Sunday, August 21

Bill Whittle Explains

"The Progressive Nightmare"
Historically how it got it's roots.





The Seven things that bring Conservatives together.


  • small government and free enterprise
  • a distrust of elitism and elitists
  • wealth can be and is created
  • natural law
  • legal immigration
  • gun rights
  • American exceptionalism
It is too late for us to steer around this iceberg we call Socialism. 
We are going to hit this. 
The only choice we have now is to aim right for the center of it, 
put in all the power we have, 
and ram that son of a bitch just as hard as we can.

America has been built on the backs of people who are ready to die for freedom.

Walter Russell Mead on Obama's "green jobs" fiasco:


What worries me isn’t that the President’s team advised him to make a few speeches on this subject; if a candidate can’t throw chum to the base now and then what’s the point of having elections?  What worries me is that they didn’t understand that making something this bogus a central plank of his actual governing plan on an issue as vital as jobs would have serious costs down the road...

Let me put it this way.  A GOP candidate might feel a need to please creationist voters and say a few nice things about intelligent design.  That is politics as usual; it gins up the base and drive the opposition insane with fury and rage.  No harm, really, and no foul.

But if that same politician then proposed to base federal health policy on a hunt for the historical Garden of Eden so that we could replace Medicare by feeding old people on fruit from the Tree of Life, he would have gone from quackery-as-usual to raving incompetence...

Green jobs are the Democratic equivalent of Tree of Life Medicare; they scratch every itch of every important segment of the base and if they actually existed they would be an excellent policy choice.  But since they are no more available to solve our jobs problem than the Tree of Life stands ready to make health care affordable, a green jobs policy boils down to a promise to feed the masses on tasty unicorn ribs from the Great Invisible Unicorn Herd that only the greens can see.

" tasty unicorn ribs from the Great Invisible Unicorn Herd that only the greens can see?
Brilliant !!

Sunday, August 14

Reducing U.S. oil appetite

This is one cause that could be helped by smart mandates and taxing.

January 31, 2008 By Rick Santorum

Free heating oil for the poor! 
 
That's what Joe Kennedy II has been peddling on TV recently. Sounds great, right? What's not to like about free? Of course, the devil's always in the details when it comes to "free," and this time the devil is more than a metaphor. This heating oil to our poor neighborhoods is flowing from Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, whose poor are poorer and greater in number, percentage-wise.

The same Fidel Castro disciple who traveled to the United Nations to call our president the devil. The same dictator who along with radical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created a $2 billion fund to sow anti-United States seeds throughout Central and South America. And the thug who is working with the narco-terrorists in Colombia to take out our democratically elected ally.

Offers of free heating oil from his kind aren't as heart- or home-warming as they sound.

It's hard to blame low-income Americans for trying to find help heating their homes. Some recipients have even been recruited for free trips to Venezuela to learn about the virtues of the socialist revolution there and are being encouraged to spread them back here. As for Teddy Kennedy's nephew Joe, he has obviously been recruited, but I don't think he's shilling for Chávez to keep the Hyannisport mansion warm.

Joe's pitch to the poor fails to mention the production limits Chávez and his pals at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel, or OPEC, use to keep prices artificially high. I guess when Chávez and Ahmadinejad say they are willing to use oil as a weapon to destroy the Great Satan, this is part of what they had in mind.

Sadly, our energy policy is providing ammunition for their weapons.

It's been two years since President Bush admitted we are "addicted to oil." This expensive addiction has taken a toll on our economy while funding major sponsors of the jihadis and other terrorists that seek to harm us.

We have been told the only way to break this addiction is to reduce consumption, as in the recently passed mandate to increase fuel efficiency. I am all for conservation and improving fuel economy, as with hybrid cars, but even if everyone drove a hybrid it would just slow the rate of growth in our consumption of oil. Those savings will be more than offset by our reduction in national oil production because we are unwilling to drill in Alaska and offshore. In other words, the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela have us over a barrel.

I suggest that in the short term, we dig our way out of this problem. The United States is the "Saudi Arabia of coal," and Pennsylvania is sitting on hundreds of years of this affordable and accessible resource, which, with innovative technologies - spearheaded by Pennsylvanians - we can use cleanly and right away.

Pennsylvania coal already generates most of the electricity in this state. The industry is in the process of doing it more cleanly through clean-coal technologies, such as gasification of coal into methanol, a form of alcohol that can be burned in internal combustion engines directly or used to manufacture synthetic gasoline and chemicals. These technologies can lead to a whole host of new clean uses that can help us reduce oil imports.

Just two hours up the road from Philadelphia, the nation's first coal-to-gas-to-diesel facility may soon be developed in Schuylkill County; word was expected today on a U.S. Department of Energy loan of $100 million to help enable construction. This fuel, which is currently being used in another coal-rich country, South Africa, can be used to power jets, heat your home, and run diesel engines.

Across Pennsylvania, farmers are also digging and planting corn and other crops that will be turned into ethanol that can replace gasoline in our cars. Most cars in America can't run on ethanol, however, so who is going to install ethanol pumps at the gas station without the cars to run on it? At this point I would say to all of my hard-core conservative friends: Hold on to your hats.

What we need is a government mandate! We need to mandate that all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be "flex-fuel vehicles" - that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (the so-called E85 blend), or even a coal-derived methanol/gas mixture. This mandate would cost a fraction of the new fuel economy standard with the added benefit of saving barrels more oil.

What would Chávez and company do in response? Jack up production to kill this industry off before it gets off the ground. So - hold on again, conservatives - let's put a temporary tax trigger on imported oil if the price hits $50 per barrel. Anyone think it will go that low without this idea?

Finally, Congress should immediately repeal the protectionist $26 per barrel tax on imported ethanol. So while we may have a tax increase if oil prices drop, we offset that with an immediate tax cut on ethanol. That's a net win for taxpayers and our energy security. Ethanol will begin to flow into this country from poor third-world countries that don't have oil or much in the way of terrorists. U.S. popularity would soar in the third world and help the poor of those countries as well as ours. I wonder if Joe would do an ad on that?

Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image

Thu, Feb. 28, 2008  By Rick Santorum
American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.

One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue. 

Which of these two candidates should be our next president?  The choice is clear, right? 

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002. 

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment. 

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade. 

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions. 

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again. 

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Friday, August 12

Senate Election 2012 - The Plan

Last First Party State Gov Leg. EV Not Running
Akaka Daniel Democrat Hawaii Abercrombie D 4 Not Running
Bingaman Jeff Democrat New Mexico Martinez R 5 Not Running
Conrad Kent Democrat North Dakota Hoeven R 3 Not Running
Webb Jim Democrat Virginia McDonnell D 13 Not Running
Kohl Herb Democrat Wisconsin Walker R 10 Not Running
Lieberman Joseph Independent Connecticut Jodi Rell D 7 Not Running
Kyl Jon Republican Arizona Brewer R 9 Not Running
Hutchinson Kay Bailey Republican Texas Perry R 37 Not Running
Feinstein Dianne Democrat California Brown D 55
Carper Thomas Democrat Delaware Markell D 3
Nelson Bill Democrat Florida Scott R 28
Cardin Benjamin Democrat Maryland O'Malley D 10
Stabenow Debbie Democrat Michigan Snyder R 16
Klobuchar Amy Democrat Minnesota Dayton R 10
McCaskill Claire Democrat Missouri Nixon R 11
Tester Jon Democrat Montana Schweitzer R 3
Nelson Ben Democrat Nebraska Heineman NP 5
Menendez Robert Democrat New Jersey Christi D 14
Gillibrand Kirsten Democrat New York Cuomo R 30
Brown Sherrod Democrat Ohio Kasich R 18
Casey Jr. Robert Democrat Pennsylvania Corbett R 20
Whitehouse Sheldon Democrat Rhode Island Chafee D 4
Cantwell Maria Democrat Washington Gregorie D 12
Manchin Joe Democrat West Virginia Tomlin D 5
Sanders Bernard Independent Vermont Shumlin D 3
Lugar Richard Republican Indiana Daniels R 11
Snowe Olympia Republican Maine LePage R 4
Brown Scott Republican Massachusetts Patrick D 11
Wicker Roger Republican Mississippi Barbour D 6
Heller Dean Republican Nevada Sandoval D 6
Corker Bob Republican Tennessee Haslam R 11
Hatch Orrin Republican Utah Herbert R 6
Barrasso John Republican Wyoming Mead R 3

Paul Ryan Teaches Economics to Chris Matthews






July 27, 2010

Obama's "Coil of Rage"

I found this in a blog of a twitter buddy of mine. Hat tip to the one and only TPO_Hisself. 

I thought we'd all do well to remember these words as we are attacked again and again for being racists simply because we disagree with Obama's political agenda and his policy proposals - both foreign and domestic. 
Best to be aware of the devil in front of you, eh what? 
 
 
 
The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass .... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future .... I rest my case.

I bought and read Audacity of Hope. It was difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he used to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE". His words not mine.

THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT Is anyone out there awake? Everyone of voting age should read these two books: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.

From Dreams From My Father:

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams From My Father:

"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams From My Father:

"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."

From Dreams From My Father:

"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams From My Father:

"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

And FINALLY ........... and most scary:

From Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation! Keep your eye on him and don't blink. I don't care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative or a liberal, be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.