| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9/11/2001 -- We won't forget or forgive.
| ||
| |
| rwnadmin (read all posts) Conservative Grapevine Promo (December 5) Alan Mulally Takes Hybrid To DC (December 4) Conservative Grapevine Promo (December 4) Doing The Jaz McKay Show At 4:07 PM EST (December 3) Conservative Grapevine Promo (December 3) |
| Robert Stacy McCain (read all posts) Chambliss win bad news for GOP? (December 4) The crazy generation (December 3) |
| McQ (read all posts) Obama and the Anti-Iraq War Crowd (December 4) Gun Bans and Murder Rates (December 3) Jackson For Obama's Senate Seat? (December 2) |
| Melissa Clouthier (read all posts) Bad Economic News (December 3) The Fight Is Never Over, Ever (December 3) Fred Thompson Was My Man, This Is Why (December 2) |
| ADVERTISEMENT |
My latest Townhall column is up and it's called, Before We Carve Barack Obama's Face on Mt. Rushmore. Here's an excerpt from the column,
In the entire history of our country, I'm not sure there has ever been a presidential honeymoon period as tender and loving as the one that Barack Obama is experiencing today.In Perry County, Alabama they have already voted to create a paid holiday called "Barack Obama Day." That's an honor not bestowed on "lesser Presidents" like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt -- whose accomplishments, though great, surely will not eclipse those of "President Government" after his time in office. But, that's just a county holiday. Topeka activist Sonny Scroggins, with the support of the NAACP, is actually working on a national holiday for Obama.
Given the way that our mainstream media is fawning over Barack Obama, we shouldn't expect much resistance to the idea of creating a holiday to honor a man whose only real accomplishment so far is winning elections.
For example, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt was so taken with Obama that she was shocked that the mere fact that he was elected didn't end terrorism worldwide,
..."There are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought -- at least hoped -- would be dampered down."Then there's Chris Matthews who said it is his "job" to make "this new presidency work," a sentiment that seems to be widely shared in the media, even if most of them aren't foolish enough to share that view of their "job description" with their audience.
That's part of the reason why Obama's hard core supporters, which would include most members of the mainstream media, haven't had much to say about the fact that he has already started rapidly backing off his campaign promises on everything from the windfall profits tax to the Bush tax cuts, to a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Of course, many of Obama's supporters were so ignorant of what he stands for that they probably have no idea he's breaking his promises in the first place.
You can read it all here.
| Rate this article: |
|
Swiped from an article at Cracked that wasn't particularly funny except for this graphic.
| Rate this article: |
|
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
American Princess: "This time, Sarah Palin told Oprah where she could shove her interview, and its one of the most wonderful things I've read in weeks"IMAO: "I have never been around such a bunch of d*ckless sissies, and I have not stopped vomiting since agreeing to be a part of the Obama administration."
Cassy Fiano: Unsurprising: Men blame death of chivalry on radical feminism
Celebslam: Nicole Richie bikini shots
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
| Rate this article: |
|
No matter what happens -- even a 14-point Republican victory -- the media geniuses will always find a way to spin it as bad news for conservatives:
With time and money on their sides, though, we can expect that Obama and other Democratic leaders will be look to make 2012 the year that the Solid South is broken once and for all. Certainly with an incumbent president and demographic trends continuing to work, Democrats could cement gains in Virginia and Florida and perhaps even North Carolina. . . .Somehow these geniuses can't accept the simple and obvious explanation that nominating a bald, grumpy, old guy for president is bad politics. No, the Big Picture must be something nuanced and complex, so that only geniuses can explain it.
With an invigorated Democratic effort and Libertarians drawing better than 3 percent in key races, it wouldn't take long for the rest of the South to turn blue.
As I've said before: Don't overthink it. At some basic level, politics is about popularity. When the other guys nominate Will Smith and you nominate Mister Magoo, no grand ideological theory or demographic trend is necessary to explain why you got your ass kicked.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
| Rate this article: |
|
The Washington Times echoes what we've been saying here for a number of weeks - it appears Barack Obama will simply let the Iraq engagement end itself naturally and claim credit for its final success:
"I believe that 16 months is the right time frame," Mr. Obama said after announcing his national security team that includes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has overseen military gains in Iraq under President Bush."But as I have said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders. And my number one priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security."
In other words, "16 months sounds good, unless it will take longer" and then he'll listen to the "recommendations of my commanders" and modify his plan. Sounds like a bit of a fudge factor to me.
As you might imagine, statements like that, as well as his national security picks, have done anything but mollify the anti-Iraq war crowd that chose him over all other candidates because of his promises to end the war immediately.
But then, where are those people going to go - over to the Republicans? Every side must have its "useful idiots" and the anti-Iraq War crowd served that purpose quite well - their support helped put Obama over the top.
Now reality sets in for both sides - Obama, it appears, is going to let Iraq run its natural course since it appears to be a victory. And the anti-Iraq War crowd? Well, they have the profound thanks of the incoming Obama administration for their support and, in theory, Obama agrees with them. In reality, however, even Obama knows that snatching defeat from the jaws of victory would be blamed on him and that's not something he's going to allow to happen to mollify any group that's real usefulness is at an end.
I guess they're just going to have to learn to live with the disappointment.
[Crossposted at QandO]
| Rate this article: |
|
The three kings overseeing the demise of the American auto industry are back in Washington to plead for $billions in other people's money in exchange for still greater government encroachment into their unprofitable enterprises. The Big Three should be lunging at the opportunity to wriggle out of the extravagant union contracts at the root of their problems. But scooping up free money stolen from our children by the government requires less effort than competing in the marketplace.
Last time around, these jewel-encrusted mendicants were ridiculed for flying into town on private jets to beg for handouts. But they're wiser now:
All three CEOs made the trip to Washington in high-mileage hybrid vehicles — the types of cars critics say the Detroit Three should have been making more of instead of becoming enamored of higher-profit, less fuel-efficient vehicles like SUVs and Hummers.
So according to these critics — who will be making the decisions if the three stooges get the free $34 billion they're pleading for — the problem is that Detroit has been making "higher-profit" vehicles, instead of the overpriced, inefficient moonbatmobiles that the government will demand in return for our money.
Instead of groveling inside the Beltway with a tin cup in hand, Henry Ford would be back in Detroit, making cars people want after using bankruptcy to scrape off the union leeches that have been killing the industry. But then, Ford believed in acquiring wealth by creating it, instead of by begging a place at the government trough.
Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
When faced with a choice between honoring Christmas or some Muslim festival, British educrats probably didn't agonize long over their decision.
Greenwood Junior School sent out a letter to parents saying the three-day festival of Eid al-Adha, which takes place between December 8 and 11, meant that Muslim children would be off school.
That meant planning for the traditional nativity play were shelved because the school felt it would be too difficult to run both celebrations side by side.
The justification was typical; educrats proclaimed themselves duty-bound to respect "the cultures and religions of all the children." Except of course British and Christian children.
On tips from Sam Houston and Matt L. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is rooting for the Supreme Court to deny the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship,
The latest buzz surrounds the decision by Clarence Thomas to circulate the appeal petition to the entire court after David Souter rejected it immediately. That really doesn't mean much, as the Tribune explains. Of the 842 petitions circulated in that manner, only 60 got a spot on the court calendar, and not all of those succeeded. Thomas may have been interested in the technical aspects of the suit rather than the merits, or perhaps it was a slow week....I'm sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it -- absolutely none -- has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama's stepfather renounced Obama's birthright citizenship, which he didn't have the power to do anyway. It's a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can't kill the conspiracy theories. It can only kill the lawsuits, which is what they will almost certainly do tomorrow when they meet.
Personally, I hope that they take the case so that they can squash this whole issue once and for all. Barack Obama is an American citizen and if the Supreme Court officially rules that way, then these particular stories will, for the most part, go away.
PS: This story isn't a conspiracy theory per se. A President has to be an American citizen from birth to qualify for the presidency and I think some of the questions raised about the certificate of live birth that has been floating around are legitimate (although I also think the preponderance of the evidence shows that it's real). Combine that with the fact that Obama spent much of his childhood in a foreign country and I understand why people have questions.
That being said, this whole debate has taken on the tone of a conspiracy theory. I have yet to see anyone who believes that Barack Obama is not an American citizen put together any sort of logical, coherent explanation for why he thinks that's the case. Nor have I seen any attempt to explain things like "a newspaper clipping from the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser that mentions Obama being born."
| Rate this article: |
|
It had been widely assumed, prior to the 2008 election cycle, that a black Democrat couldn't win the presidency (Personally, I had always thought the first black President would be a Republican).
However, in retrospect, isn't it likely that George Bush's appointment of Colin Powell and Condi Rice to the Secretary of State position helped accustom the American people to the idea of having black Americans in the positions of high responsibility in the government?
In other words, without Colin Powell and Condi Rice paving the way for him, there wouldn't have been a President Barack Obama.
It's too bad that Bush, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice don't get the credit they deserve for breaking new ground just because they're Republicans.
| Rate this article: |
|
I've long thought that the best way for the GOP to appeal to young Americans would be to point out that the left is putting them deep into debt. Well today, believe it or not, at the ultra-left wing site Counterpunch, Professor David Michael Green does a phenomnenal job of pointing out how young Americans are being screwed by deficit spending.
I generally don't agree with much of anything at Counter Punch and I don't agree with a large portion of what Green wrote in this very column, but this is just spot-on,
Could you imagine parents so reckless that they would party themselves into a drunken stupor by stealing the funds from their children? I'm not talking about burning through the inheritance, which, after all, is the parents' money to do what they want with. No, I'm talking about spending the money the kids have saved themselves for their own college education, or for a down-payment on a house. Outrageous, eh? Well, guess what? That's exactly what the Baby Boomers did. Because they wanted all the government services they got, plus the tax cuts that put a little extra jingle in their pockets... Put it all together and it equates to living well beyond your means. And when you do that, there are only so many ways to deal with the difference in what you're spending versus what you're bringing in. Cue the kids here.The math is astonishing. The current amount of the national debt is a staggering 10.667 trillion dollars, and climbing fast (indeed, it has already risen substantially since I typed that number). Let's leave aside for the moment that it is rising every year with each annual deficit - which some people now think could be a dramatically record-breaking trillion dollars next year - added to the pile. And let's also leave aside the fact that each of those dollars are borrowed, and are thus accruing additional liability every day in the form of interest. If we just take the current debt, and divide it by the number of payroll workers in America (about 150 million), that means each worker's share of the existing debt is $71,113. Now, just for the sake of argument, let's say a worker has a job pulling down fifteen bucks per hour in pay. At that rate, they would have to work 4,741 hours to do nothing but pay off the amount that has been borrowed in their names, without their assent, and just to cover only what has been loaned so far to date - not counting new additions to the pile each day, and not counting accruing interest. At forty hours a week, that's 2.37 years of someone's life. In fact, that's 2.37 years of 150 million people's lives. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine going to someone and saying "I'm going to force you to work over two years of your life in some job you probably don't like, so that I don't have to"? Because that's exactly what this represents: Baby Boomers refusing to live within their means and desperately turning to their own children to facilitate the parents' irresponsibility. Parents stealing more than two years of their children's lives, to add two years of play time to their own. Unreal.
...What is most astonishing about the whole thing is that I detect almost nothing in the way of anger from the victims. When I try to talk to my students about how my generation is ripping off their generation, somehow I'm always the angriest guy in the classroom, by far. Probably I should just keep my mouth shut, eh? I mean, I've paid into Social Security since I was sixteen years old, and I'd like it to be there when I'm an old geezer, unable any longer to fool some hapless university into paying me to scandalize yet another generation with my Maoist, anticlerical, sexually deviant, radical environmentalist revolutionary dogma. I'm okay with their generosity, but, to be totally truthful, I wouldn't exactly blame the next generations for saying "Screw you, pal. You guys had your party already, and we're not paying for it twice. Fund your own freakin' retirement." God knows we have that coming.
The best thing we can do "for the children" and the twentysomething kids out there is to stop putting them further in debt.
| Rate this article: |
|
Some people are puzzled by the Franken campaign's assertion that they are now ahead by 22 votes. That's understandable, since the latest count has him behind by 316.
What you have to understand is that it's part of a public relations strategy.
You see, despite the fact that Franken's totals have already been swelled by several hundred shady, probably manufactured votes, he is behind and unlikely to prevail under the legitimate recount process. The recount is almost over and although they do have to look at roughly 3,000 challenged ballots from both sides, most of those are frivolous.
According to the rules written before the election, that should be the end of the election, but the Democrats play by a different set of rules.
Here's how Democrats who want to steal elections play the game: the rules written before the election mean nothing. The only rule that means anything is that because "every vote counts," you must keep counting votes, some votes, any votes, until Democratic dirty tricksters can manufacture enough votes to get you ahead. Then -- and only then -- the counting is done.
That's what Al Gore wanted to do. It's how Christine Gregoire won the governor's election in Washington back in 2004, and it's how Al Franken is going to try to win a Senate seat he lost at the ballot box.
If, as expected, Coleman wins the actual recount and is ahead when the results of the challenged ballots come through, Franken will insist that they count the absentee ballots despite the fact that Minnesota law clearly and unambiguously says that isn't done.
If that doesn't work, Franken will to go to court and get enough votes added to his total or taken away from Coleman's total to win.
If that fails, then it's off to the Senate, where he'll try to convince Harry Reid to thwart the democratic process and force a revote rather than seat Coleman. You can bet that Reid is thinking very hard about whether the publicity hit from stealing an election is worth getting a 59th vote -- and that's what the Franken campaign's claim to be ahead is all about. They want to muddy the water a little bit, so that it won't look quite as bad if the Senate jumps in. After all, it certainly sounds better for the Democrats to get involved in a close race where both sides were ahead at one point or the other rather than a race where the Republican was ahead from beginning to end. Of course, Coleman has been ahead from beginning to end, but don't expect the Dems to let the facts get in the way.
So, that's where we are in Minnesota and the real question is not, "Who's going to win," it's , "Can Al Franken and the Democrats steal a seat that they lost?"
| Rate this article: |
|
This graphics and title was stolen from my buddies over at The Nose On Your Face, one of the funniest blogs on the web.
| Rate this article: |
|
