tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70173162024-03-12T17:15:05.526-07:00Fedora-punditGod, country, humor, wit and sarcasm. Not necessarily in that order.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comBlogger657125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-45330063704031772672012-10-25T05:30:00.003-07:002012-10-25T05:30:59.302-07:00The Wave!I desperately want this to be true.<br />(American Thinker)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="article_body">
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Can you feel it?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
wave, that is. I speak of one that will wash away far more than just a
failed presidency. This wave will have the torque to rock the entire
liberal bubble -- the political/media/crony bubble -- leaving it forever
exposed. Ironically, those inside this bubble will be the last to know
-- which is precisely why it will happen. Those who would rule over
us, and insult us with outrage over Big Bird, academic debate-scoring,
"binders" memes, and specious jobs statistics know nothing about us.
This includes those inside the bubble who purport to represent our
views.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">But
we know them well. For the record, "we" refers to the quarter of the
country that never bought into the fraudulent vapor of Obama and who
lost respect for anyone who did. Even post-election, when 70% plus of
the nation was in this stupor, we knew it was Marxist voodoo that could
not last.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
did not. Early in 2009, per Rasmussen, another 25% got over the phony
high of Obama's election. Since then, Obama's been underwater on
approval .</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Millions
more have joined this narrow majority in the past weeks. Debates have
been the catalysts, but this epiphany has been building for much longer
-- and now it's reached critical mass. There is now understanding of
the shallowness of Obama and of liberalism. Everything said by the
supposedly racist, mean-spirited conservatives has been validated.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;"><em>Doggone it...I think they've been right all along.</em></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
were, and not just about Obama. We've been right about the academia
elites, the Jurassic media, the elitist conservative pundits, the
establishment, the "obama foam" class, and Occupy and union thugs, too.
This includes anybody who makes his living from government -- and the
reporting thereof. It encompasses those who live inside the bubble,
plus those who depend on them. These people are all intertwined,
co-dependent, and out of step with America. Recent events have finally
connected dots for a lot of people in ways they can no longer deny.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Consider a quick history:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Rush
Limbaugh opened his show that day saying that "the new tone has come
home to roost" and, seconds later, "I'm already on the field." Many
scratched their heads, yet others knew exactly what he meant. The
diluted conservatism of Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain was destined to
fail -- allowing a fresh start to take its place. This was explicitly
Rush's point. Game on!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
mattered not that Bush and McCain couldn't stand each other; reaching
across the aisle and the new tone were different names for the same
perception failure. Thus, the end of Bush/McCain felt like termination
from a bad job. Awful, and yet liberating. Many were "on the field"
with Rush that day. The wave began.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Yes,
Romney uses some McCain language -- and Rove is part of efforts to
defeat Obama. Consider them collateral beneficiaries of a wave they
don't understand. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
wave grew in February 2009, when Rick Santelli reintroduced the term
"Tea Party" into our vernacular on CNBC -- and his rant went viral
thanks to Matt Drudge and Limbaugh. The phrase "Tea Party" was
everywhere.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thus,
when people connected in spring '09 at town hall meetings opposing
ObamaCare, Tea Party groups organically sprang up. David Axelrod, who
has never been part of any movement that he was not paid to dream up and
fabricate, immediately projected his counterfeit style onto the Tea
Party. He still doesn't get it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
November 2009, Jon Corzine was decisively beaten by Chris Christie, and
Bob McDonnell won Virginia big. People were seeking refuge from Obama
in the safety of Republican governors. In the bubble, they ignored
these and bitterly clung to an oddball race in New York 23. Hey, no big
deal -- you won two, but we won one. Nothing to see here. By the way,
did we mention that Obama is <em>personally</em> popular?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
wave then crashed at Hyannis months later and washed the Ted Kennedy
seat out of Democrat hands. Scott Brown is no Reagan, but his campaign
was anti-ObamaCare and pro-Tea -- even as he avoided the term. The
excuse from the bubble? Martha Coakley was a poor candidate. True, but
poor libs win safe seats all the time. Those in the bubble missed the
point and passed ObamaCare anyway.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">They even promised to read it...if Nancy Pelosi would take her 200-pound gavel off it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then
came 2010, which, like 1994, was fought ideologically. With Pelosi
predicting victory, Democrats lost 69 seats in Congress, 700 state
seats, lots of governors -- and damned near every dogcatcher. Pelosi
lost her gavel, too.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Undeterred,
the bubble-dwellers then put all their chips on the table in Wisconsin,
where they had unions, a hack judge, and the sacrosanct teachers on
their side. This was their slam-dunk. They were sure they could sink
Scott Walker, and the world would be right again.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Uh-oh.
Walker won the absurd recall easily. The bigger story is the damage
done to public unions. The infantile behavior of so-called dedicated
educators was seen nationwide. "Public servants," greedy? Who knew?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the bubble, they dismissed this. They said the problem was simply
their messaging and the evil Koch Brothers. Forget Brown, Christie,
McDonnell, 69 seats, 700 legislators, lots of governors, and Walker
(twice). Forget that the entire nation watched the Democrats flee the
state to avoid a vote! Obama is still inevitable. <em>Everyone (in the bubble) knows it.</em></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">They
really believe this, and they really believe that the world revolves
around them. For years, it did -- as most power, communication and
information originated inside the bubble. Three networks, two wires,
one cable, and three dailies ruled the bubble and the opinions of the
world. We know the rest: along came Rush, Drudge, Fox, Hannity, Levin,
Savage, Beck, and the conservative websites. Breitbart emerged and
inspired millions to embrace tech toys to expose the "racial Marxism" of
the Democrat-media complex. Thanks to the delightful capers of O'Keefe
and Giles, we all know ACORN.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Liberal
mischief was exposed. A union thug fakes racism at a Tea Party -- it
goes viral. SEIU members confess to being paid to protest -- and it
goes viral. A Democrat congressman insults a youngster -- it goes
viral. Chris Matthews wets his pants, and it goes viral.
Weiner...well, you know -- and it goes viral. The entire bubble is
intellectually naked, and everyone sees the political porn without the
networks, cable channels, or newspapers that once controlled access.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
the bubble, where politics is but a game, they miss the cumulative
effect of all this. They have no sense of the undertow pulling on many.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Fast
forward to last week. As Candy Crowley and the pundits are finding
out, winning the optics of the moment is no longer enough. Now events
are won and lost in the days following. It's not over 'til the fat lady
goes viral. She went viral, and now Crowley, Obama, and the entire
media coterie are being exposed on the web.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Those
in the bubble never see these tectonic shifts. They were in denial
after Drudge nearly brought down Bill Clinton. They stayed in denial
after bloggers retired Dan Rather. Everyday reality brings down more
newspapers and magazines, and the pioneer of cable is now only airport
fare.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hello? Anyone in the bubble spot a trend here?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">No,
and this includes some good guys. Limbaugh and Mark Levin hammered
Charles Krauthammer and George Will last week on their groupthink. Even
bubble conservatives speak of four-dollar gas and dead ambassadors as
mere debate topics. How can they miss that four-buck gas, soaring food
prices, and 11% unemployment are ruining lives? These are not points
awarded because a guy sounds elegant.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Crowley's
antics are a sample of incidents that cause light bulbs to go off for
voters who may not know the issues but who do know that a president who
has to be rescued by a B-list journalist is indeed an empty chair. They
know that the B-list journalist is not worth listening to, either.
This is the kind of event that can put the last four years into instant
perspective for someone.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Different
dots connect for different people. For some, it may be Obama snarking,
"Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" after blaming the video for
weeks. Add this to Big Bird, binders, and contraception for middle-aged
students, and even unserious voters can tell that Obama is unserious.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
others, it may be the pipeline and gas prices. Or the cancer ad, the
phony Harvard Cherokee, or fat union perks. Whatever the dots, they all
connect those inside the liberal matrix of Obama, all Democrats, the
media, unions, Occupy, and the pundits. Nothing they have said for
years is actually true.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">If such realizations have hit critical mass, we have a wave.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Gone
will be Obama and the Democrat Senate. More than that, however, will
be the exposition of the entire liberal myth. Obama has been the face
of liberalism, and the bubble has been his support system. When this
vapor gets blown away, the propagators will see their credibility blown
away as well.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Even
at this late date, many assign credence to polls with laughable 2008
turnout models. This includes Fox, Rasmussen, and the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>,
as well as the liberal outlets. (Gallup excluded this week.) It will
be fun to watch the horror, the denial, and then the spin after election
day.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">That's
why the wave will be so satisfying. Oh, saving the country from four
more years of Obama will be important, too, of course. But that will be
challenging at the same time. Remember that John Boehner was a
collateral beneficiary of the 2010 elections, and he still does not
understand the movement that gave him the speaker's gavel. The same
might be true for Romney and Paul Ryan. Rove will also get more credit,
more airtime, and more wealth as a result. He may think he is driving
the wave, but he is merely riding it. These winners are very likely to
miss the message of this election, just as the liberals have
misinterpreted every election since 2009. Inside the bubble, they
always miss it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">All
of this will present challenges and frustrations, of course, going
forward. To paraphrase a sentiment of Levin's, we'll "deal with all of
that later." And we will. In the meantime, enjoy the wave. It's
coming. You can feel it, too. I know you can.</span></span><br />
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br />Read more: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_wave_that_breaks_the_liberal_bubble.html#ixzz2AJUTq4Vh" style="color: #003399;">http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_wave_that_breaks_the_liberal_bubble.html#ixzz2AJUTq4Vh</a></div>
</blockquote>
Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-69619560511184546352012-10-19T06:25:00.000-07:002012-10-19T06:25:20.511-07:00Romney does comedyThis is pretty funny, especially the designated driver bit.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NIHbe-aO6oI" width="420"></iframe>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-61475387586180147292012-10-04T08:41:00.000-07:002012-10-04T08:41:19.151-07:00Obama takes a Right Hook to the Chin From Romney, Then a Left Jab From LiberalsBy all accounts Romney won last night's debate going away. And it wasn't even close. It's rare for there to be a clear winner in these kinds of debates because every little aspect will be spun so hard by both sides(and the 'journalists' usually spin for the Democrats). Winning usually has more to do with presentation than actual debate. But in this case, Romney smoked Obama both on presentation and substance.<br />
<br />
From the Daily Caller:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mitt Romney emerged as the decisive winner of the first presidential
debate with President Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a reality even
the president’s surrogates were unable to spin.
<br />
No defining moments emerged from the debate, which lasted 90 minutes.
The zingers from both sides were underwhelming. During the evening, the
two candidates mainly wonked out and discussed their differences on
everything from Medicare to taxes to deficit reduction.<br />
But style, more than substance, led to Romney’s clear advantage. The
former Massachusetts governor was aggressive, and he made his arguments
without any sign of hesitation. He repeatedly asserted himself and even
interrupted moderator Jim Lehrer occasionally to ensure that he could
respond to the president’s remarks.<br />
Obama, by contrast, seemed tentative. Where Romney launched straight
to his answers, the president often stuttered and rambled, as though
struggling to figure out what point he ought to make. Romney regularly
directed his comments against the president, but Obama repeatedly turned
to the American people to ask, “Does anybody out there think …?”<br />
The president failed to land punches on health care, and he did not
even mention Romney’s “47 percent” comments about the number of
Americans who do not pay income tax, which were used to damning effect
in a recent campaign ad.<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br />Read more: <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/obama-surrogates-cant-quite-spin-a-win-after-denver-presidential-debate/#ixzz28LP7IcvI" style="color: #003399;">http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/obama-surrogates-cant-quite-spin-a-win-after-denver-presidential-debate/#ixzz28LP7IcvI</a></div>
</blockquote>
To understand how soundly Obama was beaten look no further than the liberal pundits:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">You
might want to pop some popcorn, then sit in your favorite Lazy Boy and
watch in glorious HD as the leftosphere melts down like a stick of
butter at a midsummer Grant Park picnic.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/liberals-livid-with-obama-s-debate-performance-20121004">National Journal:</a> "Liberals livid with Obama's debate performance":</span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">How
bad was it for Obama Wednesday night? Even some of his biggest fans
were livid that he let Mitt Romney walk away with a win, and they were
not suffering in silence.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Within
an hour of the debate ending, liberals and longtime Democratic
operatives and pundits took to the airwaves and Twitter to lament the
lost opportunity that was the first presidential debate.</span></span><br />
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82000.html?hp=l3">Politico</a>: "Obama hit with left hook on TV, online":</span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">"I
don't think he explained himself very well on the economy. I think he
was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight," Ed Schultz said.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Matthews
said Romney addressed Obama "like the prey. He did it just right. I'm
coming at an incumbent. I've got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ,
and I'm gonna beat him tonight. And I don't care what this guy
moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I'm going to ignore him.
What was Romney doing? He was winning."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">"It
does remind you that the last debate Mitt Romney had was seven months
ago and the last debate that Barack Obama had was four years ago," said
Maddow.</span></span><br />
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/10/03/dem-debate-meltdown-obama-surrogate-refers-president-romney">Newsbusters:</a> "Dem Debate Meltdown: Stumbling Obama Surrogate Speaks Of 'President Romney":</span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">How resounding was Mitt Romney's rout of Barack Obama tonight? In the post-debate spin room, a hopelessly muddled <strong>Martin O'Malley, Dem guv from Maryland and supposedly an Obama surrogate, wound up referring to "President Romney"! </strong>Freudian slip, anyone?<br /><br />
For good measure, pressed by MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell-clearly dismayed
by Obama's dismal performance-to suggest what he'd recommend the prez do
differently next time, a demoralized O'Malley could only mutter "uh, I
don't know."</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span><br />
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html">Andrew Sullivan:</a></span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Look:
you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high
information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's
meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for
the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete,
wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving
Romney a second look.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't <em>there</em>. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of
the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the
salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change
tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.</span></span><br />
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br />Read more: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/liberal_heads_exploding_all_over_the_net.html#ixzz28LQNcD7U" style="color: #003399;">http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/liberal_heads_exploding_all_over_the_net.html#ixzz28LQNcD7U</a></div>
</blockquote>
And honestly this is the real victory. We now get many news cycles about how good Romney was in the debates and how bad Obama was. This kind of press affects swing voters and Independents, among which Romney was doing very well anyway.<br />
<br />
In the polls Romney was behind on the personal likability areas even though Obama approval was low. I took this to mean that people were unhappy with Obama, but were not sold on Romney and that the Democrats were being at least somewhat successful at painting Romney as a rich, out of touch, Gordon Gekko type who doesn't care about the common man. But now I believe that impression has been shattered, Romney's image will get a big boost.<br />
<br />
I was surprised at Obama's poor performance. I agree with one commentator who said that Obama prepared a bon fire for straw men but he was surprised when his opponent didn't let him get away with misrepresentations. He seriously needed a teleprompter.<br />
<br />
Enjoy this one people, it's not very often that the liberal media admits to a victory for the Republicans.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-13109881316038636362012-09-13T05:28:00.000-07:002012-09-13T05:28:19.806-07:00We are not electing an Emperor If you read only one thing today <a href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/romney-is-no-savior-and-thats-the-point/">this should be it</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a way it is a twentieth century brand of nonsense, at least for the
United States, the idea that a superior man will be found who will
embody the virtues of the republic and flawlessly lead the people. Let’s
face it, until World War Two showed us the horrors behind the curtain,
Western Civ had got all jiggy with genetic superiority and the idea of
the great man. And even World War Two didn’t wipe it out completely. FDR
was to an extent our Caesar, the man who was perfect to take the ship
of state and sail it to a “progressive” future where only the
enlightened would make decisions and all would be as it should be.</blockquote>
Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-90131241756967042222012-09-12T07:54:00.002-07:002012-09-12T07:54:49.587-07:00Easy Rebutals to Obama Talking PointsRead and digest this entire article, simplicity is key to winning arguments and convincing people you are correct.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/quick-and-easy-rebuttals-to-obamas-false-narratives/">Daily Caller Opinion Section</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>False Narrative No. 1: Romney would return us to the “same old” Bush policies that got us into this mess.</strong><br />
This is a false narrative “two-fer,” because (a) Romney is not
proposing to return us to President George W. Bush’s policies and (b)
the Bush policies that Clinton complained of are not what got us into
this mess.<br />
<strong>First Rebuttal:</strong> Romney would not return us to Bush’s
policies. Bush used tax cuts to help us overcome the economic shock of
9/11. Romney is proposing comprehensive tax <em>reform</em> —
eliminating deductions so tax rates can be lowered and the tax base can
be broadened. Although the details are different, Romney’s general
approach is identical to that proposed by President Obama’s own debt
reduction commission — the commission that Obama has ignored.<br />
<strong>Second Rebuttal:</strong> The financial crisis was caused by
the housing bubble, which was fueled by government pressure on banks to
lend to the less creditworthy. No president was more responsible for the
housing bubble than Bill Clinton. Investor’s Business Daily calls
Clinton “<a class="external" href="http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/090712-625087-clinton-wrecked-the-economy-not-republicans.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the architect of the financial crisis</a>,”
and likened him to a “housing arsonist” now trying to pass himself off
as a “heroic firefighter.” Obama likes to blame the financial crisis on
deregulation. But the deregulation legislation in question was signed
into law by <a class="external" href="http://washingtonindependent.com/82632/clinton-faults-himself-for-financial-industry-deregulation" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Clinton</a>, who also <a class="external" href="http://washingtonindependent.com/82632/clinton-faults-himself-for-financial-industry-deregulation" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">refused to regulate the complex financial instruments</a> that helped transform the housing crisis into a financial crisis.<br />
<strong>Third Rebuttal:</strong> Obama rejects the pro-growth tax
reform favored by Romney and by Obama’s own debt commission. Instead, he
wants to raise taxes. But President Obama himself used to say that the “<a class="external" href="http://www.verumserum.com/?p=26976" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">last thing you want to do is raise taxes</a>” in a down economy. Bill Clinton <a class="external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JfZ6Z3eKqw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">used to say that too</a>. And they were right: Ernst & Young estimates that Obama’s tax proposals <a class="external" href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/18/ernst-and-young-obamas-tax-increase-would-kill-710000-jobs/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">will cost us 710,000 jobs and will reduce wages, investment and economic output</a>.<br />
<strong>False Narrative No. 2: Romney, like Bush, would cut taxes only for the “rich.”</strong><br />
<strong>Rebuttal:</strong> Romney’s comprehensive tax reform plan would result in an <a class="external" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/08/23/dont-believe-obamas-ads-romney-is-a-middle-class-tax-cutter/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">across-the-board 20 percent tax rate reduction</a> for <em>all</em> taxpayers. Romney’s tax rate on the middle class would be the <a class="external" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/08/23/dont-believe-obamas-ads-romney-is-a-middle-class-tax-cutter/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lowest since the Great Depression</a>. The Bush tax cuts, by the way, were also across-the-board cuts for all taxpayers.<br />
<strong>False Narrative No. 3: We were losing 800,000 jobs a month
when President Obama took office; his policies stopped the bleeding and
put us on the path to recovery.</strong><br />
<strong>Rebuttal:</strong> Job losses in the last recession peaked at
741,000 (not 800,000) the month President Obama was sworn in. Job
losses immediately started a <a class="external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_losses_caused_by_the_late-2000s_recession#cite_note-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">steady decline</a> when he took office, before the president even had the chance to pass his stimulus plan. The recession <a class="external" href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/20/news/economy/recession_over/index.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ended in June 2009</a>, when stimulus spending had <a class="external" href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/08/the-facts-about-stimulus-spend" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">barely begun</a>.
Obama likes to imply that without his stimulus, we would have continued
to hemorrhage jobs at the same rate that was occurring when he became
president. The timeline proves otherwise; credit for reversing the
damage more likely goes to the emergency measures put in place by Bush.
But while Obama cannot take credit for ending the recession, he can
certainly take credit for what liberal CBS News calls “<a class="external" href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/18/cbs_news_this_is_the_worst_economic_recovery_america_has_ever_had.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the worst economic recovery that America has ever had</a>.”<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br />Read more: <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/quick-and-easy-rebuttals-to-obamas-false-narratives/#ixzz26GdpoqA3" style="color: #003399;">http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/quick-and-easy-rebuttals-to-obamas-false-narratives/#ixzz26GdpoqA3</a></div>
</blockquote>
Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-76340971243757432042012-09-12T07:50:00.002-07:002012-09-12T07:50:54.095-07:00Worst Jobs President EverObama has presided over the worst recovery in recent American history, despite claims of "4 million jobs created"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://youtu.be/RnKYFMjgQ70">Check out this video</a><br />
<br />
Obama should not be able to brag about jobs created and he should not be able to claim "progress" on any front. Also this gives lie to the talking point of "Bush policies got us here in the first place".Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-88434529074218591622012-09-06T11:06:00.001-07:002012-09-06T11:07:12.941-07:00Why we get called NazisThis is an excellent article by actor Michael Knowles about <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/the-party-of-godwin/">why Democrats call us Nazis</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The answer lies in the intellectual heterogeneity, or lack thereof,
within the two major parties. Since the Reagan Revolution, the
Republican Party has counted in its ranks at least four distinct
political groups: traditionalists, neoconservatives, libertarians, and
the religious right. In his excellent piece “Four Heads and One Heart,”
political scientist James Ceaser observes that these four major factions
of the Republican Party often approach politics from fundamentally
different points of view. In order for libertarians to share a “big
tent” with the religious right, they must force themselves to consider
an opposing point of view, understand the merits of its arguments, make
ideological concessions, and compromise. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Democratic Party has no such philosophical disagreements and
therefore no such reason to compromise, at least in the years since
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama brought the party back from
the brink of practicality. Conservative “Blue Dog Democrats” and
Clintonian “New Democrats” have almost entirely abandoned ship: all that
remain are ideologically pure progressives. Devoid of any internal
challenges to their ideas, the so-called progressives are left in a
Democratic echo chamber, finally free to, well, progress.</blockquote>
Read the whole thing. Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-72991587346945467212012-09-04T11:02:00.003-07:002012-09-04T11:02:51.896-07:00Do you want him to succeed?Today Buzzfeed - a reflexively liberal site, normally - took the Daily Show to task for "mis-characterizing" Romney on the subject of<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/daily-show-mischaracterizes-romneys-2008-remarks"> if he wanted the President to succeed</a>(warning: bad language). Here's an exerpt<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The clip, however, seems to entirely mischaracterize what Romney was
saying, and at the very least takes him completely out of context in the
short clip.<br />
In the seconds immediately before the clip Stewart
aired Romney said — discussing comments by Christina Romer, the Obama
Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors — that he wanted
President Obama to succeed.<br />
"Republicans want to do what's right
for America, and want to get this economy going again. We want the
president succeed," Romney said.<br />
Later, in <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485225,00.html">the fuller context</a>
of the partial clip Stewart aired, Romney argues the he doesn't want
the President to install failed policies for the very purpose they won't
succeed.</blockquote>
This all goes back to when Rush Limbaugh caused an uproar right after Obama was inaugurated by saying that he did not want this President to succeed. Now you could mark this down to the press taking things out of context and the Democrats wanting to be able to say "that guy hates Obama so much that he wants America to suffer just so that he will look bad".<br />
<br />
But if you look a little closer you can see how liberals think. The Obama presidency, and candidacy for that matter, has always been about celebrity. He made great speeches where promised many things in a vague enough manner as to allow people to project their wants on to him. He promised things without going in to detail as to HOW he would accomplish them. But he definitely WANTED to change things, and so did voters.<br />
<br />
Well fast forward to today and we have seen the 'how' and also the results. So to us saying "I want him to fail" means: "all those things he wants to do to try and make things better, I don't believe that they will work, and so I want his effort to implement them to fail". But all a liberal hears is "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" or something to that effect, they mix up the 'how' with 'who'. They think it's personal, because to them Obama being in office IS personal, it's all about 'who' he is. Celebrity.<br />
<br />
For example. Cap and Trade. Obama wants a Cap and Trade system in place to save the environment. I personally think that a Cap and Trade system will be disasterous for our economy and way of life, furthermore I do not believe that a Cap and Trade system will actually benefit the environment or nature in any meaningful way. Thus, I want any effort to implement a C&T to fail. But a liberal looks at that statement and sees Obama wanting to save the earth, but I'm against it, so they think I am willing to trash the environment just because I don't like Obama(also how could anyone not want to save the environment?).<br />
<br />
For liberals it's never about results, it is always about intentions. <br />
<br />
They probably honestly believe that Obama's policies would succeed if the Republicans would just get out of the way. This allows them to blame all failures on "Obstructionist Republicans".Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-74290829001315988692012-08-31T06:48:00.000-07:002012-08-31T07:04:19.181-07:00Liberal Thinking Exhibit APlease go <a href="http://youtu.be/NMhw_O3Z7m8">watch this video</a>.<br />
<br />
And there you have it! Liberal thinking in a nutshell. When listening to Liberals it's hard to get through all the "help help I'm being oppressed" rhetoric and figure out where they are coming from. But here it is cut down to it's basic level for all to see. It's 60's institutionalized thought where every issue is one of "rights", which is also the basis of the victimhood mentality. Because they couch issues in that way, there are no "two sides to the argument", there's only the evil and the good.<br />
<br />
Ryan's larger point is that the people have given power to the government, not the other way around. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they were rebelling against a way of life where you only existed as far as the King permitted. So instead of the Government permitting us to exist and dictating what we can or cannot do, what we can and cannot have, our freedoms come from an "inalienable" right to persue personal happiness and bear the fruits of our labors(both good and bad). We 'allow' the government to enforce rules for the common good and provide basic services. The level of these provisions is always up for debate, but Paul Ryan was making the distiction between the two ways of thinking.<br />
<br />
As I said before, the origination of this type of thinking is from the 60's from the civil rights movement. And continues today because Liberals, especially the ones who become activists or who think of themselves as intellectuals, refuse to see the USA as anything but oppressors and spreaders of evil. <br />
<br />
George Will talks about this in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-an-election-to-call-voters-bluff/2012/08/29/8764c538-f13c-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html">a recent article(a good read btw, but on a different subject)</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Before Franklin Roosevelt, “liberal” described policies emphasizing
liberty and individual rights. He, however, pioneered the politics of
collective rights — of group entitlements. And his liberalism
systematically developed policies not just to buy the allegiance of
existing groups but to <i>create</i> groups that henceforth would be dependent on government.<br />
......<br />
Government no longer existed to protect natural rights but to confer special rights on favored cohorts. As <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803728.html">Irving Kristol</a>
said, the New Deal preached not equal rights for all but equal
privileges for all — for all, that is, who banded together to become
wards of the government.<br />
<br />
In the 1960s, public-employee unions were
expanded to feast from quantitative liberalism (favors measured in
quantities of money). And qualitative liberalism was born as
environmentalists, feminists and others got government to regulate
behavior in the service of social “diversity,” “meaningful” work, etc</blockquote>
So you see Toure can call Paul Ryan a racist for saying "Rights come from God", because the "Rights" of black people came from the Government after the Civil Rights Movement. The rights of women also came from the Government through the feminist movement, the rights of the poor come from being recognized by the Government and being granted subsidies. <br />
<br />
Politically, speaking about things in terms of rights is a very powerful tool for the left. It allows them to break down people in to groups and to identify with their cause in the vein of "You are being oppressed, I will fight your oppressors". It also allows them to define their opponents as the 'bad guy'. Watch for Republicans being called "too extreme" for America or<insert state here>.<br />
<br />
Countering this kind of thinking is extremely difficult because, remember, they don't see these issues as disagreements that can be argued over. To Liberals it's a battle of good versus evil. When you encounter someone like this it's important to actually realize what you are arguing about. The Liberal is not trying to score debate points against you to convince you he's right, he's more interested in framing you as an evil oppressor of women, blacks, minorities, etc etc.<br />
<br />
Take abortion for instance. The conservative says that having an abortion is taking a human life. Liberals say that banning abortion takes away the 'right' of women to do whatever they want with their bodies. Those are two different statements, two different arguments to be held, the debate points for one argument have no bearing on the other. Conservatives have been winning the debate on the sanctity of life, through technology advancements allowing mothers to see their baby earlier and humanizing it in their minds. The number of people who identify as "pro-life" is at an all time high. However if the argument is couched in the Liberal way of thinking, as Conservatives taking away a 'right', then we lose the argument because we are not even debating the same topic. See: Sandra Fluke and Todd Akin.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-87937029639236561652012-08-28T08:38:00.000-07:002012-08-28T08:38:24.945-07:00The Perfect ToneEverybody knows that politics can be nasty business and managing a Presidential campaign is basically a giant PR endeavor. You have to make your opponent look bad while making yourself look great. And this goes way beyond policy issues, in fact policy positions are basically just things used to create slogans and catchphrases during the campaign.<br />
<br />
That holds true for this year, but this year it is especially important because there are so few actual undecided/independent voters out there. I mean Romney has the Republicans and, with the selection of Paul Ryan as running mate, the conservative Tea Party votes sewn up. Obama has the Liberal Democrats and the special interest group voters(ethnic, gender, age etc). The biggest actual swing voter group are the moderates(Repubs and Dems) who swung heavily for Obama in 2008. The reasons for the swing are as numerous as they are various. Some wanted to be part of a movement, some had white guilt(it's true), some didn't like McCain, some fell for the DC outsider talk, some fell for the fiscally conservative rhetoric("I'll go line by line through the budget"), some just thought Sarah Palin was dumb. <br />
<br />
Whatever the reason, a lot of these independents have soured on Obama. Mostly because they have felt or realize that they will feel the direct results of his policies. The task then is to make them feel comfortable voting for a Republican. Remember these are moderates who are not going to be motivated by positions on polarizing social issues, unless it is to be turned off by the passion and negativity(I'll get back to that in a sec).<br />
<br />
Romney already has the first part down, the making himself look good, he knows what image he's going to project: business man who can fix the economy. But how to define Obama is the issue. Going hard negative on personal issues is NOT going to do it, things like calling him a socialist, Muslim, foreigner, an abortionist etc will just turn off moderates and drive them back to Obama - or else they will stay home. So what to do? Here is what <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/27/romney-gop-convention-theme-against-obama-will-be-nice-guy-failed-president/">HotAir</a> is reporting will be Romney's stance:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After dumping the “nice guy but failed President” argument in the
overwhelming volume of nasty attacks from Barack Obama and his campaign,
including insinuations of being a felon, a murderer, and a modern-day
slaver, Romney tells Politico that the theme will return at the
Republican National Convention this week in Tampa:"</blockquote>
Perfect! Portraying Obama as a guy with good intentions but who doesn't really know things work or how to get them done is exactly the right tone. First off, and most importantly, it puts the focus back on his record, which is terrible and the last thing Obama wants(Obamacare, environmental policy, tax the rich, debt). Second EVERYONE knows someone similar, a family member, a friend from high school or wherever who has good intentions but is just naive and/or a slacker who constantly puts up a facade to make themselves seem cool. Third, they can shine a light on his past, something that was not done in 2008 because everyone was obsessed with which newspaper Palin reads first.<br />
<br />
Romney can portray him as not a good President, ignoring his jobs counsel, investing tax money in things he thinks will "save the planet", playing a lot of golf, giving the Queen an iPod(seriously?). Basically someone that it would be fun to have a drink with(or smoke some weed with...ahem!) but not someone you would let anywhere near your credit card.<br />
<br />
Obama on the other hand has already shown how he will try to make Romney look bad. His main argument is going to be that Romney is a radical crazy person who is not fit to hold a job let alone be President. There's been the "war on women" (I will write a post on this very soon), his campaign manager implied he was a felon and hiding his tax returns, the advertisement that basically said he caused someone to die from cancer because his company laid off workers, and have used the terms "too extreme" and "too radical" over and over and over. And they aren't wasting any time, they have spent more money on tv ads than they have raised, despite a record number of fundraisers.<br />
<br />
If Romney feels the need to go negative, he has plenty of Obama subordinates to hammer. Geithner will be one, so will Holder, and probably Valerie Garret and Stephanie Cutter. Those people represent the bureaucratic and political side of Obama that turns people off and feeds in to the anti-incumbent sentiment that is always present when things aren't going well.<br />
<br />
So Romney is in a great position, he has a cash advantage, he will use the convention to hammer the "nice guy but failed President" message, and the contrast in tone will make it extremely tough for Obama to paint him as an extremist. Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-25905086827140557852012-08-27T07:55:00.002-07:002012-08-27T07:55:43.613-07:00BackWell I'm back to blogging now. It's been almost, what, three years now? I don't consider myself to be an awesome writer, but my father convinced me that it is time to start sharing my thoughts on politics and culture again.<br />
<br />
The reason for the long break mostly has to do with my living in DC, where politics dominate everything. And while lots of arguments are engaged in, %90 of it is rhetoric and no minds are actually changed. It's much more fun to talk about sports where people can sometimes be convinced of something they are initially resistant too. Also, it's ok to mock them for rooting for a bad team. <br />
<br />
So anyway, I'm back at it. I hope it will be worthwhile and entertaining.Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-59502495692763541542009-01-19T12:06:00.001-08:002009-01-19T12:06:19.471-08:00<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>As I sit here looking out the window of my office watching helicopters fly low to the ground and policemen set up traffic cones in preparation for tomorrow's inauguration. I can't help but long for it all to be over. Not really because I didn't vote for The 'bama, but because this town is just insane and it does not need 4 million more people to come here and help make it more insane.<br/><br/>In fact I think it is very sad that one of Dubya's last acts in office was to declare this area a disaster zone. Of course it was really just so that FEMA money could be used to help cover the expenses; however I do not disagree with the label. The government is poised to spend over 150 million american dollars on this event. And I find the lack of critics of the extravagance to be very hypocritical.<br/><br/><a href='http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/01/14/ap-slammed-bush-s-extravagant-inaugural-05-now-it-s-spend-baby-spend'>AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend | NewsBusters.org</a><br/><blockquote>Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”<br/><br/>Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?<br/><br/>Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede: </blockquote></div>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-48908542706123181792008-12-16T13:38:00.001-08:002008-12-16T13:38:29.504-08:00Joe rips the Drive-By's<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>Joe makes a good point on this clip. The news people can find out anything they want, it's their job, but their lack of curiosity on the Blago matter is very telling.<br /><br /><a href='http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/16/video-joe-scarborough-rips-the-tanning-bed-media/'>Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Joe Scarborough rips the Tanning Bed Media</a><br /><br /><blockquote><div class='youtube-video'><object height='419' width='518'><param value='http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydpr8zQukU' name='movie'> </param><param value='true' name='allowFullScreen'> </param><embed height='419' width='518' allowfullscreen='true' src='http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydpr8zQukU'> </embed></object></div></blockquote></div>Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-36123129361952356142008-04-17T07:45:00.001-07:002008-04-17T07:45:16.278-07:00TestThis is a test postJeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-79027361475597111622008-02-28T06:32:00.001-08:002008-02-28T06:32:14.057-08:00William F. Buckley Jr. Dies at 82<p><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V2PN3O0&show_article=1">RIP Bill Buckley</a>, you will be missed.</p> <p>William Buckley was often described as a witty man who loved a good argument or discussion. But also a man who was extremely friendly and displayed a love of life that was contagious. He had close friends on both sides of the political aisle and his intellect was renowned among them all. I can truly say that this is the kind of person that I want to be.</p> <p>He is sometimes called the founder of Conservatism. But I think that's somewhat of a misnomer since conservatism is based on a way of life and what motivates people. It is not an intellectual philosophy that dictates how we act and think; it's rather the other way around. Bill Buckley was the first one to articulate conservatism and it's motivations as a complete intellectual platform. So I think the best description for him would be the Father of the Conservative Movement. I miss him already.</p> <p><a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022708/content/01125106.guest.html">Rush Limbaugh shares his memories</a> of Bill:</p> <blockquote> <p>Bill Buckley is indescribable.  He's irreplaceable.  There will not be another one like him.  And although that's true of all of us, once you take the time to learn about Buckley and his life and look at what all he did with it, he did not waste a moment, did not waste a moment.  He was able to pursue, as he called it, his sybaritic delights, his pleasurable delights, such as sailing around the world numerous times, traveling the world with his work.  He was prolific in output, but it was his intellect and it was his good humor that was literally inspiring to me.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ1Yjc2YTE0YmYwNzNlNzNiNjhkMWZjMzQyZjZkYzY=">Norman Podhoretz: WFB and his mighty pen</a>.</p> <p><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQxYzFjODY5Zjc4MTFhNmI3MjJjY2YyNDE0NTA4OTE=">An NOR Symposium on the life of WFB</a></p> <p><a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTA2MDQxOTY0Y2ZiMGQ3OTgwMWNiZjIzMDhjM2ZkNDM=">John McCain: Bill was a great American</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/william_f_buckley_jr_goes_home">Redstates favorite WFB qutoes</a></p> <blockquote> <p>I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.</p> <p>We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.</p> <p>I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies.</p> <p>All that is good is not embodied in the law; and all that is evil is not proscribed by the law. A well-disciplined society needs few laws; but it needs strong mores.</p></blockquote> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-22952761481658680272008-02-27T07:11:00.001-08:002008-02-27T07:11:15.111-08:00ElBaradei's Real Agenda<p>So really, what does it take to get fired from a UN job? </p> <blockquote> <p>Mr. ElBaradei's report culminates a career of freelancing and fecklessness which has crippled the reputation of the organization he directs. He has used his Nobel Prize to cultivate an image of a technocratic lawyer interested in peace and justice and above politics. In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation.</p> <p>Mr. ElBaradei assumed the directorship on Dec. 1, 1997. On his watch, but undetected by his agency, Iran constructed its covert enrichment facilities and, according to the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, engaged in covert nuclear-weapons design. India and Pakistan detonated nuclear devices. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear godfather, exported nuclear technology around the world.</p> <p>In 2003, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi confessed to an undetected weapons effort. Mr. ElBaradei's response? He rebuked the U.S. and U.K. for bypassing him. When Israel recently destroyed what many believe was a secret (also undetected) nuclear facility in Syria, Mr. ElBaradei told the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh that it is "unlikely that this building was a nuclear facility," although his agency has not physically investigated the site.</p> </blockquote> <p>If I had a performance record like this at my job I would be fired. Very fired. I mean this guy has basically turned his department in to giant buckets of fail.</p> <p>Unless of course your agenda has more to do with thwarting the interests of America. And his actions make perfect sense if he believes that America is the cause of the worlds problems.</p> <p>It amazes me how selfish this guy is and how feckless his bosses at the UN are. The fact that a performance like this and a self serving agenda by a director can go un-addressed and unpunished is amazing. This also begs questioning of the UN (not that I need much of a reason). For a world wide organization who's stated goal is to keep peace; why are they letting one person's personal agenda endanger millions. Do they really think that a Islamic extremist with a nuclear weapon won't be that bad? There is some SERIOUS disingenuousness going on here.</p> <p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120389990086289395.html">ElBaradei's Real Agenda - WSJ.com</a></p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-42245228523254435432008-02-26T08:18:00.001-08:002008-02-26T08:18:15.136-08:00Links<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120390556121489679.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary">Chilling Effect - WSJ.com</a> - Global Warmists try to stifle debate</p> <p><a href="http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=288832606429890">House Inaction Left America Open To Attack</a> - Mitch McConnel</p> <p><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/26/bad_times">Bad Times::By Thomas Sowell</a> - New York Times "journalism"</p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-57969029333431475452008-02-26T06:33:00.001-08:002008-02-26T06:33:28.020-08:00American Thinker: The Misnomer of Conservatism<p> Rush talked about this article yesterday and it truly made me think.</p> <blockquote> <p>Consider the silliness of words like "conservative" and "liberal," if we actually give those words their commonsense meaning.   Which American would most conservatives view as one of their own?  Thomas Jefferson would be high on the list.  He supported  states' rights; he dreaded an imperial judiciary; we believed that the government which governed least was the best government; he believed strongly in the American Dream (he is recognized as the father of American Exceptionalism); he also deeply revered Western Civilization and its contributors.  Thomas Jefferson would be considered an arch-conservative on most issues today.</p> <p> But what was Jefferson, if we use the ordinary meaning of the words we have been given to describe politics?  He was a liberal, because he believed in freedom (the ordinary meaning of the word relates to Latin <em>libera</em>.  He was a conservative, because he sought to conserve those traditional rights which Americans had possessed as subjects of the Crown under English Common Law.  He was a radical, who wrote the transformative Declaration of Independence and who made the radical gamble on America implicit in the Louisiana Purchase.  He was a reactionary, because he sought to "turn back the clock," when the British tried to redefine the status of colonials by depriving them of rights which Englishmen had under Common Law.  He was a revolutionary, because he reached the conclusion that only a revolutionary war could do justice to the American cause.  He was a moderate, because he sought a tranquil, limited, apolitical government.</p> <p>What Jefferson "was" ideologically was defined by the particular events happening at the time and upon the context it which those events happened.  Yet Jefferson was not inconsistent it his political views:  he was very consistent.  He did not change, but rather the meaningless terms to define his actions and words had to change to meet the consistency of Jefferson.  It is not unimportant that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers never used terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive."  And, despite the fact that his Presidency came after the French Revolution, Jefferson never used the term "Left" or "Right."  Jefferson, one of the most brilliant and learned political thinkers in history, never used the silly language that we do today to describe political thought.</p> <p>Did that mean that Jefferson did not write about politics and government?  Quite the contrary:  He wrote extensively, brilliantly, lucidly, and deeply.  What he wrote about was not ideology, but rather specific principles that he believed were essential for good government.  Jefferson believed in very limited government.  He believed in strong individual rights.  He believed in strong states and weak federal government.  He believed that America was unique and vital to the world.  If someone wanted to use a name to describe what Jefferson believed, that was his right, but Jefferson defined himself who he was.</p> </blockquote> <p>Read the whole thing: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_misnomer_of_conservatism.html">American Thinker: The Misnomer of Conservatism</a></p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-51982710265611526442008-02-25T10:28:00.001-08:002008-02-25T10:28:32.821-08:00Homeless: Can you build a life from $25?<p>This is an amazing story about a guy with a college education who, just to see if it could be done, became homeless and tried to build a life for himself starting with just $25.</p> <p>Meet Adam Shepard, his goal was to have a car, a job and $2500 in the bank after a year. After 10 months he had a car, a job and $5000 in the bank!</p> <p>His story truly is inspiring. I can't wait to read the whole book but I love how he repeatedly eschews any attempt to suggest that he had an advantage because of his education and upbringing. Instead he talks about the lessons HE learned from the people who started out less fortunate than he did.</p> <p><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0211/p13s02-wmgn.htm">Homeless: Can you build a life from $25? </a></p> <blockquote> <p><b>But surely your background – you're privileged; you have an education and a family – made it much easier for you to achieve.</b></p> <p>[Adam]I didn't use my college education, credit history, or contacts [while in South Carolina]. But in real life, I had these lessons that I had learned. I don't think that played to my advantage. How much of a college education do you need to budget your money to a point that you're not spending frivolously, but you're instead putting your money in the bank? </p> <p>Do you need a college education? I don't think so. To be honest with you, I think I was disadvantaged, because my thinking was inside of a box. I have the way that I lived [in North Carolina] – and to enter into this totally new world and acclimate to a different lifestyle, that was the challenge for me. </p> <p>......</p> <p><b>Would your project have changed if you'd had child-care payments or been required to report to a probation officer? Wouldn't that have made it much harder?</b></p> <p><b></b></p> <p>The question isn't whether I would have been able to succeed. I think it's the attitude that I take in: "I've got child care. I've got a probation officer. I've got all these bills. Now what am I going to do? Am I going to continue to go out to eat and put rims on my Cadillac? Or am I going to make some things happen in my life...?" One guy, who arrived [at the shelter] on a Tuesday had been hit by a car on [the previous] Friday by a drunk driver. He was in a wheelchair. He was totally out of it. He was at the shelter. And I said, "Dude, your life is completely changed." And he said, "Yeah, you're right, but I'm getting the heck out of here." Then there was this other guy who could walk and everything was good in his life, but he was just kind of bumming around, begging on the street corner. To see the attitudes along the way, that is what my story is about. </p> </blockquote> <p>That makes me feel almost ashamed for not having a better attitude about my career and education. It definitely gives me pride to live in a Country where you can start at the bottom and with enough hard work and a good attitude be very successful. Especially if you have an attitude similar to Adam's:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>You made it out of the shelter, got a job, and opened a bank account. Did you meet other people who had similar experiences?</b></p> <p><b></b></p> <p>Oh, absolutely. We don't need "Scratch Beginnings" to know that millions of Americans are creating a life for themselves from nothing.... Just as millions of Americans are not getting by. There are both ends of the spectrum. </p> <p>To meet that guy [in the wheelchair] at the shelter, [makes you wonder] 'Can he get out and go to college and become a doctor?' Maybe, maybe not. I think he can set goals..... You can use your talents. That's why, from the beginning, I set very realistic goals: $2,500, a job, car. This isn't a "rags-to-riches million-dollar" story. This is very realistic. I truly believe, based on what I saw at the shelter ...that anyone can do that. </p> </blockquote> <p>That's one thing about liberals and really politicians in general. You never hear them say "you CAN do it". It's always "What you've already done should have been good enough and I'm the one who can fix this injustice". Even if the pols have good intentions they are discouraging the attitude that will ultimately help the poor become not poor.</p> <p>Here is another interview with Adam from one of my favorite websites <a href="http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/02/18/scratch-beginnings-an-interview-with-adam-shepard/#more-1625">Get Rich Slowly</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Even now, though, in my current life where I have a little bit more financial freedom, I’m still always looking to save money.</b> Why do I need to go to the “real movie theatre” when I can go to the “dolla-fitty” and watch movies that might be a month or two old? Why Eddie Bauer, when Marshall’s essentially has the same clothes? Why Dr. Pepper when there’s Dr. Thunder? And on and on. Even with money to spare, I’m looking for ways to put that money to work for me rather than spending it on items that I don’t truly need for right now. </p> <p>I know that one day I’ll be financially free enough to own the car I want, the house I want, the clothes I want. That day is not today, but the idea of delaying gratification keeps me going. </p> <p><b>J.D.</b> <br /><i>Is it <u>really</u> that easy? You were able to do this because you had a goal. What was the situation like for those people you worked and lived with? Did they have goals? Did they save?</i></p> <p><b>Adam</b> <br />Of course it’s easy for me to say it was easy. I had a goal. I was out to prove a point. I had the mentality and I knew what I had to do to get the results I wanted.</p> <p>But what surprised me most, and what makes my story so fascinating, is that <b>so many people around me were doing the same thing</b>. It was most prevalent in the shelter (where some people had spent a lifetime learning from their mistakes), but it was just as prevalent outside of the shelter with guys like Derrick Hale, who emerges as the hero of my experience in Charleston.</p> <p>Derrick was a guy I was working with at the moving company. He had come from rural Kingstree, SC, and he truly knew what poverty was like having grown up in a world of bologna and pickle sandwiches and maybe the lights will turn on, maybe not. And there he was in Charleston, saving his money just like I was. Actually, that’s cocky of me to say, since <i>I</i> was learning so many lessons from <i>him</i>. </p> <p>Derrick was unique in that <b>not only did he have a goal, but he <i>had a vision</i> for achieving that goal</b>. There’s a <i>monumental</i> difference, and I really learned that throughout the course of my time in Charleston. Everybody knows what they want (nice house, car, vacation money, etc.) and many people know what can get in the way of achieving those goals (see poor spending habits above). But! Some people really struggle with the discipline of their vision. Derrick wanted a house, and near the end of my time in Charleston, he moved into a brand new 3-bedroom, two-story house, with a patio and a fenced in yard for his daughter and dog to play. He was 25 and he worked as a mover, but he knew how to handle his money. </p> <p>So, is it realistic to set goals and save your money and make worthy investments? Of course it is! Are people doing it? Of course they are, just as there are people that are squandering their money to bad habits. </p> </blockquote> <p>Read the whole thing. You will be glad you did</p> <p><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yC88zQsVByk&rel=1&border=0" width="425" height="355" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" /></p> <p>Also check out his website <a href="http://www.scratchbeginnings.com/">Scratch Beginnings</a>.</p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-18586068363978988322008-02-20T12:16:00.001-08:002008-02-20T12:16:51.059-08:00Some Reading<p>Here is some reading for you </p> <p><a href="http://johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/Read.aspx?guid=0f2d8033-e6e6-4658-8964-2dda6afaddd9">John McCain </a> <br />"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people.  Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud.  And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve."</p> <p><a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080214_96039_96039">Mark Styen - What would it take to alarm you?</a> <br />The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few.</p> <p><a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades">Global Warming? It's the coldest winter in decades.</a> <br />Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels. <br />Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year. <br />The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. <br />A photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg has become one of the most enduring images in the campaign against climate change. <br />It was used by former US Vice President Al Gore during his Inconvenient Truth lectures about mankind’s impact on the world. But scientists say the northern hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades. <br />They add that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966.</p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-50238690711050160262008-02-20T11:50:00.001-08:002008-02-20T11:50:11.738-08:00Obamamania<p>The Obama campaign seems determined to be THE definition of "style over substance". In a recent speech Michelle Obama made the statement "for the FIRST time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" (see <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html">Video</a>).</p> <p>Really Mrs. Obama? Let's see in your lifetime the Berlin Wall came down, Segregation was stamped out and the Corvette was produced. Not proud of that? Hmm ok. What about being at the forefront of a technological renaissance that has literally changed the world(the Internet)? Or what about the way this country responded with aid to the Tsunami in 2004? Were you not proud of the heroic First Responders on 9/11?</p> <p>Even if those things did make her proud, a little bit, putting her husbands speeches to rockstar like crowds in the same category is very revealing. It reveals that Obama's positions are going to be solely based on what makes people feel good. Indeed that's what his campaign has consisted of: feelings. His speeches is making Bill Clinton and his old "I feel your pain" speeches look like Ebeneezer Scrooge.</p> <p>In the meantime those of us who are truly proud of our country know that it takes more than good intentions to be an effective President.</p> <p><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTM0ZTMwNTRlM2ZkZjA1OTdjZGI1YmM4ZWI4MDUxOTQ=">Michelle Malkin</a> has a great take on this as well.</p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-24756619093060740902008-02-20T11:04:00.001-08:002008-02-20T11:04:05.673-08:00President Bush<p>Has done more to fight AIDS and disease in Africa than any other President. </p> <blockquote> <p>But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.</p> <p>Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.</p> <p>Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."</p> <p>"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."</p> <p>"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said. </p> <p>Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.</p> <p>"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.</p> <p>Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html">The Washington Times, America's Newspaper</a> </p> <p>If Dubya's name was Bill Clinton this would be on the front page of every newspaper and magazine across this country (and probably other Countries as well). </p> <p>But what's not being talked about is the dirty little secret about how HIV spread in the first place. The truth is that back when HIV first started spreading in Africa it was predominantly in UN controlled 'aid areas'. The UN refused to classify it as a deadly virus and thus did not quarantine or restrict the movement of those infected. This was later corrected but the problem is still way out of hand.</p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-91416020024456776982008-02-20T05:59:00.001-08:002008-02-20T05:59:41.761-08:00LILEKS<p> Bleats all over Obama</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>On the radio today</strong> Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. <em>He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. </em>He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It's a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. <em>I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. </em>I disagree. It is my house. <em>Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise!</em> But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. <em>We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division.</em> There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. <em>Then we have truly come together.</em> Look, this isn’t a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. You’re pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They don’t. </p> <p>If he wins, I do look forward to dissenting; since it’s been established as the highest form of patriotism, I expect my arguments will be met with grave respect.<em> Shhhh! He’s dissenting. </em></p> <p>Among the arguments offered by the callers:</p> <p>* He will help save the planet by encouraging everyone to recycle cans and bottles and paper (the caller discussed a local drought, and said she did not think that recycling would stop it, but if everyone recycled - something she thought Obama would bring about through a general new era of ecological concern - future droughts would not occur.)</p> <p>* He will pay for college tuition (the caller thought tuition was too expensive, and did not want to be burdened with loans)</p> <p>* He will meet with the Iranians, personally, and conduct a frank personal interrogation about their nuclear intentions</p> <p>* He will inspire the Youth of America to get involved in politics again</p> <p>* He will prevent American companies from moving manufacturing overseas (The caller was unsure how this could be done, only that it <em>would</em> be done, because it <em>should</em> be done)</p> <p>* He will not raise taxes on anyone except maybe millionaires (The caller was surprised to be asked if Obama would raise taxes; it was a strange, peculiar, irrelevant issue)</p> <p>* He will give everyone health care (This would make American industry competitive, since companies would be freed of the obligation of making it an employee benefit)</p> <p>* He will talk to the Europeans</p> <p>And so on. There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. I remember the same zeitgeist afoot in the land in 1992; change was the mantra then, too. Odd how things turn out – I’d be happier with Hillary as President than Obama, simply because she seems a bit more seasoned and realistic. And I do find it interesting that people who have decried the shallow, theatrical, emotion-based nature of contemporary politics are now so effusive in their praise for someone’s ability to move crowds. Perhaps they don’t mind a fellow on a white horse if he promises to nationalize the stables.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.lileks.com/bleats/">LILEKS (James) the Bleat</a></p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-26051437131787021932008-02-19T11:20:00.003-08:002008-02-19T11:20:59.826-08:00Free Speech and Radical Islam<p>Great article in the WSJ today:</p> <blockquote> <p>For the past three months Mr. Westergaard and his wife have been on the run. Mr. Westergaard did the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 -- the one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban. The cartoon was a satirical comment on the fact that some Muslims are committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam and the prophet. Tragically, Mr. Westergaard's fate has proven the point of his cartoon: In the early hours of Tuesday morning Danish police arrested three men who allegedly had been plotting to kill him.</p> <p>In the past few days 17 Danish newspapers have published Mr. Westergaard's cartoon, which is as truthful as Picasso's painting. My colleagues at Jyllands-Posten and I understand that the cartoon may be offensive to some people, but sometimes the truth can be very offensive. As George Orwell put it in the suppressed preface to "Animal Farm": "If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."</p> <p>Sadly, the plot to kill Mr. Westergaard is not an isolated story, but part of a broader trend that risks undermining free speech in Europe and around the world. Consider the following recent events: In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog's body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having "insulted Islam." In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed "blasphemous" material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don't like her books.</p> <p>Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech. The cases are different, and you can't compare the legal systems in Egypt and Norway, but the justifications for censorship and self-censorship are similar in different parts of the world: Religious feelings and taboos need to be treated with a kind of sensibility and respect that other feelings and ideas cannot command.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html">Read the Whole Thing</a> and keep this in mind the next time you hear someone call Christians intolerant.</p> <p>Islamists want to kill you for 'sinning', even if you are not Muslim.</p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7017316.post-75728684630950290632008-02-15T12:20:00.001-08:002008-02-15T12:20:01.924-08:00Rush Limbaugh Talks to TIME<p> Shockingly Rush is given a fair shake and ample space to explain himself.</p> <p>Take a look:</p> <blockquote> <p>The second thing that the media doesn't understand — and I think it's because talk radio is outside the Beltway. It's a phenomenon that attracts what I call the people who make the country work. I don't think politicians and elected officials and bureaucrats and even the media are responsible for the greatness of the country. I think it's individual Americans laboring in anonymity, not seeking fame, just trying to get by, play by the rules, work hard, ordinary people doing extraordinary things. And those are the people that listen to talk radio. And the media thinks that they're all hayseeds and hicks without minds of their own. When in fact, they are totally independent thinkers. And most of my audience is there not because I have Pied Pipered them to where they believe. They already believed what they believe — I just came along and validated it. When I started in '88, there was CNN, the three networks, your magazine and <i>Newsweek</i> and <i>US News</i> and the newspapers. That was it. I started in '88 and I was the first so-called national voice espousing conservatism and people glommed onto it because finally, "Somebody who agrees with me!"</p> <p>So the assumption is that people who listen to talk radio are idiots, or mindless robots, or victims of slick marketing and packaging. So there's sort of a condescending view of the audience of talk radio, people are sometimes held in contempt by some people. It's just totally wrong. It's 180 degrees out of phase.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1713041-1,00.html">Rush Limbaugh Talks to TIME -</a></p> Jeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00729248964858423079noreply@blogger.com