I wonder what Scooter thinks...

I wonder what Scooter Libby thinks about our President's firing of the Americorps Inspector General. He should have known better than to investigate (and find gross misconduct commited by) Sacremento Mayor and Obama contributor and supporter Kevin Johnson. Libby, of course, had his life ruined because his recollection of which reporter he spoke to when about a supposed crime someone else ( a Clinton appointee)had already admitted they had commited. All former NBA star KJ did was misappropriate $800,000. You see, on the left, justice is subjective. That's why we on the right are worried about empathetic Justices.

David Ignacius on Chris Matthews

David Ignacius on Chris Matthews today said that the closing of Gitmo has been well received around the world and that lack of contempt globally toward the US will make us safer.
Oh really? I don't get the correlation. Reagan was not globally popular, and we won the cold war. I don't mind so much our enemies being a little uncomfortable with our image. Those being held are being treated in a humane fashion-guards are not permitted to touch a Koran without wearing gloves, this is not even a tenet of Islam.
It bothers me that Matthews didn't ask the obvious followup: Can you explain your connecting how well we are liked with how safe we are? Seems to me a popular kid who is a pushover will be sought out by the bullies.

A Mafia Administration?

I truly am becoming more fearful of a noticeable trend in this administration: thuggery. Yeah, I know it sounds dramatic, but let's look at some recent actions taken by the Obama administration.

1. The threat of prosecution made to attorneys in the Bush White House for writing a legal opinion. No matter where you stand on the torture debate, you have to admit, no incoming administration has ever gone down this path, let alone one voted into office promising unity and bipartisanship. It boils down to "We won, we don't like your policies, so get ready to spend your life's savings on lawyers because we're coming for you."

2. Threats made to Chrysler's creditors. Here's an exerpt from an article on www.businessinsider.com:

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg.

3. The promise from the White House to California, a state facing a $42 billion dollar deficit, that it would be denied $6.8 billion in stimulus money unless it recinded $74 million in cuts it made in a health care program about which the Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester." The assumed reason for this pressure? Union jobs.

These are becoming dangerous times, and for all the vitriol spent on G.W. Bush and his andministration, I'm surprised there is not a greater outcry on the part of the media regarding this. I wonder why no one at CNN or MSNBC seems to care? Huh.

If you haven't sen this yet, please give this a watch, The American Trinity from Prager University.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k

Here comes the rationing!!!

Well, I guess it's inevitable. Universal health care is on the way. I know the line is that you can keep the plan your employer offers with the Obama proposal, but few employers can compete with the government with the costs that will be involved, and a single payer system is inevitable. For conservatives, this will be a colossal blow and will change the face of all future election campaigns to focus on what benefits will be offered by which candidates rather than what conflicts we may be involved in are morally just, which social policies are best for the future of our nation, etc. But what I don't understand is why people aren't worried about health care rationing, especially AARP. The government health care system hasn't been created that doesn't involve treatments being reviewed by a 27 year old social worker miles from a patient, doing a cost/benefit analysis to protect the state's interests. This is a common complaint about HMO's, just wait till the whole country is one one big managed health care plan. Ugh.

And we're off!

Welcome to my premeire blog entry. Blogging is new to me but I may have a thing or two to say...

Let's start with Senator Arlen Specter's recent change in party affiliation. I respect him for being honest and stating that this move was the only way he would be re-elected in 2010. But on "Meet the Press", he stated that the GOP has moved further to the right recently. I would challenge that. I believe the country and the Dems have moved left. What position has changed for conservatives? I could only speculate...Same sex marriage? We aren't the party wanting to change a definition that is as old as time...Gun ownership? Abortion? Smaller government? Please feel free to help me out.

President Obama will be making his first Supreme Court nomination. Dems treated Pres. Bush's nominees shabbily, I hope we do not repeat that offensive behavior with Mr. Obama's nominee. Thus far, his people have been treated fairly, whether or not they paid their taxes. On the other hand, in the last 40 years the only Supreme Court nominees not to be confirmed were all nominated by a Republican President. Also, I am concerned about the comment our President made about “someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” but about how laws affect the daily lives of Americans. I prefer that a judge perform as a neutral referee, not as an activist. Cases should be judged on their merits. If a big company is sued by a little guy, but the big company is in the right, what say we just call it that way? Same thing if the little guy is in the right..