Skip to main content
VIDEO FEATURE: Heck Debates Malcolm on Porn & Santorum 

THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF THE PETER HECK RADIO SHOW
a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Thursday, September 30 2010

Death threats over a coloring book. Really? So the militant Muslims are at it again over improper images of the prophet, huh? Not even close. The coloring book at the center of this turmoil is the Tea Party Coloring Book for Kids.

 

The author-publisher of "The Tea Party Coloring Book for Kids" says he has received death threats over its publication.

 

[Wayne] Bell, [publisher of Clayton, Mo.-based Really Big Coloring Books], said he has received messages containing "horrible, nasty, vitriolic stuff," including a desire for someone to place him in a "chloroform headlock" since its publication.

 

According to Bell, his company publishes coloring books on the Rockettes, Cirque du Soleil, and President Obama as well. A trip to the website proves that this is a publisher of a variety of coloring books and related materials.

 

But opponents of the TEA Party movement, such as Michael Davis of a St. Louis-area Coffee Party, does not think much of the book: "I think it's inappropriate. I really question whether it's even targeted at children. There's not a lot of coloring activities."

 

It's really that important to the left that there not be a "Tea Party Coloring Book for Kids?" They have entirely too much time on their hands - which is why they need so much government entitlements, of course.

 

My children are grown now, but I have a friend who would not mind at all his grandchildren receiving this as a gift. Hmmm.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:47 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 30 2010

Obama has been told by his advisors to do more talking about his faith - undoubtedly a political move meant to shore up the confusion many Americans have about his beliefs.

 

So in Albuquerque, NM, President Obama fielded a question on his faith.  As the NY Times tells it:

 

President Obama expounded Tuesday on the reasons he became a Christian as an adult, telling a group of residents here that he was a "Christian by choice" and that "the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead - being my brother and sister's keeper."

 

I call bull.



 

As anyone who has actually studied and taken the ?precepts of Jesus' to heart knows, Jesus taught us to be personally charitable.  There is not one recorded instance of Christ advocating the government confiscation and redistribution of wealth in the name of charity.

 

Jesus did say: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Matthew 25:40)

 

Jesus did not say: "The King will reply, ?I tell you the truth, whatever you forcibly took from the masses through taxation in the name of these brothers of mine, you did for me." (Obama 25:40)

 

Jesus did say: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

 

Jesus did not say: "If you want to be perfect, go, get elected to high office and then use the law to confiscate the property of those who have and give to those you deem more worthy of it.  Then claim you are following me." (Obama 19:21)



 

You get the point.  So, keeping in mind another Biblical precept that "by their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7:16)," what are Mr. Obama's fruits when it comes to following these precepts of Jesus he claims to be so moved by?

 

From the New York Times:

 

In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income.

 

...

 

"Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office," said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and editor of the TaxProf Blog, which examines tax questions and has posted the returns.

 

And from the cited and notated research of conservative writer Ann Coulter:

 

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

 

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's.

 

In other words, Mr. Obama is very interested in being charitable with other people's money.  Namely, yours.  If you can find that in the precepts of Jesus, send it along to me.

 

If you can't, then perhaps Mr. Obama should stop touting his allegiance to the words of Christ until he has familiarized himself with another one: whitewashed tomb.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 30 2010

Following an investigative report by FOX News concerning the social networking of pedophiles on Facebook, they report that Facebook has begun taking down those identified sites. That's the good news.



 

The bad news is that Facebook officials apparently have no interest in proactively pursuing pedophile networking and blocking such content.

 

Facebook needs to do a whole lot more to keep predators off their site than just removing profile pages mentioned in the press, said Det. Richard Wistocki, a member of the Illinois Internet Crimes Against Children and the U.S. Secret Service Computer Crimes Task Forces. He said Facebook should be taking a proactive, not reactive, approach to keeping criminals off their site. The company could do key word and script searches and compile blacklists of known illegal content to block from Facebook. Instead, Wistocki says, the company removes content from Facebook only after it is reported by a member of the Facebook community. So, links and pages remain until they are seen ? if they are seen ? by someone who decides to report it.

 

Most importantly, Wistocki says, Facebook needs to forge a better working relationship with law enforcement. "My problem is the lack of support to law enforcement, to give us the information we want and need. They obstruct our investigations," he said.

 

"Facebook has always been a problem."

They know that they face an uphill climb, but pedophiles are buoyed by the hope that it is not as steep a hill as it used to be thanks to strides in the homosexual agenda arena. As long as they get to wedge their way into forums such as Facebook under the guise of "freedom of speech," they will continue to dupe Americans, especially liberals, into the notion that pedophile behavior is natural and inevitable.

 

I will acknowledge this: the immoralists are not stupid. I wish I could say the same about those they dupe.

 

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 30 2010

One point.  45-44.  That's the margin between New York's accidental Senator Kristen Gillibrand and her conservative opponent, former Congressman Joseph DioGuardi.

 

DioGuardi's résumé is familiar this election cycle: a tea party backed candidate who bucked the establishment and beat them.  And now he has his sights set on taking back Hillary's old seat for the people of the state.

 

This election, perhaps more than most others (save Rubio/Crist in Florida) is a perfect display of what is motivating the previously silent majority.

 

 

DioGuardi has principles.  Even if several in the state don't share them, a majority may still prefer someone who has convictions that mean more to him than power.  The same cannot be said for Gillibrand.

 

Fred Eckert writes why:

 

This is a woman who could give John Kerry lessons in flip-flopping. Consider Gillibrand's string of major flip-flops:

 

  • Against gay marriage as a member of the House -- For gay marriage since the day her appointment to the Senate was announced.
  • For keeping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in place while in House -- Against as senator.
  • Against gun control while in the House (100% NRA rating) -- For gun control as a senator.
  • Against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants as a member of the House -- For as a senator.
  • For withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities while in House -- Against as senator.
  • For making English the official language while in the House -- Against as senator.
  • For empowering local police to enforce federal immigration laws while in House -- Against as senator.
  • Against the McCain- and Obama-endorsed Bush $700-billion TARP bank bailout in a vote in the House, calling it "fundamentally flawed" -- For the Obama $787-billion "stimulus" bill four months later as a senator.

 

You get my drift. You'd have a very tough time turning up any Gillibrand principles even if you had a search warrant for them.

 

Eckert goes on to highlight another factor killing Gillibrand: the crucial role she played in helping cause the financial meltdown that crushed the economy.

 

In short, it's not an impressive list of accomplishments for the junior Senator of New York.  And that may be why, against all odds, New York may be the state that delivers a Senate majority to the Republican Party.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:55 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 30 2010

Rush Limbaugh demonstrated why he is who he is by being the first to highlight this curious reality:

 

"Why are the Democrats in the Senate spending more money on negative ads against Christine O'Donnell? I mean why? Why are they doing this? If she is a sure, certain loser, why are they doing this?" Limbaugh asked Tuesday during his radio show.

"Can the Republican ruling class explain this to me? Can the Republican ruling class explain to me, all of you who the only hope here was Mike Castle, the only hope for 51 seats was Mike Castle, somebody explain to me why the Democrats are spending so much more money than they planned on in Delaware against a sure loser like Christine O'Donnell?"

 

Precisely, Rush. 

 

The whole meme that 'O'Donnell couldn't win' was nothing more than the futile attempts of those within the Republican establishment who loathe conservatism to stop its ascendency (allowing that there were some true conservatives who were merely convinced by this argument rather than part of the movement pushing it).

 

 

But apparently the Democrats aren't convinced by this foregone conclusion.

 

They're not alone:

 

Despite some early reluctance, Republicans are now fully supporting Christine O'Donnell's run for the Senate in Delaware, says [Tom] Coburn, who is backing O'Donnell and has offered to campaign for her.  "She's not a career politician, and Washington is loaded with them," he tells Newsmax.  "We have this sense of entitlement that we can decide who's a good nominee and who's not. The people of Delaware chose their nominee and our job is to back them.

"I think she'll bring a lot to the table in terms of the common sense, everyday thinking of Americans about the stupidity that goes on in Washington.  "So I'm excited that she's in the race, and my hope is that she will win and we'll have another voice up here that's based on common sense and not growing the government but rather shrinking it."

You nailed it, Tom.  That's what this movement is about.  We don't want brainiacs who think they know it all sitting in Washington and attempting to run our lives.  We want people who respect the fact that in America, we're supposed to be running our own lives.

 

Christine O'Donnell gets that.  And it makes her smarter than that whole posse of Obamabots running the show put together.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 30 2010

I have said for months that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.  By that, I've meant that it is highly improbable that Obama will learn from what is likely to be a spanking from voters coming up in November, and actually change his policies.

 

I've posited that unlike Clinton, Mr. Obama is not concerned with attention and fame as much as he is ideology.  Obama is the most ideologically divisive president we've had in a long time.  Imagining him doing a 180 degree spin and declaring as Bill Clinton did, "The era of big government is over," was in my mind quite unlikely.

 

Perhaps I spoke to soon:

 

At the signing of a small-business-related bill on Monday, President Barack Obama made a surprising declaration about the things the government can and can't do to try to jump start the economy.

 

"Government can't replace -- can't create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks," Obama said.

 

In that one line, Mr. Obama undermined the entire economic strategy of his entire administration.

 

 

Does he just not realize this?  Does he think that we will not realize this?  Is he confused?  Is this an Alinsky stylistic distraction as he pursues the exact opposite of what he speaks? 

 

Time will tell, but it was a bizarre statement for a man who has been pinning his entire "summer of recovery" claims on the artificial numbers coming from Census and other government "created" jobs.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 30 2010

I almost never agree with PETA on anything. However, I had to acknowledge the truth from a recent comment by Kathy Guillermo, vice-president of Laboratory Investigations for PETA. She was writing about the use of animals as laboratory test subjects and about the abuses that resulted in one such lab being closed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She wrote in her article, "And I think of all the animals - of all species - who live in terror, with no escape, and eventually die in the more than 1,100 animal laboratories in the U.S. It's wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings." I have even added this to my file on notable quotes.

 

It is my hope that liberals everywhere completely comprehend the stark truth behind Ms. Guillermo's commentary. Even though using animals as test subjects for pharmaceuticals that save human lives, it is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings." Let us also, then, consider seriously the significant applications of Ms. Guillermo's declaration.



 

1. As important as it is for women to attain freedom and equality and as much autonomy as social human life affords, the abortion of an infant in the womb is an act of despicable horror and terror. It is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings."

 

2. Even though it may be commendable for people to stand against avarice and corruption and greed, the destruction of private property and the endangerment of lives by protestors at world economic summits are atrocious. It is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings."

 

3. Everyone I know wants others to be treated fairly in the American healthcare system, but it is a travesty to continually extort millions of dollars from productive, successful citizens in order to subsidize costs to others. It is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings."

 

4. When caught in his exaggerations and lies about his global warming movie, Mr. Al Gore stated in an interview, "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Concerning these kinds of deceptions, it is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings."

 

5. As an active participant in my religious faith, I commend those who stand strong for their faith. But those who would target and gruesomely murder thousands of other human beings for the sake of their religion are monstrous. It is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings."

 

Ms. Guillermo makes a lucid point concerning means and ends. As much as is possible, no human should enslave another for the sake of any kind of personal gain, no matter how noble. Now if only the other bearers of liberalism would catch on. It is "wrong, no matter what the goal is, to do this to other beings."

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:14 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 29 2010

It looks like we are building to a major repudiation of the Democrats this November.  Only two years ago, we were being told that Obama's election was the beginning of a new era of permanent Democrat domination.  Not many of the talking heads are still pushing that line. 

 

It isn't as if the Republican Party has seen a big increase in its approval.  Voters don't like either party according to polls.  But while the voters may not like the Republicans, current polls suggest that a majority absolutely loath the Democrats.

 

So what happened?



 

What happened was the most aggressive collection of arrogant behavior by members of a political party in our life time.  We were promised that the swamp would be drained, but nothing was done about Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, or Charlie Rangel. 

 

We were promised that we would (finally) have a return to the rule of law, but the Justice Department chose to blatantly ignore criminal behavior by some New Black Panthers. 

 

We were told that there weren't going to be any more earmarks and we ended up with hundreds of them.

 

We had massive bills that members of Congress didn't even make the effort to read.  The voters didn't like all that money being spent when no one even knew where it was going or what it was going for. 

 

The Health Care Bill was probably the most damaging for the Democrats.  It was thousands of pages long.  It was filled with special deals that really turned voters off.  The Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback became part of the public discourse.  No piece of legislation was more thoroughly discussed or watched by the voters in the past 160 years.  You have to go back to the Kansas Nebraska Act to find a piece of legislation which was more fully examined by voters. 

 

In the process, voter opinion formed against the bill.  A solid majority didn't want it passed.  Who cares what voters think?  Congress passed it anyway.

 

Meanwhile, we have been in the worst economic times since the Great Depression.  The stimulus was supposed to hold unemployment below 8%.  Right now it stands at 9.6% and that doesn't include all of the people who have given up and dropped out of the jobs market. 

 

Whenever anyone received government "help," it seemed they were always big supporters of the Democrats.  Unions, Lawyers, public employees; they were protected.  The stock for Chrysler and GM got rigged so the auto workers got more than they should have while the bond holders were cheated.  Health Care didn't include any tort reform.  The stimulus mostly seemed to go to teachers and state employees.

 

The total picture is a combination of corruption, incompetence and indifference to voter sentiment.  We haven't seen anything like it.  The reaction will be unlike anything we've ever seen too.

Posted by: Wendell Harris AT 08:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 29 2010

In his inaugural address, President Obama thundered that he would "restore science to its rightful place."  This has been a standard line of the left in their attempts to smear the right as a bunch of backwards Neanderthals who have no use for technology or scientific achievement.



 

Obviously that's not true.  The right merely adds the addendum onto the wonderful pleasures that technological advancement brings that it must be utilized in a moral and ethical manner, lest those same advancements actually harm us rather than help.

 

Evidently that is too nuanced a position for the supposedly nuanced minds of the left.

 

Moreover, the truly significant point to address is the fact that Barack Obama and his band of merry men on the left are not pro-science.  Time and again we see their faith in secular humanism trumping what science has proven (think genetic engineering and stem cell research).

 

But nowhere is this contradiction of science more evident than in the left's slavish devotion to the despicable abortion agenda.  No rational and respected scientific mind even attempts to argue against the obvious fact that what is conceived in the womb is a human being.  The once prominent "blob of tissue" argument has been undermined by - you guessed it - science.


So to get around this uncomfortable reality, what does the left do?  Deny the relevance of science.  Nancy Pearcey writes,

 

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a "person," generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

This is called personhood theory, and it implies a dangerously divided view of the human being. On one hand, the physical body, knowable by science, is trivialized as a form of raw material that can be tinkered with, manipulated, experimented on, or destroyed with no moral significance. Human life is reduced to a utilitarian calculus subject only to a cost-benefit analysis.

 

On the other hand, the concept of personhood has been disconnected from the biological fact of being human, which renders it ultimately arbitrary. Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?

 

Of course, once this "line" becomes arbitrary, the left can dance around the cold, hard scientific fact that they support the destruction of a human being (see Barack Obama's infamous, "above my pay grade" comment). 

 

When you consider how often liberals castigate conservatives for injecting religion or morality into debates about science, try to stomach this:

 

Jennie Bristow, editor of Abortion Review, dismisses science as irrelevant: "With anti-abortionists pushing 'scientific evidence' on fetal viability, it is time to restate the moral case for a woman's right to choose." Her article is titled, "Abortion: Stop Hiding behind the Science."

 

That's right: the right is now to be criticized for "hiding behind science."  These people's positions are as defenseless and pathetic as they are evil.  And that's saying something.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 29 2010

As Sarah Palin does her part to destroy the false notion that American women in politics must be bitter, human-rights denying liberals, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel is doing his part to prove what the left really thinks about strong women.

 

Appearing on the new Fox Business Channel's program Money Rocks, Beckel used some pretty inflammatory, misogynistic and sexist language towards a conservative woman who was tearing him up intellectually.

 

 

As you read the account, just continue to imagine what we would be told to conclude had this been Rush Limbaugh making such remarks:

 

Over at Atlas Shrugs, Geller asserts that Beckel's sexist rants were not limited to the on-air conversation.  Prior to the show, she claims:

 

"I was the only female on the panel and as we were prepping (getting mic'ed etc) for the show, Beckel was regaling his victims (Bob Hemmer, David Webb and Bolling) with sordid tales of pole dancers and the like.  Grotesque and deliberate."

 

Geller states that the confrontation continued after the break:

 

"When we cut to break, Beckel chided Bolling for not bringing ?Jewish slumlords' on the show (referring to Bolling's segment on Imam Rauf's status as a New Jersey slumlord, so named in a lawsuit against Rauf by Union City.)  When I heard Beckel's Jew hating belch, I said ?and you're an anti-Semite.'  He told me to ?kiss his ass' to which I responded that he would never get anyone anywhere in the world to get with that."

 

Damaging stuff, right?  Oh, that wasn't even the half of it.  The real fireworks, as well as the final nail in the coffin of the "we are the party that believes in women's rights" mantra came next:

 

Geller:  I would like to address Mr. Beckel's point.  I don't know why you're carrying water for the most radical, intolerant ideology in the world today.  There have been 20,000 documented radical Islamic attacks since 9/11.  Each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric...

 

Beckel:  You better be very careful.  You're a woman, you better be very careful about who you say I carry water for, because you have no idea what you're talking about.  (Points emphatically at Geller).  And don't start putting me in the middle of your crap!

 

Geller:  Don't you point to me!

 

Beckel:  I'll point to you all I want!

 

Geller:  Don't you point to me.  You're a misogynist.

 

Beckel:  You're getting yourself fifteen minutes, you get yourself fifteen minutes of fame because you're (Bolling) picking on a bunch of Muslims.

 

Geller:  You're picking on a bunch of women.  You're a woman hater.

 

Beckel:  A woman hater?  A woman hater?

 

Geller:  Look how you're talking to me.  It's outrageous.

 

Beckel:  You are nuts.

 

Just dwell on those words for a minute: "You better be very careful.  You're a woman..."  Perhaps the feminists might want to ask Bob to explain such a remark, no?

 

Frauds.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:49 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 29 2010

On August 8, 2009, President Obama said in his weekly radio address that the claims that he was pursuing a takeover of the healthcare system were "outlandish."

 

As James Capretta notes at National Review,

 

It's now been six months since Congress passed Obamacare ? not a long time given the sweeping nature of the legislation and the long phase-in schedule for its most significant provisions. Even so, it is already abundantly clear that Obamacare's critics were dead right: The new health law has set in motion a government takeover of American health care, and a very hostile one at that.


 

He cites as evidence both the tyrannical approach to free-speech dissent amongst health insurers taken by Kathleen Sebelius and the sneak appointment of radical takeover artist Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

 

This, coupled with the distort and distract tactics of what is nothing short of Orwellian propaganda to sell his plan to the public, as well as the formation of hundreds of new bureaucrats preparing to over regulate the entire health industry into compliance, leads Capretta to make this conclusion:

 

Massive bureaucracy. Disinformation campaigns. Blatant power plays. The politicization of decisions that should be made with a focus on patient care. The use of government power to threaten citizens and their livelihood.

 

This is what Obamacare has brought us. And that's just in its first six months.

 

Not so "outlandish" after all, huh?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 29 2010

The old television series "Lost In Space" featured a hyperactive robot that would shout the warning, "Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!" whenever the ne'er-do-well Dr. Zachary Smith plotted some nefarious scheme to profit himself at the Robinson family's peril.  Yet for some inexplicable reason, and in spite of consistent experience confirming the robot's warnings, the young Will Robinson would innocently succumb to Dr. Smith's wiles and thus confirm once again the accuracy and reality of the robot's warning.

 

Americans have been warned now for decades about the inevitable slippery slope consequences of moral relativism, but we have failed to listen. Indeed, because of a desire to legitimize a variety of immoral behavior, American society has hastened to embrace the perils of immorality while ignoring the notion that there are significant consequences to be paid. As each moral boundary has been reached, liberals become especially vocal about how concerns over the breech of the next boundary are overdone and blown out of proportion.

 

Such is the case with the homosexual agenda and pederasty (defined by the North American Man Boy Love Association - NAMBLA - as love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age). As the homosexual movement moves forward with its agenda of imposing acceptance upon every American, those wanting to see the same rights afforded to adult-child sexual relationships ride their coattails very closely.

 

The recent findings by FOX News about the prevalence of social networking on Facebook among pedophiles is of grave concern. In addition to the ability to network for support, ideas, and resources, pedophile advocates also get the opportunity to highlight the "injustice" of singling out their lifestyle as illegal or immoral.

 

 

And with the foundation of moral relativism firmly in place from the "gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered" community, who can stop them? Some samplings of what our culture now faces:

 

The page for "Greensburg group of the North American Man Boy Love Association," in the category of "Common Interest-Philosophy," features a photo of a child around 4 years old. 

 

"N.A.M.B.L.A. (East Lansing Chapter) also has a photo of a child, who appears to be about 5 years old.

 

Another, "NAMBLA" in the "Organizations-Advocacy Organizations" category, features a photo of a man being kissed on the cheek by a small child.  Its description reads: "We are the North American Man/Boy Love Association.  Our sole purpose is to push forward the concept that a consenting man (18+) and a consenting minor (-18) can have a sexual and loving relationship legally.  Feel free to send your questions comments or constructive criticism to [redacted e-mail address]. Thank you for your time and support and remember keep fighting the good fight!"

 

Another Facebook group, "N.A.M.B.L.A.," says it "advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys" and that it has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships," in spite of what it acknowledges is "the fact that such relationships are seen as child abuse where the minor is unable to give consent."

 

The organization NAMBLA denies any official Facebook presence itself. That is a moot point because both their official site and any Facebook presence by pedophile advocates address the same goal: to lift pedophile behavior to the status of legitimate, legal social behavior. Their attempts to do so are so closely patterned after the media campaigns and rationalizations of homosexual advocates that they are indistinguishable. And why not? After all, each and every rationalization foisted on the American public to impose on us the immorality of homosexual behavior can be directly translated and applied to pedophiles and their organizations.

 

Sadly, I think that it may be too late, but I'll say it anyway: "Warning! Warning! Danger, American public!"

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:35 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 29 2010

Apparently President Obama thinks he is indestructible and the American are too stupid to notice his omission of "endowed by our Creator" in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence twice in a week. 

Obama's staff, not surprisingly, played it off with rhetoric that it wasn't intentional, but how does a professor of constitutional law just glance over the most important part of the preamble?

It is a lose-lose situation no matter what way you look at it.  If he omitted it because he was at a fundraiser with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), then he is a coward.  

If he did it because he doesn't know the preamble then it is a tossup over who is less credible, him as a constitutional professor or the academic institution that hired him. 

And if he omitted it because he does not believe our natural, inalienable rights are present because of our Creator, Obama undermines the very fabric of the nation he legally leads. 

No matter what scenario you choose, Obama left out "our Creator" for a reason and it may have shown the world his true colors.

Posted by: LukeKenworthy AT 07:24 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

There's an old adage that goes like this: Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.  While this is obviously a generalization, every generalization has an element of truth to it. 

 

Since the 1960's, the institutions of higher learning have done their part to shape impressionable youths into buying into the liberal agenda for the day.  This was most notable in 2008 when President Obama received a lopsided 62 to 30 percent of the young vote. There was even talk (most notably by James Carville) of the Democrats holding a "permanent majority" based on college age tendencies and national demographics. 



 

But trends have started to surface that suggests a dramatic shift in this population.  According to polling, in as little as a year the overwhelming majority of young voters supporting Democrats has rapidly shifted from the 62 to 30 supermajority to a much closer 54 to 40 percent. 

 

Why the dramatic shift?  Young voters are beginning to become disillusioned with the hype surrounding President Obama and are getting hit with real world reality.  In other words, they have had to GROW UP.  Students are now leaving college and finding that platitudes and promises don't necessarily translate into new jobs and stable financial situations for families. 

 

Bob Kosak, chairperson for Ohio University's College Republicans said it best.  "Hope and change doesn't put money in your account to buy textbooks or pay off your student loans.  It doesn't help you get a job after you graduate either, and I think a lot of students are realizing that now."  Indeed Mr. Kosak.  Indeed.

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 08:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

This story comes from across the pond in the UK Telegraph.  Hayley O'Neal received the rejection of her life recently after a Job Center Plus visit.  Sporting her thirty tattoos, twenty body piercings, and brimming with social messages of unconditional acceptance and self-esteem, O'Neil entered the center with the hopes of landing a job.  Unfortunately, her bubble was burst when she not only failed to receive an interview but received quite a deflating message from a job center official. 

 


 

The issue at hand should be obvious, but apparently Ms. O'Neal failed to see the flaw in her plan.  "On first impressions do you think anyone would hire you?" a center official said to her.  "Look at it this way if you were to stand behind a wall - or put a paper bag over your face do you think you would have a better chance?" 

 

But rather than take the message to heart, Ms. O'Neal clung to the mantra of unquestioning approval instilled in her from birth.  She left the center in tears, in shock over this rejection.  "He talked to me as though I was just going through a phase in my life, but this is my lifestyle choice, and this is who I am."

 

 

For decades, the intellectual elites and social engineers have attempted to undermine values and standards by preaching a message of unconditional acceptance and uncritical open-mindedness.  In this world of ideas, public homosexual expression should be embraced, cross dressing employees should be allowed to dress according to the gender they wish, and bathrooms gender assignment should be subjective to the individual's preference...all this in the name of tolerance and acceptance. 

 

But let's call it what it really is: narcissism.  It isn't sufficient that people allow me to live as I wish, but they must accept and conform to my lifestyle decisions without regard for social norms.  I don't need to conform to society.  I demand that society conform to me!  Sadly, any rejection of this life credo opens the door for perpetual victimhood status. 

 

Maybe Ms. O'Neil will find her employer.  Let's just be glad that her "lifestyle choice" doesn't include living as a nudist. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 06:09 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

There are typical political ads and effective ones.  And then there are potentially transformational ads like this one.

 

Playing off of Ronald Reagan's landmark "Morning in America" ad, "Mourning in America" succeeds in rising above the bickering and the shouting by focusing on this simple reality of American life: people are sad.

 

Yes there is the anger.  Yes there is the division.  Yes there is the disagreement.  Yes there is the debate.  But a political ad that focuses on anger, division, disagreement or debate would not be a novelty.  It wouldn't be lasting or nearly as influential.



 

This ad eclipses those others by pointing out that regardless of whether you think it intentional or not, Obama's policies have brought about sorrow and grief in the country (for it's part, the ad seems to absolve Obama of poor intentions, stating "His policies were a grand experiment, policies that failed.").

 

The ad is catching the eye of even the squishy center of the electorate.  Pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker writes,

 

"Mourning in America," which is hitting the national airwaves, is a poignant takeoff of Ronald Reagan's iconic "Morning in America" ad. Whatever one's political affiliation, it is impossible to watch this new ad and not feel, well, sad.

 

Brilliant.

 

...

 

Many ads tap into the ambient anger. But "mourning" aims straight for the emotional solar plexus and hits it. As someone behind the scenes in the ad's production told me: "It says what we know in our hearts, that something is terribly wrong.

 

Terribly wrong is right.  It's where the American electorate is right now.  Disillusioned, disquieted, disappointed, frustrated.and yes, sad.

 

This ad is going viral for a reason.  It's right on.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

First, they relied on Tina Fey to misrepresent Palin sufficiently enough to tube her effect on the ascendency of their beloved Obama.

 

Then CNN fact-checked Saturday Night Live when they dared to mock Obama's pretensions.

Then they cheat to elect a comedian to the United States Senate.

 

Then they excitedly await the political rally of left-wing comedian Jon Stewart to counter Glenn Beck's event.

 

Then they admire and embrace liberal comedian Stephen Colbert as he makes a mockery of Congress.



 

Then they anxiously anticipate radical left zealot Bill Maher releasing another video clip of Delaware conservative Christine O'Donnell.

 

Then, on Meet the Press, they cause Tim Russert to spin in his grave as host David Gregory relies on Jon Stewart's fake news show to provide him research material for his show.

 

There was a time when Meet the Press was regarded as the most sophisticated, serious Sunday morning talk show of them all.  There was also a time when those on the left at least pretended to be capable of discussing issues with clarity and reason.

 

Now, they rely on the comedians.  That says all that needs to be said about the state of the American left.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:51 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

I cannot blame the Obama administration too much for promoting their economic stimulus schemes as if they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. If they didn't believe they would work, they wouldn't try them. Would they?

 

In spite of their initial promotion, though, we expect government leadership that declares that it takes America's critical problems seriously to critically evaluate their programs, policies, and laws and make changes as necessary.

 

I hope, therefore, that this administration's economic policymakers consider the "cash for clunkers" feedback from the Chicago Tribune. Even though the average American Joe with any common sense approach to money matters made accurate predictions concerning the program's inherent pitfalls, the significant failures of the "cash for clunkers" stimulus program has been graced with real academic studies. The findings?


 

When the exhaust settled, it became apparent that Cash for Clunkers didn't accomplish much ? and much of what it accomplished wasn't beneficial... That doesn't even count the hidden cost of the program: higher used car prices, caused by the removal of 680,000 functional vehicles from the market. Between July 2009 and July 2010, a period of near-zero inflation, the average price for a used car rose by $1,800, or more than 10 percent, in part because of Cash for Clunkers.

 

It's a perverse form of redistribution: People who can't afford new cars pay more so that people who can afford new cars pay less.

 

The administration can claim that the brief burst of demand was valuable because it gave auto makers and the economy a jolt of adrenaline at a crucial moment. But the value of helping automakers is debatable, and the economy showed no lasting benefit.

 

The lesson from this experiment is that the government can bribe people into doing things if it's willing to spend enough of their money. But as an attempt to show that such efforts can do more good than harm, this program is the real clunker.

 

I know that libs like to tout the academic skills of their genius in the White House over the previous occupant, but it is apparent to even the most casual intuitive observer that our president doesn't know squat about economics.

 

I recommend that he pick up and read Basic Economics by Dr. Thomas Sowell. He doesn't even have to read the entire work; the first 100 pages alone will give him more than enough insight to understand what drives a free market economy.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

A bizarre story is surfacing out of Michigan.  It seems a high school girl named Oakleigh Marie is planning a sex change operation when she turns 18.

 

She has apparently decided to get a jump on things by pretending she is a boy, and she has expected the school to accommodate her behavior. 

 

 

It's got to be a difficult position for the school to be in.  They could stick to right and wrong and refuse to participate in warping this poor girl more than she already has been.  But if they do that, they will incur the wrath of national media and lawsuits from about every conceivable left-wing interest group imaginable.

 

Even if they win such a lawsuit, the damage to their school name and the reputation of the administrators would be immense.  It's lonely standing for moral correctness in this country today.

 

So the school has allowed her to wear a male tux for her band uniform and is planning to let her wear the male robe and cap for graduation. Her teachers have obliged her, using pronouns "he, him, and his" when referring to her. 

 

But when Oakleigh was voted "homecoming king" after a one-day campaign on Facebook, the school decided to put their foot down:

 

Assistant Superintendent Todd Geerlings said the issue is simple: The ballots gave two choices -- vote for a boy for king and a girl for queen.

 

And, in school records, he said, Oakleigh is still listed as a female.

 

...

 

"They told me that they took me off because they had to invalidate all of my votes because I'm enrolled at Mona Shores as a female," Oakleigh said.

 

Oakleigh was happy with the support from classmates, but "sometimes it's nice to have something tangible."

 

The teen's mother says she's angry.

 

"He was voted for homecoming king and, according to the votes, he should have been homecoming king, and it's just sad, and it just breaks my heart that all these people all voted and it was taken away, it was completely taken away from him."

 

Notice the pronouns used by Oakleigh's mom.  "He, him."  The real tragedy of this story has nothing to do with homecoming crowns.  It is the exploitation of a confused child who is being pushed down the path of destruction.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:06 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, September 28 2010

Perhaps someone can explain why the United States of America still invests the hard earned money of its taxpayers in this backwards institution known as the UN?

 

Perhaps someone can explain why the American left continues to regard the UN as the world's last, best hope?

 

Before you try, please take a look at Exhibit 1,202,785 in the case against the sanity of this international body of whackos:


 

 

Mazlan Othman, a Malaysian astrophysicist, is set to be tasked with co-ordinating humanity's response if and when extraterrestrials make contact.

 

Aliens who landed on earth and asked: "Take me to your leader" would be directed to Mrs Othman.

 

...

 

Professor Richard Crowther, an expert in space law at the UK space agency who leads delegations to the UN, said: "Othman is absolutely the nearest thing we have to a 'take me to your leader' person".

 

Sadly, we're not done:

 

Opinion is divided about how future extraterrestrial visitors should be greeted. Under the Outer Space Treaty on 1967, which Unoosa oversees, UN members agreed to protect Earth against contamination by alien species by "sterilising" them.

 

Mrs Othman is understood to support a more tolerant approach.

 

I'm too speechless to even comment.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:30 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, September 27 2010

Poor libs. They got the man in the oval office they wanted, and he has gotten the cronies into his administration he wanted. It should be all peaches and cream in the land of left-believe.

 

Alas, it is not to be. Here comes the latest from our hope and change head cheerleader:

 

The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services -- such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype -- to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday.

 

National security officials and federal law enforcement argue their ability to eavesdrop on terror suspects is increasingly "going dark," The New York Times reported, as more communication takes place via Internet services, rather than by traditional telephone.

 

The bill, which the White House plans to deliver to Congress next year, would require communication service providers be technically capable of intercepting and decrypting messages, raising serious privacy concerns, the Times said.


 

Amazingly, I was thinking of the old NSA Bush-era controversies just this weekend and wondering if there is still as much liberal suspicion of the surveillance programs. There has, after all, been nothing of note published about them from our favorite lib organizations lately. (You don't have to believe me that I was thinking about it a couple days ago, but I was).

 

Not being a Huffington Post frequenter, I have no idea if their initial response is normal or not. It strikes me as somewhat low-key. Comments to the article are amusingly divided. Many Huffpo regulars express concern over the proposal and dismay that it is their man and their team at the helm; others stand ready to defend the move:

 

People need to read the article in the NYT rather than react to the silly headline. In order to build a case to prove 'terrorist activities and communication' all wiretaps put into evidence have to be court ordered. It's inadmissible if it's illegally obtained. A court order covers the legality of wiretapping a suspect.

Bush did it illegally. That's why many terror suspects were never brought to trial and sit in jails. The evidence against them was illegally obtained. Many can't wait to trash the President. But how do expect intelligence to intercept terror communications? Would you prefer the intelligence community wait until after an attack is planned and executed and they can just look through deleted emails and google histories? - "Hufffan"

 

Intelligent comment, but it still smacks of that liberal elitism that cannot resist the urge to defame everything done by the former president. I am awaiting the ACLU take on it.

 

The bottom line, at some point American citizens have to trust their government in matter of national security. But trusting federal government has gotten more and more difficult. Both major parties have done much to undermine trust.

 

One of the few things that libs and conservatives agree on is that we can trust government to abuse its power at some point. This is why the TEA party and similar movements are so critical. Normal citizens are rising up and taking action to demand accountability once more from our elected officials. It's not going to be perfect, but it's a few steps better than what we have been letting things get.

 

And. I'm not worried about the government intercepting this transmission. The proposal is not going to Congress until next year. ?Til then!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:02 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 27 2010

George Will continued his impressive work of dismantling tag-teams of liberal elites all by his lonesome this weekend.  Appearing as a panelist on "This Week," Will schooled uber-left host Christiane Amanpour, Democrat strategist Donna Brazile, and even Republican strategist Matthew Dowd on their continued propagation of the "Tea Party causing Republican Civil War" meme.

 

Interrupting Amanpour's sorry soliloquy on "an all-out war, a struggle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party," Will marvelously countered (emphasis added):



 

They've been writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party. You know what the problem...

 

On balance across the country, the Tea Party is enormous help for the Republicans. At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who's sort of not playing nicely? Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he's an independent and changes all his views overnight.

 

Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she's going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists?

 

Who indeed, Mr. Will.  This echoes what I've been saying for weeks: it's time the left-leaning Republicans start being the good little foot soldiers for the party that they've demanded and expected conservatives to be all these years.

 

We pick the leaders, you give us your votes.  No civil war...just a friendly arrangement.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 27 2010

Back from vacations and parties, it's good to see our current administration returning to their promised duty of repairing our image around the world:

 

The U.S. government said Sunday it made an "honest mistake" when it displayed an inverted Philippine flag - which wrongfully signified that the Southeast Asian nation was in a state of war - in a meeting hosted by President Barack Obama.


 

The Philippine flag was displayed upside down behind President Benigno Aquino III when leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations met Obama in New York on Friday.

 

Hey, at least we didn't give them any unusable DVDs or a reset button with a mistranslated term on it.

 

What embarrassments.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 12:11 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Monday, September 27 2010

There is a political reality that seems to be lost right now in the midst of the "those tea party people are just racist bigots who despise a black man in the White House" hysteria fomented by the smear merchants of the left.  That reality is that it has been Republicans FAR more than Democrats who have suffered at the hands of this grassroots uprising.

 

Now, it's true that most of the Tea Party folks self-identify as conservatives and are thus more likely to vote in the Republican primary than the Democrat primary.

 

Nevertheless, it is significant to point out that far from being "Republican Astroturf," this movement is actively proving its seriousness in unloading establishment types - regardless of political affiliation.



 

With that being said, perhaps it's time for the Tea Party movement to flex its muscles within the Democrat Party as well.  Such is the thesis of Bruce Walker who writes that if the "silent majority" of folks who believe in individual freedom and personal autonomy are willing to purge Republicans, they should do the same to realign the Democrat Party back within the realm of common sense:

 

America needs a Democratic Party with Americans like Zell Miller, David Boren, and yes, Joe Lieberman (an honest and honorable liberal). The Tea Party, properly and notably, rejects the establishment of both the big political parties. There is no reason why it cannot storm and occupy positions in the Democratic Party. There are many reasons why it should. When politicians seek votes and when most voters are conservative, then both parties can be pushed to compete for conservative votes, and if the context is played wisely, then conservative principles can prevail. 

 

He lays out the strategy nicely:

 

What would happen if conservatives targeted several dozen relatively weak leftist Democrats in states or districts conductive to the conservative message, and then sought to elect a genuinely conservative Democrat (recruited, of course, within the ranks of the conservative movement)? What would happen if conservatives decided in 2012 to unify behind an articulate conservative to run in the Democrat primaries and caucuses against Obama? Let the small leftist minority in America worry about not just losing a general election, but a primary: what would that do to the appeal of leftism in our political system? It would raise the profound issues we face about partisanship into the realm of fundamental political philosophy. Forcing both political parties, internally, to confront conservative candidates and voters would sap the left and strengthen the right.

 

The left wields much power today - even within the Republican Party.  Perhaps it's time for common sense Democrats to demonstrate their willingness to take back their Party.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:25 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 26 2010

I did not think that Congress could become more incompetent and irrelevant than it already is. Then, Congress demonstrated more incompetence and became more irrelevant than it was.

 

The episode to which I refer is the so-called expert testimony of Stephen Colbert before Congress on September 24. At the invitation of Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Colbert played his Comedy Central act to Congress.



 

Even though he was there to "testify" on behalf of migrant worker (ie, illegal immigrants) rights, "Colbert has no background or expertise in either farm labor issues or immigration policy."

 

What a waste of taxpayer resources! At least House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., recognized the idiocy of it: "You run your show, we run the committee." In the midst of border security concerns, economic hardships, and trillions of dollars of wasteful spending, this is how Congress treats Americans.

 

Waste of time; waste of money. Government at work.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 05:52 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, September 26 2010

Isn't the left always striving to convince us that Big Government is our salvation? Without government intervention, we are told, private individuals, organizations, and businesses would have their way on helpless and hapless stooges.

 

We "need" Big Government to pave the way for easier mortgages and then protection from inevitable foreclosures.

 

We "need" Big Government to dictate our food and drink consumption.

 

We "need" Big Government to give breaks to corporation "too big to fail." How can we live without our beloved nanny state?



 

In March 2010, rescue workers from Scotland's Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Force could only stand helplessly by as a 44-year-old woman pleaded for rescue. She had accidentally fallen into a mine shaft, but the brave firefighters were not allowed to attempt the rescue because "regulations said their lifting equipment could not be used on the public. A memo had been circulated in Strathclyde Fire and Rescue stations months previously stating that it was for use by firefighters only."

 

They had to wait for qualified "mountain rescuers." The nearest team arrived on the scene six hours after the accident; unfortunately, Ms. Alison Hume died of a heart attack as she was being brought to the surface.

 

At the inquiry, "Christopher Rooney, the first senior fire officer at the scene in Galston, Ayrshire, in 2008, told the fatal accident inquiry at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court that it would have been possible to pull Ms Hume up had it not been for the memo."

 

Yep, we need more nursemaid states.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 03:33 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, September 25 2010

What is one to make of the Obama presidency? After a brilliant - in political terms - primary in which he defeated the previously-proclaimed shoe-in as the next president, Hillary Clinton, Barrack H. Obama treated the world to a spectacular campaign. He received remarkable passes from Big Media as they turned blind eyes and deaf ears to real concerns raised by real people. This was FDR and JFK rolled into one new monolithic American savior for all. BHO reveled in his success, and admiring groupies reveled in BHO reveling in his success.

 

There is a line used in the movie "Patton:" "All glory is fleeting." I think I have it right. How quickly BHO's glory is fleeting. Oh, make no doubt about it - between his charisma, his groupies, and his kingmakers in Big Media and Big Government, he has some comeback capacity left in the tank. Of this, I am sure.



 

But he is not making it easy on himself by losing the left. Such is the case in an article by columnist Margaret Carlson. This is a column well worth the read, as Margaret shares not only disappointment and disillusionment with the anointed one. She reveals also the inherent truth that is recognized by every honest liberal: when they really need something critical done well, they want to call on a conservative.

 

It's a long time now since Obama was a community organizer. Even then, he might have been more comfortable dealing with communities than with individuals. Democrats are best with groups. If I break down on the side of the road, I hope a Republican stops -- he'll fix my flat and offer me a drink. A Democrat will get busy forming a Committee to Protect Women Who Own Vulnerable Cars.

 

Margaret, you have gotten that figured out. Nevertheless, you cling to liberalism, which makes your indictment of BHO all the more critical.

 

I'm not one of these people who think Obama should be getting down with the people, or getting emotional. A Slick Willie he isn't, nor should he try to be. But he's being hammered in polls that ask Americans whether he cares about people like them. Where did Mr. Hope and Change go? Even if that was inauthentic, he should bring it back.

 

Even the left is beginning to wake up to the reality that BHO is interested most in himself and a few cronies who help him maintain the status he has acquired. That is what institutional liberalism is. That's all it can be. If Americans want leaders who actually care for them and their concerns, they need to seriously consider role models like Rush Limbaugh - but that will be the topic of another entry.

 

America's politicians are still impacted by elections; BHO does not yet have the final say. He may yet be able to pull out some more political shenanigans, but I think and hope that it will become more difficult to do if he keeps losing the left.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:26 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

Sure her opponent is an unrepentant Marxist, but Big Media wouldn't be Big Media if they focused on something like that.  No, to keep up their image they have focused on Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell's 11 year old comment that she once dabbled in witchcraft as a high schooler.

 

Quick question to the American electorate:

 

Which would you prefer to have in a position of authority? A.) a conservative Christian who made a mistake when she was in high school that she has repented of ... or B.) a self-professed Marxist who is unrepentant.



 

To everyone outside the insular world of Big Media liberal elitism, this is a no-brainer.  But nevertheless, the broom jokes and crazy comments are all the rage on broadcast and network reports.

 

But don't miss what this reality demonstrates (once again) about the left: they are total frauds on the notion of open-minded tolerance and diversity. 

 

What, after all, is so wrong with paganism and witchcraft?  Is it not a viable religious practice?  Are those who practice it not legitimate, contributing members of society?  Are they somehow less worthy of credibility? 

 

How judgmental!  How narrow-minded!  How...right-wing of them!

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

It's interesting to see the discussion surrounding Sesame Workshop's decision to scrap a song with pop artist Katy Perry set to run on Sesame Street.  The controversy started when Perry's video posted on YouTube.  In the video, Perry sports a revealing dress and runs around the stage with Elmo to the tune of her hit song "Hot and Cold".  Parents saw the video and complained that the content was inappropriate for their kids. 



 

What I find most interesting and most telling is how Katy Perry was confronted with coming full circle.  Katy Perry's history is an interesting tale.  She grew up in an evangelical Christian home as the daughter of a preacher.  At the age of 16 she entered the music industry singing gospel music and looked to be a rising star in the Christian music scene.  But she decided to take a different path. 

She rejected the boundaries that her parents and her religion encouraged and decided to travel down the hyper-sexualized pop industry path preceded by the likes of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.  The new Katy sported racy outfits and promoted such things as sexual promiscuity and bisexual exploration.  Needless to say, her lifestyle has fled her upbringing with reckless abandon. 

 

This brings us to today and the Sesame Street controversy.  While the fact that Sesame Workshop didn't at least raise some red flags when Perry showed up on stage in a revealing dress is troubling, what I find most interesting is the fact that Perry thought it appropriate to don the outfit that she chose for a child-targeted audience.  The contrast that resulted is worth noting.  On the one side you have Perry who has been rejecting the boundaries her parents attempted to place around her.  On the other you have concerned parents attempting to maintain these boundaries with their kids. 

 

I honestly believe Ms. Perry was innocent in her intent in this circumstance, but I do believe she has strayed so far that she is well beyond recognizing what is and is not appropriate for children.  Should she ever have kids, she may face the very same struggle once again, but with a much more difficult task.  How will she respond to a culture pressing to sexualize children at younger and younger ages?

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 12:14 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

As one season transitions into another, more than one summer is coming to an end. Larry Summers, Obama's director of the National Economic Council and chief economic policy coordinator, is leaving this administration in order to return to Harvard.



Mr. Summers makes the third high ranking member of the Obama economic team to exit the White House: Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Peter Orszag, the budget director. Mr. Timothy Geithner, the treasury secretary, is the last man standing among this august group.

 

None of the three have left under suspicious circumstances. There are no known controversies. The last two have left to return to their institutions of higher learning. Nothing wrong with that. Except...

 

One can hardly claim that their work is done. Americans still face an economy in shambles. As I have noted in prior posts, housing and employment are perilously close to the same precipice that they hurtled off of a couple of years ago. There is only one exception to our current situation being the same as 2007-2008: we are in worse shape now.

America now has more debt, more government regulations, less business expansion, and far fewer tools to combat another recession/depression. In the midst of all this, the chief geniuses and architects of the Obama economic policy decide to bail?

 

I think that they know that they have failed. Successful men and women - men and women who are convinced that their hard work and sacrifice are going to pay off - don't bail out of challenging situations. Sure, they might leave after the tough days of accomplishing their goals are finished. They might need a well-deserved break after sacrificing themselves so much to succeed. But winners don't quit in the middle of the project - unless, they know they're defeated.

Obama's dream team brought their Keynesian, socialist, central planning theories to the table, forced them down our throats, and discovered that they do not work. They don't have anything left. Why stay on this sinking ship, when they can trot back to their ivory towers and dupe young minds with the evils of capitalism and free enterprise?

 

Summers is over. Are you ready for the coming winter?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:57 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

Rush Limbaugh wasn't fit to be a co-owner.  Why?  According to the NFL Commssioner Roger Goodell, "I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here."

 

Yes, a higher standard that includes drunk drivers, dog fighters, and perverts:

 

Fresh off the heels of a locker room controversy involving reporter Ines Sainz, in which Goodell referred to New York Jets players as engaging in ?unprofessional conduct' toward a female reporter, we have a couple of star NFL players discussing their thoughts on seeing Sarah Palin pose in Playboy.

 

Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco of the Cincinnati Bengals have been debuting their new show in short clips on the Versus network, the self-proclaimed ?nation's fastest growing sports network.'  The program is called The T.Ocho Show.  Ochocinco brags of the edgy programming saying.

 

"Versus is taking a big risk giving us this show.  It's gonna be dangerous. Watch with care."

 

That said, the Versus website is promoting a video clip in which the NFL stars are asked, "Would you rather see Sarah Palin in the White House or in Playboy?"


 

Both men eventually decide she's attractive and cute, but not Playboy material.  However, Owens eventually decides on Playboy since, "I think she can probably do more damage in the White House than she can in Playboy."

 

I like the NFL...but that's just real classy stuff.  And it certainly causes one to wonder why Goodell pretends the league has such lofty moral standards that a conservative commentator cannot share ownership of a team simply because others smear him as something he's not.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 10:46 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

According to Associated Press reports, President Obama is trying for the 180th time now to re-introduce his healthcare legislation to the American people in a way that will make them like it.

 

Blaming himself for coolness to his health care overhaul, President Barack Obama is seeking to reintroduce the law to voters who don't much like or understand it six months after he signed it.


 

I'm concerned about the President.  He just seems to lack self-confidence and self-assuredness so often (ahem) that I don't want him taking this personally.  Truly, it's not his fault the American people aren't on board with him.  He doesn't seem to get that message though:

 

Obama ruefully told his listeners, "Sometimes I fault myself for not being able to make the case more clearly to the country."

 

Mr. President, it's not your fault.  Your 180+ attempts to sell us the same piece of tyrannical gobbledygook were all inspired and moving.  The truth is, it's not you.  It's the bill.

 

It's a piece of trash.  And no matter how many bows you put on it, no matter how you word it or dress it up, at the end of the day, it stinks.  We don't like it.not you.  You did a fine job selling.  We just aren't buying.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:20 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

Haven't we been told for years that the Democrats are the Party of the working man?  Of the average Joe?  Poppycock.

 

Michelle Malkin has done a wonderful job exposing just how interested Barack Obama and the Democrats are in helping the working man who doesn't belong to one of their chosen groups (Big Labor):

 

Consider the real-life horror story of 20,000 white-collar workers at Delphi, a leading auto parts company spun off from GM a decade ago. As Washington rushed to nationalize the U.S. auto industry with $80 billion in taxpayer "rescue" funds and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members' costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts. In addition, the nonunion pensioners lost all of their health and life insurance benefits.

 

The abused workers - most from hard-hit northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states - had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees at Delphi/GM. Some workers have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish.


 

After citing the gut-wrenching accounts of actual people who have been targeted and left high and dry from these corrupt actions, Malkin explains how it happened:

 

Obama's team of auto-crats - stocked with Big Labor-friendly appointees and self-admitted know-nothings about the car industry - decided to "cherry pick" (one Obama official's own words) which obligations the new Government Motors company would assume and which they would abandon based on their own political whims and fealty. Due process and equal treatment of union and nonunion workers be [darned].

 

Party of the working man?  Hardly.  This is but one example of the manipulative, corrupt and crooked regime that now governs us.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:41 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

"This summer is sure to be a Summer of Economic Recovery." - Ron Sims, Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 6/17/10



 

"Advanced Micro Devices on Thursday cut its third-quarter sales forecast, citing weaker-than-expected demand... AMD pointed to "weaker than expected demand, particularly in the consumer notebook market in Western Europe and North America."" - AMD Corporate announcement, 9/23/10

 

Ooops!

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:58 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 24 2010

Profanity: the futile attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully. 



 

Feeble minds abound on the left, as evidenced by the Chairman of the Ohio Democrat Party, Chris Redfern who expressed how he and his posse feel about Tea Party Americans. 

 

(ABUSIVE and CRUDE LANGUAGE WARNING on the link)

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 08:22 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

Kudos to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She gets it. "It" here means freedom. In a keynote address to the United Nations anti-poverty summit , Merkel sounded a bit Margaret Thatcher-ish:


 

"Development aid cannot continue indefinitely. The task therefore is to use limited resources as effectively as possible. This can only work through good governance which taps that country's potential." She said governments had to be responsible for their growth and make greater efforts to promote a market economy and small businesses. "Without self-sustaining economic growth, developing countries will find the road out of poverty and hunger to steep to climb," she warned.

 

A key lynchpin of freedom for any nation is a sustainable free market economy. The only alternative is tyranny. A key lynchpin to reducing poverty at both the national and global levels is a sustainable, thriving free market economy. Free market capitalism works every time it is tried.

 

Where does the most critical poverty exist? In those nations ruled by tyranny. Tyranny does not have to be cruel. There can be greater and lesser degrees of tyranny. Regardless of the degree, tyranny breeds poverty. Centralized economies breed poverty.

 

The United Nations has been "attacking" poverty for a long time. In 1996, the U.N. held a Food Summit.

 

"Very generally speaking, political freedom is the enemy of famine," said Nicholas Eberstadt, demographer at the American Enterprise Institute who spoke at the Food Summit. "And economic liberty is the foe of hunger."

 

Who opposes free markets and capitalism at these summits? In 1996, it was Fidel Castro. In 2010, it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's not that they don't get it. They do get it. They just know that if freedom broke out in their respective lands, they would be toast. Yes, they understand completely freedom's power and benefit.

 

But Chancellor Merkel really gets it.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:49 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

Ok, I admit it.  The title's a little cheesy.  But when you're a political nerd like me, it's pretty clever.  I'm obviously not talking about the value of a precious metal.  Nate Silver and Jay Cost are two political analysts who specialize in polling and elections.  Silver is a liberal and Cost is a conservative, but both are very good analysts.  This is why I'm a bit surprised at Silver's most recent piece. 

 

 

In this piece he attempts to make the argument that based on recent polling, the Democrats might not be in as much trouble as originally anticipated.  His argument is the following:

 

  1. Conservative polling agency American Action Forum polled 31 House races.
  2. When the question was "do you support a Democrat candidate or a Republican", the "Republican" received strong support.
  3. When the question was "do you support insert Democrat candidate name or insert Republican candidate name, the Republican candidate received modest support. 
  4. The populace may be largely anti-Democrat but not opposed to their particular representative. 
  5. The Democrat candidates may fare better than generic party polling in their region.
  6. Therefore, Democrat losses in November may be more modest than polling suggests.

 

Like I said, I'm a political nerd and I find point-counterpoint between poll experts particularly fascinating (don't laugh).  In Jay Cost's response, he highlights the very issues I have with Silver's analysis. 

 

1.                Silver's analysis doesn't account for the disproportionately large number of undecided voters in these polls.

2.                Undecided voters historically break for the challenger.

3.                Every poll represented a Democrat incumbent and a Republican challenger.

4.                Of the seven races that did show the Republican candidate beating a generic "Republican", five had individuals who previously held office.

5.                Once candidates become familiar to voters, they are just as likely to close if not exceed any gap between the polls. 

6.                Therefore, Democrat losses in November might very well be as drastic as some polling suggests.

 

Name recognition is essential when pitting two candidates against each other.  It should be obvious that this is a possible factor in discrepancy between polling.  In this case I feel that Silver missed the obvious internals while focusing on several important, but incomplete sets of data. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 01:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

It seems that the Cambridge Energy Alliance is going door to door next month to hand out free compact fluorescent light bulbs in an environmental crusade.  We've heard how great these things are, how much money you save from them, how much longer they last, and how much better they are for the planet.

 

Not saying it's not true, but if it is, pray tell why does a group need to hand them out for free?  Why aren't people knocking each other down to get one?



 

Peter Wilson gives some reasons (this is not an exhaustive list):

 

Warm-up time: it takes up to 5 minutes for a CFL to reach full strength, which may be related to the point above (why CFLs seem less bright). My friend has installed them in a hallway where illumination is needed only for the thirty seconds it takes to navigate the staircase. Not ideal when Grandma visits and can't see the skateboard on the stairs.

 

Few CFLs last for their advertised lifetimes of five years or more. Many people report replacing them after one year, making those return on investment numbers a bit less rosy. Using them in ceiling fixtures, on dimmers or timers, and for less than fifteen minutes per use reduce their life.

 

CFLs contain mercury and should be returned to a hazardous waste center for disposal.

 

CFLs require six times as much energy to manufacture as incandescent bulbs, not to mention -- if you're concerned about such things -- the carbon footprint of shipping them from China.

 

CFLs appear to cause migraines and epileptic seizures in a small number of people. Other health risks are being studied.

 

CFLs work poorly in cold temperatures -- as a wintertime front porch light, for example. In cold climates, the heat of incandescent bulbs is a useful -- if inefficient -- byproduct.

 

CFLs degrade the quality of the electric current.

 

Sure glad Congress took action to ban Mr. Edison.  Good intentions pave the road to disaster.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

The U.S. housing market and employment are headlining market news this morning. Existing home sales are still anemic, rising in August to the second-lowest level on record. Coupled with the report on the drop in U.S. home prices a few days ago, we can see that our hosing market is still in a significant slump.

 

It's going to take awhile to get better. There is too much inventory that has to be cleared. The market's progress has been temporarily stalled by government spending and "incentives," but the market reality is that overabundant supply translates into lower prices in order to attract demand. The saddest truth in all of this is that the liberal politicians' demands for more "equitable" housing for more Americans has resulted in more foreclosures and less ownership for more Americans. Big Government at work, friends.



 

Add to this the report that unemployment claims have risen the past week, and we still find cause to be cautious about this economy. The biggest problem is that Big Government stimulus is running its course, and it has not accomplished what has been hoped for. This comes as no surprise, even though our liberal leaders still fail to figure it out.

 

Here's the clue, libs: Government does not produce goods and services that create sustainable jobs. Government does not create revenue; government confiscates revenue. In this "recovery," the Big Government solution has been to transfer wealth from productive Americans to unproductive Americans. Not being mean here; this is a recognition of reality.

Added to the Big Government wealth transfers are more Big Government regulations. Massive regulations like Obamacare and more banking laws. The end result is a spike in market activity followed by a "sugar-rush" crash.

 

From where the ordinary American sits, our economic outlook is still dismal.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 11:47 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

Peter has been talking about this issue for months: that when it comes to Islam and America, our major concern should not be "moderate" vs. "radicals."  Those lines are too easy to blur.  Is one a moderate if they want to see the Constitution subverted and replaced with Islamic law, so long as he achieves that end peacefully?  Apparently so.

 

The real issue Americans must have the courage to face is that of Shariah law.  Islam is not like the others, as Heck often says.  It is simultaneously a religious faith and a political order (with an emphasis on the latter).  It has achieved its growth through conquest, not evangelism.

 

That's the question that should be asked of every candidate and potential lawmaker in the United States: do you recognize that Shariah is treasonous towards our constitutional order and system?



 

It's not just conservative radio talk show hosts that recognize that anymore:

 

A team of national security experts assembled by the conservative Center for Security Policy, a Washington, D.C., think tank, issued a report last week warning of that Shariah law--which they described as a "legal-political-military doctrine"--is the "preeminent totalitarian threat of our time."

 

...

 

"Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam's internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates--figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world's largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama--whose members embrace the Enlightenment's veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms," the authors write.

 

Is it too much to ask that this be a wake-up call to those who still fail to recognize the existential threat our civilization faces?

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

There's a lot of talk following the election of the less cosmetic (well, politically speaking) Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in the Delaware primary that conservatives who are fired up this election cycle need to remember the "Buckley Rule."

 

That rule is named after one of the large forces behind the modern conservative movement, William F. Buckley, Jr. who said that you should pick the most conservative "electable" candidate and support them.

 

While that rule makes sense in certain cases (like when seizing the controls of government is your major objective), it doesn't fit our current time period.  Andrew McCarthy has done a remarkable job explaining this at National Review:

 

These are not ordinary times. The nation is in the grip of post-sovereign leftists who reject the premise that the country is essentially good ? that's why, they say, it needs "fundamental change." They are locking in their redistributionist vision by borrowing the terrifying trillions they spend. They are not worried about governing against the opposition of a lopsided majority of Americans. Unpopular is one thing; transformational is something else.

 

This is where the chattering Sunday-morning know-it-alls lead the GOP establishment over the cliff. To hear the pundits tell it, the highest Republican interest is control of the government. The holy grail is winning enough seats to take over the House, the Senate, and the constituent committees of both chambers. Ideological purity is secondary to wielding the levers of power.

 

This, however, conflates the highest interest ? i.e., the national interest ? with the parochial interest of establishment politicos. The "establishment" exists precisely because there is a professional political class. GOP leadership has come to accept ? to revel in ? the same basic conceit that animated Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and that guides Obama: Modern society is too big, too complex, and too judicialized to be hamstrung by so obsolete a notion as federalism, or to be managed by so quaint a figure as the citizen-legislator. From this perspective, government is a profession. It is a life's calling in which wonkish mastery of how it works counts for more than what one would have it do.


 

These are the times in which we live.  And this is what motivates the Tea Party, not dogged allegiance to seeing more Rs get in than Ds.

 

But to the tea party ? belittling shorthand for what used to be known as the "silent majority" ? this arrangement and its underlying assumptions are exactly the problem. Sure, they'd like the candidates of their choosing to wield the levers of power. But that is a decidedly secondary concern. They want the Titanic stripped down to a reasonably efficient cruiser that does the few things we absolutely need a government to do and nothing more.

 

Control of Congress is not what inspires them. The Republicans had control of Congress when the seeds were sown for much of what now ails us: for the prescription-drug entitlement that begat Obamacare; for the auto-company bailout that begat Obama-motors; for the stimulus that begat the deluge; for the TARP that begat the very slush-fund antics TARP opponents warned against; for the McCain Amendment that begat the Mirandizing of terrorists; etc. At every turn, the GOP-controlled Congress ? at the urging of weathervane RINOs and a punditocracy consumed by tactical politics at the expense of limited-government principle ? was Big Government Lite. (And "lite" is used advisedly here, for it is lite only by comparison to the monstrosity to which it gave way). That President Obama has made a canyon of the hole we were in does not mean he's wrong when he says Republican leadership drove us "into a ditch."

 

In other words, what is of highest concern to this current movement is putting the heads of big government types in either party on the chopping block.  The Buckley Rule doesn't apply.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

The aunt of Barack Obama - who happens to be an illegal alien - has decided it is time to speak out.  And her message is a powerful one:

 

"If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen."


 

Uh.well, at least we know where Obama gets it.  Calling that an entitlement mentality is perhaps the greatest understatement in the world.

 

J.C. Arenas sums it up this way:

 

As it stands, we have more than enough of an entitlement populace in this country and as much as that alone is hurting us as a nation, at least we can say their allegiance is to this country and their presence here is legal -either by birth or legal immigration.

The last thing we need is more "Auntie Zeitunis" showing up from all over the world wearing "Gimme" t-shirts and proclaiming what our obligations as real Americans are to them.

We owe you nada.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:35 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 23 2010

Sometimes articles need no further commentary.  Two articles absolutely nail the problem that is facing President Obama and the Democrats.  First up is a piece by Peter Wehner from Commentarymagazine.com.  Here you see the exact problem facing Obama supporters as exemplified by Obama supporter Velma Hart at President Obama's recent town hall. 



Here's the direct quote from Ms. Hart:

 

Quite frankly, I'm exhausted - I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people and I'm waiting, sir. I'm waiting. I don't feel it yet. And I thought while it wouldn't be in great measure, I'd feel it in some small measure.  I have two children in private school and the financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family. My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?

 

Also worth a watch is Jon Stewart's humorous spin on the event.  I have to say that I really feel for this individual.  Millions of Americans, particularly those like Ms. Hart, voted for President Obama on the hopes that they would see a genuine change in the tone and composition of what they see coming out of Washington.  There would be a change in the way things work and the direction of the country would shift course.  Instead there's more of the same and the supporters are left holding water for agendas and policies they didn't sign on for. 

 

The second piece is from William Galston in the New Republic.  When a liberal gets it, it's worth highlighting.  He gets it.  His argument is that the Democrats are facing problems today because the party has been certain in the rightness of their policy and more concerned with selling their agenda then in promoting a product that is on par with the wishes of the American people.  Because of this stubbornness the party's in trouble in this election cycle.  His concluding paragraph nails it:

 

The bottom line: the majority can neither run on its record nor run away from it. Its only hope is to convince the American people that giving power to an opposition party in its angriest and least moderate mood would only make things worse.


In other words, the Democrats have nothing to run on other than scare mongering, and I doubt that will win over come November. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 06:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

Primary night in Delaware brought about jubilation from two camps.  First there were the TEA parties who were ecstatic with their upset over the centrist Republican, Mike Castle.  Next were the Democrats who were elated at the prospects of winning a seat they believed to be a lost cause. 

 

While I've highlighted my reasons for concern over O'Donnell as a candidate, it's worth noting that the seat is by no means a lost race.  The Democrats and the Left may feel the seat is now theirs, but they may want to contain their enthusiasm for several reasons. 

 

Henry Olsen and Marc Thiessen over at The American have some very interesting pieces of analysis which suggest that Delaware is very much in play.  Here are some of the reasons they give.

 

1. The general mood of the country is certainly in O'Donnell's favor, and this is true of Delaware as well.

 

Whether it's health care, anti-incumbent sentiment, illegal immigration, the Bush tax cuts, or government spending, O'Donnell is on the right side of public sentiment.  While her opponents may wish to emphasize her personal baggage, she's on the right side of the issues.  See TheOldSalt's post to highlight this very point. 

 

2. Delaware may be slowly turning from a blue state to a purple state.



 

This by itself could destroy the myth that only a moderate could win in Delaware.  There are three counties in Delaware: New Castle, Kent, and Sussex.  New Castle is by far the largest and by far the most liberal.  But New Castle's percentage of the vote has been steadily declining in recent years, opening the door for an upset of conventional political understanding.  Check out this analysis from Henry Olsen:

 

"Suppose New Castle County comprises 58 percent of the electorate this year, roughly in line with its long-term trend, with a small adjustment for differential partisan turnout this year. Further suppose that Kent comprises 18 percent (up from 16 in ?08) and Sussex comprises 24 percent (up from 22 in ?08). Finally, suppose that Democratic nominee Chris Coons carries 58 percent in New Castle County, 40 percent (18 points less) in Kent, and 34 percent (24 percent less) in Sussex. Those assumptions produce 49 percent of the vote. Assuming the Libertarian does not exceed two percent of the vote, they would give O'Donnell a narrow and shocking victory."

 

O'Donnell does have to sell herself and assuage any conflicted voters over her iffy past, but if this is all that Chris Coons focuses on, it could demonstrate reluctance to debate on the issues.  O'Donnell has an uphill climb going forward, but a defeat in November isn't a foregone conclusion. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 10:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

The Great Uniter is getting an old fashioned smackdown. Some significant comments are beginning to come from some significant Chief Executive officers (CEOs) of some significant corporations.

 

Says Intel CEO Paul Otellini, "I think this group [Obama and the Democrats] does not understand what it takes to create jobs."

 

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg accused Obama of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."

 

Cypress Semiconductor's Rodgers says that he had "started out happy with Obama because we had broken through the white male barrier" and made "a step forward for equality." Now, however, "I have become deeply disappointed with him. It is amateur hour in Washington. The guy hasn't got a clue about the economy, how jobs are created, how wealth is created. It reminds me of the Jimmy Carter years, only worse."

 

In an address to the Atlanta Rotary Club, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent said, "I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around."



 

I recognize full well that there is plenty of wild rhetoric to go around these days as everyone tries to make themselves "heard" in 30-second sound bites. And CEOs are not without their personal bias and agenda. And not all CEOs are disillusioned with the president. Still, American CEOs and their staffs know what it takes to do business in America and around the world. The challenges are serious enough without the political shifting and shenanigans going on.

 

American businesses large and small can hardly be blamed very much for wanting to wait and see how new and proposed policies are going to impact them. After all, new projections of Obamacare costs, already sporting 2,300 plus pages of regulations with more on the way, are merrily bounding beyond those initial estimates.

 

Let's be real: CEOs and their staffs live in the world of financial numbers. They strive to know what impacts their bottom lines. If they do not know this, then they will not succeed. If they do not succeed, then they do not create innovative products and services, make profits and pay taxes, and hire or retain employees. When that happens, unemployed Americans discover what the true minimum wage is.

 

On the way to the election, Obama was compared favorably to JFK. He was to be the new JFK and usher in the new Camelot. As these CEOs are learning, there is a vast gulf between the JFK view of American business and the Obama view.

 

In his annual message to the Congress on the State of the Union, January 14, 1963, JFK appealed, "To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential--the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes. For it is increasingly clear--to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits."

 

The BHO approach? "I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more..." (Then-Senator Obama's response to question about letting tax cuts lapse, 1/30/2008).

 

Small wonder why America's CEOs are administering a good ol' fashioned smackdown.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:02 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

It's amazing how little the left wants us to talk about religion, specifically Christianity, in the public square, yet feels free to distort and misrepresent it publicly in making their own "points."

 

Such was the case with a recent piece of intellectual and theological rubbish put out by St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Kevin Horrigan.  Rather than wasting your time in reading the whole piece, just suffice it to say it was the tired and Biblically perverting logic that says: "Jesus said to care for the poor and sick.that obviously means he favored welfare and socialized healthcare."

 

If you don't believe me, check out this small snippet of his tripe:

 

And when it was evening, His disciples came to him, saying, "This is a desert place and the time is now past. Send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves victuals."

 

But Jesus said unto them, "They need not depart. Give ye them to eat."

 

And they said unto him, "We have here but five loaves and two fishes."

 

And he said, "Bring them hither to me."

 

And lo, he himself ate up both the fish and three of the five loaves, having worked up a powerful hunger.

 

And for the remaining two loaves, he ordered them auctioned on eBay, saying unto his disciples, "You cannot sit and expect someone to hand out to you. Hunger can be a positive motivator."


 

Obviously we're dealing with a superior intellect here.

 

The problem with mindless rants such as this (and their accompanying protest signs demanding such devastatingly ignorant queries such as, "Who would Jesus deny healthcare to?") is they are too ignorant to deserve a response, and yet if one is not offered, the uninformed may be misled.

 

So hats off to letter writer Jim Johnson of Kokomo, IN who submitted a well articulated debunking of this foolishness.  The superb job Johnson does of exposing Horrigan's fraudulent manipulations of Jesus' words and his abuse of context needs to be read in full.  But here's the money paragraph:

 

Horrigan's myopic interpretation: If Jesus were as mean-spirited as Ms. Benson, he'd have not fed the hungry, not healed the sick, and not raised the dead. Truth be told, every one of Horrigan's references (but not his silly rewrites) demonstrated how individuals ought to treat their neighbors. The key word here is "individuals." Governments have no such mandates. In fact, governments are ordained in Scripture to protect their citizenry, provide order, and punish wrongdoers (Romans 13:1-7). Think about it, Kevin. Should the government feed every hungry person in America just because Jesus miraculously fed 15,000 curiosity seekers one afternoon? Should it reward foreigners who break into our country illegally with Social Security benefits that you, not they, paid for just because Jesus commended a Samaritan for helping an injured man whom he'd never met? And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Christ neither intended that Gen. Petraeus turn his cheek to a Taliban thug, nor a police officer to a fugitive! The point is, of course, that governmental bodies and individual people are two entirely different entities, and so are their obligations. One is an apple, the other, an orange.

 

Rock on, Jim Johnson.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

You almost have to feel bad for them.  Almost.

 

Big Media has been so insulated from diverse thought, so insular and subject to groupthink that they have contracted the intellectually disabling qualities of university campuses in America.

 

Case in point, a recent edition of the CBS Evening News found them marveling at "unusual assertions" of Tea Party-backed candidates and how they didn't seem to be tubing their campaigns:

 

Christine O'Donnell's witchcraft comments may have spooked some Republican leaders," Nancy Cordes related on the CBS Evening News, "but her fellow Tea Party Senate candidates are living prove that unusual assertions are not necessarily campaign killers."

 

And what were those "unusual assertions" to which CBS referred?  Smaller government.  Ending entitlements.  The 10th Amendment.  State sovereignty.  You know, basically what our Founders largely believed in.



 

Let's see if we can help Nancy, Katie, and all of them in Big Media: the reason these ideas aren't tubing their campaigns, is because those ideas are shared by the majority of Americans - Americans that you, Big Media, have totally lost touch with.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:34 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

Since her win in the Delaware primary, Christine O'Donnell has become the darling that her opponents - Democrat and Republican - love to hate. It does appear to me that she has been a bit of a media hound throughout her life; there are a lot of excerpts out there of things she said on this program and that event which seem perfect for 30-second mudslinging attacks. Making her another face of so-called Republican "extremism" is her Democrat opponent's and Big Media's tactic of choice. So out come all these out-of-context charges from her past.

 

However, if Christine conducts herself on the campaign trail like she conducted herself on Hannity's program last night, then I am proud to be a Republican "extremist." (Part 1 & Part 2 of the Hannity interview). Sign me up, because her message is consistent with the Constitutional freedoms our Founders envisioned. As is usual, when given the opportunity to respond to the personal attacks, Christine responds honestly, clearly, and cogently.



 

Democrats love mudslinging attacks - as long as they are doing the slinging. And, boy, are they slinging it at Christine O'Donnell. Well, if Democrats are so intent on dredging up one's past that has no relevance to this campaign, then how about recalling that it was the Democrat party that insisted on clinging stubbornly to southern slavery? How about recalling that Democrat congressmen seceded from the Union? How about recalling that old-line Democrats opposed the expansion of rights given to freedmen in their states?

 

Ridiculous charges in today's politics? Admittedly, yes. But no less ridiculous than dredging up every off-the-cuff comment Christine O'Donnell ever made as a young adult and basing a campaign on that. Setting the two side by side, I'll take Republican "extremism" any day.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

A couple interesting Palin items have emerged recently that are worth noting.

 

First, a recent Rasmussen Reports survey finds that the notion of Sarah Palin as fringe extremist and Barack Obama as pragmatic centrist may fly with the Obamites in the media, but it's not flying with the country:

 

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin's than they are to President Obama's, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

 

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president's than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.


 

Second, former President Bill Clinton has a singular message for his fellow Democrats regarding the former Alaska governor:

 

"It's always a mistake to underestimate your opponent."

"In the Republican primaries she's very popular with the conservative base.  She gets more people to come out," he told me. "And she hasn't won all of her endorsements, but she's won most of them.  And you know, she's a compelling, attractive figure."

...

 

"I think she's clearly a public figure who is, who speaks well and persuasively to the people who listen to her.  And she's somebody to be reckoned with," he said. "And she's tough."

 

Finally, a major paper in the UK is recognizing that the notion I posited a year ago (that the notion of Madam President) isn't such a wild idea anymore:

 

Speculation that she will run for President in 2012 is reaching fever pitch...fans and foes alike warn against the dangers of selling Palin short.

 

"Four years ago, right after she was elected, I was quoted as saying, 'The graveyards of Alaska are covered with the bones of people crossed by Sarah Palin.' While I said crossed, what I meant was underestimated," said Alaska Republican pollster David Dittman. "And that's still true. Consistently, whether it's the local city council in Wasilla, no matter where she's gone - say, on the cusp of achieving something - there've always been detractors that say it can't happen, it won't happen, this is why she won't be successful. That's why I will say, to this day, the political graveyards of Alaska - and other places - are filled with the bones of people who underestimated Sarah. And it's still happening."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:10 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

While rumors persist that U.S. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) might be eyeing the state's open governorship in 2012, recent events indicate he might want to set his sights higher:


 

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) won a presidential straw poll at the Values Voters Summit in Washington on Saturday.

 

Around 700 conservatives gave Pence 24 percent of the vote.

 

Former Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee was a close second with 22 percent of the vote, followed by Mitt Romney (13 percent), Newt Gingrich (10 percent), Sarah Palin (7 percent) and Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint (5 percent each).

 

"The results of the presidential straw poll reflect the outcome of recent elections," said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council Action, the group that sponsored the Values Voters Summit. "Those who are truly conservative, fiscally and socially, are enthusiastically supported by voters."

 

On Monday morning, Pence told Fox News he was "humbled and encouraged" by the vote of confidence, but he also said he views the straw poll as more about the message than the messenger.


Pence is a real, authentic conservative.  If the current political climate persists, that will be a hot item in 2012.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 09:51 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

Nothing is ever certain in the day-to-day world of stock market prices. Just a couple of days ago, markets greeted the news from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) that the recession ended June 2009. Keep in mind that their determination is based upon the technical criteria for recession. NBER also emphasized that their announcement is not meant to be taken as predictive of any future economic data.

 

Forward looking sentiments are typically derived from corporate announcements. Along with earnings reports, bellwether companies issue some type of forward outlook and guidance. Such is the case with Adobe Systems on 9/22/10.



They announced a jump in profits - beating analysts' expectations - but their future sales forecast fell below Wall Street consensus. The result has been a 10-20% after hours and pre-market sell-off of Adobe Systems stock.

 

Businesses that we know and use daily are not painting a very pretty outlook for the overall economy. While there is always room for error, I think that these bellwether companies have the knowledge and experience to see what is going on in the world of commerce. There's still a lot of concern out there.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:35 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 22 2010

Are we getting our money's worth?

 

Every election year one of the biggest campaign promises that plays on the sympathies of voters is the need for more money for education.  We need more student loans, more spending for schools, more teachers, more funding, and more buildings.  It's an easy thing to promise and hard to oppose.  The only problem is that it in no way addresses the real question of whether or not we as taxpayers are getting our money's worth for doing so.



 

Froma Harrop has an excellent piece which highlights a part of this problem.  By increasing student loans and funding for educational systems, the education market has been flooded with money and resulted in a hyper-inflated cost of schooling. 

The average cost for a year at a university is now $50,000 leading many to consider alternative means of education.  People are now embracing the idea of web universities which cost pennies on the dollar to the campus university counterparts. 

While the cost of education has skyrocketed, the quality of return for the dollar has remained steady.  The economical student is catching on to such things.  Why am I skeptical that the average politician will be a bit slow in this regard?

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 06:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 21 2010

Whether it comes from a politician or a tycoon, arrogance is arrogance. To a freedom-loving American, arrogance is being told by another person that they need to confiscate the money we work hard to earn so that they can put it to better use.

One of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason, for the current backlash against status-quo politics and corporatism is the bailouts. Americans recognize clearly that good, productive citizens and businesses are being penalized while others who have made terrible choices are being rewarded.



 

How do we know this? Well, those who insist that they can run our lives better than we can tell us openly.


We "shouldn't be b****ing about a little bailout" of the banks, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Vice Chairman Charles Munger told students at the University of Michigan on Sept. 14. Munger feels the bank bailouts were "required to save your civilization." He suggested that burdening the economy with bank failures would have results similar to the economic collapse in Germany after World War I and led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Meanwhile, "the culture dies" if you bail out individuals. People in economic distress should "suck it up and cope."

 

How sweet. Thank goodness that the mega-banks and other Wall Street wizards have been saved by the Bush-Obama bailouts.

 

Thank goodness we have billionaires and congress-folk and presidents to tell us that we cannot handle our own affairs.

 

Thank goodness that the politicians and corporations that still can't understand how the economy got into such bad shape have been propped up in order to continue to lead us poor, ignorant yokels out of the abyss. (By the way, Berkshire Hathaway has large holdings in Wells Fargo & Co., America's biggest home lender. No conflict of interest here).

 

Americans recognize pompous arrogance. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to avoid stepping in it these days.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 21 2010

Too funny for words.  From the desk of Lisa Murkowski:



 

Note to self: When attempting to wage a successful write-in campaign, make sure that I spell my own name correctly on my ads. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 07:48 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 21 2010

Let's be devious, shall we?  Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you wanted to install a socialized healthcare system on Americans.  You know they don't want it.  You know they are organizing to stop you.  You know that even with large Congressional backing, you don't have enough of it to overcome the tide of voter rage that would mount to kill your efforts.  You also know that suffering a defeat on such a push would be catastrophic for your future attempts to muster support for this or other pieces of legislation.  What do you do?

 

Would this cross your mind:

 

1. Begin by demonizing the private health insurance companies at every turn.  Use your media allies to tell sensational stories and highlight tragic stories of those who have fallen through the cracks of our "broken" system.

 

2. Enact a much more muted and subdued plan, but one that puts you in charge of regulating the private health insurance field.



 

3. Make ridiculous demands on private health insurance companies for them to expand benefits without raising their costs.

 

4. When they logically raise their prices, declare that they are exploiting the American people and mistreating them.

 

5. When the people are on your side, remove those "offending" insurance companies from the exchanges, thus depriving them of business.

 

6. Watch as those companies collapse, placing more demand upon the remaining companies.

 

7. Repeat steps 3 - 6 as many times as necessary until private insurers have been driven from the market entirely.

 

8. Enact a government plan to cover all the millions of Americans who have been "left without insurance" as the corrupt private insurance companies have disappeared.

 

9. Pop the champagne corks as you celebrate the accomplishment of your original goal.


Whether it crosses your mind, it certainly appears to have crossed Mr. Obama's mind.  The same Mr. Obama who made clear his original objective:

 

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.  A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately."

 

That same Obama spent the entire campaign demonizing the private health insurance field, and continues doing so (see step 1).  He then enacted a more muted and subdued plan (see step 2) nominally called "ObamaCare."  Step 3 you ask?  Take a look:

 

Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

 

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact . . . will be minimal."

 

Step 4?  Yep:

 

And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

 

Freedom loving Americans who fail to see what's happening here are utter fools, cheerfully embracing the chains that are being forged for them.

 

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 21 2010

Well here's something you don't see everyday: a piece associated with the Washington Post that praises Sarah Palin.  The article itself actually brings up a point that should not be overlooked by the Republican establishment that loathes Palin: they owe her a debt of gratitude.



 

How is that possible, you ask?  How can the very woman who is driving the establishment nuts by unconventionally touring the country, swooping down into districts and throwing her support and golden endorsements to upstart conservative candidates who are challenging the well entrenched Republican elites?  How can someone bringing a wave of new blood into the Republican Party deserve gratitude from the old blood?

 

The answer is quite simple: Palin has kept the Republican Party from fracturing:

 

There has been a lot of carping about Republicans' prospects for November since Palin-backed candidate Christine O'Donnell defeated longtime Delaware officeholder Mike Castle for the Republican Senate nomination Tuesday. But contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2008 vice presidential nominee has kept the party strong. How? She has kept the Tea Party faithful inside the GOP tent. Had she instead encouraged these disillusioned voters to mount third-party challenges across the 2010 general-election ballot, dozens of Democratic incumbents, not to mention challengers, would be smiling like Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

 

1912 was the year when the Republicans split between Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and the incumbent William Taft.  The result was one of the most disastrous presidencies in American history.

 

When given the chance to go either way, Palin chose to keep the Tea Party faithful operating within the Republican Party rather than bolting it and guaranteeing years of Democrat Party governance. 

 

Sparing us from the potential of a second coming of Woodrow Wilson, the truth is that far more than just Republicans should be thanking Palin...we all should be.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 21 2010

Many political observers continue comparing the political tides of 2010 to the ones we saw in 1994.  If by that they mean simply that a change is coming to the face of Washington, okay.  If by that they mean that the two movements precipitating that change are the same, however, I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

One of the leaders of that Republican Revolution in 1994, Dick Armey put it this way:

 

"What we did in '94 was an inside job.  That was done at the initiative of half-a-dozen legislative entrepreneurs, and it didn't have staying power. It kind of fell apart after a few years."


 

The difference between that, he explained, and what is happening right now is immense:

 

"What this is, is a grassroots, ground-up, across-the-country movement basically saying to the Republicans: If you want the privilege of governing, you're going to have to govern as sincere, serious, able adults, and we're not going to go away. We're going to be watching you after you take the majority."

 

The difference is perhaps best explained this way: 1994 was a one-time political event.  2010 is shaping up to be the start of a cultural movement that shows no signs of slowing.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 09:41 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 21 2010

Colin Powell's performance on Meet the Press this last Sunday was further proof of why the Republican Party should jettison the so-called "moderates" (read, liberal) from their steering committees and from guiding the party's direction.

 

Discussing what has happened to his beloved Obama, Powell explained:

 

"The American people feel that too many programs have come down. There are so many rocks in our knapsack now that we're having trouble carrying it."

 

That's really enlightening stuff, Mr. Powell.  But I wonder if anyone might disagree with your fairly astute assessment.  Hmmm.  Oh, I know one!  How about Colin Powell, reported in the Wall Street Journal in May of 2009:

 

According to press accounts, Mr. Powell argued that America has changed, and "Americans do want to pay taxes for services" and "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."

 

The fact that Powell now believes Americans don't want programs, but just over a year ago stated emphatically that Americans wanted more programs proves this unequivocal reality: Powell doesn't have a clue what Americans want or don't want.  Why would any Party listen to the guidance of such a blundering mind?

 

Besides the fact that simple history shows the success of the Party's moderate candidates (Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain) vs. the success of the Party's more conservative candidates (Reagan, Gingrich, etc.), Powell's argument with himself is another indictment of the backwardness of the RINO crowd.

 

Conservatives should turn the tables on these folks and handle them the way they have for years been handling conservatives: "we appreciate and expect your votes, but we'll handle the leadership and the choosing of the candidates, thanks."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 20 2010

Yowza! Happy days are here again! According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a nonprofit group that determines when recessions begin and end, said the recession which began December 2007 ended June 2009. Their report is media buzz today.

 

To their credit, the cited report states that this determination is not a statement concerning the present or future state of the economy, other than it is not currently in a technical recession. The NBER's announcement is determined by empirical data, so this is not just a political sleight-of-hand.



 

Still, reality tells us that we cannot yet cheer that a firm recovery is in place. To the contrary, there are many major factors - again, empirical data - that indicate that the American economy remains at significant risk. Mike Larson of Weiss Market Research notes recently that:

 

  • Industrial production growth decelerated to 0.2% in August from 0.6% in July.
  • Best Buy same store sales fell 1% from a year ago.
  • The New York Federal Reserve's economic index is at a 14-month low of 4.1 in September, down from 7.1 in August.

 

Toss in the alarming warnings from around the globe, and it is easy to see how today's news does not really give us a cheery outlook yet. The real problem with this "recovery" is that it remains politically manufactured, and the federal government's bullets are becoming quickly depleted. This is not to say that they cannot prolong the appearance of recovery, but virtually nothing that has been done to date actually allows the markets to clear up their problems and get on with real recovery. Housing crisis? Still there. Credit crisis? Still there. Failed financial institutions? Still there. Still to come: Commercial real estate crisis. Bond bubble crisis. Dollar currency crisis.

 

Not a pretty picture until the respective markets can clear the damage from their books. An unpleasant prospect, to be sure, but once it is done, then real, sustainable recovery can begin. Until then, plan to suffer through more of the same.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 20 2010

Okay, so I know I just wrote some nice things about Glenn Beck.  But this is one issue where I think he is not only wrong, but where I think he totally undermines exactly what he is wanting to accomplish in restoring our culture.

 

As columnist Don Feder has noted, the foundation of our civilization are the three co-equal pillars of faith, freedom, and family.  Beck seems to grasp this: even his Mormon church teaches an appreciation for each of those elements.  And, in actuality, his Mormon Church unquestionably joins me and disapproves of Beck's position on this issue as well.

 

The issue is, of course, the sexual depravity movement in this country.  In early August Beck quoted Thomas Jefferson when telling Bill O'Reilly that he didn't worry about "gay marriage."

 

"If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, what difference is it to me?"


 

What Beck can't fail to grasp (he's too smart to miss this) is that the gay rights movement has become the favored and most effective weapon of the progressive statists on the left seeking to undermine our cultural foundations.

 

Beck understands the assault on faith and freedom in this country.  He spoke of them on Saturday.  There is no more serious depiction of that assault than the homosexual movement, from hate crimes laws, assault on tax-exemption to legal intimidation.  If he truly believes that this movement doesn't pick pockets or break legs, perhaps he should talk to the leaders of his own Church of Latter Day Saints who faced the brunt of it in California after their courageous stand in favor of Prop 8. 

 

The gay rights movement is the most serious threat the family has ever seen.  Beck does know that the family is the core of any society.  Put the two together and Beck's failure to lead on this issue is devastating and illogical. 

 

Fixing this bizarre inconsistency in his usual lucid and clear thinking would not only be good for him, but for all of us.  We need voices as strong as his to be leading on this issue, not confusing us or fighting against us.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  13 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 20 2010

If you're wondering why so many conservatives point out that the left has no new ideas beyond tax and spend, it's because the left has no new ideas beyond tax and spend.

 

On Inside Washington, Newsweek's former editor, Evan Thomas (the same one who declared that Obama was 'almost God') explained what we desperately need in this country: higher taxes.



 

In discussing the reality that Americans are about to see their taxes increase if Congress doesn't act to extend the Bush tax cuts, Thomas wished for that very thing:

 

"A couple of weeks ago, Fareed Zakaria wrote a column in which he said Congress should do what it does best, nothing. And what he means by that is if Congress does nothing, those tax cuts go away. We need the revenue, we need the revenue. I know it's not great for the economy right now to be having a tax hike, but you're just returning rates to where they were in the 1990s, when the economy was doing pretty well. God knows the federal government desperately needs that revenue, so this is one case where I think gridlock is a good thing."

 

Despite decades of repeated proof, Thomas and the left ignore this basic economic axiom: Tax cuts stimulate economic growth.  Economic growth puts more people to work and gives them income.  More people with income means more people contributing to the tax revenue of the country.

 

No, better to take a staggering economy and shoot it in the leg.  That is the extent of the economic wisdom of the left.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:21 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 20 2010

We know it's getting bad when liberals begin expressing concern over the actions of totalitarians. Writes Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

 

"Nothing will discredit Ahmadinejad's pretensions more than further show trials in violation of all norms of international behavior. Iran's moral standing depends on what it does, not on his self-aggrandizing words."


 

While I agree with everything in this recent column - which is an unusual oddity - I cannot help but ask, "What happened to all the concerns about national sovereignty issues that were raised, say, six to eight years ago? Don't nations have the sovereign right and duty to manage their internal affairs as they best see fit?"

 

I suspect that the answer to my questions lie in the fact that the left no longer has that dreadful enemy they held in common with totalitarian regimes - the Bush administration. Suddenly, issues of national sovereignty are out of vogue and out the window. Is this what should now be called neo-liberalism?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 20 2010

Few figures generate as much response - positive or negative - in the country right now as radio host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck.  This weekend, I had the distinct privilege of meeting Mr. Beck, and sharing the stage with him at an event in Angola, IN.

 


My impressions:

 

1. Beck is genuine.  In my brief interactions with him, he was cordial, goofy, and completely like he appears.  I like that.

 

2. He is a patriot.  This is a man who loves his country and its people.

 

3. He is an extraordinarily hard worker.  He has not achieved by letting others do his work for him.  He takes risks...incredibly large risks, and keeps a grueling schedule.

 

4. He is a family man.  Beck gets emotional, but he's not a crybaby.  You can't take the tough stands that Beck does and be a crybaby.  He gets emotional when he talks about his family...how he loves them and loves spending time with them.  And despite all his successes, that is what drives him and what he desperately wishes he had more of in his schedule.

 

5. He cares about those with whom he disagrees.  It's one of the most remarkable things about Glenn Beck that most people miss.  It's what separates him and many leading conservatives from their counterparts on the left.  You would NEVER hear Keith Olbermann say the things about his political adversaries that Beck said about his on Saturday.

 

6. He is a professing Mormon.  He says things that a Mormon would not say, but he still professes Mormonism and therefore it has to be concluded that's what he is.

 

This remains the most perplexing thing to me about Glenn Beck.  And it perplexed me again on Saturday as I listened to him.  A man who prides himself on research, diligent study, and uncovering fallacies and revisions of history would never associate himself with Mormon doctrine and the false teachings of Joseph Smith...why then does Beck?

 

Some say it is that the Church of Latter Day Saints rescued him from alcoholism.  Others suggest it is his allegiance to his loving wife.  Others say it's the wonderfully courageous stand Mormons take for family in our culture.  I don't know what it is, but I know this: it is confusing and it's something I hope to see Beck think his way through.

 

7. When Beck refers to "returning this country to God," I get uncomfortable.  Because he is a Mormon, he isn't referring to the true God.  I am comforted when he quotes the Founders however, because their God is God.

 

8. Though we are not theological brothers, I believe we can partner to improve the culture.  Beck is a true proponent of Natural Law, and when it comes to what I want the government legislating, that (Natural Law, not specific doctrine) is what we both seek.  Taking theological cues from Beck would be a disaster for Christians and for the country.  Taking political and cultural cues from him, to this point, would not be.

 

9. Christians should do with Beck what they should do with everyone - including their own ministers: question and test everything against the authority of Scripture.  If Beck drifts into theological realms and ecumenicalism, Christians have a duty to reject it.  If Beck is speaking to cultural values that Christians share, Christians should be championing them.

 

10. Until the day comes when Glenn Beck is using his platform to lead people away from the authority of the Christian God, I will continue to appreciate the leadership and the clarity he is providing to some of the critical social and political issues of the day.

 

In a nutshell, it's a Christian's duty to be on guard at all times, watching for false teaching and clever sounding arguments that lead us away from the truth.  That isn't something new that started with Glenn Beck.  If we haven't been doing it, it's not his problem...it's ours.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:55 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 20 2010

On Saturday, the president addressed the Congressional Black Caucus:

 

"I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to the churches, and go to the barbershops and go to the beauty shops. And tell them we've got more work to do," Obama said to cheers from a black-tie audience at the Washington Convention Center. "Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now."

 

His speech acknowledged what pollsters have been warning Democrats for months -- that blacks are among the key Democratic groups who right now seem unlikely to turn out in large numbers in November.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no TEA Party organization has directed its outreach to a white caucus. Or an Asian caucus. Or a Black caucus, for that matter. But in the land of left-believe and Big Media, the TEA Party movement engages in racism. Huh?



 

And what is this about going to "the churches?" Is not the president aware of his liberal buddies' declarations of church-state separation? Is he encouraging citizens to go into their churches and campaign for specific candidates? Someone had better advise him on IRS regulation concerning tax exempt not-for-profit organizations and campaigning for or against specific candidates. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot. Many of his appointees apparently know nothing about IRS regulation.

 

The TEA Party movement has been clear about who they want to attract into its ranks: every American seeking to maintain freedom and oppose tyranny. Does anyone find any racist politics at all in a movement seeking to engage every American instead of a few select Americans in a racially exclusive caucus? Well, only in the land of left-believe.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:37 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 19 2010

Need any more evidence of the anti-right agenda of the media (aka the mouthpiece of the left)?  Check out this ad:



 

So where was this ad placed?  Any guesses anyone?  Media Matters?  Daily KOS?  Democratic Underground?  Nope. 

Try the New York Times.  Somehow I don't picture any of the other "objective" news outlets picking up this story. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 04:07 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, September 19 2010

I missed the date. I apologize. So this becomes one of those belated greetings.



 

HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY"We the people!" It's valid every day.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 02:48 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

The left love to make voter registration and voting a media hoopla event. I don't mind programs that remind and encourage people to register and vote, but I do think that the meaningful motivation comes from the individual and not some sensationalist event.

 

With this in mind, register to vote. Deadlines are approaching. I do not know if it is the same in every state, but Indiana's registration deadline is October 4th.



 

Be sure to stay informed about the issues in this and future critical elections. One place to do that is right here at Peter Heck's Liberty Tree. We may use some tongue-in-cheek literary devices to create interesting and thought-provoking articles, but we know the serious nature of the issues before us. The core of American life - liberty and freedom - is at stake.

 

The website iVote Values is another good source for voter information. Register, stay informed, and vote your values. Not exactly entertainment hoopla, but it is the core of what has kept America the great nation that it is.

 

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote...that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." - Samuel Adams, Founding Father

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:02 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

Ohio has long been seen as a bell-weather state for national elections.  As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.  And if this is the case, there is reason for Democrats to be concerned.  Several opinion pieces have come out today voicing this very issue. 



 

This comes on the heels of two polls, one which has Rob Portman up an astonishing 20 points over Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher in the once competitive Senate race, and another that puts former representative John Kasich over incumbent governor Ted Strickland by 17 points. 

 

This leads to three pieces released today by Marc Ambinder, Lisa Lerer and Patrick O'Connor, and Chris Cillizza. Some are starting to see that this movement nationally isn't simply an anomaly limited to a handful of races or regions.  Is Ohio an indication of a November landslide? 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 05:03 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

Jonathan Cohn writes a piece for the liberal website The New Republic today titled "Repeal and Replace? OK. With what?" 

 

In the piece, he raises questions at proposed Republican plans to repeal Obamacare including concerns over impact on the health care market, added deficits, and promises of coverage for the elderly.  This coming from a vocal advocate of Obamacare. 



 

I know.  The irony is stunning.  It's funny that now the concern is over the radical consequences of tinkering with the system.  Maybe we should just pass the bill in order to find out what's in it. 

 

That at least would be consistent, don't you think Mr. Cohn? 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 03:33 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

This is such an astounding indictment of the failure of Obama's stimulus, it's tough to truly grasp it:

 

The Los Angeles City Controller said on Thursday the city's use of its share of the $800 billion federal stimulus fund has been disappointing.

 

The city received $111 million in stimulus under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) approved by the Congress more than year ago.

 

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," says Wendy Greuel, the city's controller, while releasing an audit report.

 

Yes, you read that correctly.  The city received $111 million of your tax dollars to stimulate economic growth and create jobs as part of Barack Obama's master plan to manipulate our economy back into prosperity through government planning.  They have retained 55 jobs.

 

For those of you who enjoy being angry, that amounts to $2,018,181 per job.  In other words, the government could have just written checks to twice as many people and made them instant millionaires.

 

What a boondoggle.

 

Real economic growth is spurred by our real economic engine: the private sector.  But to the Keynesians on the Obama-left (and the clueless legions that follow their ignorant ideas), the government will help the economy by sucking more out of it.



 

Wrong.  In fact, it's not even capable of doing so if it wanted to.  Government doesn't produce anything so it can't sustain itself.  It must take from those who are producing (the private sector) to run its operations and programs.  Anyone with a brain then can see the fatal flaw in empowering it to take more and more from - and thereby deplete - the very sector it claims it is trying to grow! 

 

It's an insane strategy that results in the epic waste we see in Los Angeles and around the country.

 

We need real change.  Badly.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

When you want to help the poor, do you give your money to a charity or to the federal government?  That would be a great question to ask liberal leaders, but it would be moot given the fact that they don't give their money to help the poor.they give yours.

 

The reason you give your money to a private charity is because they are better managed, better maintained and have the right incentive to help people.  This has come into sharp focus again after the US Poverty Level as increased to a record high - this following years of big government spending on welfare programs.



 

How is it possible?  Simple: government programs suck up the money in administrative costs and bureaucratic red tape.  That's how they have huge budgets and yet still don't seem to help anyone.

 

The Poverty Level shouldn't be held against Barack Obama alone.  It is an indictment of every big-government politician of either party who believes that their wisdom and social engineering can deliver more people to prosperity than freedom can. 

 

Four decades after the big-government types declared their War on Poverty, maybe it's time to withdraw the troops and deploy economic freedom, personal responsibility, and individual liberty to the front lines.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 01:21 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

Euphemism (eu·phe·mism): 1. a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive. 2. coming to be the entire vocabulary of the Barack Obama regime.

 

This one is too precious to ignore.  From the same people who brought you "overseas contingency operation" instead of "war," and "man-caused disaster" instead of "terror," comes this little jewel:

 

The White House wants the public to start using the term "global climate disruption" in place of "global warming" -- fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

 

What they really fear, obviously, is the embarrassment that comes from attaching your shameless crusade to take more control of people's lives to the methodically debunked and thoroughly discredited global warming theory.



 

When it came to campaigns to trick people into giving up their freedom in exchange for more government contro...er, protection, Global Warming was the cause celeb for awhile (just like its predecessor "Global Cooling" had been previously).  But when people started freezing to death in abnormally cold winters, the genius modern day Marxists knew they had to come up with a new phrase.

 

Climate change then became the rage.  That seemed to cover everything: rain or drought, snow or heat, hurricane or tornado, cold or hot, ice or wind...anything that weather normally produces all became the fault of "climate change."

 

But even something as bland as "climate change" (by the way, since the dawn of creation, when has the climate not been in a state of change?) no longer works.  So now we're going to get this "climate disruption" thing.  It sounds ominous, doesn't it?  I don't want my climate to be disrupted, after all.

 

And that's what the power-hungry regulators are hoping for from a majority of Americans.  It's why they keep changing the name when the previous one wears out.  But it's still the same scientifically irresponsible nonsense.  It's still the modern Marxists' attempt to run your life for you.

 

But that this terminology change is coming at the behest of a socialist and government control freak is no cause for concern...really, just trust them.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 12:30 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

It's difficult to know which is more amusing: watching Jimmy Carter still trying to create a positive legacy for his failed presidency on the back of good intentions or watching the media hyperventilate that he is blaming their beloved Ted Kennedy for being the obstacle (not hero) of universal healthcare.

 

For those who missed it:

 

In a "60 Minutes'' interview to be aired Sunday, Carter blames Kennedy for delaying comprehensive health care coverage for Americans by not joining forces with him on a bill during his presidency.

 

If Kennedy had dropped his insistence on full national health insurance and endorsed Carter's compromise plan, the former president says, repeating views he and aides have held for decades, Americans could have had universal coverage long ago.

 

"The fact is that we would have had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy's deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed,'' Carter tells Lesley Stahl, according to a "60 Minutes'' press release.

 

"It was his fault. Ted Kennedy killed the bill.''

 

Maybe Barack can give one of his "politics of the past" lectures or tell us how it's time to end the petty recriminations of Ted Kennedy that have for too long strangled our politics?  Wouldn't that be a sight.



 

For her part, Stahl was astounded that Carter would even broach this subject, daring to walk on the legacy of such a prestigious individual as Kennedy (which speaks volumes about what kind of character it takes to be considered prestigious amongst the media elite).  But this is the cause of Carter's life now - trying to create a fantasy of what his presidency could have been, so that future generations don't focus on the epic failure that real history demonstrates it to be.

 

It's interesting though: by saying that his "compromise approach" would have guaranteed that today all Americans would have universal government healthcare, Carter acknowledges implicitly what conservatives have been saying about ObamaCare...that it is merely the first step towards the long range goal of socializing our entire healthcare industry.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:15 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

Wow! I've just discovered where the stimulus induced "summer recovery" jobs have been hiding. With this revelation and a few days of summer left, certainly we will still experience that pronounced recovery we were promised.

 

You just need to be a UCLA researcher. It's that simple.

 

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex. "NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Competitive Revision Applications," the grant abstract states. "We propose to evaluate the feasibility of a post-coital genital hygiene study among men unwilling to be circumcised in Orange Farm, South Africa."



 

Every time conservatives talk about spending reductions and tax cuts, residents in the land of left-believe fire back that law enforcement, fire departments, and other vital services will have to be reduced. We will all be less secure because of those nasty conservative, free-market people.

 

Maybe the NIMH can snag some stimulus grant money to study the impact stupid politicians have on normal, decent, hard-working Americans.

 

I have a wild and crazy idea. How about we trim stupid stuff out of the budget first? What a concept!!! There may be some stimulation going on here, but it ain't for the benefit of the American people.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:08 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, September 17 2010

I couldn't help but laugh when I opened up RealClearPolitics today.  It was just to funny.  I think it was the headline for starters.  Curtosy of Jon Conason, "A vote for the GOP is a vote for Boehner". 

 

Is this really going to be the winning ticket for the Dems this November?  We saw what happened to the Democrats when they tried to pull out the "tried-and-true" Bush card.  They quickly found out that this wasn't going to work.  So in the absence of the Bush boogey-man, why not recreate the Red Scare with a good-ole Boehner bashing.  It's the saya-Boehner strategy.  There are a couple of elements of this I find a bit humorous. 

 

First, most people don't have a clue who Boehner even is.  For all they know, you could substitute the name Fluffy...so for the sake of this piece that's what I'll do.  Let's pull out the Democrat talking points. 

 

Fluffy is a threat to everything American!  Fluffy is a smoker!  Fluffy is a drinker!  Fluffy wants to privatize student loans!  Fluffy hates the average worker!  Fluffy is in bed with corporations and millionaires!  Fluffy hates firefighters and policemen!  Fluffy wants our streets and roads to fall apart!  Fluffy loves the rich!  A vote for the GOP is a vote for Fluffy!



 

Somehow I find it difficult to imagine the "beware of fluffy" strategy working.  But there's another side to this too.  If a vote for the GOP is a vote for Fluffy, isn't it safe to say that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for Pelosi?  Do the Democrats REALLY want to go down THAT road? 

 

According to the same CNN poll referenced earlier, Boehner's ratings are low, but Pelosi's are awful...and people, particularly voters, are much more familiar with who Pelosi is.  In fact, if I remember correctly, some politicians of interest would be terrified if such a narrative caught on.  Isn't that right, Mr. "Silent Joe" Donnelly? 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 08:48 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010
Christine O'Donnell's victory over Mike Castle has sent shockwaves throughout the political discussion.  Conservatives and TEA party sympathizers have largely been estatic about the victory while the remaining commentators have been near universally convinced that this is a disaster for the GOP.  Here is where the remaining commentators are wrong:

They Say: Delaware is a liberal state and in order for the Republicans to win, they need to select a candidate that is more moderate.

 

I couldn't disagree more.  While it is undeniable that a conservative would have more of an uphill climb in a liberal state, it would require an articulate candidate willing to make the case for conservatism.  Ronald Reagan was told that he was too conservative to be governor of a state like California and he defied both the odds and the critics.



They Say: From a practical standpoint, it's better to have a guaranteed pick-up with a moderate than a iffy pick-up with a conservative. 

 

This is the William F. Buckley rule, and there is some legitimacy to it.  But this isn't the whole story either.  A well spoken candidate who can forcefully defend their values should revel in this stage and if done right can sway people to them.  So rather than morph into the populace, the candidate needs to sell his/her ideas and beliefs to those he/she will represent.  When a vote for a Republican means compromising on essential tennets of the what it truly means to be Republican, it means the system has been compromised.  So generally speaking, electability is an important (if not essential) consideration, but not if it means abandoning all principles. 

 

They Say: The Republican party needs to be a big tent.  Diversity in its makeup is important to encourage other moderates to run and to grow the party. 

 

It's funny.  I've never heard anyone argue this for the Democrat party, yet the leadership of their party is so radically outside the mainstream as to demand this argument.  This again is arguing that a party compromise their principles rather than clarifying them. 

 

They Say: A candidate like O'Donnell does nothing but divide an already contensious situation within the Republican party.

 

The truth of the matter is that it's Castle and the Republican party establishment figures that needs to do the adjusting, not the other way around, if they wish to bring unity to the party.  Castle lost in large part due to the fact that he didn't listen to the messages that the people he was representing were sending.  A simple voice of solidarity on several key issues would have made this election a cake-walk for him. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 09:55 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

Christine O'Donnell's victory over Mike Castle has sent shockwaves throughout the political discussion.  Conservatives and TEA party sympathizers have largely been estatic about the victory while the remaining commentators have been near universally convinced that this is a disaster for the GOP.  Here are legitimate reasons why the remaining commentators are right:

 

1.  O'Donnell is a HORRIBLY, FATALLY flawed candidate.  Don't take my word for it.  Read these articles at the Weekly Standard.  Any of these issues can sink her.



2.  Most recent polling had Castle a safe 10 points ahead of Coons, while O'Donnell was floundering at 16 points behind.  This in and of itself isn't an entirely compelling reason except for the fact that...

 

3.  Mike Castle is about as centrist as they come.  He's a squishy moderate.  Which means he's unreliable, but...

 

4.  Chris Coons is a self-proclaimed Marxist.  This isn't liberal versus liberal, this is centrist versus leftist. 

 

So we're trading in a candidate opposed to Obama-care, opposed to the stimulus, and who would give the Republicans the possible deciding vote in the Senate in exchange for a candidate who's horribly flawed but pure in principle, the result being the ushering in of another leftist into the Senate.

 

Now, at this point I have to say that it's imperative that we back O'Donnell.  She needs support.  But this means we're expending resources on a race that would otherwise have been well funded and locked up.  My objection is not that we have a conservative in a liberal state.  It's entirely that we have a hopelessly flawed candidate who happens to be conservative.  Perhaps now the Republican party establishment will recognize that the people are demanding more than what the party is putting forward as the solution.
Posted by: Joel Harris AT 09:54 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

Ahh, the "recovery summer" continues. Not that all the economic news has been bad, but there are some signs still on the horizon indicating that the barometer level is dropping fast and more storms are on the approach. One of those signs is shifting blame for our woes to other nations.



 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is leading the renewed charge against China's reluctance to stop manipulating its currency. At present valuations, China has a trade advantage due to the currency exchange rate.

 

China is certainly no free-market angel, and I am all for fairer and freer markets worldwide. I agree that China should further allow its currency to float on the open market (they have taken some steps toward this earlier in the year). But here is the unenviable situation that America finds itself: we do not have the economic assets to engage in protectionism wars.

 

It is our own making; we have untenable deficits that are funded, sadly and ironically, in large part by China. Should we insist upon imposing penalties and restrictions on them, there is a high chance that they will retaliate with their own protectionist actions. Can you say Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, boys and girls?

 

I'm not suggesting that the United States and other nations not continue to try to press for more open and honest international markets. I am merely observing that if a trade war breaks out now, expect some repeat of the 1930s economic era.

 

Other economic reports released today in this "summer of recovery" include: (1) lower earnings for Fed-Ex Corp. and an announcement they will be eliminating 1,700 jobs; and (2) the number of U.S. home seizures reached a record for third time in five months.

 

Better rig for more financial storms.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:31 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

While the media focuses on the political realities of the Tea Party movement, others are starting to pay attention to the economic realities it brings.

 

Larry Kudlow, outspoken host of CNBC's "The Kudlow Report" sees the movement as perhaps the greatest hope our economy has for recovery.



 

After the primary victory of Christine O'Donnell and other Tea Party candidates, major media figures were asking all the political questions: will this help the GOP, does this hurt their chances of winning the Senate, is there still room for moderates in the GOP, what does this do for the Democrat?  Kudlow saw it differently:

 

"Tonight, free-market capitalism on the comeback trail. That is one of the messages of the Tea Party power. We saw a lot of that power last night in the primaries. I tell you what folks, that Tea Party power, that free-market capitalist power is so totally bullish for the stock market."

 

Fascinating.  This should speak volumes to the American people who are hearing the mainstream media make ominous warnings about these weird people holding signs and waving flags. 

 

Big Media is on the side of the establishment because it's a known quantity.  But with the current economic climate, Americans should recognize the known quantity isn't working.  Maybe it's time for a new message:

 

"They are talking free markets - lower spending, lower taxing, lower regulations, even constitutional limits to government, and you heard me talk about this last week in my free market 12-step plan for prosperity," Kudlow said. "The rise of the Tea Party people - they are going to win the vast majority of those Senate races and we are going it see a sea change in American policies back to freedom and entrepreneurship, and that is bullish."

You got it, Larry.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 04:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

Poor Meredith.  Though she has filled the shoes of Katie Couric admirably given her own predispositions towards all things liberal, she continually demonstrates an inability to think outside the box.or the beltway.

 

In a recent interview with conservative Republican Jim DeMint following this week's startling primary elections, Meredith wondered:

 

But, but, but Senator, if you're trying to help your party, your party would argue that you're really hurting the party. That these kinds of candidates cannot win general elections.


 

She doesn't get it.

 

She just can't wrap her mind around the fact that to some people, it isn't all about political calculations and electing people with a certain letter after their names, or consolidating as much power as possible in a particular political club.  To some people there are these crazy things called "principles" that matter most.  To some people, doing what is best for the country comes first.  If that means sacrificing a few R's along the way, so be it.

 

DeMint handled himself admirably:

 

Well the important thing to me, first, is to save our country. It's really that critical. That these trivial political labels do not mean as much right now when we're fighting for the survival versus the bankruptcy of our country. And I think the American people in Delaware, all over the country, want to see that sense of urgency from the people who represent them in Washington. They're not concerned whether the Republicans get the majority or not, they want people in Washington who understand that balancing the checkbook is not an extreme idea.

 

Precisely.  And if more people saw it the way the Tea Party folks do, and like Jim DeMint does, our country would be the better for it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

This is unbelievable.  The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration for its targeted killings of terrorists. 



 

Yes, you read that right.  The AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is upset with the AMERICAN president for defending AMERICANS by destroying the very enemies who would kill us.

 

But besides that utter stupidity, look at the unbelievable statement that appears in the complaint:

 

"The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights."

 

The sickening hypocrisy of this faux-civil liberties organization is appalling.  They will fight for the unalienable right to life for known terrorist butchers, but when it comes to innocent humans in the womb it's a different story.  They not only fail to defend those innocent children, but actively wage war against them (see their "Reproductive Freedom Project" for starters).

 

The evil of the ACLU evinces itself frequently, but rarely with such severity.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 02:31 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

This has to be one of the most interesting explanations of President Obama I've heard.  And yet, it may also be the most accurate.

 

While so many political observers try to explain Obama's behavior with classifications like socialist, intellectual Marxist, anti-colonialist, and so on, John Kelly's description of Obama-as-Academic-Zombie encompasses all of those and more.

 

I have always contented that the world of academia is full of ex-hippies who are able to live in fantasyland within their Ivory Towers.  In other words, there is no expectation of practical application of their theories and ideas.  They can "teach" in the abstract without any need to put their genius theories to a real world test.  It's why Marxism and socialism flourishes on college campuses and amongst the intelligentsia dominating them.

 

One other key aspect of academia is that it is plagued by groupthink.  For all their talk about "diversity" and "open-mindedness," attempting to find a conservative among the campus professoriate is a nearly impossible task today.  Surrounded by fellow elites who all think the same way, there is an overriding sense of haughty superiority that manifests itself in condescension and arrogance to anyone who doesn't think as they do.  Does this sound like anyone we know (who happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.)?



 

Kelly's assessment is that Obama has grown up as a product of this insular academic crowd and perfectly explains why he acts the way he does, and proposes the asinine policies that anyone who has had to function outside a textbook knows won't work.  He writes,

 

Obama's legislative centerpieces are constructed to be like huge mythical tomes of the Ivory Tower -- books which we are to revere and obey, yet are too vast for us to fully decipher. Rather than sell the country on one of several carefully considered solutions, he seems to issue directives based on preordained doctrine. When Obama must compromise, it is a slow and torturous process. There is a sense with Obama and his academic cadre that Americans have fallen into Wonderland's rabbit hole and are whirling, unstable and uncertain, while being forcefully attended to by blind visionaries bent on dictating the madness of a hellish and impossible utopia.

 

The groupthink of academia also explains why he picks the advisers and officials that he does:

 

Obama has carefully sought out and surrounded himself with advisors whose professional lives are nearly void of practical experience. Considerations that are patriotic, Judeo-Christian, militaristic, capitalistic, or free market-oriented are unquestionably irrelevant to Obama's bloated administration of arrogant, academic social planners.

 

It's a hallmark of academia to believe that they are our betters.  They are wiser, they are smarter, they are more prudent and much more sophisticated.  They roll their eyes at the buffoonery of those who after a hard week's work that involves more than reading the works of Jeremy Bentham and staring at a piece of abstract art (also known as spilled paint) like to cap it off with taking in NASCAR or the NFL.  They sigh heavily when we don't want to give our hard earned money to a central board of administrators who will use it the way they think is good for us.  Folks, this is our President in a nutshell.  Kelly concludes:

 

Simply put, Obama is and wants almost everything that regular, self-reliant, non-academic Americans aren't and don't want. 

 

Exactly.  So while the leading political minds squabble about whether Obama is a Marxist, a socialist, an environmentalist, an anti-colonialist, a collectivist, and so much more, I'm going with Kelly's conclusion: he's all of the above.  He's an "academic zombie."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

Big Media, leadership of all political parties, columnists, and bloggers by the thousands are all lost in their sea of amazement (and disgust) over Christine O'Donnell's victory in the Delaware primary. Even one of my sources that I use primarily for financial and economic news has produced a flurry of commentary on the TEA Party role in the Delaware upset and other races. Reading through some of these arrogant tomes leads me to the observation that they can't figure us (TEA Party participants) out. and that bothers them.

 

In the grand scheme of things, we are not that difficult to figure out. Our agenda and goals are not a secret.

 

 

We oppose the confiscation of liberty by an increasingly intrusive federal government, especially in the financial arena of our lives. We resent and resist being extorted by a big government that digs us into unimaginable levels of debt and then demands that we pay for their idiotic excesses. We detest the confiscation of wealth from responsible savers and investors so that the irresponsible profit. We abhor the transformation of immorality and debauchery into public celebrations of self-righteousness.

 

I do not imply that TEA Party participants fit neatly into one ideal, complete, and handy ideological package. We do not. Like any revolution, things get messy. All anyone has to do to get a handle on this is to do a little background work on the American revolution. Advocates of independence from England did not always get along. They squabbled; they made some poor choices; they could not predict with certainty what their actions would accomplish. But they knew what they wanted: liberty and freedom. They stuck with it; they pursued their dreams; and they prevailed.

 

Whether members of a TEA Party or some other organization or no organization at all, Americans want freedom. Americans want liberty. And we know that we are not getting either from this administration and Congress. They can't figure us out because they want to suppress freedom and liberty. We, on the other hand, know what we want, and we will pursue the dream of American liberty and freedom with relentless passion.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 12:45 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

What if I told you there was an inner city charter school in Oakland that was getting remarkable test scores from their students and that it should serve as a model for fixing our public school system?

 

Undoubtedly such a suggestion would send the teachers' unions into a tizzy:

 

"Well, but they probably have the wealthiest kids in the area with involved parents!"  Nope.  98% of the students at the American Indian Public Charter School qualify for free lunches.

 

"Well, they probably don't have the disadvantaged ethnic and racial minorities."  Nope.  Being an inner city school they have the full diversity of ethnicities and races.

 

"Well, they undoubtedly have much nicer facilities."  Nope.  The leader of the school, Ben Chavis, puts it this way: "My buildings are shacks compared to their schools, but my schools are clean, and we'll kick all their *****."

 

"Well, they probably have the best and most qualified teachers."  Nope.  Well, "nope" by the educational establishment's standards.  Only a quarter of the teachers at the AIPCS are certified by the state's educational bureaucracy.

 

"Well, they probably have small class sizes."  Nope.  Ben Chavis reports his are many times bigger than normal public school class size requirements.



 

As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan demands more and more money to solve the problems of the public education system in America, perhaps a story like this should get more attention.  Perhaps the answer to our educational woes aren't found in funneling more tax dollars into the same bloated budgets of already-failing schools?  Perhaps we should at least consider innovations that would radically change the face of our school establishment in the country? 

 

Yes, that might make those who thrive on the status quo uneasy, but what is our priority?  It goes back to what Peter Heck has said a number of times on his show: there's a real problem if we are more concerned with employing adults than we are educating kids.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:28 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, September 16 2010

In its largest campaign to date, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is blitzing Atlanta, Georgia, with billboard messages depicting a better nation and world without religion. Although this organization opposes all religion, in America it is widely known that their primary target is suppression from the public forum of the Christian faith. So while the atheists spend big bucks to denigrate the free expression of religion in America, let's see what those diabolical Christians have been up to lately.

 

Locally: a headline front page article of the Kokomo Tribune reports that area youth from 26 churches collected 10.2 tons of food to stock area food pantries.

 

Internationally: Reporting on relief efforts in flooded Pakistan, Franklin Graham, president of the Samaritan's Purse Christian relief organization, made reference to one Pakistani devastated by the disaster: "I worked hard to save my family, but my house and possessions were totally destroyed. We were without food for two days, and it was miserable to see my children suffering from hunger. The next day the Christians arrived and gave us food and hygiene items. They treated us like their own brothers and sisters. They encouraged us and gave us hope of life in this time of great disaster. We were dying, but because of the Christians we are living again."



 

Only in the land of left-believe is the belief perpetuated that lives are in peril and American liberty threatened by the presence of the Christian faith in this culture.

 

How many times in modern history have victims of a catastrophe leapt for joy and declared, "Thank goodness! The atheists have arrived!"?

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:18 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

If you are amused by political ads, try this one out from John Dennis for Congress:

 

Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 06:15 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

J.R. Dunn has an excellent piece at The American Thinker that analyzes their perpetual tendency to create the very monsters they are attempting to destroy.  Nowhere is that more evident in modern American politics than in the case of Sarah Palin.

 

Dunn cites historical examples of this self-defeating media strategy.  In attempting to destroy the rise of politically engaged evangelical Christians who opposed some of Jimmy Carter's bizarre actions, the media fueled the growth of what would become the Moral Majority and Religious Right.

 

In attempting to destroy the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, the media's over-exaggerated, alarmist screeches brought about the birth of Reagan, the Republican Congressional revolution, and eventually the Tea Party movement.

 

That is why all of the attacks against Palin - whether vilifying her personally, or attacking her family, her marriage, her faith, her intelligence, her education, her verbal cadence, her slang, her accent, or yes even her clothes - end up backfiring.



 

But what Dunn does an excellent job of pointing out is that this is more than just the media unintentionally giving her publicity.  He writes,

 

The media overlook the ancient PR adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Reworked in the form of practical tactics, this would read: there's no publicity that can't be turned to your own benefit.

 

And that's just it.  It isn't that the media is alone creating the Palin phenomenon.  It's Palin's ability to turn their negative publicity into something positive for her, her image and her positions.  I wrote about this uncanny ability of Palin several months ago in documenting the remarkable similarities between her and the Gipper.  She accomplishes this because she, like Reagan, has wisely and shrewdly (yes, it's true liberals.she is capable of as much) taken control of her own image rather than having it dictated by someone else:

 

Reagan used TV and radio appearances to address fundamental issues of the day without having to worry about his words going through the filter of the liberal media.  Palin is accomplishing the same thing through her utilization of Facebook, Twitter, and the new media.

 

In other words, she controls the media far more than the media would like to admit.  Dunn concludes the same:

 

On the other hand, much can be learned from a close study of Palin's response to such attacks. After a naïve slip confronting the adorable Katie Couric, Palin has established a record of manipulating the media unmatched since Reagan's heyday. A single tweet from Palin's phone sends tsunamis roaring across the international media sphere. Palin has developed into one of the most media-savvy figures on the current scene.

 

Imagine that.  The Great Dunce from the Last Frontier is playing the media for fools.  So who does that make the real dunce(s)?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

My column this week addresses the embarrassing procession of deceptive ads being run by Indiana's 2nd Congressional District Representative "Silent Joe" Donnelly.

 

After becoming the first candidate in the country to go dirty (he began running attack ads in July), Donnelly has kept up the desperation by repeatedly avoiding his own record and attacking his capable challenger, state lawmaker Jackie Walorski.



 

In television spots, Donnelly has irresponsibly accused Walorski of "goofy ideas" that include: letting Wall Street gamble away all of Social Security on the stock market, impose a national sales tax of 23% (a half truth that ignores the massive tax cuts that would accompany any such move) and, in his most recent ad, wipe out Pell Grants to help kids pay for college.

 

It's on this latter accusation that FactCheck.org teed Donnelly up for blatant misrepresentation:

 

Even if Walorski wanted to eliminate the Department of Education - and there is no evidence of that - Donnelly jumps to a false conclusion that she would necessarily eliminate all the programs it currently administers.

 

In fact, question 38 of the questionnaire specifically asks about the future funding of "more than 240 education programs." It doesn't mention abolishing the programs. Instead, it asks: "Do you commit to support legislation establishing a mandatory Sunset Clause in all spending legislation that provides for its expiration on a specified date unless it is deliberately renewed?" Walorski said yes.

 

So, Walorski has said she believes that it is good policy to set a "sunset" date by which education programs would expire unless reauthorized. Would she vote to renew Pell Grants? We don't know, and neither does the Donnelly campaign.

 

FactCheck.org stated earlier in their assessment that Donnelly's campaign used, "faulty logic" in coming to their conclusion.  Such is apparently the desperate strategy Camp Donnelly has decided upon.

 

There's a reason "Silent Joe" Donnelly has voted in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi 88% of the time - including two votes in favor of the same ObamaCare bill that he distanced himself from during town hall meetings in the district.  He was told that the voters in IN-2 would forget.

 

The voters haven't forgotten, which explains why Donnelly has decided his only option left is to deceive them, lie to them, and misrepresent facts in the hopes that he can scare them away from his opponent.

 

What a shame and disappointment that this is what Joe Donnelly has decided to make of himself.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:25 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

Yesterday, former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the current political landscape by concluding that George W. Bush wouldn't fit in among the Republican Party's candidates this year.

 

Determining and debating whether that is an accurate statement or not (there are certainly parts of his sentiments that are true.the Tea Party movement is upset with big government Democrats and Republicans like Bush) is missing the point entirely. 

 

The significant point is that it's rather astounding that the leadership of the very Party that built its majority on the back of running against George W. Bush would surmise that it is a bad thing Republicans are leaving candidates like Bush behind.



 

Speaking at a Democrat fundraiser in Minnesota, Clinton stated, "A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal."

 

Maybe there's a reason for that, Bill.  Maybe it's because on domestic spending issues, George Bush was liberal. 

 

As Republicans attempt to win back the allegiance of independents who are weary of the failures of such excessive government spending, it is precisely the message they need to be sending the electorate: Obama and the Democrats are just pressing the accelerator down on the very ill-advised policies they once ran against.we are committed to the opposite direction, even if that means leaving some of the stalwarts of our own party behind.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 11:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

Even though he/she did not create a crisis, it is not unusual for the messenger to suffer unjust consequences for delivering bad news. Such is the case in the European Union (EU) as they punish legitimate traders making legitimate trades:

 

"In distressed markets, short selling can amplify price falls, leading to disorderly markets and systemic risks," Michel Barnier, the European Union's financial services commissioner, said in an e-mailed statement. The rules on short-selling would bring the EU closer to the stance taken by Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel banned some naked short-selling in May. Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy argued that some bets against stocks and government bonds should be curbed as the Greek debt crisis made markets more volatile.



Traders, the messengers in this case, make short sales because they believe that the price of a security will go down. Why? Because a company becomes unsuccessful. Or because bad economies lead investors and traders to sell securities. Short sellers do not create the unsuccessful company nor do they cause a bad economy. Government's response to the pragmatism of securities traders? Fix the underlying economic issues that create the crisis? Hardly. Just ban the short selling. Shoot the messenger.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 10:30 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

You remember Ned Lamont, right?  No?  Well, let me refresh your memory.  He's the reason Joe Lieberman has an (I) next to his name and not a (D).  In 2006, Lamont challenged the liberal Lieberman on the basis that he wasn't liberal enough.  Riding a swell of anti-Bush sentiment, Lamont swayed enough support to edge out Lieberman in the primary, only to get crushed in the general election when Lieberman decided to run as an independent. 

 

This election has seen its share of victories for the TEA party.  Rising star Marco Rubio is looking more and more certain to down the once unstoppable Charlie Crist.  Libertarian favorite Rand Paul is building on momentum in Kentucky.  After facing a multitude of nasty attacks, Sharon Angle has held her own against majority leader Harry Reid and is neck and neck.  Joe Miller downed big government Lisa Murkowski and is in prime position to secure the Alaska Senate seat.  All of these are excellent examples of how a strong TEA party candidate can defy conventional wisdom and push the Republican party to be more consistent with its core values.  But Christine O'Donnell is a perfect example of how the push for party purity can result in disaster if not tempered with reason.



 

It's safe to say that I'm not a Mike Castle fan.  He's a moderate in every sense of the word.  His voting record puts him to the left of nearly all Republicans but to the right of all Democrats.  But while it may feel good to pull the lever in opposition, understand the consequences. 

 

Christine O'Donnell is a catastrophically flawed candidate and hopes of a Republican controlled Senate may be dashed with her victory Tuesday night.  The list is too great to get into here, so check out this piece at the Daily Beast to see what I'm talking about.  If nothing else, check out her website and tell me that this is the kind of quality work you would expect from someone running for U.S. Senate.  There are many fantastic TEA party candidates to rally behind.  O'Donnell wasn't one of them. 

 

This may be something to remember in November, particularly if O'Donnell loses and the Democrats manage to hold onto the Senate.  Sometimes a moral victory isn't. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 10:25 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

There's a question that should be asked of Nancy Pelosi and Democrat leaders everytime they turn around: Is THIS the face of Republican Party Astroturf.



 

In 2009, Nancy Pelosi made her now hilariously ill-informed comments that the Tea Party movement was merely a product of the Republican Party to try to keep alive the policies of George W. Bush.

 

Think Progress quoted her as saying,

 

"What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now. What we want is a new direction. . This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end ? we call call it astroturf, it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."

 

Could someone in Big Media please ask Nancy if it was part of the Republican Party establishment strategy for Representative Mike Castle to lose in Delaware last night to a Tea Party supported candidate?

 

Or Senator Bob Bennett to lose in Utah to a Tea Party supported candidate?

 

Or Senator Lisa Murkowski to lose in Alaska to a Tea Party supported candidate?

 

Or Governor Charlie Crist to pitch a temper tantrum and abandon the party because the Tea Party supported the more conservative candidate?

 

Or Representative candidate Dede Scozzafava to eventually have to suspend her campaign in New York because all her support went to the Tea Party supported candidate?

 

I'll even write the question for them: "If this is Republican Party Astroturf, Nancy, why are they running over their own legacy candidates?"

 

At the time of the outbreak of this movement, it was probably a fair criticism to say, "Where were these Tea Party types as George Bush and the Republicans were exploding the size and scope of government?"  The answer is now clear: they were building and budding into the movement that has now manifested...a movement that is running over the entrenched and out-of-touch Beltway elites of BOTH parties.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:55 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Wednesday, September 15 2010

The 9/14/10 episode of TV game show "Minute to Win It" featured two injured American Army veterans, Ed Salau and Andy Butterworth. The incredible attitudes displayed by these heroes during the program reminded me of another comment I read recently made by an injured vet:

 

"The only difference is if a dog bites my ankle, it ain't going to hurt me." -- Army Sgt. Patrick Marziale, who lost a leg during service in Iraq, on how his life will be different with a prosthetic limb. (World, May 2009, p. 19)


This is why America always wins: militarily, economically, and compassionately.

Now if we can only clear some moronic thinking out of the federal government and a few state governments, Americans can get back to work making this Great Nation, and subsequently the world, greater.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 09:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 14 2010

One of the tactics from the Harry Reid camp in his re-election efforts has been to paint Sharon Angle as a controversial right-wing extremist.  Someone should tell Harry that this tactic only works if he isn't even more extreme in the opposite direction. 

 

 

The latest: CNN reports that Harry Reid is attempting to insert amnesty into a defense appropriation bill. 

 

I don't see how this can do anything but harm to his re-election bid.  For starters, the public is largely opposed to any efforts to offer amnesty to illegal aliens, so to attempt to raise immigration is in and of itself controversial.  But the manner in which Reid is introducing this bill is questionable as well.  The average voter is tiring of back door politics, the tricks and games that politicians are playing.  Attaching amnesty to a defense bill reeks of "politics as usual." 

 

If Reid is trying to paint himself as a moderate alternative, it seems a poor time to introduce such radical measures by such objectionable means. 

 

Maybe Harry Reid simply can't help himself. 

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 08:28 pm   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Tuesday, September 14 2010

As a tennis fan, I have enjoyed once again the competitive spirit on display at the U.S. Tennis Open. But as I caught a few of the televised matches, I was quite surprised and disturbed to observe blatant racism among the fans. in New York, no less!

 

It occurred during matches with American tennis champion Venus Williams. As Ms. Williams performed her magic on the court, the crowd was generally subdued. They politely acknowledged good play and showed a little more enthusiasm for some great plays, but generally remained low-key most of the time. Until.

 

Ms. Williams' opponent showed some spark and began gaining ground during some games. At first it didn't register with me, but after watching it repeated in match after match, it finally dawned upon me. those fans at the U.S. Open in New York wanted the white girl to win! Every time it was a person of Caucasian complexion opposite Ms. Williams, and every time, the crowd became more excited when Ms. Williams was being put on the ropes.

 

The only logical conclusion to this drama is that New York tennis fans are racist!

 

For anyone thinking that this is the worst line of reasoning you have ever heard, I quite agree. It is a travesty to logic. Yet this is exactly the line of thinking that has been on display by the left and Big Media toward the TEA Party movement.

 

 

 

Cries of racism come from all quarters in the land of left-believe, yet there remains no significant evidence for it. We are just to believe it exists because they assume and say it does. As has been demonstrated in TEA Party events across America, though, there is as much racism on display in this movement as there was on the tennis courts in New York City.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 08:22 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 14 2010

As the political winds have undoubtedly shifted to being at the Republican Party's back, media types and liberal elites are trying to figure out how to spin that as a positive for Barack Obama.  No kidding.

 

Former Democrat strategist and Clinton aide-turned reporter George Stephanopoulos made this suggestion in a recent Good Morning America interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.

 

Audio available here.

 

 

Though George makes a good point that Bill Clinton was able to triangulate much more effectively after Republicans took control of Congress (he was able to blame Republicans for failures while taking credit for their policies that he signed into law), he misses two key differences between Obama and Clinton.

 

First, as O'Reilly pointed out, this is a different era where instant media will make shifting and changing positions much more difficult for Obama.

 

Second, a point O'Reilly didn't mention but should have: Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton cared about gaining, holding, and retaining power at all costs.  Barack Obama cares about his anti-colonialist, left-wing ideology above all things.  Don't expect Obama to sign free-market, limited government legislation freely as Bill Clinton did. 

 

That sets up a mega-clash between ideologies in the 2012 presidential campaign.  That isn't likely to work out well for Obama.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 07:56 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 14 2010

A basic course in Saul Alinsky 101 teaches to find a political enemy to vilify and run against them perpetually.  The extent to which the Democrats are the Party of Alinsky is depicted by their record of following this strategy in lock-step.

 

Their list of figures that they believe represent great, mortal dangers to the survival of Western civilization is easy to rattle off: Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, the four Supreme Court conservatives, Gingrich, Rove, O'Reilly.

 

But those tired attacks are wearing thin on Americans, and they know it.  So what to do?  Well, they could actually try governing and actually doing a good job.  Nah.  Better to find a new target.  But who?  The typical targets have been exhausted.

 

Rich Lowry notes their genius idea:

 

It must have been a sad, desultory meeting of White House strategists when they settled on an anti-Boehner campaign: "Well, we could run on our economic record, except, well . . . There's always Obamacare, except, well . . . The change we brought to Washington? I know, I know. . . . Hey, how about that perpetually tanned Republican? Let's run against that guy!"

 

 

Polling data is one thing.  But the best evidence of the Democrats' desperation might just be the anti-Boehner national crusade.  No offense to Mr. Boehner, but it's asking WAY too much of Americans to even identify this man, no less rise up in enraged opposition to his outrageous attempts to thwart The One.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 01:10 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, September 14 2010

The primary season may be wrapping up but the drama of this election cycle is far from over.  Today in particular features a lot of races that could serve up some stunning surprises as seven states hold their primaries.  Arguably the biggest looming upset is the Delaware Senate race.  There are a lot of parallels to the stunning upset we saw in Alaska when the historic Murkowski name was rejected by the voters in favor of a relative no-name candidate, Joe Miller. 

 

Like Murkowski, Mike Castle has been a long time figure in Delaware politics.  He's a popular figure and a party establishment favorite with a moderate voting record.  But he's not immune to the anti-incumbent mood and could fall to the rising TEA party favorite, Christine O'Donnell.  Recent polling shows O'Donnell with a slight edge only days before the election, fueling talk of this once unimaginable defeat. 

 

 

Another race to watch is the New Hampshire primary.  For months former attorney general Kelly Ayotte has garnered the attention of Republican figures conservative and moderate alike.  She looked to be a lock to win the primary, but conservative lawyer and former candidate for governor, Ovide Lamontagne has been surging lately in the polls and stands within a few points according to these two polls.

 

In New York keep an eye on the governor's primary where Republican party favorite Rick Lazio has also found a tight race on his hands against Taxpayer Party candidate Dan Paladino.  Also pay close attention to the First congressional district where there is a heated three way primary race between Randy Altschuler, Chris Cox, and George Demos. 

 

It should be interesting to see who comes out on top in these races tonight.

Posted by: Joel Harris AT 10:41 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 13 2010

Who woulda thunk it?  Mr. "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against itJohn Kerry is back in the news.  And what else would he be doing but a total flip-flop on a previously held position?

 

 

This time, John can't seem to make up his mind about tax cuts for the wealthy (you know, people like him).  It seems though he was accepting of such cuts a few months ago, to even mention it to him now is beyond the pale:

 

Last week, the member of the Senate Finance Committee told the Boston Globe, "Under no circumstances do I believe we should give a blanket extension to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- it won't fix our economy and it will add billions to the long-term structural deficit."

 

But in a late July committee meeting, Kerry said he would support a one- to two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, if it was part of a bill that also extended middle-class cuts for a longer period, according to person familiar with the situation.

 

Once again, it boggles the mind that liberals like Kerry think our country can't afford people getting to keep their own hard-earned money, but CAN afford trillion dollar entitlement programs that break the bank.  It's all a matter of perspective: conservatives believe the money belongs to you, liberals like Kerry believe it belongs to government.

 

Well, that's what he believes today.  Check back for updates.  It's called convictions, John.  Get some.

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 02:16 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, September 13 2010

In a sign of just how desperate things have gotten for the left, it appears that the Party of Donkeys may be pinning its electoral hopes on...teen heartthrob, Justin Bieber.

 

 

In what should be an embarrassment to anyone still supporting the Democrats, it's reported:

 

So that's just what Campus Progress, the college spinoff of the Center for American Progress, decided to do to get people to vote in the midterms.

 

The organization is highlighting a submission to its VoteAgain2010 video contest that argues, while Bieber can't vote in our midterms (he's both too young and too Canadian), shouldn't you?

 

"This isn't your standard election year video of celebrities asking you to vote," the ad says. "It's us, asking you to vote for celebrities who can't, celebrities like Justin Bieber. Bieber's too young to vote, yet whomever we elect in the 2010 midterm elections will impact his future and ours. ... So tell your parents, your grandparents, your Facebook friends ... If they won't do it for you, ask them to do it for Bieber."

 

In other words, don't vote for the Democrats because they're doing a good job or have good ideas...vote for them because it's the cool, popular thing to do.

 

Hmmm.that sounds eerily like something we've heard before.  "Don't worry he has no experience.he's cool.he's popular...just vote for him and all the world's problems will go away."  Or not.

 

For the Dems we've gone from the "thrill up the leg" to "Bieber fever."  Why would anyone associate with this Party?

Posted by: Anna Anderson AT 12:25 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*