Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Massachusetts Earns Their Brownie Points
How does a Democrat running for senate, in what is supposed to be the bluest state in the union, lose a 30 point lead in the span of just of three weeks? But on top of that lose the seat that was held by the same man for almost 47 years in a state where his family name is almost royalty. This is my take on what actually enabled Scott Brown to win Massachusetts and turn what was a Democrat guarantee into a GOP win.
Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However the majority of registered voters are not Democrats, and in fact they outnumber both Democrats and Republicans combined. They are the Independents and Scott Brown's campaign was geared strictly towards those voters. But here is how he won.
Common Sense on Terrorism: Everyone in this country will tell you that we are at war with terrorism. Everyone except for maybe this administration. The administration proves this through the civilian trials of the 9/11 terrorists coming soon in NYC. For some reason, according to this administration, these terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans (and would do it again in a heart beat), somehow deserve the same rights as you and I in a civilian courtroom in NYC while on the taxpayer dime. It is absolutely disgraceful and insulting to us as Americans that this is going on. And Barry saw the beginning consequences of his actions with Scott Brown's win. More to come in November.
Common Sense on economics: Never raise taxes during a recession! However, every policy put forth by the democrat congress and Barry has been an indirect if not direct tax on the entire country no matter what his campaign promises were. People understand this because while working hours decrease, their income does the same, however this administration feels the need to make them pay more in taxes? Barry's problem is that he believes government is the answer to all of our problems. Maybe if he studied history he would understand that his policies and beliefs do not work (but this is a totally different story that would take pages to write). His idea of "change" was not what America voted for.
Common Sense on Health Care: When over 60% of Americans being polled disagree or strongly disagree with the Obama Care (Communist Care), why would Barry and the Democrats continue trying to push it through? Answer: They DON'T CARE. They believe for some reason that government run health care is the answer despite the living proof across the pond, that it does not and will not work. By ignoring that 60% and calling them the minority or fringe, Barry and the Democrats lost their senate super majority and a seat held by their party for since 1953.
Furthermore, Americans are getting tired of special interest groups, union bosses, favors, bribes, back room deals, etc. The only special interest group that Congress should be listening to is the American people. Everybody knew that saying one thing and then doing another was certainly going to catch up with Barry sooner or later. The thing is, it took less than a year for that to happen. Well before anybody's guess.
Last but not least, this one is for Barry- "YOU LIE!"~ Joe Wilson
Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However the majority of registered voters are not Democrats, and in fact they outnumber both Democrats and Republicans combined. They are the Independents and Scott Brown's campaign was geared strictly towards those voters. But here is how he won.
Common Sense on Terrorism: Everyone in this country will tell you that we are at war with terrorism. Everyone except for maybe this administration. The administration proves this through the civilian trials of the 9/11 terrorists coming soon in NYC. For some reason, according to this administration, these terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans (and would do it again in a heart beat), somehow deserve the same rights as you and I in a civilian courtroom in NYC while on the taxpayer dime. It is absolutely disgraceful and insulting to us as Americans that this is going on. And Barry saw the beginning consequences of his actions with Scott Brown's win. More to come in November.
Common Sense on economics: Never raise taxes during a recession! However, every policy put forth by the democrat congress and Barry has been an indirect if not direct tax on the entire country no matter what his campaign promises were. People understand this because while working hours decrease, their income does the same, however this administration feels the need to make them pay more in taxes? Barry's problem is that he believes government is the answer to all of our problems. Maybe if he studied history he would understand that his policies and beliefs do not work (but this is a totally different story that would take pages to write). His idea of "change" was not what America voted for.
Common Sense on Health Care: When over 60% of Americans being polled disagree or strongly disagree with the Obama Care (Communist Care), why would Barry and the Democrats continue trying to push it through? Answer: They DON'T CARE. They believe for some reason that government run health care is the answer despite the living proof across the pond, that it does not and will not work. By ignoring that 60% and calling them the minority or fringe, Barry and the Democrats lost their senate super majority and a seat held by their party for since 1953.
Furthermore, Americans are getting tired of special interest groups, union bosses, favors, bribes, back room deals, etc. The only special interest group that Congress should be listening to is the American people. Everybody knew that saying one thing and then doing another was certainly going to catch up with Barry sooner or later. The thing is, it took less than a year for that to happen. Well before anybody's guess.
Last but not least, this one is for Barry- "YOU LIE!"~ Joe Wilson
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Spinning the Massachusetts Election
The Democratic spin is working overtime in the wake of the upset victory of Scott Brown on Tuesday. The White House and other Democratic leaders want people to think the only reason Martha Coakley lost was because she was a bad candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Coakley fires back and blames the national Democratic party for not getting involved in the race soon enough. Now, we all know there's nothing more enjoyable than watching a circular Democratic firing squad. But these analyses are ridiculous. I will readily concede that Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign and Scott Brown ran an excellent, even brilliant, campaign. But that's not the reason Brown won. Brown won because his message resonated with Massachusetts voters, and his message was uniformly conservative -- lower taxes, no government takeover of health care, an aggressive approach to terrorism, and a government more responsive to the people. If it hadn't been for the anti-government mood of voters, which was a direct response to the policies of Democrats running Massachusetts and the federal government, then a virtually unknown state senator named Scott Brown would have never even been competitive. Martha Coakley's gaffes and mistakes did not occur until after the race had already become competitive; they were not the reason the race was competitive. Remember, Coakley was elected to the statewide office of attorney general only about three years ago with 74% of the vote; I didn't hear anybody saying she was such an unelectable candidate then.
The message from the Massachusetts election for Democrats, if any of them are willing to listen, is that voters are angry. They are angry that Obama and Reid and Pelosi are trying to force a massive health care entitlement down their throat that they don't want. They are angry at the hyper-partisan nature of the health care negotiations, with backroom deals and corrupt payoffs in exchange for votes and secret meetings. They are angry at the out-of-control spending. They are angry that no matter how loud the protests, as seen by townhall meetings and a barrage of letters and phone calls and marches on Washington and unfavorable polling, the politicians continue to show indifference and even contempt for their opinion. And they took that anger out on the Democratic party on Tuesday. Obama explicitly campaigned for Coakley as his 60th vote on health care, and even left-wing Massachusetts rejected him.
A few Democrats seem to be getting the message, as seen by the statements by Evan Bayh and Jim Webb yesterday. But for the most part, the Dems remain clueless. Last night, I briefly watched MSNBC, a channel I normally avoid because of its unbelievably blatant left-wing bias. But I was in a victorious mood and wanted to watch the Rachel Maddows of the world squirm a bit at the election results. Shockingly, the folks at MSNBC think it should be full steam ahead on Obama's agenda. First, I watched Maddow interview Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Stabenow certainly didn't seem to have learned any lessons from the MA results. She rambled on and on about how it was so hard for the Democrats because no Republicans would reach across the aisle and work with them because the GOP doesn't care about helping people, but the Democrats would do the best they could with the paltry 59 votes they had. Oh yeah, and she whined about how the Democrats needed to get rid of those annoying filibuster rules but unfortunately they didn't have 67 votes (a 2/3 majority is required). Awww. It's a rough life. Then Maddow gave her own analysis, and she was livid that the Democrats seemed to be backing off of health care reform. She accused Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, two senators who clearly got the message from the election, of being cowards who wouldn't stand up and fight. In her opinion, so what that the Republicans won one seat? The Dems still have 59, so pass it through reconciliation or whatever. It's as though the election on Tuesday never happened.
I hope all the Democrats in Congress were watching her and take her advice to heart. I hope they try to ram this thing through using reconciliation and keep up their scorched-earth tactics. Because if they do, they will get a shellacking in November that will make 1994 look like a status quo election. I can't wait.
The message from the Massachusetts election for Democrats, if any of them are willing to listen, is that voters are angry. They are angry that Obama and Reid and Pelosi are trying to force a massive health care entitlement down their throat that they don't want. They are angry at the hyper-partisan nature of the health care negotiations, with backroom deals and corrupt payoffs in exchange for votes and secret meetings. They are angry at the out-of-control spending. They are angry that no matter how loud the protests, as seen by townhall meetings and a barrage of letters and phone calls and marches on Washington and unfavorable polling, the politicians continue to show indifference and even contempt for their opinion. And they took that anger out on the Democratic party on Tuesday. Obama explicitly campaigned for Coakley as his 60th vote on health care, and even left-wing Massachusetts rejected him.
A few Democrats seem to be getting the message, as seen by the statements by Evan Bayh and Jim Webb yesterday. But for the most part, the Dems remain clueless. Last night, I briefly watched MSNBC, a channel I normally avoid because of its unbelievably blatant left-wing bias. But I was in a victorious mood and wanted to watch the Rachel Maddows of the world squirm a bit at the election results. Shockingly, the folks at MSNBC think it should be full steam ahead on Obama's agenda. First, I watched Maddow interview Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Stabenow certainly didn't seem to have learned any lessons from the MA results. She rambled on and on about how it was so hard for the Democrats because no Republicans would reach across the aisle and work with them because the GOP doesn't care about helping people, but the Democrats would do the best they could with the paltry 59 votes they had. Oh yeah, and she whined about how the Democrats needed to get rid of those annoying filibuster rules but unfortunately they didn't have 67 votes (a 2/3 majority is required). Awww. It's a rough life. Then Maddow gave her own analysis, and she was livid that the Democrats seemed to be backing off of health care reform. She accused Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, two senators who clearly got the message from the election, of being cowards who wouldn't stand up and fight. In her opinion, so what that the Republicans won one seat? The Dems still have 59, so pass it through reconciliation or whatever. It's as though the election on Tuesday never happened.
I hope all the Democrats in Congress were watching her and take her advice to heart. I hope they try to ram this thing through using reconciliation and keep up their scorched-earth tactics. Because if they do, they will get a shellacking in November that will make 1994 look like a status quo election. I can't wait.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Now this is just silly...
It seems that some folks will get their panties in a bunch about nearly anything. Here's a story about a US weapons supplier who inscribes references to Bible verses on its equipment. (For example, one inscription is an eight-character serial number immediately followed by JN8:12, an abbreviation for John 8:12.) A small number of noisy people, including Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, have discovered this and are kicking up a stink about it.
I guess I have to give the complainers just a little bit of credit this time. Instead of making the usual complaints ("STOP SHOVING GOD DOWN MY THROAT*(#@)#%@^#&$&#@^@!"), these complainers are at least attempting to sound reasonable by citing their concern for the troops, arguing that having Biblical references on US military rifles could give militant Muslims (who already view their conflict with US troops as a holy war) the idea that the US is fighting a war against Islam.
Of course, if Mikey Weinstein really gave a rip about the safety of the troops, then he would have kept his big trap shut. (Honestly, I would have thought that the inscription is just a long serial number if I had seen it and knew nothing about it.)
I guess I have to give the complainers just a little bit of credit this time. Instead of making the usual complaints ("STOP SHOVING GOD DOWN MY THROAT*(#@)#%@^#&$&#@^@!"), these complainers are at least attempting to sound reasonable by citing their concern for the troops, arguing that having Biblical references on US military rifles could give militant Muslims (who already view their conflict with US troops as a holy war) the idea that the US is fighting a war against Islam.
Of course, if Mikey Weinstein really gave a rip about the safety of the troops, then he would have kept his big trap shut. (Honestly, I would have thought that the inscription is just a long serial number if I had seen it and knew nothing about it.)
Scott Brown for Senate!
I now believe that a political earthquake is going to happen today in Massachusetts. For the first time in nearly 40 years, liberal Bay State voters are going to the polls to elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate! I believe Scott Brown will narrowly defeate Democrat Martha Coakley today to replace Democratic icon Ted Kennedy.
If I'm right, and Brown really succeeds in defeating Coakley, the ramifications for this GOP victory are huge. It shows how unpopular Obama's policies are, even in the most left-wing states in the country. It shows how little clout he has left -- his campaign appearance for Coakley on Sunday apparently had no effect on the race. It foreshadows a very bad 2010 election cycle for Democrats. It will likely send panic through the ranks of Democratic congressmen and senators, who realize they could be the next ones on the chopping block and may start to retire in droves. Most importantly, a Brown victory could well sound the death knell for ObamaCare. Once Brown is seated in the Senate, the Dems will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, and will need to make significant compromises and modifications to pass a bill through the Senate.
GO, SCOTT BROWN!!!! Let's remind the party in power that not only is the Massachusetts' Senate seat the "people's seat," but the U.S. Senate is the "people's house."
If I'm right, and Brown really succeeds in defeating Coakley, the ramifications for this GOP victory are huge. It shows how unpopular Obama's policies are, even in the most left-wing states in the country. It shows how little clout he has left -- his campaign appearance for Coakley on Sunday apparently had no effect on the race. It foreshadows a very bad 2010 election cycle for Democrats. It will likely send panic through the ranks of Democratic congressmen and senators, who realize they could be the next ones on the chopping block and may start to retire in droves. Most importantly, a Brown victory could well sound the death knell for ObamaCare. Once Brown is seated in the Senate, the Dems will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, and will need to make significant compromises and modifications to pass a bill through the Senate.
GO, SCOTT BROWN!!!! Let's remind the party in power that not only is the Massachusetts' Senate seat the "people's seat," but the U.S. Senate is the "people's house."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Party of Corruption
I know that a lot of people think I'm excessively partisan. But frankly, I only consider myself "one half" partisan. I do not believe I am excessively pro-Republican. In fact, one of my posts a couple months ago had some very harsh things to say about the Republican party establishment. I consider myself to be a Republican, but there are plenty of Republicans that I don't like very much and I don't blindly vote the party line. My loyalty is to specific (mostly conservative) principles, not to the Republican party. However, it is true that I am partisan when it comes to Democrats. I am passionately anti-Democrat, especially the Democratic party as it exists today. Here are a few reasons why I think the Democratic party deserves to be known as The Party of Corruption:
1. I am amazed at the way the Democratic party and black leaders have rallied in support of Harry Reid. Reid made an inexcusable statement -- one that is demeaning and insulting to all blacks and also insulting to the American people as a whole. I can't even find a leading Democrat who will condemn Reid's comment at all. Everyone from Obama to Democratic senators to the NAACP keeps saying Reid made a "mistake" or he "misspoke," and then rushes on to say how great Reid is on "civil rights issues," whatever that means. That is not condemning him. It's excusing him. I heard a clip on the radio of Al Sharpton speaking out to defend Harry Reid, and he was laughing and cracking up with people around him while he was speaking. Apparently Al Sharpton thinks it's funny that the Democratic leader in the Senate makes racially insulting comments.
One of the worst hypocrites in the bunch is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who back in 2002 said this about Trent Lott's racially insensitive comments: "If a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position." Of course, Senator Landrieu has no comment about Reid and thus is implicitly supporting him, just like every other Democrat in the Senate. This tells you all you need to know about the Democratic party. They don't care if their leader demeans African-Americans. They act principled when a Republican makes an inappropriate comment, but when one of their own does it they prove that they don't really believe those principles. All they care about is getting their agenda passed. And since Reid is necessary to get health care passed, they will support him no matter what he says.
(Let me a make a side comment about the comparison of Reid to Trent Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate Minority Leader in 2002 after making comments about how our country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond -- who at the time was a segregationist -- had been elected president in 1948. Despite what some are claiming, I think Reid's comments were significantly worse than Lott's. Lott was joking around at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He had probably had a few beers and wanted to flatter his friend. He never said anything about race or segregation at all, and there's no reason to think it was on his mind. The only way you can find Lott's comments racist is to read into them some sinister intent that was not stated. Reid's comments, on the other hand, were explicitly racial and were in the context of a serious private discussion. If anyone "misspoke," it was Lott, not Reid. But I would note that most Republicans made no real effort to defend Lott, and their lack of support forced him to resign. Note the contrast between how the two parties handled the situation.)
2. Harry Reid is not the only person in a position of Democratic leadership in Congress who is a disgrace. Charlie Rangel has been under investigation for years for various types of corruption, including flagrant tax violations. Rangel is one of the key leaders in the House of Representatives, chairing the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Of course, Democrats rallied around him and allowed him to keep his chairmanship, refusing even to censure him. (Even though they voted to censure Republican congressman Joe Wilson for a much lesser offense of violating congressional decorum.) Again, Democrats don't care what their members do. They can be frauds, cheats, and lawbreakers; as long as they help "advance the agenda" they are welcomed as top Democratic leaders. It is the ultimate "end justifies the means" mentality.
3. Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Democrats in the Senate, despite owing $34,000 in backtaxes that he failed to pay (until after he was nominated!). Obama also nominated two other people to Cabinet-level positions who were guilty of tax evasion. Again, for the Democrats this is no big deal. It doesn't matter how you break the law, as long as you can advance the agenda.
4. The health care debacle in Congress really shines a spotlight on the Democrats' corruption. As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to pass their bill. They paid off various senators for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to secure their votes, and flagrantly violated their pledge of transparency by excluding cameras from the conference deliberations. They showed shocking indifference for the actual content of the bill, forcing quick votes before senators had even had time to read the entire bill, and inserting and deleting provisions at will. They refused any attempt at bipartisanship and displayed complete contempt for the concerns of the American people (as illustrated by townhall meetings and polls). Again, this shows that to Democrats, principles, promises, and even voters don't matter. The only thing that matters is keeping their power and passing their agenda.
1. I am amazed at the way the Democratic party and black leaders have rallied in support of Harry Reid. Reid made an inexcusable statement -- one that is demeaning and insulting to all blacks and also insulting to the American people as a whole. I can't even find a leading Democrat who will condemn Reid's comment at all. Everyone from Obama to Democratic senators to the NAACP keeps saying Reid made a "mistake" or he "misspoke," and then rushes on to say how great Reid is on "civil rights issues," whatever that means. That is not condemning him. It's excusing him. I heard a clip on the radio of Al Sharpton speaking out to defend Harry Reid, and he was laughing and cracking up with people around him while he was speaking. Apparently Al Sharpton thinks it's funny that the Democratic leader in the Senate makes racially insulting comments.
One of the worst hypocrites in the bunch is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who back in 2002 said this about Trent Lott's racially insensitive comments: "If a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position." Of course, Senator Landrieu has no comment about Reid and thus is implicitly supporting him, just like every other Democrat in the Senate. This tells you all you need to know about the Democratic party. They don't care if their leader demeans African-Americans. They act principled when a Republican makes an inappropriate comment, but when one of their own does it they prove that they don't really believe those principles. All they care about is getting their agenda passed. And since Reid is necessary to get health care passed, they will support him no matter what he says.
(Let me a make a side comment about the comparison of Reid to Trent Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate Minority Leader in 2002 after making comments about how our country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond -- who at the time was a segregationist -- had been elected president in 1948. Despite what some are claiming, I think Reid's comments were significantly worse than Lott's. Lott was joking around at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He had probably had a few beers and wanted to flatter his friend. He never said anything about race or segregation at all, and there's no reason to think it was on his mind. The only way you can find Lott's comments racist is to read into them some sinister intent that was not stated. Reid's comments, on the other hand, were explicitly racial and were in the context of a serious private discussion. If anyone "misspoke," it was Lott, not Reid. But I would note that most Republicans made no real effort to defend Lott, and their lack of support forced him to resign. Note the contrast between how the two parties handled the situation.)
2. Harry Reid is not the only person in a position of Democratic leadership in Congress who is a disgrace. Charlie Rangel has been under investigation for years for various types of corruption, including flagrant tax violations. Rangel is one of the key leaders in the House of Representatives, chairing the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Of course, Democrats rallied around him and allowed him to keep his chairmanship, refusing even to censure him. (Even though they voted to censure Republican congressman Joe Wilson for a much lesser offense of violating congressional decorum.) Again, Democrats don't care what their members do. They can be frauds, cheats, and lawbreakers; as long as they help "advance the agenda" they are welcomed as top Democratic leaders. It is the ultimate "end justifies the means" mentality.
3. Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Democrats in the Senate, despite owing $34,000 in backtaxes that he failed to pay (until after he was nominated!). Obama also nominated two other people to Cabinet-level positions who were guilty of tax evasion. Again, for the Democrats this is no big deal. It doesn't matter how you break the law, as long as you can advance the agenda.
4. The health care debacle in Congress really shines a spotlight on the Democrats' corruption. As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to pass their bill. They paid off various senators for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to secure their votes, and flagrantly violated their pledge of transparency by excluding cameras from the conference deliberations. They showed shocking indifference for the actual content of the bill, forcing quick votes before senators had even had time to read the entire bill, and inserting and deleting provisions at will. They refused any attempt at bipartisanship and displayed complete contempt for the concerns of the American people (as illustrated by townhall meetings and polls). Again, this shows that to Democrats, principles, promises, and even voters don't matter. The only thing that matters is keeping their power and passing their agenda.
Scott Brown in Massachusetts Senate Debate
Check out this awesome video from the U.S. Senate debate last night. The moderator asked Republican candidate Scott Brown whether he would sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and vote to kill health care reform. Brown's reply: "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat and it's not the Democrats' seat; it's the people's seat." Wow!
By the way, Brown raised over $1,000,000 in one day yesterday, and polls are showing him running competitively in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in nearly 40 years. Even in left-wing Massachusetts, ObamaCare has only 43% support. If Republicans are competitive in this state, imagine how bad it could be for the Democrats in the rest of the country this November....
By the way, Brown raised over $1,000,000 in one day yesterday, and polls are showing him running competitively in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in nearly 40 years. Even in left-wing Massachusetts, ObamaCare has only 43% support. If Republicans are competitive in this state, imagine how bad it could be for the Democrats in the rest of the country this November....
Monday, January 11, 2010
Letting Crooks and Illegals Vote
Check out this editorial in The Washington Times. The Democrats want to push universal voter registration legislation through Congress. Their proposal is to automatically register every person on every government list, whether they want to be registered or not. This really scares me. Nothing is more important in a democracy than the integrity of the election process. As The Times points out, this legislation opens the door for convicted felons and illegal aliens to vote and is certain to increase voter fraud by making it easier for individuals to be registered multiple times.
Protecting the integrity of our elections is not that hard, and my guess is that large majorities of Americans agree on how that can be done:
1.) Voting is a privilege reserved only for American citizens, not a right guaranteed to non-resident and illegal aliens.
2.) Convicted felons should not be allowed to vote, especially felons currently serving time in jail.
3.) No one should be registered to vote automatically based on some list. This opens the door to fraud. If someone doesn't care enough about our political process to bother to register on their own initiative, they shouldn't be able to vote.
4.) No one should be able to register on Election Day or to vote in locations other than the one in which they live. Such voter "flexibility" laws make voter fraud much easier.
5.) Photo ID should be required to vote at a polling station. Again, it's the surest way to prevent fraud. This is not an unreasonable requirement. Photo ID is required for simple bank transactions; why shouldn't it be required for voting?
Protecting the integrity of our elections is not that hard, and my guess is that large majorities of Americans agree on how that can be done:
1.) Voting is a privilege reserved only for American citizens, not a right guaranteed to non-resident and illegal aliens.
2.) Convicted felons should not be allowed to vote, especially felons currently serving time in jail.
3.) No one should be registered to vote automatically based on some list. This opens the door to fraud. If someone doesn't care enough about our political process to bother to register on their own initiative, they shouldn't be able to vote.
4.) No one should be able to register on Election Day or to vote in locations other than the one in which they live. Such voter "flexibility" laws make voter fraud much easier.
5.) Photo ID should be required to vote at a polling station. Again, it's the surest way to prevent fraud. This is not an unreasonable requirement. Photo ID is required for simple bank transactions; why shouldn't it be required for voting?
Double Standard
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has created quite a buzz in the political world with the revelation of his comments during the 2008 election campaign about Barack Obama. A book about to be published reveals that Reid called Obama "light skinned" and a candidate "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
I personally don't think these comments are racist, though they are certainly insensitive and crass. The thing that really upsets me about this is the shocking double standard. All the people who are usually up in arms about racial discrimination or insensitivity in this country are giving Reid a complete pass. The Congressional Black Caucus, which went ballistic over allegedly racist comments by Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott, issued a statement offering strong support for Reid. Even more shocking, Rev. Al Sharpton, who makes his living by stirring up racial controversy and is about as sensitive as they come to real or imagined prejudice, also made a statement brushing off Reid's comments and offering his unqualified support for Reid's continuance as Senate Majority Leader (since he apologized!). The NAADP (National Association for the Advancement of the Democratic Party) has also been pretty quiet. These people claim to speak for the black community, but it seems that in reality they only speak for the Democratic party agenda.
As I have said in a previous post, I personally think our culture is far too quick to brand people as "racist" with far too little evidence. This hyper-sensitivity makes it very difficult to discuss racial issues openly and honestly, and destroys the reputations of many good people who are unfairly branded as prejudiced. But worse than the hyper-sensitivity is the incredible double standard perpetrated by Democrats, leaders of the black community, and the media. Basically it comes down to this: the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Maxine Waters's, and Kweisi Mfumes of America wield racist grievances like a club to attack conservatives, while behaving with complete indifference to racial insensitivities perpetrated by liberals. The vast majority of liberals in the Democratic party and the media are just as guilty of this double standard, because they go along with it instead of exposing it. It's not just Harry Reid. The Vice-President of the U.S., Joe Biden, said during the 2008 campaign that Obama was “the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is a former Ku Klux Klan member who has a history of using racial slurs. Yet, Biden and Byrd continue to be well-respected leaders in the Democratic party. What Republican could get away with saying and doing these things and maintain a respected position in public life?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Liar
Obama is a liar. It's as simple as that. He promised eight times -- EIGHT times -- during and after his campaign that he would let C-Span cameras into the room to televise all health care negotiations. You can watch him lie through his teeth to the American people over and over again here. Now he and his left-wing cronies in Congress are going back on their word and refusing to allow C-Span or any other television networks in to televise the Democratic health care negotiations. Think they might have something to hide? So much for Nancy Pelosi's pledge to preside over the most "transparent" Congress in history.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Year in Review by Dave Barry
Check out this hilarious 2009 year in review article by Dave Barry. My wife and I laughed until we cried. A lot more could have been said about the health care debacle in Congress, but otherwise it hits the highlights of 2009 pretty well.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Lessons from The Blind Side
My wife and I watched the movie The Blind Side on Saturday night. The movie is funny, well-acted, and very emotionally moving. It is the true story of how a wealthy white family adopted a destitute black teenager from inner city Memphis. That destitute kid, Michael Oher, made the Dean's List at Ole Miss and is now an NFL star. Two things struck me as I watched the movie. First, the pain and tragedy of Michael's childhood. He never knew his father, and his mother was a crack addict who had a dozen children, apparently all with different fathers. He was essentially homeless at age 15 when the Tuohy family picked him up on the side of the road, wearing nothing but a t-shirt & shorts on a cold night. Watching the scenes in the movie where Mrs. Tuohy meets Michael's mom and where Michael tells Mrs. Tuohy he wants to stay with them will tug at your heart strings.
The other thing that struck me about the movie was the genuine Christian faith of the Tuohy family. To bring a virtually unknown 15-year-old kid to stay in your house from off the street takes both compassion and courage, and the Tuohys had plenty of both. The movie makes clear that this compassion and courage was a result of their evangelical Christianity, and it is surprising and refreshing to watch a Hollywood film that paints believers in a positive light rather than ridiculing them. Because of the Tuohys' intervention, Michael's life was transformed. Without them, he would likely have continued the rest of his life in poverty and hopelessness; thanks to their love and support, he was able to achieve greatness.
I don't think there's a government program on earth that could have transformed Michael's life in that way. One loving family did more for him than tens of thousands of welfare payments could ever do. That doesn't mean that I think we should eliminate welfare or other social programs for the poor. But those programs have not eliminated poverty, and they will never do so. And ironically, some of the cities that spend the most on social programs for the poor have some of the worst problems with homelessness and addiction (like San Francisco, which spends an average of $130,000 per homeless person without any appreciable reduction in homelessness levels). A well-designed government program to help the poor can provide needy people with their most basic needs while encouraging them to help themselves and take responsibility. But I think what truly destitute people need to enable them to get out of poverty is a personal connection -- individual people to demonstrate love, compassion, and help tailored to their specific situation. They don't need just money; they need a change in their thinking, habits, and lifestyle. Large government bureaucracies can't do that very well. That is why individuals and private non-profit charities are usually much more efficient and effective at helping the poor than the government is. Ask victims of Hurricane Katrina who helped them more: FEMA or church groups and other private volunteers!
I think this provides a challenge for us as individuals. What are we doing to help people around us in need? What are our churches doing to show compassion to those who need it the most? It also provides us with a needed caution. Let us not confuse real compassion with politicians spending other people's tax dollars on bloated bureaucracies that do more to encourage laziness and government dependence than to provide lasting help.
The other thing that struck me about the movie was the genuine Christian faith of the Tuohy family. To bring a virtually unknown 15-year-old kid to stay in your house from off the street takes both compassion and courage, and the Tuohys had plenty of both. The movie makes clear that this compassion and courage was a result of their evangelical Christianity, and it is surprising and refreshing to watch a Hollywood film that paints believers in a positive light rather than ridiculing them. Because of the Tuohys' intervention, Michael's life was transformed. Without them, he would likely have continued the rest of his life in poverty and hopelessness; thanks to their love and support, he was able to achieve greatness.
I don't think there's a government program on earth that could have transformed Michael's life in that way. One loving family did more for him than tens of thousands of welfare payments could ever do. That doesn't mean that I think we should eliminate welfare or other social programs for the poor. But those programs have not eliminated poverty, and they will never do so. And ironically, some of the cities that spend the most on social programs for the poor have some of the worst problems with homelessness and addiction (like San Francisco, which spends an average of $130,000 per homeless person without any appreciable reduction in homelessness levels). A well-designed government program to help the poor can provide needy people with their most basic needs while encouraging them to help themselves and take responsibility. But I think what truly destitute people need to enable them to get out of poverty is a personal connection -- individual people to demonstrate love, compassion, and help tailored to their specific situation. They don't need just money; they need a change in their thinking, habits, and lifestyle. Large government bureaucracies can't do that very well. That is why individuals and private non-profit charities are usually much more efficient and effective at helping the poor than the government is. Ask victims of Hurricane Katrina who helped them more: FEMA or church groups and other private volunteers!
I think this provides a challenge for us as individuals. What are we doing to help people around us in need? What are our churches doing to show compassion to those who need it the most? It also provides us with a needed caution. Let us not confuse real compassion with politicians spending other people's tax dollars on bloated bureaucracies that do more to encourage laziness and government dependence than to provide lasting help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)