Eric Holder's recent actions certainly are mystifying, as well as stomach-churning.
First, he unleashes a new special prosecutor on CIA employees whom both he and Wonderboy had previously assured would be safe from exactly such retribution-oriented witch hunts.
Then we learned yesterday that scandalized, grafted-up New Mexcio governor and Wonderboy pal/backer Bill Richardson had his federal probe quashed by someone in DOJ in Washington.
So much for ethics and "change you can believe in," eh?
I don't think you have to be cynical to view these two DOJ acts as a harbinger of a Nixonian type of justice being practiced. You know, enemies lists on one hand while turning a blind eye to legitimate crime on the other.
Oh, and let's not forget Holder's refusal to prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.
Together, these DOJ actions send a very bad signal to Americans. Real violation of laws are ignored, if the violators serve Wonderboy's ends.
But brave, legitimate actions by the intelligence community in defense of our country, simply because they occurred on Bush's watch, will be prosecuted as criminal behavior.
I guess it really does take an excess of liberal politics to teach naive American voters the price of handing all of the federal government power to liberal Democrats.
Let's hope all of this nauseating news from DOJ heaps more fuel on the fire to turn out Democratic majorities in Congress next year.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Senate Loses An Unindicted Murderer
I awoke yesterday to a slate of issues to handle. It could have been a tough morning.
Then I turned on CNBC and my day became brighter as I learned the good news.
Ted Kennedy is dead.
Finally, the unindicted murderer of the Senate is gone. The womanizing, drinking, cheating Senator of some 37 years is gone.
Teddy Kennedy was wholly a creature of his family. If he'd been born elsewhere, or into another family, he'd likely have been unknown.
But, thanks to two well-known older brothers and a wealthy family, Teddy became the last hope after the death of every other male son in the Kennedy family.
On his own, Teddy was known for cheating in law school, womanizing while married to his ex-wife, Joan, thus driving her to drink. Oh, yes, and being responsible for the death of his campaign staffer, Mary Jo Kopechne.
As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News last night, even Kennedy's welfare legislation was largely gutted later on by Gingrich's House, with Clinton's signature on the bill.
Ted Kennedy, aside from being born to wealth and social prominence, added very little to society.
A walking- well, hobbling- poster boy for term limits no longer blemishes the US Senate.
Perhaps the best evidence for Kennedy's low regard for democracy and his own constituency was his attempts over the past five years to change the way Massachusetts fills Congressional vacancies.
When he thought fellow Senator John Kerry would become President, and Republican Mitt Romney was Governor, Kennedy convinced the Democratic state legislature to change the existing law from gubernatorial appointment to special election.
When, this year, Kennedy realized he was unlikely to make it to a health care bill vote, he wrote his state's legislators to appeal to them to change it back to gubernatorial appointment, after all. You see, the state now has a Democratic governor who is sure to appoint another extreme liberal in Teddy's place.
What a scoundrel! How much more contempt could Teddy have shown for voters in Massachusetts? He behaved as if he, then, his party, owns that Senate seat.
Good riddance!
Now Teddy Kennedy will have final justice visited upon him. A verdict rendered absolutely, from which there can be no appeal. One that can't be bought, nor avoided with his family's money and influence. And can't be spun by friendly, fawning media outlets.
A truly final verdict on Teddy for all eternity.
Then I turned on CNBC and my day became brighter as I learned the good news.
Ted Kennedy is dead.
Finally, the unindicted murderer of the Senate is gone. The womanizing, drinking, cheating Senator of some 37 years is gone.
Teddy Kennedy was wholly a creature of his family. If he'd been born elsewhere, or into another family, he'd likely have been unknown.
But, thanks to two well-known older brothers and a wealthy family, Teddy became the last hope after the death of every other male son in the Kennedy family.
On his own, Teddy was known for cheating in law school, womanizing while married to his ex-wife, Joan, thus driving her to drink. Oh, yes, and being responsible for the death of his campaign staffer, Mary Jo Kopechne.
As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News last night, even Kennedy's welfare legislation was largely gutted later on by Gingrich's House, with Clinton's signature on the bill.
Ted Kennedy, aside from being born to wealth and social prominence, added very little to society.
A walking- well, hobbling- poster boy for term limits no longer blemishes the US Senate.
Perhaps the best evidence for Kennedy's low regard for democracy and his own constituency was his attempts over the past five years to change the way Massachusetts fills Congressional vacancies.
When he thought fellow Senator John Kerry would become President, and Republican Mitt Romney was Governor, Kennedy convinced the Democratic state legislature to change the existing law from gubernatorial appointment to special election.
When, this year, Kennedy realized he was unlikely to make it to a health care bill vote, he wrote his state's legislators to appeal to them to change it back to gubernatorial appointment, after all. You see, the state now has a Democratic governor who is sure to appoint another extreme liberal in Teddy's place.
What a scoundrel! How much more contempt could Teddy have shown for voters in Massachusetts? He behaved as if he, then, his party, owns that Senate seat.
Good riddance!
Now Teddy Kennedy will have final justice visited upon him. A verdict rendered absolutely, from which there can be no appeal. One that can't be bought, nor avoided with his family's money and influence. And can't be spun by friendly, fawning media outlets.
A truly final verdict on Teddy for all eternity.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Ultimate Nanny State of Wonderboy Prefigured
We all remember seeing the video of this woman during last year's campaign.
It became even scarier when I read this in Amity Schlaes' book, "The Forgotten Man," on page 251,
"A young black writer named Richard Wright repeated a few lines of a song he had heard,
'Roosevelt! You're my man
When the time comes I ain't got a cent
You buy my groceries And pay my rent!' "
It seems this ultimate liberal meal ticket is not a new idea, after all.
It became even scarier when I read this in Amity Schlaes' book, "The Forgotten Man," on page 251,
"A young black writer named Richard Wright repeated a few lines of a song he had heard,
'Roosevelt! You're my man
When the time comes I ain't got a cent
You buy my groceries And pay my rent!' "
It seems this ultimate liberal meal ticket is not a new idea, after all.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
More of Wonderboy's Health Care Lies
A staff editorial in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday crystallized some of the bald-faced lies that Wonderboy is telling on behalf of his beloved universal, single-payer health care plan.
The article noted,
"He likes to start off explaining our catastrophe of a health system. "What is truly scary—what is truly risky—is if we do nothing," he said in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We can't "keep the system the way it is right now," he continued, while his critics are "people who want to keep things the way they are."
However, his supporters also want to keep things the way they are. "I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening," Mr. Obama proclaimed in Grand Junction, Colorado. "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
So things have to change- except they won't. Your health care will remain as you like it, unless, of course, it is changed, because the system is currently broken.
Very clear, isn't it?
Then there's this,
"Maybe you're starting to fret about all those bureaucrats and bean-counters again. You shouldn't, according to Mr. Obama. "The only thing I would point is, is that Medicare is a government program that works really well for our seniors," he noted in Colorado. After all, as he said in New Hampshire, "If we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role—not the dominant role, but a role—in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."
The government didn't get Medicare right, though: Just ask the President. The entitlement is "going broke" (Colorado) and "unsustainable" and "running out of money" (New Hampshire). And it's "in deep trouble if we don't do something, because as you said, money doesn't grow on trees" (Montana).
So Medicare is the model of how our First Rookie will expand government into all health care. Except, damn, it's broken. Medicare itself is "going broke," "unsustainable," and "running out of money."
Say what?
The bankrupt 1960s era Medicare program is the model for our new and improved government-run health care. But, sadly, it is a financial failure.
So let's double-down on badly-designed and -operated federal medical insurance systems.
Just precious, isn't it? Wonderboy will literally stop at nothing to sell his ill-considered takeover of your personal medical service.
Even lying, bluntly talking out of both sides of his mouth, contradicting himself at different stops while he flogs his flawed plan.
Not only is Wonderboy's health care plan bankrupt. So, clearly, is his own morality and any sense of principle.
The article noted,
"He likes to start off explaining our catastrophe of a health system. "What is truly scary—what is truly risky—is if we do nothing," he said in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We can't "keep the system the way it is right now," he continued, while his critics are "people who want to keep things the way they are."
However, his supporters also want to keep things the way they are. "I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening," Mr. Obama proclaimed in Grand Junction, Colorado. "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
So things have to change- except they won't. Your health care will remain as you like it, unless, of course, it is changed, because the system is currently broken.
Very clear, isn't it?
Then there's this,
"Maybe you're starting to fret about all those bureaucrats and bean-counters again. You shouldn't, according to Mr. Obama. "The only thing I would point is, is that Medicare is a government program that works really well for our seniors," he noted in Colorado. After all, as he said in New Hampshire, "If we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role—not the dominant role, but a role—in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."
The government didn't get Medicare right, though: Just ask the President. The entitlement is "going broke" (Colorado) and "unsustainable" and "running out of money" (New Hampshire). And it's "in deep trouble if we don't do something, because as you said, money doesn't grow on trees" (Montana).
So Medicare is the model of how our First Rookie will expand government into all health care. Except, damn, it's broken. Medicare itself is "going broke," "unsustainable," and "running out of money."
Say what?
The bankrupt 1960s era Medicare program is the model for our new and improved government-run health care. But, sadly, it is a financial failure.
So let's double-down on badly-designed and -operated federal medical insurance systems.
Just precious, isn't it? Wonderboy will literally stop at nothing to sell his ill-considered takeover of your personal medical service.
Even lying, bluntly talking out of both sides of his mouth, contradicting himself at different stops while he flogs his flawed plan.
Not only is Wonderboy's health care plan bankrupt. So, clearly, is his own morality and any sense of principle.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why Do Liberals & Conservatives Betray Their Ideals?
Why do both liberals and conservatives initially identify with narrower bases of issues than they end up championing?
Liberals begin with concern for the poor and defenseless. They claim to want a safety net for all in society. In time, however, they move from providing means for them to simply making them dependent upon the state. And, once liberals succeed in making the poor, and others, wards of the state, they suddenly become concerned with how state funds are spent, and begin to control the lives of those they once wished to simply defend.
Genuine compassion for someone's poor lot in life morphs into controlling that life.
Conservatives likewise morph into something frightening.
They begin wanting individual liberty and freedom. They value economic freedom and the "freedom to fail." Often, they are willing to provide means to the poor, but not a free ride.
Somehow, along the way, they begin to equate liberty and freedom with a sort of old-timey libertarian desire for moral purity. They begin to preach against social change, and, in time, begin to legislate morality and values.
A movement initially dedicated to individual freedom begins to pass laws regulating personal freedoms and behaviors. They allege to be the arbiters of "family values."
Liberals, who initially desire more means for the poor and weak to live life, shift to controlling them and society at large
Conservatives, who initially desire freedom and liberty for all, along with consequences to each for his choices, in time, legislate private morality as social good, and also try to control people's lives.
They both betray their initial ideological purity by straying too far from their limited focus.
How are citizens to act if they truly desire freedom, and these two political movements are their only broad choices for government?
Liberals begin with concern for the poor and defenseless. They claim to want a safety net for all in society. In time, however, they move from providing means for them to simply making them dependent upon the state. And, once liberals succeed in making the poor, and others, wards of the state, they suddenly become concerned with how state funds are spent, and begin to control the lives of those they once wished to simply defend.
Genuine compassion for someone's poor lot in life morphs into controlling that life.
Conservatives likewise morph into something frightening.
They begin wanting individual liberty and freedom. They value economic freedom and the "freedom to fail." Often, they are willing to provide means to the poor, but not a free ride.
Somehow, along the way, they begin to equate liberty and freedom with a sort of old-timey libertarian desire for moral purity. They begin to preach against social change, and, in time, begin to legislate morality and values.
A movement initially dedicated to individual freedom begins to pass laws regulating personal freedoms and behaviors. They allege to be the arbiters of "family values."
Liberals, who initially desire more means for the poor and weak to live life, shift to controlling them and society at large
Conservatives, who initially desire freedom and liberty for all, along with consequences to each for his choices, in time, legislate private morality as social good, and also try to control people's lives.
They both betray their initial ideological purity by straying too far from their limited focus.
How are citizens to act if they truly desire freedom, and these two political movements are their only broad choices for government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
