Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Malia and Sasha Will Not Be Attending Public School

Obama got his mug on the Today Show the other day and an audience member asked whether his daughters could receive the same high-quality education at a D.C. public school that they currently enjoy at their elite private school, Sidwell Friends. Obama, apparently forgetting that he is in the process of allowing Congress to phase out the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, answered, “I’ll be blunt with you. The answer’s ‘No’ right now.”

"I’ll be very honest with you. Given my position, if I wanted to find a great public school for Malia and Sasha to be in, we could probably maneuver to do it. But the broader problem is: For a mom or a dad who are working hard but don’t have a bunch of connections, don’t have a choice in terms of where they live, they should be getting the same quality education as anybody else, and they don’t have that yet."

Wow. What a douche. Thousands of D.C. kids are stuck in dangerous and substandard schools with no hope and no future and Obama and his cronies are eliminating one of the few chances they have of getting out, of getting into a private school. This is being done in the quest for, yes, you guessed it, money. As an added bonus, there will be thousands more poor minority children to grow up poorly educated, voting for the same scum that condemn them to poverty.

What's that? You're wondering how I came to that conclusion? That's not a difficult leap. Unions. Yep, unions. Didja know that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) make 95% of their donations to Democrats? Didja know that NEA spends more on campaign contributions than ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Walmart, and the AFL-CIO combined? Didja know that the NEA's budget is $355 million? Didja know that's enough to buy a guy?

With private schools churning out well educated kids on a fraction of the money spent on public education, a thinking person would surely question what the heck is going on with the big bucks being thrown around by the NEA and the Department of Education for that matter. Would they really truly be sandbagging? Letting the poor and uneducated stay that way for power and votes and money?

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Principles and Perspectives

In politics, the usual scenario is for the party in power to bicker and self destruct while the party in the minority unites in a single-minded focus to regain power. This is not what is going on today in Delaware and in the conservative blogosphere.

If you are a political junkie like I am, you might know that there is a Republican primary for the Senate candidate from Delaware that is going on as I type. The contenders are Mike Castle, a popular and long-time politician, and Christine O'Donnell, a newcomer attempting to win her first election.

Here is the problem. Castle is a liberal Republican. A RINO, in popular parlance. He will make conservatives angry just as often as he'll make them happy. He would be very likely to win the election to the Senate running against the self-identified socialist who will oppose him under the Democrat banner.

O'Donnell is a conservative. She has staked out positions that have gotten her the endorsement of folks like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint. Thing is, though, she trails the socialist by over twenty points. Delaware isn't red enough to elect her.

(There are other problems with O'Donnell; questions of character, actually, but this post is not really about Delaware or this election so I won't go into them.)

And so the battle lines are drawn. Palin, DeMint are on the side also taken by Rush and Mark Levin, who has been as nasty in his trashing of Castle supporters as anything I'd ever hope to read by a fellow conservative. On the Castle side you will find such venerable institutions as National Review, Weekly Standard -- even Charles Krauthammer.

Almost everyone invokes William F. Buckley's rule. You vote for the most conservative electable candidate. Krauthammer goes one step further and says that any other vote (in this case a vote for O'Donnell) is self indulgence.

I won't go that far, although I'm sure he's right sometimes. It's a question most of us face at one time or another, though. Do we vote based on principle or do we vote for the candidate with the best shot at winning in the general election?

The most obvious and self-destructive example of this is when a third-party candidate jumps into the fray. If Nader had not run for president it is likely that Al Gore would have won. Were the Nader voters (who presumably voted based on principle, knowing their candidate could not win) happier with Bush than they would have been with Gore? I'm sure some would say that from their perspective there was not enough of a difference between the two to matter. More rational folks would probably disagree.

I am a pragmatic voter. I understand voting on principle because I think most people (at least most people who attempt to get informed) start out this way. Our vote is sacred to us; we will not cast it for a compromise candidate.

Over time, however, my perspective has changed. I look at politics as a long (never ending) struggle. It is important to win the war, even if particular battles must be lost along the way. I would cast my vote for Castle because even though he will annoy me, a Castle in the Senate could mean the difference between a Harry Reid as the Majority Leader or a Mitch McConnell. Castle could be the difference between which party controls Senate committees, which party controls the legislation that is brought to the floor, etc. The election is about more than Delaware (although I'd ask my Nader question to Delaware conservatives: will they really be happier with a socialist in the Senate than with a RINO?).

I have also noticed that pragmatic voters seem to be more tolerant of principle voters than the other way around. I've been told that I am "perverting the voting process" (which, of course, is absurd -- the "voting process" does not include a litmus test about why someone votes the way they do; I could make it a habit of always voting for the tallest candidate and that would be perfectly within my rights and perfectly within the bounds of our voting process). Mark Levin, as I mentioned above, has been unbelievably rude to folks who disagree with him (he's a radio guy so I suppose that comes with the territory).

And back to Delaware: the battle has been so ugly that it seems impossible to imagine the losers backing the winning candidate. This means that an O'Donnell candidacy, already a long shot, becomes a fantasy. And a Castle victory, which should have been a walk in the park, will become challenging.

More later...

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

More Voters Than Living Human Beings

Once again, a corrupt Obama team member is hankying the panky. Playing fast and loose with the rules. Dealing off the bottom of the deck. Sucker punching the legal system. Surprise. Not.

Attorney General Eric Holder won’t do his job enforcing the integrity protections in the “Motor Voter” law passed in 1993. If you remember, the Motor Voter law was supposed to increase voter registration (section 7 - Welfare Office registration provisions) and at the same time increase voter integrity (section 8 - list integrity provisions).

By increasing integrity of voter rolls and increasing the number of registered voters, Motor Voter struck an important balance. Welfare offices and motor vehicle offices became voter registration centers. The law also mandates that states conduct list maintenance to ensure ineligible names don’t pollute the voting rolls. Dead people, ineligible felons, and people who moved away are required to be removed from the rolls by state election officials. No problem. Except there's a problem.

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department enforced both Section 7 and Section 8. In November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes, part of Holder's DOJ, told the entire assembled DOJ Voting Section that the Obama administration would not enforce the list maintenance provisions of Section 8. Section 8 “doesn’t have anything to do with increasing minority turnout,” Fernandes said. “We don’t have any interest in enforcing that part of the law.”

At the same time, Fernandes stressed that the DOJ would vigorously enforce the welfare agency registration provisions of Section 7. She gave these lawless instructions in front of dozens of shocked Voting Section lawyers. The DOJ has never once denied that Fernandes gave these instructions, nor has the DOJ countermanded them. The decision of the Holder DOJ to ignore the integrity provisions of Section 8 is deliberate and corrupt.

According to an article by J. Christian Adams, an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice, South Dakota, Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Indiana report in excess of a dozen counties with more registered voters than living people old enough to vote. I'll be darned. Having more voters than living humans tells you something may be wrong in the Punkin' Patch. In West Virginia, one county reported 113% of the voting age population was registered to vote. Baltimore, Maryland, reported 104% of voting age citizens on the rolls. Iowa and North Carolina also reported counties with more voters than living citizens of voting age.

A few states, Maryland, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Alabama, Virginia, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee didn’t remove a single dead voter from 2006 to 2008. Some of the dead registered voters rose from their graves on election day and cast ballots. They really need to move election day away from Halloween. *shiver*

When he dismissed the case against the New Black Panthers, Mr Holder set the bar pretty low for voter intimidation. It looks like you can pretty much do what you want to intimidate potential voters outside the polling station. Combine that with allowing voter fraud (people voting by pretending to be dead people), the cheaters could very well swing an election in a close (or not so close) race.

Folks, we cannot accept the corruption of our election process. If confidence is lost in the fairness of our election process, we have seen in other countries what replaces it. This is not a pretty option. Demand that Attorney General Eric Holder do his job. You can call, email, or contact him via facebook through his webpage.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Obama Owes Me Fungicide and To Stop Fibbing

It boggles my mind, the frequency with which our president, Barack Hussein Obama, blatantly lies and tries to blame others for his, and the Democrats' failures. My mother taught me at a very young age to cover my mouth before passing gas. She also taught me to take responsibility for my actions and if necessary, those of my team. Sometimes her advice was good, sometimes not so much. Mr BHO would do well to heed my mothers advice. By not doing so, he appears to be an odious liar.

Obama's official website is misleading from the very first sentence. I simply cannot abide a liar. It begins, "President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system."

This infuriates me. Mr Obama, your party created, then continuously championed Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC). These programs were vigorously defended by Democrats through the Bush years despite calls for investigation and rehabilitation. What these programs did was to REQUIRE banks to make mortgage loans to people that had no business receiving loans for any reason due to their inability to repay. Obama's actions upon taking office escalated the deficit exponentially and seriously worsened the problem.

These bad loans that the banks knew were bad, were repackaged and sold off as derivatives because they were terrible liabilities to the lending banks. When the loans (surprise!) defaulted, the unlucky sap who purchased the derivatives (often-times hedge funds and individual investors), lost all their money. The banks whose names were on the loans were also on the hook for the default. Despite long loud cries from the banking community, Democrat backed FNMA and FHLMC continued to force banks to issue bad loans. That's like brushing your teeth with Preparation H! What were these people thinking?

When the banking crisis unfolded, there was great gnashing of teeth and wailing in the night. When all the resulting foreclosures caused a housing market crash, the moaning and wailing reached a crescendo. The financial turmoil that followed, the great recession, the loss of jobs, and all the other Democrat created disasters, were indeed inherited by Barack Obama.

His response was to further the financial disaster by spending Hundreds of Billions of dollars of taxpayer money on frequently dubious projects and "job creation" programs that have not created private sector jobs. The only jobs created so far during this time of financial hardship have been the 250,000 plus government jobs that add zero dollars to the economy but require more taxpayer money to pay for. Meanwhile, unemployment has risen to almost 10%.

Obama promised "shovel ready" jobs when he spent $800,000,000,000 of our money. Where are they? Why is unemployment at record highs? Now Obama is trying to pass another $50,000,000,000 of unfunded spending, ostensibly for more jobs (remember all the jobs that failed to appear last time?) The fungus between my toes is growing thick as peat as I sit, unemployed, waiting for one of these magical jobs to appear and offer me free fungicide.

Again, from Obama's website:
President Obama signed legislation to jump start our economy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, less than a month after his inauguration. The plan will save or create 3.5 million new jobs, make critical investments in our infrastructure and give 95 percent of working Americans a tax cut.

Uh, right. Where are the jobs, Barry? Where are the investments in our infrastructure? And where are our tax cuts? The last I heard, we are about to have the largest tax increase in history.

Barry Obama had the audacity to say, "Republicans are betting that between now and the Nov. 2 elections, Americans will forget the Republican economic policies that led to the recession." This at a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee.

This revisionism, the blatant untruths, the intentional misrepresentations should be a slap to the face of every American. For this man to have the arrogance to think we are so stupid as to accept his words as truth when we clearly know better, is beyond my comprehension. The few that still approve of Mr Obama are either not paying attention at all, or are approving of him strictly based on his race, or they are just not that bright. Those are the only conclusions I can come to. If you are reading this and approve of Obama and consider yourself intelligent, I suggest you research these things yourself.

For the rest of you, VOTE on November 2nd. Take back Congress and repeal these ridiculous policies that are holding our great nation in financial disarray. Stop this runaway spending and this soaking of the job providers in the hopes of spreading their money to others through socialist programs.


...has anyone seen my Preparation H?