The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
Obama vows to beat 'blizzard' of opposition
President Barack Obama vowed Saturday to beat a "blizzard" of opposition and to salvage his crusade for change, leaving a snow-buried White House to rally Democrats spooked by looming November polls.
Obama motorcaded through deserted Washington streets during a historic winter storm to fire up a party rocked by panic and disaffection after the president's reform drive hit a roadblock after just a year in power. Obama was addressing members of the Democrat National Committee.
Obama sharply warned that he would not give up on his effort to pass health care reform through Congress, even though the loss of the Democratic Senate supermajority leaves his wavering party few easy options to enact it.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.eeac7f78d2b167aedda59104fadde298.b81&show_article=1
For GOP, No Experience Is No Problem in candidate recruitment
Party Drafts Political Newcomers as Candidates in a Bid to Capitalize on Voters' Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Washington Mood
Seeking to tap into growing anti-establishment discord among voters, the Republican Party is actively seeking candidates who have never before held elected office.
Republicans are contesting six of the 20 most competitive House seats currently held by Democrats. Running political newcomers is a proven strategy when the political tide swings drastically toward one side, and at times when voters have soured on Washington in general. In 1994, when Republicans won a majority of House seats after four decades in the minority, 55% of the party's 73 freshmen lawmakers had never held political office. Similarly in 2006, when Democrats took control, 45% of their new lawmakers had never held office before.
Sarah Palin wows tea party activists in Nashville speech
Sarah Palin addressed 600 tea party activist at the Gaylord resort in Nashville – many of whom see her as the right person to fly the flag for their limited-government, low-tax, freedom-fighting program..
Many openly declare that they didn't vote for Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election - they voted instead for his running mate 'Sarah'. The 2008 vice presidential nominee isn't saying whether she'll run for president in 2012.
Palin called the 'tea party' mentality an organic effort, a ground-up call to action. Because of that, she said, 'the process may not always be pretty or perfect, but the message is loud and clear: We want a government worthy of the fine Americans that it serves'.
Opinion:
Sarah Palin addresses a tea party convention – watch conventional politicians squirm
Political events are best judged by reflecting on how an opposition responds to it. So it was with Sarah Palin’s address to a national tea party convention in Nashville last night. She was quick to point out there is no single tea party monolithic organization. She underscored the Nashville convention was “a” tea party convention not “the” tea party convention. The difference she drew is important. It demonstrates she understands the spontaneity of the movement and that its power comes from that fact.
National politicians, and the national media, still don’t understand what actually fuels the movement. They report this morning that the speech “was short on ideas but big on enthusiasm took aim at President Barack Obama and the Democrats, telling a gathering of "tea party" activists that America is ripe for another revolution.”
The important ideas of the movement – which the media demonstrates it continues having a tone deaf about what motivates the uprising – is expressing the honest outrage against what is seen as the Washington way of doing things. The movement also demonstrates a great amount of public fury aimed at the national media – a group that has so openly embraced a corruption of American journalism.
Coverage of the Palin address last night, demonstrates just how deep the far left corruption runs among national daily newspapers. Stories carried in the far left wing Atlanta Constitution, and in the far more conservative Washington Times echoed each other. Significantly, they did not carry the same reports, but did carry reports that obviously came from the same or similar source.
Both were moved to note verbatim: “Palin's 45-minute talk was filled with her trademark folksy jokes and amounted to a pep talk for the coalition and promotion of its principles”. Both papers noted in verbatim fashion: “Palin asked the gathering: "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?"
The competing reports suggest they were written from AP releases. That’s no excuse – especially for the Atlanta papers. Refusal to cover so significant an event, shows just how terrified liberals are about the tea party movement and the Palin speech.
Those on the left just cant stand Palin and demonstrate out right bigoted hatred of those who follow her in general and the tea party movement in particular.
A Left wing commentator, Rachel Maddow, referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention , as “white-hooded racists”. Maddow also slandered former Congressman Tom Tancredo by characterizing his opening remarks to the convention as a “big, loud, racist bang” – Maddow, a noted left wing voice – was referring to Tancredo’s opposition to illegal immigration as being racist. Of course there is nothing at all racist about opposing illegal immigration. But this was MSNBC after all – so we can rest easily knowing few will have seen it..
Those on the left don’t grasp, or refuse to understand, that – given the far left extremism of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid – the first obligation of normal Americans is blocking the extremist provisions, proposals, and propositions being advanced. It’s getting easier – Al Gore’s man made Global warming scam is collapsing as a result of its having been proven fraudulent – and Harry Reid’s secret plan for government-run health care is on life support.
But the battle continues as does tea party fury and outrage.
Significantly, Palin suggested the movement must remain leaderless and cautioned against the movement becoming defined by a single person. "This is about the people" and "it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter," she said.
She echoed what others have – that the tea party movement is not about a third party effort of any sort. Such an effort would result in victories for liberal Democrats – replacing Democrats on Capitol Hill is the ultimate goal of the tea parties.
Watch later coverage of the Paliin speech carefully. Note the extremes to which writers for the mainstream media and other far left political groups go to denigrate Palin. As they did with George W. Bush, and with Ronald Reagan, they will suggest a lack of intellect and powers of reason and logic.
It’s the way of the left. They just have no clue about how normal Americans think, feel, or embrace as visions for their nation’s future. Liberals base many of their positions on how they expect Europeans to see them. Of course, academia is a seed bed of extreme liberalism with an overwhelming majority of college professors forced to admit their liberalism. (I make that observation as a son of a college professor of 30 years – he was definitely not the sort of left wing loon we see in today’s university lectures.)
The tea party movement is – for the moment – the most important political development of our time. It has led to an activism of grass root Americans – many of whom had never thought seriously about the issues facing the country.
Now they do. Very much. They read, they care, and they are creating a tidal wave of political action. Candidates that fail to understand that movement will risk paying a heavy price at the ballot box.
Palin gave the convention a good send off. The movement’s open rejection of third party intentions, and the rhetoric of the convention provide encouraging promise.
We are encouraged, the left wing politicians are slack-jawed, and all’s right with the world this morning.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/our_national_blind_spot.html
Our National Blind Spot
Mark W. Hendrickson
Nobody will dispute the fact that there are differences between private and public behavior. We can all think of things that we do privately that we would never consider doing in public.
This holds true in politics, too. Specifically, the vast majority of Americans would never dream of stealing from another person, yet they have no compunction about wanting government to take property from some citizens to give it to others.
Friends with whom we would entrust the keys to our house and all our worldly goods are often enthusiastic supporters of government programs that redistribute wealth. Few of us would imagine that a Washington lobbyist would peek out his window at home, wait for his neighbors to leave, and then sneak into their houses to take their possessions. The very image is absurd. And yet, those same lobbyists spend their working hours trying to persuade politicians to grant favors to them and send the bill to someone else.
Decades ago, the oldest free-market think tank, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., published Lewis Love's short parable, "A King of Long Ago." In the story, an artisan, a mason, and a lame beggar petition their king for aid. The artisan can't attract enough customers to meet his sales goals, the mason isn't getting hired very often, and the beggar isn't receiving sufficient alms.
They implore the king to correct this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The king commands that each petitioner be given a sword. He then authorizes the three to "go forth in the land and compel those who will not voluntarily deal with them to obey their command."
"No! No!" the three men demur. "We are men of honor and could not set upon our fellow man to compel him to our will. This we cannot do. It is you, O King, who must use the power."
"You ask me to do that which you would not do because of honor?" questioned the king. "I, too, am an honorable man, and that which is dishonorable for you will never be less dishonorable for your king."
Besides illustrating the ideal of the rule of law -- in which everyone, regardless of wealth, rank, and position, is equally constrained from infringing the rights of others -- this little parable shows the inconsistency of believing that private citizens should respect private property, but government leaders need not. Is that which is personally immoral politically moral?
What causes otherwise-honest people to condone the political plunder and redistribution of personal property? Immorality? That's too harsh for my taste. I prefer to say that there is a blind spot in their thinking.
Maybe what we're dealing with is mob psychology. Perhaps it's rationalization. "It's for a worthy cause," we tell ourselves, oblivious to the fact that the Eighth Commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not steal ... except by majority vote or unless it's for the poor."
Perhaps the explanation for this blind spot is self-delusion. We see nothing wrong with receiving benefits from the state. What we remain blissfully unconscious of is that the state has nothing to give us but what it takes from our fellow citizens.
Indeed, Bastiat called the state "the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." It is a dream, a myth, and a fiction to believe that government gives you wealth out of its own productive bounty. Governments don't produce wealth; they only take it and redistribute it, substituting the political judgment of the few (the governing elite) for the economic verdict of everyone (a genuinely democratic process) acting in free markets.
Many reason that democracy somehow sanctifies and legitimates the forcible redistribution of wealth. For them, democracy sanitizes and civilizes the process of taking someone's honestly earned property. They don't perceive this as robbery.
But if this isn't robbery, then what is it? If the state's would-be victims resist being plundered, the state will retaliate by confiscating even more of their property and/or incarcerating them. The democratic process rests on force and the implied threat of force every step of the way.
We don't bat an eye anymore when someone glibly proposes "spreading the wealth." In fact, many Americans enjoy spreading the wealth, as long as it isn't their own. In a recent survey, three out of four Americans agreed that Obama and Congress should raises taxes on that minority of Americans with annual incomes above $200,000. Apparently, most Americans believe that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their minions have more of a right to spend those dollars than the citizens who earned them.
If you think this line of thought is crazy, then let me ask you a question: What percentage of a person's honest income should he or she be allowed to keep? The only guidelines I am aware of are "all of it" (the original American way, since income taxes were unconstitutional until 1913) or nothing beyond what anybody else (except the governing elite) can keep, according to the communist principle "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Between those two polar extremes, any percentage one chooses would be arbitrary. In practice, the degree to which property is redistributed depends on whatever shifting political coalition has enough votes -- enough power -- at any given moment. Stripped of grandiose pretenses and specious idealism, contemporary political life has descended into a constant, contentious squabble to see who gets what at the expense of whom.
Somehow, we're going to have to find a way to correct this ethical blind spot if we ever hope to avoid national bankruptcy and to live in greater harmony than we do today.
Mark Hendrickson teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic & Social Policy at the College's Center for Vision & Values.
2.
U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban
Clinton-United Nations “Small Arms Treaty” Update
National Gun Rights Blog
The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.
The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.
Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.
The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…
. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.
Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.
As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”
So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.
Don’t let any of the “experts” lull you to sleep by saying “Oh, we have it handled” or “Until you know exactly what’s in the treaty you can’t fight against it.”
Judging by Ambassador Bolton’s comments — who certainly knows what to expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests the U.N. — we are certain the treaty’s going to address the private ownership of firearms.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate (which is where we must ultimately make our stand), the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!
You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
3.
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/02/john-conyers-d-wants-haiti-relief.html
John Conyers (D) Wants Haiti Relief Official Demoted Because They Have Too Many White People On Staff
Remember a few years ago that the phrase "driving while black" was used often to excuse being pulled over for whatever traffic violation? Well, looks like now there is a more real racism - "working while white." You don't get a ticket for being white. Instead, you lose your job. Conyers is a U.S. Representatives for a district in a state that has banned discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or national origin. His district, however, resides in Detroit, a city that is 81% black and still uses affirmative action to - get this - give black people preferential treatment. So much for affirmative action being to promote "diversity." In any case, Conyers has a 6th sense - he sees white people. And he doesn't like it, especially when they do relief work. From The Hill via memeorandum: Conyers wants Haiti relief official demoted over diversity deficit
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to demote the official coordinating Haiti relief efforts for not having enough minority staffers.
The House Judiciary Committee Chairman sent a letter to Clinton on Thursday after Rajiv Shah, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, showed up at a meeting with the 42-member Congressional Black Caucus without any African American staffers in tow.
“I was alarmed and chagrined to learn that none of the approximately dozen staff he brought with him were African American,” Conyers wrote in the letter. “This is so serious an error in judgment that it warrants his immediate demotion to a subordinate position at AID.”
And here I thought that the primary qualification of a staffer was competence versus skin color. Not in Conyers world. Race first, competence second - maybe. Thus the question - how many black people would have sufficed in the dozen staffer entourage? Since the black proportion of the U.S. is 12%, would 1 staffer have done? If not, why not? The party of identity politics and racial bean-counting strikes again!
U.S. Rep John Conyers, a real piece of work if there ever was one, was caught using government payroll employees as indentured servants. To boot, his staff stole 60 turkeys from a charity just before those same turkeys were to be donated to the poor and downtrodden just before Thanksgiving. Conyers has been under an ethics investigation for trying to get the EPA to move on a deal that his wife Monica got caught in a bribery scandal with. (House ethics complaint filed against John Conyers, links to Monica) The ethics complaint had to do with the letter to the EPA that the elder Conyers wrote to open toxic deep wells that he was so vehemently against until Monica "changed his mind." Here's the thing, though:
Ethics rules prohibit House members from contacting federal agencies on matters in which they have a personal financial interest.
Then again, when have ethics rules stopped Democrats from doing whatever they want anyway? Chris Dodd (housing meltdown scandal)? Charles Rangel (tax evasion)? Roland Burris (perjury)? John Murtha (where do I start with him?)? Barney Frank (sleeping with Fannie Mae exec while giving said GSE favor in Congress, housing meltdown scandal)? William "cold cash" Jefferson? By the way, what ever happened to the last complaint against John Conyers after Turkeygate? Nada. Natch.
Comments