On Friday, August 14th, a good friend of mine received an email from David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President. While unsure how I feel about the President of the United States disseminating mass political email messages to the American People, I have reasoned it incomparable to the poor taste of his appearance on George Lopez’ television show previews or his use of the word “wee wee” during a recent presidential speech on August 20th. Aside from his political modus operandi however, I find myself more perplexed by details of the message itself. In an effort to assure the American People that the President’s health “insurance” reform is not, as the Republicans have insisted, a veiled attempt at more government control, Axelrod inanely generates a list proving just that. The email details eight ways in which the government will regulate the manner in which insurance companies currently operate. Now, we all agree that some form of healthcare change must manifest soon if we are ever expected to emerge from this current system of exorbitant costs and defensive medicine. But what the President and Speaker Pelosi would have the American People believe is that their costly package is the only logical solution. The American People are not biting. If anything they are biting back, blind-siding the Democratic Leadership, in monumentally effective feet of grass roots citizen activism.
So what has the citizenry so restless? There are a number of problems with the President’s plan, a plan which evolves so regularly there now seems a swelling hostility on both sides of the isle. The Progressives’ frustrations aside, much of what has the Conservative camp up in arms can be found within the crux of Axelrod’s email. His message claims that the President’s package would end discrimination against pre-existing conditions. In his words, “Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.” At face value, this makes sense. Most Americans have either experienced this first hand or know someone else who has. That said Democrats have attempted to hijack this problem as a predominately Leftist concern though the reality is this has been an increasing concern among both political parties for some time. While the Right argue the immediate necessity of scaled back federal involvement, Axelrod insists on yet another government mandate. Just force the insurance companies to cover everyone. Problem solved, right? What the President is not saying is that forcing insurance companies to cover anyone at anytime will invariably raise premiums for all those currently insured. To add to the problem, insurance companies that will insure at any time and with more expensive premiums will also then discourage many from seeking coverage until the situation becomes absolutely imperative. This will invariably penalize the responsible insurance carrier who insures his/herself before the onset of an illness by increasing existing premiums to an even greater extent.
Axelrod continues. In the email’s second tenant, he promises an end to exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. He explains that “Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.” First and foremost I find it preposterous that the President has the audacity to, at this financial juncture, fain any concern whatever for our out-of-pocket expenses. Our national deficit not withstanding, the laundry list of economic realities the Democrats insist upon ignoring is too exhaustive a catalog to detail in this article. Second, Democrats dismiss the reality, or right thereof, that Insurance companies are for-profit business who cannot be expected to operate in an organically free market capacity with even the current burdensome government involvement. Instead of allowing for an environment that fosters free market principals the Left insist upon incapacitating the insurance companies to an even greater extent with more regulation. Invariably, the companies will crumble under the pressure of exorbitant government mandates at which point the Progressives will decry the inadequacies of capitalism. It is what they have done to the oil companies, what they have done to the housing market and what they are attempting to do the automotive industry.
Axelrod goes on to claim that the President’s proposal will end cost-sharing for preventive care. He states that “Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” It is an inarguable truth that early screening helps save lives. It is not however fact, nor even remotely a budgetary expectation that preventive screenings will save money. The Leftist argument goes that if it saves even one life we ought to do all that we can and from a purely moral standpoint any decent person would agree. But no where in the Constitution does it state that the Nation ought to bankrupt itself for the service of one life, nor would it make any good sense to do so. The Left often confuses the moral obligations of the individual with that of the governing obligations of the state, thus leading them and us down a never-ending rabbit trail of new and evolving government responsibilities. They insist that we cover all people for all problems at all times, utterly disinterested in the economic reality of an eventual insolvency crisis like that which exist in our current Medicare and Postal Programs. The budgetary consequences of the President’s healthcare plan seem lost even on those Democrats in my generation; a group of people currently and consciously paying into a Social Security System so badly in need of money they are very likely not to have access to it their old age.
In addition to the misinformation regarding preventive care costs, the President’s proposal assumes that all citizens would take advantage of regular check-ups and health screenings if only they had affordable access to them. But as it stands today, many insured do have access to fully covered mammograms and other preventive procedures. Does that mean they set the appointments and test for those problems? Most certainly it is does not and there are several more obvious reasons why. Some people do not want to be told to lose 40 pounds as a means for alleviating knee and joint pain. Others tend to ignore frightening realities by avoiding the necessary screenings and still others are simply too lazy to get around to it. Far too often, the Left get caught up in what ought to be rather than what is. Right or wrong, not all citizens care nearly so much about preventing serious illness as the Left would like to believe. To prove that point I need only reference the United States’ some 47 million current smokers. The reality is many costly medical conditions to include diabetes, chronic knee problems and lung cancer are the result of poor personal choices such as overeating, a lack of physical activity and smoking. If people are not interested in improving upon their existing bad habits, a free screening is not likely to miraculously compel interest in a healthier lifestyle. Moreover, using free preventive screenings to unearth all pre-cancerous warning signs would oblige every American to be tested. Unless Liberals are ready to round people up and drag them by gun point to their local clinic, the only exceptional feature of this mandate is going to be it’s price tag on yours’ and my premiums.
President Obama’s blast email is a feeble attempt to dispel the so-called “myths” surrounding his healthcare overhaul. The Democrats would like for the American People to believe that the only difference between the two parties is that one is for change and the other against it. In actuality, the principal divergence lies in the President’s desire for increased government control and the Conservatives’ determination to stand in defense of our founding principals of free market economics and individual liberty. Try as they may, there is no convincing the American People that the town hall protesters are organized mobs, a small faction of the population and not indicative of the national mood. The outrage over our leaders’ arrogance is palpable and the citizen outrage irrefutable. Moreover, endeavoring to dismiss the obvious citizen indignation with accusations of racism and Nazism is not only irresponsible, it is inherently unwise. As our Representatives return to the Hill in September and as President Obama’s word morphing continues, there is no doubt that the citizen activism will continue. If the President is as intelligent as even his opponents deem him to be, he will tune into growing national resentment lest he go down in history as America’s next one-term President.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
OBAMACARE
For those of us in the Conservative camp, it is no secret that President Obama’s sense of urgency has had a great deal to do with his awareness that any amount of scrutiny would likely obliterate his ambitious and disturbingly socialistic healthcare agenda. Where the president lacks awareness however, is in his appreciation of the spirit of a free people. Even the least educated American understands freedom in its most basic form. While not all Americans might be able to offer, in text book clarity, the definitions of freedom and liberty, most every American can discern the withholding of them.
President Obama’s healthcare objectives appear, in their most superficial descriptions, as echoing charity, love of neighbor and good will toward men. Once dissected however, their true impact suggests a plan far different than the reform proposal being peddled by the President in his never-ending torrent of town halls and campaign style press conferences. Frustrated by the recent and broad sweeping naiveté of so many Americans’ belief in an altruistic, wholly self-sacrificial President Obama, I do accept as true that as the sheath is removed over the course of the August recess, Americans from coast to coast will begin to sense the power-hungry, big government stench of the proposed overhaul.
Inside the walls of Congress, real debate over President Obama’s healthcare reform has been scant at best and one-sided in the most generous of descriptions. In contrast, Americans the country round have begun to engage in rigorous debate regarding the sweeping implications of such an alteration in our current healthcare system. Undeniably, many who support the plan do so out of concern for the uninsured around them, an element not at all lost on the President who is regularly heard and seen exploiting that compassion for the sake of his personal objectives. What few realize however, is the massive government augmentation that would most certainly manifest as a result of such a shift in how our healthcare is delivered. What even fewer grasp is the commensurate diminishment of personal liberty that would accompany such a growth in government. This basic principal of government size is something that our Founding Fathers understood well. As described by Mark Levin in his highly acclaimed book, “Liberty and Tyranny,”
“For the Conservative, the lesson comes back to man’s imperfection. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition – as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. They can be used for good or bad, and they have been used for both. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men – by enumerating federal power, separating power within the federal government, and sharing power with the states, isolates and limits tyranny. “
The founders understood the necessity of a small national government for they witnessed, first hand, the peril of the alternative. President Obama’ plan for more government control might have seduced portions of the population for a time, but give the American people time to contemplate the particulars, time to reason the personal impact of his proposal and there is no doubt, if this is the American I know and love, that his agenda will meet a fateful end.
President Obama’s healthcare objectives appear, in their most superficial descriptions, as echoing charity, love of neighbor and good will toward men. Once dissected however, their true impact suggests a plan far different than the reform proposal being peddled by the President in his never-ending torrent of town halls and campaign style press conferences. Frustrated by the recent and broad sweeping naiveté of so many Americans’ belief in an altruistic, wholly self-sacrificial President Obama, I do accept as true that as the sheath is removed over the course of the August recess, Americans from coast to coast will begin to sense the power-hungry, big government stench of the proposed overhaul.
Inside the walls of Congress, real debate over President Obama’s healthcare reform has been scant at best and one-sided in the most generous of descriptions. In contrast, Americans the country round have begun to engage in rigorous debate regarding the sweeping implications of such an alteration in our current healthcare system. Undeniably, many who support the plan do so out of concern for the uninsured around them, an element not at all lost on the President who is regularly heard and seen exploiting that compassion for the sake of his personal objectives. What few realize however, is the massive government augmentation that would most certainly manifest as a result of such a shift in how our healthcare is delivered. What even fewer grasp is the commensurate diminishment of personal liberty that would accompany such a growth in government. This basic principal of government size is something that our Founding Fathers understood well. As described by Mark Levin in his highly acclaimed book, “Liberty and Tyranny,”
“For the Conservative, the lesson comes back to man’s imperfection. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition – as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. They can be used for good or bad, and they have been used for both. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men – by enumerating federal power, separating power within the federal government, and sharing power with the states, isolates and limits tyranny. “
The founders understood the necessity of a small national government for they witnessed, first hand, the peril of the alternative. President Obama’ plan for more government control might have seduced portions of the population for a time, but give the American people time to contemplate the particulars, time to reason the personal impact of his proposal and there is no doubt, if this is the American I know and love, that his agenda will meet a fateful end.
Of Course Europeans Love Obama
Posted by LM Stansbury on Monday, September 29, 2008 12:00:00 AM
My husband is among those many unaffiliated voters whose allegiance we McCain and Obama supporters have been vigilantly seeking after these many months. Yet even my husband was aghast when he first entertained several minutes of CNN’s news delivery in Germany this past week. During our trip overseas, we were subjected to our usual overdose of CNN, the only English-speaking news network we are ever able to locate on television outside the United States. As we attempted to remain up to speed with the news of the day while away from home we were equally appalled by the egregious number of endorsements for Senator Obama throughout the network’s news delivery. Indeed, I found it difficult to refer to their segments as “news,” at all.
During one conversation with a well-educated young German man, I was asked who I planned to vote for in the U.S. Presidential Election. My reply was simply, “John McCain.” His eyes lifted and his swung back with surprise. He had clearly anticipated my answer to be otherwise. I countered the question, asking who he would vote for were he an American Citizen. He invariably replied, “Barack Obama.” I asked what it was about Senator Obama he liked. He explained that it seemed reasonable to support Barack Obama as the news seemed to consider him a better fit. The following addition to his reasoning was, for me, so traumatic that I could almost hear the screeching of car wheels in my head. He added that after watching the American Video Music Awards it appeared as though most Americans preferred the Senator from Illinois. After I regained my composure I first addressed the matter of Brittany Spears having anything whatsoever to do with sound political decision making. I explained, with all of the passion that I could muster, how precious little our American counterparts in Hollywood represented the average American. In order to save you, the reader, from an overemphasis on the stupidity of famous people, something I am sure you already know, I will spare you the details of this portion of the conversation. I followed my response to the VMA’s with some discussion about the media’s role in the election. As we discussed the matter, I explained to him how very little the Europeans have been receiving in the way of balanced press coverage of the two candidates. He appeared to appreciate the point though I am not entirely certain he believed it.
To be clear, I am not concerned about whether or not my German friend would vote for John McCain in a presidential election. He is, after all, no more American than I am German but it did explain much with regard to the favor Senator Obama has been receiving abroad. Indeed, a soviet style dictator still rules over the small country of Belarus. Alexandr Lukashenka has moved his country backward in time, in his tireless crusade for the Communism of old. The people are oppressed and information regarding the outside is attacked more aggressively with each passing day. Yet many Belarusians consider Lukashenka a good leader by virtue of the manner in which the Belarusian, far from free, media extol him on a daily basis. Certainly, Western Europeans have far greater access to external information as compared to their Belarusian counterparts but it must be understand by Americans here at home, that the European media is not free and the delivery of news is not balanced. It is wrought with opinion and littered with bias. With foreign enemies who seek to influence our elections and foreign friends whose information is tainted, we must guard ourselves against concern for the world’s opinion about our presidential selection. We are bound with the responsibility to make decisions in America’s best interest and her best interest alone. And when it is all said and done, given their track record, I am not entirely certain we should be taking our advice from Europe anyway.
My husband is among those many unaffiliated voters whose allegiance we McCain and Obama supporters have been vigilantly seeking after these many months. Yet even my husband was aghast when he first entertained several minutes of CNN’s news delivery in Germany this past week. During our trip overseas, we were subjected to our usual overdose of CNN, the only English-speaking news network we are ever able to locate on television outside the United States. As we attempted to remain up to speed with the news of the day while away from home we were equally appalled by the egregious number of endorsements for Senator Obama throughout the network’s news delivery. Indeed, I found it difficult to refer to their segments as “news,” at all.
During one conversation with a well-educated young German man, I was asked who I planned to vote for in the U.S. Presidential Election. My reply was simply, “John McCain.” His eyes lifted and his swung back with surprise. He had clearly anticipated my answer to be otherwise. I countered the question, asking who he would vote for were he an American Citizen. He invariably replied, “Barack Obama.” I asked what it was about Senator Obama he liked. He explained that it seemed reasonable to support Barack Obama as the news seemed to consider him a better fit. The following addition to his reasoning was, for me, so traumatic that I could almost hear the screeching of car wheels in my head. He added that after watching the American Video Music Awards it appeared as though most Americans preferred the Senator from Illinois. After I regained my composure I first addressed the matter of Brittany Spears having anything whatsoever to do with sound political decision making. I explained, with all of the passion that I could muster, how precious little our American counterparts in Hollywood represented the average American. In order to save you, the reader, from an overemphasis on the stupidity of famous people, something I am sure you already know, I will spare you the details of this portion of the conversation. I followed my response to the VMA’s with some discussion about the media’s role in the election. As we discussed the matter, I explained to him how very little the Europeans have been receiving in the way of balanced press coverage of the two candidates. He appeared to appreciate the point though I am not entirely certain he believed it.
To be clear, I am not concerned about whether or not my German friend would vote for John McCain in a presidential election. He is, after all, no more American than I am German but it did explain much with regard to the favor Senator Obama has been receiving abroad. Indeed, a soviet style dictator still rules over the small country of Belarus. Alexandr Lukashenka has moved his country backward in time, in his tireless crusade for the Communism of old. The people are oppressed and information regarding the outside is attacked more aggressively with each passing day. Yet many Belarusians consider Lukashenka a good leader by virtue of the manner in which the Belarusian, far from free, media extol him on a daily basis. Certainly, Western Europeans have far greater access to external information as compared to their Belarusian counterparts but it must be understand by Americans here at home, that the European media is not free and the delivery of news is not balanced. It is wrought with opinion and littered with bias. With foreign enemies who seek to influence our elections and foreign friends whose information is tainted, we must guard ourselves against concern for the world’s opinion about our presidential selection. We are bound with the responsibility to make decisions in America’s best interest and her best interest alone. And when it is all said and done, given their track record, I am not entirely certain we should be taking our advice from Europe anyway.
"Enough!"
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:19:08 PM
I highly doubt I am the only person who has heard the “lipstick on a pig” phrase before Senator Obama so masterfully used it a couple of days back. I say this so as to acknowledge some complaints I have received from my friends on the Left who argue that Republicans are sensationalizing a very common phrase, recently employed by their candidate.
Although I know some of you might disagree, we cannot know whether Obama was referencing Governor Palin specifically, or whether he was simply forgetting himself and the innumerable cameras that are watching his every move. Regardless, his comment was wrought with a lack of common sense at the very least. My friends have demanded that the Right forego the sensationalism of the lipstick fiasco and let the matter die, a statement which suggests that they believe their candidate did nothing wrong and that the real fault lies with our party’s inability to rise above the fray.
They are not alone in their complaints about Pig-Gate. I have heard this argument from others on the Left, to include many of our media talking heads. So the question must be asked, if Obama did nothing wrong, then does that mean that the Democrats would not have him take the comment back if that option were available? My guess, and I am usually right, is that they would have him take back the comment if he could. Why? Because his judgment has come with consequences that his party can hardly afford to suffer this close to Election Day. Senator Obama must understand that when his opponent (even though Sarah Palin is really Joe Biden's opponent) makes an inarguably popular statement about lipstick and he follows it up by employing a very negative catch phrase with that same word, he should expect to hear about it… a lot.
Sure, the Democrats would like for the "sensationalism" to stop. Can you blame them? The shoe is on the wrong foot, that foot is in their candidate’s mouth and his mouth is talking America right out of a vote for him in November. This is politics my friends and no presidential candidate, to include Senator Obama, is entitled to immunity. After making a reckless statement, Senator Obama sternly responded to the American people with one word, “Enough!” Not only was the word itself insulting but the manner in which he delivered it, as a strict and pompous school master might snap at a probing student, Obama’s response wreaked of arrogance. George Washington, our nation’s first president, led our military to victory against Great Britain. He helped to free us from tyrannical rule and inspired us along our way to freedom and independence. And yet… even he did not consider himself fit for King of the United States. I suppose it is for this reason that I struggle to understand what it is Senator Obama believes he has accomplished which might justify his self-righteous response when faced with questions posed to him by the American People. He is, after all, interviewing for a job as our employee.
Stop the sensationalism? At precisely the same time he is demanding a higher standard of conduct on the campaign trail, Senator Obama’s running mate has begun to target Governor Palin's youngest child, Trig, in order to make his case for stem cell research. And the Democrats think Barack Obama is above the fray? My friends, he is swimming in it.
I highly doubt I am the only person who has heard the “lipstick on a pig” phrase before Senator Obama so masterfully used it a couple of days back. I say this so as to acknowledge some complaints I have received from my friends on the Left who argue that Republicans are sensationalizing a very common phrase, recently employed by their candidate.
Although I know some of you might disagree, we cannot know whether Obama was referencing Governor Palin specifically, or whether he was simply forgetting himself and the innumerable cameras that are watching his every move. Regardless, his comment was wrought with a lack of common sense at the very least. My friends have demanded that the Right forego the sensationalism of the lipstick fiasco and let the matter die, a statement which suggests that they believe their candidate did nothing wrong and that the real fault lies with our party’s inability to rise above the fray.
They are not alone in their complaints about Pig-Gate. I have heard this argument from others on the Left, to include many of our media talking heads. So the question must be asked, if Obama did nothing wrong, then does that mean that the Democrats would not have him take the comment back if that option were available? My guess, and I am usually right, is that they would have him take back the comment if he could. Why? Because his judgment has come with consequences that his party can hardly afford to suffer this close to Election Day. Senator Obama must understand that when his opponent (even though Sarah Palin is really Joe Biden's opponent) makes an inarguably popular statement about lipstick and he follows it up by employing a very negative catch phrase with that same word, he should expect to hear about it… a lot.
Sure, the Democrats would like for the "sensationalism" to stop. Can you blame them? The shoe is on the wrong foot, that foot is in their candidate’s mouth and his mouth is talking America right out of a vote for him in November. This is politics my friends and no presidential candidate, to include Senator Obama, is entitled to immunity. After making a reckless statement, Senator Obama sternly responded to the American people with one word, “Enough!” Not only was the word itself insulting but the manner in which he delivered it, as a strict and pompous school master might snap at a probing student, Obama’s response wreaked of arrogance. George Washington, our nation’s first president, led our military to victory against Great Britain. He helped to free us from tyrannical rule and inspired us along our way to freedom and independence. And yet… even he did not consider himself fit for King of the United States. I suppose it is for this reason that I struggle to understand what it is Senator Obama believes he has accomplished which might justify his self-righteous response when faced with questions posed to him by the American People. He is, after all, interviewing for a job as our employee.
Stop the sensationalism? At precisely the same time he is demanding a higher standard of conduct on the campaign trail, Senator Obama’s running mate has begun to target Governor Palin's youngest child, Trig, in order to make his case for stem cell research. And the Democrats think Barack Obama is above the fray? My friends, he is swimming in it.
A Socialist in Sheep's Clothing
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:00:00 AM
After listening to the opinions of the post-debate pundits last night, I feel as though I must have been watching a different event. In my estimation, McCain was ready for this fight and seemingly as frustrated by Barack Obama’s free ride through the media as we have all been. I was beginning to believe that I was the only person who remembered the tenants of Socialism from my college days. Though there was justifiable concern that Senator McCain might refrain from the tough talk in an effort to maintain a higher standard, he seemed to appreciate that this debate was the last great hope. Were it not for his introductory reprimand of Senator Obama’s incessant comparison of McCain to President Bush, I am not sure that the debate would have taken the path that it did. But delivering a solid punch in the first round afforded McCain the offensive position he so desperately needed just a few weeks shy of the election.
For many months now, devoted conservatives have been listening to Sean Hannity hammer on issues pertaining to Senator Obama’s choice of associations and thus his judgment. It was refreshing to finally witness a forced response from the Illinois Senator on the hard-hitting issues without the usual protective filter of the national media, the lesser known branch of the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign. Eloquent as Barack Obama most certainly is, the issues were bigger than his oratory and I am confident that the truly candid voters, endeavoring to evaluate the candidates uniformly, were able to see beyond Senator Obama’s rhetoric last night. Some say that Senator McCain did not press the Ayers issue as well as he might have. I whole-heartedly disagree. With the financial crisis dominating the airwaves to a greater extent than the Presidential Election, it was imperative that Senator McCain address the issue and press Obama to elaborate a bit more than he otherwise might, but then drop it for the more ubiquitous economic discussion.
I held my breath for the first set of respective economic criticisms and then sat back with ease as it became evident that Senator McCain had arrived aptly equipped with condemnation of Obama’s economic solutions. Though I hoped he might overtly identify Senator Obama as the Socialist we all know him to be, I listened appreciatively as John McCain elaborated on the dangers of Barack Obama’s Herbert Hoover plan for the next Great Depression. I felt as though McCain delivered a substantial victory in the process, at least for those of us who have been attempting to highlight the big government reality of Barack Obama’s agenda. Obama’s political philosophy reeks of Socialism during a time in our nation’s history when expansion of the welfare state and reapportionment of our wealth has the potential to cause unprecedented and potentially irrevocable damage. If the Senator from Illinois manages a victory in November, I cannot recall another Presidential Election where a candidate won while promising to raise our taxes.
After listening to the opinions of the post-debate pundits last night, I feel as though I must have been watching a different event. In my estimation, McCain was ready for this fight and seemingly as frustrated by Barack Obama’s free ride through the media as we have all been. I was beginning to believe that I was the only person who remembered the tenants of Socialism from my college days. Though there was justifiable concern that Senator McCain might refrain from the tough talk in an effort to maintain a higher standard, he seemed to appreciate that this debate was the last great hope. Were it not for his introductory reprimand of Senator Obama’s incessant comparison of McCain to President Bush, I am not sure that the debate would have taken the path that it did. But delivering a solid punch in the first round afforded McCain the offensive position he so desperately needed just a few weeks shy of the election.
For many months now, devoted conservatives have been listening to Sean Hannity hammer on issues pertaining to Senator Obama’s choice of associations and thus his judgment. It was refreshing to finally witness a forced response from the Illinois Senator on the hard-hitting issues without the usual protective filter of the national media, the lesser known branch of the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign. Eloquent as Barack Obama most certainly is, the issues were bigger than his oratory and I am confident that the truly candid voters, endeavoring to evaluate the candidates uniformly, were able to see beyond Senator Obama’s rhetoric last night. Some say that Senator McCain did not press the Ayers issue as well as he might have. I whole-heartedly disagree. With the financial crisis dominating the airwaves to a greater extent than the Presidential Election, it was imperative that Senator McCain address the issue and press Obama to elaborate a bit more than he otherwise might, but then drop it for the more ubiquitous economic discussion.
I held my breath for the first set of respective economic criticisms and then sat back with ease as it became evident that Senator McCain had arrived aptly equipped with condemnation of Obama’s economic solutions. Though I hoped he might overtly identify Senator Obama as the Socialist we all know him to be, I listened appreciatively as John McCain elaborated on the dangers of Barack Obama’s Herbert Hoover plan for the next Great Depression. I felt as though McCain delivered a substantial victory in the process, at least for those of us who have been attempting to highlight the big government reality of Barack Obama’s agenda. Obama’s political philosophy reeks of Socialism during a time in our nation’s history when expansion of the welfare state and reapportionment of our wealth has the potential to cause unprecedented and potentially irrevocable damage. If the Senator from Illinois manages a victory in November, I cannot recall another Presidential Election where a candidate won while promising to raise our taxes.
Yes, Something Must Be Done But No, The Bush Administration Is Not To Blame
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The House is set to pass the new Rescue Bill tomorrow. While the new bill includes some modest adjustments to its predecessor, it also includes record-setting pork. With twelve more votes needed, on either side of the isle, it is expected that the requisite number of earmarks have been added in order to swing those needed votes. Did I say “earmarks?” Indeed I did. Amidst their demand for immediate financial rescue, our infinitely wise Congress has included myriad additional niceties which we, the taxpayers, must also flip the bill for if we are to save our economy from financial ruin. Manufactures of wooden arrows, corporations operating in American Samoa, funds for wool research and auto race tracks are just some among the many groups that stand to gain from the passage of this bill. With the bill’s added pork, the “Rescue” is beginning to look more like a guaranteed trillion dollar deficit. Additionally, the Dow Futures have already taken a dive this morning, a sign that the credit crunch is tightening further and a suggestion that the Stock Market is looking more to the future of the economy, than to the passage of this bill. Regardless our justifiable belief that these earmarks wreak of an evident continuation of reckless spending, it appears as though this second bill will likely pass the House sometime tomorrow.
Regardless the massive frustrations associated with this bill, its outcome appears to be inevitable and a rescue of some sort is quite obviously necessary. That said, our immediate course of action on the Right side of the isle must be to highlight the manner in which we arrived at this point in the first place. Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi have already begun, and quite successfully so, to associate this Washington failure with the Bush Administration, simply by virtue that it came to a head on his watch. Never mind the irresponsible and economically ignorant conduct of the Democratic Majority, which has supported the government’s involvement with Fannie and Freddie all along. The Democrats might feel comfortable rearranging their words for political convenience, but those of us who do our research are not about to let them forget the sins of their past. For those of you who have friends who still believe that big government is the answer, pass the following collection of statements on to them. I have attached a few of the many statements made by House and Senate Democrats prior to the recent crisis.
Comments made by Representative Barnie Frank in a 2005 House Committee Hearing regarding government-sponsored enterprise reform:
FRANK: There are three sets of concerns that have been brought out with regard to the government-sponsored enterprises, and I will talk particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But there are two other agendas at stake here. One is the notion that it is inappropriate for the federal government to interfere with the allocation of functions of the capital market. I believe this partly motivates Mr. Greenspan.
There is obviously a very respectable, intellectual tradition that says: The market knows all, the market is smart and government is dumb — to quote a former majority leader from Texas, a former majority leader from Texas, a current former majority leader from Texas — and he said the markets are smart and the government is dumb.
And the view is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with a particular set of legislative and executive arrangements, biases capital allocation towards housing. And there are people who want to stop that. I very much disagree with that.
There are also competitors. There are organizations of people who compete or resent the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can borrow money more cheaply than others, because of a perception in the market that we’re going to bail them out. I am not going to bail them out, and if they want to lend money to Fannie and Freddie cheaper, that’s their judgment. Don’t come to me if it doesn’t work out.
So what have the Democrats had to say about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since they took the reigns in 2006? Following is a statement made by Rep. Frank (D-MA) at the Office of Thrift Supervision Housing Forum on December 11, 2006:
“Now let me turn to housing — we have more to do yet in the deregulation. I’m just saying that one of the things that we did was to try and reduce the reporting requirement from the banks to the financial detectives. And far too much has to be reported now, in my judgment, of a routine nature. And the metaphor that I use is that we have told the law enforcement people to find a bunch of needles, and then we have set about building them a very big haystack. And we ought to thin that down so they can do a better job.
One of the things that I want to stress to my liberal friends is that excessive regulation or ineffective regulation is bad for regulation. Regulation is very important. The market does need some corrections, but if you overdo it, then you weaken your case.”
In a press conference regarding a plan to stem to the tide of home foreclosures, Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the statement below on October 3, 2007. In attendance at this press conference were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH).
PELOSI: Today we’re here to ask the administration to step up to the plate for once and do the right thing, to act decisively and quickly to help families protect their main source of wealth and prosperity and prevent the subprime mortgage crisis from dragging our entire economy down with it.
First, the administration should remove its ideological blinders and temporarily lift the portfolio caps imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs are the best hope for providing liquidity. When you have a homeowner who is a prime borrower, who could refinance, you have two things missing. You have money for the mortgage and you have somebody to help them work it out. Because as Barney mentioned, a bank is no longer on the scene. There’s no one to help them, and none of us could do this ourselves.
So the first step to get the money is the GSEs. That’s the logical and natural place. The administration provided a minuscule cap of relief two weeks ago, and the GSE regulator has suggested he may remove the caps altogether in February. We’re standing here today together and saying, “Mr. President, February is hundreds of foreclosures” — I’m sorry, “Mr. President, February is hundreds of thousands of foreclosures away.”
The time to act with sensible, targeted policies is today, not months from now. And my view, if the administration does not act, Congress should act on the legislation — now — that I introduced to temporarily lift the limits on Fannie and Freddie’s mortgage portfolios by 10 percent. That’ll free up $145 billion for the purpose of new prime mortgages.
The legislation requires that 80 to 100 percent of the financing be dedicated to refinancing borrowers who are stuck in risky adjustable rate mortgages. And that would do a world of good.
The administration should do it on their own; if not, we have to act and should act. Targeting the borrowers that are likely to default in the months ahead will not only save homes, but will help strengthen the broader credit markets and economy as a whole.
And following is the speech Nancy Pelosi delivered before the U.S. House of Representatives on September 29, 2008 in an effort to pass legislation that would bail out the reckless lending of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
PELOSI: When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?
It’s a staggering figure and many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing a very informed debate on all sides of this issues here today. I’m proud of the debate.
$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses – four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
The claim to be free market advocates, when it’s really an anything-goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, do discipline. And if you fall you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.
Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.
Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs; it can create wealth, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. It seems like an eternity, doesn’t it? So much has happened. The news was so bad. They described a very dismal situation.
The House is set to pass the new Rescue Bill tomorrow. While the new bill includes some modest adjustments to its predecessor, it also includes record-setting pork. With twelve more votes needed, on either side of the isle, it is expected that the requisite number of earmarks have been added in order to swing those needed votes. Did I say “earmarks?” Indeed I did. Amidst their demand for immediate financial rescue, our infinitely wise Congress has included myriad additional niceties which we, the taxpayers, must also flip the bill for if we are to save our economy from financial ruin. Manufactures of wooden arrows, corporations operating in American Samoa, funds for wool research and auto race tracks are just some among the many groups that stand to gain from the passage of this bill. With the bill’s added pork, the “Rescue” is beginning to look more like a guaranteed trillion dollar deficit. Additionally, the Dow Futures have already taken a dive this morning, a sign that the credit crunch is tightening further and a suggestion that the Stock Market is looking more to the future of the economy, than to the passage of this bill. Regardless our justifiable belief that these earmarks wreak of an evident continuation of reckless spending, it appears as though this second bill will likely pass the House sometime tomorrow.
Regardless the massive frustrations associated with this bill, its outcome appears to be inevitable and a rescue of some sort is quite obviously necessary. That said, our immediate course of action on the Right side of the isle must be to highlight the manner in which we arrived at this point in the first place. Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi have already begun, and quite successfully so, to associate this Washington failure with the Bush Administration, simply by virtue that it came to a head on his watch. Never mind the irresponsible and economically ignorant conduct of the Democratic Majority, which has supported the government’s involvement with Fannie and Freddie all along. The Democrats might feel comfortable rearranging their words for political convenience, but those of us who do our research are not about to let them forget the sins of their past. For those of you who have friends who still believe that big government is the answer, pass the following collection of statements on to them. I have attached a few of the many statements made by House and Senate Democrats prior to the recent crisis.
Comments made by Representative Barnie Frank in a 2005 House Committee Hearing regarding government-sponsored enterprise reform:
FRANK: There are three sets of concerns that have been brought out with regard to the government-sponsored enterprises, and I will talk particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But there are two other agendas at stake here. One is the notion that it is inappropriate for the federal government to interfere with the allocation of functions of the capital market. I believe this partly motivates Mr. Greenspan.
There is obviously a very respectable, intellectual tradition that says: The market knows all, the market is smart and government is dumb — to quote a former majority leader from Texas, a former majority leader from Texas, a current former majority leader from Texas — and he said the markets are smart and the government is dumb.
And the view is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with a particular set of legislative and executive arrangements, biases capital allocation towards housing. And there are people who want to stop that. I very much disagree with that.
There are also competitors. There are organizations of people who compete or resent the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can borrow money more cheaply than others, because of a perception in the market that we’re going to bail them out. I am not going to bail them out, and if they want to lend money to Fannie and Freddie cheaper, that’s their judgment. Don’t come to me if it doesn’t work out.
So what have the Democrats had to say about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since they took the reigns in 2006? Following is a statement made by Rep. Frank (D-MA) at the Office of Thrift Supervision Housing Forum on December 11, 2006:
“Now let me turn to housing — we have more to do yet in the deregulation. I’m just saying that one of the things that we did was to try and reduce the reporting requirement from the banks to the financial detectives. And far too much has to be reported now, in my judgment, of a routine nature. And the metaphor that I use is that we have told the law enforcement people to find a bunch of needles, and then we have set about building them a very big haystack. And we ought to thin that down so they can do a better job.
One of the things that I want to stress to my liberal friends is that excessive regulation or ineffective regulation is bad for regulation. Regulation is very important. The market does need some corrections, but if you overdo it, then you weaken your case.”
In a press conference regarding a plan to stem to the tide of home foreclosures, Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the statement below on October 3, 2007. In attendance at this press conference were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH).
PELOSI: Today we’re here to ask the administration to step up to the plate for once and do the right thing, to act decisively and quickly to help families protect their main source of wealth and prosperity and prevent the subprime mortgage crisis from dragging our entire economy down with it.
First, the administration should remove its ideological blinders and temporarily lift the portfolio caps imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs are the best hope for providing liquidity. When you have a homeowner who is a prime borrower, who could refinance, you have two things missing. You have money for the mortgage and you have somebody to help them work it out. Because as Barney mentioned, a bank is no longer on the scene. There’s no one to help them, and none of us could do this ourselves.
So the first step to get the money is the GSEs. That’s the logical and natural place. The administration provided a minuscule cap of relief two weeks ago, and the GSE regulator has suggested he may remove the caps altogether in February. We’re standing here today together and saying, “Mr. President, February is hundreds of foreclosures” — I’m sorry, “Mr. President, February is hundreds of thousands of foreclosures away.”
The time to act with sensible, targeted policies is today, not months from now. And my view, if the administration does not act, Congress should act on the legislation — now — that I introduced to temporarily lift the limits on Fannie and Freddie’s mortgage portfolios by 10 percent. That’ll free up $145 billion for the purpose of new prime mortgages.
The legislation requires that 80 to 100 percent of the financing be dedicated to refinancing borrowers who are stuck in risky adjustable rate mortgages. And that would do a world of good.
The administration should do it on their own; if not, we have to act and should act. Targeting the borrowers that are likely to default in the months ahead will not only save homes, but will help strengthen the broader credit markets and economy as a whole.
And following is the speech Nancy Pelosi delivered before the U.S. House of Representatives on September 29, 2008 in an effort to pass legislation that would bail out the reckless lending of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
PELOSI: When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?
It’s a staggering figure and many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing a very informed debate on all sides of this issues here today. I’m proud of the debate.
$700 billion. A staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness when President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses – four years in a row budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned it around. And now 8 years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an “anything goes” economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
The claim to be free market advocates, when it’s really an anything-goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, do discipline. And if you fall you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.
Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.
Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs; it can create wealth, many good things in our economy. But in this case, in this unbridled form, as encouraged and supported by the Republicans — some Republicans, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos. And it is that chaos that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed came to see us, just about a week and a half ago. It seems like an eternity, doesn’t it? So much has happened. The news was so bad. They described a very dismal situation.
When Aren’t They Playing Politics?
Posted by LM Stansbury on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:00:00 AM
Momentum is increasing for the bailout bill, which we are now conspicuously referring to as the “Rescue Bill.” If you are a small business, you are likely facing a credit squeeze but hints developed over night, which suggest that money might be in the early stages of freeing up. In an additional effort to ward off a run on the banks, the insurance level is expected to be raised to $250,000 in order to ensure that small businesses are able to keep all of their money at a single bank. In essence, changes are taking place and a bailout of one variety or another is expected to manifest within days. It will not be long before legislation is on its way to the White House.
The series of events which have developed over the past several days on Wall Street have shed light on a staggering and steady series of Congressional failures over the past decade. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, it appears as though those of us on the right are the only constituents who have made any effort to recount the various Democrats who once scoffed at warnings of the dangerous games Fannie and Freddie were playing. They chose to play politics when they should have been responding to an obvious threat. Ironically, it will be a member of this very same party who will come out the victor in this crisis simply by virtue of the fact that he is a member of the opposite party to the sitting president and separate of anything he has accomplished personally. In an interview with Chris Cuomo on Thursday, Bill Clinton stated that Democrats had, for years “…been resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Of course we can expect an uphill battle if we ever hope to see former President Clinton’s statement’s reach a broad audience.
With regard to Obama, it appears he will have to do relatively little other than show up in Washington for a final vote.
Momentum is increasing for the bailout bill, which we are now conspicuously referring to as the “Rescue Bill.” If you are a small business, you are likely facing a credit squeeze but hints developed over night, which suggest that money might be in the early stages of freeing up. In an additional effort to ward off a run on the banks, the insurance level is expected to be raised to $250,000 in order to ensure that small businesses are able to keep all of their money at a single bank. In essence, changes are taking place and a bailout of one variety or another is expected to manifest within days. It will not be long before legislation is on its way to the White House.
The series of events which have developed over the past several days on Wall Street have shed light on a staggering and steady series of Congressional failures over the past decade. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, it appears as though those of us on the right are the only constituents who have made any effort to recount the various Democrats who once scoffed at warnings of the dangerous games Fannie and Freddie were playing. They chose to play politics when they should have been responding to an obvious threat. Ironically, it will be a member of this very same party who will come out the victor in this crisis simply by virtue of the fact that he is a member of the opposite party to the sitting president and separate of anything he has accomplished personally. In an interview with Chris Cuomo on Thursday, Bill Clinton stated that Democrats had, for years “…been resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Of course we can expect an uphill battle if we ever hope to see former President Clinton’s statement’s reach a broad audience.
With regard to Obama, it appears he will have to do relatively little other than show up in Washington for a final vote.
Please Read and Post This Commercial on Your Site
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:00:00 AM
Today is September 11, 2008. It is difficult to accept that seven years have passed since that fateful day.
This morning I happened upon an article written on the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. 365 days after the attacks and the author of the article was already expressing his concern about the dwindling impact of 9/11 on American patriotism and resolve. The American people are fickle, this we know all too well. Our abysmally short attention spans often enable us to forget what it is we are fighting for and with so many men and women overseas, it is absolutely imperative that we consistently remind ourselves as well as all those around us what is at stake. With two such varying candidates in dreadfully close contention for the White House, the long-term impacts of this election are incalculable.
Please take a look at the link attached to this message. This is a homemade commercial, which I personally found very moving. Tremendously inspired by the commercial’s message, I felt compelled to post it on my blog and website with the hope that you all might pick it up and do the same. It would have an immeasurable impact if aired on national television on behalf of the McCain-Palin Campaign but if we cannot make that happen, we can at least bombard the blogosphere.
Please take a look and add it as one of your posts.
Take Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
Today is September 11, 2008. It is difficult to accept that seven years have passed since that fateful day.
This morning I happened upon an article written on the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. 365 days after the attacks and the author of the article was already expressing his concern about the dwindling impact of 9/11 on American patriotism and resolve. The American people are fickle, this we know all too well. Our abysmally short attention spans often enable us to forget what it is we are fighting for and with so many men and women overseas, it is absolutely imperative that we consistently remind ourselves as well as all those around us what is at stake. With two such varying candidates in dreadfully close contention for the White House, the long-term impacts of this election are incalculable.
Please take a look at the link attached to this message. This is a homemade commercial, which I personally found very moving. Tremendously inspired by the commercial’s message, I felt compelled to post it on my blog and website with the hope that you all might pick it up and do the same. It would have an immeasurable impact if aired on national television on behalf of the McCain-Palin Campaign but if we cannot make that happen, we can at least bombard the blogosphere.
Please take a look and add it as one of your posts.
Take Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
Please Read and Post This Commercial on Your Site
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:00:00 AM
Today is September 11, 2008. It is difficult to accept that seven years have passed since that fateful day.
This morning I happened upon an article written on the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. 365 days after the attacks and the author of the article was already expressing his concern about the dwindling impact of 9/11 on American patriotism and resolve. The American people are fickle, this we know all too well. Our abysmally short attention spans often enable us to forget what it is we are fighting for and with so many men and women overseas, it is absolutely imperative that we consistently remind ourselves as well as all those around us what is at stake. With two such varying candidates in dreadfully close contention for the White House, the long-term impacts of this election are incalculable.
Please take a look at the link attached to this message. This is a homemade commercial, which I personally found very moving. Tremendously inspired by the commercial’s message, I felt compelled to post it on my blog and website with the hope that you all might pick it up and do the same. It would have an immeasurable impact if aired on national television on behalf of the McCain-Palin Campaign but if we cannot make that happen, we can at least bombard the blogosphere.
Please take a look and add it as one of your posts.
Take Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
Today is September 11, 2008. It is difficult to accept that seven years have passed since that fateful day.
This morning I happened upon an article written on the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. 365 days after the attacks and the author of the article was already expressing his concern about the dwindling impact of 9/11 on American patriotism and resolve. The American people are fickle, this we know all too well. Our abysmally short attention spans often enable us to forget what it is we are fighting for and with so many men and women overseas, it is absolutely imperative that we consistently remind ourselves as well as all those around us what is at stake. With two such varying candidates in dreadfully close contention for the White House, the long-term impacts of this election are incalculable.
Please take a look at the link attached to this message. This is a homemade commercial, which I personally found very moving. Tremendously inspired by the commercial’s message, I felt compelled to post it on my blog and website with the hope that you all might pick it up and do the same. It would have an immeasurable impact if aired on national television on behalf of the McCain-Palin Campaign but if we cannot make that happen, we can at least bombard the blogosphere.
Please take a look and add it as one of your posts.
Take Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
This Has The Potential to be Obama’s Swan Song.. Let’s Sing it For Him
Posted by LM Stansbury on Monday, September 08, 2008 12:00:00 AM
My jaw dropped this morning as I read the news of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews’ removal from MSNBC’s election coverage. What a monumental feat this has proved. Throughout this election cycle, we Conservatives have been struggling against the bias of the media, swimming upstream with every stroke, in order that our voices may be heard. How exceptionally reassured we should be that someone, namely NBC, has finally heard and validated our concerns.
I write this message to my fellow political activists. Do your research and do it painstakingly. Ever so slightly, our assault on the media has begun to make some headway so we must now be prepared for the counter attack. With the removal of Matthews and Olbermann the Left are going to attempt to do what they do best, play the victim. They are going to turn these two ideologues into political martyrs, using their removal as some sort of substantiation of the right-leaning bias of the media.
So here is what we must do: John Adams said it best when we he reminded a court room full of people that facts are stubborn things. Be above the media, as Sarah Palin has demonstrated and be above reproach with the factual content of your posts, as Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager and so many other conservative voices have been. The truth after all, is on our side, so there is no need to sink to the level of agenda-driven research. Ensure that your messages are fail-proof for the media elite are doing everything in their power to sway the electorate by whatever fact or fiction they are able to conjure.
In her speech last week, Hillary Clinton shouted to the roaring crowd, the dangers of the right-wing gridlock in the courts. Those of us who have delved into this arena on any level whatsoever are well aware of the damage that has already been incurred by political activist judges on the Left. Regardless the facts, her line was bought hook, line and sinker by her audience. The left tell the country that they are protecting the constitutional phrase, “separation of church and state,” though those words are no where to be found in the actual constitution. The left are telling the country that there is a consensus in the scientific community with regard to the causes of global warming, though we know this to be patently untrue. The constituencies of the Left, or least enough of them to make a difference, are not doing their research. They are accepting as fact anything that Bill Maher, Chris Matthews or Oprah Winfrey deliver as news. This is an extremely disconcerting reality. The Democratic leadership, the leftist media and their fellow leftist academics in the universities rely heavily on the assumption that their electorate is ignorant. While they may be able to lure their Democratic faithful, do not allow them sway the center, who are still deeply in the process of weighing their options between the two tickets.
Because we firmly believe in the principals upon which this nation was founded, we must press on in our assault on the yellow journalism of today’s media and challenge them at every turn. We must do our part to ensure the success of the McCain-Palin ticket in each of our respective states. Join with McCain and Palin in their effort to spare this nation an Obama-Biden administration. Keep writing. Keep staying up late into the nights, reading up on the various issues. When the left try to spin the truth, un-spin it for them.
This is a monumental time and we can make a difference if we keep up the assault. The impact that folks like Sean Hannity and the countless political bloggers have had on this campaign has been inspiring and marvelously effective. If we want this country to remain the country that we know and love, we must stand up and fight alongside John McCain. Keep it up! Join the campaign effort and make some serious noise in September and October of 2008! This has the potential to be Obama’s swan song.. Let’s sing it for him.
My jaw dropped this morning as I read the news of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews’ removal from MSNBC’s election coverage. What a monumental feat this has proved. Throughout this election cycle, we Conservatives have been struggling against the bias of the media, swimming upstream with every stroke, in order that our voices may be heard. How exceptionally reassured we should be that someone, namely NBC, has finally heard and validated our concerns.
I write this message to my fellow political activists. Do your research and do it painstakingly. Ever so slightly, our assault on the media has begun to make some headway so we must now be prepared for the counter attack. With the removal of Matthews and Olbermann the Left are going to attempt to do what they do best, play the victim. They are going to turn these two ideologues into political martyrs, using their removal as some sort of substantiation of the right-leaning bias of the media.
So here is what we must do: John Adams said it best when we he reminded a court room full of people that facts are stubborn things. Be above the media, as Sarah Palin has demonstrated and be above reproach with the factual content of your posts, as Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager and so many other conservative voices have been. The truth after all, is on our side, so there is no need to sink to the level of agenda-driven research. Ensure that your messages are fail-proof for the media elite are doing everything in their power to sway the electorate by whatever fact or fiction they are able to conjure.
In her speech last week, Hillary Clinton shouted to the roaring crowd, the dangers of the right-wing gridlock in the courts. Those of us who have delved into this arena on any level whatsoever are well aware of the damage that has already been incurred by political activist judges on the Left. Regardless the facts, her line was bought hook, line and sinker by her audience. The left tell the country that they are protecting the constitutional phrase, “separation of church and state,” though those words are no where to be found in the actual constitution. The left are telling the country that there is a consensus in the scientific community with regard to the causes of global warming, though we know this to be patently untrue. The constituencies of the Left, or least enough of them to make a difference, are not doing their research. They are accepting as fact anything that Bill Maher, Chris Matthews or Oprah Winfrey deliver as news. This is an extremely disconcerting reality. The Democratic leadership, the leftist media and their fellow leftist academics in the universities rely heavily on the assumption that their electorate is ignorant. While they may be able to lure their Democratic faithful, do not allow them sway the center, who are still deeply in the process of weighing their options between the two tickets.
Because we firmly believe in the principals upon which this nation was founded, we must press on in our assault on the yellow journalism of today’s media and challenge them at every turn. We must do our part to ensure the success of the McCain-Palin ticket in each of our respective states. Join with McCain and Palin in their effort to spare this nation an Obama-Biden administration. Keep writing. Keep staying up late into the nights, reading up on the various issues. When the left try to spin the truth, un-spin it for them.
This is a monumental time and we can make a difference if we keep up the assault. The impact that folks like Sean Hannity and the countless political bloggers have had on this campaign has been inspiring and marvelously effective. If we want this country to remain the country that we know and love, we must stand up and fight alongside John McCain. Keep it up! Join the campaign effort and make some serious noise in September and October of 2008! This has the potential to be Obama’s swan song.. Let’s sing it for him.
And Barack Obama Thinks John McCain Doesn't Get It?
Posted by LM Stansbury on Friday, September 05, 2008 12:00:00 AM
For the first part of John McCain’s speech, I must admit I was somewhat bored. By the end however, I was on the edge of my seat as the crowds cheered and John McCain shouted his litany of those things against which we Americans’ will always fight. How inspiring to hear such declarations from an American POW. By the end of his speech, John McCain had the crowd on its feet, much in the way we had anticipated Barack Obama would do in his Greek temple address. This however, is really not a fare comparison for with all of the eloquent words and stunning backdrops and roaring crowds Barack Obama could have conjured, his story could never have compared with that told my John McCain last night. McCain’s speech was soaring, but not so much thanks to crafty speech writing or impressive delivery, rather because the story itself was transcending.
A friend of ours, who will be voting for Barack Obama, recently commented that while he was appreciative of McCain’s POW service, such service did not necessarily equal qualification for the Presidency. True, but then what is it exactly that makes Barack Obama better? In Rudy Giuliani’s speech the night prior, he brilliantly displayed the two candidates in resume form, stripping their names and party affiliations, referring solely to their experience. The difference was stark. A week ago, we watched the documentary of a man’s rise to stardom from the coast of Hawaii to his education at Harvard to his life in Chicago and eventually in the U.S. Senate. A week later, we listened to a man talk about the time in which his body and spirit were broken in the service of his country. We watched on as he later returned to that same country as a legislator to repair the damaged relationship between the two countries. His story brought tears to the eyes of Veterans throughout the room and left most the rest of us painfully humbled, aware how precious little we personally had sacrificed for that same great cause. Certainly being a POW does not necessarily make one fit for the office President but it does beg the question, what more could a candidate possibly have done to prove his love of country?
Married to a military man myself, I am daily impressed by the sorts of men and women who serve in our armed forces. We would be fortunate to have one of them serve in our White House. Their standard of excellence, their demands for maturity and their codes of honor make for some of the most amazing Americans I have ever met. And Barack Obama thinks that John McCain is the one who doesn’t get it?
For the first part of John McCain’s speech, I must admit I was somewhat bored. By the end however, I was on the edge of my seat as the crowds cheered and John McCain shouted his litany of those things against which we Americans’ will always fight. How inspiring to hear such declarations from an American POW. By the end of his speech, John McCain had the crowd on its feet, much in the way we had anticipated Barack Obama would do in his Greek temple address. This however, is really not a fare comparison for with all of the eloquent words and stunning backdrops and roaring crowds Barack Obama could have conjured, his story could never have compared with that told my John McCain last night. McCain’s speech was soaring, but not so much thanks to crafty speech writing or impressive delivery, rather because the story itself was transcending.
A friend of ours, who will be voting for Barack Obama, recently commented that while he was appreciative of McCain’s POW service, such service did not necessarily equal qualification for the Presidency. True, but then what is it exactly that makes Barack Obama better? In Rudy Giuliani’s speech the night prior, he brilliantly displayed the two candidates in resume form, stripping their names and party affiliations, referring solely to their experience. The difference was stark. A week ago, we watched the documentary of a man’s rise to stardom from the coast of Hawaii to his education at Harvard to his life in Chicago and eventually in the U.S. Senate. A week later, we listened to a man talk about the time in which his body and spirit were broken in the service of his country. We watched on as he later returned to that same country as a legislator to repair the damaged relationship between the two countries. His story brought tears to the eyes of Veterans throughout the room and left most the rest of us painfully humbled, aware how precious little we personally had sacrificed for that same great cause. Certainly being a POW does not necessarily make one fit for the office President but it does beg the question, what more could a candidate possibly have done to prove his love of country?
Married to a military man myself, I am daily impressed by the sorts of men and women who serve in our armed forces. We would be fortunate to have one of them serve in our White House. Their standard of excellence, their demands for maturity and their codes of honor make for some of the most amazing Americans I have ever met. And Barack Obama thinks that John McCain is the one who doesn’t get it?
What it Means to be a Woman
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:00:00 AM
Not since Brittany Spears’ not so pleasant bald-phase have we seen the media come together in so overt a fashion as has been the case with the Palin smear campaign. It’s too bad too. They were having such a good time playing offensive with their obsessive coverage of Obama and Biden(yawn), that it is now almost painful to watch them struggle In their effort to determine whether to use their precious and limited sound bites to praise and worship Obama or to lambast and liable Palin. How pleasant this election has become.
My husband falls much more to the center of the political spectrum than myself yet as we sat together last night and watched the delivery of two of the best speeches thus far in the 2008 Election, both of us were equally enthusiastic and how refreshing, after the painful and incessant subjection to the DNC’s nuanced references to hope and change.
We Republicans are a more particular bunch. Most of us read. We do our research so fluffy, transcending speeches just don’t cut it for long. Unfortunately for our conservative leaders, this makes their job considerably more difficult. More interested in the bottom line than pretty words, we demand candid speech and specific examples. After all, we don’t have a lot of free time to sit around and watch our politicians bloviate. There’s work to be done and typically, we are the ones doing most of it.
It is for precisely these reasons that so many of us were elated after last night’s RNC speech. We got the straight talk we have been waiting for. And from whom did we get it? That’s right, a woman! It’s about time we women got a noble role model in this country. This is not to minimize the efforts of Hillary Clinton. There have indeed been certain aspects of Senator Clinton about which we have been impressed but I personally claim no membership with the “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suits.”
Who ever said a woman needed to put on pants in order to play with the big boys? Sarah Palin personifies the female in her best form, the female example most of us women have been waiting for. She carries herself with grace but reminds us that the strength of a mother can be a fearsome thing. She has stood up to some of the toughest of the old guard and she has worn a skirt while doing it. Her hair is long because choosing to play in a predominantly male profession doesn’t mean for one minute, that she’s ashamed to be a woman. She isn’t bitter, she isn’t spiteful and men are not her enemy. Though intensely independent, she is a woman who is proud to stand alongside her husband as their children gather round, proudly acknowledging that her roles as wife and mother are her greatest sources of pride. As we move toward November, I look forward to watching Governor Palin take on her appointment. I imagine he’s petrified after last night’s speech. Should our GOP candidates take this election, how proud we can be to show the world what a true American Woman looks like!
Not since Brittany Spears’ not so pleasant bald-phase have we seen the media come together in so overt a fashion as has been the case with the Palin smear campaign. It’s too bad too. They were having such a good time playing offensive with their obsessive coverage of Obama and Biden(yawn), that it is now almost painful to watch them struggle In their effort to determine whether to use their precious and limited sound bites to praise and worship Obama or to lambast and liable Palin. How pleasant this election has become.
My husband falls much more to the center of the political spectrum than myself yet as we sat together last night and watched the delivery of two of the best speeches thus far in the 2008 Election, both of us were equally enthusiastic and how refreshing, after the painful and incessant subjection to the DNC’s nuanced references to hope and change.
We Republicans are a more particular bunch. Most of us read. We do our research so fluffy, transcending speeches just don’t cut it for long. Unfortunately for our conservative leaders, this makes their job considerably more difficult. More interested in the bottom line than pretty words, we demand candid speech and specific examples. After all, we don’t have a lot of free time to sit around and watch our politicians bloviate. There’s work to be done and typically, we are the ones doing most of it.
It is for precisely these reasons that so many of us were elated after last night’s RNC speech. We got the straight talk we have been waiting for. And from whom did we get it? That’s right, a woman! It’s about time we women got a noble role model in this country. This is not to minimize the efforts of Hillary Clinton. There have indeed been certain aspects of Senator Clinton about which we have been impressed but I personally claim no membership with the “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suits.”
Who ever said a woman needed to put on pants in order to play with the big boys? Sarah Palin personifies the female in her best form, the female example most of us women have been waiting for. She carries herself with grace but reminds us that the strength of a mother can be a fearsome thing. She has stood up to some of the toughest of the old guard and she has worn a skirt while doing it. Her hair is long because choosing to play in a predominantly male profession doesn’t mean for one minute, that she’s ashamed to be a woman. She isn’t bitter, she isn’t spiteful and men are not her enemy. Though intensely independent, she is a woman who is proud to stand alongside her husband as their children gather round, proudly acknowledging that her roles as wife and mother are her greatest sources of pride. As we move toward November, I look forward to watching Governor Palin take on her appointment. I imagine he’s petrified after last night’s speech. Should our GOP candidates take this election, how proud we can be to show the world what a true American Woman looks like!
The Great Lincoln-Obama Debate
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:00:00 AM
My long-time friend and Obama supporter sent me a message highlighting an argument on behalf of her candidate. I have attached her message along with a link to the article she was referencing. Following, is my response.
“Laura, in response to your comment about Palin having more experience than Obama, it's not the case. Please see the following article.” http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president%3F?t=anon
My Response:
Thank you for this article and for your thoughts. This is not the first time I have heard Barack Obama’s name likened to Abraham Lincoln. I am not surprised that another great man’s name has been brought to the forefront of the American Political process in order that his accomplishments, separate of anything Barack Obama has done personally, may be used to justify the Senator’s fitness for the office of President. Bound however by a deep sense of reverence to Abraham Lincoln, I must comment on the reckless manner in which his life has been used these past several weeks and months.
Indeed, few of our Founding Fathers, magnificent though they were, could claim to be so impressive a figure as Abraham Lincoln. Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance of this comparison not only raises questions about his understanding of the gravity of Abraham Lincoln’s impact on humanity but it begs the question, is there no limit to Barack Obama’s sense of self-importance?
First and foremost, the author of the article you sent me reminds us that George W. Bush only served six years as the Governor of Texas before taking office. My response? Be careful, Obama supporters, when using such words as “only.” Do not be deceived into believing that the Obama Campaign is not fully aware how lacking in experience their candidate is. Those skilled in politics, to include Senator Obama, are fully aware that executive experience, by way of gubernatorial leadership, is monumentally more beneficial than legislative service, particularly at the state legislative level. Obama’s camp is attempting to downplay the importance of a governor’s seat, much in the way they are criticizing Governor Palin. They are riding on the assumption that the vast majority of their left-leaning constituencies are too ignorant to know the difference between executive and legislative experience.
The author next reminds the reader that Barack Obama can boast of ten years of experience in public office. As often as they are able to get away with it the Obama Campaign is going to lump Obama’s State and Federal Senate seats into one category of ten years worth of legislative experience. With regard to this tactic, I must enlighten those new to the political scene. For all intents and purposes, the State Legislature is the minor league. The issues about which they discuss are of paramount importance to be sure, but they are exceedingly different than the subject matter, constituency size and job demands faced by those at the federal level. As much as I respect my state leadership, I myself could be a state leader right now if I chose to run for a seat. So could you. It is important that all Obama supporters understand this fact. For the Obama Campaign to suggest that state legislative experience in any way equips a body for presidential responsibilities is intellectually dishonest. I have worked for members at both levels and I assure you, the difference is colossal.
The author’s next point pertains to Senator Obama’s ability to work across party lines. This, I find one of the most captivating arguments coming from the Obama Camp. In fact, was it not more than two years ago Democrats were claiming they liked Senator McCain, by virtue of his exceedingly bi-partisan record? It is as though this portion of history has been completely wiped from the slate. Of all the Senators in D.C., few can claim to be as bi-partisan as John McCain. In fact, when it comes to bi-partisan comparisons, Barack Obama cannot even compete, having earned the title as the most leftist voting record in the Senate! I often ask myself in what way a demand for Universal Healthcare is bi-partisan in that not one Republican with whom I communicate, can stomach the notion.
With regard to Obama’s ethics reforms at the federal level, I might be impressed… were we not at war. Given that all of his decisions with regard to the war have been dangerously misguided, to include the Surge, I am not tremendously impressed by his successes in ethics reform. Even with events which erupted since the commencement of the campaign season, Senator Obama’s instinctive responses to international problems such as that faced by the Georgians, has been wretchedly imprudent. I worry that we might find ourselves with a leader who is great at ethics reform on the Hill and entirely ill-equipped to address our most serious issues abroad. What’s more, his running mate has been on the wrong side of foreign policy judgment since the eighties. Indeed, Senator Biden was among the last of our leaders to let go of the dense notion of Detent in our battle against the Soviet Union.
With regard to Obama’s foreign policy experience, I find it somewhat desperate that Obama supporters are forced to hearken back to Obama’s undergraduate major as an example of his foreign policy experience. This is as ludicrous an argument as my suggesting to the State Department that I serve in a high office by virtue of my undergraduate major in political science. The author of the article you sent me goes on to reference Obama’s committee assignments in the U.S. Senate as additional qualifying foreign policy experience. If Obama wants to portray himself as the candidate with fresh new ideas, as the Washington, D.C. “outsider,” then he might not want to remind the American People that the greater portion of his foreign policy experience stems from his Senate committee assignments.
Barack Obama claims he has a wealth of foreign policy experience. As compared with whom? John McCain? John McCain who spent 26 years in Congress but 27 in his military career? John McCain who served overseas and spent and a grueling five years as prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton? This is the short list of John McCain’s overseas experience. If I were Barack Obama, I would be careful when delving into this arena.
To the matter of Barack Obama’s past, I have grown tired of the stories detailing the accomplishments of the Senator’s parents and grandparents. Inasmuch as I am proud of my mother for her life’s hard work, I am no more responsible for her successes than those reading this article. I imagine that in a job interview, my potential employer would care precious little about the strengths of my family members when determining my fitness for the job opening.
Then there is the matter of his experience as a Community Organizer to which I must ask, “WHAT IS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER?” I have never met a professional community organizer so I delved more deeply into this portion of Barack Obama’s past. Must one acquire some special certificate? Must one be knowledgeable in a certain area of study? Certainly the man who is running as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States has something impressive to share with regard to this phase of his career. What did I find after my digging? Nothing interesting. In fact, Barack Obama’s work as a Community Organizer resembled… well, the sorts of jobs that most of us liberal arts majors (I should know) acquired after our graduation from college. Not only was the task breakdown during Obama’s Community Organizer years, uninteresting, they did not even seem to require an especially exceptional person to retain them. In fact, Obama’s self-titled Community Organizer career seems to have been nothing more than a shined up version of an ambiguous phase of his professional transition for which his resume required a better title.
To the last statement in the article, suggesting that Obama’s decision to stay out of Iraq was wise, I suppose history will be the judge of that. As commander in chief, should he become such, Senator Obama must remember that history always judges more harshly, the man who did nothing in the face of danger, than the man who did something.
Anyone who has studied the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln would be hard pressed to compare him with any leader, let alone a left-leaning Senator who had for twenty years condoned his pastor’s anti-American hate-mongering. Abraham Lincoln was much more than a great leader, a great orator or a great president. He was a great human being, profoundly attuned to his moral compass in a way most of us will never appreciate. For those who have likened the well-spoken senator to some our greatest American leaders, let me say, a short-term Senator from Illinois does not make you a Lincoln anymore than the color of your skin makes you a Reverend King.
My long-time friend and Obama supporter sent me a message highlighting an argument on behalf of her candidate. I have attached her message along with a link to the article she was referencing. Following, is my response.
“Laura, in response to your comment about Palin having more experience than Obama, it's not the case. Please see the following article.” http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president%3F?t=anon
My Response:
Thank you for this article and for your thoughts. This is not the first time I have heard Barack Obama’s name likened to Abraham Lincoln. I am not surprised that another great man’s name has been brought to the forefront of the American Political process in order that his accomplishments, separate of anything Barack Obama has done personally, may be used to justify the Senator’s fitness for the office of President. Bound however by a deep sense of reverence to Abraham Lincoln, I must comment on the reckless manner in which his life has been used these past several weeks and months.
Indeed, few of our Founding Fathers, magnificent though they were, could claim to be so impressive a figure as Abraham Lincoln. Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance of this comparison not only raises questions about his understanding of the gravity of Abraham Lincoln’s impact on humanity but it begs the question, is there no limit to Barack Obama’s sense of self-importance?
First and foremost, the author of the article you sent me reminds us that George W. Bush only served six years as the Governor of Texas before taking office. My response? Be careful, Obama supporters, when using such words as “only.” Do not be deceived into believing that the Obama Campaign is not fully aware how lacking in experience their candidate is. Those skilled in politics, to include Senator Obama, are fully aware that executive experience, by way of gubernatorial leadership, is monumentally more beneficial than legislative service, particularly at the state legislative level. Obama’s camp is attempting to downplay the importance of a governor’s seat, much in the way they are criticizing Governor Palin. They are riding on the assumption that the vast majority of their left-leaning constituencies are too ignorant to know the difference between executive and legislative experience.
The author next reminds the reader that Barack Obama can boast of ten years of experience in public office. As often as they are able to get away with it the Obama Campaign is going to lump Obama’s State and Federal Senate seats into one category of ten years worth of legislative experience. With regard to this tactic, I must enlighten those new to the political scene. For all intents and purposes, the State Legislature is the minor league. The issues about which they discuss are of paramount importance to be sure, but they are exceedingly different than the subject matter, constituency size and job demands faced by those at the federal level. As much as I respect my state leadership, I myself could be a state leader right now if I chose to run for a seat. So could you. It is important that all Obama supporters understand this fact. For the Obama Campaign to suggest that state legislative experience in any way equips a body for presidential responsibilities is intellectually dishonest. I have worked for members at both levels and I assure you, the difference is colossal.
The author’s next point pertains to Senator Obama’s ability to work across party lines. This, I find one of the most captivating arguments coming from the Obama Camp. In fact, was it not more than two years ago Democrats were claiming they liked Senator McCain, by virtue of his exceedingly bi-partisan record? It is as though this portion of history has been completely wiped from the slate. Of all the Senators in D.C., few can claim to be as bi-partisan as John McCain. In fact, when it comes to bi-partisan comparisons, Barack Obama cannot even compete, having earned the title as the most leftist voting record in the Senate! I often ask myself in what way a demand for Universal Healthcare is bi-partisan in that not one Republican with whom I communicate, can stomach the notion.
With regard to Obama’s ethics reforms at the federal level, I might be impressed… were we not at war. Given that all of his decisions with regard to the war have been dangerously misguided, to include the Surge, I am not tremendously impressed by his successes in ethics reform. Even with events which erupted since the commencement of the campaign season, Senator Obama’s instinctive responses to international problems such as that faced by the Georgians, has been wretchedly imprudent. I worry that we might find ourselves with a leader who is great at ethics reform on the Hill and entirely ill-equipped to address our most serious issues abroad. What’s more, his running mate has been on the wrong side of foreign policy judgment since the eighties. Indeed, Senator Biden was among the last of our leaders to let go of the dense notion of Detent in our battle against the Soviet Union.
With regard to Obama’s foreign policy experience, I find it somewhat desperate that Obama supporters are forced to hearken back to Obama’s undergraduate major as an example of his foreign policy experience. This is as ludicrous an argument as my suggesting to the State Department that I serve in a high office by virtue of my undergraduate major in political science. The author of the article you sent me goes on to reference Obama’s committee assignments in the U.S. Senate as additional qualifying foreign policy experience. If Obama wants to portray himself as the candidate with fresh new ideas, as the Washington, D.C. “outsider,” then he might not want to remind the American People that the greater portion of his foreign policy experience stems from his Senate committee assignments.
Barack Obama claims he has a wealth of foreign policy experience. As compared with whom? John McCain? John McCain who spent 26 years in Congress but 27 in his military career? John McCain who served overseas and spent and a grueling five years as prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton? This is the short list of John McCain’s overseas experience. If I were Barack Obama, I would be careful when delving into this arena.
To the matter of Barack Obama’s past, I have grown tired of the stories detailing the accomplishments of the Senator’s parents and grandparents. Inasmuch as I am proud of my mother for her life’s hard work, I am no more responsible for her successes than those reading this article. I imagine that in a job interview, my potential employer would care precious little about the strengths of my family members when determining my fitness for the job opening.
Then there is the matter of his experience as a Community Organizer to which I must ask, “WHAT IS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER?” I have never met a professional community organizer so I delved more deeply into this portion of Barack Obama’s past. Must one acquire some special certificate? Must one be knowledgeable in a certain area of study? Certainly the man who is running as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States has something impressive to share with regard to this phase of his career. What did I find after my digging? Nothing interesting. In fact, Barack Obama’s work as a Community Organizer resembled… well, the sorts of jobs that most of us liberal arts majors (I should know) acquired after our graduation from college. Not only was the task breakdown during Obama’s Community Organizer years, uninteresting, they did not even seem to require an especially exceptional person to retain them. In fact, Obama’s self-titled Community Organizer career seems to have been nothing more than a shined up version of an ambiguous phase of his professional transition for which his resume required a better title.
To the last statement in the article, suggesting that Obama’s decision to stay out of Iraq was wise, I suppose history will be the judge of that. As commander in chief, should he become such, Senator Obama must remember that history always judges more harshly, the man who did nothing in the face of danger, than the man who did something.
Anyone who has studied the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln would be hard pressed to compare him with any leader, let alone a left-leaning Senator who had for twenty years condoned his pastor’s anti-American hate-mongering. Abraham Lincoln was much more than a great leader, a great orator or a great president. He was a great human being, profoundly attuned to his moral compass in a way most of us will never appreciate. For those who have likened the well-spoken senator to some our greatest American leaders, let me say, a short-term Senator from Illinois does not make you a Lincoln anymore than the color of your skin makes you a Reverend King.
Once Upon a Time...
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:00:00 AM
Once upon a time, Baby-boomer Liberals who thrived on blaming the West for all the evils of the world were left discouraged when at last, the iron fist of Communism proved a piteous opponent against the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undeterred by the vast array of problematic facts, the Baby-boomer liberals remained committed to their cause against the American ideals of old. Upon accepting that their allegations of American Imperialism were no longer all the rage in the public square, learning that some of the truly misguided had actually begun referring to her as the ‘shinning city upon a hill,’ they marched on in the pursuit of the next generation were they were certain to find fresh and impressionable minds.
They found those minds on the university campuses. Eventually, though sadly not in all cases, they exchanged their hippy ponytails and their Birkenstock sandals for more seasoned and professional attire. With a façade of intellectual honesty and age now on their side, they fiercely exploited the gift which had been entrusted them by millions of unsuspecting parents. First they filled their syllabi with all things un-American and then they shamed the students who dared question the legitimacy of their liberal message. And when the students raised their hands to argue the excellence of Ronald Reagan, the Baby-boomer Liberals smiled and warned such argument might garner an “F,” if found in a term paper.
And so the years passed and the students grew in their appreciation of the benefits of Socialism. They applauded the efforts of those who selflessly sacrificed a work day or two for the sake of a good war protest. The Baby-boomer Liberal educators had learned a thing or two from the Vietnam Era, and were vigilant about reminding their students that one could support the soldier without supporting his cause. And so the lessons continued and over time the students grew in their disdain for the spread of Democracy and advanced in their understanding and appreciation for the world’s hatred for the United States. As time passed, the young students transformed into young graduates, moving from the college campuses and into the work place, where they proudly hung their college diplomas upon their office walls.
In the work place however, life had become considerably more complicated for the young graduates and those who had not stayed behind in pursuit of their post-graduate degrees wished that they had. Here in the work force, opinions were varied and some individuals began arguing Socialism as a negative, even un-American pursuit. Some went so far as to propose that Socialism had never even been achieved, claiming that Communism, its vehicle, had never been triumphant enough to evolve into the socialist ideal. These radicals in the work place boldly and even proudly referred to themselves as ‘Conservatives.’ This proud proclamation surprised the students as they had always been made to believe that Conservatism was nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance and inferior education. These people appeared intelligent though there must have been something arigh as on occasion, some of them even went so far as to speak highly of President Bush.
When confronted on the various issues they had discussed in their classrooms, the young graduates were confused by the version of history their counterparts were relating. The Conservatives declared that the words, ‘separation of church and state,’ were not in the constitution at all. They absurdly insisted that ‘3/5th of all other persons,’ was not a depiction of our founding father’s racism. Rather, they claimed, it was a victory of the anti-slavery north who refused to give the southern-slave owners two votes by way of their slaves, thereby expanding the power of the pro-slavery South. These Conservatives were confused. Their version of history was like nothing that had been taught in the Universities.
Now faced with a conflict like that which has arisen in Georgia, these lunatic conservatives were demanding support of the Georgians and their struggle for independence, rather than maintaining neutrality so as not to alienate the Russians. These conservatives seemed to lack any understanding for the sensitive nature of foreign policy. Some of them did not even seem to care whether various other countries liked the United States at all. These fools had seemed to bypass their education altogether, operating on the assumption that freedom was to the benefit of every nation and every people.
The graduates were dumbfounded, searching desperately for the source of this marked disconnect. After all, these Conservatives were college graduates as well. They had read all of the same literature. They had listened to all of the same professors. Yet, when they spoke, they made reference to people and to documents which had not been detailed in the classrooms. They harkened upon Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon. They spoke of the writings of John Adams and Milton Friedman. They sited quotes from Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. They claimed that Albert Einstein was a Christian and they read books written by authors such as Natan Sharansky and Dinesh D’Souza. They sited information they had gathered from Sean Hannity and the National Review. These people were not referring to their university studies for guidance. Not at all. They had been reading since their college days and the literature they had gathered was very much the opposite the lessons learned at the University. They were even listening to radicals on the radio and over the internet. They were reading so much they even began to accuse our nation’s courts of rewriting history.
What was to be done? These Conservatives implored the young graduates to read as much as they could possibly manage but the graduates argued they hadn’t the time. They insisted they were gathering the information necessary for a thoughtful vote in November by way of CNN and Oprah Winfrey. But the conservatives insisted they were unprepared. When the Democratic Candidate arrived, the graduates knew they had found their leader. He was a powerful speaker, a handsome representative and his campaign overflowed with messages of hope and change. But with the arrival of this candidate, the Conservatives in the work place had become more vocal than ever. They claimed this leader was no leader at all. They argued that his message was devoid of specifics and that his resume was lacking in experience. The graduates scoffed at the conservative complaints and referred instead to the Daily Show were the comedians had clearly made their presidential selection. If they turned television louder, perhaps they would not be able to hear the conservative pleas at all.
And so it went the Baby-boomer Liberals on the University Campuses and their peers in the newsrooms had convinced the next generation that America had been to blame all along. They had created a population of graduates who were ready and eager to vote for any candidate Green Day, Pink and Oliver Stone endorsed. And while the young graduates and those who had taken advantage of their ignorance marched on toward the November election, the Conservatives remained focused on the task at hand. With love of country as their backbone and with the same driving force that had guided the founders, the Conservatives continued to read. They continued to challenge the platitudes of the Democratic Candidate and they continued to champion the ideals of old. Yes, these Conservatives had once been educated by the Baby-boomer Liberals, but upon additional reading, throughout college and beyond, they had done the unthinkable, they had acquired the greatest tool, the weapon which frightened the Democrats most, they had become truly educated.
Knowing that they could not compete with the Conservatives on points of fact, the Baby-boomer Liberals and their faithful began to curtail the conservative message by way of cable news. They would cease discussion on all issues that pleased the Conservatives most. The Baby-boomer Liberals and their faithful would stop airing positive breakthroughs in the war in Iraq. They would stop offering the Republican presidential candidate equal airtime to his counterpart. They would host Global Warming symposiums in high schools and refuse air time to scientists who questioned the science. They would stop speaking about the Conservative’s ideas altogether. They would silence their platforms and destroy their family’s reputations when they refused to accept defeat. This would certainly do the trick. Enough control and the Conservatives would no longer have a voice. Until the Conservatives ceased trying to convince the young graduates that the Baby-boomer Liberals were nothing more than Socialists in sheep’s clothing, their voices would be silenced…
If only the young graduates would begin to read.
Once upon a time, Baby-boomer Liberals who thrived on blaming the West for all the evils of the world were left discouraged when at last, the iron fist of Communism proved a piteous opponent against the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undeterred by the vast array of problematic facts, the Baby-boomer liberals remained committed to their cause against the American ideals of old. Upon accepting that their allegations of American Imperialism were no longer all the rage in the public square, learning that some of the truly misguided had actually begun referring to her as the ‘shinning city upon a hill,’ they marched on in the pursuit of the next generation were they were certain to find fresh and impressionable minds.
They found those minds on the university campuses. Eventually, though sadly not in all cases, they exchanged their hippy ponytails and their Birkenstock sandals for more seasoned and professional attire. With a façade of intellectual honesty and age now on their side, they fiercely exploited the gift which had been entrusted them by millions of unsuspecting parents. First they filled their syllabi with all things un-American and then they shamed the students who dared question the legitimacy of their liberal message. And when the students raised their hands to argue the excellence of Ronald Reagan, the Baby-boomer Liberals smiled and warned such argument might garner an “F,” if found in a term paper.
And so the years passed and the students grew in their appreciation of the benefits of Socialism. They applauded the efforts of those who selflessly sacrificed a work day or two for the sake of a good war protest. The Baby-boomer Liberal educators had learned a thing or two from the Vietnam Era, and were vigilant about reminding their students that one could support the soldier without supporting his cause. And so the lessons continued and over time the students grew in their disdain for the spread of Democracy and advanced in their understanding and appreciation for the world’s hatred for the United States. As time passed, the young students transformed into young graduates, moving from the college campuses and into the work place, where they proudly hung their college diplomas upon their office walls.
In the work place however, life had become considerably more complicated for the young graduates and those who had not stayed behind in pursuit of their post-graduate degrees wished that they had. Here in the work force, opinions were varied and some individuals began arguing Socialism as a negative, even un-American pursuit. Some went so far as to propose that Socialism had never even been achieved, claiming that Communism, its vehicle, had never been triumphant enough to evolve into the socialist ideal. These radicals in the work place boldly and even proudly referred to themselves as ‘Conservatives.’ This proud proclamation surprised the students as they had always been made to believe that Conservatism was nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance and inferior education. These people appeared intelligent though there must have been something arigh as on occasion, some of them even went so far as to speak highly of President Bush.
When confronted on the various issues they had discussed in their classrooms, the young graduates were confused by the version of history their counterparts were relating. The Conservatives declared that the words, ‘separation of church and state,’ were not in the constitution at all. They absurdly insisted that ‘3/5th of all other persons,’ was not a depiction of our founding father’s racism. Rather, they claimed, it was a victory of the anti-slavery north who refused to give the southern-slave owners two votes by way of their slaves, thereby expanding the power of the pro-slavery South. These Conservatives were confused. Their version of history was like nothing that had been taught in the Universities.
Now faced with a conflict like that which has arisen in Georgia, these lunatic conservatives were demanding support of the Georgians and their struggle for independence, rather than maintaining neutrality so as not to alienate the Russians. These conservatives seemed to lack any understanding for the sensitive nature of foreign policy. Some of them did not even seem to care whether various other countries liked the United States at all. These fools had seemed to bypass their education altogether, operating on the assumption that freedom was to the benefit of every nation and every people.
The graduates were dumbfounded, searching desperately for the source of this marked disconnect. After all, these Conservatives were college graduates as well. They had read all of the same literature. They had listened to all of the same professors. Yet, when they spoke, they made reference to people and to documents which had not been detailed in the classrooms. They harkened upon Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon. They spoke of the writings of John Adams and Milton Friedman. They sited quotes from Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. They claimed that Albert Einstein was a Christian and they read books written by authors such as Natan Sharansky and Dinesh D’Souza. They sited information they had gathered from Sean Hannity and the National Review. These people were not referring to their university studies for guidance. Not at all. They had been reading since their college days and the literature they had gathered was very much the opposite the lessons learned at the University. They were even listening to radicals on the radio and over the internet. They were reading so much they even began to accuse our nation’s courts of rewriting history.
What was to be done? These Conservatives implored the young graduates to read as much as they could possibly manage but the graduates argued they hadn’t the time. They insisted they were gathering the information necessary for a thoughtful vote in November by way of CNN and Oprah Winfrey. But the conservatives insisted they were unprepared. When the Democratic Candidate arrived, the graduates knew they had found their leader. He was a powerful speaker, a handsome representative and his campaign overflowed with messages of hope and change. But with the arrival of this candidate, the Conservatives in the work place had become more vocal than ever. They claimed this leader was no leader at all. They argued that his message was devoid of specifics and that his resume was lacking in experience. The graduates scoffed at the conservative complaints and referred instead to the Daily Show were the comedians had clearly made their presidential selection. If they turned television louder, perhaps they would not be able to hear the conservative pleas at all.
And so it went the Baby-boomer Liberals on the University Campuses and their peers in the newsrooms had convinced the next generation that America had been to blame all along. They had created a population of graduates who were ready and eager to vote for any candidate Green Day, Pink and Oliver Stone endorsed. And while the young graduates and those who had taken advantage of their ignorance marched on toward the November election, the Conservatives remained focused on the task at hand. With love of country as their backbone and with the same driving force that had guided the founders, the Conservatives continued to read. They continued to challenge the platitudes of the Democratic Candidate and they continued to champion the ideals of old. Yes, these Conservatives had once been educated by the Baby-boomer Liberals, but upon additional reading, throughout college and beyond, they had done the unthinkable, they had acquired the greatest tool, the weapon which frightened the Democrats most, they had become truly educated.
Knowing that they could not compete with the Conservatives on points of fact, the Baby-boomer Liberals and their faithful began to curtail the conservative message by way of cable news. They would cease discussion on all issues that pleased the Conservatives most. The Baby-boomer Liberals and their faithful would stop airing positive breakthroughs in the war in Iraq. They would stop offering the Republican presidential candidate equal airtime to his counterpart. They would host Global Warming symposiums in high schools and refuse air time to scientists who questioned the science. They would stop speaking about the Conservative’s ideas altogether. They would silence their platforms and destroy their family’s reputations when they refused to accept defeat. This would certainly do the trick. Enough control and the Conservatives would no longer have a voice. Until the Conservatives ceased trying to convince the young graduates that the Baby-boomer Liberals were nothing more than Socialists in sheep’s clothing, their voices would be silenced…
If only the young graduates would begin to read.
Edwards and Our Lesson Learned
Posted by LM Stansbury on Friday, August 08, 2008 12:00:00 AM
What do I find most discouraging about the news of John Edward's extramarital affair? That most of us were not the least bit shocked. While reveling in Edward’s idiocy and deceitfulness seems rather tempting, we must be honest for a moment. John Edward's affair was not a manifestation of the morally depraved Democratic Party (we have other examples of that). His actions were a demonstration of our morally bankrupt leadership and their reflection of our society as a whole. Immensely aware of the principles and values which guided the men and women who founded this country, I find myself wondering how it is we can expect to carry that great torch forward while allowing this deterioration to continue.
Last night, a very dear friend of my family died tragically and unexpectedly. He was survived by a wonderful wife with whom he had just celebrated twenty five years of marriage. Prior to the news of this loss, I contemplated various other issues about which to write. In light of recent events, to include today’s headline news, I cannot think of a more important issue to discuss than family. Each and every chance you get, please tell those around you how much you love them. Please remember that making this country a better one has much more to do with what happens inside or our homes each evening than with what transpires inside the capital chambers each day.
What do I find most discouraging about the news of John Edward's extramarital affair? That most of us were not the least bit shocked. While reveling in Edward’s idiocy and deceitfulness seems rather tempting, we must be honest for a moment. John Edward's affair was not a manifestation of the morally depraved Democratic Party (we have other examples of that). His actions were a demonstration of our morally bankrupt leadership and their reflection of our society as a whole. Immensely aware of the principles and values which guided the men and women who founded this country, I find myself wondering how it is we can expect to carry that great torch forward while allowing this deterioration to continue.
Last night, a very dear friend of my family died tragically and unexpectedly. He was survived by a wonderful wife with whom he had just celebrated twenty five years of marriage. Prior to the news of this loss, I contemplated various other issues about which to write. In light of recent events, to include today’s headline news, I cannot think of a more important issue to discuss than family. Each and every chance you get, please tell those around you how much you love them. Please remember that making this country a better one has much more to do with what happens inside or our homes each evening than with what transpires inside the capital chambers each day.
Ready for Battle
Posted by LM Stansbury on Sunday, August 03, 2008 12:00:00 AM
This is my first entry into my newly created 54-40 or Fight Blog. I am thrilled to finally have the chance to be writing about those issues most dear to me. I am a thirty-one year old Christian female who has always worn her conservative badge with honor. Why am I conservative? The answer to that question is easy. I am educated and I love to read. I have long been of the opinion that most unintelligent people in the world or only such by virtue of their failure to read, their failure to self-educate. By and large, those individuals who have impacted my life most have been avid readers, undeniably devoted to learning and utterly incapable of keeping that knowledge concealed. Unfortunately, knowledge brings with it an incontrovertible truth: the majority of American citizens are absolutely clueless with regard to nearly every important issue about which our Presidential Candidates discuss. If that were not bad enough, the average U.S. citizen’s understanding about the history of our nation is abysmal. Of greatest concern: these people are voting. As the presidential campaign of 2008 nears its apex these next couple of months, we conservatives are faced with a great challenge and saddled with a heavy burden. We are dedicated to the principals upon which this nation was founded and as we near November; it is becoming increasingly evident that there is a growing battle against those principals. In an effort to protect our sacred foundation, we must read and read often, with the painful realization that many of those on the Left are daily allowing the words of our founders to fade into the distance. Indeed, Barak Obama's campaign along side our inexcusably biased media is depending upon the fact that most Americans will lose site and meaning of its past.
The talking points that the American Left have been using to bolster their arguments are prolific. To be sure, all that Obama supporters need do in order to be given new and magnificent reasons to vote for their candidate is turn to their cable news network for half an hour or so. We conservatives are at a severe disadvantage. While we too, allot portions of our time to cable news and major media moguls, we realize that in order to truly understand the issues at hand, we must be diligent with our fact finding and tenacious in our quest for alternative resources. We, on the right, realize that one cannot make an informed decision by investing time into one resource alone, yet this contentedness with ignorance seems perfectly acceptable for supporters of Barak Obama who are again and again rendered speechless when asked what experience and set of accomplishments make their candidate fit for the office of President.
Barak Obama has ingeniously built for himself a platform of platitudes and naiveté and his followers have bought into his drivel hook, line and sinker. I made my frustration for this blind endorsement known to a friend whom I know supports the Democratic candidate. She made a fair argument by explaining that as much I failed to understand her ability to support Barak Obama, so too had she struggled to understand my ardent defense of President Bush for so many years. Putting effort toward viewing the world through another's lenses is of paramount importance and an in effort to extend my friend that courtesy, I reasoned her point of view and made sense of her analogy. My concern however, and I voiced this with her, was that I as a Bush supporter had always been able to qualify my endorsement of the President by virtue of my agreement with his policy objectives. Without a doubt, whether one supports or despises President Bush, not one of us has ever been confused about where he stands. Those who support Barak Obama on the other hand have failed, time and again, to adequately explain what it is about their candidate they agree with aside from “hope” and “change.” In fact, ignorance has been a necessity of the Obama campaign. Only with a following that has allowed for him to remain ambiguous has he been able to achieve such immense success.
As I watched Barak Obama pander to the citizens of Germany, referring to himself as a citizen of the world, I wondered how an individual could be so evidently embarrassed by his country while standing in the very streets in which we rescued Europe from Tyranny. In several weeks, Barak Obama will be on my home front in Denver, Colorado. He will stand in the same stadium in which I have collected dozens of football memories and he will employ the great Rocky Mountain Range for his backdrop as he speaks to our nation. Those mountains have been involved in every chapter of my life. In them, I have learned to care of myself, I have learned to take risks and survive danger on my own. Because of those mountains, I have grown to appreciate what an awesome and glorious place this and as I look at them each night, I am reminded what a magnificent creator we have. The Rocky Mountains are a young range. They are a tough range. They are dangerous and they are strong. They are fixed and firm. They have remained wildly steadfast since the dawn of this country. To me, those mountains personify the American spirit of 1776, 1865, 1945 1991, and when our time in Iraq concludes, they will personify that year as well. In several weeks, a candidate will stand below them and he will speak loudly and he will speak eloquently and he will raise his arms high but know that he will not be speaking to the spirit of those mountains, nor especially to the spirit of this country. He will, by his own admission, be speaking as a citizen of the world, a world which our forefathers left long ago in order that we might one day stand as a beacon of hope for those fleeing tyranny and oppression. No, we are nothing like Europe nor do we hope ever to be. We stand proud on our record of freedom. We stand proud on our constitution, the oldest operating constitution in the history of the world. We are proud to say that, unlike Europe and the world throughout, we are not tormented by multiple revolutions per century. That we are unlike Europe is no failure on our part. We sought out to be different than Europe and when Barak Obama stands in my city in three weeks and challenges us to change and challenges us to become more like the old world from which we fled; I will take up my constitution and boldly inform him otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
