Posts Tagged ‘Video’

Sarah Palin Goes ‘On the Record’ – Best Lines of Tuesday Night

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

On the Record

On Tuesday evening, after sending out a congratulatory message to Ted Cruz on his Senate run-off victory in Texas, former Alaska  Governor Sarah Palin went On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.  She discussed a number of issues, from Chick Fil-A to Ted Cruz, and the GOP convention, as well as Dick Cheney’s insulting proclamation.  Gov. Palin had a number of interesting things to say, and you should watch the video.  Pay particular attention to the way she answered the question about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks about her qualifications for the office of President.  She also gave Mark Levin credit for providing the basis of her curiosity about Ted Cruz, who she had endorsed.

“Well seeing as how DICK, excuse me, VICE PRESIDENT Cheney, never MISFIRES…”

By the time I finished laughing, the segment was nearly over, so I replayed it once more.

As ever, Governor Palin was on point, and right on time.  As she continues to campaign for conservatives in key races, the establishment continues to take their shots at her, calling her “irrelevant,” telling us her endorsements “aren’t worth snot,” and that she wasn’t qualified.

After a while, it should beg the question: Who isn’t qualified?  Who isn’t relevant?  Whose endorsements aren’t worth snot?

 

 

 

Advertisements

Why Support Cruz? Watch THIS Video!

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

On Tuesday in Texas, we are having our run-off between Ted Cruz and moderate Republican David Dewhurst.  This video was created in support of Ted Cruz by Roderic Deane, and rather than offering all the reasons to support Cruz, I’ll let the video speak:

Already, the dirty tricks are in full swing, as Dewhurst continues to court Democrats to vote in the Republican primary and vote for him in order to sabotage Ted Cruz. Texas conservatives need to show up and vote. The polls will close at 7:00pm. Get it done!

Ted Cruz has been endorsed by leading constitutional conservatives from around the country, including Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and a host of others.

 

Sarah Palin Rocks The Woodlands For Ted Cruz!

Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Revving The Crowd for Cruz!

On Friday, I drove the two-and-one-half hours from my home to the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands, just North of Houston.  The venue was Town Green Park and the speakers included a number of Tea Party leaders, like Amy Kremer, and also Senator Jim DeMint(R-SC.)  Ted Cruz gave a very encouraging, impassioned speech about what he would do if elected to the Senate, and he appropriated Barack Obama’s catch-phrase “Yes, We Can” in a little dialogue with the crowd, asking the crowd “Can we repeal Obama-care?”  On cue, the crowd responded with a thundering “YES WE CAN!”  Cruz exuded confidence, but the truth is that with early voting now ended, the real crunch is on from now until Tuesday to turn out the vote across Texas on his behalf.  In her customary form, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her speech to thundering applause and enthusiastic support.  It was a remarkable speech, and Palin was fiery with the energy and passion that have made her the premiere speaker in the Republican party over the last four years.  Conservatives turn out for Sarah Palin, and there’s simply no escaping that fact.

(Note to GOP establishment: You may want to rethink this plan to exclude her from the convention in Tampa next month.)

I was also heartened to see so many of my friends from TxO4P on hand, including Josh Thuma, who was so enthusiastic in Indianola, Iowa last September, so it was no surprise that at The Woodlands, he followed up in similar form, waving signs and cheering-on all of the speakers.  I saw Cynthia Dixon and Del Parker, and some other faces I recognized, so I decided that rather than spending my time trying to capture the event, I would simply join in the fun.  It was a good time for all, and Jim DeMint gave an excellent talk about needing help in the Senate, meaning he want more constitutional conservatives.  He went on to extol the virtues of Ted Cruz, introducing the candidate to great applause, and Cruz made mention of the effort to repeal Obama-care, saying he would work every day until it had been repealed, killing off the notion of replacement: “Every last word…” must be repealed, vowed Cruz.  The crowd roared in approval.

Hearing the Roar

Cruz went on to introduce Governor Palin, and the crowd’s cheering was so loud from my vantage point that I couldn’t hear the first few words of her speech.  As always, when Governor Palin speaks at such an event, she speaks as much for those gathered as to them.  This event was no different, and she focused in particular on three themes, including the wreck Obama has made and is making of the country, and the intractability of the permanent political class in the mission to restore our constitution, and naturally, how Ted Cruz will be an important player in that fight.  She mentioned that she intended to try out Chick Fil-A on her way back to the airport, and as always, Governor Palin made good on her word, later posting this on her Facebook page:

The Palins Stop at Chick Fil-A

She wore the boots  Governor Perry gave her on a previous visit to the Lone Star State, saying “at least in that one case he made a good decision,” but also gently chiding Perry for his present support of David Dewhurst in the primary against Ted Cruz.  She mocked Obama’s assertion of last week in Texas that he’s seeing “shades of purple,” implying that the state might one day go Democrat.  With the amnesty-by-executive-order that Obama has put in place, there can be little doubt that is part of his aim.  Governor Palin exhorted the crowd to not let Texas go purple or blue.  Said the Governor:

“There will be an Alaskan-sized blizzard on the Brazos before Texas turns blue for Barack.”

“Damn straight.”  (So said many in the crowd.)  She also went after the “lap-dogs in the media practicing yellow journalism,” but then she shifted her focus to the permanent political class in Washington DC that has managed to confound some of the efforts of the Tea Party patriots who sent more conservatives to the House in 2010, managing to co-opt some of them.  She was brilliantly on point as she made clear that politicians in both parties have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, passing Obama-care over the objections of the American people, and failing to enact a budget in four years, but she reminded the crowd:

“There’s nothing wrong with America that a good, old-fashioned fair election can’t fix.”

She then explained that she was supporting Ted Cruz because he is a common-sense, constitutional conservative, saying “Ted Cruz represents the positive change we need.”

Sarah Palin, Ted and Heidi Cruz, Jim DeMint

You can watch the video here, courtesy of  the BarracudaBrigade:

As has been the case at events in which Gov. Palin speaks, after the conclusion of her remarks, and to the cheering of the crowd, she and Todd went off-stage and to the rope line, where she signed autographs for a long while, and as usual, the rope-line was mobbed.

I don’t have a firm grasp on how many people were in the park for the event, but I would guess there had been well over one-thousand, perhaps closer to twice that number, despite the sweltering heat.  One thing is certain: Texas really is Palin country, and all who want to support a common-sense, constitutional conservative in this election ought to follow Governor Palin’s lead.  With early voting over across the Lone Star State, what remains is election day, Tuesday, 31 July.  Let’s get out the vote and put Ted Cruz over the top!

 

 

Government Gone Wild!

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012

Bing Results

GovernmentGoneWild has put out a new video, detailing what happens if you surf over to your favorite search engine and watch what it auto-suggests when you begin to type:

“how do I qualify for”

It works, and the video is right.  What’s stunning is that in the top ten suggestions, I don’t see:

“how do I qualify for a job?”

There’s really not much I need to add here.  The video says it all, and it’s not good.  I urge you to watch this and send it to your friends and family.  You may wonder why our country is in decline, but  if you want to know one of the big reasons why our country is mortal danger, this video holds the answer. (H/T CutiePi2U on Twitter)

 

Are You Kidding Me? “Silver Linings” Again?

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

Is This a Joke?

I watched the Huckabee Show on Fox News this Sunday, and while Scott Pruitt, and Ken Cuccunelli(Attorneys General for Oklahoma and Virginia respectively,) both acquitted themselves reasonably well, Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General, and Huckabee himself, looked foolish. In truth, however, Cuccinelli said some troubling things, both in this appearance and earlier on Fox and Friends. I can even permit that Huckabee was playing dumb for the sake of dragging out answers to questions to which he really knew the answers, but if I was a Floridian, I would know that my state had been cursed with the dumbest Attorney General to appear regularly on TV. After discussing with the panel the absurd logic implicit in Roberts’ decision, and after positing the notion that Roberts had bent to pressure in switching his vote, Bondi went on to state that she believed Justice Roberts was of the highest integrity. What?

I don’t understand how one can be both the sort of noodle who wilts under pressure and simultaneously maintain one’s alleged integrity. The two notions simply don’t fit in the same conceptual soup. If one is true, the other is almost certainly false. She explained that Roberts was seeking to maintain the integrity of the court, but she didn’t explain how voting in what he knew to be exactly the wrong way accomplishes that end. I believe Pam Bondi is confused about the meaning of the word “integrity.” Being on Mitt Romney’s Health-care task force, this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in that candidate’s promises.

(Fox News hasn’t made this segment of the Huckabee show available on-line – if they do, I will post it here.)

Pam Bondi is, after all, the same AG who bent to political pressure along with her governor, appointing a special prosecutor for the Trayvon Martin case, going after George Zimmerman for murder when all the evidence in-hand really suggests a murder charge is not warranted. In truth, Bondi’s appearance on Huckabee was riddled with similar incongruities in her apparent thinking, and one wonders if she’s qualified to be Attorney General in a State the size of Florida simply on the question of her mental capacity. Being charitable, she spoke like an empty-suited politician, full of hot air, most of it without any discernible meaning, and all of it intended to serve some aim other than to discuss the outcome of this case. Does she have other cases pending she expects to be elevated to the Supreme Court, hoping to win “nice points” with the wayward Chief Justice? Your guess is as good as mine, but after listening to her spewing gobbledygook, I really wanted to turn the channel, though I wound up suffering through the segment until the bitter end.

Another disappointment in the discussion, that I think would apply across the board to all the participants is how they all claimed this had not been foreseen, and that nobody had briefed on the issue of taxes, instead focusing on the commerce clause arguments. This is simply not true, because Landmark Legal Foundation, spearheaded by the brilliant Mark Levin, spent many pages in the Landmark amicus briefs (Here and here) discussing this very matter, taking great care to show how the penalty could not fit into the definition of any of the constitutionally allowable forms of taxation Congress has the power to impose. I like Ken Cuccinelli, and I think he’s a good Attorney General, but I wonder if in this case, he wasn’t a bit asleep at the switch. The same is true of Scott Pruitt. Wake up, fellas!

As for Huckabee, for a guy who has been “working tirelessly” to kill Obama-care, I would have expected he would know the issues a good deal more thoroughly than he did. After all, he did serve as governor of Arkansas, so one would tend to expect he’d have a little more sophisticated understanding of the legal matters, but I suppose it is possible that he was playing dumb to draw out answers, but honestly, that’s not the impression I got from his statements. It made the segment all the more baffling, and doubly disappointing. I kept waiting for him to break out the guitar and sing the Obama-care Blues.

I suspect our troubles with this law are worse than we may have imagined. The more I watch, the more I notice the tendency of some to shrug their shoulders and to tell us to “get used to it.” I have noticed that there is also a tendency to to paint this as though there is some positive, and I was surprised at Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to tell us about “silver linings” to this decision. Watch this schlock from Fox and Friends:

 

What? There is no limit in this decision. The commerce clause was not restrained. There is no majority decision in restraining the commerce clause. It’s astonishing to see this, and while I know Mark Levin holds Cuccinelli in high regard in most instances, Levin has completely debunked these alleged “silver linings,” as has been discussed here already. Here is the first few minutes of Levin’s show of Friday, 29 June, 2012, to explain why Cuccinelli is absolutely wrong about his “silver linings” thesis:

Alternative content

The evidence of what Levin is saying is plainly evident in these two amicus briefs filed with the court going all the way back to 2011, both in the Florida suit, and the Virginia suit. No two states’ Attorney Generals should have been more prepared for the tax argument than AG Bondi and Cuccinelli, but they’re pretending that this material hadn’t been covered, and was completely unforeseen. Why? What’s the coverup? This is an embarrassment. Surely, somebody bothered to point this out to these Attorneys General before they embarrassed themselves all over Fox News on Sunday.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to have any special insight into this case, but I can read, and I can listen. What I’m reading and hearing these days from our ostensible leaders is that we ought to just suck it up, “accentuate the positives”(while pretending there are some,) and prepare to live with it. “But be sure to vote for us in November if you’re really, really mad!” There’s no excuse for these Attorneys General not knowing the briefs in this case, inside and out, and the fact that they don’t means they’re spending too much time in front of a camera and too little time practicing law. I realize they have clerks and associates, and junior attorneys to handle some of this, but let’s not ignore that while Mark Levin has been providing them the answers right along, they’ve been oblivious to the details. Mark Levin is a hero in this, and his Landmark Legal Foundation is doing great work, despite the fact that neither the court nor the states’ AGs seem to be paying enough attention, and if you want to know the difference between the leaders we have, and the leaders we ought to have, you need look no further. Dr. Levin would decline such a role, but that merely means we need to listen to his counsel all the more closely. I suspect he would be much more generous to these Attorneys General than I have been in this posting, but only because he is much more gracious than I.

I have maintained that in all such cases, we can discern who is with us, and who is against us, or at least those who may be ambivalent to the outcome. It’s becoming clearer in the wake of this ruling, and I think we conservatives should begin to recognize that when it comes to guarding our constitution against the statist hordes, we are all alone. It’s we conservatives against them all.

Viral Video: If I Wanted America to Fail

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

I had this video passed along to me, and I must say that it’s very much in line with what I’ve been saying on this blog since its inception. Those who want America to fail are indeed following this model, and while the Obama administration fiddles, America is burning.  This video was published by www.freemarketamerica.org, an organization that says it exists to fight for free markets and against the environmental extremists.  Take a look. It’s well done:

Sarah Palin on NBC’s Today Show: “…When Barack Obama Took Over”

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

Joining the Lamestream Media?

Former GOP Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared on NBC’s Today Show on Tuesday. She co-hosted the show, and she also answered a series of question from Matt Lauer. It’s an interesting this to see her place Barack Obama in the proper context, that I submit is a better characterization of the manner of the current president: “…when Barack Obama took over.” This is exactly the right sense of the manner in which Obama has presided over the country. He hasn’t led anything. He simply “took over.”

Governor Palin went on to explain why she thinks this election is so important, but also why she thinks the GOP shouldn’t play it safe when it comes to picking its Vice Presidential candidate. Here’s the interview segment with Matt Lauer:

Governor Palin was featured in a number of entertaining segments throughout the show, and you can watch some of the highlights here:

Sarah Palin On The Record With Greta Monday Night

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

On The Record

Greta Van Susteren interviewed former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Monday night, asking her about a range of issues including the Obama-care case and its relevance to the 2012 election.  She was asked what she thought of the effect it would have on Mitt Romney’s campaign, and it was an accurate, and concise answer as usual.  Said Gov. Palin: “Romney will have his hands full with this one because he’s now been dubbed the father of Obama-care.”  That’s an apt description of things, and I believe it’s the prevailing opinion among conservative voters.

Here’s the video:

 

Despite Establishment Talking Points, The GOP Fight is Far From Over

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

Math is Hard

The talking points suggesting that this race is all but over have really begun to get on my nerves, because there’s really no evidence this is true.  As long as Gingrich and Santorum remain in this race, the race continues until somebody obtains 1144 delegates, or we wind up at the convention.  The question is whether it is numerically possible for anybody but Romney to get enough delegates, and as Drudge couldn’t wait to point out to the world Sunday, it’s going to be tough for Santorum or Gingrich, in second and third in the delegate count respectively.  The truth this conceals is that Romney isn’t in much better shape at this juncture.

Demonstrating my point about Romney, and the reason the Drudge page pointing out Santorum will need 74% of delegates to win was a bit dishonest, what is missed in all of this is that it omits the fact that Romney’s path isn’t exceptionally better. Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele makes this clear in the following video of a March 16th appearance on MSNBC:

From my point of view, the thing that must happen throughout the remainder of this primary season is that Gingrich and Santorum must arrive at the convention having prevented Romney from obtaining 1144 delegates.  If they do this, anything is possible, and it could be that between them, they are able to forge some sort of strategic alliance to overcome Mitt Romney in a brokered convention.  This is why Romney and all his surrogates in media continue to press the theme that either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum should get out: If either one does, it will make Romney’s job of obtaining 1144 delegates that much easier.

I don’t think most conservatives are interested in seeing that happen, whomever they support, because the fact is that we are still in the position where roughly 60% of the party wants somebody other than Mitt Romney.  Of course, Romney’s defenders are quick to point out that the others are in worse shape, but that ignores something critical:  Romney is the apparent front-runner, and as yet, he has shown no ability to put the contest to an end by defeating all of his competitors, at once and finally.

Sarah Palin Tweets Hilarious Video as the Vetting of Obama Continues

Monday, March 26th, 2012

Different Dignitary, Same Schlock

This is video is both hilarious, and sad, but I think we should be able to get a laugh from this, while also realizing the more serious nature of what it implies about the character of this president, and what Governor Palin termed his “empty, recycled rhetoric” in a tweet just minutes ago.  It’s true.  Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have an original thought in his head, and his treatment of our allies in this video is a classic reminder.  Thanks to Governor Palin for reminding us of this scandalously poor commander-in-chief’s behavior, and the sort of national embarrassment his presidency has become.  One can imagine foreign leaders coming to our country, wondering if they’re going to be given the same old song and dance.  It’s cookie-cutter foreign policy, and it’s typical of Barack Obama’s pathetic leadership.

Classic Obama:

You can read more of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s tweets here: @SarahPalinUSA

Vetting Mitt Romney – Video

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

It's about time...

This one just came over the transom and I thought readers might want to take a look.  It’s a pretty sharp critique of Mitt Romney’s record, and I think the more conservatives know about his record, the less attractive he is as a candidate.  The video touches on a number of stories I’ve covered here over time, so much of this will be at least vaguely familiar. There has been a great deal of vetting of Mitt Romney’s record on the Internet, in blogs and on conservative websites, but the problem is that most of it never gets into the mass media.  They’re simply not interested in showing Republicans much of his record as it pertains to governance, including particularly the Romney-care debacle under which the people of Massachusetts now live.

Viewing time is approximately three-and-one-half minutes:

Ron Paul Doesn’t Like “Etch-a-Sketch:” Why Not?

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Will Paul Send Romney the Bill?

It’s hard to understand why a politician would run an ad that seeks to minimize the story that is doing the most political damage to one’s chief rival.  In my view, to hit Gingrich and Santorum while leaving Romney untouched hints at another motive.  Ron Paul’s camp is running an ad slamming the two non-Romneys for their focus on Romney Communications Direct Eric Fehrnstrom’s “Etch-a-Sketch” remark.  He apparently thinks it’s ridiculous to be focused on what he considers a sideshow, but I wonder if that’s his real objective.   After all, he’s been rather friendly with Mitt Romney, and at times it has seemed he was working on coordinating his attacks on the others with the former Massachusetts governor, who one would think would receive the most scrutiny from the Paul camp, since Romney is clearly the most liberal of the four.

Here’s the ad:

Not once in this ad are viewers informed about the nature of the controversy, although you do get a clip of Fehrnstrom’s remark,  but what viewers receive is a series of repeated iterations of Gingrich, Santorum, and media saying “Etch-a-Sketch,”  portrayed in such a way as to mock the subject.  Romney’s been playing damage control ever since his Communications Director’s remarks, and they’ve tried several approaches to change the subject.  I suppose if all else fails, you let Ron Paul’s campaign do your dirty-work, and try to downplay the meaning and impact of the “Etch-a-Sketch” remark.  Of course, this could be Paul’s way of trying to get a little attention, but whatever his motive, I think it’s dishonest to downplay the significance.  After all, if the Romney campaign will bear a resemblance to an etch-a-sketch if he secures the nomination, one would think this is information all of the other candidates would want voters to possess.  To me, this looks like an attempt to minimize the damage to Romney.  Is this part of a collusion between Paul and Romney?  Nobody’s certain but it’s odd that Paul’s campaign would posit a thesis that reduces the damage to an opponent.

 

Santorum Wins Louisiana Plus New Santorum Video: Obamaville

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Something to Celebrate

With very nearly half of the vote, Rick Santorum easily defeated his Republican opponents in the Louisiana GOP Primary.  Mitt Romney finished second, more than 20% behind Santorum, with Gingrich back in third, and Paul finishing out of sight in last.  This sets the stage for a continuing primary fight, and it’s one that may go all the way to the convention.  At this point, it may take a brokered convention to keep Romney out, although the math becomes muddled once you consider all the possible permutations.  What’s clear at this stage is that while Romney remains the front-runner in the delegate count, he’s in for a hard road ahead.  My thought is: Good!  I would prefer a brokered convention at this point, since it seems that it will be the only available method by which we get a nominee who stands a chance of defeating Barack Obama.

Santorum’s campaign released a new ad on Saturday, presenting a dramatic portrayal of the future should Barack Obama be re-elected, but then again, much of it is already true.  The ad runs just more than a minute, and it makes the point perfectly clear: Barack Obama must go.  The alternative is Obamaville:

 

Flashback: Meet Mitt Romney circa 2002

Friday, March 23rd, 2012

Who? Me? Republican?

Here’s a quick video clip from 2002, when Mitt Romney was seeking the office of Governor in Massachusetts.  He disclaims his association with the Republican party.  What many of you from around the country may not know is that it’s common practice in the Northeast for Democrats to run for office as Republicans because in many cases, they can run unopposed in primaries since there are so few (relatively) Republicans vying for office.  I can’t say that this had been what Mitt tried to imply here, but I wouldn’t be surprised.  After all, as you may remember, he spent most of his 1994 Senatorial campaign against Ted Kennedy trying to distance himself from Reagan.

This is the guy who wants to be your Republican nominee?

While Etch-a-Sketch will try to re-write the meaning of this clip,  I prefer to focus on reality:  Mitt Romney is no conservative.

This is simply one more piece of evidence.

Newt Knocks It Out of the Park on the Etch-a-Sketch Candidate

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Re-Drawing Romney

I wasn’t surprised to see Newt Gingrich pick up this theme, but that he did it so effectively and on such short notice is really just another testament to his mental horsepower.  The former House Speaker appeared at a campaign stop just an hour or so after Eric Fehrnstrom made his remarks to CNN, in which he likened Mitt Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch.  Call it the gaffe of the day, or the confession of the year, but either way, Gingrich was quick to seize upon the moment and throw it in Romney’s face.  After a day-long media mocking, Romney came out Wednesday evening in a tepid response designed to blunt the criticisms, but Newt Gingrich captured the moment in explaining what this episode should strike a cautious note for conservatives.  Here’s the video:

Fehrnstrom really threw his boss into a shark tank with this one.  He’s been a Romney adviser since Romney took office as Governor of Massachusetts.  What this episode demonstrates clearly is that Romney is no conservative, and once he secures the Republican nomination, he is going to move to the left dramatically.  Gingrich is right to make sport of Romney over this issue, because in fact, Romney has campaigned against both Gingrich and Santorum as though he was the more conservative of the three.  I think this episode permits us to firmly dispense with that line of nonsense.  Kudos to Newt Gingrich for not dropping the issue so easily.

Re-Drawing Romney: Mitt Will Shift Left in the Fall Campaign

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

A top Mitt Romney adviser admitted on CNN that whatever conservative positions Mitt Romney is taking now, it’s unlikely to reflect in the Massachusetts moderate’s  Fall campaign.  He likened the shift in positions possible to a nominee in the general campaign to an etch-a-sketch.  Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom was asked on CNN this morning if he thought Mitt Romney’s “hard right” positions would would prevail in the Fall, or whether it would be possible for him to attract the support of “independents” and “moderates.”

Romney is no conservative, and his campaign advisers are trying to pitch you a lie. This whole business is another demonstration of why Mitt Romney isn’t suited to be the Republican nominee, although he may wind up being the choice. The primary campaign has been a sham to conceal his true nature from conservatives, and this is the proof.

Here’s the video from CNN:

The Change We Need Looks Nothing Like the Change We’ve Gotten

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

Change in Which Leftists Believe

Our Republic is suffering a slow death at the hands of statists of the left, but also the moderate Republicans.  We have a fiscal situation that most would label a crisis by any definition, in which the Federal government expends money fifty percent faster than it collects it, and it collects plenty.  Three years of Barack Obama’s reckless spending, and the willingness of Republican leadership to make deals has left us in a situation in which we are accruing debt faster than at any time in history.  Even if Barack Obama is defeated and sent packing in 2012, as he surely should be, we may not make it that far before the consequences explode in our faces.  The House of Representatives should not pass another bill that appropriates one dollar.   Yes, we need a government shutdown, but Barack Obama has other plans.  He intends to take over, and to ignore the Congress, and he intends to do so well in advance of the elections.  Obama is a man who has planned all his life for overthrowing the United States Constitution, and now, armed with the power of the executive branch, and with a supporting Senate, he is likely to make his play now while he still can.

Barack Obama isn’t a garden variety socialist.  He’s steeped in the tactics of Saul Alinsky, but more, he has an abiding desire to see the United States become a slave state.  People have wondered why he’s doing the things he is, but for many, the answer is clear: We may be on the verge of a second bloody revolution, and the proponents of this one are already in charge, and already using the levers of power to make ready for their moment.  I know this sounds so thoroughly outlandish to some people, that it’s difficult to say it seriously, except for the fact that it’s happening.

Consider Occupy Wall Street.  Here is an organization that exists to create unrest and violence in the streets, and in typical leftist fashion, it will be used to give government and excuse to step in.  Of course, it’s being directed by Obama friends and co-conspirators, including a healthy dose of funding from George Soros and his various affiliate pass-through organizations, but what make it more stunning than this is that Obama is putting in place the foundations for declaring vast new emergencies and taking on new Federal powers under the aegis of just such an emergency.  On Thursday, he signed a new executive order, that while updating older statutes, effectively gives the government the power to seize whatever it wants under whatever conditions it wants in response to a vague national emergency.  The Executive Order, titled: NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS, provides for adjustments to procedures to be carried out under 50 USC.

This order provides for the organization of the executive branch under such an emergency, and likewise provides directions on what may be delegated, to whom, and for what purposes.  It references a number of other executives orders, along with various sections of 50 USC.  The Obama administration will claim it is merely updating policies, but this is a bit more than that. We mustn’t be fooled into thinking this is all business-as-usual.  Nothing about the Obama administration is business-as-usual except for the outward appearance they wish to project.

Consider the implications of a President being tied to a civil unrest movement the likes of OWS, and then also setting up the legal basis for a government response to the sort of crisis OWS could be expected to generate, particularly if there is substantial financial difficulty arising out of the reckless policies of this administration.  On the one hand, he has OWS to terrorize you, and on the other, he is preparing to deal with them in response to your demands.  The truly stunning part is that the Occupiers don’t quite seem to grasp the danger, or that they’re being set up to take a mighty fall.

Now comes news that Obama has been groomed for this role for a long time, perhaps as far back as the mid-1980s, when it seems that Bill Ayers’ parents may have sponsored Obama or otherwise helped him through school, as WND reports.  A former mail carrier explained his contacts with the Ayers family and young black man he met who he now believes was Barack Obama.  WND interviewed him, and here is that video:


Whatever you may make of this, what’s certain is that Obama certainly had ties to some very radical people, and the problem with this man’s testimony is that he remembers Mrs. Ayers(Bill Ayers’ mother) saying that this was a foreign student.  What is certain is that the postal carrier remembers Obama’s features, his voice and manner of speaking.  He also had an interesting discussion with Ayers’ father, Tom, who seems to have been an ardent Marxist too.

I bring this to your attention because it’s an interesting aside to the general conversation about who Barack Obama really is, and what his intentions for this country really are.   I don’t believe he’s anything but a radical leftist, and as many now contend, he is not undertaking these policies lightly.  As Mark Levin mentioned on Monday evening, the Executive Order issued by Obama last week is bad in any president’s hands, but in the hands of this President particularly, that offers a potential prescription for the end of America as we have known it.

It reminds me of a famous piece of literature, Atlas Shrugged, wherein Ayn Rand constructs the devolution of the  United States, and one of the instruments the statists use is an analog to this latest executive order, called “Directive 10-289.”  It basically offered a takeover under the guise of an emergency in much the same form as this latest executive order would do:  Take over the means of production,distribution, transportation, and any and every other critical part of the American economy.  The longer the Obama administration goes on, the more I get the impression that we are living out the last chapters of Atlas Shrugged.

I think Obama is a good deal more malevolent than the shrinking coward who was the head of the country in that book.  I don’t believe any of this is or can be accidental.  He’s clearly intent upon changing America to his vision, whether or not Americans consent.   Any president who can so easily disregard the opinion of more than sixty percent of Americans in enacting a health-care reform bill isn’t acting in the best interests of the country.  Slowly but surely, he’s picking our constitution apart, and if he gets his way, it will be altogether meaningless as a restraint upon government.  2012 may be our last chance to stop the overthrow of our Republic by peaceful means. The fox is in the hen-house, and establishment Republicans still look at him expectantly, as though he ought to lay an egg.  If we do oust him, our next job will be to clean out that sorry gaggle of spur-less roosters who have been so ineffective at keeping the fox in check, in part because they golf with him and see him as one of their own.  He’s not, and the sooner our Republican leadership learns that, the sooner we can take back this country.

Chris Rock’s Insane Hatred Caught on Camera

Thursday, March 15th, 2012
sexy kim kardashian dresses

Chris Rock Attacks Camera

It seems that there’s something wrong with this guy.  Chris Rock’s hostility has always had a racial element, and his legendary rants on the subject of race have always bordered on the disturbed, but being a big Hollywood celebrity, he’s able to get away with all of this vile garbage under the heading of being a comic.  I would suppose that may work if his audience thinks what he has to say is funny.  Jason Mattera’s new book entitled Hollywood Hypocrites exposes some of the endless nonsense that so many of these leftists in Hollywood do, that contradicts so much of what they profess.  In this case, as Breitbart.com reports, Mattera was asking Chris Rock about his statements about the Tea Party in a 2011 Esquire Magazine interview, when Rock said:

“When I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism’s almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They’re going crazy. They’re insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they’re fucking knocked out. And that’s what’s going on in the country right now.”

When Mattera questioned Rock about this, he reportedly grabbed the camera and hurled it some fifty feet, before threatening a fight.  This isn’t sane behavior.  It’s called assault.  Watch the video:

This is inexcusable conduct, but be ready for the left to excuse it.  They will offer reasons why Mattera shouldn’t have asked the question, or similar, but what they will not do is to openly criticize Chris Rock’s thuggish behavior.  Mattera interviewed a number of Hollywood types for his book.  He says there will be more footage coming.  It’s long past time that somebody exposed the blatant hypocrisy in Hollywood.

Chris Rock talks about insane racism, and then puts on this display?  Projection?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Mitt Romney Caught Flat-Footed By Megyn Kelly

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

Oooops

Appearing on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, former Massachusetts Governor and putative GOP nomination “front-runner” Mitt Romney was caught a bit flat-footed when Megyn Kelly asked him about his support of a Federal insurance mandate. As Kelly pointed out, it’s going to be difficult for Romney to run away from this, although he’s been trying for months.  The truth, no matter how you slice it, is that Romney has previously stated that he thought the model he used in his home state for so-called “Romney-care” would be good for the entire nation. Kelly played a clip for Romney to attempt to refute, but the problem is that it’s basically irrefutable. This isn’t simply about insurance mandates, bad as they may be, but instead goes to the veracity of anything this candidate says or promises.

Take a look, H/T RightScoop:

One cannot argue in support of a Federal insurance mandate in the first instance, only to disclaim it in the second instance, but claim never to have said what one has clearly said.  It would be a different matter if Mitt Romney said that he had changed his mind on this issue, and no longer supported the idea, but what he is trying to do is say that he never supported the idea at all.  Clearly, that’s simply not so.

Rather than confront the issue head-on, he tries to weasel away from what he said in the 2008 primary season, and that simply won’t do.  Some in the media wonder why Mitt Romney isn’t catching fire with conservatives, and I strongly believe you need look no further than this exchange between he and Megyn Kelly.  He could have straightened it out, and he could have admitted he removed a line from his book about taking Romneycare nationwide, but instead, he’s trying to trick conservatives into thinking he didn’t say what he said and wrote.

This is a problem, because one must ask what his motive might be.  After all, under the pressure of public opinion, most candidates will back-pedal at least a little when presented the opportunity, but Mitt’s not doing that.  The problem is, he can’t claim it’s because he’s taking a “principled stand” on the issue, otherwise he would be more forthright about it.  He’d say he’s changed his view, suck it up, and move on.  He’s not doing that either, leading one to wonder why.

I have my own thought, and it goes back a few weeks to when Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was interviewed on the matter, and she as much as admitted she would be part of Romney’s program to take Romneycare nationwide as a replacement for Obamacare.  At present, he can still claim he never changed his mind, despite implying otherwise, but never really reversing himself. He wants to be able to go into the Fall election and promise only to replace Obamacare.  He won’t care about conservative opinion at all, at that point, because he will figure that he has them anyway. If he gets the nomination, he may have a point, because what will conservatives do? Will they stay home and permit Obama’s re-election, or as a matter of personal and familial self-defense, and in the defense of the nation, simply go pull the lever, or punch out the chad for Mitt Romney?

Romney is willing to bet it’s the latter, and his whole campaign is predicated on winning the nomination predominately in liberal locales and doing what he can in the South, but knowing that once he has the nomination, he can ignore the South almost entirely and focus on those swing states.  If this is his strategy, and it surely seems to be, then once he has the nomination in hand, what’s to prevent him from flipping back a bit on the issue of a national mandate for health insurance?  It will satisfy many Democrats after all, particularly those fatigued with Obama’s disastrous economic policies, and his gamble will be that he may pick up more around the middle than he will lose from the conservative base of the party.

I believe this may well be the reason he’s still hedging his bets on this issue.  It’s either that, or his ego won’t permit him to say he’s changed his mind, or some political strategist is telling him to capitulate on the issue will do him more damage than good.  Whatever is going on here, Romney isn’t credible simply because the facts and his own historical statements refute his current ones, but his current statements seem to contend his historical statements don’t exist.  If you can follow this, then you must see as I do that Mitt Romney is plainly lying.  I know not how others may choose to vote, but we already have one liar in the White House, and I’m not inclined to replace him with another.

Panetta Testimony Prompts Resolution Threatening Impeachment

Monday, March 12th, 2012

A Bridge Too Far?

The Obama administration is signaling that it will overstep its bounds again, this time with respect to Syria.  Many in Congress were upset by President Obama’s use of military force against Libya without Congressional approval.  This issue again raises questions about when this nation goes to war, what constitutes the actual making of war, and what is an effective limitation on executive authority in this respect.  More pressing than this, however, may be an underlying notion put forward by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on consultation with our allies and the international community before even talking to Congress.  A resolution is being offered that threatens an impeachment should President Obama step outside the bounds of his authority and fail to consult with Congress in order to gain their approval before engaging American forces.

Congressman Walter B. Jones Jr.(R-N.C.,) has introduced a resolution stating that should the president use offensive military force without prior authorization by an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that any such actions would constitute “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Of course, introducing such a resolution and actually passing it, and then subsequently acting upon it are very different things.  According to WND, former Congressman Tom Tancredo believes the bill was offered as a response to the following statement by Leon Panetta, now serving as Secretary of State:

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

This was Panetta’s response to Senator Jeff Session(R-Al,) during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  There has long been a significant division between presidents and congresses on the use of military force, but this is an escalation of sorts, because what it admits is that the Obama administration is willing to seek permission from international bodies like the United Nations, but not willing to seek approval from Congress.  That’s an absurd reversal of precedent in many respect, because the Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution provides that it shall be Congress that has the authority to declare war.

Here’s video of the exchange:

Of course, what Presidents have long asserted is that not all military actions constitute a war by traditional definition, and that various military incursions do not require approval of Congress.  For instance, the operational security of some strikes might be compromised if the President had to go to Congress for each relatively small action.  There is a certain truth to this, but at the same time, Congress has addressed this with the  War Powers Act, that virtually every President has ignored ever since it was passed.  There are vigorous debates over the constitutionality of that act, but what remains certain is that when it comes to declaring war, Congress is the proper authority.  Instead, the argument revolves around what constitutes a war requiring that declaration from Congress.

Congress has itself added to the confusion, by passing resolutions that “authorize the use of force” in various contexts, but they have not issued an “resolution of war” since 1941.  If Congress is going to assert its authority, it has a long line of precedents it established by its own intransigence or malingering in the last seventy or so years since it last summoned the will to declare war.  This has been part of the case that previous presidents have made with respect to Congressional objections in the last four or five decades.

On the other hand, if the Congress actually passes Congressman Jones’ resolution, this might signal the willingness of Congress to take a more fundamentally active role in the foreign and military affairs of the nation. While all presidents would prefer a Congress to act as rubber-stamps for their foreign and military affairs agenda, the fact is that President Obama has been governing wildly outside the norm as commander-in-chief, and his intransigence to long-standing American foreign policy interests is a sore spot in many quarters.  His willingness to abandon allies, or support former enemies is a troubling development, and this may be leading Congress to finally re-examine its largely inactive role in that part of the policy arena. Here is the complete wording of the resolution:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Readers should bear in mind that any such resolution, to carry any force, would need to be approved by the  House and the Senate, but that would require the resolution being brought up for a vote.  That would effectively require Speaker John Boehner(R-OH) to be in favor of it, or at least willing to put it up for a vote, and I suspect this may not be the case.  Boehner has long avoided controversial maneuvers simply because he wants to avoid the possible political fall-out, meaning in too many cases, he has been unwilling to do that which is right in favor of that which he can do in relative political safety. More importantly, it would have to come to a vote in the Senate, and there’s virtually no chance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) would ever permit that.  This strangely means that Boehner might be willing to bring it up for a vote, since he knows it would go nowhere in the Senate.  That would merely continue the trend of Congress doing nothing to sustain its own power in foreign and military affairs, and that’s what readers should expect.

 

Obama For America Takes Swipe At Sarah Palin and Conservatives

Monday, March 12th, 2012

Obama's Goon Squad

This is pathetic.  One could scarcely write a more predictable script for the sorts of things to which the Obama campaign would resort in trying to win the 2012 election.  Here, they’ve created a video ad aimed at trying to ramp up racial divisions, and the irony is that they feature a clip of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin addressing that very issue during a recent Hannity appearance.  Predictably, the Obama-drones tried to flip it, but frankly, I think this ad actually will work against them. Their intention is to portray Sarah Palin and the conservatives who support her as some how racially intolerant is a lie that smacks of the LBJ campaign of 1964 versus Barry Goldwater, but I think this demonstrates who it is the Obama administration really fears:  Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and constitutional conservatives.

Here’s the video:

The ad closes by saying “these attacks are wrong and dangerous.  If you’re tired of it, do something.”  This ad constitutes a threat, and one could say that it borders on incitement.  One can only imagine the sort of thing this group of radicals is trying to incite, virtually proving Governor Palin’s point within a span of seconds.  You can’t run an ad like this and not know that it’s going to create some sort of backlash.  This advertisement actually makes Sarah Palin’s point for her.

There’s something disturbing about the radicalism that is expressed by this ad.  It’s veiled threat is a latent call to indefinite action of an indeterminate nature.  There’s no description of the “something” people should “do,” but merely a call to “do something.”  What?  Let’s be blunt:  The Obama administration is full of radicals, and Obama for America is full of radicals, including the sort of folks who thought that bombing government targets in the early 1970s was insufficient. Remember, Bill Ayers, rather than apologizing for his terrorist behaviors, said he wishes he had done more.  These are the sorts of radicals with whom Obama has surrounded himself.

Here, an ad that features Governor Palin decrying the divisiveness and radicalism of the Obama administration is actually used to incite more, and more of an unknown sort, although we can guess.  With the Occupy Wall Street movement having been unmasked as a front for the Obama-Soros push for a radical social state, with mayhem and violence throughout the protests, and with Frances Fox Piven declaring that it’s going to get ugly, I don’t think there’s any doubt but that this video constitutes an incitement to violence of some sort.

______________________________________________________________________________________

The Obama Volt – Video(Humor)

Friday, March 9th, 2012

Change?

Somebody did me the kindness of forwarding me this video, created by Ben Howe.  It’s clever and straight to the point.  Best of all, it was good for a laugh. It’s a short video that makes a point about the entire Chevy Volt fiasco through the lens of we who have been shafted to pay for it. If you’re an Obama fan, or simply an environmentalist who believes in all of this “green energy” nonsense, you may not want to watch. Hopefully, sane Americans will find it entertaining.

Enjoy:

Chevy Volt – Building a Better Tomorrow from Ben Howe on Vimeo.

 

 

Obama Says Energy Costs Beyond His Control; Not So Fast

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Something Stinks

Barack  Obama has been on the campaign trail mocking Republicans, particularly Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin(although not by name,) who advocate an energy policy of increasing domestic energy production.  This is a bit odd, because while Obama mocks “Drill Baby, Drill,” he has already undertaken policies with the same effect in mind.  If increasing the supply can have no effect on prices, as the President claims, why did he order a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve late last summer?  It’s now rumored that he will soon do so again in response to rising pump prices.  Does Barack Obama think we’re idiots?  Releasing oil from the SPR merely accomplishes the same thing as producing more oil domestically:  It provides more crude oil to the market, and that bump in supply tends to bring prices down over time.

Either Barack Obama doesn’t understand basic economics, or he thinks we’re too stupid to notice the contradiction implicit in the difference between his words and his actions.  Here’s what he’s saying:

 

 

Notice that he continues the lie about the so-called “hand-outs” to “Big Oil.”  You may hear his thesis that “there’s no silver bullet,” but what you must understand is that he fully understands that the silver bullet is supply, and when he has order releases from the SPR, it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that an increase in the supply available to the market is a downward pressure on prices.  This is pretty basic, and I assume even President Obama understands that concept, despite frequently demonstrating a a general ignorance of economics.  If he knows better, then there must be a reason he’s misstating the facts in this case, and there is:  He’s in political hot water over the issue, and he knows it.

This is his attempt to stave off criticisms over escalating fuel prices, but it’s not going to work when the electorate realizes that in other ways, Obama is working to constrict the supply of oil available to the United States.  On Thursday, even Mitch McConnell seemed to get it, and from the well of the Senate, he pointed out that Barack Obama is still obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline, and all of the jobs it would create, and the effect it would have on pump prices domestically:

 

 

Unloading On The Campaign Trail

This is a plain debunking of Barack Obama’s thesis, and Obama knows it.  You can’t expect fuel prices to come down so long as you’re restricting the growth of exploration and development of new productive fields.  Why does Saudi Arabia, in particular, but OPEC in particular regulate its production?  The answer is obvious: To prop up the prices oil brings in the market.  They intentionally restrict supply, and what increased production of domestic oil resources will do is to take away the ability of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to effectively dominate the question of global supply delivered to the market.   Doing so will begin to have an immediate effect, as the oil market, like any other sees dramatic moves on the basis of even small marginal changes in the quantity supplied relative to demand.

Obama can’t talk his way out of this one, and worse, he’s been caught lying. You can’t legitimately claim that to increase  supply won’t effect prices while having undertaken measures to artificially prop up supply in order to drive down prices.  This is the nature of Barack Obama’s dishonesty, and it’s all political. I leave you with this:

Update: I just received this link via email. It’s a story on RightScoop, same basic subject.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Video Flashback: Thomas Sowell Compares Derrick Bell to Adolph Hitler

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Thomas Sowell

Breitbart has managed to dig up a small segment from C-Span2’s Book TV, in which Thomas Sowell is asked about Derrick Bell by interviewer Brian Lamb on the question of what sort of ideology Derrick Bell was pushing at the time.  The interview is from May, 1990, when Bell was using his radical approach of protest and occupy to try to force the administration of Harvard University to hire a professor based on whether that professor accepts the ideological viewpoints of Bell, at the time, a tenured professor at Harvard Law.  This is a stunning interview, inasmuch as Sowell was will to go so far as to compare Bell to Hitler.  If you’re familiar with Dr. Sowell, you’ll know that he doesn’t throw such comparisons around in jest, or thoughtlessly.

Here’s the video:

I think this demonstrates that even as early as 1990, in the same time-frame in which Bell was Barack Obama’s mentor, Bell’s Critical Race Theory wasn’t considered merely controversial, but radical, and this is the ideology Barack Obama was recommending when he embraced Bell, saying:

“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” -Barack Obama(Video Here)

To pretend that Derrick Bell wasn’t a radical, or that the philosophy of law he professed wasn’t controversial is a ridiculous position, but since the unveiling of the Obama-Bell video Wednesday evening, the media has been doing all it can to downplay its importance. In this case, Sowell was condemning Bell’s ideological bigotry, that demanded a complete agreement among faculty and students. This should be interesting because at the time, he was one of Obama’s mentors.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________