Sarah Palin is running for president. Make no mistake about it. Everything she says, everything she does is a clear indicator that Palin is not only the key figure in the resurgence of the conservative movement in this country, she expects to carry the torch all the way to Washington and light the flame of freedom from a tyrannical government out of control.
Palin was a hit at the Tea Party convention in Nashville. Her speech electrified everyone in attendance. She made it exceedingly clear that the Democrat agenda was 'running out of time' and that the Tea Party movement is part of a brewing "revolution" that constitutes the "future of politics."
Palin has firmly implanted herself with the Tea Partiers. She is one of them. "This is the future of our country. The tea party movement is the future of politics. America is ready for another revolution." she said.
And Palin will be the one leading that revolution.
Despite those detractors who consider her a lightweight, her message resonates with an increasingly growing group of disaffected Americans who are fed up with big government. She gets it. She understands that this very powerful grass roots movement must be led from the ground up, not the top down. She said that both political parties need to change the way they do business in Washington. And she warned that the Tea Party movement must not be defined by one leader.
But clearly, by pounding home this lesson, Palin is emerging as the front-runner to school the politicians on what the American people want. And what they want is fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong national security.
Palin voices the concerns that many Americans have that Barack Obama has dropped the ball in the war on terror. She questioned why Obama has reached out to hostile regimes, and apologized for America to dangerous dictators.
"What do we have to show for that?" Palin asked. "Here's what we have to show: North Korea tested nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. Israel, a friend and a critical ally, now questions strength of our support. Plans for a missile-defense system in Europe, they've been scrapped. Relations with China and Russia are no better. And relations with Japan – that key Asian ally – are in the worst shape in years."
Palin advocates for a strong national defense and an aggressive foreign policy toward our enemies. She also is very concerned, as are most Americans, about the way those who would seek to destroy our nation are being treated.
With regard to the upcoming terror trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 9/11 plotters, Palin said "that's scares me, for my children, for your children. Treating this like a federal law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk because that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we're at war, and to win that war, we need a commander in chief."
Palin has called for Eric Holder to resign.
In terms of fiscal restraint, Palin has made it clear that government spending is out of control.
"It's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving," Palin said. "They keep printing these dollars, and they keep making us more and more beholden to foreign countries. What they're doing in proposing these big new programs with giant price tags is they're sticking our kids with the bill. That's immoral. That's generational theft."
She may be folksy, but Sarah Palin is anything but naive when it comes to understanding the serious problems this nation is facing right now. To put at bay her critics who claim she lacks the gravitas to make a run for high political office, she now receives daily briefings on every issue both foreign and domestic. She will not allow herself to be caught off-guard by the lamestream media, who would seek to destroy her; and let not anyone fool themselves into thinking that they do not have that as their intention. The media is still in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, and any sign that a true leader is emerging from what they consider to be an astro turf rather than a grass roots movement, will be met with smears, character assassination and the politics of personal destruction.
Palin is a lot more savvy than she was during the 2008 presidential elections. She will not allow herself to be co-opted and used by any group for their own devices. Nor will she be relegated to the level of a waterboy for the Republican Party. She fully intends to control her own political destiny.
And that destiny includes running for president.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
A Tale Of Two Super Bowl Ads
Poor CBS. They are caught between a rock and hard place this week. And all for making two very correct programming decisions for which they may end up paying dearly.
First, executives in their Standards and Practices department accepted and ad from Focus on the Family celebrating Pam Tebow's decision in 1987 to give birth to her son Tim, despite the risk of losing her own life. She had contracted amoebic dysentery in the Philippines, while she was working as a missionary. She was treated with strong antibiotics, which doctors told her had caused fetal damage, and recommended that she abort the pregnancy. Tebow elected to go through with the pregnancy, and she ended up giving birth to a healthy boy, who has since gone on to win the Heisman Trophy.
Women's groups are up in arms over the decision to run this ad, despite the fact that they have not seen a screening of it. Pro-choice critics say that the ad threatens to "throw women under the bus."
Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, said CBS should be forced to pull the ad because Focus on the Family " is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda."
Excuse me? Un-American? Since when is the celebration of life and family un-American? What these women's groups and others on the left should admit is that life, family and faith are all very much American values which they can't stand. It eats at the very core of their being, and they must do everything in their power to trash the very foundations on which this nation was founded.
CBS made the right decision on electing to run this ad. And they also made another correct decision in rejecting another ad for the Super Bowl by a gay dating website.
Mancrunch.com had wanted to run this ad where two men are shown watching the "big game". Their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Suddenly, the two begin making out, much to the shock of a guy sitting close by.
The ad was rejected as being inappropriate by the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday. Executives for the dating site charge discrimination. A representative for Mancrunch.com said “we are very disappointed that in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl. “We're calling on every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.”
CBS is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They will obviously suffer for taking the moral high road in both cases. They may even face legal action by both aggrieved parties.
But they shouldn't.
The decisions regarding these two very different commercials were business decisions. And these choices should be left to the network. And yes, even had CBS ruled the other way regarding either of these ads, that should still have been their call. No individual or group should be able to hold any business hostage over the way they choose to run their enterprise, as long as the business is operating within the law. And because CBS is not supported by taxpayers like public TV, they are accountable only to their shareholders, not advocacy groups.
Yes, CBS should be applauded for the decisions regarding both of these ads. They may pay some consequences as a result.
But the choice must still be theirs.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
First, executives in their Standards and Practices department accepted and ad from Focus on the Family celebrating Pam Tebow's decision in 1987 to give birth to her son Tim, despite the risk of losing her own life. She had contracted amoebic dysentery in the Philippines, while she was working as a missionary. She was treated with strong antibiotics, which doctors told her had caused fetal damage, and recommended that she abort the pregnancy. Tebow elected to go through with the pregnancy, and she ended up giving birth to a healthy boy, who has since gone on to win the Heisman Trophy.
Women's groups are up in arms over the decision to run this ad, despite the fact that they have not seen a screening of it. Pro-choice critics say that the ad threatens to "throw women under the bus."
Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, said CBS should be forced to pull the ad because Focus on the Family " is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda."
Excuse me? Un-American? Since when is the celebration of life and family un-American? What these women's groups and others on the left should admit is that life, family and faith are all very much American values which they can't stand. It eats at the very core of their being, and they must do everything in their power to trash the very foundations on which this nation was founded.
CBS made the right decision on electing to run this ad. And they also made another correct decision in rejecting another ad for the Super Bowl by a gay dating website.
Mancrunch.com had wanted to run this ad where two men are shown watching the "big game". Their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Suddenly, the two begin making out, much to the shock of a guy sitting close by.
The ad was rejected as being inappropriate by the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday. Executives for the dating site charge discrimination. A representative for Mancrunch.com said “we are very disappointed that in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl. “We're calling on every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.”
CBS is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They will obviously suffer for taking the moral high road in both cases. They may even face legal action by both aggrieved parties.
But they shouldn't.
The decisions regarding these two very different commercials were business decisions. And these choices should be left to the network. And yes, even had CBS ruled the other way regarding either of these ads, that should still have been their call. No individual or group should be able to hold any business hostage over the way they choose to run their enterprise, as long as the business is operating within the law. And because CBS is not supported by taxpayers like public TV, they are accountable only to their shareholders, not advocacy groups.
Yes, CBS should be applauded for the decisions regarding both of these ads. They may pay some consequences as a result.
But the choice must still be theirs.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The State Of Conservatism
On Wednesday, Barack Obama will deliver his first State of the Union speech. This speech he gives is not by any means the one he planned to deliver.
Obama had grandiose dreams of delivering a speech in which he touted the major accomplishments of his first year in office, highlighted by the pinnacle of his successes, the infamous health care reform bill. Didn't happen.
The Senate is now in a total state of disarray, with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican, to fill the seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Harry Reid and company could try to force the House to pass the Senate version of the bill as is, but Nancy Pelosi made it exceedingly clear that the votes are not there to push it through.
Obama also had hoped to report that his stimulus package saved or created 3 million jobs since he assumed the Oval Office. But with unemployment still hovering at 10 percent, and with the actual number being closer to 20 percent due to those no longer seeking work not being figured in to those numbers, another big chunk of his domestic agenda continues to flounder.
Obama had planned to report that our nation was safer under his presidency from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, the attempted attack over the skies of Detroit on Christmas Day proved otherwise. In a new piece of audio just released purportedly by Osama bin Laden, he takes credit for that attack and promises that there are more to come. In testimony before the Senate, FBI director Robert Mueller, National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said none of them were consulted by the White House or the Department of Justice about the decision to process the "Underwear Bomber" in the civilian criminal justice system. Yet Napolitano said that our government knew Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an extremist. Couple this with the plan to try the 9/11 plotters in civilian courts in New York City where they will have a soapbox on which to spew their venomous hatred of this country and what you have is a failure by this president to do the main thing he is charged with doing: Protecting this nation from enemies foreign and domestic.
Yes, Barack Obama had hoped to deliver a speech in which major things had been accomplished under his watch. None of these things has come to pass.
But Obama has done one thing for this nation for which many of us in this country are grateful, and for which many in his party are stunned.
Obama has brought conservatism back from the dead.
The upset victory by Scott Brown last Tuesday sent a clear message that most of the people in this country are at the very least "traditionalists" if not outright conservative. Even the liberal voters in the state of Massachussets felt that Obama's policies were too far to the left for them to embrace. And they didn't like the Chicago style politics of ramming things down the people's throat.
The Obama mantra of "yes we can" was answered with a resounding "no you won't!"
After the midterm elections of 2006, there were those who said conservatism had been defeated. There were those who said the tone of the country had changed and that we were headed for a political landscape similar to that of western Europe.
Then prior to the presidential election of 2008, one caller to my radio show said that no matter who was elected, McCain or Obama, this nation was headed to the left. It was just a matter of how fast we got there. When Obama was elected, it appeared all but certain that we were being put on a fast track to socialism.
Last September I wrote that Barack Obama's election was either going to turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to our country, or the worst. Increasing evidence appeared to indicate a significant shift to the right since Obama's victory. A Gallup poll showed that people who identified themselves as conservative outnumbered liberals in every state in the Union. Witness the tea parties, the town hall meetings, and the rise in the sale of conservative books. America was finally waking up and realizing that this country elected a Marxist president who surrounded himself with the most radical group of individuals ever assembled in Washington. And this realization had sparked an anger not seen in many years.
How did it happen?
Obama preached a message of hope and change, and an electorate tired of eight years of Bush ignored many of the specifics of the changes Obama wanted to bring about. Instead, they bought the 'sizzle', not the steak. If they had done their homework then, as they have subsequently done with regards to the health care bill, they would never have voted for someone hell bent on taking this country so far to the left as to be unrecognizable from what the founders planned.
But whether due to being mesmerized by his eloquent pre-packaged speeches, or the opportunity to make history by putting the first black man in the White House, voters ignored Obama's associations with people of questionable character and his own checkered past, and thrust him into a position that he would use to radically alter the nation.
Those same voters are now suffering buyer's remorse.
The anger resulting from the health care debacle combined with the radical plans of an administration gone out of control may result in significant losses for the liberals in the midterm elections of 2010. There are those who see the distinct possibility that conservatives may re-take the House and Senate, leaving Obama and his czars crippled in their attempt to damage our nation irreparably. This could even bode well for the next presidential election in 2012.
So to that end, Obama and the Democrats have done some great things for this country and its people. They have brought us out of our malaise. They have restored our faith in traditional values.
It can now be reported that the state of conservatism is good.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Obama had grandiose dreams of delivering a speech in which he touted the major accomplishments of his first year in office, highlighted by the pinnacle of his successes, the infamous health care reform bill. Didn't happen.
The Senate is now in a total state of disarray, with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican, to fill the seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Harry Reid and company could try to force the House to pass the Senate version of the bill as is, but Nancy Pelosi made it exceedingly clear that the votes are not there to push it through.
Obama also had hoped to report that his stimulus package saved or created 3 million jobs since he assumed the Oval Office. But with unemployment still hovering at 10 percent, and with the actual number being closer to 20 percent due to those no longer seeking work not being figured in to those numbers, another big chunk of his domestic agenda continues to flounder.
Obama had planned to report that our nation was safer under his presidency from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, the attempted attack over the skies of Detroit on Christmas Day proved otherwise. In a new piece of audio just released purportedly by Osama bin Laden, he takes credit for that attack and promises that there are more to come. In testimony before the Senate, FBI director Robert Mueller, National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said none of them were consulted by the White House or the Department of Justice about the decision to process the "Underwear Bomber" in the civilian criminal justice system. Yet Napolitano said that our government knew Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an extremist. Couple this with the plan to try the 9/11 plotters in civilian courts in New York City where they will have a soapbox on which to spew their venomous hatred of this country and what you have is a failure by this president to do the main thing he is charged with doing: Protecting this nation from enemies foreign and domestic.
Yes, Barack Obama had hoped to deliver a speech in which major things had been accomplished under his watch. None of these things has come to pass.
But Obama has done one thing for this nation for which many of us in this country are grateful, and for which many in his party are stunned.
Obama has brought conservatism back from the dead.
The upset victory by Scott Brown last Tuesday sent a clear message that most of the people in this country are at the very least "traditionalists" if not outright conservative. Even the liberal voters in the state of Massachussets felt that Obama's policies were too far to the left for them to embrace. And they didn't like the Chicago style politics of ramming things down the people's throat.
The Obama mantra of "yes we can" was answered with a resounding "no you won't!"
After the midterm elections of 2006, there were those who said conservatism had been defeated. There were those who said the tone of the country had changed and that we were headed for a political landscape similar to that of western Europe.
Then prior to the presidential election of 2008, one caller to my radio show said that no matter who was elected, McCain or Obama, this nation was headed to the left. It was just a matter of how fast we got there. When Obama was elected, it appeared all but certain that we were being put on a fast track to socialism.
Last September I wrote that Barack Obama's election was either going to turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to our country, or the worst. Increasing evidence appeared to indicate a significant shift to the right since Obama's victory. A Gallup poll showed that people who identified themselves as conservative outnumbered liberals in every state in the Union. Witness the tea parties, the town hall meetings, and the rise in the sale of conservative books. America was finally waking up and realizing that this country elected a Marxist president who surrounded himself with the most radical group of individuals ever assembled in Washington. And this realization had sparked an anger not seen in many years.
How did it happen?
Obama preached a message of hope and change, and an electorate tired of eight years of Bush ignored many of the specifics of the changes Obama wanted to bring about. Instead, they bought the 'sizzle', not the steak. If they had done their homework then, as they have subsequently done with regards to the health care bill, they would never have voted for someone hell bent on taking this country so far to the left as to be unrecognizable from what the founders planned.
But whether due to being mesmerized by his eloquent pre-packaged speeches, or the opportunity to make history by putting the first black man in the White House, voters ignored Obama's associations with people of questionable character and his own checkered past, and thrust him into a position that he would use to radically alter the nation.
Those same voters are now suffering buyer's remorse.
The anger resulting from the health care debacle combined with the radical plans of an administration gone out of control may result in significant losses for the liberals in the midterm elections of 2010. There are those who see the distinct possibility that conservatives may re-take the House and Senate, leaving Obama and his czars crippled in their attempt to damage our nation irreparably. This could even bode well for the next presidential election in 2012.
So to that end, Obama and the Democrats have done some great things for this country and its people. They have brought us out of our malaise. They have restored our faith in traditional values.
It can now be reported that the state of conservatism is good.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
On The Precipice
A historic special election will be taking place this Tuesday in the great state of Massachusetts. The outcome of this election could determine once and for all the fate of the Health Care Bill.
Scott Brown, a Republican state senator is facing off against Democrat Martha Coakley, for the senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts, a highly liberal state proudly represented by Kennedy for nearly half a century, is now on the precipice of real change, possibly electing a conservative opposed to the Democrat's health reform bill and government spending. And many in this normally leftist part of the country are behind Brown in his efforts to kill this bill.
Polls currently show the race too close to call. Barack Obama is pulling out all the stops to ensure a Coakley win, making campaign appearances with her across the state this weekend. But his brief cameos may be more of a hindrance to her chances than a help. For her part, Coakley sounded less than sincere in reacting to Obama's impending arrival. "I don't think he has to come, I think he wanted to come. He was excited to come," Coakley told reporters. "Who wouldn't want the president of the United States campaigning for her in a historic race?"
With all of the angst and anger directed at the Democrats by the public regarding health reform and massive spending, Coakley might have been served better by declining the president's offer to stump on her behalf.
There is a lot at stake here.
Should Brown prevail, it would force the Senate to pass a bill that he could stop as the key vote in the filibuster process. A concern for Republicans, however, is that the Senate could hold up Brown's certification process. Rep. Barney Frank, when questioned by a reporter for the Washington Times about this, lashed out. "That is the stupidest thing I've been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source," he said.
Another option the Democrats are considering is something called reconciliation, a tactic that allows legislation to pass in the Senate with just 51 votes, or a simple majority. The House Ways and Means Committee structured the bill in such a way that the Senate could hide the legislation in the annual budget spending package, therefore paving the way for reconciliation. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Bloomberg this week that Democrats are still considering this option.
Scott Brown, a Republican state senator is facing off against Democrat Martha Coakley, for the senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts, a highly liberal state proudly represented by Kennedy for nearly half a century, is now on the precipice of real change, possibly electing a conservative opposed to the Democrat's health reform bill and government spending. And many in this normally leftist part of the country are behind Brown in his efforts to kill this bill.
Polls currently show the race too close to call. Barack Obama is pulling out all the stops to ensure a Coakley win, making campaign appearances with her across the state this weekend. But his brief cameos may be more of a hindrance to her chances than a help. For her part, Coakley sounded less than sincere in reacting to Obama's impending arrival. "I don't think he has to come, I think he wanted to come. He was excited to come," Coakley told reporters. "Who wouldn't want the president of the United States campaigning for her in a historic race?"
With all of the angst and anger directed at the Democrats by the public regarding health reform and massive spending, Coakley might have been served better by declining the president's offer to stump on her behalf.
There is a lot at stake here.
Should Brown prevail, it would force the Senate to pass a bill that he could stop as the key vote in the filibuster process. A concern for Republicans, however, is that the Senate could hold up Brown's certification process. Rep. Barney Frank, when questioned by a reporter for the Washington Times about this, lashed out. "That is the stupidest thing I've been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source," he said.
Another option the Democrats are considering is something called reconciliation, a tactic that allows legislation to pass in the Senate with just 51 votes, or a simple majority. The House Ways and Means Committee structured the bill in such a way that the Senate could hide the legislation in the annual budget spending package, therefore paving the way for reconciliation. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Bloomberg this week that Democrats are still considering this option.
"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said.
"Getting health care reform passed is important," he said. "Reconciliation is an option."
Another option being considered by the Democrats is to scrap the negotiations between both chambers, and persuade the House to pass the Senate version of the bill as is, nullifying the need for another Senate vote. However, this option could break the deal negotiators worked out with the union leaders who are opposed to taxing high end insurance plans.
The Democrats appear confident that Coakley will prevail on Tuesday. Or at least they are putting on a brave face. Nonetheless, Tuesday's election is a referendum on the major component of Obama's domestic agenda. His entire presidency rides on health care reform. Should the building blocks collapse, Obama is finished.
He could become a lame duck president in his first term. Let's hope this is the case.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Racist Reid Should Resign
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resign in the wake of revelations that Reid used racially tinged remarks to describe Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Reid is quoted in a new book as saying that Obama is "light-skinned" with "no Negro dialect" unless he wants to have one.
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Steele told Chris Wallace that "there is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism." (It should be noted that in an interview with Sean Hannity last week, Steele used the term 'Honest Injun' in underscoring his contention that the GOP doesn't need to be more moderate, for which Steele has taken some heat. Steele apologized on Wallace's program.)
Nevertheless, Steele is right on the money regarding the Democrats. There is a hypocrisy to the left that is so blatant as to be almost unbelievable. Recall the immediate and devastating fallout from comments by then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in a 2002 tribute to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. Lott was forced out of his leadership position. And now, Reid should be forced out as well. Furthermore, he should resign from the Senate.
Unfortunately, this will not happen due to the double standard that is evident here. Reid will make the rounds of the usual African American groups and do his mea culpas. Then this will all be forgotten. But should it?
Certainly not.
The Democrat party has always positioned itself as the party of civil rights, and the party that has done the most for blacks in this country. Yet its longest serving Senator, Robert Byrd, was an Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan.
There is other evidence to clearly indicate the racism of the Democrat party. Let's go back a few years to some judicial nominations by then president George W. Bush. Senate Democrats successfully blocked three of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals-court judgeships in a 40-hour debate initiated by Republicans. Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., told reporters that he would continue to oppose any "Neanderthal that is nominated by the president for any federal court."
Kennedy was referring to Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, a woman, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, a woman, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman.
Hmmm. What was the implication here? That the nominees were "less than human"? This from a prominent member of the 'party of inclusion'.
It's obvious that the Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is also abundantly clear that Reid meant exactly what he said when he said it. He didn't, however, expect it to be published for all to see. But it was.
And now Reid should disappear.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Steele told Chris Wallace that "there is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism." (It should be noted that in an interview with Sean Hannity last week, Steele used the term 'Honest Injun' in underscoring his contention that the GOP doesn't need to be more moderate, for which Steele has taken some heat. Steele apologized on Wallace's program.)
Nevertheless, Steele is right on the money regarding the Democrats. There is a hypocrisy to the left that is so blatant as to be almost unbelievable. Recall the immediate and devastating fallout from comments by then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in a 2002 tribute to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. Lott was forced out of his leadership position. And now, Reid should be forced out as well. Furthermore, he should resign from the Senate.
Unfortunately, this will not happen due to the double standard that is evident here. Reid will make the rounds of the usual African American groups and do his mea culpas. Then this will all be forgotten. But should it?
Certainly not.
The Democrat party has always positioned itself as the party of civil rights, and the party that has done the most for blacks in this country. Yet its longest serving Senator, Robert Byrd, was an Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan.
There is other evidence to clearly indicate the racism of the Democrat party. Let's go back a few years to some judicial nominations by then president George W. Bush. Senate Democrats successfully blocked three of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals-court judgeships in a 40-hour debate initiated by Republicans. Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., told reporters that he would continue to oppose any "Neanderthal that is nominated by the president for any federal court."
Kennedy was referring to Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, a woman, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, a woman, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman.
Hmmm. What was the implication here? That the nominees were "less than human"? This from a prominent member of the 'party of inclusion'.
It's obvious that the Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is also abundantly clear that Reid meant exactly what he said when he said it. He didn't, however, expect it to be published for all to see. But it was.
And now Reid should disappear.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
A Not So Shiny New Year For The Left
As we enter a new year and a new decade, let us make some predictions as to what we can expect in 2010.
Under the Obama administration, unemployment will remain high, despite the so-called jobs bill that the Senate will take up in January or February. The official figures will show a rate of 10 percent, but hidden from public consumption will be those who have given up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run out. The government will put us billions of dollars into debt with this 'son-of-the-stimulus' plan, with little or no tangible results.
The House will balk at the Senate Health Care Bill, but eventually a compromise will be reached, and President Obama will sign it into law. Despite all the claims that the public option is dead, it will be buried somewhere in this bill, inching us ever so closer to what Europe and Canada are currently dealing with. Everyone will suffer, especially the elderly. The health care profession will also suffer, with doctors electing to stop practicing medicine, and potential candidates deciding to pursue other career paths.
Look for further attempted terrorist attacks on our country, with perhaps at least one succeeding. Obama has dropped the ball on protecting this country, and has done so willfully. Yes, we may see heads roll in the wake of the incident in Detroit. Janet Napolitano may be sent packing for her comments that the system worked. But charging the most recent terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab criminally instead of treating him as an enemy combatant, trying the 9-11 plotters in civilian courts on U.S. soil, and his dogged determination to shutter Gitmo has proven that Obama has not taken his sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic seriously.
As these events continue to unfold, the anger the American people felt in 2009 will continue to be expressed at further town hall meetings and tea parties. The liberals in Washington have awakened a sleeping giant that for a long time has been a lazy, apathetic electorate. The heartland of America already has been shaken from its malaise, but moderates and even some who lean to the left will realize that they are suffering from buyer's remorse when it comes to Obama. They will come to the conclusion that the hope and change this president promised is much more than they bargained for.
The American people's anger will be reflected at the polls come November, with a housecleaning the nature of which this nation has never witnessed. This bloodletting will render Obama a lame duck in the middle of his first and only term. A strong conservative presidential candidate will emerge, and truly resonate with the traditionalists.
By the end of 2010, we will have begun to take our country back.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Under the Obama administration, unemployment will remain high, despite the so-called jobs bill that the Senate will take up in January or February. The official figures will show a rate of 10 percent, but hidden from public consumption will be those who have given up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run out. The government will put us billions of dollars into debt with this 'son-of-the-stimulus' plan, with little or no tangible results.
The House will balk at the Senate Health Care Bill, but eventually a compromise will be reached, and President Obama will sign it into law. Despite all the claims that the public option is dead, it will be buried somewhere in this bill, inching us ever so closer to what Europe and Canada are currently dealing with. Everyone will suffer, especially the elderly. The health care profession will also suffer, with doctors electing to stop practicing medicine, and potential candidates deciding to pursue other career paths.
Look for further attempted terrorist attacks on our country, with perhaps at least one succeeding. Obama has dropped the ball on protecting this country, and has done so willfully. Yes, we may see heads roll in the wake of the incident in Detroit. Janet Napolitano may be sent packing for her comments that the system worked. But charging the most recent terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab criminally instead of treating him as an enemy combatant, trying the 9-11 plotters in civilian courts on U.S. soil, and his dogged determination to shutter Gitmo has proven that Obama has not taken his sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic seriously.
As these events continue to unfold, the anger the American people felt in 2009 will continue to be expressed at further town hall meetings and tea parties. The liberals in Washington have awakened a sleeping giant that for a long time has been a lazy, apathetic electorate. The heartland of America already has been shaken from its malaise, but moderates and even some who lean to the left will realize that they are suffering from buyer's remorse when it comes to Obama. They will come to the conclusion that the hope and change this president promised is much more than they bargained for.
The American people's anger will be reflected at the polls come November, with a housecleaning the nature of which this nation has never witnessed. This bloodletting will render Obama a lame duck in the middle of his first and only term. A strong conservative presidential candidate will emerge, and truly resonate with the traditionalists.
By the end of 2010, we will have begun to take our country back.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Nelson's Stuffed Stocking Is Lump Of Coal For Americans
The liberals have delivered a lump of coal to all Americans this Christmas by buying the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, in order to have the 60 votes necessary to force through the Health Care reform bill. The Nebraska Democrat was given a huge payoff for his state by the leadership in the Senate, which will prevent a filibuster, barring any last minute defections from this package.
Some are questioning Nelson's motives, as his earlier objections to the bill had to do with restrictions on abortion coverage. But those restrictions failed to satisfy major anti-abortion groups and lawmakers. Even though Nelson did win some concessions on abortion restrictions, it was the commitment by the government to fully fund his state's expanded Medicaid population that garnered his vote. After the first three years of the bill in which all states get federal assistance, Nebraska would be the only state that continues to get full assistance, to the tune of $45 million over ten years.
Republicans were furious at this obvious kickback.
John McCain, R-Ariz, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said the other 49 states are picking up the tab for Nelson's payoff. "That puts an added burden on all the other states, including mine, " he said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said "It's pretty obvious votes have been bought."
So now the Senate will take up the vote, with a virtual guarantee of passage before Christmas. Then it is on to the more liberal House, where there will be some contentious wrangling over some of the provisions, but a compromise will be reached, and in the end, the American people will have this massive new entitlement shoved down their throats. This, despite the latest polls showing that most Americans overwhelmingly oppose this legislation.
Rasmussen's latest poll shows 63 percent of senior citizens oppose it, and 54 percent of all respondents say health care quality will get worse under the legislation. According to Quinnipiac, by 63 percent to 30 percent, voters think that covering the uninsured will raise their health care costs.
Those in favor of this boondoggle claim that the public will eventually get used to this so-called reform, even though they are currently against it, and they point to opposition to Medicare when it was first proposed, to bolster their argument.
One can only hope that the anger and frustration that was evident at the tea parties and town hall meetings of last summer will continue unabated into the new year, and will be expressed in the form of a major political housecleaning at the polls in November of 2010.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Some are questioning Nelson's motives, as his earlier objections to the bill had to do with restrictions on abortion coverage. But those restrictions failed to satisfy major anti-abortion groups and lawmakers. Even though Nelson did win some concessions on abortion restrictions, it was the commitment by the government to fully fund his state's expanded Medicaid population that garnered his vote. After the first three years of the bill in which all states get federal assistance, Nebraska would be the only state that continues to get full assistance, to the tune of $45 million over ten years.
Republicans were furious at this obvious kickback.
John McCain, R-Ariz, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said the other 49 states are picking up the tab for Nelson's payoff. "That puts an added burden on all the other states, including mine, " he said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said "It's pretty obvious votes have been bought."
So now the Senate will take up the vote, with a virtual guarantee of passage before Christmas. Then it is on to the more liberal House, where there will be some contentious wrangling over some of the provisions, but a compromise will be reached, and in the end, the American people will have this massive new entitlement shoved down their throats. This, despite the latest polls showing that most Americans overwhelmingly oppose this legislation.
Rasmussen's latest poll shows 63 percent of senior citizens oppose it, and 54 percent of all respondents say health care quality will get worse under the legislation. According to Quinnipiac, by 63 percent to 30 percent, voters think that covering the uninsured will raise their health care costs.
Those in favor of this boondoggle claim that the public will eventually get used to this so-called reform, even though they are currently against it, and they point to opposition to Medicare when it was first proposed, to bolster their argument.
One can only hope that the anger and frustration that was evident at the tea parties and town hall meetings of last summer will continue unabated into the new year, and will be expressed in the form of a major political housecleaning at the polls in November of 2010.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
