Conservatives are discovering more details on Sotomayor as the days tick on.  She is quite an accomplished woman and had been on the fast track to becoming a leading national judge (at least by the pace at which she was moving up the ranks).  However, she already had various critics back in 1997 like Rush Limbaugh who saw her coming a mile away and knew she could one day be nominated for SCOTUS.  Limbaugh, in 1997, warned listeners that this woman was extremely progressive and liberal in her judgments and leanings.

The president of the National Organization of Women (NOW) has even made an official statement that Sonia is in fact “very progressive.”

The Republicans in the senate are focusing on Sotomayor’s speech that she gave at the University of California, Berkeley (School of Law) back in 2001.  Her lecture at Berkeley was published in La Raza Journal, which made a blatant racist remark when comparing one race over another as to which of those races would make better decisions.  29 Republicans in 1998, when Sotomayor was nominated for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, voted against her for this very reason, as well as her tendency to legislate and be an activist from the bench.

For a little more information on the extremism of La Raza go here.

Newt Gingrich has been on the attack with this one nomination and it is something he apparently feels very strongly about – it may have to do with the history of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals when she was nominated back in 1998 while Newt was still Speaker of the House.  Newt has called Sonia Sotomayor an outright racist and has asked for her to withdraw her name from the SCOTUS nod.

I personally think that when it comes to measuring somebody’s merit and ability – personal feelings aside, what really matters is their record - and this final detail that has come to fruition is incredibly important.  Her opinions have a 60% reversal rate…

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

“Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

The most frustrating aspect of this entire nomination is the media playing it up to be the first ever Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court – which just isn’t true.  We could go back in history and technically find that Cardozo per the article yesterday, was the first, but even if that is questionable there is Miguel Estrada, who was nominated by a Republican and was a Conservative.  Democrats did not care about his remarkable history, growing up in Honduras and legally immigrating to the United States without being able to speak English and breaking through barriers to go to Columbia University and then onto Harvard Law School.  The Democrats demoralized this man because he was a Conservative and didn’t fit the Conservative mold – he had to be destroyed – the same thing happened to Clarence Thomas – another from humble beginnings, who was a black man and a Conservative.  We could go back through time, but why?  We had an example of this very thing with the past election; Sarah Palin.  A female who came from the lower middle class, if that, who had to pay her way through college, lived in a state that truly is the last frontier, and still isn’t all that developed, worked her way up politically by working hard and never giving up.  But to liberals, a Female, a Black, and a Hispanic should only be democrats, not republicans – those who go against the mold need to be destroyed before anyone else; they are the biggest threats.  The liberals want to make this nomination into this historically wonderful thing, bamboozling the dumbed down masses, attempting to brainwash them into thinking that Sonia truly is the first of her kind to be nominated, when that is an out and out lie.  Ann Coulter talks about this in greater detail on Good Morning America.

Share on Facebook

A new study conducted by the Pew Research group found that the happiest people were those who were old, white, male republicans.  The survey found that Americans grew happier as they aged even as the economy is still in abeyance…

Happiness is a complex thing. Past studies have found that happiness is partly inherited, that Republicans are happier than Democrats, and that old men tend to be happier than old women.

And even before the economy got nasty, seniors were found to be generally happier than Baby Boomers. Some of that owes to the American Dream being lived by past generations, while Boomers work two jobs and watch the dream wither.

In times like this, it’s clear how age can have its advantages. While not all seniors are weathering the recession well, for many the impact is much less severe than it is for younger people.

Why? Many people 65 and older retired and downsized their lifestyles before the economy imploded, according to Pew analysts. Most aren’t raising kids and many are not so worried about being laid off. Loss of income can be, of course, a source of stress and displeasure. (While money doesn’t buy happiness, a study in February showed cash can help, especially when people use it to do stuff instead of buy things.)

If you’re thinking that Republicans are happy just because they perhaps make more money, that does not seem to be the case. The study that found Republicans to be happier than Democrats also showed that it held true even after adjusting for income.

It’s those age 50-64 who’ve “seen their nest eggs shrink the most and their anxieties about retirement swell the most,” the Pew survey found. It also finds that younger adults (ages 18-49) “have taken the worst lumps in the job market but remain relatively upbeat about their financial future.”

[...]

Now for the good news: A study in January found that key groups of people in the United States have grown happier over the past few decades, while other have become less so. The result: Happiness inequality has decreased since the 1970s. Americans are becoming more similar to each other on the happiness scale.

The real story and the real irony of all of this is not the study itself, but the comments under the original article.  The liberals posting on the board are hateful and angry!  LOL!  Could it be that those who align themselves with faith and fill that void in themselves are more content?  I think that is a definite reason.  I also think that the individualism of conservatives and republicans who believe in working hard and not taking handouts is also liberating and makes them feel more optimistic about life in general.

Share on Facebook

If there was one thing you could always say about President Bush, it is that he always stood on his principles and values.  He had an enormous amount of integrity and did not compromise any of those things for political expediency.   He firmly believed every move and decision he made was based on what was best for the American people.  He did not rely on polling data or popularity statistics.  President Bush’s firmly held beliefs in a post 9/11 world are what guided him.

Now President Obama, on the other hand, stands on his teleprompter.  As he has “navigated” his way through the first 100 days in the Oval Office, we have yet to really see the characteristics of integrity or doing what is right by the American People.   At least two of his cabinet members should have been tossed; Turbo Tax Tim Geithner and Secretary Napolitano, both of whom have embarrassed the Oval Office and outraged the American people.  If he really stood on principle and integrity they would have been gone.

President Obama showed signs of this early in the election cycle when he said he would accept public financing of the campaign, but when the primary season was over and he was the nominee, he opted out of the system and continued to collect just shy of 3/4 of a billion dollars, most of which is untraceable.  That in itself goes against the Open Government Act by fully disclosing all donors.

President Bush walked his talk after the campaign.  He worked with the Democratic leadership, showing bipartisanship on the budget, FISA, immigration and other issues.  The only thing he would not compromise on (thank goodness) was a troop withdrawal time table.  Democrats tried in vain to force his hand as the Obama backing MSM flooded the evening news night after night with each road side bomb image they could find.  Very little attention was paid to the success we were having, only the carnage.  This unwavering stance against a timed withdrawal was significant because he did not want give the emboldened insurgency a window in which to “wait it out”, and to prevent these politicians from micromanaging commanders in the field.  True, there was pressures to change strategies in order to combat this issue, and the administration did just that; they initiated the “surge”.  And guess what, it worked!  Now Mr. Obama on the other hand has shown about as much bipartisanship as Iran has shown cooperation with the UN….Uh that would be none!  The GOP has been completely shut out of the administration, being told to basically shut up and sit down because “we” (the Dems) won.  So much for a new era of cooperation and open government.

What people fail to realize in Iraq, is that not only did we rid the world of a very evil dictator, who’s atrocities are well documented (so in fact there is you weapon of mass destruction), shut down Dr. Germ Rihab Taha (who was identified by UN weapon inspectors specifically), the mission also brought stability to the region as a whole.

If you look back, Moamar Kadafi quickly and quietly ended their rebellious ways and cracked down on terrorists in Libya.  Syria also became much more user friendly, and cooperative.  So there were broader positive effects.

Mr. Obama who was not a Senator when the Congress initially authorized action in Iraq, on the campaign trail he waved the “No More War” flag like the checker flag at the end of a car race.  The election was soundly anti-Bush, and all the rhetoric that goes with that.  ‘When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that’.

Well as you all know, the mission (and I am not complaining about this) remains on target and is, in fact, in a winding down phase.  We have consolidated much of our operations to specific areas in Iraq, handed over control and security operations to the Iraqi Army and Police force in many areas, continue to train and equip those forces so when we do leave, there will be stability and peace inside the borders.  Mr. Obama’s rhetoric got him into the White House, but the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq dictated his actions.  And if the people who were so hell bent on completely ditching the quote “Bush Doctrine” (as Charlie Gibson tried to nail Sarah Palin with) they would have realized that this notion of up and run out of Iraq was not plausible in the least.

President Bush was thrust into a situation that day in September, unbeknown to America or our intelligence agencies.  We went from a 20 plus year time of relative peace and suddenly thrust into war, against an enemy that does not belong to a nation or state, but operates in the shadows among innocent people whom they will sacrifice without any hesitation.  Yes, mistakes were made.  But this nation was kept safe, and still is, by those policies President Bush put into place.

Now we have a floppy fish in the White House.  Yes he was thrust into an economic situation that has not been pretty.  However, Mr. Teleprompter as not shown us anything except he is bent on a socialistic agenda and that he changes his word like we change underwear.

Now Mr. Obama wants to openly (yes there is that word open again) and without preconditions, have talks with these nations that simply hate the United States.  Iran, who is pursuing nuclear weapons and calling for the destruction of Israel,  North Korea, who has nuclear material but can not build a delivery vehicle,  Venezuela, who just yesterday seized American Owned and Operated energy sites and equipment, and Cuba, where money can now flow freely without using a 3rd and 4th party intermediary.  Oh yes lets not forget Mexico.  Yet, another apology from Mr. Obama and Secretary Clinton for causing the drug war along the boarder.

Mr. Obama and his economic team have showered the coffers with billions and billions of dollars in order to prop up the economy.  Thus far, nothing.  New jobless filings hover around 600K and overall, 6.5 million people are out of work, and counting.  Now that Chrysler and GM are making significant cuts, that is going to go up more this year. Not only does that effect line workers in the auto plants, but spills out to the suppliers and peripheral businesses that support them.

Mr. Obama, first week in office broke the most basic of his campaign pledges, saying that the practice of earmarks and pork spending would immediately come to and end.  Say what?  The first two things he signs into law are pork laden wasteful bills that did nothing.  The Stimulus package, which failed to stimulate the American people, was shoved through the congress by the new Dem Majority in the middle of the night in which no one was even able to read.  And what was in there (Mr.  Dodd)?  Bonuses for the executives at AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac!!!  Next he signed an Omnibus bill that contained over 9000 earmarks, again pushed through on a Dem freight train in the middle of the night.

Now the administration continues to politicize national security doctrine as the administration stammers on what our evil interrogators did to terror suspects.  This emboldens the enemy, teaches them our techniques so now they can prepare for what little we actually do.   The September 10th mentality of the administration puts us in jeopardy. Many of the policies that Mr. Obama so vehemently touted against remain in effect. The naval prison at Guantanamo Bay was ordered closed yet remains open as Obama plans where to send its inmates; the president has yet to establish a coherent policy on Iran — following in the Bush administration’s footsteps and while American troops are being removed from Iraq, most will stay in place until 2010.

It is important to note that all the enhanced interrogation tactics that we used actually yielded crucially important intelligence that helped keep this country safe,”  with the eight years of safety on the home front since Sept. 11, 2001.  Even though congressional leaders claimed to be left out of the loop on these techniques, it was revealed that the same Dem leaders, who bewitched President Bush, were duly informed of those methods.  But as Dems, true to color, they pretended to take the moral high road, and were thus outed as hypocrites using this issue for political expediency.
Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, wrote an internal memo last week citing the “high value” information about Al Qaeda’s operations yielded by tactics such as water boarding, but its morality has been called into question by human rights monitors and many others both in and out of the Obama administration.

So therein lays the conflict with this administration. Integrity, direction, political expediency, governing by polling data, and letting Nancy Pelosi write its budget a mere 3 Trillion and some change.
So we as Americans have to wonder, where the transparency, openness, and new era of cooperation is.  Yeah, that is right, so sorry, we lost.

Share on Facebook

Many of us, who continue to read blogs and stay on top of political news, are aware of both the DNC and the RNC and what the parties have turned into.

Republicans and Democrats used to have clear differences between the two, but now they are just a blurred combination of one another.  The point of the two party system was being able to have a choice; namely freedom.

The more I see how congress votes and what each representative or senator puts into their bills, the more I realize, at such a young age, that the government has become power hungry and spend happy.  Congress couldn’t care less where the money comes from; the more “bacon” they bring home to their constituents and their special interests, the more money they receive in donations and campaign contributions as well as a little extra padding in their pockets.

We are being “represented” by an elite political class or, as I like to refer to it, the Politburo.  This is a class of career politicians who have never worked outside of classrooms or as a lawyer or on their parent’s campaign. They have no idea what it is like to be average citizens in the United States working to live and living to work.  Those of us who work 9-5 jobs day in and day out, just to make enough money to pay the bills, know what our priorities are and what really matters in this world.  The political elite is reminiscent of the ‘popular’ clique in the high school I attended.  It was mainly dependent on the income and social status of parents.  Those whose parents belonged to a country club, played tennis, golfed, and went yachting were deemed ‘acceptable.’ However, regardless of your personality, looks, or good will if you didn’t measure up you were stuck in the middle rungs; never quite making it to the upper echelons of high school popularity.  Many went on to ivy league schools, not because they were intelligent, but because they could afford it or they had connections.  After spending 4 years hiding away in the bubble of elitism, some could quote text books or famous philosophers, while many were still incapable of doing anything.  One thing was for sure; they never left their comfort zone to experience life in order to truly understand the difference between intelligence and wisdom; life-experience.  Leadership tends to be a mixture of inherent characteristics as well as learned qualities through personal accomplishment and strife.

I was so incredibly appalled at what I saw and what I heard during the 2008 election cycle.  I thought, based on character and integrity, the choice was obvious.  I was wrong.  The ticket had two very honorable, down-to-earth, decent human beings who, having made it through tremendous struggles, were overlooked due to race baiting, liberal media bias, propaganda, elitism, ivy league degrees, and the usual ‘Bush sucks’ sentiment.

One of my favorite books is the Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupery, and my favorite part of the story is when the Little Prince meets the Fox and discovers the meaning of friendship.  The book teaches us what really matters after you tear away all of the materialistic aspects of the outside world.  “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential, is invisible to the eye.”

I know I’m not the only person in my age group to understand the Little Prince, but I am few and far between who actually applies it.  What I have noticed during my young life thus far is the fact that those who appreciate honesty, morals, and ethics are usually those who have experienced something in their lives where they have been “enlightened” to a point where they have seen the “bottom” and know what it means to struggle.  When people have to build their lives back up again or work like there’s no tomorrow to make it to the other side, they appreciate what so many others take for granted and they value those things that so many lose sight of; because, let’s face it, our society has become spoiled and we’ve lived beyond our means for too long.

Sarah Palin is the epitome of struggle and accomplishment.  She represents the antithesis of the establishment and the elite.  She is someone who you could sit down and have a heart-to-heart with and feel as though you have been friends for years.  She is the quintessential Reagan type persona who so many have been waiting for.  I feel funny saying that since I was only born in 1981, but I’ve done a bit of research I even have a $1,000,000 bill with Reagan’s face on it hanging in my cubicle.  For all I know that $1,000,000 bill will be worth something soon due to all of this spending and the inevitable inflation!

Sarah Palin has fought her own machine and once you fight that monster under the bed it will keep coming after you for revenge.  We saw that during the Alaska legislative session this past year in her attempt to nominate a decent conservative man as the next Attorney General. We also see it at the national level where Republicans continue to fear her and turn their noses up at her.  The Republicans better be careful because the GOP’s approval rating is not doing too well either.  When Sarah Palin releases her FEC filings for SarahPAC I whole-heartedly believe that we will hear the creaking of “old geriatric” jaws dropping around the beltway.

The DNC is just as bad and just as corrupt, if not more so.  Obama is part of the Machine.  He came from the most politically corrupt city in the nation; Chicago.  He brought this style to Washington D.C. along with a slim resume and only 143 days of working experience in the Senate.  I am doubtful that Obama can manage a hot-dog stand let alone the highest office in the land.

We have seen him sign legislation behind closed doors after he stated that he would make transparency a priority; and we have seen him sign over 18,000 earmarks within his first 100 days after he railed against them.  We have seen him pay off his union buddies and not fire the head of the UAW but fire the head of GM.  (The Union contributed nearly $400M to his campaign).  We have seen him argue against Bush’s outrageous spending, but he has spent more than all presidents before him combined and in only 3 month’s time!

Barack Obama is not “change” or “hope.”  He is the very essence of what it means to be establishment and beholden to lobbyists and special interests.  Too many people were born yesterday in 2008, when it was obvious that the vitriol and hatred spewed towards Sarah Palin should have been reason and proof enough to vote for her ~ she isn’t the establishment and she isn’t in the pocket of the media, the lobbies, or anyone else. She scares the pants off of the Democrats, the Republicans, and the media for that very reason.

The D.C. elite have removed themselves so far from the purpose of their roles, as set forth in our constitution, that they all need to be thrown out as soon as humanly possible (2010).  So let me start the chant “Throw the Bums Out.”

We have seen throughout history the effects of the ruling class trumping democracy and none of those societies have ever ended peacefully and quietly.  One of the more humble and honest of politicians said the following when asked to run for re-election:

“We draw our Presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again.” ~ Calvin Coolidge

The media elite and the Politburo went after a woman’s family and continue to dump on her even after she lost the VP slot and has been quietly doing her job in faraway Alaska.  People may find themselves asking why?  The answer to me is blatantly obvious, but to others, maybe not.  She is a threat to everything they hold dear; the very epicenter of their control and power.  She stands true to her morals and principles and does not back down from them, nor does she feel ashamed.  She cannot and will not be manipulated to play machine politics and kowtow to the good old boys.  The people that the GOP prop-up in the media or select to give counter addresses are the people who won’t “rock the boat.”

The establishment wants to bring up non substantive stories about this woman’s family when Obama’s family is far from classy.  He has an illegal aunt living in the slums of Boston, a half-brother in Kenya living on a $1/day in a hut, another half-brother just hospitalized for cholera, and another half-brother just detained and turned away by customs in the UK for sexually assaulting a 13 year-old girl.  He was also born out of wedlock and has more half siblings than previously mentioned.  Joe Biden’s daughter was recently caught on tape at the age of 27, snorting a bunch of cocaine and she has been arrested before for drug possession and obstructing the law.  I’m curious as to why we didn’t hear about this in the media?  How many people in this world have had family members who have made mistakes and gotten into trouble?  Do we have control over family members?  And at what point as a parent do you let your children make their own mistakes so they can learn and become responsible adults?  I can’t choose my family but I can certainly choose my friends and associations.  That’s the difference between Sarah and Obama.  She didn’t choose to associate with domestic terrorists, radicals, or members of the Communist Party USA. She just had a daughter who made a mistake and suffered the consequences for it.

I take extreme offense to anyone who judges Sarah Palin based on the decisions made by her daughter.  Take it from an unruly, rebellious child writing this opinion.  My parents did the best they could with what they had.  They taught me that doing drugs was bad, they didn’t let me go to parties that were unsupervised, and they told me about pre-marital sex.  We spoke, we discussed, and they parented.  I made my decisions accordingly.  My parents never bent my elbow and forced me to drink, they never told me to hop in bed with someone, they never told me to put something up my nose to “feel good.“  Those were my decisions and I should be the one who is judged, not my parents.  The only way that we truly learn is by being allowed to make our own mistakes and applying those lessons in the next phase of our lives.

Sarah Palin is fighting this bipartisan backlash from both sides of the aisle; from both political machines in her state of Alaska and the lower 48.  She is the citizen pundit, the all-American politician, the person who is tired of the way things are and she decided she could make a difference by getting involved.  I’m curious as to whether the elite have a pocket constitution or realize that only half of the founding fathers had a formal education.  Ben Franklin and our first president, George Washington, were two of those men.  They wrote about regular citizens representing the government and the fear we should have if the government ever became too powerful.  Sarah Palin knows this and she believes in the founding principle of Federalism.  If people would only open their eyes and their ears.

Rob Harrison from The Spyglass writes the following:

Gov. Palin is now in a difficult, though probably inevitable, position.  She is opposed by a bi-partisan coalition of the machine politicians in Alaska, who oppose each other on policy but share a common higher loyalty to the old boys’ club and the perks and procedures to which they’re accustomed.  Gov. Palin has the support of a strong majority of the Alaskan people, but only a minority of the state’s politicians. This has meant that the State Legislature has been in full foot-dragging mode through the entire session – a fact which they now intend, via the Democratic Party PR department (aka the MSM, specifically the New York Times), to blame on her.

That the MSM will coordinate with the Democratic/Republican machine in Alaska on this is, I believe, a sign of their deepest agenda here—not just their general bias against conservatives, but a deeper bias yet:  as much as they bleat about “speaking truth to power,” they are not the outside critics of the machine that they pretend to be.  Rather, they are a part of the machine. They are inside the corridors of power, that’s where they want to be, and they really have no true understanding or interest of the world outside those corridors.

This is true, I believe, even of the conservatives within the MSM; which is why a lot of the elite conservative writers have been almost as unfair to Gov. Palin as their liberal colleagues. If a Democratic version of Gov. Palin were ever to emerge, a true reformer who bucked the party machine, I don’t think the likes of Eleanor Clift and Paul Krugman would be any kinder to that individual than the likes of David Brooks and David Frum have been to Gov. Palin.  The initial MSM reaction to the appointment of Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to Hillary Clinton’s vacant seat in the U.S. Senate certainly supports that thought.

Thomas Sowell also wrote an opinion entitled “Not One of Us,” in which he expresses the need to embrace Sarah Palin and explains why it is that those who are part of the Republican Elite have trouble doing just that.

Pragmatism tells you nothing about extremism. But the conservative intellectuals who seize upon President Obama’s pragmatism to give him the benefit of the doubt are obviously bending over backward for some reason.

With Governor Palin, it is just the opposite. The conservative intelligentsia who react against her have remarkably little to say that will stand up to scrutiny. People who actually dealt with her, before she became a national figure, have expressed how much they were impressed by her intelligence.

Governor Palin’s “inexperience” is a talking point that might have some plausibility if it were not for the fact that Barack Obama has far less experience in actually making policies than Sarah Palin has. Joe Biden has had decades of experience in being both consistently wrong and consistently a source of asinine statements.

Governor Palin’s candidacy for the vice presidency was what galvanized grass roots Republicans in a way that John McCain never did. But there was something about her that turned even some conservative intellectuals against her and provoked visceral anger and hatred from liberal intellectuals.

Perhaps the best way to try to understand these reactions is to recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said when she first saw Whittaker Chambers, who had accused Alger Hiss of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Upon seeing the slouching, overweight, and disheveled Chambers, she said, “He’s not one of us.”

The trim, erect, and impeccably dressed Alger Hiss, with his Ivy League and New Deal pedigree, clearly was “one of us.” As it turned out, he was also a liar and a spy for the Soviet Union. Not only did a jury decide that at the time, the opening of the secret files of the Soviet Union in its last days added more evidence of his guilt.

The Hiss-Chambers confrontation of more than half a century ago produced the same kind of visceral polarization that Governor Sarah Palin provokes today.

[...]

Why did it matter so much to so many people which of two previously little-known men was telling the truth? Because what was on trial was not one man but a whole vision of the world and a way of life.

Governor Sarah Palin is both a challenge and an affront to that vision and that way of life– an overdue challenge, much as Chambers’ challenge was overdue.

Whether Governor Palin runs for national office again is something that only time will tell. But the Republicans need a candidate who is neither one of the country club Republicans nor– worse yet– the sort of person who appeals to the intelligentsia.

The recent Rasmussen Polls only further drive home Sowell’s point when we see that the elite Politburo had an overwhelmingly unfavorable view of the recent Tea Party protests that took place across the nation.  Governor Sarah Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, actually attended one in Wasilla, AK, and Governor Palin, herself, applauded the efforts of the protesters and even mentioned them in her 45 minute Pro-Life Speech last Thursday in Evansville, IN.

These Tea Parties show the disparity between the elite and the working class of America, the engine of the economy and the majority of this nation’s citizens.  The Tea Parties are the embodiment of what most Americans desire of their government, which is representation, ethics, reform, principles, and their own interests served; not the ego of a politician or the pockets of the lobbyists.

But maybe it’s not best listening to someone from the states. Maybe it’s better to hear similar dislike and apathy toward the elite establishment from across the pond to further grasp that this concept and this problem is not exclusive only to us.

The New Snobs of Labour have gathered this week in Manchester for their party get-together. Snobbish? You bet. Our country is now governed by an elite that denies being elite. Our ruling class flaunts its state education, yet attended the best comprehensives in the land.

Of course, David Cameron’s cocooned background (Eton and Oxford) isn’t ideal preparation to lead the country, but David Miliband didn’t exactly grow up on a council estate either. Nor did I. However, like all those from the genuine middle I grew up around those who did. We went to school with them. We still see them. We couldn’t avoid seeing them even if we wanted to.

But for the new ruling class, which we might call the New Labour core vote, those from council estates are, knife crime aftermaths aside, invisible.

“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cant’ have both.” ~ Louis D. Brandeis

Share on Facebook

This year, 10 states will significantly increase their income and sales tax to make up for budget shortfalls. 

Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. California and New York lawmakers already have agreed on multibillion-dollar tax increases that went into effect earlier this year.

Interesting observation that all but one of these states turned blue this election and usually vote Democrat.  You would think that they would get the hint that democrats have difficulty budgeting and require massive tax hikes to make up for that fact. 

Maryland had a surplus under Governor Erhlich and had solid approval ratings.  But, Maryland, being liberal idiocracy, ousted Erhlich for the younger, more charismatic O’Malley, who of course was a liberal.  O’Malley within his first year, before the market even crashed, put the state into a deficit.  He began taxing everything under the sun to make up for this – even attempting to tax gym memberships, car repairs and computer repairs.  Some of his ridiculous taxes passed – Maryland is now the 4th highest taxed state and one of the least business friendly states in the union (ranks 5th worst).

Many states will find out if they will have to increase taxes, cut spending, cut taxes etc. to figure out a plan going forward after seeing what the April 15th returns look like.  States will have to gauge their plans going forward by what the result of tax day brings (besides tea parties).

While most states so far have managed to cope with dwindling cash by cutting spending and raising fees on things such as fishing licenses and car registrations, that is unlikely to be enough in the new fiscal years that generally begin July 1, many analysts said.

“Income taxes and sales taxes are the go-to taxes when you really need to raise a lot of money,” said Donald J. Boyd, who monitors states’ fiscal health for the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, N.Y.

Raising taxes is a perilous proposition for lawmakers, who must balance their states’ budgets every year. Not only do they face political heat for increasing financial burdens during the recession, but added taxes risk worsening their states’ economic problems by, for example, further hobbling consumer spending. (Duh)!

Some lawmakers say they have little choice. “With the size of our budget gap, we are looking at a situation of closing down our courts, releasing prisoners and cutting the school year by as much as a month,” said Rep. Peter Buckley, co-chairman of Oregon’s joint Ways and Means Committee.

Little choice… They could choose to cut taxes on local businesses and corporations as well as propose a flat tax or put a freeze on certain spending.  I guess because that doesn’t go along with the liberal train of thought (that idea of compromise during certain periods or climates) it will never happen in these blue states.

Legislators know the increases will be unpopular with residents. “There will be blame, we accept that,” Sen. Eileen M. Daily of Connecticut said earlier this month when she and fellow Democrats announced a budget that raises income-tax rates and expands the sales tax to raise more than $3 billion over the next two years. Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has said she would veto the plan.

Connecticut, amazingly enough, elected a Republican Governor, they are lucky that they have one who is willing to veto increased taxation from the majority Democratic Legislature. 

But some governors are proposing tax increases. Delaware Gov. Jack Markell wants to raise the marginal income-tax rate by one percentage point, to 6.95%, on those earning more than $60,000 a year, effective in 2010. His budget plan also includes increases in corporate taxes as well as spending cuts to close a projected $750 million shortfall in a $3 billion budget, said spokesman Joe Rogalsky.

Many states remain determined to balance their budgets by relying solely on spending cuts. That is the case in Indiana, where raising revenue “is really not on the table,” said Pat Bauer, the speaker of the state House.

Good for Indiana!   

BTW – I thought the stimulus was supposed to take care of a lot of this pain and agony with state budget shortfalls?

Share on Facebook

President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel once compared “forced pregnancy” with slavery. Now Republicans are considering a filibuster to block her confirmation.

The controversy stems from comments made 20 years ago by Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, whose nomination is pending before the full Senate.

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”

At least 45 House Republicans have co-signed a letter to Obama asking him to withdraw Johnsen’s nomination because of her “brazen” abortion rights stance.

NARAL said this week it is mobilizing its nationwide network of activists and supporters to pressure the Senate to confirm Johnsen and two other Obama nominees — Judge David Hamilton and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius — and stop what it deems attacks on nominees who support abortion rights. Filibusters won’t be tolerated, the group said.

“The use of the ‘F’ word when referring to any of these nominees is unacceptable — and this threat will not go unanswered,” NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a press release

But during the Bush Administration, how many appointees were filibusterd? How hypocritical can they be?
This party is so out of wack, it is just scarry.

Click here for entire article.

Share on Facebook

I know this headline seems pretty obvious, but it’s newsworthy to me since a representative on our side of the aisle is actually speaking out and stating the obvious.  This doesn’t happen with a lot of representatives and senators. 

Mike Rogers, dropped in on several of his constituents at Auburn University and discussed how the major Democrats in congress were using this opportunity of holding the majority to bully others and be anything but bipartisan, but he also brought things back to reality by saying that both sides do this. 

I think the best part of his commentary was what he actually had to say about Nancy Pelosi…

Despite President Barack Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship, Rogers says Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi (whom he described as “crazy,” “mean as a snake” and “Tom DeLay in a skirt”) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t get that memo.

“They don’t talk to us,” he said. “They’ve got the vote, and they can do what they want.”

Rogers said to be fair Democrats are paying Republicans back for how they were treated when the Republicans controlled Congress.

“Republican leaders didn’t talk to the Democrats,” he said. “The attitude was ‘We have the votes on our side, let the Democrats whine.’”

Rogers said that’s a culture that needs to change if Congress wants to get more done in between election cycles.

“At some point we’ve got to recognize that the power goes back and forth,” he said. “One side only has it for a finite time and we’ve got to work together while the minority is still sensitive because that’s going to be us one day.”

Share on Facebook

For this stage in the game, still less than 3 months into his Presidency – the approval rating gap between Democrats and Republicans is the highest in modern history. 

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama’s job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president — 88% job approval among Democrats — and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush’s job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36% approved of Bush’s job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27% job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today.

The partisan gap in Bill Clinton’s early days was also substantially smaller than what Obama faces, largely because Democrats were less enthusiastic about Clinton. In early April 1993, 71% of Democrats approved of Clinton’s job performance, which is 17 points lower than Obama’s current job approval among Democrats. Republican ratings of Clinton at that point (26%) are comparable to their current ratings of Obama today (27%).

What does this say to me?  It says that George Herbert Walker Bush was not disliked, and there was not this huge uprising in the Democratic ranks in the early 90’s.  I think Democrats have become so rabid and hate-filled in regards to the last president that many of them have now moved into the liberal/progressive realm and hate any and all Republicans.  There was some commentary earlier today on redstate proving this insanity and how many liberals are calling for the extinction literally and figuratively of conservatives, first and foremost, and then Republicans.  I foresee a big crash and burn effect when Obama becomes a major disappointment, which he already is becoming both in more overseas commentary and here in the states for moderates and independents (the reason he won).  Many liberals are still flying high on the “haterade” of the Bush years and will soon wake up with a horrible hangover.  It’s still early… let’s see what happens in the next few months!

Pew Research Study here… (Pew is usually liberally biased as well)

Share on Facebook

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) gave a speech on the House floor asking his colleagues to vote for the alternative budget and explaining the differences and the long-term debt and tax burden that will be left for future generations to carry on their backs.

Here is how the vote fared in the House for the alternatives proposed:

Republican Substitute:

FAILED

REP. PAUL D. RYAN, R-Wis., will offer a substitute on behalf of the Republican Conference that calls for $3.28 trillion in outlays in FY 2010, and $2.29 trillion in revenue, for a deficit of $993 billion. It projects a deficit of $529 billion by FY 2014, and $593 billion by FY 2019. The substitute calls for $539 billion in non-defense discretionary funds. Its total for defense spending in FY 2010 is $690 billion (including funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), $5 billion more than requested by the president and contained in the resolution.

Taxes

The Republican substitute assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will be extended beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of 2010 — including the estate-tax provisions, the child-tax credit, the “marriage penalty” provisions, and the current marginal income tax rates.

The substitute also assumes that the alternative minimum tax (AMT) will be “patched” indefinitely, and therefore would not affect additional taxpayers. It also assumes a change in the tax code in which only two tax rates would be applicable to different incomes — a 10% tax on adjusted gross income up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers, and a 25% tax on income above these amounts. These tax brackets would be adjusted annually by a cost-of-living adjustment as measured by the consumer price index. It also assumes the reduction of the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%.

Reconciliation

The Republican substitute directs 10 House committees to report “reconciliation” legislation by July 29 that would reduce mandatory spending by a total of $1.38 trillion over 10 years. It instructs the Energy and Commerce Committee to reduce direct spending by $666.1 billion, requires the Ways and Means Committee to reduce mandatory spending by $605 billion, and requires the Agriculture Committee to reduce direct spending by $38.5 billion. In addition, the measure requires a $22.7 billion reduction by the Education and Labor Committee, a $28.4 billion reduction by the Financial Services Committee, a $1.8 billion reduction by the Foreign Affairs Committee, a $4.3 billion reduction by the Judiciary Committee, a $2 billion reduction by the Natural Resources Committee, and a $1.7 billion reduction by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The substitute makes no assumptions about how such savings would occur.

Earmark Moratorium

The substitute places a moratorium on earmarks, barring House consideration of any bill, joint resolution, or conference report that includes a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited trade benefit, as defined in House rules. The moratorium would be in place until a commission reports proposed changes. Savings from this plan would be used to reduce taxes.

Discretionary Spending

The Republican substitute freezes non-defense discretionary spending in FY 2010 through FY 2014 (excluding funds for veterans’ programs), but would provide for increases in FY 2015 through FY 2019. Like the resolution reported by the Budget Committee, the substitute provides the level of funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq requested by the administration, assuming $130 billion for such operations in FY 2010, and $50 billion each year thereafter. According to a release by Budget Committee Republicans, the measure also assumes the repeal of provisions in the economic stimulus package, excluding unemployment insurance.

Other Provisions

According to a release by the Budget Committee Republicans, the substitute applies the House pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rule only to mandatory spending measures, and prohibits the use of tax increases to offset the cost of mandatory spending increases.

The Republican substitute requires the House to take a separate vote on legislation to increase the public debt limit. (Under the so-called Gephardt rule, a joint resolution to increase the public debt limit is automatically passed by the House upon House and Senate adoption of a conference report on a budget resolution, but the substitute instead requires a vote on a separate measure in order to increase the debt limit.)

The substitute requires roll call votes for any measure that authorizes or provides budget authority of at least $50 million, and it bars the Speaker from entertaining an unanimous consent request or motion to suspend the requirement. It creates a point of order against House consideration of a conference report or unreported measure unless a cost estimate has been printed in the Congressional Record at least one day prior to its consideration.

The Republican substitute also establishes a point of order against consideration of conference reports or bills that have not been reported by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, unless those measure are accompanied by a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate.

Republican Study Committee (RSC) Substitute:

FAILED 111-322

REPS. JIM JORDAN, R-Ohio, TOM PRICE, R-Ga., and MIKE PENCE, R-Ind., will offer a substitute on behalf of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) that sets spending levels, revenue levels, and deficit levels at lower amounts than what is projected by the Congressional Budget Office baseline or what is proposed in the president’s budget request. The substitute provides for total spending (outlays) of $2.6 trillion in FY 2010, $692 billion for defense, and imposes a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.

The substitute assumes a reduction of $31 billion in federal revenues for FY 2010 and an on-budget $952 billion deficit for FY 2010, compared with a $1.3 trillion on-budget deficit in the resolution.

Reconciliation

The substitute directs six House committees to report “reconciliation” legislation by July 13 that would reduce spending or deficits over five years. It requires a $10.2 billion spending reduction by the Agriculture Committee, an $8.3 billion reduction by the Education and Labor Committee, a $241.9 billion reduction by the Energy and Commerce Committee, a $1.7 billion reduction by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a $4.9 billion reduction by the Natural Resources Committee, and a $214.8 billion deficit reduction by the Ways and Means Committee.

The substitute includes a special rule that would allow the Budget Committee to take into account deficit-reducing legislation enacted after the adoption of the substitute, and make applicable adjustments to reconciliation instructions. It also directs the Ways and Means Committee to report a reconciliation bill no later than June 8 that would reduce revenues by $1.2 trillion for FY 2009 to FY 2014.

Mandatory Spending and Advance Appropriations

The substitute calls on all House committees to identify savings, no later than June 15, amounting to 1% of total mandatory spending under their jurisdictions from activities that are determined to be wasteful, unnecessary, or lower-priority. It limits advance appropriations for FY 2011 and FY 2012 to $23.6 billion, compared with $28.9 billion in the resolution.

The substitute directs the Joint Committee on Taxation, when calculating federal revenues, to take into account the impact of proposed revenue changes on gross domestic product, total domestic employment, gross private domestic investment, the general price index, interest rates, and other economic variables, as well as the impact the economic variables have on federal revenue.

Direct Spending and Earmark Restrictions

The substitute assumes that the House would not take up any direct spending legislation that would increase the deficit or reduce the surplus for either the first five fiscal years covered by the substitute, or the following five years. The requirement would not apply to legislation preserving Social Security or to legislation that would cause a net increase in aggregate direct spending of less than $100 million, and it could be waived under a three-fifths vote in the House.

The substitute calls for the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform to conduct a full study of practices regarding earmarks in authorization, appropriation, tax, and tariff measures, as well as the efficacy of earmark restrictions or transparency requirements. It requires a moratorium on earmarks until the committee submits its report.

And here is what passed:

H.Con.Res. 85—FY 2010 Budget Resolution (Democrat Budget):

PASSED 233-196

The budget resolution would allow reconciliation (as long as a deficit target of $1 billion is met) for legislation under the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee. The Majority will say that this is intended for health care reform and education reform. However, any legislation that meets this deficit target that falls under one of these committees (such as “cap and tax”) would be eligible for reconciliation protection.

Unprecedented Borrowing:

The budget resolution would increase the national debt to $17.1 trillion in five years, an increase of $5.3 trillion or 49% since January 20, 2009. But this increase is actually understated in two respects. First, the Democrat budget resolution hides what its policies would lead to over the full ten-year budget window. Second, the Democrat budget resolution does not “budget” for several items that are likely to either reduce revenue or increase spending (such as the “AMT patch”). The budget resolution proposes what would be the six largest deficits in U.S. history.

Historic Spending Levels:

The Democrat budget resolution proposes federal spending equal to 27.6% of GDP in 2009 and 24.8% of GDP in 2010. These are the highest spending levels in U.S. history, except for World War II.

Higher Taxes:

The Democrat budget resolution increases taxes by $574 billion over five years.

The 233-196 vote came with 20 Democrats voting against the plan, with the Senate expected to follow suit on a similar blueprint later Thursday night. As expected, no Republicans voted for the budget, which GOP leaders lambasted as the most fiscally irresponsible in history because it projects a faster increase in debt than any other budget.

For all alternatives visit here…

Share on Facebook

As I had mentioned in my TelePrompTer commentary of Obama’s press conference – John Boehner (R-OH) has outlined an alternative budget that republicans are getting behind.  The budget calls for NO MORE  BAILOUTS and significant Tax Cuts.  Unfortunately, the budget still has a good amount of spending – but it sure beats “the road to hell” budget that Obama is trying to roll-out.

Obama can stop pointing his finger and using that tired argument that Republicans only criticize, but don’t have alternatives.  The more we prove this guy wrong – the more his credibility wanes.

Lower taxes: “First, our budget alternative will help create and protect jobs by letting families and small businesses keep more of what they earn,” Boehner said.
 
Fiscal restraint: “Second, our budget will make sure the federal budget doesn’t grow faster than family budgets. Americans are making tough spending decisions every day.  It’s time for Washington to do the same.”
 
 Health care: “Third, our budget will aim to expand access to affordable health care for every American, while preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations.” (Republicans are pushing for medical liability reform to reduce the number of “frivolous” lawsuits.)
 
No more bailouts: “Fourth, our budget will end the bailouts to protect taxpayers and reform the financial system so this crisis never repeats itself.  Instead of raising energy costs through a ‘cap and trade’ energy tax that will cost every family up to $3,100 a year, our budget will encourage an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy that harnesses new technologies, encourages greater conservation and efficiency, and increases American energy production in an environmentally-safe manner.”
 
Inflation control: “And last but not least, our budget will fight inflation so the prices of goods and services Americans depend on every day remain stable during and after this economic crisis.”
 
Boehner and other Republicans say President Obama’s budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much from future generations.
 
The House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday passed a Democrat budget blueprint. Republicans offered dozens of amendments during committee debate, but “Democrats chose to reject every substantive GOP proposal,” Boehner said.

This budget has a snowball’s chance in… passing the House, but, it will at least be on record and show the public what some of the Republicans would have done in comparison to what Obama and the democrats will do.

Share on Facebook