About Me

Name: The Hermit Crab
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Historical Perspective on Today's Democrats

Reviewing the big votes of the year in Congress, we find:
 
The Stimulus bill.  The majority of the American people opposed it, the Democrats passed it (with no Republican votes).
 
The Waxman/Markey Cap-and-Trade bill.  The majority of the people opposed it, the Democrats passed it (with only 8 Republican votes in the "yes" total of 219).
 
The Pelosi Health Care Hostile Takeover passed yesterday.  The majority of the people opposed it (some quite vociferously), the Democrats passed it (with perhaps one Republican voting for it).
 
The Democrats still insist that they are the majority party, meaning that they represent the interests of the majority of the American people, despite the increasingly obvious fact that they actually have disdain for the American people.  They are trying to keep their idea implanted in the public mind. 
 
Students of history remember a party in another country naming themselves the majority party to convey the false impression that they were the majority in their country.  Since their country was Russia, they used the Russian word.
 
Boshevik.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Quick Point on Democratic Hypocrisy

For over seven years, we had to listen to Democrats telling us how simplistic it was of President Bush to declare that whoever was not with us in the war on terror was against us.  Isn't that the same theory they're applying to Fox News now?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Curse of Hillary

The New York Yankees apparently are finishing off the Philadelphia Phillies to win the World Series.  Normally this would interest me very little, as I am one of those recalcitrant fans who never forgave baseball for cancelling the Series in 1994.  When that happened, the little boy in me died.  The steroid scandals and the resulting destruction of the credibility of so many baseball records have made it east to stay away from the game I once loved.  I do miss listening to Tim McCarver on the post-season broadcasts, who is so insightful on virtually all aspects of playing the game. 
 
In most circumstances I root against the Yankees, though, since I believe that anything that makes George Steinbrenner unhappy is good.  This year is different, though, partly because I don't like and have never liked the Phillies, and because a Yankee win cements the Curse of Hillary. 
 
In the year 2000, the Yankees won their third consecutive World Series, and fourth in five years.  In fact, they had only lost one game in the three series.  That fall, however, the once-proud state of New York elected a carpetbagging, corrupt presidential spouse as their Senator.  HIllary Clinton was the state's junior senator for 8 years, from 2001 to 2008.  The Yankees lost the World Series (albeit in thrilling fashion) to the Arizona Diamondbacks that year, would lose to the Florida Marlins two years later, and then would not even make the Series in the years 2004-8.  The Bronxian Dark Ages had returned (hat tip to Roger Angell for that wonderful phrase).
 
This year Hillary returned to Washington, and the Yankees returned to the World Series, and apparently to the winner's circle, as well.  This set me to thinking a bit more about the curse.  First she lived in a suburb of Chicago, Il, where she grew up.  Despite the fact that Chicago has two major league teams, the Cubs and the White Sox, neither team won a Series as long as HC lived there.  It is worth noting that the White Sox, freed of the curse, won a World Series after she left.
 
The Arkansas years don't count, of course, since Arkansas doesn't have a major league team.  I did notice that no-one tried to move one there.  Baseball team owners didn't get rich by being stupid.
 
Then came the eight years as New York's junior embarrassment (of course, Chuck Schumer was and remains the senior), and again the Curse was adequate to keep two big-spending and highly-touted teams, the Yankees and the Mets, out of the winner's circle for all eight seasons.
 
Now the Curse has relocated, and moved to Washington, and Washington, of course, has the Senators.  I suggest they move the franchise -- perhaps to Arkansas?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Corrupt Bargaining Alive and Well in NY 23

It's nice to know that political corruption and double-dealing are still around for bloggers to decry.  The whole course of the fight over the New York 23 congressional seat was amazing for its multiple shifts of double-dealing and self-interestedness.  (Is that a word?) A brief step-by-step chronicle of events is in order here.
 
Let's start with the fact that a vacancy existed at all.  Just like when President BO nominated Republican Judd Gregg to become his Secretary of Commerce, he nominated Republican congressman John McHugh to be his Secretary of the Army in order to create an open seat in a "Blue State", one which Baby Barry had one easily in 2008.  Judd Gregg, to his credit, realized that he was being used and eventually rejected the "offer".  McHugh didn't.
 
BO's gamble could have backfired, at least slightly.  The district opened up by McHugh's "promotion" (Does anyone even remember who President Bush's Secretary of the Army was?) had been in Republican hands since 1852, according to the reports I've heard.  However, this advantage was immediately thrown away by New York State's Republican Committee chairmen, who decided to take all of the real Republicans for granted, and tried to win the ACORN types votes by nominating Dede Scozzafava, a "Republican" somewhere to the left of Chris Shays.  The conservatives in the district revolted, since the choice was revolting.  The New York Post called Scozzafava's nomination a "corrupt bargain", and it certainly must have been, since there was no logical explanation for it otherwise.
 
Enter Doug Hoffman.  He had (narrowly, it is reported) lost the nomination in the caucus of knuckleheads to DIABLO Dede.  (As fans of Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt know, a DIABLO is a Democrat In All But Label Only.)  Since he was not willing to watch a race between two leftist for a historically Republican district, he ran for the seat on the Conservative line.  It seemed with a week to go that he would pull off the upset.  It was time for another dirty deal.
 
Enter the BO White House.  When Scozzafava withdrew from the race (having polled as low as 13% in recent polls), BO sent staffer (and Valerie Jarrett confidante) Patrick Gaspard to strike a deal with the disappointed DIABLO.  Reports vary, but the most accepted theory as I write this is that the President promised to obtain for Dede a cushy administration post or, failing that, a nice high-paying union job.  Within 24 hours, Skozzafava endorsed the Democrat candidate Bill Owens.  With the confusion resulting from Scozzafava remaining on the ballot on two lines (Republican and Independence), Owens narrowly defeated the conservative Hoffman by 3%.  Let's keep an eye on the DIABLO, and see what cushy port she docks in.
 
Checking the scorecard, I see a dirty political trick by BO that opened the seat to begin with, then a shoddy deal by the Republican bosses to nominate a hopelessly bad candidate for the vacancy, and then an 11th hour intervention by the White House operators to bribe a phony Republican to endorse a Democrat by offering a lucrative post with (presumably) a fancy title.  I'd caution Dede to get a long contract in writing, since the people she made this devil's deal with are no more trustworthy than she is.
 
My neo-conservative (in the traditional sense - I'll return to this subject soon) friend A often tells me she hates politics.  With dealings like this occurring in our times, who can blame her? 
 
By the way, when was the last time you heard of any politician earning the nickname "Honest"?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Quick Suggestion

I read yesterday's Impromptus on National Review Online by the ever-enjoyable Jay Nordlinger, and I had a thought while reading Jay's comments on the use of the vile slang phrase "teabagging" by certain juvenile liberals to describe the Tea Party movement.  (Full disclosure -- I'm a member of the movement.)  You can read the Impromptus in question here.
 
I suggest that every conservative and every Republican who is in front of a camera when someone uses a form of the word "teabag" to describe the decent Americans who have had enough of representatives who mistake themselves for rulers (and who are apparently deranged besides) say something like "If you'd like to know what David Shuster" (of MSNBC, and a fitting example, as he's one of the biggest offenders) "just said about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of good, decent Americans, look up 'teabagging' on Wikipedia, and then call David's employers with your opinion."
 
Wouldn't it be fun watching the slanderous lefty turn into a pillar of salt right on camera?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Richard Cohen and Predictable Liberal Fatuity

Richard Cohen, the predictable liberal columnist at the Washington Post, in a column a week or two ago reviewing a hagiomentary produced by HBO on Baby Barry's successful presidential campaign, gave us perfect examples of two recurring liberal themes, although I will give him some credit for criticizing the producers of this film for not even trying to show any flaws in their films hero, President BO himself.  However,...
 
In the second-from-last paragraph, Cohen writes "If Obama ends the deepest recession since the Great Depression..."  Am I the only person alive who remembers Jimmy Carter and the invention of the "Misery Index"?  That is a measure we had little use for before, for no president before Carter had manage to blow up unemployment, inflation, and the prime rate simultaneously.  In theory, it should be all but impossible, but Jimmy was no ordinary president.  Of course, conservatives and honest moderates remember the late 1970s and the economic ruin President Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981, but for liberal journalists and in fact liberals in general, they are edited out.  Gone.  Never happened.  They have to do this, you see, because the Democrats held the presidency and both houses of congress by large margins, so if something happened to the economy then, it was there fault.  So, let's just forget those years, okay?
 
The second example of liberal-think occurs in the last paragraph, where Cohen writes of BO/BB, "But if he fails in all or most of that, it will be because it is not enough to be the smartest person in the room."  Will liberal journalists ever stop trying to tell us that every liberal leader is a genius?  They told us Bill Clinton was a genius at Oxford, reading a book a day during his time there.  (Oddly, he never checked out a single book from the Oxford library.  He also didn't graduate.)  They told us that Al Gore was "the Senator who can write" when "Earth in the Balance" came out over his name.  (P.J. O'Rourke pointed out in a hilarious review that Gore couldn't even correctly interpret the graphs in his own book.  Al flunked out of two colleges himself, according to what I've read.)
 
More recently, there was John Kerry, who famously said on election night 2004 "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot."  The supposed idiot, President George W. Bush, is the only president I can name who holds degrees from two Ivy League schools (Harvard and Yale).  The "idiot" also, it turned out, had slightly higher grades in college that the haughty, French-looking Kerry. 
 
Let's face it, boys and girls.  If an egomaniac like BO (who has yet to show any particular ability to understand any part of his current job)refuses to release his college transcript, there's an obvious explanation. 
 
You'll need only one guess.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Beyond RINO with Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn, perhaps the wittiest writer on the conservative side, coined a wonderful term for "Republicans" like Dede Scozzafava, the absurdly left-wing GOP candidate in the special election in NY's 23 Congressional District.  He calls her a DIABLO, a Democrat In All But Label Only.  I think we should place this term in use.  It's a pity we didn't have it in time for Arlen Specter...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Impolite Thoughts -- Not Just Mine Today!

Libertarian Tony sent me a suggestion for (I'm assuming) this feature.  I like it so much I'm putting it first.  Not the exact words, though -- they're on my home computer and I'm at work.
 
The top executives at Bank of America (or one of the firms that got bailout funds) are being required by the (unconstitutional) "pay czar" to accept pay cuts of 90%.  Tony points out that since the Chinese, Japanese, and other foreign investors are in effect "bailing out" Congresses and Prez BO's profligate spending, shouldn't the leaders of Congress and Baby Barry have to take a 90-% pay cut, also.
 
Sounds good to me!
 
 
 
In the wake of the administration's declaring war on Fox News, some scribblers have compared BO to Richard Nixon.  Good Lord!  Will the slanders of Richard Nixon never cease?
 
 
 
As a long-time member of the Pro-Life movement, I am appalled at the poor judgement of pro-lifers who carry large, graphic photos of aborted babies at their protests, or print them in their pro-life literature.  When you wave a banner or sign at a demonstration, you want to make people look, not look away.  Don't carry pictures of aborted babies, carry pictures of live, adorable babies.  Virtually every time a baby is aborted, the world loses one of these, and the entire world is poorer for the loss.
 
I hate it when people on my side do stupid things.
 
 
 
 In my reading about the anti-slavery movement in America in the mid-19th century, I've run many times across the term Barnburners.  This term was applied to the Democrats in New York State who opposed the extension of slavery into the territories, and who, by bolting the Democratic fold to help form the Free Soil Party, helped Zachary Taylor defeat Lewis Cass for the Presidency in 1848.  The name was meant to be an insult, referring to the fabled Dutchman who burned his barn to rid it of rats.
 
Sounds rather like the Democrats' health care proposals, does it not?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ABC Radio News -- No Better than the TV VErsion

I heard something really amusing on the radio yesterday.  Our local conservative talk radio station, WYSL 1040 in Avon, NY, was using the ABC radio news feed at 9:00 AM when I heard them say that former (great) VP Richard Cheney had launched a harsh attack on the Obama administration in a speech the previous evening.  No surprise there -- Richard Cheney is an honest man and the BO administration is wrong on virtually everything.  What caused me to laugh was this, at the end of the item:
 
"It is unusual for a former Vice President to criticise a current administration".
 
UNUSUAL?!  Maybe it used to be, but after hearing Al Gore viciously and falsely attack President Bush for almost all 8 years of his presidency, I could only conclude that the ABC radio news people were trying to falsify the record .. again.
 
Just like virtually every ABC News program on television.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSNBC's Fictitious "Willie Horton" Ad

I was reading Ann Coulter's weekly column this morning about Baby Barack's fight to label the only unbiased major news organization in television as a partisan operation, when I read this :
 
 
 
Every informed student of the 1988 campaign knows that the Bush ad didn't show Horton's picture. And yet in Keith (Olbermann)'s discussion of Bush's allegedly vile, racist use of Willie Horton, he used a phony version of the ad, doctored to include a photo of Horton.
 
 
 
Of course, I'm not surprised that MSNBC used false evidence in their never-ending campaign to impugn Republicans.  What I want to know is who produced the phony ad, and how did it get from their production room onto MSNBC's telecast?
 
Yo could say inquiring minds want to know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Nobel Prize for Irony

I've suspected for some time that President BO is trying to discredit American institutions in the eyes of Americans and the world, as well.  Consider:
 
He appointed the notoriously corrupt Eric Holder Attorney General, thus ruining the reputation of the Justice Department.
 
 He nominated Judge Sonia Somediocre (she of the one-page opinions, thumb-on-the-scale rulings, and vacuous public statements) to the Supreme Court, thus spoiling the reputation of that once-revered institution.
 
 He awarded the Medal of Freedom to the likes of Mary Robinson (of Durban Anti-Semitism Festival fame) and Harvey Milk (who won apparently for being openly homosexual and a murder victim).
 
He appoints "czars" by the dozen, thus discrediting the Constitution's "advise and consent" clause.
 
Given the above, I think it amusingly appropriate that BO has also managed to discredit the Nobel Peace Prize simply by winning it without having done the slightest thing to earn it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Plea from Afghanistan: My Friend, Do Not Go

I've been meaning to post this for awhile.  My sister sent me this from the AOL home page, and its a reminder of that there are more people to consider in Afghanistan than our troops.  I am still haunted by our betrayal of the Vietnamese (and Cambodians, and Laotians) who sided with us during the long, military-won, Democrat-lost Vietnam War.  I am terrified that we will betray our Afghan and Iraqi friends the same way.  I hope there is no copyright problem with posting this column by David Wood on PoliticsDaily.com.
 
Please read this.  It's important.  Vietnam convinced many nations that it was dangerous, perhaps deadly to be America's friend.  Ronald Reagan managed to convince them otherwise.  We must not let that slip away again -- we may never get it back.
 
 
 
 
A Plea From Afghanistan: My Friend, Do Not Go
 
KHOWST, Eastern Afghanistan -- When I got up to leave, Shakar Khan gripped my hand and held it. My friend, he said. Do not go. Behind a trim black beard, his sun-beaten face crinkled into a broad smile. He cast an eye around the room, as if to find something to tempt me to stay. The shabby, one-room police office held a bed, a few cushions on the concrete floor, and two battered cooking pots. Outside, several of his men, Afghan National Police, bantered with American infantrymen, talking about joint training they'd be doing in the coming week. 
 
I'd been talking with Shakar Khan for an hour. He's in his early 50s, a district police chief in this boisterous, commercial city. Security here is entirely in the hands of Shakar Khan and other police and Afghan army units, as it is in other cities in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban are active and vicious here, but the local cops manage to keep the streets relatively safe. American troops work from small outposts well outside of town, coming into town to assist the police in tactical training and to help local officers learn how to take more responsibility for budgeting, logistics, recruiting and long-range planning.

     What surprised me was the emotional bond evident between American GIs and the Afghan police. In their high-fives and hugs of greeting, they are clearly fond of each other. And having well-armed Americans around surely provides comforting reassurance that the out-manned and out-gunned Afghan police aren't facing a ruthless and better-armed enemy alone.

   For six weeks, I'd been deep inside Afghanistan, trying on my fourth trip here to get a fix on this vexing conflict. What I already knew: the U.S. intervention here has been badly bungled. Many Afghans blame us for liberating their country in 2001 – and then abandoning them when the Taliban surged back two years later. The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into badly designed development projects; corruption has blossomed. Seven years were wasted.

     What I learned: That Americans in Afghanistan, both military war-fighters and military and civilian development experts, finally have their act together. As a result, at least in some parts of the country, people are becoming more secure, more kids are literate, more people have jobs, and more people have a glimpse of a better, non-Taliban life.

    The last thing I learned was from reading the polls showing that American support for the war has plummeted. It is hard to know whether people only oppose increasing U.S. forces here, want troops brought home, or have some other option in mind. I have not seen anyone defend the chaos, bloodshed and triumphant return of radical Islamist jihadists that would follow. Granted, this is a complex war, difficult to comprehend from the lurid headlines and bloody TV footage. But I have seen gains here that are worth preserving, and there is not much time in which to do it.
I'll show you what I mean.

SECURITY
The U.S. is running a full-court press across eastern Afghanistan against IEDs and suicide bombs, an effort that ranges from aerial sensors and electronic surveillance to on-the-ground police work penetrating IED cells and rolling up the organizers and financiers. GIs work with local cops to collect intelligence and encourage Afghans to report IED activity. Result: more than half of all known IEDs are discovered and disarmed before they detonate – by no means perfect, but solid progress.

Increasingly these cases are headed to Afghan criminal courts. U.S. military and civilian police experts work with Afghan cops and prosecutors on crime forensics, preserving evidence, building cases. "It's painstaking work anywhere,'' said George Clay, a police advisor with the 82nd Airborne Division in central Afghanistan. "But multiply that by the [Afghan] legal system and cultural barriers and the red tape, it's a really hard thing to do.'' In one recent case, Afghan police turned up with evidence collected with gloves, stored in plastic bags, tagged and with affidavits attesting to the chain of custody. "I was elated!'' said Clay.

But a refrain I heard over and over, from guys like Clay to the sergeants who man the police training teams and the lieutenants and staff sergeants who lead combat assaults and raids on Taliban: There simply aren't enough U.S. troops here to do the job.

"We are getting there, but not fast enough,'' Col. Michael Howard, the senior combat commander in eastern Afghanistan, told me. "The violence has to come down to a level where it doesn't affect the daily lives of people, to a point where people aren't afraid to take an active part in their government. Right now we're not at that level.'' Howard has asked for additional troops, knowing that manpower is limited. But, he argued, "if you apply an additional 100 infantry soldiers, then you will have a commensurate increase in the speed at which the violence comes down."

AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Don't yawn: This is important. "That's what's gonna win this thing,'' Lt. Col. Rob Campbell, a combat commander in Paktiya Province, told me. Farming means jobs; better, more effective farming means more jobs, giving people an alternative to accepting $40 to plant a Taliban IED in the roadside or to allow Taliban fighters to hide their weapons in the village mosque.

A team of agricultural experts from the Indiana National Guard is training a dozen Afghans to teach farmers to improve crop yields with better planting techniques, careful water conservation, more powerful livestock feed. They are teaching mountainside villagers to build "catch dams,'' constructed simply of local stacked stone, to slow spring runoff and soil erosion. Together with Afghan farm experts, they are experimenting with mulberry "bricks,'' high-protein animal feed made from local materials.

In a related program, soldiers are teaching village women to make high-protein baby formula from locally available produce. That's a project of the civil affairs teams led by Special Forces Maj. James N. Schafer. "I wish I had more teams,'' he told me. "We are doing better; things are better than a year ago. But we need more civilians – we don't need more guys carrying guns.''

These aren't simply feel-good projects; they are ruthlessly assessed as part of the U.S. counterinsurgency war-fighting plan. Rather than simply asking local Afghans if they'd like a new school or a baby nutrition program, soldiers ask detailed questions to understand local origins of instability: What causes the conflicts that the Taliban can exploit? It may be a lack of jobs, or corrupt officials, or high child malnutrition. Action is taken to meet those needs. Then the results are carefully measured – did the project really provide jobs? Was the corrupt official removed? If necessary, new actions are planned. Results must deliver more security, more jobs or better government.

East of Kabul, for example, the U.S. funded a new road, a project intended to provide immediate jobs, get farmers more cash by speeding their produce to market, and build support for local government. The road was proposed, designed and built by Afghans, using local Afghan asphalt and stone-crushing plants and local labor. Cab fare for the one-hour ride to Kabul has already dropped from $9.50 to $3. When the road was recently opened, the provincial governor performed the ribbon-cutting; to emphasize that this was an Afghan government operation, no American officials were present.

That kind of work has an immediate impact. "This is a poor country, lots of people need jobs to keep them busy,'' an Afghan doctor told me in halting English. "I don't think people want to be with the Taliban, but some take the money. Even though it is a high risk, they accept that.'' He asked that I use only his first name, Rasul.

As he suggested, there are risks with working with Americans. "If Afghans want to work with us, they and their families become targets,'' said Lt. Col. Cindra Chastain, an officer with the Indiana National Guard's agricultural development team. "Only the brave are going to do it.''

Even American-sponsored development is targeted, such as girls' schools. In Charikar, a town north of Kabul, about 90 girls were hospitalized after a suspected poison gas attack, part of a national wave of such violence aimed at schoolgirls. "But the reaction of the parents was telling – they pitched to help police and investigators, the minister of education came from Kabul and met with the parents and within a couple of days the girls were coming back to classes,'' said Col. Scott A. Spellmon, who recently finished a 15-month tour as a task force commander in the region.

One reason parents felt confident is that security there has improved dramatically. Why? "Last summer we had 70 U.S. riflemen in all of Kapisa Province; today, we have 700,'' said Spellmon. "Troop numbers do matter.''

Increasingly, there are Afghans, like the parents in Charikar, who are willing to stand against the Taliban. But their courage, it seemed to me, is fragile. People will take a principled stand when they know they are not alone. "They are as scared of us leaving as we are,'' said an American officer.

And we have left before. I think that was the message Shakar Khan was trying to imprint on me as he held my hand in his squalid little office in Khowst. My friend, he said. Do not go.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Question Not Asked about BO's Nobel Prize

I just have a minute, so I'll ask this simply:  Who nominated President BO for the Nobel Peace Prize after only twelve days in office?  It might be interesting if someone can find this out.  I'm guessing someone in the media.  (Just kidding -- I think.)
 
Actually, I wish I could free myself from the lingering suspicion that Obama nominated himself...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Letter to ESPN (the Obama sports channel!)

This ties in with National Review's Jay Nordlinger's recent article, Safe Zone Violation!.  It's not very impressive, but I thought others might be inspired to do likewise.  Let's start taking America back by taking the sports networks back.  We've got to start somewhere.
 

Many of us view sports as an escape from the political and economic problems in our lives.  When your on-air reporters showed themselves infatuated with Barack Obama early this year, I hoped that that would pass in a few weeks.  However, it's October now, and we still get the already-overexposed Obama on a sports network at every opportunity.  Can we please get a rest from the President?  Do we have to mark your network down as just another left-wing broadcast outlet?

Give us a break!!

Tags: ESPN   obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Impolite Thoughts Again

Welcome to the second edition of Impolite Thoughts.  I'm at work again, and reading between calls (we can do that on weekends), so I just thought I'd share some short thoughts I've had recently.
 
 
 
I think I know why President Obama is so determined to return Jose Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras.  Zelaya, as you may remember, was ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court, legislature, and military for attempting to violate the constitution of that country (the constitution calls for the immediate ouster of any president who attempts to violate it).  All quite legal, except perhaps for the exile part.  In this lies the solution to the riddle.
 
The people of Honduras chose to oust a president for violating a constitution.  You can see why President BO can't let a precedent like that stand.
 
 
 
 Speaking of Honduras, does anyone know how or where we can stand up for our democracy-defending brothers there (and in Israel, as well) who are being bullied by BO and Secretary of State Evita Clinton?  We need to let them know that many (I pray most) Americans still believe in democracy here and abroad, even if the leaders of our anti-Democratic Party don't .
 
 
 
All these weeks and months of the debate over the Democrats' various health-care hostile take-over proposals, and I have yet to hear one obvious (obvious to me, anyway) argument.  We keep hearing about how we must carefully use "our" health care assets.  Every time I see someone making that argument on the news, I want to scream at them "That's right, they're OUR assets!  They do NOT belong to the government!  "We the people" own the health care of this country.  SO BACK OFF!!"
 
President Reagan used to say that we are a people who have a government -- not the other way around.  I still believe in that.  Does anyone else?
 
Libertarian Tony, call your office.
 
 
 
I am somewhat puzzled by the Democrats' new-found affection for "czars".  When their intellectual forebears in Russia had a czar in their sites early last century, they shot him full of holes.
 
 
 
Another truth I thought was transparent, but which I haven't seen elsewhere, is what I believe was the real reason that the Cash for Clunkers program mandated that the old cars traded in had to be destroyed.  It seemed to make little economic sense, and several smart people pointed out that destroying capital assets is never the way to increased wealth, and that this action would have a crippling effect on the supply of spare parts as well as the supply of cheap used cars for poor people who can afford no better.  All true, if you assume that the Democrats really care about poor people, or even the American people in general.
 
What happens when you assume?
 
The reason that the used cars ("clunkers", many of them being in perfectly good condition) had to be destroyed was for the benefit of BO and the Democrats' masters, the unions.  Just think -- no used cars, people would have to buy new ones -- made by the UAW workers, many of whom work for Government Motors now, thanks to BO's meddling in the bankruptcy process.  (Please remember that by handing the UAW preferred stock in GM and Chrysler, the administration guaranteed the UAW a nine-figure annual income from that section of the bankruptcy agreement alone.)  No used parts, people will have to buy new parts -- made by the UAW and other union workers.  Make sense now?
 
It helps if you recognize the Democrats and the unions as partners in crime...
 
 
 
I previously wrote in this space that the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Soft-Headed Peacenick Blather, er, I mean Peace to Barack Obama was a bribe.  Today I wondered if the bribe will come in yearly installments.  As long as BO is willing to keep selling America's interests and its allies out to one-worlders and America-haters, is there any rule that says BO can't keep right on receiving this award again and again?  It would feed his grandiosity, and confirm him in his ruinous fantasy that all of the world adores him.  He would never dream (or perhaps care) that he would be enriching his own ego at the expense of his country's future.  Let's wait and see.
 
 
 
One of the reasons I deplore the failure of schools to teach American History (the real thing, not the Howard Zinn perversion) is that it deprives otherwise intelligent people of any sense of perspective.  I even read in a column by Ben Shapiro (whose work appears on this site) that casualties in the "mini-Tet" in Afghanistan were heavy -- 8 Americans killed.
 
My wife and I traveled to Antietam National Battlefield recently.  In one dreadful day's battle, 3,650 Americans (North and South) were killed, while thousands more died of their wounds in the following days.  I mourn for all of the Americans killed in the service of their country, but 8 lives lost is not "heavy casualties".  Everyone who has more than a rudimentary knowledge of history knows this, but their are too few of us,and the problem grows worse with every passing generation.
 
Learn history, or at least what Santayana said about it.  It'll pay you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »