Skip to content

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama…”

January 28, 2010

I was reading a post on Reuters and came across this comment from a reader identified as 02BNTEXAS.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Well said!


Nothing but a tool for the Progressive movement

January 21, 2010

Keith Olbermann is not one to shy away from controversy. He constantly complains about comments made by people such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. In fact, his regularly scheduled exploits in verbal excrement go far beyond the rants of those he routinely shouts down.

After watching this video, I can honestly say that Olbermann is nothing but a tool for the Progressive movement.

I am pleased to say that his last ditch attempt at scuttling Scott Brown’s senate campaign proved his lack of impact on the voters of Massachusetts.

GOPAC Chair hits a home run

January 16, 2010

Frank Donatelli, appearing on Fox News yesterday asked the question regarding healthcare reform legislation.

At times it seems that only “Progressives” get their message of statism to the American people. It’s refreshing to see an intelligent question actually make it through on the msm.

h/t Vilmar for the video link.

Should Harry Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader?

January 10, 2010

Michael “asleep at the wheel” Steele wants Harry Reid to step down from his Senate leadership post over referring to candidate Barack Obama as “light-skinned” and as having no “negro dialect, unless he wants one.” I don’t agree with Chairman Steele’s opinion — on a large number of issues, when I think about it. The Senate Majority Leader “represents,” and I do use the term loosely, the State of Nevada. I am of the opinion that Senator Reid is simply an ignorant little man with a big mouth with no concept when to keep it shut.

George Stephanopoulos expressed dismay over the leak of a private conversation. I wonder if George is even old enough to remember another private conversation that was leaked. “How can you compare those remarks,” you ask? I do not intend to compare, but rather contrast the remarks. One is an example of openly racist commentary, while the other is stealthy. One is honest, the other is dishonest and neither represents the America I believe in.

Earl Butz’ feeble attempt at humor was the product of a man who openly felt that black Americans are inferior to white Americans. The irony of Mr. Butz’ view is that the Republican Party, to which he belonged, championed of the abolition of slavery, voting rights for blacks (and women) and the Civil Rights Movement. Remember that as President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, mobilized the National Guard to ensure the safety of the Little Rock Nine — one of the single most significant events of the Civil Rights Movement.

The intent of Harry Reid’s commentary, on the other hand, proves a little more difficult to divine. He expressed either his own stealth view of blacks, as suggested by the GOP leader, or he back-handedly indicted all Americans, as stated by Brit Hume this morning. The Senator is actively engaged in an extreme damage control situation.  I wonder if Americans will accept more of Harry’s newspeak. Harry Reid is almost as famous as Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton for bending the truth (another way to say he’s a pathological liar). In Harry’s world, Democrats are the saviors of black Americans and Republicans are all evil racists. A posting on titled “Harry Reid twists Civil Rights history to bash GOP” dispels the senator’s re-writing of history.

Polls show Harry Reid significantly behind all three contenders for the Senate seat he soils on a daily basis. Should Harry Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader over comments he made in 2008? That question is of little significance. The real question is whether the voters of Nevada will serve Harry with a pink slip in the upcoming election? That is the only acceptable solution to the problem of what to do with Harry.

Until next time,

Is terrorism a serious threat?

January 9, 2010

Given that the current flavor of terrorism is of the Middle Eastern jihadist variety, it is reasonable to assume that the resources employed by the government to be sufficient to the task of monitoring and analyzing the strategies employed by the terrorist network. But if the number of Middle Eastern analysts assigned to the National Counterterrorism Center indicates the level of seriousness given to the threat, the answer is no.

“There’s limited manpower and finite resources,” said a former NCTC analyst who, like several colleagues in the intelligence community, described the state of the Middle East Branch on condition of anonymity. Longstanding and government-wide shortfalls in language resources afflict the branch as well, the analyst said: “Very few people speak Arabic, and very few have ever been to the region.”

Can we reasonably expect those few dedicated analysts to do more to isolate problem situations in the making? As the old saying goes, it’s hard to see the swamp when you’re up to your ass in alligators.

“What you’ll end up doing is opening up the firehose to full blast,” said one. “They’re barely able to handle what they have right now.” Indeed, Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic reported Tuesday that before the attempted Christmas attack, Leiter and the NCTC’s leadership were preparing for 2010 budget cuts. The U.S. intelligence official who defended NCTC added, “Clearly, if people believe more resources have to be applied against something, it’ll be identified” for Congress to approve, although the official said that conclusion was premature.

All the resources necessary to put bombs on target and boots on the ground, but inadequate intelligence to properly identify the enemy, his location and his next moves. For all the reactionary steps taken, and the claims of the serious nature with which they approach the threat, our fearless leaders continually demonstrate they lack even a basic concept of how to ensure our safety and the survivability of our once free nation.

We know terrorism is a serious threat. The 9/11 Commission identified it as such. Several thousand dead Americans remind us that terrorism is a serious threat. Yet the government spends more money and devotes more personnel to inspecting 80–yr. old grannies at the airport than on the analysis of the nature of the threat.

So dear reader, I ask you the question: is terrorism a serious threat?

A mixed bag

January 6, 2010

I like the thought of the U.S. Senate minus another bought-and-paid-for buffoon like Chris Dodd, but as the article quoted below points out, he provided opponents with a fine target. Perhaps another potential number 41 is out there.

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.

Dodd’s retirement comes after months of speculation about his political future, and amid faltering polling numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term. It also comes less than 24 hours after Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced he would not seek re-election.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is widely expected to step into the void filled by Dodd and, at least at first blush, should drastically increase Democrats’ chances of holding the seat.


Obama’s approval rate is falling… what will we do?

January 4, 2010

Rather than look at possible reasons for the President’s drop in popularity and job approval ratings and develop a strategy by which to reverse the numbers, apparently Democrats think the answer is to attack Rasmussen. And why not? Didn’t Jimmy Carter essentially say that all opposition to President Obama is based in part on racism? Ergo, Scott Rasmussen, purveyor of polls that do not support Obama, is a racist or at least a Republican operative.

Malarkey! The President’s job performance and poor judgment on matters of policy, politics and staffing decisions are to blame for his dip in the polls. Here is a list of just a few reasons, that when combined, spell the end of the honeymoon for President Obama.

  • His support for Cap and Trade legislation
  • His support for the so-called Health Care Reform bill
  • His support for the bogus “science” of global warming
  • His support for “immigration reform” (amnesty)
  • His selection of persons of questionable character for cabinet positions and other positions of authority
  • His continued increase in the size and scope of government
  • His continued support of combat operations in and occupation of foreign countries
  • His support for tax-payer financed bailouts of banks deemed “too big to fail”

I can go on, but I think you get my point.

The President is a likeable guy. He’s a family man. He has a wife, two lovely children and a dog. He is living the American Dream in a big way! He is seen as a role model by a number of American children.

However, in my opinion, he suffers from impaired judgment. When I look at cabinet officers such as Janet Napolitano, I cannot help but ask “what the hell was he thinking when he hired her as the top dog (no pun intended) of the Department of Homeland Security?” I disagree with him on matters of policy. That does not make me an Obama hater. On the contrary, whether I agree with him or not, he is still my President. He is oft times remembered in my prayers — as were his predecessors. Does one pray for those he hates?

When progressives see opposition to their plans, they pull out a tattered copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Attacking Rasmussen, left-wing bloggers and strategists employ Alinsky’s tactic “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Alinsky’s conflict tactics aside, the President’s popularity and job approval numbers are in fact falling. No amount of mudslinging in Scott Rasmussen’s direction is going to change that. Perhaps a review of the President’s policies, personnel selections and politics are in order.

Until next time,