by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.

Watching Dick Cheney preview his points of view on the current administration this weekend, I remember a lot of the reasons I stood strongly for John McCain in the 2008 election. That battle, of course, is long over, but the repercussions that many of us warned against are taking hold at an alarming rate with breathtaking depth and breadth.


Watching Cheney - who I once feared and loathed and never pulled the lever for - the context of the decisions the Bush White House had to make are remarkably clear. Whether or not you agreed with the policy decisions of the Bush White House, it is imperative to ask yourself one vital question:

What kept us safe for the 8 years following 9/11? Why haven't we had another attack? Is it because the terrorists suddenly grew hearts and sang kumbaya or their hatred for America, her citizens and her values just simply dissipated?

More likely, it's because subsequent attacks were thwarted (and there is empirical evidence that is true, i.e. the LA bombing plot and the Brooklyn Bridge plot being dismantled). It's also true that we took the fight to their house in the dark shadows where the warriors were being trained. Under the Bush White House, enemies of the United States saw a fundamental shift in the way we fought them. No longer was terrorism a criminal justice problem as under Democratic administrations. It was now a matter of war, and it was a war we must win. Win, we did.

But now all of the gains we made over those 8 years following 9/11 are being dismantled. And worse yet, the Attorney General is politicizing the protection of our people by threatening to prosecute those who (under order from their commanders and under proper legal counsel) carried out the vital means to extract information that literally meant life or death for Americans.

When I hear the president of the United States apologize for American exceptionalism and American ideas and values abroad like he did in Cairo and in France, I cringe. The leader of the United States - her sworn defender - has no business apologizing for the decisions we have to make to promote our own interests and the welfare of our own people. One needn't go any further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States to recognize that simple fact. Let alone the oath of office.

The idea that we are less safe because we asked terrorists the hard questions under our custody is appalling and intellectually dishonest. The idea that our foreign policy was worse off because we didn't play enough grab-ass with psychopaths with nuclear ambitions is downright frightful. And when faced with the ticking time-bomb scenario, you're damn right that I want my sworn defender to take any and all measures possible to extract the information necessary to diffuse the situation and keep my family safe.

There is no compromising on these values. It is not an abstract study in American policy to those whose families were directly affected by attacks on our soil. Rather, it is concrete. God help us if it takes another 9/11 to remind people what's important. The idea that Al Gore, or God forbid Barack Obama would have to answer the red phone on that fateful morning makes my skin crawl. Wake up, and it will make yours crawl too.

by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.

Dear Republican Colleagues:

Don’t fret, don’t freak out, and above all else don’t drop the ball. The tide is turning in our American politisphere. The ever-swinging pendulum hasn’t lasted long in the left position before it ran out of steam and it appears poised to begin its rightward swing once more.


By taking the presidency and expanding their majorities in the House and Senate, the Democrats have given the Republicans an enormous gift and wrapped it in a bow. They now own Washington policy outright, and their leadership has been a botched disaster both in terms of vision and of execution. Health care, stimulus, budgets and deficits, the war in Afghanistan, containment of the Axis of Evil – the Democratic leadership has been dismal at all levels by any measure.

We need only consult history to prove the consequences of our decisions at the ballot box. Jimmy Carter’s policy blunders paved the way for the “Reagan Democrats.” The only two 49-state victories in history were both Republican victories, yet in modern history only one Democratic president has ever secured re-election. That Democrat worked with a Republican congress that forced his hand toward a reduction in government, welfare reform, targeted tax cuts, and a strong economy that led to a budget surplus. Not a particularly Democratic agenda.

We all know what happened in November 2008, and the reasons for Republican defeat will be debated for years to come. But the American people spoke – scared about our economy, weary of anyone or anything branded as Bush-esque, and exhausted by the war in Iraq. Choosing to listen to that inner fear, they pulled the lever for the most drastic leftward shift in our politics since 1964. Let us not forget it was that Johnson landslide which set the stage for the next several decades of Republican domination. By tarring and feathering “Mister Conservative” Barry Goldwater, LBJ nailed shut the casket of the entire Democratic Party for decades to come:

Republican wins: 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004
Draw: 1976, 1996
Democratic wins: 1992, 2006, 2008

Republicans have done better than Democrats in elections by a factor of three in recent history, and it’s no mystery. Every now and then, the American people are bound to succumb to their inclination to take a chance on the other guy after a string of victories for one party. When that other guy is the Democratic candidate, the consequences of the election victory are often deadly for our economy, our security, and the political future of the Democratic Party. By winning elections, the Dems have the chance to prove to us beyond doubt the poor results of their policies. They deliver failure like Dominoes. I don’t say so –the American people do, time and time again.

In his first 90 days, President Obama astonishingly outlined more new federal spending than had ever occurred from the Declaration of Independence to his inauguration. In eight months, he has accomplished the even more breathtaking feat of spending through a near majority of his political capital. Week by week, battle by battle the American people are turning their backs on the Obama brand. As is typical of any Leftist agenda, the devil is in the details. As the hows and whys of the president’s plans come to light, the skeletons fall out of the closet one by one. Sunshine, Mr. President, is the best disinfectant. In this case, it is likely to take the patient down with the disease.

One needs only glance occasionally at headlines to notice that the tide is turning in America. The recently declared dead GOP is gaining ground rapidly as The Left’s agenda comes to light. Examples of political revival are everywhere:

The Florida Senate seat occupied by Mel Martinez appears extremely likely to remain in GOP control.

The FL Governor Mansion is increasingly Republican-leaning, with independent voters flocking to McCollum from Sink.

The Virginia governor race has Republican Bob McDonnell with a comfortable lead with a divided state Democratic Party, despite an aggressive Obama political machine in favor of Deeds.

The New Jersey governor race has Republican Chris Cristie out in front of incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine due to dismal leadership in the decidedly blue state.

The Nevada Senate race has Harry Reid in trouble and likely to be ousted by either of his likely Republican challengers.

Chris Dodd is in deep trouble in Connecticut and has the Obama machine in high gear to rescue his popularity with a little razzle dazzle – but will the Obama brand become an albatross before election day?

Obama’s FL approval ratings have crashed from 58/35 in June to 47/48 as the state unemployment rate soars and health care details enrage the elderly.

Generic ballot polling shows Republicans with a strong edge over their Democratic counterparts. The recent trends have been astonishing, as the American public becomes more likely to trust the Republican brand to govern.

Colorado Dems are in trouble under the leadership of their Democratic governor, senators and congressmen. The Democratic Party has expended tremendous capital and political capital to turn Colorado blue from the bottom up and have had widespread success, though re-election looks bleak from the top down.

In Ohio, Ted Strickland appears vulnerable to a strong challenge from his Republican counterpart John Kasich. This one might come down to the wire.

Obama’s national approval has sunk to 51% according to last week’s RCP polling data.

NY and MA Governors Patterson and Patrick appear likely targets for dismissal at the ballot box by Republican challengers. This is a particularly deep cut to Northeast Democrats.

This weekend’s first gathering of Drive the Discussion confirmed the sentiment that Republicans have reason to take heart. The full Republican Party of Florida establishment was present to support the gathering of young conservatives, and it was truly a defining experience to be part of. Take it from this blogger that a groundswell of new ideas and revived enthusiasm is happening at this very moment. Not only are there red signs of life in the Sunshine State, but all across the nation – even in some unlikely areas like the Northeast corridor.

Now is the time to drive home the message of the Republican Party at all levels. It is time to apply our most basic conservative principles of liberty, freedom, and strength that have resonated with the electorate an overwhelming majority of election cycles. We need to be out talking with our neighbors and friends to let them know that a government take-over of massive proportions has happened on our watch. It’s time to activate the American pride of our forefathers so that we can compete, so that we can win, and so that we can govern. That groundwork is being laid even as this paragraph is being written.

Conservatives, our time is now to get off the couch and onto the streets.

By: Rep. John Boehner
Special to the Examiner | 6/22/09 10:39 PM

All year, Democrats have made promises about job creation. If Congress passed the trillion-dollar “stimulus,” they promised unemployment would not rise above 8 percent.

Five months later, unemployment has spiked to 9.4 percent, with President Barack Obama now admitting that he expects it to reach 10 percent later this year.

So what has the “stimulus” given us? Spending on projects like a new auxiliary runway for powerful Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s “Airport for No One,” but no jobs. In fact, we’ve lost almost 3 million jobs this year.

House Republicans offered a better economic plan to create more jobs and let Americans keep more of what they earn. According to a methodology developed by White House chief economic adviser Dr. Christina Romer, our plan would have created twice as many jobs as the Democrats promised at half the cost.

Unfortunately, Democrats balked and commenced the biggest domestic spending binge in history. They’ve since passed a $400 billion “omnibus” spending bill loaded with 9,000 earmarks, a $3.6 trillion budget and endless bailouts.

Yes, more should have been done to rein in spending when Republicans controlled Washington, D.C. But while Republicans have acknowledged this mistake and offered alternatives to curb spending, create jobs and control the debt, Democrats have stepped on the accelerator, telling taxpayers that more government spending equals more jobs. We’ve certainly seen plenty of spending, but where are the jobs?

Matters are about to become even worse for middle-class families and small businesses, as Democrats have turned to health care, energy and the environment. They’re pushing a government takeover of health care that costs at least $1 trillion, forces at least 23 million Americans off their current health plans and leaves at least 36 million uninsured.

According to Romer’s methodology, 4.7 million jobs will be lost in five years under their proposal, with the National Federation of Independent Business predicting that the Democrats’ new mandates would cost 1.6 million jobs among small businesses.

Wednesday night, the president will use a prime-time, campaign-style event in the White House to sell his plan, but his own party isn’t even buying it right now. The president’s proposal would empower bureaucrats — rather than patients and doctors — to make key medical decisions, limit treatments and ration care, raise taxes and kill jobs.

The American people simply don’t support it. The best hope for real reform is for both parties to work together. House Republicans have introduced a plan that will reduce costs, expand access and increase the quality of care in a way Americans can afford — without new taxes, costly mandates or a government takeover.

On energy and the environment, under the guise of reducing carbon emissions, Democrats are poised to force anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product or flips on a light switch to pay a national energy tax.

Not only will this drive up prices for food, gasoline and electricity, it will ship millions of jobs to competitors like China and India that refuse to take the same approach. A study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce estimates that Democrats’ plan will cost 2.5 million jobs.

House Republicans have a better way: An “all-of-the-above” strategy to clean up the environment, lower energy costs and create more jobs. Our legislation, the American Energy Act, will increase environmentally safe energy production, promote alternative fuels to reduce carbon emissions and encourage increased efficiencies and technologies to maximize America’s energy potential.

Saddling future generations with more debt is no way to create jobs. We need policies that will help small businesses, the engine of our nation’s economy, weather the storm and create jobs again.

Republicans are offering common-sense solutions that will make a real difference in creating jobs, making health care more affordable, promoting a cleaner, healthier environment and reducing energy costs. We hope our Democratic colleagues will change course and work with us to make these reforms a reality.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, is minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
Dear President Obama:

Though it's more than a little unnatural feeling to offer you free advice, here it is:

Don't take the bait from any side on the Iran issue.

The American Right is trying to bait you into speaking out against Ahmadinejad by asking you to stand up for free and fair elections everywhere. That's actually bull. We can't police the world, and we can't allege voter fraud just because the election results weren't what we expected. We really didn't know what to expect because the polling data was all over the place. In much of the polling that put Ahmadinejad tied with or behind his lead challenger, nearly half of the Iranian public was still undecided. That is to say nothing of the fact that Iranian public opinion is notoriously difficult to measure because of cultural taboos and difficulties of sampling in poorer, more rural areas where the people are more conservative (and more likely to have voted for the incumbent).

The American Left wants you to feel lulled into a false sense that you can wash your hands and stay above the fray on the issue of the election. That's not going to work either. The signs that the protesters are holding for the cameras are in English. They're sending out their messages on Facebook and Twitter. They want the American people and the American government to see crystal-clearly that they are asking us to speak up for them. If we do nothing, we will have squashed the hopes of a people clamoring for freedom by simply not showing up. That's a terrible message. We are their target audience, and they are begging us to help them. The problem of course is that these people may well represent a minority opinion after all the tallies are counted and recounted. Just because they're louder doesn't make them more important. In elections, often times the other guy wins.

Finally, the Iranian regime clearly wants the US to get suckered into the fight so that we own the outcome of the revolution. No single move would do more to please the Iranian government. They would love to say with evidence and conviction that they have to strike down these protests on the grounds that they are American-led, and therefore meddling with internal affairs and so-called free elections. We cannot be seen as forcing regime change in Iran YET AGAIN.

Defending the unpopular Shah in 1979 brought about a revolution and put on hold the lives of 52 Americans for 444 days. Let there be no doubt, while 52 people were held captive, our entire nation's interests were hostage because of our actions and commitments. Regime management failed us with the Shah, and it failed us when we promoted the government reforms that ironically led to Ahmadinejad coming to power in the first place. The same tendencies got us in trouble in Iraq and landed Saddam Hussein into power. How many times must we touch the stove before we realize it burns us?!



Oddly enough Mr. President, it's incumbent upon this writer to speculate that your current policy on the situation in Iran is appropriate given the complexity and sensitivity of the circumstance. Speaking out decisively and curtly for free and fair elections while avoiding the appearance of any meddling with the results of a flawed but presumably representative election is the only way to walk the tight rope without falling flat on our faces.

After all, if Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah stay in power, it will be them we have to play nice with on the world stage. Better we don't show our teeth before we're sure if it's Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde answering the door in Tehran. If you underestimate the severity of the situation in Iran or if you choose to take the bait and own the results of these elections, our nation will be held hostage by Iranian meddling once more. Only another 1980 election could save us then. That's no joke.

Respectfully yours,


Concerned Citizen

by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.

This weekend is our local gay pride weekend, and as the festivities loom I find it an oddly appropriate time to tackle a topic that has weighed heavily on me for quite some time. This is about the issue of fairness and even-handedness.

Last year's local pride parade included our local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. I wasn't a member at the time, still lost deep in the mourning process over the end of the Clinton campaign. But even then, I couldn't help but snark at what a shame it is to watch twinks, bears, and drag queens parade down the street in a beautiful mix of unity and contrast characterized by the rainbow flag, only to imagine the hostility of the crowd that reportedly booed and launched projectiles at the Log Cabin Republicans all down the parade route. A good friend of mine even had his car vandalized during the festivities, no doubt due to his car being the only one in the parking lot with a McCain/Palin bumper sticker. Was that change we can believe in? Was that rising above old politics? Was that the new era of cooperation we were promised? And perhaps most importantly, why is it that none of the colors on that beautiful motley flag not have any room for gay Republicans? Does diversity mean everybody, *asterisk* or does it mean everybody, period?



You know a double standard when you see one, but few examples stand out quite as starkly as sharply as those steaming piles lobbed from the left.

William F Buckley Jr. once rightly declared, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." On the left, the elitist groupthink mentality is rampant. There is a terrible blindness to this reality and worse yet, an unwillingness to tackle it where it rears its ugly head. This is the truth that dare not speak it's name, lest ye be cast out. Trust me, I know first hand.

Colin Powell was lauded for coming across the divide and supporting Barack Obama. So was Christopher Buckley, William's son. Then there was the rise of the so-called "Obamicans," the Democrat's counter to the right's "Reagan Democrats" who came over to support Reagan over Carter in 1980 and again against their own Mondale in 1984. But while the Left was was busy patting themselves on the back for pilfering the endorsements of Republicans in 2008, many failed to point out that they were busy lambasting their own previous vice-presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, for campaigning for John McCain. Where Powell was thoughtful and post-partisan, Lieberman as hateful, rogue, and misguided. If you got the email from the Obama campaign the night of the RNC where Lieberman spoke, you know the smear I'm talking about. If you saw the news clips of the Democratic Caucus trying to force Lieberman out, you know what I'm talking about. And if you're a Democrat that didn't support Barack Obama, you know the type of directly hateful and insidious personal attacks against you that I'm talking about.

Why is it fair that the current president railed against wasteful spending and the atrocity of the doubling of our federal debt in 8 years under Bush, but then himself spent as much money as had ever been spent in the history of our nation up to his inauguration within his first 100 days? Why is it ok that his so-called stimulus package repelled more Democrats than it attracted Republicans, but then the Republicans were allegedly just practicing politics as usual and hindering bipartisanship? The White House's own projections show that the stimulus won't produce any more jobs than laissez-faire economic policies in the long run, so why not just keep our children's money? Why is it unfair to call that out?

For the past 8 years we had prisoners in Guantanamo, military tribunals, a hold on release of torture photos, and a hard line against Iran and North Korea and these policies were evil and misguided. Now that the current president has largely done an about-face from his naive campaign rhetoric, why are these policies mysteriously now considered necessary and appropriate for our national security? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad President Obama was man enough to rise above rhetoric and put the security of our nation first after sitting in the briefings and actualizing the difference between campaigning and governing. For that he deserves credit. But think back for a minute to a time where people like me and Joe Lieberman and John McCain said that Obama's campaign rhetoric was naive and inappropriate. We were regarded as racists, bigots, and fools back then. And these very policies were considered failed, inappropriate, and dangerous. Yet, here we are.

Thinking back again, how is it possibly fair that Sarah Palin was an unqualified VP candidate because of her so-called lack of experience. While conceding the point that being the governor of Alaska has zero to do with getting foreign policy credentials, I'm going to ask what Barack Obama's foreign policy experience was. As Chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee, he called exactly ZERO hearings (and was called out for that by Hillary Clinton during the Ohio debate). Other than campaigning in front of crowds a la John Kennedy, I can think of zilch that qualified Obama as a foreign policy expert. Wait, that's not true. He also directed his campaign during the the Ohio primary against Clinton to lobby the Canadian government to stay quiet about his rhetoric on NAFTA on the grounds that it was merely campaign rhetoric and would never come to fruition.


Are you appalled yet? If not, you're not paying attention. Let it be pointed out one more time that we're talking about the bottom of one ticket with no foreign policy experience contrasted with the top of the other ticket. Why is it fair that the bottom of the Republican ticket was shishkabobbed with a greater voracity than the top of the Democratic ticket?

If you answered unfair media coverage, you're right. Notice how much more you heard about seeing Russia from Palin's house (which she didn't say, Tina Fey did) than you ever heard about Barack's 57 state campaign (excluding Alaska, oddly enough) or Biden's memories of seeing President FDR on TV in 1929 (he wasn't president for three more years and practically nobody had TV's, not to mention Biden wasn't born). If you answered natural inclination to double standards for the left and right, you're correct again. If you thought to yourself that it's racist to question the first serious black presidential candidate, you're especially right.

People largely assured themselves it was ok to harangue Palin because her runningmate was older than a typical presidential candidate. Forget for a moment that the McCain campaign released his physical records that clearly stated that there was absolutely no reason to fear his health. The big question that should unnerve liberals where they live is this:

Why is ageism ok and racism not? How is it ok to get away with the demonstrably sexist campaigning that the Obama camp engaged in against Clinton only to allege racism for their own shortcomings? Can Obama freely call his white grandmother a typical white person and those who refuse to pull the lever for him bitter working-class people who cling to their religion and guns? How is it ok to freely discriminate against a candidate because they're a few years older than the norm but otherwise in very good health? Why is that better than voting for someone who looks like you? How much peace pipe do we have to smoke before we prioritize forms of discrimination?!

How do you rationalize to yourself, "I know that FDR was wheelchair bound and Kennedy was high on amphetamines the majority of his presidency, but that McCain guy..." ?!?!?!

I, for one, renew my pledge here and now to speak out for truth and fairness regardless of the angry left. On this blog you'll hear a voice for every single color of that rainbow, sans-asterisk. And if I see the president behind me in line for the ATM, I'll definitely keep one hand on my wallet at all times.

That's because I've seen the way he governs, not because he's black - you racist bastards.

In the Weekly Standard, Economist Irwin M. Stelzer ponders on the two options to pay off the massive debt that will be left in the wake of the Obama presidency.

Excerpts:

We are (also) certain to see the portion of our pay that we actually get to take home decline significantly. The debt that Obama is running up will have to be repaid. Already, there are grumblings in the market about the future of the dollar, with the Chinese not the only one of our creditors worrying that we will inflate our way out of our obligations. Run the presses, make dollars cheaper, and use the debased currency to repay debts. Former Comptroller General David Walker believes that we are in danger of losing our triple-A bond rating:

How can one justify bestowing a triple A rating on an entity with an accumulated negative net worth of more than $11,000bn [$11 trillion] and additional off-balance sheet obligations of $45,000bn? An entity that is set to run a $1,800bn-plus deficit for the current year and trillion dollar-plus deficits for years to come?

But inflation is not the only possibility. Instead, politicians, remembering the fate of Jimmy Carter when he allowed inflation to climb towards 20 percent, will try to restore fiscal sanity by raising taxes. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, who supported the president's stimulus package, puts the needed tax increase at $1.1 trillion over the next decade; the International Monetary Fund puts the figure at $1.9 trillion, a sum the magnitude of which is better understood when written as $1,900,000,000,000.

After all, Congress won't be able to cut spending. Obama's drive towards a trillion dollar health-care tax-funded system seems to be irresistible. Drug companies will go along so they will be relieved of the cost of subsidizing lower-income folks' prescription drug needs. Insurers will go along because the law will require everyone to take some sort of coverage. Employers will go along so they can shift the cost of employee-benefit plans to taxpayers.

Nancy Pelosi and President Obama may be disasters for this country, but boy-oh-boy are they an early Christmas present for me and for the Right. Nancy is more than ankle deep in doo doo and keeps digging deeper. Meanwhile, for the third time in three days, the president has reverted back to Bush policy on the War on Terror.

Flip Flops:

1)Military tribunals
2)Blocking detainee photos
3)Terror suspect indefinite detention

Obama faces harsh criticism from the Left. The ACLU has promised to take the president to court against the Military Tribunals, even with the Obama changes proposed. This of course is not to say that the Right is excited either, considering Obama still wants to stick to his year deadline to close Guantanamo without any viable plan to deal with the detainees after closure.

Mr. President, when you promised change, we didn't know you meant you'd take so many U-turns on your own positions! We mere mortals have whiplash, oh chosen one!

Dear Mr. President:

It's not that I despise what you believe in or what you stand for, per se. I believe that you love your country. I believe you think you've heard all the arguments, and I believe you think you have the best judgment and most objective, pragmatic ideals to navigate our nation out of our economic disaster. We both want this nation to succeed.

Please, if you'll allow, let me tell you why as a recent convert from the Democratic Party, I'm mortified by the plans you have laid forth for America.

On the campaign trail, while not patting yourself on the back for the historical nature of your candidacy, you often reminded us of your blueprint for change - especially as it concerned getting America back on the road to fiscal solvency.

On a whim, I Googled some of what you had to say on the matter as I pondered and brooded over the mess we currently find ourselves in.

Surely you're getting advice from everybody these days about what you should and should not do. No doubt your email and voicemail are full of people's ideas and concerns. Rather than interjecting my own, allow me to simply flash you back to some basic guiding principles outlined by the one person for whom you hold the very highest regard - yourself. Only, this is you before you entered the Oval Office.
Still up on your campaign website is your plan to get Washington back on the "right path" so that our economy can be healthy in the long run. "The Problem", as you rightly point out at the very beginning, is increasing debt. That was true when you began your campaign for president, it was true in September when this financial crisis began, and it is true now that you occupy the White House. Beside the severity of the problem we now face, only one major factor has changed: your perspective.

A brief parousal of your plan highlights several concerns and solutions, and you must admit that the stimulus package you championed strays severely from the principles you outlined. So does your budget. So do your bailouts. In fact, Mr. President, I can safely say you just became the posterboy of the problem. You are the problem.

You detailed for us in very specific terms that in order to return to fiscal responsibility, we must:

• Reinstate pay-as-you-go
• Cut pork barrel spending
• Make government spending more accountable and efficient
• End wasteful government spending

Is any one of those principles present in the Obama spending plan? Any one at all?

Nearly half of America voted for the other guy in November, and many of us did so because of our inability to figure out who you really are. It's not that we don't read the newspapers or listen to your speeches. The problem is that you reinvent your core beliefs from the ground up depending on circumstance. You say one thing, then do the other. You champion one idea, then fight for the other. You tell one group what they want to hear, then backtrack in front of another. The sudden and dramatic shifts in your priorities is enough to cause whiplash.

Bipartisanship doesn't mean "I won the election, so now you need to do whatever I say." It means hearing and heeding the concerns of people who don't agree with you fundamentally. It means incorporating the ideas of the other half of America that isn't in control but still needs a voice. "The Problem", Mr. President, is that House and Senate Democrats took your stimulus package as an opportunity to pile on any goodies they could conceive of, but couldn't otherwise get. "The Problem" is that this is your first major push as president, and it's disasterously off message and off base. Sir, this problem is likely to catch up with you the next time Americans go to the polls.

More Democrats voted against your stimulus than Republicans that voted for it. The budget was a strict party line vote, and any reporter left or right will tell you that the Blue Dogs had to be shoved back in line to get on board with you. Are ALL Congressional Republicans crazy? You know that the answer to that is "no". While you disagree fundamentally on whether more spending or more tax cuts should be the backbone of an economic stimulus, one thing we must all agree on is that your children's children's children will likely still be paying off the money you just put on the nation's credit card.

When you put Sacha and Malia to bed tonight, explain to them just how much money $1,000,000,000,000 is. Explain to them how many dollars they would have to spend every day for the rest of their lives to ever spend that much money. Explain to them how much money you would have to take out of their paychecks to ever recoup that money. Explain to them how that debt takes money away from their children's schools, from their social security funds, from the police that protect their neighborhood, from the campaign to nationalize our healthcare system.

Can you look them in the face and explain this to them? Do you even understand the gravity of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit? If a ten trillion dollar national debt in 232 years of this country was deplorable, why is it palatable to increase it to 13 trillion in less than 100 days? If the previous president was wrong to increase spending and decrease taxes at the same time, how then do you reconcile a so-called tax cut for 95% of Americans while pushing forth the largest expansion of government in modern history? At what point do we claim fair game on intellectually dishonest claims and proposals?

Like so many Americans, I understand the severity of the crisis that confronts us now because I know personally many who have lost their job or their home, or whose debt burden has forced them into bankruptcy. And so while I welcome the proposal of bold, new ideas over the status quo, I cannot in good faith sign a blank check in the name of my children, written on a Chinese account. That is, of course, until you can explain how the money will ever be repaid.

And so, as your first 100 days in office come to a close, we must look back and ask ourselves, are we better off? Are people's savings more secure? Are their investments worth more or less than 100 days ago? Are more or fewer people safe in their homes? Is unemployment higher or lower? Are American companies stronger or weaker? Is health care more or less affordable than it was? And most importantly, will our children inherit easier or harder circumstances than we did?

I think you know the answer to those questions, Mr. President, and I hope you join with me in toasting to your successor in a few short, tumultuous years. I'll bring the tea.

Patriotically yours,



Concerned Citizen

Today was the Tax Day Tea Party in many cities across America.

Here in Ft Lauderdale, our tea party started at 5 p.m. and lasted for hours. A friend and I went around 6 and stayed for about an hour.

During that time, reporters from the local television stations were talking with protesters, and literally thousands of cars went by honking their horns in support.

According to police, about 3,500 people had come out to support the Tea Party movement, and many more were just flocking in as we left.


The people were actually really amazing.

We kept saying to each other that we couldn't believe how many people came out to support the movement.

It was hard not to be impressed by the variety and energy of the people we met.

The people there were patriots. They love their children, their neighbors, and their country.

What they don't love is generational theft. Who could blame them?!




Everyone was so friendly!

EVERYONE was respectful and classy... and despite the genuine and justified frustration, few were foaming at the mouth.

New friends were being made everywhere. We spoke with so many people, many with their children, friends and relatives.





As cars came by and honked, the crowds cheered louder and louder.

They waived a sea of American flags and homemade signs, mingled, and cheered.

"No more pork. No more pork."

"U-S-A! U-S-A!"

They cheered on for America and against the same tyranny which plagued this country over two centuries ago.

Only this time, we stand together to send a message to Washington. And to the king, that he bite us.

God bless this land.

It's almost like a great personal ad: "Looking for a guy who is usually right, admits when he's wrong, and isn't afraid to take a chance? Are you tired of the same ole, same ole from guys who talk your ear off but have little in the way of substance? Ready to be swept off your feet, taken to new heights (in your portfolio), and taken care of both long term and on day-to-day issues? Contact me, Jim."

Why lie? It's hard not to be smitten. Jim Cramer is one tough cookie, and one smart guy too. He also happens to be right on the money, time and time again.

So why are the talking heads calling for his head on a platter? Because he's broken the sacred oath. He's attacking the liberal president's agenda, his cabinet, and his policies. Worse yet, he's being attacked, and he refuses to die. Remember how mad that made the media when they called for Hillary to exit the race after Iowa, yet she made it all the way through every primary? OUCH! Their new hate-child goes on Morning Joe to tell his story, and it's yet another must-see.



Economic Gurus Jim Cramer and International Superstar Erin Burnett appear side-by-side on the Today Show to inject a little perspective into our current meltdown, finger-pointing aside.

Draw your own line in the sand! Sound off on your own opinions of the president's leadership of our country, uncensored!

Vote now.

Jim Cramer has hit the nail on the head once again! In Thestreet.com, one of his regular outlets, the economic guru explains why he, an Obama voter, feels compelled to speak out and fight against the perilous and ill-advised path down which President Obama is steering this country.

These are the can't-miss excerpts. Read the full article at: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house?page=1

I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show.

"I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements," Gibbs said about my point that President Obama's budget may be one of the great wealth destroyers of all time. "And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."

Huh? Backup? Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.

We had a banking crisis coming into this regime, but now every area is in crisis. Each day is worse than the previous one for this miserable economy and while Obama's champions cite the stimulus plan, it's really just a hodgepodge of old Democratic pork and will not create nearly as many manufacturing or service jobs as we hoped. China's stimulus plan is the model; ours is the parody.

Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.

So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.

If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day.

Don't miss this FLASHBACK! Check out who Cramer warned us would be the BEST CHOICE on the economy:

I came across an article in Real Clear Politics yesterday that I just can't help but share. If you care to send the author a love letter or, more likely, hate mail, you can link back to the article here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/back_to_carter.html

by David Warren

Barack Obama was at his best in Ottawa this week, charming and well-rehearsed through a brief and inconsequential visit, and flattering in the joint announcement of such vacuities as the "clean energy dialogue." Stephen Harper, too, escaped any difficulty, with the greater challenge of basking in Obama's golden glow. It is nice that both Caesars have come to bury carbon, not release it into the atmosphere.

The serious "dialogue" may begin when the Obama administration resolves to "bury" carbon through "cap and trade," and put California-dreamin' emission standards on all cars, with the Canadian government following loyally behind, like a prisoner tied to a jeep by a cord. There is the little matter of our failing auto industry; but the larger one of what happens to our cash cow, Alberta, if and when Obama and Congressional Democrats put Americans' money where his mouth was during the election campaign.

That he may well be as good as his word, on the "green" issues among others, is an appalling thought, given the present economic fragility.

The series of gestures on moral issues with which he has begun his presidency (executive orders made or impending on taxpayer funding to promote abortions, and on stem cells that require the destruction of human embryos), and the recklessness with which the "stimulus bill" was rammed through Congress (loaded with funding for various Left-Democrat causes despite Republican outrage), should help us to realize that only his promise of bipartisanship was misleading.

But while I might argue there is no moral justification for the new directions, there is certainly a democratic justification: for Obama, as he has been at pains to remind his political adversaries, won the election.

Indeed, he was fortunate to benefit when the American public was suddenly distracted by a financial crisis, from what was turning (via the Sarah Palin candidacy, and Catholic rebukes of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi) into an interesting discussion of life issues. My reader may recall that that discussion corresponded to the moment when Obama slipped behind in the polls.

Likewise, foreign affairs were suddenly thrust into the back trunk. I argued last year that it was hard to take seriously a foreign policy that seemed to consist of punishing America's friends, and encouraging her enemies; that offered, for example, threats to Pakistan but dialogue with Iran.

I did not at the time expect that it would ever come into play, however, for I assumed that even if Obama won the election, more sober influences within the Democratic Party would prevail, and in the end he would find himself with something that secretly resembled the Bush doctrines.

I have lost that confidence since watching the new White House destructively criticize Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, congratulate Venezuelans on constitutional changes that will enable Hugo Chavez to be president-for-life, deliver an entirely gratuitous apology for American behaviour towards the Islamic world, and send George Mitchell off to the Middle East to strike a more "balanced" posture between Israel and Hamas. This, after decisions on Guantanamo that signal a new "catch and release" approach to the world's most dangerous terrorists.

While I doubt Americans intentionally voted for any of that, they did sign a blank cheque for unspecified "hope" and "change," and they did endorse a candidate whose popularity was not only greater abroad than at home, but especially high among anti-Americans. They now have a President who is taking lectures from such as Desmond Tutu. He warns that Obama will squander the world's goodwill if he does not immediately apologize to the Iraqi people for the "unmitigated disaster" in which George Bush freed them from Saddam Hussein.

The western world has a new captain who must deal with such problems as the one presented to NATO forces in Afghanistan, by the Kyrgyzstan government's decision to evict the U.S. from a major forward air base, at a time when supply routes through Pakistan are increasingly endangered. We have some idea how such a problem would have been dealt with by previous administrations, behind the scenes. We have no idea how the Obama administration will deal with such things.

And we will see. Meanwhile, my most sanguine impression, in a sweeping view of the economic, social, and foreign prospects of the new American executive -- which embraces also the chaos we have seen in cabinet appointments and the like -- is that we have already returned to the Carter era. I hope it won't be worse than that.

To be sure, the pressure on President Obama to hit the ground running on his election day is huge, and I don't envy him for it. America and indeed the world wait with bated breath to hear what new inspirational message and what specific direction he will set this nation down.

After preparing for this moment since he began his presidential run in.... 2004? 2002? since he moved to Chicago in the 1980's? - the expectation for him to set us off down a new path is one which must be met if not exceeded. He is, after all, the messiah. He is, let it be known, "The One". He is the love child of the media and the liberal propaganda machine and those beloved so-called 'Washington Outsiders' who hope we don't notice that they've been the ones in control since the mid 1970s in the first place.

It's 16 minutes into the Obama presidency as I'm typing this, and here's the score. So far, he's completely botched the Oath of Office, and immediately lapsed into the "Crisis of Confidence" aka "General Malaise" speech that was widely thought to be one of the final nails in Carter's coffin. See below, if you don't believe it. It's almost word for word the first few minutes of Obama's address:



So, as I hear President Obama blabber on, it's impossible for me to avoid pondering what concrete measures he will take to control our government. After all, the ups and downs of our nation are officially his fault/credit now. What other bold, new ideas lay ahead? According to the president, here are some highlights:

Massive government expansion
Soaring deficit to reach 1 Trillion Dollars
Immediate closure of Guantanamo, setting dangerous national enemies free
No movement on healthcare reform
Reverting to the Bush timetable for Iraq withdrawal, which he specifically campaigned against
Unlimited, unrestricted diplomatic access to dangerous foe nations (S Korea, Iran)
Limitless federal bailouts to any company without sound business practices
Chief of Staff not-so-subtly declares war on Pelosi/Reid, promises to go around them to legislate


So, dear readers - buckle down. We've got 3 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 30 minutes until we are saved from this roller coaster once more. God help us... No, seriously.

It is our duty as Americans now to hold President Obama accountable for the decisions and direction and tone taken by our federal government, just as was done with Presidents Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and so on. Obama holds the reigns of our Democracy now, and we will celebrate with him in victory just as we scold him in defeat. Hopefully "The One" will lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil... but then again, you know what they say about false idols in the scripture. It usually turns out ugly.