGHT: Stop the tape! What was that again?

BECK: You know -- it's holding your own side's feet to the fire that delivers a party like that.

WRIGHT: Uh, I hate to quibble, Glenn, but you just made my point. My point was that you did not say at CPAC -- and you never say on your show -- which side is your side. You never actually connect the dots and say the word "Republican" in telling us who the only party is that can stop the progressive movement. Thank you for finally connecting those dots and telling us which is "your side." I think a lot of your fans will be shocked to hear this.

BECK: It's important to acknowledge the individual Republicans fighting the good fight ...

WRIGHT: Stop the tape again! I agree. I think you just made another of my points for me. And while we're on the subject, why didn't you acknowledge them last night? That was really all I was asking for.

BECK: ... and I think we do that on this program. CPAC -- they had already done a good job of that ... most of the speeches during the weekend were made by people I tend to agree with. If you watch this show at all, you know that I highlight good conservatives inside the Republican Party. Jim DeMint's on this show ... I think ... as much as I'm on this show.

WRIGHT: First of all, when giving a keynote address where you have agreed with the week's festivities, it is customary to acknowledge that during your speech at some point. You did not.

And yes, on your show, you do tend to highlight good conservative Republicans for the first fifty minutes. I called much of your work fabulous, by the way. You generally don't mention party when you do that. Moreover, you tend to spend the end of your show with the obligatory R or D disclaimer that seems out of place with the rest of the show. That was a point I made. Glad to see you actually stringing the words good - principled - conservative - Republicans together.

BECK: The problem is progressivism. Does anyone seriously think that Mike Pence is who I'm talking about when I say Republican progressives?

WRIGHT: No, we don't think Pence or DeMint or Inhofe or Ryan. But you never say -- until now -- that there are more good conservative Republicans than there are Democrats. You sure as heck didn't say anything remotely similar to that at CPAC.

BECK: The usually on-the-money American Thinker was critical of my speech as well ...

WRIGHT: Again, read what I said. There was at least an equal measure of praise.

BECK: In doing so, inadvertently, they made my point for me.

WRIGHT: I respectfully disagree.

BECK: When I was talking about not seeing the come-to-Jesus moment for the Republican Party -- they [Wright] wrote, "Has he not heard about Marco Rubio? Rubio is now up 12 points over Charlie Crist among Florida voters. That sounds to me like a lot of Florida Republicans admit there's a problem." Rubio is a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about. Rubio is not up by 18 because of the Republican Party. He's up by 18 because the people of Florida are rejecting what the Republican Party told them to do: Vote for Charlie Crist.

WRIGHT: But Mr. Beck, we have a couple of problems with your answer here and your speech Saturday. If you felt this strongly about Rubio before I (and Bill Bennett) called you on it, the CPAC speech was the perfect venue for you to say so. After all, Rubio was the biggest attraction there besides you. Your sudden passion for Rubio, Sir, makes my point that you should have indeed mentioned him Saturday.

Further, you make your living with words -- and words mean things. You said "I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit ..." Marco Rubio is a person within the Republican Party. He is ahead thanks to the Republican Party voters of Florida. They are "people within the Republican Party," too. Can you hear them now?

I know what the party hacks are up to, and I join you in condemning them. But for a wordsmith, your brush was too broad. And I submit that it's not the first time.

BECK: I don't want a third party. I think that might be a bad idea.

WRIGHT: I agree totally. So so so glad to hear you say it. Now, I wonder what many of your fans will say. What do you think? Call me.

Sunday, February 21, 2010


Why would Obama and the Democrat congress invite the Republicans to a healthcare 'summit' (his fav) at this late date? One answer is the ever declining polls and the South Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts election results, along with the upcoming ever critical November elections. But, it's more diabolical than that -- it's a trap, and, God willing, the Republicans will not play into their plan, because they have to show up. To not show up at this obvious trap, leaves the door wide open for the Dems to say "See, we tried, and they still are the party of NO", with the Republicans not there to defend their reasons.

The reason why they would not show up is because of the scheming by Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid, once again behind closed doors, to pass this government takeover healthcare bill against the will of the people by a devious and unconstitutional method called "Reconciliation". This process was allowed for budgetary purposes only, but these snakes will find a way around it to shove the unwanted bill through (unconstitutional). So why should the Republicans show up when in fact the Dems plan to pass their bill anyway? To show the American people what these worms are made of and what they're up to.

If you have an opinion, get on the phones, faxes and emails to let them know how you feel about the corrupt actions of a powerful Democrat congress. Grassfire has info on this here.

Dick Morris writes about this corrupt method from his website:

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, February 19, 2010

As the story below indicates, our prediction of a month ago is, unfortunately, coming true: Obama is planning one final push to pass healthcare with no Republican support. Disguising his true intentions behind a health care summit which is designed to fail, he will try to pass the Senate bill in the House and send it to the White House to become law. Then, he will use the reconciliation procedure (which lets him pass budget related bills in the Senate with only 51 votes) to push through additional legislation which modifies the bill to suit House and Senate liberals (probably including a public option).

We need to rally one last time to STOP him!

Obama will probably get the House liberals to go along with passing the Senate bill as long as reconcilation looms in the future. He will also have no trouble getting the 51 votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.

The only way to stop him is to deny Pelosi the support of conservative Democrats in the House who are scared to death following the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. When we first figured out what the White House was up to, we prepared ads to run in each of the districts of the swing conservative Democrats who voted for the original health care bill.

As you may remember, health care passed in the House by only 220-115. Thirty-eight Democrats voted no. But about twenty-three conservative Democrats voted in favor of Obamacare. They are all vulnerable to defeat this year. We need to advertise in their districts to persuade them that voting for Obamacare would mean likely political defeat. We need your funds to make these ads possible. We need $1 million for this final push.

Click here to see the ad we propose to run in one such typical district. We have eleven others which we have already produced and are in the can, waiting to go. We will produce and run in more districts as our funding level increases.

PLEASE HELP US WIN THIS FIGHT! Even if you have given before -- even if you have given several times before -- please give again. This is the final round. Remember what Obama says: "we are on the five yard line with health care reform." He is indeed in our red zone with the bill having passed both Houses in different forms already. We need a tough, strong goal line stand to block this disastrous piece of legislation from passing.

Please support the League of American Voters in their efforts to stop Obama -- Go Here Now.

Click here to read the story about the Dems plan to pass the health care bill.

Go to to read all of Dick's columns!

Friday, February 19, 2010


What an arrogant twit. One has to wonder, do thay all have this narcissistic sociopathic behavior?

The left just doesn't understand the tea party movement, so they dismiss them. When that doesn't work, they defile them. When that doesn't work, they attack them. When those didn't work, apparently Bill Clinton and James Carville are planning a counter offensive.

Now that the tea party movement is making a difference, the threat of attack is obvious. One year ago, tea partiers started making their presence known, after Obama rammed through the Porkulus Bill. This 'process' made "spread the wealth around" a reality, and Rick Santelli of CSPAN spoke those infamous words, including "Are you listening, Mr. President?"

Boom! The movement was born, and it has been growing by leaps and bounds ever since. Every time Obama strips the country of another freedom, thousands more join, and one year later, the CPAC conference is singing the praises of this great movement. Remember the Rush Limbaugh speech? Wow, that rocked the nation, and Glenn Beck has a tough act to follow.

The Tea Party Patriots have launched a counter to their counter attack. Check out the one minute video of SPARTACUS for a shot in the arm. uncovered the story on the Clinton-Carville attack:

Clinton Planning Tea Party Counterattack
by Capitol Confidential, February 19, 2010

Last week, former President Clinton was rushed to the hospital in New York for an emergency heart operation. Medical experts said the procedure was “relatively routine” and predicted Clinton would make a full recovery and be back to his regular schedule soon. To the public, at least, that schedule revolves chiefly around earthquake relief efforts in Haiti. In fact, some Clinton associates cited the work in Haiti as exacerbating his heart condition. Clinton money man, Terry MacAuliffe, even noted that Clinton’s Haiti work continued right up until the operation:

Democrat colleague Terry McAuliffe said Mr Clinton had participated in a conference call on earthquake relief efforts as he was wheeled into the operating theatre.
We’ll take Terry’s word on that. But, Big Government has learned of at least one other conference call/meeting around this time. A meeting of former Clintonistas and senior Democrat political operatives to coordinate a push-back to the burgeoning tea party movement. Consider it a Democrat party relief effort.

When tea party, 9/12 and townhall protests and rallies first erupted on the national scene, they were derided by national politicos as astroturf or a small fringe movement. Lefty journalists at MSNBC, CNN and elsewhere laughed away the movement with derogatory, pornographic references.

Then, Scott Brown won election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. No one is laughing anymore. In fact, Democrats are facing political annihilation this November. Not only do Democrats face the possibility of losing their congressional majorities, massive losses in state house races could jeopardize redistricting next year and set back the progressive agenda for at least a decade.

So, the Clinton Empire is planning to strike back.

Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. (Has MSNBC already been notified?)

Big Government has also learned that James Carville will head up the effort.

Obviously, there is no love lost between Obama and the Clinton machine. It may at first seem odd that Clinton would rush to Obama’s defense, but the tea party movement poses a threat far beyond the immediate goals of the Obama Administration.

The tea party movement could evolve into a new political realignment, one founded on a belief in limited government and less government interference in the economy. The Progressive agenda, which has been painstakingly built up over the last three decades, could be left in tatters.

As the Clinton’s know, “politics ain’t beanbag.” Expect the counterattack soon. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010


Obama's 'plan' appears to be working. Of course, it's not the plan of which he speaks - healthcare for everyone, clean energy, jobs-jobs-jobs (that 3 letter word) and, let's not forget, world peace. No, it's his plan to destroy the America we all know and love, while in the process blaming George W. Bush. The problem is, or not, it appears to be blowing up in his face. This on the one year anniversary of his failed stimulus, for which he is doubling down.

Obama's popularity has gone through the floorboards, and his congress is jumping ship, seeing the writing on the wall. Bi-partisan conflict has nothing to do with his problems, when he has a majority in both Houses. Big corporations such as ConocoPhillips, BP, and Caterpillar have also jumped ship by quiting the Climate Group because the big lie is now public knowledge. Obama loves to bash, and is probably the most negative person ever to hold the powerful office of United States President. Polls apart from a loving and gracious President Ronald Reagan.

Dick Morris write a great piece on this from

Obama Goes Too Far and Falls Too Short
by Dick Morris, February 16, 2010

One of my favorite quotes about politics comes from Henry Kissinger in his book Years of Upheaval, his memoir of the Ford Presidency:

"A statesman's duty is to bridge the gap between his vision and his nation's experience. If his vision gets too far out ahead of his nation's experience, he will lose his mandate. But if he hues too close to the conventional, he will lose control over events."

Now, at once, we see both happening to President Obama.

His health care proposals obviously ran afoul of the first of Kissinger's warnings. By pushing for changes that conflicted with America's values, common sense, and experience, he lost his mandate. In that disastrous push for an elusive goal, he ruined his own presidency and his party. It may take decades for the Democratic Party to recover from his folly. Indeed, his push for health legislation, in the face of rapidly eroding public support, ranks with the War in Vietnam, Watergate, and, of course, Clinton's health care initiatives as the most costly to their respective political parties.

But now, as he faces threats from Iran, domestic terrorism, continually high unemployment, and the swollen deficit, he is also violating the second half of the Kissinger warning - his politics are too passive and too conventional and, as a result, losing control over events.

In the phase of presidential dithering in the aftermath of the Brown victory in Massachusetts, there is no clear presidential message, no coherent strategy and, even, no identifiable program. His budget cuts are far too tepid. His tax program nothing new. Obama's stimulus 2 package seems like the same old, same old.

His short lived bounce from the State of the Union speech is indicative of how limited a vision he has these days. It lasted a week and was never more than three points at its apogee.

And, as Kissinger would have predicted, he is losing control over events. Senator Evan Bayh's retirement, with its implied blast at Obama's policies, the increasing recklessness of Iran, and the seemingly intractable unemployment all provide evidence that President Obama is no longer dictating the national agenda.

As a result, the negatives he incurred by moving too far out ahead of the nation's experience are combining with those he is getting for being too conventional. He is experiencing both ends of the Kissinger prediction. Republicans and Independents are still in shock from his headlong rush into socialism while Democrats are increasingly restive and disillusioned by his failure to lead.

And...the entire country is worried at his passivity in the face of domestic terror threats and the rapidly growing Iranian momentum toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

While his job rating has remained relatively stead in recent months, hovering just below 50% of likely voters, his ratings in specific areas - like holding down spending, cutting the deficit, creating jobs, and managing the economy -- are all eroding, presaging further drops in his overall ratings.

Seemingly paralyzed by adversity, President Obama and his advisors are showing a lack of resilience in the face of reversals that is perhaps the inevitable outcome of his smooth rise to the top in 2008. Never tried by bad outcomes (as Hillary has doubtless been), he and they seem unable to regain momentum and appear to be just flailing without strategic or even tactical direction.

All this might be what happens when you elect a State Senator whose US Senate career was consumed with his presidential campaign as president.

Go to to read all of Dick's columns!

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Eight Reasons Conservatives Should Back J.D. Hayworth Over John McCain

There's nothing more unsavory than a hypocrite, which is prevalent in politics, but can we keep it to a minimum? Arlen Specter is the front runner, voting too many times in the Obama Camp, giving RINO (Republicans In Name Only) its true meaning, and finally, the turncoat switched parties. Good riddance. Now, the rubber meets the road, and we have politicians changing like a chameleon. The mentality these days seems to be, if Obama can get away with it, why not me?

We already know about the Maine Twin Girls, but you have to laugh at the audacity of people like John McCain, who now appears to be against amnesty for illegals (after he was for it), and Lindsey Graham, who appears to now be against Cap & Trade (after he was for it). Isn't is great to have confidence in our elected officials? What is more laughable than this, is the fact that McCain seems to have grown a couple, because he is now viscously attacking his Republican opponent, J.D. Hayworth like an attack dog. Where was he when he should have been attacking the real villain during the presidential campaign?

These primaries are crucial, if we are to clean out the Republican Party, get back to conservative principles, and bring in some new blood. Down with the elites, in with the common man (or woman) who think along the lines of Main Street, America. We want people who are in politics for the people, rather than themselves. A novel idea.

Adam Graham give us eight important reasons to back the relative newbie, J.D. Hayworth, over John McCain in Pajamas Media:

Eight Reasons Conservatives Should Back J.D. Hayworth Over John McCain
The effect of a McCain defeat would send a clear message to senators across the country that they do not own the offices they hold.
by Adam Graham, February 16, 2010

Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) is preparing to run against Senator John McCain for the U.S. Senate in this year’s Republican primary in Arizona. Some on the right, such as Glenn Beck, don’t agree with the decision of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to campaign for McCain in Arizona.

Conservative angst over what Sarah Palin does or doesn’t do in Arizona does little good. Palin will go there out of a sense of personal loyalty to a man who brought her to national attention. Personal loyalty can run deeper than political ideology. And while personal loyalty can be to a fault, leadership is impossible without it.

The question isn’t: “What should Sarah do?” The question is: “What should conservatives do?” Whether it’s the tea party movement or the March for Life, conservatives can move from the grassroots, and the smart conservative move is for conservatives to support J.D. Hayworth.

Here are are eight reasons why:

Reason #1: It could work.

With Arizona voters, John McCain has a real problem on his hands: a lack of popularity. Super Tuesday 2008 knocked Romney out of the primaries and saw McCain’s big wins in California and New York, but the untold story may have been Arizona. McCain won Arizona’s primary, but with only 47% of the vote. Republicans across the country were willing to resign themselves to McCain to avoid a prolonged primary process, yet when the votes were counted in his home state, the majority of Arizona primary voters had voted against McCain. There’s a strong possibility they could do so again.

Reason #2: Hayworth is a plausible senator.

One big objection to a Hayworth insurgent win is what message this sends to moderates. The best message may be to run in districts where you suit the district’s ideology. If a religious conservative runs for office in Maine they would get shellacked. Party bosses don’t cry in their imported wines about the message it sends to religious conservative activists about their place in the GOP.

Hayworth isn’t running in Rhode Island; he’s running in Arizona. It’s true Hayworth’s record is unabashedly conservative. The American Conservative Union gave him a 97.50% ACU rating, which is only half a percent more than the state’s other senator, Jon Kyl, who has a 96.96% ACU rating. Kyl beat his last opponent by 10 points in a Democratic year.

A gregarious ex-sportscaster, Hayworth is sharp, eloquent, charismatic, and quick-witted. These traits will be endearing to Arizonans and make him a strong candidate in the fall.

Reason #3: Conservatives don’t owe John McCain anything.

McCain has given conservatives few favors in the last ten years, and even bringing Sarah Palin onto the national stage wasn’t that big a favor. Palin’s charisma and political talents would have brought her to the national spotlight eventually. Running in her own right, as Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney did, she would have been able to introduce herself to the American people on her terms and develop her own policy ideas. Palin saved McCain’s campaign from losing worse. (McCain had only a single-digit lead in Alaska prior to Palin being chosen and could have lost yet another state that hadn’t gone Democratic since 1964.)

Many on the right point to McCain’s 81% American Conservative Union rating as proof that he’s not that bad, but the lifetime rating is misleading. Through 1996, McCain had an 88% conservative voting record. Since 1996, McCain only had one year with an ACU rating greater than 80% (2001, when he had 81%), and four years he has voted less than 70% conservative.

McCain spent the first part of this decade playing media favorite by frustrating the aims of the Bush administration and backing amnesty and cap and trade. Sometimes he failed, as he did with opposing the Bush tax cuts. Other times he succeeded, as he did with his efforts to stop drilling in ANWR. We can be grateful that, due to the poor economy, gas prices are beneath their $4.00 + a gallon highs from two years ago. But the price of gas would be far lower if McCain hadn’t been a cheerleader against using America’s resources. His pandering to the far left on energy is taking money out of the wallets of average Arizonans, and voters should respond by making him feel their pain.

Reason #4: Life isn’t Starship Troopers.

Some Republicans will protest, “How could we not owe McCain something?” He was a war hero, spending five years as a POW. Certainly, McCain’s military service entitles him to all the benefits the government promised him and the thanks of his countrymen. Show me the paperwork guaranteeing McCain at least five terms in the U.S. Senate for serving in the military, and I’ll drop my support for Hayworth.

You won’t find it. This isn’t Robert Heinlein’s sci-fi classic, where “the franchise is limited only to discharged veterans” along with the ability to hold political office.

Most Republicans who argue that military service trumps all are inconsistent. Conservatives didn’t run to embrace anti-war Lt. Col. Paul Hackett, nor did we support Major Tammy Duckworth in her bid for the U.S. House, and Duckworth lost part of her legs in service to her country. Didn’t Duckworth’s injury earn her at least two terms in Congress? Also, if Rasmussen releases a poll showing Governor Linda Lingle (R-Hawaii) having moved to within three points of Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) in a hypothetical match-up, will McCain supporters urge Lingle not to run? Inouye earned the Congressional Medal of Honor 65 years ago.

Why the inconsistency? Simple. Serving in the military, while honorable, doesn’t mean you have the right philosophy. It doesn’t necessarily mean you can do well in political office. Grant and Taylor were great generals but lousy presidents.

Davy Crockett’s service to his country only netted him three terms in Congress. With 28 years in the House and the Senate, McCain doesn’t have room to complain.

Reason #5: There is no divine right of Republican senators.

Whatever reason one has for a primary challenge, many Republicans gasp in horror at the thought of turning out a Republican incumbent, as if they were feudal serfs from the Middle Ages aghast at the idea of challenging the king.

This is America, where senators serve at the privilege of the voters. Serving in Congress isn’t an entitlement. Our elected officials work for us, not the other way around.

Reason #6: Put the fear of the voters back into Republican senators.

For decades, primaries have been free rides for GOP senators. The last elected Republican incumbent to lose a Senate primary was Jacob Javits. Many Republican senators are out of touch with the party’s base. Republicans have given renomination to every Republican to seek reelection in the past thirty years. Is it then any surprise that they become arrogant and dismissive?

The effect of a McCain defeat or near defeat, coupled with the potential defeat of Utah’s Senator Robert Bennett at the that state’s convention, would send a clear message to senators across the country that they do not own the offices they hold. They might then learn that they will be called to account and replaced if they are not responsive to the party base.

Reason #7: Show we learned something from Arlen Specter.

In 2004, Pennsylvania Republicans could have defeated Arlen Specter in the Republican primary, but a last-minute campaign by President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum saved Specter. He paid the party back by switching parties and handing the Democrats a short-lived 60-seat majority in 2009. Conservative voters were told Pat Toomey could not win the state. However, the Democratic nominee only got 42% of the vote, with 5% going to third-party candidates. Toomey likely could have pulled out a victory.

Six years later, some pundits are raising the same fears. Be careful, there’s a dangerous Democratic candidate around the corner. Play it safe and don’t make waves.

Several reports indicate McCain considered a party switch in 2001. Shouldn’t conservatives take away McCain’s power before he decides to stick the knife in? This would be a good year to do so, because the national climate would limit McCain’s ability to stop Republicans from holding his seat without him.

Reason #8: Our long dark night will be over.

McCain famously suspended his presidential campaign and headed to Washington to fix the economy. However, he proved a famous axiom about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

The bipartisan vote for TARP made the ending to The Dark Knight look like a happy one. At the end of the movie, the “heroes” were all compromised. Even stalwarts of fiscal conservatism who had spent years arguing that big government wasn’t the answer decided to cast their vote for a $700 billion bailout, including Rep. John Shadegg and Senator Tom Coburn.

The vote cost Republicans the Senate seat in Minnesota and forced Senator Saxby Chambliss into a runoff. Not only that, it demoralized conservatives because the vote for TARP presented government as the savior able to solve our country’s problems.

For many conservatives, the GOP’s decision to chomp down on what Rep. John Boehner colorfully called a “crap sandwich” created a perception of the party as out of touch and unprincipled. The support of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate was key to getting reluctant Republicans on board.

A McCain defeat will change people’s perception and perhaps cause some conservatives to feel like the GOP actually gets it. McCain’s defeat will allow Republicans to move on from 2008’s betrayal of principle.

Adam Graham is a contributor at and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.

Monday, February 15, 2010


Back in the day, we used to celebrate the birthdays of two of our most brilliant and devoted presidents in American history. Loved by all who had learned of their bravery, sacrifice and contribution to our country. Somewhere along the line, these celebrations lost their way, when they were combined as one and dubbed "President's Day", as though we are now celebrating all presidents, whether they deserve it or not? These two president's contribution to the founding of America are unique, which is why they had their own separate holiday recognition.

In a time when our American history is no longer taught in our public schools with the detail it deserves, this piece written by the Heritage Foundation warms the heart.

First in War, First in Peace, and First in the Hearts of His Countrymen
by The Heritage Foundation, February 15, 2010

This season’s snow falls and Snowpocalypse presents a great opportunity to remember our president who also suffered through the cold to save the Republic.

Happy William Henry Harrison Day! No wait. That is not right. Failing to wear a coat in cold weather is not the same as defeating the British during a blizzard.

The third Monday in February has come to be known—wrongly—as President’s Day. But, this is not a day to celebrate every president in our Nation’s history: like one who served only a month in office. This is the day that we celebrate the man who led America to victory in the War for Independence, who was instrumental in the creation of our Constitution, and whose character forever shaped the executive branch. We celebrate George Washington. That’s why it’s Washington’s Birthday; not President’s day.

What makes George Washington a great president, worthy of such celebration, and example to all other presidents? In short, he was committed to the principles of the American Founding. Liberty, Natural Rights, Equality, Religious Liberty, Economic Opportunity, the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, Self-government, National Independence: these are the truths that George Washington held.

Matthew Spalding, in his latest book We Still Hold These Truths, explains each of these first principles in depth and often points to Washington as an exemplar practitioner. For instance, Spalding points to an important series of letters to different religious congregations as an example Washington’s commitment to the principle of religious liberty. In a letter to a congregation of Jewish people, one of the most persecuted religious minorities in all history, Washington explains:

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Washington understood that citizenship did not require professing particular religious doctrines. Nor does the possession of rights depend upon one’s membership in a certain race or social class.

Not all presidents are George Washington. But all presidents—and all Americans—can and should dedicate themselves to preserving American’s First Principles

America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version

America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version

A 2 hour video on the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve

CNN, Huffington Post Urge Violence Against Republicans

There are hundreds of thousands of assaults by liberals on conservatives, especially this past year, that if were done in the reverse, conservatives would be excoriated and persecuted. But such is the life of a conservative, and learning to recognize the hypocrisy is a survival tool. A couple of good books on the subject is Ann Coulter's "Guilty" and John Gibson's "How the Left Swiftboated America". But this latest assault has literally turned physical.

Just when you think you've heard the worst of them, up pops a new incredible assault, and the latest comes from the fair and balanced Huffington Post and CNN proclaiming it's time to "go gangsta" on Republicans -- Chicago style. Can you imagine what the Libs would do if Rush Limbaugh made such a comment? The Left definitely lives in a world of their own, sort of their own Pandora's Box.

Kristinn Taylor writes about the latest "attack" on Republicans in :

CNN, Huffington Post Urge Violence Against Republicans
by Kristinn Taylor, February 15, 2010

Two of the most popular liberal news sites are calling for violence against Republicans for obstructing the radical agenda of President Barack Obama.

CNN and Huffington Post have each published op-eds this past week by regular contributors with headlines that explicitly call for Obama to use violent gangland tactics against his political opponents.

CNN published a column by Roland Martin on February 11 with the headline, Time for Obama to go ‘gangsta’ on GOP.

Martin concluded the article with a plea for Obama to emulate the violent tactics of the Prohibition-era Chicago mob boss Al Capone.

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

The Huffington Post followed-up with their own call for gangland violence against Republicans with the publication on February 14 of a column by David Bourgeois with the title, Obama Better Start Breaking Kneecaps.

Bourgeois concludes his article with this call for gangland violence.

You’ve given it your best shot, you’ve tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It’s time you break kneecaps (bold in original). It’s time to destroy the Republican Party. They don’t deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No.

In case the message wasn’t clear, Huffington Post illustrated the call to violence with a wooden baseball bat with Obama’s first name on it in large letters.

Huffington Post publisher Arianna Huffington recently excoriated Fox News chief Roger Ailes for allegedly provocative rhetoric by Fox host Glenn Beck.

HUFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it’s not a question of picking a fight. And aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree…

…It’s not about the word police. It’s about something deeper. It’s about the fact that there is a tradition as the historian Richard Hofstetter said, in American politics, of the paranoid style. And the paranoid style is dangerous when there is real pain out there.

Ailes defended Beck, saying he was accurately talking about the governments of Hitler and Stalin.

Violent rhetoric such as that espoused by CNN and the Huffington Post is usually found in the bowels of Internet discussion forums, not as sanctioned op-ed headlines on news sites with White House press passes.

CNN and Huffington Post would be well-advised to retract the calls to violence and issue apologies to Republicans before Obama supporters are incited by their violent rhetoric and start going gangsta and break kneecaps of Republicans.

If they won’t do that of their own volition, then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs should shame them into doing so. Surely the Obama administration does not countenance violence against their domestic political opponents.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Ronald Reagan Would Have Supported Tea Party Movement, Says Son

What would Ronald Reagan think of the TEA Party movement today, and what would he think of Sarah Palin? In a recent interview with MSLSD's Hardball and HLN's Joy Behar Show, his left leaning son, Ron, would have you believe President Reagan would have looked down on the tea partiers. Since much of Ronald Reagan's success came from the grass roots, I would have to disagree, as does his oldest son Michael, who played a much bigger role in his campaign.

A lot has been speculated about "the era of Ronald Reagan is over", and how he would fit in to today's politics. In recent years, Republicans have gone so far off the path, that of course too many of them believe his politics is old school. This is why the tea party movement took off, because it is far from over, and millions of Americans are awakening to the gradual destruction of our most treasured principles and want them restored.

recent poll showed that just 53% of Americans believe that Capitalism is better than Socialism. This is just horrifying, considering the millions and millions who have been murdered under socialist rule, not to mention personal property confiscated at their whim. The reason for this horrific popularity is pure ignorance, and an example of how far to the left our school system has gone. This is truly dangerous, and a big part of what has made the tea party movement grow in countless numbers.

In a recent interview with Jeff Poor of Business & Media Institute, Michael Reagan fondly discusses his father, comparing the similarities and differences of the Era of Ronald Reagan:

Ronald Reagan Would Have Supported Tea Party Movement, Says Son

Michael Reagan refutes brother's claim that 40th President would have been 'un-amused' by tea parties and would have looked at Palin unfavorably.
by Jeff Poor, February 13, 2010

On Feb. 6, former President Ronald Reagan would have celebrated his 99th birthday. Since he’s thought of as a conservative icon, some have wondered what he would have thought of the modern conservative movement, specifically the tea parties and the rise of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

If you listen to Reagan’s son Ron, who has recently appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” and HLN’s “The Joy Behar Show,” and tends to have a left-of-center perspective, one might think Reagan would have looked down upon the tea party protests and Palin. That’s not the case according to his other son Michael.

Michael Reagan, who is said to have played more of a prominent role with the former president’s campaign than his brother, spoke with the Business & Media Institute on Feb. 12 and ardently disputed his brother’s claim that Ronald Reagan would have looked down upon the conservative movement.

Business & Media Institute: What would your father have thought of the grassroots tea party movement?

Michael Reagan: I think that my father would have been supportive of a grassroots movement, as he was always supportive of grassroots movements, you know, in this country. I mean, people need to remember without the grassroots, Ronald Reagan probably doesn’t become president of the United States of America and he worked the grassroots on a regular basis during his political career and especially between the years of 1976 and 1980 after the loss in Kansas City. And it’s interesting that my father, when he decided to run a second time there in 1980 for the presidency, when he brought the family together, he talked about the bellmen and the chambermaids of the hotels he would visit who wanted him to try it again.

So it wasn’t like he was saying, “Listen, David Rockefeller has told me to run,” it was because those people at the very grassroots, those people who are affected so much by government told me to run. So, he would look at the tea party movement and say, “Congratulations for what you’ve been able to accomplish, you know, in this year.” I mean, you might remember, the Republican Party fell apart. You know, they gave up the keys to everything – the House, the Senate and the White House. And if it wasn’t for the tea party movement, which was really born out of the town halls of last year, you know then we would probably have socialized medicine, which my father spoke against back in 1962, and we’d have a lot more problems than just the socialized medicine. So he would say “hear, hear” to those people who in fact out there rattling their sabers if you will to wake up Washington, D.C.

BMI: Are the similarities in the Reagan Revolution in the late 1970s, which led to his election in 1980 and the current political climate?

MR: I think the climate is very similar except that back then there was that Ronald Reagan guy we could look at in the future. You know, right now everybody is kind of looking for that Ronald Reagan guy, if you will. And I think it’s really important – I think my father would be saying to the party today and to tea partiers, you know pay attention to the election coming up. I mean, there’s 37 governors up for reelection in 2010 along with the House and the Senate. We need to get through those first and out of that may be born the next great leader of the conservative movement.

But what I say to the Republicans when I go out and speak, which is quite a bit, is don’t be so much looking for Ronald Reagan that you walk past the next person who may end up leading this movement.

BMI: Your brother has been making rounds in the cable news media and giving his view of what your father would have thought of the tea party movement and Sarah Palin. Have you been asked to by those cable networks to offer your view?

MR: I was on CNN yesterday [Feb. 11] on “Situation Room,” but MSNBC, you know I can’t even volunteer to go on that station, on that operation. Even if I put out there and say I’m available – you know to them, I’m not available. So no, you know, nobody has really reached out on that and I just felt it was time. You know, I’ve seen Ron on MSNBC for a long time and I’ve read his screeds against George Bush.

You know, I know how he felt about his father, you know running and being president of the United States of America and I just didn’t feel that I could just let it go anymore. I need to remind people – listen, there’s another Reagan in the building who actually campaigned with my father and for my father in many election, whether it was a gubernatorial election or the presidential election.

The fact is, when my father was choosing his vice president of the United States, he had my advance man, Sandy Sanders by the way bring me to his room so I could be standing literally one foot away from him, leaning against the back of a couch when he decided to make George H.W. Bush his vice president. When in 1980, on the morning of the [Iowa Caucus], because I called him in Iowa and told him he was going to lose Iowa, that his staff was lying to him about how well he was going to do there. I was on the ground working it. So, on the morning of the New Hampshire primary in 1980, I’m the Reagan he called to read me the press release to fire his staff to get my approval – to fire his campaign staff back in 1980.

I was kind of there, so I feel that in some ways, I kind of have a head’s up and so would Maureen [Reagan]. You know, I kind of have a head’s up on where my father might go and where he may not go when it comes to, you know – a tea party movement or what have you.

BMI: Your brother has said your father would not have thought highly of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. What do you think he would have thought of her and her rise to prominence in the conservative movement?

MR: She’s become a prominent figure. I think my father would have questioned why she would have walked away from being the governor of Alaska, but he would absolutely applaud her. She’s using her celebrity, if you will, to raise awareness of the conservative movement, to in fact raise money for the party and to help conservatives and others get elected to office in Washington, D.C. and at the local level. This is exactly what my father did between 1976 and 1980. He helped people get elected, he helped raise money for the party and he did all of those things.

You might remember the last election, it was hard-pressed to find any of those on our side who had gone out and helped anybody in our party get elected to anything. So the people on the ground, the grassroots, had nobody to be beholden to because nobody had helped them move forward. So she is bringing and shining a light on grassroots America and I would suggest that any of the others that are out there who may in fact have an interest in 2012, you know, hit the ground running also and do what they can do to build the party.

BMI: Often some left-wing pundits and sometimes even the mainstream media suggest there’s a division in the Republican Party driven by the conservative movement in a quest for ideological purity. Your father and his 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” managed to keep division at a minimum. Is that a potential obstacle – this drive for purity?

MR: I think that’s an environment we need to stay away from. I think what happens is when the conservative movement does not have a leader per se, then they’re kind of all over the map. They need that person to be able coalesce behind. They haven’t found that found that person, so they keep on searching and looking. So you have the purity tests that are coming up and what have you.

But you know my father, even though he wrote a book on say abortion in 1983, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” a man that was pro-life – remember as governor of the state of California, he signed an abortion bill. So would that be held against him in today’s conservative world? You know, when he was governor of California, he raised taxes. Would that be held against him if he were running for president today?

Remember, if he ran for president today, we would have not had him as president, we would only know him as governor. So he did raise taxes, he did sign an abortion bill and no-fault divorce. Would the fight that he would have to have to win the nomination of the party be a fight coming from the Right or a fight coming from the Left? We have to look at the big picture. What’s the big picture here? And Ronald Reagan always painted that big picture – he didn’t let the minutia really get in the way of him. Therefore, he could write a book in ’83, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” and in 1992 support his pro-choice daughter Maureen for the House of Representatives because he looked at her and said, “You know something – we disagree on that issue and we always are going to. But the fact is I’d rather have you representing me in Washington, D.C. than the Democrat that they’re putting out.”■

Thursday, February 11, 2010


Everytime you hear the lie that Bush inherited a surplus when he took office after Clinton, always keep in mind "Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance." There is another tidbit to always keep in mind -- The left lies all the time; they have to (thank you, Mark Levin).

Although Bush did his fair share, it does not hold a candle to how liberals spend money and grow government -- in complete opposition to our Constitution. So much for what Obama inherited, more like what he created, but then he's not know for being truthful. They next thing we will here is him taking credit for Iraq. Oh, wait -- Joe Biden already did that. Hubris!

James Long writes about the deficits and debt that The One inherited in American Thinker:

Deception as a Principle of Governance
by James Long, February 11, 2010

The Democrats all agree that President George Bush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton's term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

Hillary said much the same thing on "Meet the Press," 15 November 2009:

It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we'd stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on "This Week," 24 January 2010:

And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.

And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.

Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton's last year in office turned decisively downward -- the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats' projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton's last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.

With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999) to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton's last year. Axelrod's and Menendez's claims that the surplus was $236 billion on "[t]he day the Bush administration took over" were off by just sixteen months, during which time markets, government revenues, and the "Clinton surplus" were falling like rocks. At the end of the first FY of President Bush's term (2001), the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion. The "Clinton surplus" fell $393 billion in twenty-four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.

Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that would have rivaled President Reagan's victories. In reality, the voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.

Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.

Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton's dot-com bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats' mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.

Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ's wasteful and corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud-ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his non-stimulating stimulus package.

President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two Democratic disasters described above, but Obama's disaster is much worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.

If Hillary is really interested in "heading toward eliminating our debt," then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money foolishly.

In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The term "pravda" is usually translated as "truth," but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as "the official word." The official Democratic word and the official words of all declining mainstream Pravdas is that everything is President Bush's fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash happened during the Clinton administration.

James Long is a professional engineer and manager.


It should not be forgotten that Obama has talked about his desire to re-write our Constitution, because it "is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you; says what the federal government can't do to you; but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf". Exactly!! They knew exactly what they were doing, and it is not your place, Mr. Obama, to change it. This is the underbelly of the man we now have in our White House. It should not be a surprise. This information was out there, but America was sold on his "hopie, changie" thing.

Obamacare is not going away, no matter how unpopular, no matter how many Americans do not want it, and no matter how many elections he loses. But, he tells us he is not an ideologue, so we are sheeple who are to believe in his word, and let him reconstruct our Constitution, 'cause remember, it's 'deeply flawed".

I think not!

This tongue-in-cheek is excellent, while quite eerie, by Andy Wickersham in Pajamas Media:

Obama’s ‘Academically Approved’ Approach to Health Care
The president's Super Bowl Sunday interview provided more evidence of his disdain for the Constitution.
by Andy Wickersham, February 10, 2010

From the president’s interview with Katie Couric prior to the Super Bowl:

Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy.
As you can clearly see, this man’s genius is being terribly underutilized here. All of these brilliant solutions to all of these great problems, but the delivery system is unfortunately quite antiquated. And as a result we have a terrifically wise and benevolent leader who is at the moment a bit hamstrung by a process that could certainly use some streamlining.

Sure, he’s done a pretty masterful job given the restraints that the American system of government have placed on him, but this health care thing has really highlighted the regrettable fact that the Founders really only left him with so much room to maneuver. If only someone as gifted and righteous as The One were able to work freely on behalf of the common good, all would be well. After all, how could America go wrong pinning its destiny to a man that uses the word “elegant” and the phrase “academically approved” in the same sentence? You certainly weren’t going to get that from George Bush.

So you can see where a man of Obama’s brilliance would be a bit frustrated at having to get involved in such a messy legislative process. But you do have to admire his willingness to do so. As he said in his State of the Union address, he “never suggested that change would be easy” or that he could “do it alone.” He knew full well that with the checks and balances the Framers had put in place and with America’s traditional reliance on the rule of law, it was going to take some time to remake this country. Kingdoms simply aren’t created in a day, you know.

In all seriousness, though, this is really quite a statement. First off, Obama puts his freakish arrogance on display, yet again, for those on the left and right to marvel at — albeit for very different reasons. Because, you know, if left to his own devices, our president could come up with a splendid approach to health care, it would receive that all-important academic approval, and it really wouldn’t be all that difficult.

Of course, the ridiculousness of this statement, as is the case with many of the gems that come from this president, goes beyond simply its epic grandiosity. Notice he uses the word “approach” instead of “plan.” Isn’t this precisely what he tried to do in the first place: approach Congress without an actual plan? And I don’t think you can get an “approach” passed. But then, I’m not The One. Although I do know that America is a republic, not a democracy.

But alas, the president is not left to his own devices and the good doctor is instead restrained from being able to liberally apply that miraculous Obama salve to the wound inflicted on America by those awful insurance companies. And this brings us to what I believe is the most disconcerting aspect of this statement. Yet again, Obama is making it abundantly clear that he does not hold our form of government in the highest regard.

While on the surface it may seem that this is simply a candid statement by a person who is confident that he has the best “approach” to fix America’s health care system and that he would obviously like to see his ideas enacted, there is on closer examination a whole lot more going on here than that.

There are Americans everywhere that feel they have better ideas than this president does with respect to improving America. But I doubt too many of them would “love nothing better” than for the Constitution to be discarded in order for these ideas to be implemented. I know I certainly wouldn’t. While I personally would love to see an America freed from a crushing regulatory structure, an America utilizing its natural resources to their fullest potential, an America with a much different tax code, etc., I certainly don’t want the Constitution circumvented in order to accomplish these things.

But then this statement makes perfect sense if you consider it within the context of what we know about Barack Obama. He has said the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” He has bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is that it is “generally a charter of negative liberties” that doesn’t “say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He has talked to Joe the Plumber about the merit in spreading the wealth. And the list goes on.

Oh, if only The One could be freed from those constitutional chains that bind.

Andy Wickersham has a master's in public policy from Claremont Graduate University. He is the former producer of a prominent Southern California land development publication.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010


The Tea Party movement is under attack again, and this time it's by the very people who recently thrashed the Supreme Court for their narrow decision to preserve freedom of speech. With all the noise Obama and his defenders made against this decision, they are the biggest offenders. A group of big corporate companies have organized a new web site targeting the tea parties under the guise of a grassroots organization. It's a very tangled web of corporations, big labor unions, tons of money, and political slush funds to counter the tea party movement.

Ha! Obama said the Supreme Court decision would "open the floodgates for special interest." Hypocrites! Wonder if he's planning on investigating these infractions.

Joseph Abrams of FOX News writes in detail:

Anti-Tea Party Web Site Part of Scheme to Funnel Funds
By Joseph Abrams -, February 10, 2010

A new Web site targeting the tea parties is a part of a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions and trickling slowly into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

A seemingly grassroots organization that's mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds -- including sizable labor union contributions -- through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer.

A Web site popped up in January dedicated to preventing the tea party's "radical" and "dangerous" ideas from "gaining legislative traction," targeting GOP candidates in Illinois for the firing squad.

"This movement is a fad," proclaims, which was established by the American Public Policy Center (APPC), a D.C.-based campaign shop that few people have ever heard of.

But a close look reveals the APPC's place in a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions into political slush funds for Democratic activists.

Here's how it works: What appears like a local groundswell is in fact the creation of two men -- Craig Varoga and George Rakis, Democratic Party strategists who have set up a number of so-called 527 groups, the non-profit election organizations that hammer on contentious issues (think Swift Boats, for example).

Varoga and Rakis keep a central mailing address in Washington, pulling in soft money contributions from unions and other well-padded sources to engage in what amounts to a legal laundering system. The money -- tens of millions of dollars -- gets circulated around to different states by the 527s, which pay for TV ads, Internet campaigns and lobbyist salaries, all while keeping the hands of the unions clean -- for the most part.

The system helps hide the true sources of funding, giving the appearance of locally bred opposition in states from Oklahoma to New Jersey, or in the case of the Tea Party Web site, in Illinois.

And this whitewash is entirely legal, say election law experts, who told that this arrangement more or less the norm in Washington.

"It's not illegal but it is, I think, dishonest on the part of the organizations," said Paul Ryan, a legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. "And there's a reason they do it: they know voters don't like outsiders coming in to sway the vote."

Calls and e-mails to the Maryland-based consultant firm Independent Strategies, run by Varoga and Rakis, were not returned.

Outside of that firm, the center of their activity appears to be a single office in Southeast D.C. -- 300 M Street, Suite 1102 -- which plays host to a sprawling political shell game they have established.

Public records show at least seven political shops listed in Suite 1102, most of which are essentially clones of one another, but all of which have offered money -- from measly thousands to game-changing millions -- in state-level elections across the country:

-American Public Policy Committee - Donations | IRS forms
-Patriot Majority - Donations | IRS forms
-Citizens for Progress - Donations | IRS forms
-Oklahoma Freedom Fund - Donations | IRS forms
-Mid Atlantic Leadership Fund - Donations | IRS forms
-Public Security Now - Donations | IRS forms
-Pioneer Majority - Donations | IRS forms
-Bluegrass Freedom Fund - Donations | IRS forms

The APPC, which developed the anti-tea party ads, has gotten all of its money for 2010 from Patriot Majority and from Citizens for Progress, which is also called Patriot Majority West.

Patriot Majority West sent them $25,000 in January, and Patriot Majority added another $5,000. The groups, both run by Varoga and Rakis, also swap hundreds of thousands of dollars between themselves, money often buttressed by gifts from Patriot Majority Midwest, seen above as the Oklahoma Freedom Fund.

The confusing naming system is intentional, say election law experts, who generally disapprove of the practice.

"I do take issue with and have long complained about groups that shield particular special interests with innocuous-sounding names like ... 'Americans for America,'" said Ryan. "That type of naming of an organization, I believe, is specifically intended to obscure the true sources of funding of special interest groups behind political activity."

These three Patriot Majority groups also send checks to Independent Strategies, the strategy firm run by Varoga and Rakis. And some of the 527s have sent money to VR Strategies, another firm run in part by and named after Varoga.

The most recent backers of the Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West, which helped fund the APPC and thus the Tea Party site, form a veritable Who's Who of the country's top labor unions: the Service Employees International Union, Change to Win, the Communications Workers of America, the National Education Association, the Teamsters Union, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union and others besides.

But by far the largest donations have come from a collection of unionized government workers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) -- which in 2008 alone donated $5.8 million to Patriot Majority and another $4.1 million to Patriot Majority Midwest.

Using this arrangement, Varoga and Rakis are managing what NPR called a "never-ending pot of union money" that they dispense among the 527s they run, which in turn pay for ads in hotly contested election districts.

That means that taxpayer dollars, sent up as union dues, have been going to fund a host of Democratic causes and help quash the tea party movement.

What's more, Varoga and Rakis are not actually present in Suite 1102. That is the office of their lawyer, Joseph Sandler, a longtime general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Sandler, whose firm and trust account raked in over $500,000 in Democratic party money in 2009 alone, told Fox News that there was nothing irregular in their setup.

"That's common practice," said Sandler, a renowned expert on election law who served as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee until February 2009, and whose firm, Sandler Reiff & Young, continues to work for both the Democratic party and numerous left-wing 527 groups.

Sandler noted that political committees and groups are often run by multiple people and don't have a central office, but need a place where they can be in ongoing contact with the IRS and other federal agencies that track election funds.

"It's very common for a law firm to give their address ... as the official address for the organization where correspondence can be received," he said.

It has the effect of confusing the ultimate sources of election funding, but also serves an important practical end, say election law experts.

"As a practical matter there's not a huge universe of lawyers in the United States that know political law all that well and most of them are here in D.C., said Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center. "It's not uncommon for political organizations to be using lawyers in D.C. or starters, even if they're all over the country."

It is not clear whether is the start of a larger campaign run by Varoga and Rakis to target tea party activists. Additional attempts to reach Varoga at a California number were unsuccessful. A staffer answering the phone in Varoga's Oakland office last week told that he was unavailable for comment and hung up.