Time to go Mr. Obama and take Hapless Harry Reid with you.....
Showing posts with label Elite idjits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elite idjits. Show all posts
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Hard to tell who is the bigger dummy
Obama and Reid are a pair of Dummies. If they think the American people believe anything they say, it proves they really are a pair of dummies - unethical and without honor.
Time to go Mr. Obama and take Hapless Harry Reid with you.....
Time to go Mr. Obama and take Hapless Harry Reid with you.....
Thursday, July 5, 2012
In our lifetime....
Place this along the lines of " The beatings will continue until morale improves..."
IF we could have a mature competent person in the White House, instead of the present occupant who acts like a petulant teenager who is partying on his parent's credit card, we might see improvement on the economy sooner.
The Campaigner-In-Chief is NOT the person we need running our country for the next 4 years. Time to go Obama, and take your Nanny-State Wife with you.....We have had enough of your brand of "do as I say, not as I do" crappola.....really.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
"Man of the People" Slick Mitt Romney to bulldoze $3.8 Million sea-side home to quadrupule it's size
Glad to see the economy isn't slowing Slick Mitt down.....Is this what we need, a guy who has no real idea what it's like for the average American Family ?? We already have a President like that now.....He's on Martha's Vineyard living it up while families are trying to figure out how to keep food on the plate....including the families of our Servicemen & Servicewomen, many who don't make enough to keep the cupboards full....
Let's find a better candidate than Slick Mitt as we already have one elite idiot foisted on us by the Dems, we don't need another from the GOP ! Especially one who made his millions by closing businesses where average American held good jobs so Slick Mitt & his pals could move those jobs overseas.....
Romney plans to quadruple size of Calif. home
By Philip Rucker | The Washington Post – Sun, Aug 21, 2011
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is planning to nearly quadruple the size of his $12 million California beachfront mansion.
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and the nominal front-runner for the GOP’s 2012 presidential nomination, is planning to bulldoze his 3,009-square-foot home facing the Pacific Ocean in La Jolla, Calif., and replace it with an 11,062-square-foot home, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The Union-Tribune reported late Saturday that Romney has filed an application with the city for a coastal development permit, but that no date has been set to consider the project.
A Romney campaign official confirmed the report, saying the Romneys want to “enlarge their two-bedroom home because with five married sons and 16 grandchildren it is inadequate for their needs. Construction will not begin until the permits have been obtained and the campaign is finished.”
In 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain was criticized and mocked when he said he was unsure how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, owned. The answer was eight.
Since then, perhaps sensing that the issue could be a liability for him, too, Romney began consolidating his real estate portfolio. Romney and his wife, Ann, sold for $3.5 million the 6,500-square-foot colonial home in Belmont, Mass., where they raised their sons. They also sold a 9,500-square-foot home at the Deer Valley ski resort near Park City, Utah, for close to its $5.25 million asking price, according to a 2010 Associated Press report.
The couple still maintain a vacation home along Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire, as well as a townhouse outside Boston that they consider their primary residence.
Romney, who made part of his fortune as co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and his wife have personal financial assets worth as much as $264 million, according to disclosure documents filed with the Federal Election Commission this month.
Romney’s campaign said “a more accurate range” of his estimated wealth is between $190 million and $250 million.
The Romneys have spent considerable time at their home in La Jolla, a wealthy beach enclave in San Diego. Two of their sons, Matt and Craig, as well as several grandchildren live in the area. And Ann Romney, who has multiple sclerosis, has access to horse-riding in California. She believes that riding and the warmer weather have a therapeutic effect.
The Romneys purchased the single-story residence at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac three years ago, according to the Union-Tribune. The Spanish-style home, facing a white sand beach, has three bedrooms and 41 / 2 bathrooms and was constructed in 1936. The newspaper reported that the home was once owned by former San Diego mayor Maureen O’Connor and her husband, Bob Peterson, founder of Jack in the Box, a fast-food chain.
At a book-signing in California last year, Romney told reporters that he bought the home because “I wanted to be where I could hear the waves. As a boy, we spent summers on Lake Huron and I could hear the crashing waves at night. It was one of my favorite things in the world. Being near the water and the waves was something I very badly wanted to experience again.”
Let's find a better candidate than Slick Mitt as we already have one elite idiot foisted on us by the Dems, we don't need another from the GOP ! Especially one who made his millions by closing businesses where average American held good jobs so Slick Mitt & his pals could move those jobs overseas.....
Romney plans to quadruple size of Calif. home
By Philip Rucker | The Washington Post – Sun, Aug 21, 2011
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is planning to nearly quadruple the size of his $12 million California beachfront mansion.
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and the nominal front-runner for the GOP’s 2012 presidential nomination, is planning to bulldoze his 3,009-square-foot home facing the Pacific Ocean in La Jolla, Calif., and replace it with an 11,062-square-foot home, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The Union-Tribune reported late Saturday that Romney has filed an application with the city for a coastal development permit, but that no date has been set to consider the project.
A Romney campaign official confirmed the report, saying the Romneys want to “enlarge their two-bedroom home because with five married sons and 16 grandchildren it is inadequate for their needs. Construction will not begin until the permits have been obtained and the campaign is finished.”
In 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain was criticized and mocked when he said he was unsure how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, owned. The answer was eight.
Since then, perhaps sensing that the issue could be a liability for him, too, Romney began consolidating his real estate portfolio. Romney and his wife, Ann, sold for $3.5 million the 6,500-square-foot colonial home in Belmont, Mass., where they raised their sons. They also sold a 9,500-square-foot home at the Deer Valley ski resort near Park City, Utah, for close to its $5.25 million asking price, according to a 2010 Associated Press report.
The couple still maintain a vacation home along Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire, as well as a townhouse outside Boston that they consider their primary residence.
Romney, who made part of his fortune as co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and his wife have personal financial assets worth as much as $264 million, according to disclosure documents filed with the Federal Election Commission this month.
Romney’s campaign said “a more accurate range” of his estimated wealth is between $190 million and $250 million.
The Romneys have spent considerable time at their home in La Jolla, a wealthy beach enclave in San Diego. Two of their sons, Matt and Craig, as well as several grandchildren live in the area. And Ann Romney, who has multiple sclerosis, has access to horse-riding in California. She believes that riding and the warmer weather have a therapeutic effect.
The Romneys purchased the single-story residence at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac three years ago, according to the Union-Tribune. The Spanish-style home, facing a white sand beach, has three bedrooms and 41 / 2 bathrooms and was constructed in 1936. The newspaper reported that the home was once owned by former San Diego mayor Maureen O’Connor and her husband, Bob Peterson, founder of Jack in the Box, a fast-food chain.
At a book-signing in California last year, Romney told reporters that he bought the home because “I wanted to be where I could hear the waves. As a boy, we spent summers on Lake Huron and I could hear the crashing waves at night. It was one of my favorite things in the world. Being near the water and the waves was something I very badly wanted to experience again.”
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Government-by-press-release...POTUS reverts to form
One of the key skills any good Leader needs is to LISTEN to others.....any empty headed idjit can stand at a podium and blather on about what they think, the true sign of Leadership is accepting input from others.....especially those who are your "customers "Well, it should come to no one's surpirse that our present White House doesn't understand this basic principle....They are stone-deaf to anyone else's input as they are the alledged " smartest people " and know better than the rest of us......
The Fool-In-Charge thinks because America's best, the US Navy Seals, offed OBL, he has a free pass to do whatever he wants and America will faun all over him....WRONG.
The economy is still mortibund, good paying jobs with benefits are not being offered (although McDonalds in hiring !!) and the cost of everything is going through the roof... people are getting squeezed like never before even though when GW was President, the DEMS decried the cost of living under Bush but you hear nothing out of the DEMS about the cost of living now that they have control of the White House.
It seems like right now, the Former Senator from Illinois who voted " PRESENT " on most everything should realize that being "Tone Deaf" to the American people is NOT the mark of a Leader...just a Fool who is in love with his own PR.
Obama's one-way conversation
By JULIE MASON 05/17/11 Politico.com
President Obama today met King Abdullah of Jordan in the Oval Office -- statements, no questions. Still, it was better than last week's meeting with the NATO leader: No pool, no statements, no questions, no photos.
Yesterday, Obama met with flood victims and first responders in Memphis. That was a total lockout and the White House took up pool reporting duties, distributing details of the president's closed-door meetings that reporters had to take on faith, or not at all.
The president hasn't taken questions from the press since April 5, and then he only called on four reporters.
That was during the budget impasse, and since then we've seen the birth certificate, the end of Osama bin Laden, a deficit crisis looming, a big immigration reform push, the resignation of his Mideast peace envoy and more -- all without questions, all government-by-press-release.
It's a good way for the White House to control the message, something they are trying to do more as the campaign rumbles to life. But does it meet the standard for transparency and accountability? White House press secretary Jay Carney got a question about it today.
"I'm sure you'll have opportunities," Carney said, adding that Obama would be taking questions on next week's foreign trip.
"As you know, he has given some interviews in that time, two journalists who have asked him questions about all of the pressing issues of the day, and he'll continue to do that," Carney said. "You know, I think his track record of taking questions and giving interviews is very strong and will continue to be strong going forward."
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Birds of a feather....
You are judged by the company you keep.....Obama wants to hang with Al Sharpton.....
Need I say more ??? If you don't get a *cringe* moment when you think about a President of the United States aligning himself with a gutless, unethical idjit like Al Sharpton, I would worry about your moral compass.
The President has shown his true colors and how low into the gutter he is willing to go just to get votes......This shows that Obama has no care about what's right or wrong as no public figure worth anything would want to be seen with a fool like Sharpton.
The United States needs a President that will show true leadership and ethical conduct......Obama has epicly failed.
OBAMA TO APPEAR WITH AL SHARPTON
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL - Wall Street Journal
Two days after officially launching his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama plans to travel to New York City Wednesday to deliver remarks at the 20th anniversary of the Rev. Al Sharpton's organization.
While the White House said there is no connection between Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign and his decision to attend the National Action Network's annual convention, some of the president's supporters and political observers said the visit marks the beginning of a series of events designed to shore up support among Mr. Obama's base, specifically African-Americans.
"Anytime you run for re-election, the first places you go are your base and your foundation of support—you try to make sure that's tight," said Assemblyman Keith Wright, chairman of the Manhattan Democratic Committee. "If your base and foundation are not solid, there's a chance there could be some chinks in the armor."
The visit also comes amid a bruising Capitol Hill budget battle with Republicans.
By sharing the stage with Mr. Sharpton at the outset of his reelection campaign, the president is sending a signal that the reverend has become a key ally, both in terms of policy and politics, observers say. That marks a stark contrast from the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama's aides initially viewed any partnership with Mr. Sharpton, who has been accused of inflaming racial tensions, as potentially damaging.
In an interview, Mr. Sharpton said the president's appearance for his organization's anniversary is a "good thing for us."
Mr. Sharpton said Mr. Obama shouldn't take the black community "for granted" in his re-election bid, but added that he doesn't believe the president faces any significant weakening of support among African-Americans.
"Are there people that are concerned and want to see more? Yes," Mr. Sharpton said. "But there always are."
The reverend said the event with the president will focus on policy, specifically education. "It's not about politics," he said. "You know how nonpolitical I am," he joked.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, voters nationwide disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing by a 48% to 42% margin, and by 54% to 41% say he does not deserve to be re-elected next year. Both are all-time lows for the president.
Among black voters, 89% approve of his job performance, the poll showed.
In New York City, the president's support is robust. City voters by 70% to 26% approve of the president's performance, and among black voters his job approval is 91%, a Quinnipiac survey from last month showed.
Still, there are some signs that members of the African-American community are unhappy. A headline about the president's New York fund-raising trip last week in the Amsterdam News, a Harlem newspaper, read: "Obama returns: Harlem gives president mixed reception."
Nellie Bailey, a 65-year-old Harlem activist, said she believes many disenchanted African-Americans will stay home on Election Day.
"The blinders are off," said Ms. Bailey, who doesn't plan to vote for Mr. Obama. "Black America is no longer willing to accept the president symbolically without any substantial platform and programs to address the crisis of rising homelessness and joblessness."
Costas Panagopoulos, assistant professor of political science at Fordham University, said the economic meltdown has had a "disproportionate effect" on African-Americans. "The president has not lost sight of that, and he's kicking things off by reaching out to that core constituency," he said.
The president's administration will be well represented at Mr. Sharpton's convention.
In addition to Mr. Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan are slated to attend. Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the president, and David Axelrod, who recently left the White House, are also on the schedule.
Kevin Lewis, a White House spokesman, said the president agreed to attend Mr.. Sharpton's convention prior to deciding to launch his re-election campaign this week. Mr. Lewis said "there's no connection" between his re-election effort and his attendance.
"The president has a positive relationship with Rev. Sharpton," said Mr. Lewis. "The president seeks guidance from various places, but he values the guidance that he gets from Rev. Sharpton."
State Sen. Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat and one of the president's earliest New York supporters in 2008, praised the president for returning to New York. "He's going back to the base, to mobilize the base, to excite the base, to be accountable to that base," he said. "It's very smart."
Write to Michael Howard Saul at michael.saul@wsj.com
Need I say more ??? If you don't get a *cringe* moment when you think about a President of the United States aligning himself with a gutless, unethical idjit like Al Sharpton, I would worry about your moral compass.
The President has shown his true colors and how low into the gutter he is willing to go just to get votes......This shows that Obama has no care about what's right or wrong as no public figure worth anything would want to be seen with a fool like Sharpton.
The United States needs a President that will show true leadership and ethical conduct......Obama has epicly failed.
OBAMA TO APPEAR WITH AL SHARPTON
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL - Wall Street Journal
Two days after officially launching his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama plans to travel to New York City Wednesday to deliver remarks at the 20th anniversary of the Rev. Al Sharpton's organization.
While the White House said there is no connection between Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign and his decision to attend the National Action Network's annual convention, some of the president's supporters and political observers said the visit marks the beginning of a series of events designed to shore up support among Mr. Obama's base, specifically African-Americans.
"Anytime you run for re-election, the first places you go are your base and your foundation of support—you try to make sure that's tight," said Assemblyman Keith Wright, chairman of the Manhattan Democratic Committee. "If your base and foundation are not solid, there's a chance there could be some chinks in the armor."
The visit also comes amid a bruising Capitol Hill budget battle with Republicans.
By sharing the stage with Mr. Sharpton at the outset of his reelection campaign, the president is sending a signal that the reverend has become a key ally, both in terms of policy and politics, observers say. That marks a stark contrast from the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama's aides initially viewed any partnership with Mr. Sharpton, who has been accused of inflaming racial tensions, as potentially damaging.
In an interview, Mr. Sharpton said the president's appearance for his organization's anniversary is a "good thing for us."
Mr. Sharpton said Mr. Obama shouldn't take the black community "for granted" in his re-election bid, but added that he doesn't believe the president faces any significant weakening of support among African-Americans.
"Are there people that are concerned and want to see more? Yes," Mr. Sharpton said. "But there always are."
The reverend said the event with the president will focus on policy, specifically education. "It's not about politics," he said. "You know how nonpolitical I am," he joked.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, voters nationwide disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing by a 48% to 42% margin, and by 54% to 41% say he does not deserve to be re-elected next year. Both are all-time lows for the president.
Among black voters, 89% approve of his job performance, the poll showed.
In New York City, the president's support is robust. City voters by 70% to 26% approve of the president's performance, and among black voters his job approval is 91%, a Quinnipiac survey from last month showed.
Still, there are some signs that members of the African-American community are unhappy. A headline about the president's New York fund-raising trip last week in the Amsterdam News, a Harlem newspaper, read: "Obama returns: Harlem gives president mixed reception."
Nellie Bailey, a 65-year-old Harlem activist, said she believes many disenchanted African-Americans will stay home on Election Day.
"The blinders are off," said Ms. Bailey, who doesn't plan to vote for Mr. Obama. "Black America is no longer willing to accept the president symbolically without any substantial platform and programs to address the crisis of rising homelessness and joblessness."
Costas Panagopoulos, assistant professor of political science at Fordham University, said the economic meltdown has had a "disproportionate effect" on African-Americans. "The president has not lost sight of that, and he's kicking things off by reaching out to that core constituency," he said.
The president's administration will be well represented at Mr. Sharpton's convention.
In addition to Mr. Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan are slated to attend. Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the president, and David Axelrod, who recently left the White House, are also on the schedule.
Kevin Lewis, a White House spokesman, said the president agreed to attend Mr.. Sharpton's convention prior to deciding to launch his re-election campaign this week. Mr. Lewis said "there's no connection" between his re-election effort and his attendance.
"The president has a positive relationship with Rev. Sharpton," said Mr. Lewis. "The president seeks guidance from various places, but he values the guidance that he gets from Rev. Sharpton."
State Sen. Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat and one of the president's earliest New York supporters in 2008, praised the president for returning to New York. "He's going back to the base, to mobilize the base, to excite the base, to be accountable to that base," he said. "It's very smart."
Write to Michael Howard Saul at michael.saul@wsj.com
Monday, February 21, 2011
The NY Times declares "Blogging is Dead"....Really ? I have two words for the NY Times, and they ain't "Happy Birthday"
The vaunted NY Times has an article today titled " Death of Blogs " which basically states that Blogging is passe and the youngsters are more influenced by Facebook and Twitter. Like I care about Facebook ( I don't) and/or Twitter (tweet away, not something I care about either)I have a message for the NY Times, it is two words long and it ain't " Happy Birthday ".
To the Editors of the NY Times, I can only quote Col. Nathan Jessup (from A Few Good Men) about what I expect from them and the rest of the establishment media:
" I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there....and with your Harvard mouth extend me some ....courtesy."
I was going to write a long elegant piece here about how they can all take a flying leap but one of my fellow Bloggers did a much better job and saved me the time.
To the editors of the NY Times, I say YOU are the ones who don't matter anymore. That is why your newspaper is going down the tubes. I like reading the daily paper but the Internet relegated the newspapers to the dustbin 10 years ago....
So read on my Blog Fans.....I enjoy writing my daily thoughts and highlighting ideas/concepts/thoughts that I feel are worth sharing, and based on the number of people who read this milblog (10-12K per month), you do also. I write this for my own personal satisfaction and don't care if the youth demographic doesn't get it....I'm not writing for them.
I am glad to have you along and once more to the NY Times......Retire...and get out of the way.
The New York Times declares blogs are dead
From JrDeputyAccountant.com
I'm not surprised the NYT would go out on a limb and let out a premature death call on the blogosphere's heartbeat, attempting to reign in those unruly readers who have defected to bask in the wild wonderland that is blogging. Really?
Blogs were once the outlet of choice for people who wanted to express themselves online. But with the rise of sites like Facebook and Twitter, they are losing their allure for many people — particularly the younger generation.
The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs. Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier.
Former bloggers said they were too busy to write lengthy posts and were uninspired by a lack of readers. Others said they had no interest in creating a blog because social networking did a good enough job keeping them in touch with friends and family.
Really?
As one such dinosaur who still blogs, I don't even know where to begin with this NYT piece. Maybe I'm too busy to write a lengthy criticism of everything wrong about this article or just another lazy blogger who can't bring myself to do any research or make any valid points outside of my own opinion. Maybe the bile is rising in my throat so quickly that I can't sit by my laptop long enough to pound it out. Hopefully the future gets here soon so I can get that WiFi-enabled toilet bowl I've always wanted.
Since when do 12-year-olds define an entire ecosystem? My bread and butter as a blogger comes from advertising revenue, including my gig at Going Concern (which consists of advertising I, thankfully, do not have to get my hands dirty with), and last I checked, I wasn't writing for 12-year-olds. In fact, if any 12-year-olds are reading this I respectfully request that you ......go over to Club Penguin or Justin Bieber's myspace page so the grown ups can talk amongst ourselves. Does the NYT write for 12-year-olds?
Don't answer that.
NYT continues:
Defining a blog is difficult, but most people think it is a Web site on which people publish periodic entries in reverse chronological order and allow readers to leave comments.
Yet for many Internet users, blogging is defined more by a personal and opinionated writing style. A number of news and commentary sites started as blogs before growing into mini-media empires, like The Huffington Post or Silicon Alley Insider, that are virtually indistinguishable from more traditional news sources.
Blogs went largely unchallenged until Facebook reshaped consumer behavior with its all-purpose hub for posting everything social. Twitter, which allows messages of no longer than 140 characters, also contributed to the upheaval.
No longer did Internet users need a blog to connect with the world. They could instead post quick updates to complain about the weather, link to articles that infuriated them, comment on news events, share photos or promote some cause — all the things a blog was intended to do.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to put my Internet eggs in Facebook's diabolical basket, regardless of what the social mediatards say. Facebook, in this blogger's humble opinion, is for connecting with people I actually know, most of whom don't care about economics or my opinion thereof. Twitter, on the other hand, is a medium of communication to advance my blogging goals, not the be all end all of the conversation. As NYT obviously figured out, there is a limitation on Twitter that doesn't apply to the blogosphere.
I refuse to believe that NYT actually believes blogs are dead and am a tad disappointed that they didn't try harder to sway public opinion if the goal is to get their former readers back to NYT and away from those dirty, nasty blogs.
Maybe the oversharing livejournal blog is dead and if that's the case, we're just as thrilled as the NYT but let's be sure we differentiate the livejournal blog from the independent writer who uses opinion to reflect on news that matters to said independent writer. Too bad hackery is alive and well, NYT. The attempt to demonize the competition is so obvious it's sad. I, for one, am not at all deterred by the New York Times pointing its shotgun at me telling me to get off the porch. It's a big porch and we all own it....
ROGER THAT.
Monday, January 31, 2011
FED JUDGE - "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void"
AWWWW - The White House gets another message from the Judiciary that YOU CANNOT compel people to purchase a commercial product they don't want to buy....Basically, OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL......Game Over OBOTS.....
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
You were stupid to force this stuff on the American public with PELOSI saying things like " We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.." ARE YOU F^&king kidding me???? What rational person could support any law that the lawmakers have not reviewed the law before it is passed????
I am glad that the "checks & balances" worked......awesome news.
Now, how long before this rulling is carried over to the State of Massachusetts and the State Law gets over turned also.......How's that " Hope & Changey thing" working for you now ????
US judge deals new blow to Obama health reform
By Lucile Malandain (AFP) 01/31/11
WASHINGTON — A second US federal judge Monday declared President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional, sparking a fierce new showdown with Republicans who vow to repeal the historic reform act.
The Obama administration immediately pledged to appeal and branded the ruling by a Florida judge as an "outlier" from the judicial mainstream, warning that health care costs would soar if it was allowed to stand.
But Republicans crowed that the ruling was one step closer to the outright repeal of a law that has been a Democratic dream for decades but that conservatives say will explode the deficit and kill jobs.
US District Judge Roger Vinson said a key provision of the law known as the "individual mandate" exceeds Congress's regulatory powers by requiring Americans to either purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," Vinson said in his ruling, the latest step of a twisting legal battle likely to end up in the US Supreme Court.
"This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."
Vinson agreed with governors and attorneys general from 26 US states that consider the provision unconstitutional.
But the Justice Department quickly said it would appeal Vinson's ruling, and consider all options -- including a stay of the verdict pending appeal -- to ensure the health care law can go into force.
The health care law, which passed last year, is the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the 1960s, reins in insurance company abuses and brings America as close as it has ever been to universal coverage.
"Today's ruling... is a plain case of judicial overreaching," Stephanie Cutter, a senior political assistant to Obama, said in a White House blog post.
"The judge's decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk."
In December, Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District Court in Richmond, Virginia, found that the mandate usurps federal authority and violates the Commerce Clause, a key component of the US Constitution.
Some 12 federal judges have already struck down challenges to the law, and two have upheld the legislation.
Republicans pounced on the latest ruling, seeking fuel for their campaign to overturn the reform -- a vain hope for now, as Obama could wield a presidential veto in the unlikely event a repeal law cleared Congress.
Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the court's decision proved the health care law was a "massive overreach" and exceeded congressional authority.
"We should repeal this health spending bill and replace it with commonsense reforms that will actually lower costs, prevent unsustainable entitlement promises and make it easier for employers to start hiring again," he added.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the ruling a "major victory for the American people and job-creators all across the country."
Obama's Republican foes have claimed the health care law includes rationing for end of life care, would add to the massive deficit and will kill jobs as employers struggle to pay for what they say will be rising premiums.
The new Republican-led House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the health reform law, which reins in insurance firms and seeks to offer near-universal care to Americans for the first time.
Opinion polls have found the US public deeply divided over the health law, with roughly one in five in favor of outright repeal and the rest divided between strengthening the law and rolling back parts of it.
Copyright © 2011 AFP.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Recalculating....
I like the new commercial where the guy who plays "mayhem" pretends to be the guy's GPS and sends him the wrong way.....The guy yells out " recalculating..." right before he sends the guy off in the wrong direction......
I think the MEDIA needs to stop doing the same thing....
I think the MEDIA needs to stop doing the same thing....
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Politics as usual in Massachusetts - Governor "Spend-it-all Deval" Patrick is packing his bags...for out of state travel....right after re-election
Massachusetts is home to POTUS' best buddy, Gov. Deval " Spend-it-all" Patrick (Governor bought himself a new Cadillac upon getting elected with TAXPAYERS funds, earning himself the nickname of "Cadillac Deval" ).....These old buddies who have very similar out look on things....They both pander to the Unions, both use issues of race when it suits them politically, feel that your tax money is theirs to squander on their political hack buddies and (wait for it...) like to write books about their favorite subject - THEMSELVES.
POTUS has TWO autobiographies.....Governor Doofus had to write one as he likely felt that he had to try to keep up....So what would a newly re-elected Governor do?? Work on education reform, pension reform? Making state government more responsive to the citizens?? Eliminate wasteful spending??? Noooooooo....he is planning on Globetrotting, pimping his book and doing anything BUT being the Governor that is needed for the state of Massachusetts......pissa.
Well I am NOT surprised as Political Birds-of-a-Feather flock together....and these two idjits are a pair of real Dodo Birds.....Hopefully to soon be politically extinct. Potus first in 2012 and Gov. Doofus in 2014.....
This must be for Deval's version of the " World Apology Tour" just like his buddy the President.
Heaven help us....please.
The taxi’s waitin’
By Brian McGrory
Globe Columnist / January 5, 2011
The taxi’s waitin’
By Brian McGrory
Globe Columnist / January 5, 2011
It was with great relief that I saw the headline on Boston.com yesterday that our excellent governor, Deval Patrick, said he would be getting out of the State House and traveling more in his second term.
Lawrence continues to teeter on the edge. New Bedford, Fall River, and Springfield have unemployment rates of 13 percent or higher. People from Pittsfield to Provincetown are fearful of rising taxes and jettisoned government services. And seeing the governor constantly in their communities, especially this soothing and thoughtful governor, will go a long way toward rallying the citizenry toward better things.
And then — gulp — I kept reading. Ends up, he’s not talking about traveling around the state. He’s talking about traveling out of state, even out of the country, on economic trade missions, presidential campaign trips, and to promote his upcoming book.
In retrospect — and with a nod to Peter, Paul and Mary — maybe Patrick should have made his campaign slogan: “All my bags are packed, I’m ready to go.’’
Even better, picture a rally with the state parole board singing, “There’s so many times I’ve let you down.’’ Then Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray offers: “Hold me like you’ll never let me go.’’
All together now: “I’m a leavin’ on a jet plane. Don’t know when I’ll be back again. Oh babe, I hate to go.’’
This is degenerating into something far less than we hoped, this reelection, a slippage not born of the inexperience that Patrick had four years ago, but of a seeming arrogance that is profoundly misplaced. Some trusted adviser should call Patrick every morning with a reminder that more than half the electorate voted against him on Election Day.
Already, the governor has spent the bulk of November either on understandable vacations or holiday trips. Before and after, though, his public schedule has been noticeably absent of the kinds of public events that were a staple during his yearlong campaign.
And now, to casually say that you’re going to take to the skies — presumably at the expense of the streets — to help your state, something has gone wrong. Couple this with his refusal to release the names of the people and entities that are funding Thursday’s inaugural celebrations until after it’s over, and those sounds you’re hearing are alarms.
Patrick’s book, “A Reason to Believe: Lessons from an Improbable Life,’’ is going to be no small source of friction (I said friction, not fiction) when it’s published in April. Broadway Books doesn’t pay $1.35 million for a memoir and not expect the author to do a full-out tour and media campaign.
You can already see it, the jobless rates still hovering in the 12 to 13 percent range in the industrial cities, the murder tally in Boston heading for another year over 70, and our governor live from New York with Meredith Vieira on the Today show or signing at a Barnes & Noble in Chicago. Remember us, the voters?
The governor’s advisers do what they often do when anyone dares question him. They act shocked that we can’t understand the critical work he performs by recruiting businesses that will save the Massachusetts economy.
The big problem is, we’ve never needed Patrick more at home. Beacon Hill is an unholy mess. The state budget is facing major shortfalls. Services that have already been slashed will be cut yet again.
Patrick should be wrangling more from public employee unions. He should be reforming the unwieldy human service agencies. He should be further streamlining business regulations. And he should be constantly checking in with the businesses we already have, seeing what it is that they need to prosper and grow.
He wants to take the occasional trip to China or Brazil or a Vegas trade show — sure. But please, governor, not an endless itinerary of book promotions, presidential campaign stops, and trade missions.
The rest of us will be singing, “Already I’m so lonesome I could die.’’
Brian McGrory is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at mcgrory@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company
And then — gulp — I kept reading. Ends up, he’s not talking about traveling around the state. He’s talking about traveling out of state, even out of the country, on economic trade missions, presidential campaign trips, and to promote his upcoming book.
In retrospect — and with a nod to Peter, Paul and Mary — maybe Patrick should have made his campaign slogan: “All my bags are packed, I’m ready to go.’’
Even better, picture a rally with the state parole board singing, “There’s so many times I’ve let you down.’’ Then Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray offers: “Hold me like you’ll never let me go.’’
All together now: “I’m a leavin’ on a jet plane. Don’t know when I’ll be back again. Oh babe, I hate to go.’’
This is degenerating into something far less than we hoped, this reelection, a slippage not born of the inexperience that Patrick had four years ago, but of a seeming arrogance that is profoundly misplaced. Some trusted adviser should call Patrick every morning with a reminder that more than half the electorate voted against him on Election Day.
Already, the governor has spent the bulk of November either on understandable vacations or holiday trips. Before and after, though, his public schedule has been noticeably absent of the kinds of public events that were a staple during his yearlong campaign.
And now, to casually say that you’re going to take to the skies — presumably at the expense of the streets — to help your state, something has gone wrong. Couple this with his refusal to release the names of the people and entities that are funding Thursday’s inaugural celebrations until after it’s over, and those sounds you’re hearing are alarms.
Patrick’s book, “A Reason to Believe: Lessons from an Improbable Life,’’ is going to be no small source of friction (I said friction, not fiction) when it’s published in April. Broadway Books doesn’t pay $1.35 million for a memoir and not expect the author to do a full-out tour and media campaign.
You can already see it, the jobless rates still hovering in the 12 to 13 percent range in the industrial cities, the murder tally in Boston heading for another year over 70, and our governor live from New York with Meredith Vieira on the Today show or signing at a Barnes & Noble in Chicago. Remember us, the voters?
The governor’s advisers do what they often do when anyone dares question him. They act shocked that we can’t understand the critical work he performs by recruiting businesses that will save the Massachusetts economy.
The big problem is, we’ve never needed Patrick more at home. Beacon Hill is an unholy mess. The state budget is facing major shortfalls. Services that have already been slashed will be cut yet again.
Patrick should be wrangling more from public employee unions. He should be reforming the unwieldy human service agencies. He should be further streamlining business regulations. And he should be constantly checking in with the businesses we already have, seeing what it is that they need to prosper and grow.
He wants to take the occasional trip to China or Brazil or a Vegas trade show — sure. But please, governor, not an endless itinerary of book promotions, presidential campaign stops, and trade missions.
The rest of us will be singing, “Already I’m so lonesome I could die.’’
Brian McGrory is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at mcgrory@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company
Friday, December 31, 2010
EZRA KLEIN...Domestic enemy of the US Constitution and Fool
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post went on MSNBC and showed us his true colors. In the military, we have a term for this kind of action - " self identification"
Identification is defined as " the act of claiming an identity, where an identity is a set of one or more signs signifying a distinct entity. "
Now we have a case of what I call, "self identification", defined as "when someone (a friend, a colleague or a combatant on the battlefield) performs an action, either verbally or otherwise that shows their "true self ". "
Identification is defined as " the act of claiming an identity, where an identity is a set of one or more signs signifying a distinct entity. "
Now we have a case of what I call, "self identification", defined as "when someone (a friend, a colleague or a combatant on the battlefield) performs an action, either verbally or otherwise that shows their "true self ". "
This is never more important than when you have a person who portrays themselves as one thing and then by opening their mouth or doing something else, reveals to you who they REALLY are and what kind of person they TRULY are.....
So back to Mr. Ezra Kelin, self described wonk, Washington Post staffer and member of the Looney Liberal Left who goes on MSNBC to discuss the occasion of the new House of Representatives beginning their term by taking the action of reading the US Constitution into the record at the start of their first session in the next few days. I feel it is best to let him make the statement as he did live on MSNBC and then afterwards, I will make comment on it. Watch the video, it is about 1 1/2 minutes long....
So back to Mr. Ezra Kelin, self described wonk, Washington Post staffer and member of the Looney Liberal Left who goes on MSNBC to discuss the occasion of the new House of Representatives beginning their term by taking the action of reading the US Constitution into the record at the start of their first session in the next few days. I feel it is best to let him make the statement as he did live on MSNBC and then afterwards, I will make comment on it. Watch the video, it is about 1 1/2 minutes long....
Hold on - Whiskey-Tango-FOXTROT?? What was that he said??
“.... I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”
Are you kidding me - This is " the Mother of All Self-Identifiers". Ezra not only told us that he has no flippin' clue as to what the US Constitution means, he just walked all over it and wiped his feet on it !
WHAT A HORSE'S ARSE !
He has done us a favor in reality, (like most "self identifiers"), as he has shown us all his true colors....He is what we in the military would call a "domestic enemy" of the US Constitution as he says " that it has no binding power on anything.."
Oh yes it does, you twit. It means the difference between what the USA stands for along with all that millions of Veterans gave their lives to defend.
What an empty headed dilettante....what a self absorbed idijit....
He has told us EXACTLY what he thinks by telling us what he thinks with all but a sneer....
Well, I am glad for one, to highlight him for the idiot he is and make sure that many others know that this is what we are fighting when true Patriots rail against the Lefty Looney Liberals who hate the US Constitution and all that it stands for....Freedom and all that has made us a beacon of Liberty since the US Constitution was ratified.
The Constitution is a well-crafted document meriting a particular interpretive approach: “where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is demonstrable consensus among the Founders and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied in the Constitution, it should be followed. Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself.” The most interesting debates then, focus on the application of constitutional principles-not on whether these principles exist. This approach does not “remove controversy, or disagreement, but it does cabin it within a principled constitutional tradition that makes real the Rule of Law.”
Take that Ezra Klein...you have shown us your true colors and that you are a loser....and one who should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where we have deposited all others who have tried to take the US Constitution from the people.
" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " - US Constitution Preamble
And just in case a few of you are feeling I have been a little harsh with Mr. Klein, let's read a posting he made on his own blog....again, I feel you will be able to draw your own conclusion.
Nazi Ideas by Ezra Klein
" I'm with Jane Galt on this one: Not everything the Nazis touched was bad. Hitler was a vegetarian. Volkswagen is a perfectly good car company. Universal health care is a perfectly good idea. Indeed, the Nazis actually did a pretty good job increasing economic growth and improving standards of living (they were, many think, the first Keynesians, adopting the strategy even before Keynes had come up with it), pushing Germany out of a depression and back into expansion. Unfortunately, they also set out to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. People shouldn't do that. "
Posted by Ezra Klein on September 11, 2006 3:21 PM
Again, all is have to say is " Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot???"
Again, all is have to say is " Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot???"
Sunday, November 14, 2010
ON TARGET...one could only hope
Like the firearms instructors use to tell us, " Go for Center Mass " - too funny
The Tyranny of the Minority - ENOUGH is ENOUGH
The TYRANNY of the MINORITY has been a subject that has not been brought to the attention of the general public enough. Part of that is that is runs counter to the "Diversity First" crowd who are the prime extollers of the POLITICALLY CONNECTEDNESS that is the off shoot of the left-over hippie view point that "everybody wins, we don't want to keep score, all are special, blah, blah blah". This is the opposite of what makes America great. The idea that competitiveness is good and we reward excellence is how it should be, not the Politically Connectedness of these idiots -
They want to "dumb down" the world so that all are the same when obviously, all are NOT the same and we should reward the best. The Olympics is a great example as the competitors come from around the world, strive to be the best and no one gives points for being PC. They reward the best and 2nd place can be a matter of hundredths of a second but still, there is the GOLD Medal for the BEST, and silver & bronze for those who come in 2nd & third.
Basically, the ideas/concepts/point-of-view these feckless idiots constantly spout via the media is grossly out of touch with what the MAJORITY of our citizenry see as right/just/proper, etc. Unfortunately, they have the media as their cheerleaders - Just like POTUS did in 2008....that gives them a powerful platform to grind out their tripe each & every day....UGH!!
The news story that a California boy was made to take an American Flag off his bicycle after two months of riding to school that way was due to a local school administrator inflicting her PC view that the FLAG (OUR FLAG) was a symbol that could anger local Hispanics to violence. That is was insensitive to others to display the US Flag.....WTF?? Are you freakin' kidding me ???
How out of whack do things have to get before we finally say enough is enough?
The majority are losing freedom after freedom and tradition after tradition to a wimpy, nameless, minority that hides behind groups like the ACLU and dumps shame on its opposition through words like ‘diversity’ and ‘fairness.’ But there is nothing diverse about a politically correct landscape, and the methods used to try to create one are clearly anything but fair.
Basically, the ideas/concepts/point-of-view these feckless idiots constantly spout via the media is grossly out of touch with what the MAJORITY of our citizenry see as right/just/proper, etc. Unfortunately, they have the media as their cheerleaders - Just like POTUS did in 2008....that gives them a powerful platform to grind out their tripe each & every day....UGH!!
The news story that a California boy was made to take an American Flag off his bicycle after two months of riding to school that way was due to a local school administrator inflicting her PC view that the FLAG (OUR FLAG) was a symbol that could anger local Hispanics to violence. That is was insensitive to others to display the US Flag.....WTF?? Are you freakin' kidding me ???
How out of whack do things have to get before we finally say enough is enough?
The majority are losing freedom after freedom and tradition after tradition to a wimpy, nameless, minority that hides behind groups like the ACLU and dumps shame on its opposition through words like ‘diversity’ and ‘fairness.’ But there is nothing diverse about a politically correct landscape, and the methods used to try to create one are clearly anything but fair.
I was born as a 2nd generation Irish American Male...My grandparents came to America from the Old Sod and did not demand "equality" as they knew that to become AMERICAN was to adapt themselves to AMERICA not visa-versa...These fools who spout this stupidity think that AMERICA must adapt to THEM....Take a look at FRANCE and other countries in Europe - see how well that is working out for them....RIOTS driven by an emboldened group of immigrants and others in France shut down their country for a few weeks....British Troops endured protests by a MUSLIM minority upon returning home to parade....Are you REALLY interested in seeing this kind of CRAP here at home???
Enclosed is an article by A.W.R Hawkins, a guy who puts the debate into proper perspective. I was born as a White Male and I should not suffer from the Tyranny of the Minority just because others were not. Our Country has many people, and we are diverse BUT the minority have no superior standing on anything regardless of any issues that occurred in our past. You cannot correct a wrong with another wrongs as all learned, " Two wrongs don't make a right". Too bad the PC Crowd and their cheerleaders in the media missed that fundamental lesson.
Enclosed is an article by A.W.R Hawkins, a guy who puts the debate into proper perspective. I was born as a White Male and I should not suffer from the Tyranny of the Minority just because others were not. Our Country has many people, and we are diverse BUT the minority have no superior standing on anything regardless of any issues that occurred in our past. You cannot correct a wrong with another wrongs as all learned, " Two wrongs don't make a right". Too bad the PC Crowd and their cheerleaders in the media missed that fundamental lesson.
The Tyranny of the Minority
by A.W.R. Hawkins - Humanevents.com
Posted 11/02/2010 ET
When the Founding Fathers created this nation, they designated it a republic rather than a democracy. They did so because a republic is fixed and tends toward stability over time, whereas a democracy, which is always in flux, is prone to violent dissolution at any moment. In fact, many of them referred to democracy as “mob rule,” and wanted to avoid it like the plague for fear that it could provide a faction the opportunity to access to the levers of political power and change the course of the nation for the worse in a relatively short period of time.
Although we have all but abolished the Constitution the Founders left us and moved closer to a democracy with each passing generation, we have still managed to remain a republic foundationally. Yet somewhere along the way, between 1776 and now, we opened the door to a rabid political correctness that has actually nurtured the very faction-like atmosphere which tends to undo a republic.
But it’s not the kind of faction our Founders feared: not one where a majority of voters unite for a cause and force their will upon the citizenry as a whole. Instead, it’s a perverted use of the court system and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that allow a person to claim that he’s been offended and then to levy the charge against those who gave offense in order to control their actions.
In other words, we’re not dealing with the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of the minority.
We have lost nativity scenes in cities across America because one citizen of one city doesn’t like Christmas. We have lost freedom of religious expression in our public school system because a student here or there is bothered when people pray. We have lost crosses on many of our war memorials because atheists want to shield their children from religious exposure. And we are poised to lose even more freedoms if we don’t stop this scourge before it sweeps across our land and our intellectual landscape completely.
As I am writing this, citizens in King, North Carolina are protesting the removal of a Christian flag from a war memorial in that city: a flag that was removed by order of the King City Council after one veteran who saw duty in Afghanistan filed a complaint with the ACLU.
In today’s usual cryptic fashion, the name of the offended party has not been released to the public, a withholding that reflects a degree of secrecy that could lead some to believe that the offended soldier is a Muslim, an atheist, or a figment of the ACLU’s imagination. Whatever the case may be, the complaint from this ghostlike citizen in King has proven sufficient to have a flag removed that had been proudly flying over the memorial for more than six years.
And in Oxford, Mississippi, where the Ole Miss Rebels have enjoyed the rich tradition of having a mascot named “Colonel Reb” roaming the football sidelines since 1979, politically correct tendencies led them to do away with the southern icon this season and to replace him with a black bear. That’s right: the new mascot is a black bear in a southern gentlemen’s suit, and his name is the “Rebel Black Bear.”
How out of whack do things have to get before we finally say enough is enough?
The majority are losing freedom after freedom and tradition after tradition to a wimpy, nameless, minority that hides behind groups like the ACLU and dumps shame on its opposition through words like ‘diversity’ and ‘fairness.’ But there is nothing diverse about a politically correct landscape, and the methods used to try to create one are clearly anything but fair.
Our Founders were wise enough to know that a tendency toward unchecked factions would devastate the country they sought to leave to posterity. Surely we must be brave enough to take their fears into account and fight against the one person here or the two people there who are actively using the court system to rip us away from our moorings.
The tyranny of the minority is tyrannical indeed.
HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in U.S. Military History from Texas Tech University. He will be a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal during the summer of 2010.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Not getting the message.....
I know the feeling.....I live in Massachusetts....the bluest of BLUE states....our VOTERS didn't get the message either.....UGH!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
“Elitist” and “out of touch”....No, Mr. President, you just don't get it.
Jeff Jacoby writes up the reason why we have seen POTUS' approval rating dip to an all-time low of 37 % - His article in the Boston Globe echoes what Hillary Clinton knew in April 2008.
Take a look at what was on the record in April 2008 as proof positive that Jeff Jacoby has hit the mark; From the UK Times -
Mrs Clinton was buoyed yesterday by Republican strategists who declared that Mr Obama’s remarks would become a general election “nightmare” for the Illinois senator if he became the Democratic nominee because they made him look like a liberal elitist.
Mrs Clinton activated the entire might of her campaign machine to exploit the remarks, which she called “demeaning”, “elitist” and “out of touch”. Aides handed out “I’m not bitter” stickers and surrogates took to the airwaves to fan the flames.
It emerged on Saturday that Mr Obama had, before an audience in the liberal bastion of San Francisco, tried to explain his trouble winning over white, working-class voters, the fabled “Reagan Democrats” who will be crucial in the general election.
He said: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
This is the same Hillary Clinton that is his Secretary of State ! And POTUS wonders why the American Voters are not more in line with his view of things. It is his naivete' that causes Voters to worry and his elitist attitude that makes Voters shake their heads in disgust. Now he thinks we should give support ot those who look down on the average American as "bitter"....You would be bitter if you saw the President caring more about the Unions and his Elite buddies than those who are doing the work that makes America great.
5 days and counting to the reckoning. I'm hopeful that a message will be sent by the voters.
Smug Democrats
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / October 27, 2010
THE HILLS are alive with the sound of liberal Democratic contempt for the electorate. So are the valleys, the prairies, and the coasts. For months, voters have been signaling their discontent with the president, his party, and their priorities; in less than a week, they appear poised to deliver a stinging rebuke. Yet rather than address the voters’ concerns with seriousness and respect, too many Democrats and their allies on the left have chosen instead to slur those voters as stupid, extremist, or too scared to think straight.
At a Democratic fundraiser in Newton this month, offering what he called “a little bit of perspective from the Oval Office,’’ President Obama gave this diagnosis of the American political scene:
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.’’
The smug condescension in this — we’re losing because voters are panicky and confused — is matched only by its apparent cluelessness. Does Obama really believe that demeaning ordinary Americans is the way to improve his party’s fortunes? Or that his dwindling job approval is due to the public’s weak grip on “facts and science’’ and not, say, to his own divisive and doctrinaire performance as president?
Perhaps he does. Or perhaps he just says such things when speaking to liberal donors. It was at a San Francisco fundraiser in 2008 that Obama described hard-pressed citizens in the small towns of Pennsylvania as “bitter’’ people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them . . . as a way to explain their frustrations.’’
Obama is far from alone in looking down his nose at the great unwashed. Last month, Senator John Kerry explained that Democrats are facing such headwinds these days because voters are easily swayed dolts: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth.’’
Meanwhile, the rise of the Tea Party movement, one of the most extraordinary waves of civic engagement in modern American politics and a major driver of the 2010 election season, has drawn no end of scorn from Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media.
Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray calls Tea Party members “nutcases,’’ while ABC’s Christiane Amanpour is aghast that the grassroots movement has “really gone to the extreme’’ and is “not conservatism as we knew it.’’ Rob Reiner even smears the Tea Party as Nazi-esque: “My fear is that the Tea Party gets a charismatic leader,’’ the Hollywood director said last week. “All they’re selling is fear and anger and that’s all Hitler sold.’’ And the crop of citizen-candidates running for Congress this year, many of them with Tea Party backing? A “myriad of wackos,’’ sneers the influential liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas.
Trashing conservatives as “nutcases’’ and “wackos’’ — or worse — is all too common among left-wing pundits and politicos. But the electorate isn’t buying it. “Likely voters in battleground districts,’’ reports The Hill in a recent story on a poll of 10 toss-up congressional districts across the country, “see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than they do over the GOP.’’ Among likely voters, 44 percent think the Democratic Party is overpowered by its extremes (37 percent say that about the Republicans). Even among registered Democrats, 22 percent think their party is too beholden to its extremists.
Heading into next week’s elections, Americans remain a center-right nation, with solid majorities believing that the federal government is too intrusive and powerful, that it does not spend taxpayer’s money wisely or fairly, and that Americans would be better off having a smaller government with fewer services. Nearly halfway through the most left-wing, high-spending, grow-the-government presidential term most voters can remember, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that so many of them are rebelling. The coming Republican wave is an entirely rational response to two years of Democratic arrogance and overreach. As the president and his party are about to learn, treating voters as stupid, malevolent, or confused is not a strategy for victory.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company
Smug Democrats
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / October 27, 2010
THE HILLS are alive with the sound of liberal Democratic contempt for the electorate. So are the valleys, the prairies, and the coasts. For months, voters have been signaling their discontent with the president, his party, and their priorities; in less than a week, they appear poised to deliver a stinging rebuke. Yet rather than address the voters’ concerns with seriousness and respect, too many Democrats and their allies on the left have chosen instead to slur those voters as stupid, extremist, or too scared to think straight.
At a Democratic fundraiser in Newton this month, offering what he called “a little bit of perspective from the Oval Office,’’ President Obama gave this diagnosis of the American political scene:
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.’’
The smug condescension in this — we’re losing because voters are panicky and confused — is matched only by its apparent cluelessness. Does Obama really believe that demeaning ordinary Americans is the way to improve his party’s fortunes? Or that his dwindling job approval is due to the public’s weak grip on “facts and science’’ and not, say, to his own divisive and doctrinaire performance as president?
Perhaps he does. Or perhaps he just says such things when speaking to liberal donors. It was at a San Francisco fundraiser in 2008 that Obama described hard-pressed citizens in the small towns of Pennsylvania as “bitter’’ people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them . . . as a way to explain their frustrations.’’
Obama is far from alone in looking down his nose at the great unwashed. Last month, Senator John Kerry explained that Democrats are facing such headwinds these days because voters are easily swayed dolts: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth.’’
Meanwhile, the rise of the Tea Party movement, one of the most extraordinary waves of civic engagement in modern American politics and a major driver of the 2010 election season, has drawn no end of scorn from Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media.
Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray calls Tea Party members “nutcases,’’ while ABC’s Christiane Amanpour is aghast that the grassroots movement has “really gone to the extreme’’ and is “not conservatism as we knew it.’’ Rob Reiner even smears the Tea Party as Nazi-esque: “My fear is that the Tea Party gets a charismatic leader,’’ the Hollywood director said last week. “All they’re selling is fear and anger and that’s all Hitler sold.’’ And the crop of citizen-candidates running for Congress this year, many of them with Tea Party backing? A “myriad of wackos,’’ sneers the influential liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas.
Trashing conservatives as “nutcases’’ and “wackos’’ — or worse — is all too common among left-wing pundits and politicos. But the electorate isn’t buying it. “Likely voters in battleground districts,’’ reports The Hill in a recent story on a poll of 10 toss-up congressional districts across the country, “see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than they do over the GOP.’’ Among likely voters, 44 percent think the Democratic Party is overpowered by its extremes (37 percent say that about the Republicans). Even among registered Democrats, 22 percent think their party is too beholden to its extremists.
Heading into next week’s elections, Americans remain a center-right nation, with solid majorities believing that the federal government is too intrusive and powerful, that it does not spend taxpayer’s money wisely or fairly, and that Americans would be better off having a smaller government with fewer services. Nearly halfway through the most left-wing, high-spending, grow-the-government presidential term most voters can remember, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that so many of them are rebelling. The coming Republican wave is an entirely rational response to two years of Democratic arrogance and overreach. As the president and his party are about to learn, treating voters as stupid, malevolent, or confused is not a strategy for victory.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
" Where’s the nearest carrier? ‘” - A question asked by all Presidents and one that we need to keep in mind going forward into an uncertain future....
The need for a deployed force multiplier is critical in today's uncertain world. The nature of the trouble spots around the world calls for having the ability to respond quickly and with a fully capable response to any issue large or small. The ability to project force from the Sea is essential and the Carrier is the one platform we need. Littoral Ships are essential BUT the Carrier is the Big Dog.
Recently, the CEO of my company stated that when he gets on the plane, he trusts the pilot as he feels that is the way it SHOULD BE. If you plan on going somewhere, you have to TRUST the guy at the helm.
READ the words below - I TRUST the people in charge of the NAVY as they know best when it comes to the Large Ships we need -
FROM NAVY.MIL - http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-why.asp
Why the Carriers?
The United States has become increasingly entwined in the business and security issues with the rest of the world. Our economy and security depends upon our protecting our overseas interests as well as encouraging peace and stability around the globe. Forward presence by U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups helps us accomplish this. As former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated: "If you don't have that forward deployed presence, you have less of a voice, less of an influence." The U.S. Navy is engaged. And engaged means being there.
As example, on 11 September 2001, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) had just been relieved from being on station in support of Operation Southern Watch. She was heading south in the Indian Ocean, beginning her trip back to homeport in Norfolk, Va., when, on television, they saw the live coverage of attack on the World Trade Center, then on the Pentagon. Enterprise, without an order from the chain of command, put the rudder over, executed a 180-degree course change and headed back to the waters off Southwest Asia. Enterprise then remained on station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, launching air attacks against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. For approximately the next three weeks, aircraft from Enterprise flew nearly 700 missions in Afghanistan, dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance.
The carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights. Nor does it need to build or maintain bases in countries where our presence may cause political or other strains. Aircraft carriers are sovereign U.S. territory that steam anywhere in international waters — and most of the surface of the globe is water. This characteristic is not lost on our political decision-makers, who use Navy aircraft carriers as a powerful instrument of diplomacy, strengthening alliances or answering the fire bell of crisis. As former President Bill Clinton said during a visit to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, "When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is; where is the nearest carrier?"
The carrier battle group can not only operate independently but it presents a unique range of options to the President, Congress and Secretary of Defense. By using the oceans — more than 70% of the earth's surface is ocean — both as a means of access and as a base, forward-deployed Navy and Marine forces are readily available to provide the United States with a rheostat of national response capabilities. These capabilities range from simply showing the flag — just a presence — to insertion of power ashore. The unique contribution of aircraft carriers to our national security was best expressed by Gen. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said during a visit to USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, "I know how relieved I am each time when I turn to my operations officer and say, 'Hey, where's the nearest carrier?' and he can say to me 'It's right there on the spot.' For United States' interests, that means everything."
Recently, the CEO of my company stated that when he gets on the plane, he trusts the pilot as he feels that is the way it SHOULD BE. If you plan on going somewhere, you have to TRUST the guy at the helm.
READ the words below - I TRUST the people in charge of the NAVY as they know best when it comes to the Large Ships we need -
FROM NAVY.MIL - http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-why.asp
Why the Carriers?
The United States has become increasingly entwined in the business and security issues with the rest of the world. Our economy and security depends upon our protecting our overseas interests as well as encouraging peace and stability around the globe. Forward presence by U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups helps us accomplish this. As former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated: "If you don't have that forward deployed presence, you have less of a voice, less of an influence." The U.S. Navy is engaged. And engaged means being there.
As example, on 11 September 2001, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) had just been relieved from being on station in support of Operation Southern Watch. She was heading south in the Indian Ocean, beginning her trip back to homeport in Norfolk, Va., when, on television, they saw the live coverage of attack on the World Trade Center, then on the Pentagon. Enterprise, without an order from the chain of command, put the rudder over, executed a 180-degree course change and headed back to the waters off Southwest Asia. Enterprise then remained on station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, launching air attacks against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. For approximately the next three weeks, aircraft from Enterprise flew nearly 700 missions in Afghanistan, dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance.
The carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights. Nor does it need to build or maintain bases in countries where our presence may cause political or other strains. Aircraft carriers are sovereign U.S. territory that steam anywhere in international waters — and most of the surface of the globe is water. This characteristic is not lost on our political decision-makers, who use Navy aircraft carriers as a powerful instrument of diplomacy, strengthening alliances or answering the fire bell of crisis. As former President Bill Clinton said during a visit to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, "When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is; where is the nearest carrier?"
The carrier battle group can not only operate independently but it presents a unique range of options to the President, Congress and Secretary of Defense. By using the oceans — more than 70% of the earth's surface is ocean — both as a means of access and as a base, forward-deployed Navy and Marine forces are readily available to provide the United States with a rheostat of national response capabilities. These capabilities range from simply showing the flag — just a presence — to insertion of power ashore. The unique contribution of aircraft carriers to our national security was best expressed by Gen. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said during a visit to USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, "I know how relieved I am each time when I turn to my operations officer and say, 'Hey, where's the nearest carrier?' and he can say to me 'It's right there on the spot.' For United States' interests, that means everything."
NOW, follow that up with a bunch of elite idjits at a dinner party in Man-hattan who don't have a frickin' clue as to how many Carriers we REALLY have.....OMG. The protected have no idea how difficult it is to make sure they can go about their small lives while others pay for it in blood, sweat & tears 24/7/365.
Kudos to Mr. Cohen of FORBES for a superior piece of writing that illuminates how clueless some can be and the reason why we DO NEED more Carriers on station....as a friend wrote before,
" All hard, All the time."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are the Carriers?
Oct. 25 2010 - 9:12 am By STEVE COHEN - FORBES.COM
“When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident that
the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is:
‘Where’s the nearest carrier?‘”
President Bill Clinton
March 12, 1993 aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt
At a dinner party on Manhattan’s upper east side recently, I asked my table-mates how many aircraft carriers they thought America had in service. It wasn’t an idle question. It was triggered by comments from two of the guests. Both had just returned from Iran, and one was a senior European Union staffer involved with security issues. Their report was seriously distressing, and the conversation turned to the possibility of U.S. (or Israeli) intervention.
The answers to my question – how many carriers — ranged from 22 to 100. The EU expert weighed in with 40. All were shocked to learn that the United States has a total of just 11 aircraft carriers. And even that number is misleading: two are in dry-dock, one for a four-year refueling; six are various stages of refurbishment, training and certification and can, in theory, be ready to “surge” in 30 to 90 days. But only three are actually deployed.
I knew the number because I had recently been aboard the USS Harry Truman, a nuclear super-carrier with some 70 jets and a crew of 5500. Following my embark, I was determined to investigate the value of these behemoths as objectively as a concerned citizen (without a security clearance) could. I interviewed dozens of defense experts and reviewed thousands of pages of studies and testimony. I was also sensitive to the fact that I had experienced a tailhook landing and catapult launch, which are often referred to as “the most fun you can have with your clothes on.” I appreciate why, and tried not to let that interfere with my assessment.
My questions started with the basics: Are carriers cold war relics as critics charge? Or are they, as supporters profess, cost-effective platforms essential to achieving critical foreign policy and security objectives? Are they too vulnerable to new Chinese anti-ship missiles as Defense Secretary Gates implies? Or is that vulnerability the latest feint by inter-and-intra-service rivals? And is 11 the “right” number to meet current and potential obligations?
The answers I found were not encouraging. And my dinner partners’ surprise quickly turned to concern.
Most experts fear that our carrier capability is stretched way too thin. And they are very concerned about what will happen in 2013 when the 50 year-old nuclear super-carrier Enterprise is retired. Its replacement, the USS Gerald Ford, is not scheduled to be commissioned until late 2015, and won’t join the operational fleet until several years after that.
Moreover, the carriers and their crews are being worked harder and longer. At today’s heightened operational tempo, deployments are more frequent, longer, and leave less time for essential maintenance. As retired Navy captain Dick Costello put it, “We’re driving them hard and putting them away wet.”
Contrary to critics’ rhetoric, aircraft carriers have played an expanded role since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The carrier’s traditional roles of deterrence, sea control, and showing-the-flag have taken advantage of their hard-to-miss presence. Carriers have been front-and-center in numerous conflicts where weapons were never fired. But since the end of the cold war, carriers have taken on the greater demands of kinetic power projection: carrier-based aircraft have flown most of the critical early sorties in almost every “hot” encounter of the last 20 years. Troops are never sent into harm’s way without first securing the airspace and without on-going close air support. Initial air operations are almost always the predominant responsibility of Navy-Marine air, while on-going sustainability is shared with the Air Force.
When special operations forces and CIA operatives went into Afghanistan after 9/11 – some of them memorably on camels – it was carrier-based aircraft that provided the essential cover. In fact, Navy Air was responsible for fully 75% of all strike sorties. This required four carriers on station.
In 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, five Navy carriers again provided essential air-superiority and ground support. More than half of all American sorties were conducted by carrier-based pilots, as Turkey and Saudi Arabia refused American requests to operate Air Force jets from land bases.
Retried Marine General Anthony Zinni explained another benefit of having carriers forward-deployed: the element of surprise. When, in 1999 President Bill Clinton ordered air strikes against Iraq, Zinni was able to draw on carriers undergoing “routine” operations in the area. The Iraqis had no advance notice of night-time strikes by carrier-based pilots and were unable to disperse valuable pieces of equipment. In subsequent strikes by land-based Air Force planes, the Iraqis had enough time to move their machinery.
Carriers are also playing a growing, non-traditional role: disaster relief and delivering humanitarian aid. Following the 2004 Asian tsunami, the USS Abraham Lincoln led relief efforts. Not only did the carrier’s flight deck provide the main staging area for distribution of desperately needed supplies, its medical facilities were literally life-saving for thousands. Moreover, as former Ambassador Douglas Paal noted, its quick response and presence provided Secretary of State Clinton with a formidable platform from which to engage the Indonesian government.
Does the Navy believe 11 carriers are enough to meet the challenges demanded of them by successive presidential administrations? As recently as June of 2000 – before the attacks of 9/11 or our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq – the Navy told Congress that it needed 15 carrier battle groups. Unfortunately, with only 11 carriers, large areas of the globe are suffering from a “presence deficit.” According to Vice Admiral Barry McCullough, these include the Black sea, the Baltic region, Indian Ocean, and areas off the African coast. In addition, South America, the Caribbean, and the Balkans have not seen a carrier in several years.
The most formidable carrier critic is outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. “I’m not going to cut any aircraft carriers,” Gates told Fred Kaplan in his recent Foreign Affairs interview. “But the reality is, if Chinese highly accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles can keep our aircraft carriers behind the second island chain in the Pacific, you’ve got to think differently about how you’re going to use aircraft carriers.”
Gates may not have cut the number of carrier groups outright, but he has significantly delayed the start date for building new carriers from every four years to every five. And there is some talk about not refueling the Abraham Lincoln when its reactor core must be replaced in 2014, halfway through the carrier’s 50-year lifespan.
Is this Chinese missile threat sufficient to diminish carrier capabilities? Not according to former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James L. Holloway III. “The Chinese lack some of the key hardware and software to constitute the ‘system of systems’ required to achieve the kill chain of detection, tracking, guidance and pinpoint accuracy needed.” Holloway also notes that a carrier can move 12 miles between the time a missile is launched and when it arrives at the target. And its flight deck and hull are heavily armored. “The Enterprise experienced a serious fire a number of years ago when nine major caliber bombs (750 – 1,000 pounds) exploded on its flight deck. It was back in operation after four hours.”
Perhaps most tellingly, no nation is pursuing aircraft carriers more assiduously than China. They have purchased three old carriers from the Soviet Union and a fourth from Australia. In addition, they have constituted an air wing that is practicing landings on a carrier-shaped strip, and are reported to be building a new carrier in secret.
The one thing critics and supporters agree upon is that carriers are very expensive. The USS Gerald Ford will cost about $11 billion by the time it enters the fleet. And that doesn’t include the cost of its air wing or its strike group of cruisers, subs, and support ships. (Just as a point of reference, the “cash for clunkers” program cost us $3 billion, and the overall stimulus and bank-bailout have totaled $1.5 trillion. That is 1500 billions.)
Our current spending on carriers and aircraft is a grave concern to former Navy Secretary John Lehman. He notes that we have only 10 airwings and no attrition aircraft. Moreover, he is critical of Secretary Gates’ position that while we may have no back-up aircraft for the carriers, we have plenty of Air Force planes. Lehman notes that, “In any potential conflict with an increasingly truculent and aggressive China, Air Force reserves are largely irrelevant. We have very few land bases in the Pacific.”
As I conducted my investigation, I kept hearing that the Navy has no congressional champion, as it did first with Georgia Congressman Carl Vinson and later with Virginia Senator John Warner. Moreover, the public seems not to know or care what the Navy does. In a recent Gallup poll, the Navy was ranked dead last among the braches of the military services in terms of both prestige and importance.
So, without a champion or broad public support, is there little wonder why our carrier resources continue to erode? I came away from my investigation convinced that the modern super-carrier is our most flexible and proven defense platform. But I was also very troubled by the realization that our initial incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq required four and five carrier battle groups respectively. And that we didn’t have enough ships to support those operations simultaneously.
What my dinner partners worried about was: what would happen if two-or-more conflicts erupt concurrently? We went around the table citing current concerns: Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon; North Korea recently sunk a South Korean warship; a Japanese tanker was attacked just last month in the Straits of Hormuz; Venezuela has threatened Colombia; and China is showing increased belligerence towards Taiwan. And all those were cited before appetizers were finished. We’ll just have to hope that no President, faced with a crisis, will ask, “Where are the carriers?” and hear that they’ve been retired in favor of the next politically popular clunkers program
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)