At Ground Zero—We say “no.”

Americans, once again, are so far ahead of their leaders that it becomes more obvious everyday just how out of touch and how insulated those who think they run things really are. Americans have said out loud and firmly – building a mosque at ground zero is an affront to the nation, and we refuse to accept this slap in the face. Ground zero is where Americans not only said “no” to an attack on our country, but are once again saying “no” to what is a stealth attack on our culture and our liberties. And, we are sick to death of being told we’re the intolerant ones. We are sick to death of none of our country’s leaders speaking up for Americans and America. Well, it’s up to us, and here’s Andrew McCarthy over at National Review Online to stand up and loudly proclaim it for us. Thank you, sir.

A tectonic shift is in motion: How fitting that its focal point is Ground Zero, the inevitable fault line between Islam and the West.  Snip –

…Sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque neither own the property in question nor possess the means to build and operate the palatial Islamic center they envision. The more light that shines on their record of murky real-estate dealings and the dubious circumstances of their limited stake in the Ground Zero property, the more questions arise. In a more sensible world, those questions would get answered before we plunged into a rancorous public debate. That hasn’t happened, though. In spite of the implacable determination of the mayor (and the attorney general who would be governor) to look the other way, the issue has galvanized the public. What has long bubbled beneath the surface did not need much more heat to boil over.

For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance. Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sharia were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.

Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency. Americans have now heard Barack Obama’s shtick enough times to know that when he talks about “our values,” he’s really talking about his values, which most of us don’t share. And after ten years of CAIR’s tired tirades, we’re immune to Feisal Rauf, too.

We look around us and we see our country unrivaled by anything in the history of human tolerance. We see thousands of thriving mosques, permitted to operate freely even though we know for a fact that mosques have been used against us, repeatedly, to urge terrorism, recruit terrorists, raise money for terrorists, store and transfer firearms, and inflame Muslims against America and the West…We’re weary, and we don’t really care if that means that Time magazine, Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Fareed Zakaria, and the rest think we’re bad people — they think we’re bad people, anyway.

…How can we be sure that if imam Rauf builds his monument on our graveyard, it won’t become what other purportedly “moderate” Islamic centers have become: a cauldron of anti-American vitriol?

It turns out that there are no satisfactory answers…It is embarrassingly obvious that while some of us have been working to defeat Islamism in our midst, our elites are of the incorrigibly progressive mindset that counsels accommodating them — in the delusion that they will be appeased rather than encouraged to become more aggressive. That is precisely the mindset that makes an Islamist think: Maybe now is the time for a $100 million mosque at Ground Zero.  Snip –

The reformers’ (of Islam) slim chance at prevailing (in moderating Islam) hinges on the American people’s will to say “no” to our self-anointed betters. Ground Zero, once again the site of epic Islamist overreach, may be remembered as the place where we started to say “no.”

Let us no longer be cowed by those who would do repulsive things to our country and our culture in the name of “tolerance” when we are the most tolerant of all nations. For tolerance to really prevail, the United States of America must continue to survive. We cannot continue along a path of self-destruction in order to appear tolerant to the intolerant among us. Read all of McCarthy here:  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245872/where-we-begin-say-no-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

Related: No First Amendment protection for mosque or Koran burning.

George Newmayr at The American Spectator does something unique as concerning the argument that the building of the mosque at Ground Zero and the burning of the Koran are First Amendment issues, he actually knows the history of the part of the First Amendment that concerns religion and churches. Guess what? The First Amendment protects neither of these most recent cases.

The truth is that the First Amendment protects neither the Ground Zero mosque nor Jones’s burning of copies of the Koran. How do we know this? Because under the real First Amendment, the one written by the Founding Fathers, local communities within states were perfectly free to pass laws prohibiting the construction of particular religious buildings or pass laws that banned book burnings.

Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” to make clear that the federal government had no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs. The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states’ religious activities.

The notion that the First Amendment requires individual states to treat all religious believers equally was invented out of thin air by judicial activists…

The rejection of the real Constitution for the phony “living” one explains today’s tyranny of the minority. That tyranny has assumed ironically divergent forms in recent days. In New York City, a majority stands aghast as a group of Muslims tries to build a mosque within blocks of the World Trade Center ruins. In Florida, the majority stands appalled but idle before the pastor of a tiny church who launches an “International Burn-a-Koran Day.” Both incidents are, in varying degrees, acts of gross and pointless incivility that do not truly enjoy constitutional protections…

States and municipalities are free to zone and to restrict the construction of buildings, whether mosques or churches or gay bars. Sounds to me that we Americans need to get out our pocket Constitutions and become familiar with the law of the land because we certainly cannot trust those in power to actually know or care what’s in it. Read it all here: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/09/the-founding-fathers-first-ame

//

The following is a communication I had with one of my many uncles a year after the attacks of 9-11. I just ran across this in my computer files and thought it was interesting enough to share here.  I believe  it is still relevant almost nine years after we were attacked

We were talking about our culture and the immorality within it. I will not go into the entire conversation but he mentioned that we should look at how “our licentious* society impress the Muslim true believers.”
*Licentious:
1: lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness (Webster’s)

My reply to his statement was as follows:

“Many in our culture are, as you say, licentious.

The thing is, even with this being the state of some in our culture; the United States culture is light years ahead of any of the Muslim countries morally.

In order to be moral you have to have the choice to be immoral and then chose to be moral. In order to be ethical you have to have the choice of being unethical and choosing to be ethical. If you have no choice how can you be moral?

You cannot force one to be moral though you can force one to have no choice in whether to be moral or not. Having choice is the only thing that ensures morality and ethics. Look at the societies that have grown up in the Muslim areas. Are these societies noted for their high ethical standards?

Morality has to be taught by parents passing down their morality to their children. Those children can either accept or reject it. If a child has no choice in the matter he or she is neither moral nor immoral they are merely amoral.

The majority of Americans are moral because they have a choice in the matter. In a rational society they know that one is moral and ethical because that is the way to survival as an individual and a culture. Where one has no choice the society decays and has a fetid odor.  Not really the way to survival is it?”

This concept has application in many places.  The one that comes to mind immediately is Obama Care.

Taking care of those that do not have the wherewithal to pay for their own health care is the subject of charity.  Mandating that those that can pay for their own health care also pay for the care of others makes us all amoral in relation to that subject.  There is no choice in this.

A couple of months back Neil Cavuto interviewed a Catholic nun on his show on Fox News.  She said that passing health care was a MORAL issue.   I’d never heard something so ridiculous.  It is the “hat” of the the clergy to purvey charity.  This nun wants to make herself and the rest of the clergy irrelevant by having government extort money to give to others for their health care.  When the government takes over this function, actual charity becomes non-existent.  We all become slaves to those with a health need and with that, all of the resentment and lack of motivation slavery entails.

The solution to all of the socialistic programs being foisted on the American public is getting the Federal government out and back to adhering to the Constitution.  No where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the power to provide health care to citizens (despite the Supreme Court’s bastardization of the Commerce Clause).  Individual states may chose to do this (reference the 10th Amendment) as long as it does not violate the individual state constitutions.

I don’t hold out much hope that this will come to pass anytime soon but I do believe the American public is waking up to the lie that is nanny government.  Let’s hope the awakening is rapid.

More stimulus? Really?

On Labor Day, the president touted a new “stimulus” plan. Smaller but wiser? Smaller, yes, but exactly what will this stimulus stimulate? He says “jobs.” We say “his voters,” just like his first one. He’s the president of the few not the many, and this stimulus will stick it to the many (and those not yet born) to pay off more of his union voters. This column is from Dr. Zero over at http://hotair.com.

President Obama “unveiled” his new “stimulus” plan in Wisconsin (yesterday).  It was a lot like watching an alcoholic unveil his new plan to get sober by switching to lite beer:

We’re going to “fire up sluggish economic growth” by plowing another fifty billion deficit dollars into roads, rail, and airports?  It’s hard to believe even the American media would be lazy enough to write such a headline with a straight face.  Snip –

In the fading days of the Democrats’ disastrous reign, we’ve come to a moment when they’re begging us to let them “create economic activity” by hiring one more team of union excavators to dig some random holes, and one more team of union construction workers to fill them right back in.

State governments are still sitting on hundreds of billions in unspent money from the first massive “stimulus” plan.  Why can’t they cut a few bucks out of their slush funds to build these desperately needed roads and airports?  If nearly $800 billion in madcap government spending produced nothing but massive unemployment, plus a bumper crop of road signs touting the glory of the stimulus plan, what good is another $50 billion going to do?

The Administration assures us its little espresso shot of new stimulus spending will be revenue neutral, paid for by “ending tax breaks for oil and gas companies.”  Oh, that’s just wonderful. Those tax hikes on oil and gas will be passed directly along to the consumer, in addition to hindering investment in the development of new energy resources.  The last thing a fragile, recessionary economy needs is an increase in energy costs.  I’m all in favor of tax simplification, but it has to be across the board…

…They’re insane if they think an electorate prepared to sweep the President’s party out of office would be excited by the thought of purchasing another fifty billion dollars’ worth of failure.

Americans as a whole are shaking their heads in disbelief and growing more and more determined to stop the arrogance of an administration that thinks we’re stupid enough to keep buying what he’s selling while he’s selling us down the river. Read it all here: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/09/06/hold-the-stimulus-and-pass-the-tea/

Related: Obamanomics – more stimulus?

The Wall Street Journal isn’t buying what the president is selling either. They review how well Stimulus I (under George W. Bush) worked, Stimulus II under our current president worked, and why we shouldn’t pass another one. They also say the blaming of Republicans is bizarre when it’s the Democrats and the administration’s own pushy policies that are continuing the unraveling of the economy. This is an unsigned editorial.

…In February 2008, (President Bush) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed on a $168 billion combination of federal spending and temporary tax rebates that were supposed to maintain growth through the housing market decline that election year.

Larry Summers, who would later become Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, made the case for such a stimulus to boost domestic “demand” in late 2007…

Then CBO Director Peter Orzag agreed, so that’s how we got the first stimulus package.  Then, we know how we got Obama’s stimulus…

…the $814 billion plan that was also supposed to make up for lost private demand. It too was a combination of one-time tax rebates and spending, mostly on social programs like Medicaid rather than on “shovel-read projects.” Mr. Summers promised this would have a 1.5 “multiplier” effect on GDP growth…

All during this time, the Federal Reserve was also feeding the economy with unprecedented monetary stimulus…

…Congress passed other industry-specific stimulus bills—cash-for-clunkers, the $8,000 home-buyer’s tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and jobless pay up to 99 weeks. Yet all of this has merely stolen auto and home purchases from the future, with sales falling once the tax benefits expired….  Snip –

In sum, never before has government spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation to spur growth, yet the results have been mediocre at best. In return for adding nearly $3 trillion in federal debt in two years, we still have 14.9 million unemployed. What happened?

We have liberals saying the stimulus was too small to do much good. Still Obama says it’s the fault of Republicans for blocking all of his amazing programs. Then there’s the argument that this recession is bigger and badder than others. Time to debunk these:

Given that the stimulus program was so poorly structured and so overtly politicized, how do we know that, say, $500 billion more would have made a difference even on Keynesian terms? The money for government spending has to come from somewhere, which means from the private economy. Our guess is that by ensuring even higher debt and implying higher taxes, a bigger spending stimulus would have done even more harm.

The column goes on to say that making the claim that the stimulus “saved” millions of jobs “is a the result of ‘plug-and-play’ economic models that multiply the amount of dollars spent by the assumed impact on jobs based on previous studies, and, voila, the jobless rate would have been higher without such spending. In the real world, the economy lost 2.51 million jobs.” So, why is this recession so difficult to tame?

…Democrats embarked on the most sweeping expansion of government since the 1960s, imposing national health care, rewriting financial laws from top to bottom, attempting to re-regulate the telecom industry, and imposing vast new costs on energy, among many other proposals. Not to stop there, in January it plans to impose a huge new tax increase on “the wealthy,” which in practice means on the most profitable small businesses.

Central to Mr. Obama’s political strategy for passing these priorities has been trashing business and bankers as greedy profiteers. His Administration has denounced or held up as political or legal targets the Chrysler bond holders, Wall Street bonuses, Goldman Sachs, health-insurer profits, carbon energy investors, and anyone else who has dared to oppose any of its plans to “transform” U.S. society.

Only yesterday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama was at it again, declaring that “anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up—they just haven’t studied our history. We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness.”

Whatever else one can say about such rhetoric, it is not the way to restore business confidence or turn a fragile recovery into a durable expansion. It has only spread fear and even greater uncertainty.

Blaming Republicans is ridiculous. They only had 40 (now 41) senators and are a minority in the House as well.

… No Administration since LBJ’s in 1965 has passed so much of its agenda in one Congress—which is precisely the problem.

… Mr. Obama’s economic problems are intellectual and political… Democrats purposely used the recession as a political opening to redistribute income, reverse the free-market reforms of the Reagan era, and put government at the commanding heights of economic decision-making.

… The only path back to robust growth and prosperity is to stop this agenda dead in its tracks, and then by stages to reverse it. These are the economic stakes in November.

When the history of this self-absorbed, narcissistic and abusive administration is written, historians will point to the ever-increasing and pushy spending policies of Obama and his Democrats as a dark cloud in the history of the republic. The silver lining is the resurgence of the American spirit along with the determination to defeat an internal enemy of the people. A president who tried to defeat the spirit of American independence with continuous blows to its pride, honor and liberties while attempting to use the hard-earned wealth of his own people to tear America down. Repulsive.   Read it all here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071281687927918.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#articleTabs%3Darticle

//

Will the Internet revamp education?

The Internet has revamped many an institution, so is education next? We certainly hope so. As the Internet has become a necessary corrective to a hopelessly left-wing press, can it also be a corrective to an educational establishment that has become so politically correct, inefficient, costly and mired in politics instead of doing its main job: educating our children? This is one of the more positive stories I’ve read in a long time. Be prepared for this innovator to be attacked by Obama, the educational establishment, Democrats and their union backers (oh, and maybe that left-wing press I wrote about.) They already don’t like home schooling and, apparently, charter school vouchers for inner city children. What will they think of Salman Kahn? This is from Bruno Behrend at the website: http://chicagoboyz.net/.

…Is it possible that a short education story in Fortune Magazine and on CNN’s Money site will shake the foundations of America’s overpriced and underperforming education system? One can only hope.

A recent CNN/Fortune Magazine story entitled “Bill Gates’ favorite teacher” told an amazing story of how one young man is revolutionizing the delivery of knowledge over the internet. The site and method is so successful that Bill Gates and venture capitalist John Doerr have snapped to attention at the growing phenomenon of the Khan Academy, an on-line school providing sequenced curricula on a wide range of content – all for free.

The first thing that should come to mind as you read the article is the massive potential value of Khan’s idea, not to mention the value of the 1000s of imitators and innovators who will build on the foundation that he has built. The next thing that we should all understand is the pointless waste of today’s overpriced and underperforming education system. Snip –

The existence of Khan Academy should force us to question everything about how we will educate the coming generations of Americans. Will we still need teachers? Yes, but far fewer than what we have now. We will also need to redefine the word ‘teacher’ way beyond the borders of today’s limited, union-defined monopoly.

Will we still need brick and mortar schools? Probably, but far fewer than the massively wasteful infrastructure we have now. Spend a few minutes on Khan Academy’s site, and you realize that an I-Pad, smart phone, or similar device, combined with a network of independent learning centers, could revolutionize education in less than a decade – all for a fraction of the cost.

Read it all here: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15322.html

You can read the story of Salman Kahn, a son of Indian immigrants, and how his academy came into being just a few short years ago in 2006 and how much he has impressed Bill Gates. This is from David A. Kaplan at http://money.cnn.com/.

What’s remarkable about Khan Academy, aside from its nonpareil word of mouth and burgeoning growth, is that it’s free and prizes brevity. Remember your mumbling macroeconomics teacher whose 50-minute monologue in a large auditorium could bore the dead? That isn’t Khan. He rarely cracks wise…but in less than 15 minutes Khan gets to the essence of the topics he’s carved out.

Online critics question whether he amounts to a dilettante who’s turning learning into pedagogical McNuggets. But while you obviously don’t learn calculus in one session — the subject is divided into 191 parts, which doesn’t include 32 more in precalc — Khan’s components seem to hit the sweet spot of length and substance. And he covers an astonishing array. There are the core subjects in math — arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics — and the de rigueur science offerings, like biology, chemistry, and physics. But Khan also gives lessons in Economics of a Cupcake Factory, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Alien Abduction Brain Teaser.

Like so many entrepreneurial epiphanies, Khan’s came by accident. Born and raised in New Orleans — the son of immigrants from India and what’s now Bangladesh — Khan was long an academic star. With his MBA from Harvard, he has three degrees from MIT: a BS in math and a BS and a master’s in electrical engineering and computer science. He also was the president of his MIT class and did volunteer teaching in nearby Brookline for talented children, as well as developed software to teach children with ADHD. What he doesn’t know he picks up from endless reading and cogitation: His gift, like that of many teachers, is being able to reduce the complex. “Part of the beauty of what he does is his consistency,” says (Bill) Gates. Of Khan’s capacity to teach, Gates, who says he spends considerable time trying to help his three kids learn the basics of math and science, tells Fortune, “I kind of envy him.”

In the summer of 2004, while still living in Boston, Khan learned that his seventh-grader cousin, Nadia, in New Orleans was having trouble in math class converting kilograms. He agreed to remotely tutor her. Using Yahoo Doodle software as a shared notepad, as well as a telephone, Nadia thrived — so much so that Khan started working with her brothers, Ali and Arman. Word spread to other relatives and friends. Khan wrote JavaScript problem generators to keep up a supply of practice exercises. But between their soccer practices, his job, and multiple time zones, scheduling became impossible. “I started to record videos on YouTube for them to watch at their own pace,” Khan recalls. Other users tuned in, and the blueprint for Khan Academy was created.

Read it all here: http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/23/technology/sal_khan_academy.fortune/index.htm

Kahn’s story is the story of America. It’s the story of the immigrants who come here legally and bring with them their drive for excellence, their brilliance and their will to succeed. This is the America we want to thrive, not the one that says – “come on in everyone and the rest of the country will support you.” We want contributors to the fabric of America, not those who wish to rip that fabric apart. We need these innovators today now more than ever. They are just as important to our country as a Bill Gates or a Henry Ford. We need them to rebuild America before the left tears it down completely.

As blogger Behrend says, “It is time to question the meaning of the words ‘education reform’ and the investment in reforming the current system. Once the automobile was invented, there was no need for ‘buggy whip reform’ or ‘horse turnaround plans.’ Mr. Khan, and those like him, has exposed the current system for the obsolete monopoly that it is. This article lays waste to the idea of ‘reforming’ the current system. The best thing we can do is rapidly manage the transition to an entirely new education model.”

I took a short primer in biology at the Kahn Academy. His simplicity, brevity, and general likeability made the learning fun and interesting. Since I never believed I got a decent education in math, I plan to take the algebra primer in the coming weeks. It is truly exciting. You can check out the Kahn Academy here: http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy?

//

Obama denigrates America once again.

What kind of a United States president would report his own country (and specifically one of its states) to the United Nations Human Rights Council and not even clue in the governor of that state beforehand? One who hates his country? One who abuses his own country in order to gain what he thinks will be love from other countries or to show how much better his administration is than all the others in American history? In reality the rest of the world is laughing at this president who tears down his own country, leaving our enemies with less to do to undermine American morale while leaving the nation without a protector. If they aren’t laughing at him, they have to be scratching their heads that someone who is elected to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of United States (and its people) would so blatantly refuse to do so. This is a president unlike any other. We need to make sure we never again have such a president. This is from Michelle Malkin over at National Review Online.

…Last week, Obama’s State Department handed in America’s first-ever report to the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with something called the “Universal Periodic Review.” In short, the 29-page document is a self-aggrandizing report card touting the administration’s far-left domestic and foreign-policy initiatives for the world’s approval.

The report boasts of racial and gender bean-counting in the executive branch; Justice Department outreach to Muslim grievance groups opposed to post-9/11 security measures; teachers’ union payoffs in the federal stimulus law; continuing commitment to closing the Gitmo detention facility for enemy combatants; and the illusory lifesaving effects of Obamacare on minorities…

The report also includes a section on “values and immigration,” which essentially singles out Arizona’s immigration-enforcement law as a human-rights deficiency “that is being addressed in a court action.”

In response, Arizona governor Jan Brewer rightly blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for succumbing to “internationalism run amok.” Brewer pointed out in a letter to Clinton, “Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration. In fact, the Department of Justice has correctly not included these so-called ‘human rights’ issues in the current litigation against the State of Arizona.” Somehow, that inconvenient detail escaped the Foggy Bottom bureaucrats’ notice.  Snip –

The inclusion of Arizona in a politically correct catalogue of human rights and wrongs is more than “downright offensive,” as Brewer put it. It’s a national travesty…

…Fresh off this U.N. mess, (Attorney General Eric) Holder’s Social Justice Department has launched yet another vendetta against Arizona. On Monday, the DOJ filed suit against Phoenix-area community colleges because they imposed strict citizenship screening of potential employees.

As Obama throws America under the bus for the cause of open borders, the shady U.N. human-rights police must be laughing their jackboots off.

Read all of Malkin here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245315/arizona-vs-u-n-human-rights-police-michelle-malkin

Carol A. Tabor at The American Thinker website echoes Malkin’s disgust with the Obama administration’s obvious hatred for the country. She quotes an article in the Washington Times.

(The report) describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don’t speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims…the report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists … but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.

Tabor goes on to show how spitting mad she is. She accurately describes my feelings as well.

Beyond the outrage felt by Governor Jan Brewer, whose move to protect Arizonans’ human rights was offered up as an example of an abuse of human rights by Mr. Obama’s State Department report…for many citizens, this report is a rank anti-American manifesto and the last straw. Many believe it to be outright evil, that there is no other word to encompass Obama’s disgraceful and indefensible decision. This odious report has placed America — us — on a list of human rights violators that includes Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. And Mr. Obama and his administration have done it purposefully, intentionally, and with malice aforethought.  Snip –

…lying to Americans about the cruelty of their country isn’t enough for Obama — he must preach it to the world. Because in Obama’s worldview, the world is the ultimate arbiter of America, even though that quaint document, our Constitution, specifically grants such responsibility to the American people alone. Snip –

Whatever the reason, Obama has no soft spot for America. The unpresidential condescension he feels for our country and its religion- and gun-clinging citizens oozes from his pores and spills out of them in unguarded moments. And that disrespect — the kind that comes only from those who are clueless about leadership — gives both aid and comfort to our enemies and leaves those who wish to share in the bounty of our freedom and liberty in the dark.

Make sure you thank anyone you know who voted for this poor excuse for an American president. Unfortunately, there are too many in this country who are self-hating Americans just as this president is. We cannot allow these folks anywhere near the most powerful position in the world ever again. Can the nation survive another two years of this president? Vote in November if you love your country. Read it all here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/what_american_president_would.html

//

Covering up for Soros.

Of late, pundits from the New Yorker and the New York Times, as well as Barack Obama himself, have taken to bashing a couple of libertarian billionaires who are behind Americans for Prosperity. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been unfairly targeted, and what’s laughable is that those attacking them have also gone out of their way to sing the praises of that powerful destroyer of countries and their economies, George Soros – the puppet master behind the Democrat Party. This is a well-done article by Ed Laskey of the American Thinker. He counts the ways (and of course there are many more) of Soros’ influence and corruption of the Democrat Party.

…Soros obviously has his financial interests in mind when he gives, and he knows how to use his billions to make more billions by tapping his friends in high places in the Democratic Party.

…Soros has made a boatload of money off his huge investment in the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras, a company that has benefited mightily from its deep offshore oil reserves. Barack Obama had the U.S. Export-Import bank extend billions of dollars of loans to underwrite Petrobras’s offshore oil development. Soros positioned himself to reap big gains just days before his pal in the White House pushed for billions in loans to Petrobras — a company from a country that can certainly tap the financial markets on its own to raise funds to tap oil off its shores. The company did not need easy money from American taxpayers. Yet there was Soros, who somehow was prescient enough to roll the loaded dice in taking a major stake in Petorbras. He got a double-dip type of return when Barack (“never let a crisis go to waste”) Obama shut down deep-water oil exploration off America’s own energy-rich coasts — further enriching the prospects for Petrobras and George Soros…

Soros’s pet think-tank, the Center for American Progress, constantly pushes green schemes. Democratic politicians are on board, as well. This group includes Barack Obama who, runs after one electric battery, solar power plant, and windmill after another (when he is not on the links or listening to live music at the club he created in the East Room of the White House). How generous have Obama and the Democrats been to the green schemers? The grand champion of budget-busting departments has been the “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Program,” which received $1.7 billion in 2008 and $16.8 billion in 2009, a 1,014% increase in just one year. Media reports over the past year or so have tied numerous Democratic donors to these “ventures.” They have been richly rewarded with taxpayer dollars.

What a great scheme! Give thousands to Obama and various Democrats and get billions back in our taxpayer dollars. Who is a big investor in “clean energy,” by the way? Why, none other than George Soros, who announced back in October 2009 that he would invest at least $1 billion in “clean energy.” The Center for American Progress is closely tied to the Obama administration…Soros knows how to use leverage, and the millions he put into the Center for American Progress (and into the election of Barack Obama and other leftist Democrats) will reap big returns — at our expense — in the years ahead.  Snip –

I have written quite a bit about the riches we have in America in the form of shale gas. Soros has investments in the energy industry that would be harmed if our cheap and plentiful reserves were tapped to their full extent. Among his holdings are a huge one in InterOil that has big reserves of natural gas in New Guinea. Democrats are now trying to shut down our shale gas industry by attacking “fracking” — a method that is used to extract the gas from the shale rock that holds it. There is plenty of evidence that fracking is safe and sound — it has been used for many years. Nevertheless, the industry is under attack by Democrats in Congress such as Ed Markey, by Obama’s EPA, by the Center for American Progress, by Pro Publica — an outfit created and funded by Soros pals Herbert and Marion Sandler — and recently by MoveOn.org. Soros must be getting desperate, as Americans crave cheap natural gas, to bring in MoveOn.org, which has heretofore focused on the purely political sport of bashing Republicans and electing as many left-wingers as it could — including, of course, the biggest of them all, Barack Obama…

Can you say, “Culture of Corruption?” So, when will the investigations commence into the shady Soros dealings and the criminal Democrats’ handing out of our precious taxpayer dollars?  I wouldn’t hold my breath because Soros is so rich and so connected as to be bullet proof. Let’s hope we can get some America-loving billionaires to pool their resources to take this character down before he ruins the country – if it’s not too late already. He probably won’t like it too much if the Democrats lose in November. Let’s make sure he’s unhappy. There’s much more at the link. Make sure you read it all here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/covering_up_for_george_soros.html

//

GOP Primaries: Outsiders are winning.

Ross Kaminsky over at The American Spectator says that the recent primary results have shaped up to have a pretty solid theme: Americans are serious about taking their country back. After reading this article, I’m starting to believe that maybe Obama’s right — this really is a “Recovery Summer.” It’s a recovery of the American spirit of independence and the American ideals of limited government. It’s a recovery of the principles as established in the Declaration of Independence — our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which this Congress and this Marxist administration have been hard at work trying to dismantle. Kaminsky has a great roundup of the recent primary results and a good insight into what’s happening in the country. Let’s hope he’s correct.

The first step on that path, according to the newly awakened and re-energized Republican electorate, was to tell the Beltway kingmakers what they can do with their preferred candidates.

In this primary election cycle, few words were as damaging to Republican candidates as “establishment” and “insider.” Ties to incumbent politicians, not least to John McCain, were poison. Also harmful was being perceived as “bipartisan,” in the sense that the word has come to mean: Republicans helping pass liberal legislation while getting nothing in return.  Snip –

…Even if (Alaska Republican Senator Lisa) Murkowski pulls out a victory — but especially if she doesn’t — the result reinforces the power of Sarah Palin; she endorsed (Joe) Miller, who spent a mere $200,000 on his campaign, less than one-seventh of the $1.4 million plus spent by Murkowski, who had the fourth-lowest ranking among Republican Senators in the 2009 American Conservative Union ratings. Even a pro-Miller poll paid for by the Tea Party Express showed Murkowski with a 12 point lead just 3 days before the election — and that was much closer than any other poll. The election shows that the anti-incumbent, anti-RINO wave is as alive in Alaska as in the rest of the nation.

On May 12, 2009, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) endorsed Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for the Senate — on the very the same day that Marco Rubio announced his candidacy. On April 29, 2010, Crist, most famous for his hug of Barack Obama while they campaigned for the stimulus, dropped out of the Republican primary to run as an independent.

Florida held those primaries on Tuesday. The victory of black Congressman Kendrick Meek in the Democratic primary all but seals a November win for Rubio because Crist needed Florida’s black vote to win as an independent. Those voters will stick with Meek, whom the Democratic Party cannot abandon, thus sinking Crist.  Snip –

And in a near-mirror of Alaska’s upset, former health care executive Rick Scott defeated state Attorney General and former Congressman Bill McCollum in Florida’s Republican gubernatorial primary. McCollum was the pick of the entire GOP establishment. It’s partly a symptom of the anti-career-politician mood across the nation, but it didn’t hurt that Scott spent $40 million of his own money in the race.  Snip –

The Republican establishment also supported Rep. Rob Simmons in the race for the Chris Dodd senate seat in Connecticut. That didn’t work out so well either.

Simmons, who had a pathetic lifetime American Conservative Union ranking of 53%, lost the primary race earlier this month to Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and distinctly a political outsider. It wasn’t close, with McMahon beating Simmons by 21 points.

In May, Rand Paul, Tea Party favorite and son of libertarian firebrand Ron Paul, trounced (Kentucky Secretary of State Trey) Grayson by 24 points to win the Republican nomination.  Snip –

Grayson had been endorsed by Dick Cheney, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rudi Guiliani. This was a really big wake-up call for the establishment Republicans. Republicans want change – and not Obama’s kind. We don’t want business as usual, go-along-to-get-along professional politicians. We want Americans who put their country first, not their party. And we don’t want those establishment Washington politicians picking our local candidates.

He goes on to talk about Sharron Angle’s upset over Sue Lowden, former state senator and former chairwoman of the state Republican Party. Angle won by 14 points. This shows the electorate’s disgust not only with career politicians, but also with the health care mess. Lowden made the mistake of suggesting a barter system to pay for health care. That became an ongoing joke.

He talks about Rep. Bob Bennett’s defeat in Utah, a 17-year serving congressman who supported an individual mandate-type health care bill along with a liberal Democrat. He discusses many other races, so make sure you read the whole thing. He then puts it all together for us.

What do these rejections have in common? A denunciation of what the Republican Party stood for during the George W. Bush years. A rejection of “moderation” or “bipartisanship,” which are nothing but code words for a spineless and self-serving desire to “go along to get along.” A rejection of an oxymoronic “conservative” form of big government.

What do the winners have in common? Short or non-existent prior careers in government (with the exception of Marco Rubio), a conspicuous lack of endorsements from the NRSC or senior Republican leadership, and some rookie mistakes which, rather than turning off the voters, seemed to endear the candidates to the people as reminders that they are the closest thing we’ve seen in some years to true citizen legislators focused on returning the nation to something which Madison and Jefferson would recognize. But perhaps the most important thing the winners have in common was a convincing message of principle rather than just politics or party…

Now, let’s win in November. This is a rather uplifting article. Please pass it around, and please read all of Ross Kaminsky here: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/27/primary-lessons

//

Obama: Job Destroyer.

This administration keeps wondering why jobs aren’t coming back strongly. Don’t believe them. They know why. They are destroying jobs every time they turn around. The latest – at least the latest that we’ve heard about – is destroying jobs in the recreational and commercial fishing industry. This isn’t about the Gulf, but I’m assuming it would include Gulf fisheries. This is about New England fisheries. This is about Obama’s grand sham of environmentalism. He’ll be on the receiving end of a boat protest while he vacations in Martha’s Vineyard. This is from Ed Morrissey at http://hotair.com.

…the people who rely on fishing in the Northeast Atlantic have a message for Obama, which is that they don’t think that fewer jobs is better for their industry.  The Boston Herald highlights a little-covered aspect of the administration’s efforts to impose top-down economic policies, this time on fisheries to solve a problem that’s mainly resolved anyway:

Leaders of the recreational and commercial fishing industry are planning a boat protest against federal policies Thursday outside the harbor of Vineyard Haven on Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama and his family are summer vacationing.

The protest is being organized after a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of federal lawmakers — including the core of the President’s Congressional base on banking and health care issues — have given up hope of working productively with Obama’s top appointee for oceans and fisheries, Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The White House and Lubchenco want an end to private commercial fishing and have taken steps to eliminate “freelancing,” for lack of a better term.  Instead, they want to close the fisheries into “commodities markets” where the government essentially licenses fishermen and then allocates the catch based on a predetermined distribution plan.  The “commodities markets” will kill many fishing-based jobs and essentially turn fishermen into government employees, and they’re not happy about it.      

In an economy where jobs are already scarce, how does the Obama administration justify the destruction of these jobs?

Read all of Morrissey here: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/24/obama-war-on-fisheries-jobs-gets-vacation-protest/

The Boston Herald goes on to further explain the rationale behind consolidation of private businesses into a sort of cooperative where government will decide who gets what and divvies up the jobs and profits. What could possibly go wrong? So this a nexus of environmental overreach and government overreach. Obama is grabbing another industry.

A co-organizer (of the protest) is the Recreational Fishermen’s Alliance, the lead organizing group behind the national protest outside the U.S. Capitol in February that drew as many as 5,000 demonstrating against federal policies seen as heavily tilted against the industry and unduly swayed by non-government environmental organizations.

Since her appointment to head the NOAA by President Obama, Lubchenco, who had been an officer of the Environmental Defense Fund and a leader of the Pew Oceans Commission, has pushed to convert the fisheries into commodities markets under a management system known as catch shares.  Snip—

Mayors Carolyn Kirk of Gloucester and Scott Lang of New Bedford have condemned federal fisheries policies for bringing unnecessary social and economic hardship as a certain price for the uncertain resource management benefits of catch share regulations.

Lubchenco has argued that consolidation, which has consistently followed catch shares, produces fewer but better jobs while giving the government a stronger hand in conservation.

The industry sees catch shares as an invitation for market speculation that will condemn the fishing culture to the same fate that conglomeration brought to the family farm.

Fewer but better jobs. What kind of arrogant terminology is that? Who determines what a better job is? And, why is that any business of the head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There is much more at the link, including the discussion of how the administration policies, which went into effect on May1, have already led many businesses to insolvency. Read it all here: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?&articleid=1276664&format=&page=2&listingType=Loc#articleFull 

As Ed Morrissey said, this is very much like the policy of mortgage-backed securities … not a happy thought.

…And doesn’t that system favor large corporations who can afford to speculate with their capital over the small businesses and independent operators who can’t afford to buy rights to fish in these “commodities markets”?   Get ready for higher prices and more unemployment.

Once again, Obama sticks it to the small businesses and favors the large corporations. Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t – it’s easier to control one or two large corporations than to control all of the willy-nilly independent operators in the country at large. Corporatism not individualism. Fascism not capitalism. Top-down, government-run, regulation-driven inefficiency instead of the chaos and efficiency of the free market, is that what we want? Can our way of life survive this destroyer of America?

White House knew moratorium would cost jobs.

Okay, now on to the Gulf of Mexico. Remember the moratorium on drilling for “safety reasons” even though a panel of experts recommended against it? Well, the Obama administration knew their moratorium would cost jobs, but that didn’t dissuade them from going forward. This is from the Wall Street Journal.

Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.

Critics of the moratorium, including Gulf Coast political figures and oil-industry leaders, have said it is crippling the region’s economy, and some have called on the administration to make public its economic analysis. A federal judge who in June threw out an earlier six-month moratorium faulted the administration for playing down the economic effects.  Snip –

(Documents) show the new top regulator or offshore oil exploration, Michael Bromwich, told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that a six-month deepwater-drilling halt would result in “lost direct employment” affecting approximately 9,450 workers and “lost jobs from indirect and induced effects” affecting about 13,797 more. The July 10 memo cited an analysis by Mr. Bromwich’s agency that assumed direct employment on affected rigs would “resume normally once the rigs resume operations.”  Snip –

Mr. Bromwich has said the administration hopes to be able to end the moratorium before Nov. 30. He said his recommendation would depend on what he learned from experts in a series of public hearings over the next few weeks.

Once again, Obama and company devastate jobs and industry in the guise of environmental “safety.” In this economy, wouldn’t you think the administration would be more concerned about saving jobs instead of arbitrarily making decisions that negatively affect a large swath of the country? No, they are driven by ideology and have no concern for you or me – also known as “the little people.” They are so much smarter, you see. Read it all here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704488404575441760384563880.html

Related: Where are the jobs?

Why aren’t businesses hiring? Most of us know why – uncertainty. Or maybe certainty, certainty that the Obama administration has made business costs too high via health care and the new financial services laws recently passed by Congress, and the certainty that we can expect only more of the same. This is from John Stossel over at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/.

…Today, businesses replace equipment and inventory, but they are reluctant to hire new workers. Investment that does occur aims at replacing the use of labor by adopting advanced technology. In a growing economy, that’s a sign of progress. Freed-up workers are then available for new projects. But lately, those new projects aren’t being launched.  Snip –

Why isn’t the economy recovering? After previous recessions, unemployment didn’t get stuck at close to 10 percent. If left alone, the economy can and does heal itself, as the mistakes of the previous inflationary boom are corrected.

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama’s vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden.

In at least three big areas — health insurance, financial regulation and taxes — no one can know what will happen.

New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers.

Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be “no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies.” These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity.

The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A “distinguished” deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax?

Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads.  Snip –

(Economist and historian Robert) Higgs says: “Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline … consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested.”

The Obama administration knows what it should do to create jobs, it just doesn’t want to the things to create jobs because they are driven by their agenda, which is what exactly? Corporatism. They want to control the economy through big business, through a marriage of big business and big government. This will only lead to a diminished America, so if a few million people have to lose their jobs in the private sector, they’ll hire more in the public sector. Which, of course, leads to Greece. This is a tyranny of the regulators. Obama’s czars and department heads are creating new, massive regulations that have the effect of laws because Congress has abdicated their authority to these bureaucrats. This is what Pelosi meant by you’ll know what’s in it after it passes. This is government run amok. Read all of Stossel here:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/25/where_are_the_new_jobs_106876.html

//

No sharia here.

Andrew McCarthy over at National Review Online says there really is no moderate Islam today. Those saying they are moderates – at least those thrust into our faces of late, such as the Ground Zero Mosque man, Feisal Rauf, wear a mask of moderation while espousing sharia law by proxy through his support of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide. There is no place in American society for sharia law. It is to liberty and freedom in America as oil is to water – the two cannot mix. Therefore, we should stand strong against this mosque at Ground Zero and everywhere Muslims claim a right to sharia law in America.

“Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah, an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.

This was Qaradawi the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.”

And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Feisal Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, this promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.  Snip –

The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position — the mainstream Islamic position — that sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between sharia societies and Western societies. Snip –

If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.  Snip –

Today, “moderate Islam” is an illusion. There is hardly a spark, much less a wildfire. Making moderation real will take more than wishing upon a star. It calls for a gut check, a willingness to face down not just al-Qaeda but the Qaradawis and their sharia campaign. It means saying: Not here.

This is no time to play around with political correctness and just give in. Americans need to stand strong on this issue. We are importing our country’s demise, and if you have daughters, you are importing their servitude. Please read all of the brilliant McCarthy here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

Related: From Hanoi Jane to the Ground Zero Mosque.

Jeffrey Lord argues that the Ground Zero Mosque issue is for Obama and the Democrats what the picture of Jane Fonda sitting on the tank surrounded by members of the communists of North Vietnam was for presidential candidate George McGovern in the 1972 election. Lord says that certain images finally break through to everyday Americans that say culturally our country cannot withstand this kind of thinking. This is from The American Spectator.

(Jane) Fonda’s trip to Hanoi was her own, as was the film. They had nothing to do with the McGovern campaign. Yet it was so broadly cast as such a prominent part of the “anti-war” movement of which McGovern was in fact a decided leader that Fonda’s actions became emblematic of all things “anti-war” and “liberal” or “left-wing” — McGovern’s campaign included.

Her antics were a cultural explosion in the middle of the American campaign season.

At a stroke the photograph personified what was at the time a startlingly new thought: that the American left had so separated itself from the reality that was mainstream America it was essentially in the process of politically self-destructing in an orgy of spectacularly bad judgment. The party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy had been captured by activist far-left elitists who saw nothing in the least wrong in cavorting with an enemy who was literally sending American sons and daughters home in body bags. And laughing about it in front of cameras in the bargain. The sheer contempt for average Americans expressed in the Fonda photo could not have been more plainly expressed.

That fall, Richard Nixon — who had lost the presidency to JFK in 1960 by 100,000 votes and defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968 with a bare 43% of the vote — carried 49 states. 

The unraveling of the American left had begun.  Snip –

Lord goes on to point to image of blindfolded American hostages taken by radical Muslim extremists in Iran was another such iconic image of Jimmy Carter’s fecklessness along with his “malaise” speech and his proclamation that Americans had an inordinate fear of Communism.  He goes on to mention a few others.

The Ground Zero Mosque has now become the values issue of the 2010 campaign. The party of Hanoi Jane has been updated — but, importantly, not replaced — with the party of (as Rush Limbaugh chortles) Imam Obama.  Snip –

What made the image of Hanoi Jane or the blindfolded American hostages in Iran or the Dukakis veto of the Pledge of Allegiance so powerful with voters was not simply the “values issues” each came to personify.

Each was tied directly to the economy and the economic issues of the day.

Why? Because each image communicated to voters bad judgment.  Snip –

…A Time magazine poll not only shows 61% of Americans — not just New Yorkers — opposing the Mosque, a full 70% have cited the construction as “insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center.” Which is to say, an issue not of religious freedom as its liberal proponents claim but — yes — bad judgment.

This gives opponents ample room to make the case that Mosque supporters are showing not just bad judgment in terms of the feelings of 9/11 families. But bad judgment in terms of national security. Bad judgment in terms of financing connections between the Mosque and the terrorists of Hamas and Iran.

This is a hopeful article. Americans are waking up. There are so many things wrong with the leftist Congress and president that a huge convulsion is going on right now. Let’s hope this convulsion and revulsion with the left continues so we can expel them from power in November. This is a well-done article. You can read it all here:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/24/from-hanoi-jane-to-imam-obama

//

Stopping the lame duck Congress.

This is from Phil Kerpen of that “foreign-controlled corporation” group (according to our president) Americans for Prosperity. I mean, really, how much more foreign could you be if you want a prosperous America? Obama’s out-spoken negativity against this group should convince a normal American that he’s just not that in to you. Kerpen has travelled to Maine to get the ball rolling in order to stop any shenanigans from Democrats during a lame duck Congress after the election and before the actual takeover of the newly-elected Congress. This is from http://www.pajamasmedia.com.

The lame duck threat is real… In fact, Harry Reid has already set the schedule for the lame-duck session: it starts November 15, breaks for a week for Thanksgiving, and reconvenes in December. Perhaps running right up to Christmas Eve, in a frightening replay of last year’s health care disaster.

We know how extreme the agenda will be, because Senate Democrats have been telling us: Sen. John Kerry told Bloomberg News that after the election, members of the Senate — especially, of course, the losers — will feel “free and liberated” to pass cap and trade. Sen. Tom Harkin has similarly promised to revive card check, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad expects “one of the most significant lame-duck sessions in the history of the United States.”  Snip –

Fortunately, there are three key strategies that can stop the lame-duck threat: convincing moderate Republicans to vote no on any major policy changes in a lame-duck session; educating voters in the key special election states whose new senators will be seated for the lame-duck session; and pressuring key Democratic senators, mostly those up for re-election in 2012, who will still be susceptible to public pressure in the lame-duck session.

… convincing moderate Republicans to filibuster any major policy change in a lame-duck session. Quite simply, even if Harry Reid can convince every single Democrat to get on board a sweeping lame-duck agenda, he can’t get to 60 votes without Republicans.  Snip –

Last week I went to Maine to make the case to the most important swing senators on the Republican side: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

… called 57,000 Maine households for a telephone town hall, recorded a public access cable show, appeared on radio throughout the state, did a press conference in Bangor covered by all three networks, met with key business and political leaders throughout the states, and met directly with Collins and Snowe staffers.

Our message was clear: it is an inappropriate affront to the democratic process to rush through such enormous issues in a lame-duck session, to circumvent a national election, and to skip the legitimate process necessary to make good policy.

The message resonated. We met with hundreds of people — not one supported Reid’s lame-duck agenda. As the people of Maine keep up pressure on this key issue, we hope both senators will be inclined to make clear public statements that they will oppose any major policy changes in a lame-duck session.  Snip –

The author says that Reid has been unable and will continue to be unable to reach the 60 votes without Collins and Snowe. And, they would in turn send a signal to other wishy-washy Republicans (like Scott Brown, Judd Gregg and Lindsey Graham) to refuse to “cross the aisle” on these political hot potatoes.

The bottom line is that Senate Democrats cannot jam through an extreme policy agenda on their way out the door without help from Republican moderates. And there is no good reason for moderates to help them.

If you live in a state with a “moderate” Republican senator, make sure you let your voice be heard on this issue. A vote with the Democrats in a lame duck session is a vote against the will of the American people, our system of government and our free enterprise system. Please read it all here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/moderate-republicans-key-to-stopping-lame-duck-threat/

Here’s what the president said regarding Americans for Prosperity at a fundraiser in Austin, TX on August 9. Pretty laughable, really. He also got a dig in on the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations the freedom to advertise in political campaigns. Americans for Prosperity is not a corporation, foreign or domestic-owned, Mr. President.

Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country.  And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are.  You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation.  You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank.  You don’t know if it’s an insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.

A Supreme Court decision allowed this to happen.  And we tried to fix it, just by saying disclose what’s going on, and making sure that foreign companies can’t influence our elections. Seemed pretty straightforward.  The other side said no.

They don’t want you to know who the Americans for Prosperity are, because they’re thinking about the next election.  But we’ve got to think about future generations.  We’ve got to make sure that we’re fighting for reform.  We’ve got to make sure that we don’t have a corporate takeover of our democracy.

Americans for Prosperity has partnered with many Tea Party activists to put together such anti-American actions as the 9-12 March on Washington to protest Obamacare. No wonder the president thinks they are foreign influenced. Hilarious, really. You can read all of the president’s remarks here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/09/remarks-president-a-dnc-finance-event-austin-texas

Thank goodness there are such organizations as Americans for Prosperity to stand up to the Obama administration and the leftist Congress. Here’s Americans for Prosperity’s website if you’d like more information on their sneaky ways of supporting and doing good for the country as a whole: http://americansforprosperity.org/national-site

//