A Changing of the Guard

This country has a rich history of watchdog journalism. Even before the founding of this nation, free speech and freedom of the press have been hallmarks of our society. Over the years, we found the need to limit certain types of speech because they were deemed detrimental to the well-being of the society. For example, you can’t shout fire in a crowded movie theater, unless there actually is a fire. You can’t print things about someone that are false. You don’t have the right to say hurtful things which would damage a person’s reputation in his or her community. These we have seen as valid restrictions on free speech. But now there is an all-out attack on free speech in this country.

Since the early days of this administration, there has been an effort to marginalize the voices of dissent found in what has been called the alternative media: talk radio, blogs, websites, and of course, FOX News. With the advent of the web, true news junkies like me have been able to find alternative sources for the information they want about the world around them. Starting with Rush Limbaugh in 1988, conservative voices began pushing back against what has been perceived as a liberal bias in journalism. As Rush’s popularity grew in the late 80’s and early 90’s, he started to shine the light of truth on stories that could not find airtime on so-called mainstream media outlets like the national newspapers and network news shows. Then in 1992, Rush highlighted a couple of stories involving corruption in the House of Representatives: the House post office scandal and the House banking scandal. The latter of these was a story that had “legs,” as we in the biz say. It was easy to understand and everyone could relate. Members of the House would write checks on their accounts in the House bank and the bank would honor them regardless of how much money was in the member’s account. As a result, several members of the House were overdrawn to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars! There was no penalty for this and there was no indication that the members had any intention of paying the amounts back. As the outcry grew, the House Ethics Committee singled out 22 of the worst offenders, 19 of whom were Democrats. At this point, the House had been controlled by Democrats for 40 years. After these scandals hit, due largely to Rush’s spotlight, and because of some opportunistic moves by Newt Gingrich, the leader of the Republicans in the House, Republicans took the House in the 1994 elections! This was the first time the alternative media had an impact on politics in Washington.

Then, in 1997, when Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinski story on his website, DrudgeReport.com, alternative media was on the map for good. Some of the other successes include the exposure of Dan Rather’s use of fraudulent documents to smear President Bush. This was just weeks before the election in 2004, and was reported on many blogs including Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, and Powerline. Another big story that year was John Kerry’s service record, which the alternative media found to be exaggerated or fabricated entirely by Kerry. (Not to demean his service, he did go to Vietnam and he did serve his country!)

As the reach of the internet grew, so did the reach of the alternative media. But now the playing field is changing. As many of you know, I have been working in television and radio for almost 30 years now. Some of these years have been spent working in television newsrooms at local affiliates in the Tampa Bay area. I was always amazed to walk into the newsroom and find new producers hovering over their local newspaper, searching for news items to cover. For many years now, the print media has dominated what we see on our TV screens each evening. When it comes to national news and the news networks, it is the New York Times which has had the ear of the national media. Followed closely by the Washington Post (who broke the Watergate scandal back in the 70’s), the Wall Street Journal (for financial news), and the LA Times (so we can keep track of those west-coasters). But the print business is fading. . .fast.

As the all-news cable networks began proliferating in the mid-90’s, so began the 24-hour news cycle. Now you didn’t have newspapers just reporting in the morning and the big networks reporting at 6 and 11. You had continuous coverage, 24 hours a day. The cable networks were an extension of what the mainstream media outlets were doing. They would generally follow the lead of the print media. Until the alternative media started their ascendancy. Unlike the other news channels, FOX News would actually report many of these news stories that could only find a home in the alternative media. In the last 13 years, FOX has found an audience that has helped it dominate the ratings over all their competitors. On some nights, the FOX primetime lineup beats CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Headline News combined!!

In the last few months, FOX has been the only one to air extensive coverage on some rather important stories:

Glenn Beck’s investigation into the background of the man who was in charge of creating “green” jobs, Van Jones, resulted in Mr. Jones having to resign.

FOX News’ airing of videotapes in which ACORN workers were shown coaching an admitted pimp and prostitute on how to gin the tax system so they could deduct their business expenses and count their underage El Salvadoran sex slaves as dependents. This was particularly damaging to the President, since he has spent most of his career working with ACORN. One surprising moment in this escapade was when Charlie Gibson, the long-time anchor of ABC World News admitted he knew nothing of this story! Amazing!

In the wake of these scoops, the New York Times admitted that they were out of touch with what was going on over at FOX News. They didn’t understand how FOX had been able to scoop them so easily. Well, this frank admission had repercussions all the way up to the halls of the White House. If the New York Times has decided they need to pay more attention to the kind of stories FOX News is doing, the White House is in BIG TROUBLE!

So out come the attack dogs. Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, has been leading the charge both in appearances on TV and on the White House blog. But the heat was turned up when Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, and David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President, made simultaneous appearances on CNN and ABC’s Sunday morning news chat shows. They both made the point that they didn’t think that FOX News was a “real news” organization. That meant they intended to treat FOX News differently than the other networks.

While this is unprecedented behavior from a White House to single out a news organization as an enemy, what came next was even more shocking. During their respective interviews, they both served notice to the other networks and news organizations that they could be next. Appearing on CNN, Rahm Emanuel said, “more importantly is not have the CNN’s and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox as if that what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.” If that’s not a warning, I don’t know what is!

I think this is an admission that the news cycle is now being driven by FOX and the other alternative media outlets and that the influence of the old guard media is diminishing. As circulation of the big newspapers continues to dwindle, so does their influence. If you couple that with their admitted obliviousness to very important news stories, you have a totally irrelevant news organization. That’s what’s happening to the New York Times and others.

So here you have the White House demonizing the one network they need to reach prospective voters with their message, and embracing an increasing irrelevant system. And what’s more, they have sent a warning to the old guard that they shouldn’t try to respond to the increasing pressure from their competition, otherwise they will be marginalized too. Perhaps the White House isn’t the best place to take advice from on how to respond to criticism, since they have not been able to maintain the President’s approval rating which has dropped from over 70% at inauguration to under 50%!

Maybe if I paint my house white, I can be President!

My wife is constantly telling me that I should be more positive in my blogs. I keep reminding her that there aren’t a lot of positive things going on so it’s hard to be positive. But I think this one will be her favorite. I found something that Barack Obama did right. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe, but I have found one scrap of a good policy amidst the tidal wave of social changes, dithering on troop deployment, and demonizing free speech.

This week, the National Association of Realtors announced that home sales are up 24% from the bottom of the market in January. This in turn has reduced the supply of available houses, causing home values to creep up ever so slightly. While that news is great news for all us home owners, it’s important to understand why the surge in home buying is taking place.

Even casual readers of this blog have seen that from the beginning of the economic downturn I’ve been preaching tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. It is always the solution to any economic slowdown. Usually, the reason the economy is slowing in the first place is because of some government intervention which has finally caught up with the markets inability to sustain itself given the heavy burden. It’s like a champion runner who can run like the wind, until you put a 100-pound backpack on him, then he’s just average, or worse. The only way to restore this thoroughbred of an economy is to take the backpack off. That’s just what President Obama did when he signed the stimulus bill back in February.

I’m pretty sure no one noticed this since most legislators didn’t read the bill, but somehow a few billion in tax cuts did make their way through the stimulus bill despite the overwhelming amount of the nearly $800 billion in spending. There was a nice little tax cut in there for first-time home buyers. If you haven’t bought a home in the last three years,  you are eligible for a 10% tax break on your new home purchase, up to $8000. The clock is ticking on this tax break, as it is due to expire on Nov. 30. It is believed that the extraordinary surge in home buying in the month of September is due to prospective home buyers trying to get in under the deadline. DUH! Ya think so?!?

It is axiomatic that no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. The reason this nation has had the most productive economy in history is because of the generally low tax rates here compared to other, more socialist economies. As we have headed down the road to socialism, we have seen the dramatic effect on our once exemplary economy. Unemployment is now closer to 10% than it has been in 27 years. Real unemployment (those who have lost their jobs and have stopped looking for new ones or have taken part-time work) is at a staggering 17%! We are still in the throes of a deep recession. Banks are still failing at an alarming rate. Despite all of this, there is one shining beacon of hope: the housing market.

Because of this one little tax cut mired in the morass that was the economic stimulus package, housing sales are at a two-year high. Now the push is on by the Realtors’ association to get Congress to extend the tax cut. Surprisingly, they have found an unlikely ally: Sen. Chris Dodd, head of the banking committee in the Senate. Dodd has never seen a tax cut he liked, except this one. Facing a tough re-election next year (with competition from the WWE’s Linda McMahon and others), Dodd has decided to hitch his wagon to something that works. . .a tax cut.

Of course, the praise for Obama’s lowly tax cut has not been universal. According to an article by the Associated Press, Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities said that the Realtors association has “an incentive to talk up the effects of the credit as it is urging Congress to extend it, and it therefore may be exaggerating the credit’s effects.” That might be true Zach, if it were an anomaly. If this was some strange occurrence never before seen in the history of macro economics. Unfortunately for Zach (and whoever it was that gave him an economics degree), this kind of stimulus has happened EVERY TIME it has been tried.

For example, I documented in this blog last July (That’s great but what do you do for an encore!) how Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany who was facing re-election, succumbed to pressure to cut taxes. Her country was mired in recession and her re-election was looking bleak. I threw down the gauntlet in that article. I told Germany to BRING IT! Well, they did. Economic signs have turned around and although it is still early, indications are that the recovery has begun. As a result, Merkel was re-elected and her coalition government has vowed more tax cuts to keep the economy headed in the right direction.

I will offer just this one caveat to what we are seeing with our housing market. Yes, it is true that more first-time home buyers are getting into the market, but this bill defines them as people who have not owned a home in the last three years. Many of the so-called “sub-prime” borrowers got out of the market about that time. I fear that we are letting some of the same people back in the system who couldn’t pay for their homes the last time. If you are not familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act, you should read my blog “Get you money for nothin’ and your houses for free!” It details the influence Congress had on the housing market using the CRA. Now they are trying to expand the CRA instead of repealing it. This means we are destined to repeat the same disaster we had last year unless someone stops them.

But for now, I’m happy to bask in the glow of a very mature response to Obama’s brilliant tactic of taking my advice, at least on the housing market:

I WAS RIGHT! I WAS RIIIGHHT!!!

The Race is on!

Well that didn’t take long. We all knew it was coming. It was only a matter of time. As soon as Obama starts having trouble with his agenda, the liberals trot out some washed up liberal icon to accuse his detractors of racism. Never mind the fact that the polls overwhelmingly show the general public doesn’t want the things the President is pushing. No, it’s racism, plain and simple.

What am I talking about? In case you haven’t heard, former (thank God!) President Carter decided to inject himself in the health care reform debate. Is he in favor of a single-payer system? Not sure. Is he interested in seeing more affordable health insurance options? Don’t know. No, the Nobel prize-winning elder statesman, a man of peace, who only wants us all to get along decided to say this to Brian Williams:

Just in case you can’t see the video for some reason, he said, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man. . .that he’s African-American. I live in the South and I’ve seen the South come a long way and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans. That . . uh. . .racism inclination still exists.”

He goes on to say that many white people both in the South and elsewhere don’t think a black man is qualified to lead the United States. Did anybody bother to mention to Mr. Carter that President Obama WON THE ELECTION!! Does he think it was just the black people who elected him?

Frankly, I’m more than a little tired of being a punching bag for a bunch of people who can’t talk to me without calling me a racist or stupid or whatever. The racist tag is old and easy. As a Republican, a conservative, and a Southerner, I’m an easy target. . .unless you let the facts get in the way.

What?!? You mean there might be some facts out there that suggest you’re not as racist as the rest of the country thinks you are?!?

Yes, I know it’s hard to believe, but the South’s record on race isn’t as bad as you think it is, not to mention the tremendous record the Republican’s have on helping the black community. Let’s start at the beginning. The Republican party was founded on an abolitionist platform. They were impatient with the continued practice of slavery and wanted to free the slaves. In 1860, their nominee actually won the Presidency. Anyone? Anyone? Yes, it was Abraham Lincoln. And guess what?!? He freed the slaves! Yup, a politician who actually did what he said he would. Now we can have a discussion later as to whether this was the right way to end slavery, but he did do it. For the black community this should endear the Republican party to them for a hundred years or more! Nope. Conversely, the Democrats, who are the oldest party in the country, had plenty of chance to free the slaves but they didn’t. That’s a fact.

Ok, so now we have all these freed slaves but they are still being oppressed. They essentially have no rights as citizens. What will we do? What. . .will . . .we. . .do?!? I know, let’s amend the Constitution to allow former slaves full rights to citizenship! Great idea. Whose idea? Yup, Republicans. In the years after the War Between the States, Congress was dominated by Republicans. They proposed and passed the amendents known as the “Reconstruction Amendments.” Now it’s up to the states to ratify those amendments. No problem, most of the states ratified the 13th Amendment (the one abolishing slavery) back in 1865. A couple of the states took a little longer though: Kentucky and Mississippi. They didn’t ratify this amendment until late in the 20th Century! 1976 and 1995 respectively. Why did it take them so long? Without going into all the detail, suffice it to say that their respective state politics had been dominated by Democrats. It wasn’t until the Republicans were elected in those states that the anti-slavery amendment was passed. Funny, huh! How is it that those bigoted Republicans keep getting out in front on the race issue?

Perhaps the most sweeping legislation concerning black Americans was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While this act was generated in Congress primarily by Democrats, they could not have passed it without the help of the majority of Republicans. This legislation had no traction in the South. Representatives from both sides of the aisle refused to support it. In fact, while none of the eleven Republican congressmen from the former secessionist states supported this act, only eight of the 107 Southern Democrats voted for the bill! That meant the Democrats would have to rely on Republicans help to pass it, and they got it in spades (no pun intended!). 85% of the remaining republicans voted to pass the Civil Rights Act and it passed.

Why so much opposition in the South? Well, of course the standard answer is, as Mr. Carter apparently believes, southerners are racists, right? Well, then there’s this little thing called states rights. You know, the reason the states pulled out of the Union in the first place! While certainly some of the opposition to this bill was raced based, much of it was based on the fact that here again, the federal government was trying to tell the states how to conduct their business.

The main reason the Civil Rights Act was necessary in the first place was because there had been an encroachment of rights, primarily in the South, by what have come to be known as Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow was a character from a minstrel show in the early 1800’s. As the South began to reemerge from the war, white Democrats (sound familiar Mr. Carter) came to power, in large part by intimidating black voters. As they became more powerful, they enacted more and more laws to segregate the blacks and whites. These laws were the norm in the South until the middle of the 20th Century. Even after the Supreme Court had overturned segregation, it was a Democrat governor, George Wallace, who stood in the door at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of four blacks. This was the fulfillment of his promise to uphold “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Well, at least he kept his campaign promise, I guess.

And let’s not forget the Dixiecrats. Yes, some Southern Democrats thought their party wasn’t segregationist enough so they formed their own party. The Dixiecrats were short-lived but were definitely pro-segregation and definitely Democrats!

That brings us to the Grand Poobah (or should I call him Exalted Cyclops) of racist Democrats, Robert Byrd who still serves in the US Senate. Senator Byrd reached the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan when he was just a young man in West Virginia. And in 1964, he filibustered the Civil Rights Act in the Senate. Despite all this, he reached the level of Majority Leader in the Senate. Apparently, the Democrats don’t think his past racial views disqualify him for leadership in their party. But the pièce de résistance was an appearance on Fox News Sunday back in 2001 with the late Tony Snow. If the N word offends you, you may want to bypass this:

Am I trying to point the finger of racism solely at the Democrat party? Of course not, there’s plenty of blame to go around. It was a different time and fortunately we have all moved on. The problem is that every so often (and it’s happening much more often now than it has in the past), someone will raise the specter of racism. It’s usually a Democrat and it’s usually to advance some policy agenda that’s going nowhere. . .like health care. Frankly, I’m offended that I have to dig up all these old bones and open old wounds but I will not continue to stand idly by while I and my fellow Americans are painted with a broad brush the way Mr. (and I use that term loosely) Carter has done. Jimmy Carter is proving to be an even worse ex-President than he was a President. . .and that’s saying something!

Touching a nerve? That new health care program should help!

I got quite a few responses for my “Sympathy for the Liberal” post a few weeks ago. Since writing that post, things have gotten even worse for the liberals in power. I’d like to respond to those who were so kind to leave comments. I want this to be a place we can have a dialog about our feelings and our thoughts. I hope I can help change some minds and perhaps others can point out things to me that I haven’t thought about. So with all of our egos in check, here are my thoughts on the comments.

Rich,
While I can’t vouch for Glenn or Rush as to whether they have ever volunteered to build a playground or not, I can tell you they have as much military experience as our current Commander-in-Chief! While Rush has personally raised or donated (Ok, I haven’t seen the check stubs, but I hope we’re all comfortable within the confines of the honor system) millions of dollars to the Leukemia Foundation through his telethons each year and the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, while according to the Boston Globe, our beloved leader can not even reach into his own pocket to help his family members in Kenya.

I think I agree with you basically, though. Beck and Limbaugh are simply entertainers, putting on a show for the millions (like me) who find their opinions interesting. Although they didn’t have formal educations when they started (according to Beck, he has since earned a college degree), they were able to use their talents to help them earn a lucrative living. This, my friend, is what America is all about! There is no conventional path to success here in this great land of opportunity. You make your way the best you can using your wits and your talents.

My question though is why does the White House care what a couple of uneducated radio jocks think? Someone should tell Mr. Obama that he won! Seriously, he has all of the mainstream media in his pocket, not to mention a good portion of the not-so-mainstream media. He is on TV EVERY DAY! This morning, he was on every news program and tomorrow he is going on David Letterman. Why not fight for Van Jones if he’s so important? Why not ignore the unintelligent Glenn Beck? Why attack the irrelevant Rush Limbaugh? Barry should be swimming in the deep end of the pool! Yet he seems concerned about what he DOESN’T have, rather than what he does. I find that utterly fascinating.

I would be happy to let him lead – he is the one who is holding himself back.

But, if you’re really interested in a political icon who has a rich military history, proven economic success as President, and stellar credentials in foreign relations, might I recommend – Ronald Wilson Reagan!

Linda,

Apparently, you haven’t spent much time in my house! At home, I frequently get questions about my beliefs. In fact, (I know this is hard to believe) many of my conservative friends think I’m too conservative! I understand that President Bush made a lot of mistakes, but I believe he made honest mistakes and made steps to correct them. The one thing I have always said about George is that, love him or hate him, he always told you what he was going to do – and did it! In 2004, he literally dared you to vote him out of office. He said that as long as he was President, he would pursue the war on terror and boy did he! He kept us safe for eight years after we were attacked. I hope that record holds.

Mr. Obama, however, has. . .well. . . to be polite. . .been less than honest with the American people. When Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie!” at the President, it was because he wasn’t telling the truth. First, there is no “Obama Health Care Plan” being considered in either house of Congress. Second, the ones that are being considered have no provision in them to verify citizenship before someone receives benefits. In fact, the Republicans offered amendments that would guarantee that illegal aliens would not receive benefits. The Democrats refused the amendments. So when the President says, “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Joe Wilson’s response is a proper one.

Obama’s not being crucified because he’s not being given a chance. He’s being crucified because he simply can’t tell the truth about what he wants to do. I believe I have documented that pretty well in other posts as well.

But hey! Thanks for joining the debate! Don’t be a stranger.

Craig,

I think we’ve found common ground, Craig. I agree with you when you say, “Liberalism is based on kindness, empathy, compassion and generosity.” I believe conservatism is grounded in rational thought, facts, and results. Liberals never want to be judged on their results, only on their intentions. For example, for more than forty years, we have been paying into the Great Society, introduced by LBJ. And yet, we still have poor people don’t we? Did the Great Society work? I say no! How ’bout we try something else then. Let’s kill these programs which clearly haven’t worked, return the money back to those who have earned it, let them spend it how they want, and watch the economy grow, providing more jobs for more people than ever before! It has worked every time it has been tried.

I, for one, am not afraid of change or anything else. I don’t vote out of fear, or decide my view on issues based on any emotional feelings. Emotions are the purview of the liberals, just as you said. They tend to base their stance on issues according to their own definition of “fairness.” Heck, they’re the ones who developed the “fairness doctrine!” I am a little wary of someone, like our President, who says he wants to fundamentally transform the United States. This is the nation that has done more than any other nation in history to benefit the rest of the world. During the aftermath of the Indonesian tsunami, we donated about a billion dollars in public and private funding. We couldn’t do that if we changed our society. Since the President has been honest about his Marxist tendencies, I suspect that’s the change he wants to make. I reject that since it has never worked and won’t work here. It might make some liberals feel good to “spread the wealth” as the President says, but I don’t want my wealth spread to anyone but those who I choose.

Whew! I hope we all had a good exchange. I know I did. Keep the comments coming! I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Last Minute Prediction. . .

Right now the President is preparing to give his most recent speech on the great health care debate of 2009. I have seen some of his remarks that have been released by the White House and for my money, he sounds angry and fed up. You know how sometimes you read an email and you wonder if the person who wrote it was angry or kidding? That’s how I felt while I was reading his speech. There’s nothing new in it factually, just the tone of a man who has finally lost his patience with the country.

I wanted to put it on record before the speech that this was going to be the final nail in the coffin of the health care debate. Now that I’ve had a chance to see some of his comments, I’m more convinced than ever that this will be seen as the final stand for Obama on this matter. They may still pass it, but it will be in spite of the will of the people.

For the record though, the success or failure of this speech will depend totally on how he delivers it. If he delivers it the way it reads, his entire Presidency may in fact be over. Or. . . I could be wrong!

Sympathy for the Liberal

It must suck to be a liberal. You would think this would be the time in the life of a liberal when they have everything going for them. Imagine, you spend your whole life living in a country whose very founding was a rejection of every tenet of liberalism. Over the years, liberalism has been rejected time and time again. Oh sure, there were flirtations: elements of socialist programs introduced by FDR and LBJ; the Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion and sodomy, to name a few; and of course, affirmative action. We’re still paying for those. But never has the entire government been so completely taken over by far left liberals with an agenda of, in the President’s own words, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

So what’s the problem? Liberals live in the White House. Liberals populate the halls of Congress in numbers never before seen: a super-majority in the Senate and overwhelming majorities in the House. The President has surrounded himself with some of the most liberal people in the country. He has appointed over 30 czars for every conceivable policy agenda. Not to mention populating the already existing structures of government with left-wing radicals. But aside from taking over a couple of car companies and spending us into oblivion, some of the more radical of his agenda items seem to be having trouble.

And at a time when the President has enjoyed the lock-step (is that appropriate?) favor of the mainstream media! There is virtually no criticism of the President or his agenda on any of the major networks or newspapers (do they still print those?). Quite the contrary. ABC news even gave over an entire day of news coverage so the President could tout his health care program. ABC literally moved into the White House and did their news shows from there AND gave the President an entire hour of prime time television to pitch his health care reform agenda virtually unchallenged (does that count as a donation?).

And it’s not like the President has any political opposition either. The Republicans in Congress and around the country are not very outspoken about the President’s policies. Sure there is the obligatory, “I don’t think this is what’s best for the American people” quotes from various so-called elected “leaders.” But I’m a Republican and I’m a conservative, and I can’t think of one single elected leader who has been the face of opposition for the President’s agenda. Not one! The only two people who have taken on the President with any tremendous success are Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin! And they have NO POWER TO CHANGE ANYTHING!!! They hold no elective office! Other than, of course, the same power we all have given to us by that pesky document, the Constitution. You remember that don’t you? “We the people. . .” and all that stuff. Quaint id’n it.

So what’s the holdup?!? Why am I not already waiting in line to see my doctor? C’mon people! We got the non-stimulative stimulus package done in a couple weeks. It’s been almost SEVEN MONTHS and the President hasn’t signed cap and trade or health care. Are we not in enough crisis yet? We are still in the throes of a deepening recession and unemployment is now at a 26-year high – 9.7%! (For the record, the all-time high is 10.8% back in 1982. C’mon America! We can break that record!!) We have been bleeding jobs for the entire year. Approximately three million just since the inauguration!

It seems that things have started to come apart at the seams for the liberals. Beginning with the massive push for health care reform, the President and his agenda have been floundering. The President’s approval rating has dipped below 50% for the first time since taking office. What was once on a fast track to passage, has become mired in arguments and divisiveness. The President has been pitching his agenda every day, on every TV network for months now. Like President Clinton said to the Netroots convention back in August, once the President signs the legislation, his polls will start going back up! I absolutely agree! Just pass it, Mr. President! Let’s watch those polls start skyrocketing upward, just like the stock market! You have Congress, the media, the unprecedented support of the American people, right? Just do it!

But alas, the heyday of the liberal seems to have come and gone. What was it? Six months? You had quite a run there. And now, as the wheels are seemingly coming off, the one great icon of the liberal movement for five decades, has died. Ted Kennedy, who has been on the wrong side of every important issue facing the country since the 1960’s, passed away, and just at the time when his passion for health care reform was about to be realized. As his grandson said, during a prayer at his funeral, that it was his grandfather’s cause of his life that, “every American have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right, not a privilege.” Well I guess there’s nothing like teaching the kids early that religion is merely a tool for political goals.

Perhaps it will be passed yet. As both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have said, Teddy’s passing should help them garner support for passage of the kind of health care for Americans that Teddy himself wouldn’t have ever used. Or perhaps when this bill is ultimately and completely rejected, we can bury it in a plot next to Teddy and his brothers at Arlington. We could put a headstone on it, “Here lies the last remnants of the great cause of a great liberals life. A life lived in vain!”

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for the liberals, I get up this morning to find out that Green Jobs Czar Van Jones has resigned. Why would it matter that Green Jobs Czar Van Jones has resigned? Green Jobs Czar Van Jones is one of the most radically liberal people in the country, not just the administration. He is a self-confessed Communist and has made many statements about how he wants to “change the whole system,” talking about the United States and how we do things here. Sound familiar? He’s also a member of the 9/11 “truther” movement (although he denies it now) and has been a strident supporter of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. He is exactly the kind of person Barack Hussein Obama wants in his administration. While the concept of a Communist creating jobs is a novel one, that experiment seems to have failed, again.

Why did it fail? As far as I know, there has only been one person who has taken the issue of Green Jobs Czar Van Jones on and that’s Glenn Beck. Glenn is a talk radio host and host of his own show for an hour a day on FOX news. According to Byron York of the Washington Examiner, a Nexis search of Van Jones and his controversies turned up zero (0) results in the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, and, NBC news. If you get your news from any or all of those sources, then you know nothing of the. . .well to be kind. . .checkered past of the former Green Jobs Czar.

Why the failure of the Obama agenda? Why the failure of the Green Jobs Czar? The people of this country have started to understand the true revolutionary nature of the administration and what they really “hope” to “change.” Remember that quaint old document that starts “We the people. . .?” Guess it’s still pretty relevant even after over 220 years! Keep up the good work America!

There’s no need to be snippy!

Whilst trolling the internet, I have found a beautiful example of liberals at their most urbane. The author of this monumental achievement in political punditry is a man named Uwe Reinhardt. I know he’s a man because there is a totally candid photo of him posted next to his article. Mr. Reinhardt comes to us with some rather impressive credentials. He’s the James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. (Ever notice how liberals use a lot of other people’s name to tell you how important they are?) His article is called, “Frightening Future if Health Reform Fails.” Let’s assume he’s a proponent of the President’s health care reform. Let’s see what Mr. Reinhardt (oh, great another German socialist, I thought we got rid of them back in the 40’s!) has to say about the failure of “health reform:”

“Watching the angry outbursts at town hall meetings on health reform and the continuing public ambivalence about current efforts to reform our health system almost makes me wish that the reform effort fails.”

Wishes aside, does this man have any grasp of reality? How can you say that there are “angry outbusts at town hall meetings” and “continuing public ambivalence” in the same sentence?!? People can not possibly be ambivalent and angry all at the same time, can they? Despite the disparity in the opening sentence, I read on:

“Perhaps Americans need to be taught a basic lesson on the economics of employment-based health insurance before they will feel as smugly secure with it as they do now and before they will stop nitpicking health-reform efforts to death over this or that detail.”

Wow, this guy really seems to have a disdain for the average American. He feels we need to be “taught a lesson” and that we are smug and nitpicky. It’s fascinating to me that when people of good faith have an honest disagreement with their policy-makers, the insults start to fly! This guy is a classic example of the liberal elite, where their opinion is king and if we disagree with them, we’re stupid. Nevermind that no socialist experiment has ever worked – ever!

The rest of his article you can read for yourself, if you want to. He goes on to make the point that an employer-based insurance system cannot sustain itself. On that point, we might agree. Only his solution is to remand the insurance system into the hands of the federal government! I don’t know about you, but that scares me to death. Instead of an employer-based system, as always, I prefer a system where the power resides with those who actually need the health care. The people!!

But let’s get back to Mr. Reinhardt. He blames those who don’t want public health care of “nitpicking health-reform efforts to death over this or that detail.” Let’s look at a couple of those “nitpicky” details. Right now, there’s only one bill that has made it through any of the Congressional committees. That bill is HR 3200 in the house of Representatives. (You can find a copy online by searching for it and follow along if you like.) The President has not put forth a bill, the Senate has not put forth a bill. There is one bill. It is complete and ready for the House to vote on it and with sizable majorities in both houses, the Democrats can pass it without a single Republican vote. It is important for us to see what’s in it so we know what our Representatives have as goals for the final version.

Fortunately, a professor at Duke University, who is not a physician or a politician, took a layman’s view of the bill and presented his findings at classicideals.com. He’s found some interesting things, let’s call them “nitpicky” details. According to the bill:

First, you don’t have a choice as to whether you have health insurance or not. According to page 102, “an individual who. . .has not elected to enroll in (a). . .health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.”

You don’t have the choice to “opt out.” You are going to have health insurance and you will not have a choice what it is. What happens if you do try to “opt out?” According to pages 167-168, “In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax. . .” That’s right, if you reject health insurance, you are taxed, that is to say, you pay a penalty.

Ok, so I have to have coverage, I’ll just take the private health option that my employer offers me, right? Well according to pages 149-150, a section called “EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE,” your employer will have to provide health care that meets federal standards. If not, they will pay a tax, “equal to 8 percent of  the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment.” Generally speaking, an 8% tax would be substantially less than paying for the strict kind of health insurance endorsed by the government. It wouldn’t take long for the employers to “opt out” and leave you, once again, with no other option than the public option.”Nitpicky,” I know.

But, obviously the government wants me to have great health care, that’s why they’re insisting that I “go public.” So as the employers’ insurance plans start to dry up, and more and more of my fellow citizens go on the public plan, I’m sure there will be no problem getting the health care I need, like a hospital stay, right? Well, according to pages 284-288, “excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.” Well, I’m not sure I understand that. What’s an “excess readmission?” It will be, “specified by the Secretary.” Ok, so what’s an “applicable condition?” Oh that will be, “selected by the Secretary.” So this “Secretary” will be deciding what I can go into the hospital for and when? That sounds like rationing, more importantly, it sounds like I will not have a part in deciding how I want my health care managed. But I’m probably just being “nitpicky” over this or that detail, right?

Perhaps the President can reassure us that we won’t be denied coverage just because we’re too old. I mean, he wouldn’t tell us we can’t help save our parents if they are dying, right? In an exchange with Jane Sturm at his health care infomercial on ABC a couple of months ago, President Obama said, “End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make.” Whoa!! What do you mean by that? If my Mom needs a procedure to save her life, my decision is for her to have it! The President leaves no doubt what he means: “Maybe you’re better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.” Ok, now I know I’m not being nitpicky! I prefer to rely on the words of my ideological icon, Ronald Reagan, from his farewell address:

As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Did I Just Say That Out Loud?!?

Every once in a while, a politician will say something to let you in on what they are really thinking. Those moments are precious and few. Like in 1999, when then-President Clinton, bragging about a projected budget surplus said, “We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right… But … if you don’t spend it right. . .Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?” Yes, here you have a classic example of a liberal saying that he can spend your money better than you can.< Sigh> Such fond memories. . .I think I found my happy place. . .

It only took a few months in office but President Obama has given us a beautiful reminder of how they know the truth and yet insist what we all know to be true really isn’t. Of course, I am talking about the very heated health care debate. Today, President Obama held a town hall to go on the offensive in support of his health care plan. . .which he didn’t write. . .and doesn’t know what’s in it. . .but which he totally supports. During his town hall, he restates his belief that the new health care legislation simply adds another competitor to the health care choices to keep the insurance companies honest. (like the hundreds of insurance companies having one more competitor will solve some perceived “honesty” problem) He reassures us that the public option is simply that, an option you have if you want it (which if you read my last blog, you know isn’t true). He tries to allay our fears that the public option will wipe out private insurance companies pointing to. . .well listen for yourself

(man I love posting videos!)

Ok, so did you hear it? He compares the US Postal Service to FedEx and UPS! Ok, this isn’t in the league with Clinton’s comment, but it is priceless. What’s wrong with that? In case you didn’t know this (I didn’t till I looked it up), the USPS is a MONOPOLY! They are NOT in competition with FedEx or UPS. In fact, the USPS is an agency of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH which he is the head of!!! Does he not know that?!? FedEx and UPS only provide services that the USPS can’t. It is a Constitutional mandate that the USPS have exclusive rights to serve the public with their mail.

Ok, but I’m burying the lead. (I’m just so giddy, WEEEE!) President Obama, in trying to point out how private companies have been able to survive in the face of government competition, actually pointed out that a government agency, WITH A TOTAL MONOPOLY ON SERVICE, (that is to say, we allll have to use it!!) is “always having problems.” (Be still my beating heart!!!)

Man I may just have to throw a party! I may be up all night listening to “happy days are here again!” He didn’t just say that did he?!? He did!!! WOW!

I’ve always believed that when you have won the argument, you should just shut up.

Thank you! Good night everybody!!!

Don’t believe your lying ears!

I must admit, I’m having a hard time keeping up. I’m not sure which quote I’m supposed to believe and when. There are so many people saying so many things and then coming back and telling me “no, wait, what I meant to say was . . .” Why can’t people just say what they mean and stand by it? If it were just some dolt in the grocery store or restaurant I frequented, I wouldn’t much care. But we’re talking about really important people, like a Supreme Court nominee and the President of the United States!!

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, we were having a national discussion on health care. It was so important, the President held a prime time press conference – again! What was the big news out of this press conference: single-payer? pre-conditions? universal coverage? Nope! The press was abuzz about a question the President answered near the end that had nothing to do with health care. Instead, the President inserted himself into a police matter in Cambridge, Massachusetts. When the President answered this question, he was self-assured, animated, confident. He boldly state that he didn’t know what happened in that house in Cambridge but that he thought it was clear the cops “acted stupidly” (are we sure this guy went to Harvard?). The next day, this local police matter becomes the talk of the nation. So out stomps Obama to clean up the mess he made. He comes to the podium at the daily White House press briefing looking down, much less animated, very thoughtful. He said he wished he had “calibrated” his comments better. I’m not sure what that means but I think it means he wished he hadn’t said what he said. So what am I supposed to believe? The confident off-the-cuff, shoot-from-the-hip guy who laid out the Cambridge police, or the more tempered, “calibrated” guy who came out the next day.

Just prior to that we had a week of testimony from our Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. There was quite a bit of controversy over several of her remarks. We talked about them here. One of them was that she said on many different occasions, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” For this she has been labeled everything from a pioneer to a racist. But when she got before the Senate Judicial Committee, she totally backpedaled. In her testimony, she said, “I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.” So what am I supposed to believe? Those two statements are mutually exclusive. One can’t be true if the other is true. And yet, when she wasn’t a Supreme Court nominee, she had no problem saying it. . .over. . .and over. . .and over. At least five times in speeches given over seven years. And that’s just the ones we know about. So if she really believes that, why not stand up and be proud of it? Why hedge?

Now we get to the health care debate. President Obama has said many times that his health care reform must include the freedom to keep whatever insurance you currently have if you want to. Seriously, watch.

He said it. Did you hear him? He’s been saying every time he gets in front of a microphone, which is often! But now there is video circulating from Naked Emperor News showing several times when Obama is advocating a Universal Health Care system which would replace the private insurance system we have now. Take a look.

It seems there are several advocates for a government-run universal health care in this video. Not to mention the many various times that the President expressed his preference for it. BTW, all Democrats. So once again, who am I to believe? The Obama who has committed to me on several occasions that my private insurance will still be available to me or the one who says he wants a single-payer, government-run system? Fortunately, the White House has released a video which will help me decide.

On the White House blog (did you know the White House had a blog?), they posted an article refuting the idea that the President’s health care reform would eliminate private insurance. They cited a few of the many aforementioned times he said he wasn’t going to get rid of private insurance, but made no attempt to refute the numerous times he said he would get rid of private insurance. Interesting. Why don’t we just read the bill?

There are a variety of bills in Congress but only one has made it out of committee. That is called America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. So what does the bill say about my ability to keep my insurance. My hat is off here to my friend, anamericanidiot. He has a great article about the health care reform bill and alerted me to page 16 of the bill. I recently downloaded the bill (over 1000 pages) and low and behold there it is on page 16.

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.”

So now what does that mean?!? What it means is that you can keep your coverage after the legislation takes effect as long as you don’t make any changes to your coverage. This provision effectively outlaws private health insurance. If you make any changes after the bill is in place, your insurance company will need to re-enroll you which is forbidden. I don’t know about you, but every health insurance I have had from my employer requires me to re-enroll or opt out every year. So, yes, you can keep your private health insurance. . .for no more than a year!!!

Well that’s fine if that’s what he wants to do. Why all the subterfuge? Why not just tell us what he wants and do it? Geez! The good news is that word of this is starting to get out. As Ms. Douglas points out in her White House blog video, members of Congress are taking the opportunity of the Congressional recess to go out and pitch the health care bill to their constituents. Cool! How’s that working out?

Perhaps the reason they don’t tell us what they really want to do is because they know they are not part of the mainstream of America. They know that if Ms. Sotomayor embraced her racial bias instead of trying to hide it, the only bench she would sit on is in Central Park! If we knew that the President has a racial prejudice against white police officers, regardless of the facts in a case, his role as a post-racial figure would be blown. If we knew that he really was trying to socialize health care, it would already be dead (and it may be!).

Say what you want about George Bush, he said what he was going to do and did it. You may disagree with it, but he didn’t back down. He literally dared us to vote him out of office if we disagreed with his approach. Perhaps we should believe our lying ears!

The New Feminism

I believe I sense a change in the air. I have never considered myself a feminist. I love women, in all their forms, and I’m a big fan of their achievements and believe they should always be treated as equals to men in the workplace. But I don’t consider that feminism, that’s just justice, fair play for all. I believe the feminist agenda from a political standpoint has been detrimental to women, on the whole. Certainly, it has helped create a better working environment for those women who have chosen to pursue a career, but it also seems to demonize women who choose not to pursue a career outside the home.

Last year, during the campaign, I decided to start watching the O’Reilly factor. I have never been a Bill O’Reilly fan. Bill never struck me as an ideologue, like Rush, Sean, or. . .ME! After having watched him for about a year now, I realize he is more of a populist, with traditional values. He says he’s always, “looking out for the folks.” Generally, I think he is. He has more middle-of-the-road views on global warming and legalized abortion than I do, but generally I agree with him. But about six months ago, something struck me right between the eyes. It doesn’t matter what the subject is: politics, the economy, breaking news, whatever. He always finds the HOTTEST women to talk to on the show. I mean, even spokeswomen for an airline – HOT! He even has a woman come on from a website called Hot for Words to talk about etymology! Are you kidding me?!? And it doesn’t matter, blonds, brunettes, redheads, he’s got them all! But the really interesting thing is, he treats them all just like he does the men. Sure, he’s maybe a little more polite, but if he disagrees with them, he lets them have it! He challenges them and gives them credit when they change his mind (which is rare!). He treats them like the intelligent, beautiful, people they are. To me . . .wait for it. . .Bill O’Reilly. . .are you sitting down?. . .is the ultimate feminist! Yup, you heard me. Bill O’Reilly is the ultimate feminist. This is what feminism should be. Bright women engaging in the arena of ideas who, oh by the way, are VERY easy on the eyes. He’s not #1 because of his political views. He’s #1 because he has the hottest women on television on his show, every night! And when he’s gone, who fills in? Laura Ingraham! Not to shabby either!

Oh sure, there are the exceptions: Dick Morris, Dennis Miller, Glenn Beck. Those are just pallet cleansers. Wait till the next segment, hotties are right around the corner! And I’m sure this just infuriates people who consider themselves true feminists. They would say that these women are getting the prime airtime because they are so good looking. DUH! But what’s wrong with that? Not eveyone can be on television. Go write a book or do a radio show. The new feminism means you’re competent AND hot!

And this is where Sarah Palin comes in. She’s got it all! She’s got a hot hubby, beautiful kids, a great job, and she’s apparently good at it. Oh, did I mention, SHE’S HOT! Yup, she’s got it all! Except now she’s resigning as Governor of Alaska. What’s up with that? Well, she’s been the object of scorn by the mainstream media ever since she showed up on the national stage as John McCain’s running mate. These so-called feminists have piled nothing but vitriol on her since day one. Where were all the congratulations for showing that a woman could have it all – a job, a life, and a figure! Oh no! They raked her up one side and down the other. Ultimately, John McCain lost the election and so Sarah would just go back to Alaska, back to her hot hubby, beautiful kids, you know. . .

“Not so fast little missy. You think we’re done with you just because you LOST! No we have to destroy you!” This is what the mainstream culture has said to her ever since. They have inundated Alaska with ethics investigations (all of which she has passed), she has been the butt of jokes, even for her appearance! Lost in the battle with David Letterman over his absolutely offensive comment about her daughter, was his comment that she looked like a slutty flight attendant. Are you kidding me? She’s HOT! Does that make her irrelevant?

Let’s look at the other side of the coin. Currently, we have another prominent woman from New York who is in the news. She is a self-made woman, just like Sarah. Except she went to all the right schools. Even though, by her own admission, she didn’t belong there. She calls herself an “affirmative action baby.” Her test scores were no where near good enough, according to her. But the schools needed to fill certain racial quotas, so in she goes. In case you haven’t figured it out, I’m of course talking about Sonia Sotomayor, our current Supreme Court Justice nominee. And nothing has changed since her days of low test scores. She has an 80% reversal rate when her decisions get to the Supreme Court. Not exactly high marks. But all we hear about is her “inspiring personal story.” Ok, all that’s fine but is she hot? Well. . .

But despite Sarah Palin having a similar self-made background, she is villified, while Sonia is praised for using the system to her own advantage. Ideology? Sure, I’m sure that has something to do with it. But I think the thing that makes these liberal elites in the halls of media and policy squirm is that Sarah is attractive. . . and COMPETENT! I don’t know what Sarah’s going to do next, but I can guarantee she’ll be hot doing it.

But in true O’Reilly fashion, I’m going to give Miller the last word:

So to sum up:

Sarah -  Hot!

Sonia – Not!

O’Reilly – Feminist

Got it? Good!