Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts

Monday, August 1, 2011

Debt Ceiling Deal

While there is definitely much to be wanted in the debt ceiling deal, it was a major step in the right direction. For the first time ever, we had a fight over raising the debt ceiling. This never happened under President Bush even though we raised it quite a few times. While the actual cuts were only a miniscule dent, at least we fought back. Honestly, as much as the deal could have been better, it may be the best we could get while only controlling one third of the legislative process. Hopefully every time there is a debt ceiling or budget vote, we fight hard on the spending issue, and when we take back the U.S. Senate we will force very deep cuts. This is not to say the Republican leadership was amazing, but at least we finally fought. Fighting and forcing conditions for a debt ceiling increase is an improvement and a small victory.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Remembering 9/11: Those who Died, and the Evil Ideology that Killed Them

September 11th, 2001, will forever be a day etched on the national psyche. Everyone alive then remembers the horror, shock, and fear that marked that day as well as the courage, resolve, and unity that was forged through that tragedy. It is a day where evil stared us in the face, and the courage of regular Americans showed the world once again who Americans are. This is not just a Patriot's Day. This is a day where Americans across this nation must think about the evil that murdered thousands of innocent Americans. We must also honor the courage and sacrifice of those who died that day and those who continue to die as we defeat those who attacked us. The rest of this post is a series of videos that portray the tragic events of that day, and some of the great moments that followed as Americans came together as a nation.



Tribute Video 1: A City So Cold

President Bush's Finest Moment

President Push's Bullhorn Speech



(Here he accurately identifies the enemy, and lays out the American response.) (full text)



Baseball Helps Heal a Nation






Let us come together again as Americans again to overcome the great challenges this nation faces as we preserve the greatest beacon of liberty and freedom in the world.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Miss Me Yet?


Open Letter to President George W. Bush ... add your signature.

Dear President Bush:

On behalf of millions of Americans—many of whom are former critics—we are writing to say that we miss you. Although time is often kind to former presidents, something different is at work here.

While it usually takes 10 or more years for a good president to be appreciated for his contributions, in less than 18 months Americans of all political persuasions have begun to miss your strong leadership, no-nonsense foreign policy, and pride-filled vision of American exceptionalism. In the short time that you have been out of office, our country has sunk to an unprecedented low point, a state that exceeds even the "malaise" of the Jimmy Carter years.

Mr. President, thank you for recognizing the terrorist attacks on America for what they are—a declaration of war—and for treating them as such. Thank you for having the foresight to recognize the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq for what they are and for having the courage to do what had to be done in those troubled countries.

Thank you for understanding the need for indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and for supporting military tribunals rather than civilian trials.

Thank you for two tax cuts during your presidency and for the fifty-three months of job creation and economic growth that resulted. Thank you for showing that you love America and were willing to do what was necessary to protect us from those who don't. Finally, thank you for making us proud to be Americans.

Mr. President, we miss you. When we see President Obama apologize for America, we miss your unapologetic patriotism. When we hear President Obama respond to problems and threats with empty words, we miss your steadfastness and willingness to act. When we see President Obama grovel and bow before foreign heads of state, we miss seeing you stand tall as the undisputed leader of the free world.

When we saw President Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize, we were reminded that the words in his acceptance speech parroted what he has criticized you for saying. As we watch an increasingly dangerous Iran brutalize its own people and thumb its nuclear-tipped nose at the world, we remember that peace comes through strength not talking, bowing, or apologizing—something you understood and acted on. When we saw that President Obama was viewed favorably by weak-willed, socialist leaders in Europe, we were reminded that in the world's largest democracy—India—you still have an unprecedented 71% approval rating.

The two greatest assets an American president can have are not a majority in Congress or a high likability quotient. Rather, they are the trust of the American people and the respect of our enemies and allies. Unlike President Obama, you understood this. You had the trust of the American people and the respect of our enemies and allies. President Obama has failed to win either. As a candidate, Ronald Reagan asked Americans "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The answer then was no. Americans are now asking a similar question: "Were we better off under President Bush?"

Increasingly the answer to this question is yes. Mr. President, we miss you.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned American Citizens

Friday, September 18, 2009

Eric Cantor: We failed, but they are worse than us.

Eric Cantor earned a standing ovation simply by walking on stage. He gave a strong commitment to family values. "Traditional values are the basis of America." He also said that we must protect life from fertilization to natural death. There was also a reminder that fiscal policy and family policy are two sides of the same coin. "Economy is household management."

However, his comment that, "We failed and they threw us out of office. Now they are making us look like Scrooges," was very revealing. Eric Cantor as Minority Whip lead the fight to adopt President Bush's bailout which paved the way for Obama's fiscal insanity. I hope that if we retake the congress Cantor will have the same commitment to free market capitalism that others like Mike Pence has consistently held. It is not good enough to do the right thing when doing that doesn't matter. We need people who will do the right thing when we have a chance of accomplishing things. If we had made a principled stand against TARP when we could have stopped the bailouts, we might have beaten the Obama bailouts.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Remembering 9/11

I still remember where I was that day. It is a day none of us will ever forget, none of us should ever forget, and a day that made it apparent to all just how serious the threat was that we faced. It is not only fitting that we remember the events of that tragic day, and the sacrifice of the many heroes, it is also necessary. As we take the time each September 11th to rewatch some of the events of that day, it should strngthen our resolve to do everything to protect this nation, and we shoudl thank those who have fought to protect us. The terrorists just have to find one flaw in our defenses to exploit. We must always be vigilant as a nation so that we do not give them that one chance to attack us again.

In honor of that day I would here is a very fitting tribute a friend of mine made two years ago.



One of the great things that arose out of that very dark time was the pride we all felt to be an American. We saw the attacks and together we were going to fight as a nation to make sure something like that could never happen again. The following are a couple of those greatest moments.



President Bush's "Bullhorn Speech"



The first pitch at Yankee Stadium for the 2001 World Series.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Political Connections, and What they Mean

It seems this year more attention is being paid by the Democrat Candidates in Virginia to their opponents connections, than stances on the issues. Steve Shannon has attacked Ken Cuccinelli for his connections to the Tea Party movement, as well as his connection to Phil Hamilton. Creigh Deeds used his first TV Add to bring up the spectre of George Bush as he tries to gain ground against Bob McDonnell. In the spirit of ducking the issues both candidates refuse to debate their opponents, and Steve Shannon called Ken Cuccinelli's call for a special session (which ended up being successful) a "political stunt". While political connections are interesting they are most useful when they enlighten us on where the candidates stand on the issues.

Recently some pictures were taken that of a Deeds connection that illustrates his position on a critical issue.


(A "Deeds for Governor" sign at an abortion clinic in Richmond)

(Another picture of the sign)

Why does this matter? This medical facility, A Capital Women's Health Clinic, is exclusively an abortion provider. Unlike Planned Parenthood, they don't try to cover themselves by offering other health services. Among the "services" this abortion clinic provides are abortions for babies 14 weeks old or younger, as well as abortions by pill.

In the description of the "Abortion Up to 14 Weeks" the clinic's website says, "This five minute outpatient procedure involves the insertion of a small suction tube into the cervix to remove the contents of the uterus." Are infants no longer even fetuses, but simply contents to be suctioned like the junk in your mouth during a dental visit?

In the description of the "Abortion by Pill" the clinics website says, "This procedure is 92 to 95% effective and the patient must be willing to undergo the surgical abortion process if the pill fails." You mean if your child survives one attempt to kill it you need to commit to trying a second time. What persistence...

It is no surprise that Creigh Deeds is suppported by such a radical abortion group. While he tries to portray himself as a moderate, he has a record that is anything but moderate. He has a record of standing against the right for life at every opportunity, and even recently sided with the founders of the pro-choice movement in saying that abortions are for the "poor and desperate". It is no surprise a man who seems to think abortions should be used to reduce the number of poor people is supported by people who run an abortion clinic.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Barack Obama is the Same as George Bush on Wiretapping

But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

Looks like AT&T can relax. Back in 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a class action lawsuit, Hepting v. AT&T, against the communications giant. The suit accused AT&T of,

violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.

That case was dismissed in June of 2009 after a federal judge ruled that AT&T and other telecommunications companies were free of liability under the FISA Amendments Act, signed by George W. Bush in September of 2008.

In response, the EFF filed Jewel v. NSA stating that,

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the NSA and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Although not the subject of this suit, you could understand if AT&T felt a bit nervous about the outcome: the Bush era wiretapping program is still in effect, a succesful lawsuit will put their past and current activities under scrutiny, and they had no reason to expect the new adminstration would have their back. (As a candidate, President Obama promised "no more wiretapping of American citizens.")

Not to worry, though. In a San Franciso courtroom last Wednesday, the Obama administration moved to dismiss the lawsuit using essentially the same arguments marshalled by the Bush administration. They even kicked the defense up a notch with a claim of "sovereign immunity." Judge Vaughn Walker will rule on the case in coming months. But for now, telcos can rest easy knowing that - at least when it comes to surveillance - the new boss is the same as the old boss.

(Crossposted from Business Security Blog.)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Two Different Views of the Judiciary

Yesterday we had two major announcements concerning the courts. One was the California Supreme Court 6-1 ruling on Proposition 8, and the other was the announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as Obama's nominee for the supreme court. These two events display two completely different views on how the judiciary should act.

The California Supreme Court ruling upheld Proposition 8 and allowed the marriages performed before Proposition 8 was adopted to stand. In the decision, the court acknowledged that it's job is to interpret the laws, not inject their own political and personal opinions into the decisions. On page 3 of the majority opinion the court lays out this principle.
In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases... our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

In contrast President Obama's supreme court nominee seems to believe that the courts are a policy making body and that you can and should use your own personal experiences to make this policy.



"The court of appeals is where policy is made."

In a quote that is becoming more popular Sonia Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Here we have a judge who believes judges should make policy based on their personal experiences. (This New York Times article has a number of other interesting quotes from Judge Sotomayor.)

This is distinctly different from the view offered by the California Supreme Court that the courts should just interpret the law and can not inject their personal opinions.

When John Roberts was nominated he compared being a judge to an umpire accurately calling balls and strikes. Do we want an umpire who will call balls and strikes, or one who will make up new laws on the spot. That is the choice we have in this supreme court nomination battle, and it is the distinct difference between the judicial philosophies of the Bush and Obama whitehouses.

For an excellent article comparing the Sotomayor nomination to the Miguel Estrada hearings by Mason Conservative, click here.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Pat Toomey vs. Arlen Specter

In 2004 Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. With the help of Rick Santorum and President Bush, Arlen Specter won by just 2 points. Since being reelected in 2004 Arlen Specter has become very unpopular with Republicans for his stances. He did a poor job as judiciary chairman, allowing nominees to go without a committee vote for extended periods of time. However most recently he helped Obama pass his 787 Billion stimulus bill.

This and other actions have lead to a very negative opinion of Arlen Specter by Pennsylvania voters. In a Rasmussen poll released yesterday Pat Toomey lead Specter 51% to 31%. Specter's negatives 55% while Toomey's were only19%. These are pretty one sided polling results. If Toomey decides to run it sure looks like Obama will lose an ally, and one more RINO will no longer be in the U.S. Senate.

When it comes to liberal Republicans, a liberal Republican from a blue distrct is fine, but a liberal Republican who undermines his caucus like Specter has deserves to be primaried. I hope Pat Toomey is successful in 2010 and becomes part of an amazing Republican Senate class of 2010.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Jonathan Krohn: Young Conservative Speaks at CPAC

Jonathan Krohn is a 13 year old homeschooler who is making a name for himself in conservative circles. He just recently published a book entitled Defining Conservativism. He wrote the book because he believes that their is a lot of confusion over what the term "conservative" means.

His short definition is
What is a Conservative? Since this is what we are going to discuss in-depth
in the book, I will give you the basic definition of a Conservative. A
Conservative is someone who believes in
1. Life
2. Personal Responsibility
3. Less Government .
4. The Founding Principles
These are the basic principles of Conservatism, but they each require an
individual in-depth analysis.

Jonathan also spoke at CPAC briefly. He didn't take on Obama, or even former President Bush. He didn't take on the fiscal conservatives or the social conservative, but simply gave a very clear explanation of what it means to be a conservative. A number of people have joked about this person as a future RNC Chair, U.S. President, or other elected official. While no one knows what political office this young man will hold, if you watch the video it is very clear that he has a bright future ahead of him.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

What was Wrong is Now Right

In 2005 as we approached President Bush's inauguration Democrats criticized President Bush for spending about $42 million on his inauguration and the surrounding festivities.  Those criticizing the president believed that during a time of war, and economic difficulty the president needed to tone down the occasion.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate.

These two representative were just the tip of the iceberg.  Here is an extensive list of liberals who criticized the "extravagance" of President Bush's inauguration.  The BBC even took the time to criticize President Bush on this point as well.  

Now as we look forward to the inauguration of the first black president, Barack Obama, it is expected to cost over $150 million.  This is four times what President Bush's 2005 inauguration cost.  If there ever was a time for the American people to be more frugal, it is now.  Unemployment is on the rise, financial institutions are failing, the stock market is in a bad shape, and the congress is working on its second massive bailout package.  In addition to this $150 million the federal government was forced to declare the event a federal emergency because of the number of people coming to D.C.  This opens up even more federal money to help cover the security costs of the event.

In response to criticism that the inauguration may be too costly, the inaugural committee spokeswoman said, "That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it.  It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values."  Is it really possible that if the country opposed a $42 million inauguration four years ago, it loves the idea of a $150 million inauguration in the present economic condition?

Maybe part of the change we can believe in this 21st century presidency is that what was wrong is now right.  If that is true though, how can you believe in something if it might be wrong a couple years down the road? 

Monday, January 19, 2009

Bush Commutes the Sentences of Ramos and Campean

Amid the discussion of the Bush legacy, one thing that will regularly come up is his position on illegal immigration.  While many have disagreed with the president's support for amnesty, it is encouragin that on his last day in office he chose to commute the sentences of Ramos and Campean.  Sadly these men who were defending America were not pardoned.  Atleast their sentences were commuted, and for that I thank the president.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Farewell President Bush


For better or for worse, the Bush presidency is coming to an end.  While there are many things to criticize about the Bush Presidency, like the sellout of capitalism, one of his strengths has been the moral clarity.  Having a man with this kind of moral clarity is especially important when we see the relativistic thinking of our nation.  President Bush's moral clarity came through in one of the highlights of his farewell speech the other night.   

At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.

As we address these challenges - and others we cannot foresee tonight - America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.

Monday, December 22, 2008

George Will on the Auto Bailout

This article was just too good to not pass on.

Legality of Bush's Bailout of Automakers Questionable

GEORGE F. WILL

Dec. 20, 2008, 9:34AM

A new Capitol Visitor Center recently opened, just in time for the transformation of the Capitol building into a tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters. The center is supposed to enhance the experience of visitors to Congress, although why there are visitors is a mystery.

Congress' marginalization was brutally underscored when, after Congress did not authorize $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler, the executive branch said, in effect: Congress' opinions are mildly interesting, so we will listen very nicely — then go out and do precisely what we want.

Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize. More money — up to $17.4 billion — than had been debated, thereby calling to mind Winston Churchill on naval appropriations: "The Admiralty had demanded six ships: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight."

The president is dispensing money from the $700 billion Congress provided for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The unfounded assertion of a right to do this is notably brazen, given the indisputable fact that if Congress had known that TARP — supposedly a measure for scouring "toxic" assets from financial institutions — was to become an instrument for unconstrained industrial policy, it would not have been passed.

If TARP funds can be put to any use the executive branch fancies because TARP actually is a blank check for that branch, then the only reason no rules are being broken is that there are no rules. This lawlessness tarted up as law explains the charade of Vice President Dick Cheney warning Republican senators that if they did not authorize the $14 billion, the GOP would again be regarded as the party of Hoover. Surely Cheney, a disparager of Congress and advocate of extravagant executive prerogatives, knew that the president considered the Senate's consent irrelevant.

Evidence that casualness about legality is inherent in big government is found in H.W. Brands' new biography A Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR became president on Saturday, March 4, 1933. Banks were closed that day and the next, temporarily preventing panicked depositors from withdrawing their money. At 1 a.m. Monday, FDR ordered all banks closed for four days, hoping that the fever would break. His act may have been prudent. But was it legal? Brands writes:

"He cited a section of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act as justification. The act had never been formally repealed, but a body of legal theory held that the law, along with other wartime legislation, had expired upon the signing of the peace treaty with Germany in 1921."

The expansion of government entails an increasingly swollen executive branch and the steady enlargement of executive discretion. This inevitably means the eclipse of Congress and attenuation of the rule of law.

For decades, imperatives of wars hot and cold, and the sprawl of the regulatory state, have enlarged the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. For eight years, the Bush administration's "presidentialists" have aggressively wielded the concept of the "unitary executive" — the theory that where the Constitution vests power in the executive, especially power over foreign affairs and war, the president is immune to legislative abridgements of his autonomy.

The administration has not, however, confined its aggrandizement of executive power to national security matters. According to former Rep. Mickey Edwards in his book Reclaiming Conservatism, the president has issued "signing statements" designating 1,100 provisions of new laws — more designations than have been made by all prior presidents combined — that he did not consider binding on him or any other executive branch official.

Still, most of the administration's executive truculence has pertained to national security, where the case for broad prerogatives, although not as powerful as the administration supposes, is at least arguable. With the automakers, however, executive branch overreaching now extends to the essence of domestic policy — spending — and traduces a core constitutional principle, the separation of powers.

Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. (georgewill@washpost.com)

Monday, December 15, 2008

UAW Bailout

While I am taking a blogging sabatical, I received this issue of the Cuccinelli Comapss and I figured I had to pass it on.


December 15, 2008

Dear Fellow Republican:

You're all aware of this week's bailout news. But things still hang in the balance on the UAW/GM/Chrysler bailout, and I wanted to ask all of you to act now to slow down our slide to government ownership of another sector of our economy.

I guess some people think that if you're going to abandon principles, you might as well do it BIG!

I hope all of you believe, as I do, in free market capitalism, and I hope you further agree with me that all of the bailouts and talk of new bailouts are a complete abandonment of that concept. We have an update and a way for you to act in this issue of The Compass.

Bailout Status

This past week, the House of Representatives voted for a NEW $15 billion bailout of the UAW, GM and Chrysler (a German, not American, company as I recall). I am happy to say that no Virginia Republicans voted for this bailout.

Be aware that if this bailout ever gets through, it will have enormous strings attached. Namely, all of the regulatory burdens that the Dems couldn't get through as legislation, they'll get instead as conditions of these loans/chairitable gifts. As someone that believes that such burdens on business reduce competitiveness and freedom, that will only make this proposal 50 times worse.

The short-term good news is that the bailout, part deux, failed in the Senate. They couldn't get to 60 votes on the cloture vote (the vote to break a filibuster). The embarassment for Virginia is that both of our Senators, Warner and Webb, voted FOR the second bailout. Sad.

What's Next

It would be nice if this chapter were over, but it's not.

Here's a quote from http://www.opinionjournal.com/ on the Senate's rejection of the bailout, part deux, without concessions from the UAW. It rings particularly true for a father of small children:
"You have to hand it to Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto
Workers union, and his colleagues. Negotiating for a living is, you know, what
they do. And they're good, very good. They know when somebody's about to
blink.

So it was last Thursday night that Mr. Gettelfinger rejected the deal
offered by Senate Republicans for interim bailout money to keep General Motors
and Chrysler alive for a few more months. The UAW chief was betting that the
Bush administration would blink, and that the union would get a better deal from
the politicians than it would get from the marketplace or from a bankruptcy
judge. It's a ploy we all learned in childhood. When dad won't give you what you
want, turn to mom."
As depressingly astonishing as it may be, President Bush is considering using money from the first bailout bill as a slush fund to lend or give money to GM and Chrysler - without any concessions from the unions. You remember, that was the bill to bailout the financial sector?!?

So, President George ("Herbert Hoover"?) Bush is seriously considering breaking the bounds (what bounds?) of the first bailout bill to just go spend the money on whatever the heck he wants to spend it on... even when that has already been defeated in the Senate!

Incredible.

What Can You Do To Stop This Insanity?

Given that the President has not yet decided whether to bail out the UAW and automakers, there is still time to let them know what you think. Please send them an email to comments@whitehouse.gov AND call their comments line at 202-456-1111.

Let's try not to fall farther down this horrible path to unrecoverable debt and an abandonment of capitalism. Please send them an email and call today!

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Cuccinelli

Ken's Signature

Virginia 37th District

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

No Hypocrisy Doesn't Exist

Remember the beginning of 2006 during the Jack Abramoff Scandal? Pictures of President Bush and Jack Abramoff surfaced, and President Bush and the Whitehouse were under fire for the "close" connections they had with Jack Abramoff. These pictures were "proof" that President Bush was corrupt.



Well today as Matt Drudge has been reporting on the arrest of Governor Blagojevich, he has put this picture at the top of his website.



It is a picture of Barack Obama and Governor Blagojevich smiling, shaking hands, and talking. I wonder if Obama will come under as much criticism as a result of this picture with Governor Blagojevich as Preisdent Bush came under as a result of the picture that surfaced of him and Jack Abramoff.

Change You Can Believe In

For a candidate who ran on "change" Obama sure has done an impressive job carrying out his campaign promises.


Early on his presidential campaign Barack Obama promised to take federal financing of his campaign. As an early sign of how well he would keep his campaign promises, he went back on that promise.

One of the reasons Obama was able to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary was the whole issue of the war. He was able to paint Clinton as a hawk, and advertise himself as someone who had opposed the war from the very beginning. Obama believed in this so much that he nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. These two picks that have made some liberals unhappy as theleft perceives these two people to be military hawks.

No the questions is how involved was Obama in the scandal that lead to Governor Blagojevich's arrest this morning? For someone who ran as someone who would remove cronyism, partisanism, and corruption from politics, any involvement in this scandal will undermine his message. As the investigation unfolds it more people will inevitably be implicated and it wil be interesting how close this investigation gets to the new president.

Apparently Tony Rezko, a close friend of Obama's, is under investigation as part of this scandal.

The Next Right reports that Obama and Governor Blagojevich both seem to have improper links to the Children Memorial Hospital in Chicago.

Obama also seems to be following in the path of outgoing President Bush. He and his campaign adviser David Axelrod have now said opposite things on the communication between Obama and Governor Blagojevich on who will take Obama's senate seat.

Obama said today after the story broke, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

However on November 23rd David Axelrod said, "I know he's (Obama) talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

This apparent deception by Obama concerning his involvement in the selection of his replacement only makes people even more suspicious.

ABC News Senior Whitehoue Coresponent, Jake Tapper, details suspicious activity by the Obama Whitehouse, and Obama's closeness to Governor Blagojevich which might lead to potential damaging things for Obama down the road.

For a man who criticized the corruption of the Republicans and the Bush Administration, this kind of closeness to Governor Blagojevich's scandal does not seem to be like much of a change.

_______________________________________________

So where is this "Change You can Believe in?"

I see it in Bob McDonnelle in 2009. "Promises Made Promises Kept"

I also see it in 2010 when we elect more principled conservatives to the house and senate.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

My Thoughts on the Resignation of Alberto Gonzalez

It is sad the Democrats are able to pick off the president's cabinet members at will, however...

Gonzales was incompetent and needed to go. The issue of firing the attorney's was such a non issue, and should have staid a non issue. When Gonzales was questioned he gave such vague and contradictory answers that he made sure the isue kept going. The Attorney General needs to be able to articulately defend his and the president's decisions on the Sunday tv show circuit, and in Senate committee hearings. Gonzalez could not.

Not only is Gonzales a pitiful defender of the president, he's wrong on the issues. He's pro-choice, and doesn't get it on illegal immigration. Personally I've never been impressed by Alberto Gonzales, and I'm glad he's finally gone.

My only regret on the issue is that it took the president so long to do it.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Taking a Stand... Under Fire

Gen. Pace Calls Homosexuality Immoral, Associated Press

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070313/D8NR1IBG0.html

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral,

the newspaper reported on its Web site.

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

He said he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.

###

Well, I thought that was really encouraging that someone in such a high position of leadership would speak out on the issue... Everyone seems afraid to say that nowadays.

However, now the homosexual lobby is screaming in rage to have General Pace removed

Homosexual groups are putting tremendous pressure on Congressmen and Senators and President Bush to punish General Pace.

The liberal media is strongly supporting the homosexual efforts. They have already forced him to back down a step. Also, read what the Human Rights Campaign says.

"Presently the military operates on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The homosexual activists want the military to approve their immoral behavior. Take a stand for our troops who cannot get involved in this political situation!"

Oh goodness.

He was just upholding military law.

Why on earth would the military want to welcome a lifestyle that is three more times as dangerous as smoking? That has a sky-high suicide tendency? That is filled with abuse from those within the lifestyle itself?

General Pace is the first person in a long time to stick his neck out... And the radical homosexual lobby is determined to make an example.

Hmmm. Maybe. But not without a fight!

They've taken it for granted that we don't care... We're too nice...

C'mon! Let's show 'em! Who's with me??

Write a letter of support to General Pace and to the Defense Secretary Robert Gates. It doesn't have to be long... Just say that you support him and that he should NOT be fired.

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Chiefs of Staff

9999 Joint Staff Pentagon

Washington, DC 20318-9999

Email Address: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.aspx

(use the "Ask a Question/Make a Comment" tab)

Write a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates supporting General Pace

Public contact: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.aspx

Dr. Robert M. Gates

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Post this on your blogs... Tell your friends... Send out an email.

General Pace took a stand. Let's show the Washington Bureaucrats that he doesn't stand alone.

This is original with BusiBeth

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Gut Reactions to the President's State of the Union Address

1. Nancy Pelosi: I'm sorry if I offend any women who may read this blog, but I got real tired real fast of the number of times Tim Russert and Brian Williams brought up the fact that the house was being presided over by the first female speaker. During Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearings for Secretary of State did everyone drool over the fact that she could be the first Female African American Secretary of State? No! They went after her tooth and claw. Just as an aside, when Democrats propose minority candidates for important positions they are given all teh attention in the world, Obama and Clinton. When Republicans do the same thing they are reviled, Blackwell, Swann, Steele, Rice, Powell, Estrada, Owens, Janice Rogers Brown...

2. Healthcare and Education: Even though I doubt much of what the president said concerning these subjects will be heeded, I loved watching the Democrats grimace when the president said the word "privatization"

3. Energy: The president's proposals on the subject were nice, but all demanded more government intervention, regulation on fuel types and standards, and increasing SPR. I was waiting for the president to say, "...and as we actively pursue the development of alternative fuels we need a steady supply of non-mideast oil. That's why I'm once more reccomending that you open up ANWR and the OCS to drilling."

4. Judges: The president once again called for the speedy confirmation of judges. It's definitely an important thing. The lack of judges is holding up the courts. The fourth circuit is missing one third of its members. However, its a little to late. Thanks to eh incompetence of Frist and antics of McCain and co. the constitutional option was never exercised. with Leahy in charge of the judiciary committee things will go at a murderously slow pace. Also... Can anyone explain why the issues of judges wasn't campaigned on in the midterms as it was in the president's reelection? Might it have done more to galvanize the base?

5. Protection of Marriage: You may see this and think, "Did the president even mention marriage in the speech? If you are that's my point. It seems to me like the FMA was a political ploy campaigned hard on in the president's reelection campaign to galvanize the base, but practically ignored in the last two years. Sorry... It was voted on in the summer by congress in an attempt to show conservatives that teh Republicans are conservative to. Why couldn't the president throw in two lines about the FMA?

6. Immigration: I'm sorry. I have totally had it with the president on immigration. Instead of cozying up to your non-base, can you just keep this country safe Mr. President?

7. Iraq: It's really simple. We need to win. Sadly the Democrats and the RINO's are invested in our defeat. If you don't believe me go back and watch the video of the speech. Every time teh president mentioned victory in Iraq, the Democrats sat on their hands. How can people who don't even want us to win help create a constructive proposal on the subject? Ironically even though the D's oppose victory in Iraq, they cheered wildly whenever teh president encouraged us to support the troops. Explain that one please.

8. Senator Webb's Response: I won't say to much. However... I didn't realize until last night how captivating an orator this state elected. Before I proceed I would like to thank Sen. Webb and his family for their service in America's military. Everyone who serves in that capacity deserves our gratitude for those actions, including Sen. Kerry. However... Being a foot soldier qualifies no one to be an arm chair general, to assume that they always no better than the presiden and his advisors and can run this war. I am sick of people like Sens. Webb, McCain, Kerry, and Grahm who say, "I was a foot soldier thirty years ago. I'm an expert on all things military." In much the same way that I as a grocery clerk am not an expert on how to run a grocery store, Sen. Webb is not an expert on how to run a war. As a Democrat who opposes victory this is also a war he doesn't want us to win.

These sure are tough times. Keep working hard for God and country.