Updates from Pat Austin Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Pat Austin 3:07 PM on 07/07/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: capital punishment, ,   

    The Clock is Ticking for Humberto Leal 

    All eyes are on Texas today as the clock is ticking for Humberto Leal.  I posted on his case here, prompted by this post at Pecan Corner.

    As it sits right now, Leal could be executed any time after 6 p.m. unless Gov. Rick Perry issues a stay.  That looks unlikely, but you never know:

    “Texas is not bound by a foreign court’s ruling,” Katherine Cesinger, press secretary for Gov. Perry’s office, said in a statement. “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.”

    “The treaty” to which she refers is the 1963 United Nations enforced Viennea Convention on Consular Relations.

    “Leal’s argument is nothing but a transparent attempt to evade his impending punishment,” Stephen Hoffman, an assistant attorney general for the state of Texas, said in a brief to Supreme Court, according to AP.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t see Rick Perry caving on this.


    Cross posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport

    • Silverfiddle 6:56 PM on 07/07/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Hang ’em high! I only wish they could do to that monster what he did to that little girl.

      The world will be a better place when that despicable pos crosses the river styx

    • signpainterguy 8:11 PM on 07/07/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Gov. Perry stood up TO Obama and the UselessNations and foreign courts and FOR Justice, the state of Texas, the family of his victim and the American people ! THANK YOU Gov. Perry !

      What`cha gonna do now Zero and all those foreign courts you seem to like better than ours ?

    • zillaoftheresistance 3:08 PM on 07/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Don’t mess with Texas. That invader murdering rapist bastard is dead now, Zero couldn’t stop the execution.

  • Pat Austin 9:14 PM on 06/26/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    The White House “Punks” Your Doctor 

    Did I fall asleep and wake up in Cuba or the Soviet Union?

    Not having enough on their plates already with the tanking economy, rising unemployment, rising energy prices, a bottomed out housing market and skyrocketing national debt, the Obama administration is assembling a team of prank callers to harass the few remaining doctors we still have willing to practice medicine in this looming quagmire that is Obamacare.

    Straight from the New York Times:

    Alarmed by a shortage of primary care doctors, Obama administration officials are recruiting a team of “mystery shoppers” to pose as patients, call doctors’ offices and request appointments to see how difficult it is for people to get care when they need it.

    That’s right.  You’ve been Punk’d!   Imagine the poor receptionists in doctors offices all over America.   “What?  You don’t really want that appointment after all?  Well thanks for wasting my time and keeping me from attending to someone who actually does need medical care.  Have a nice day.”

    It seems the Obama administration is suddenly alarmed by the shortage of doctors.  Now, I wonder why there’s a shortage?

    Last year the Wall Street Journal wrote about the looming shortage of primary care physicians:

    The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

    The numbers tell the story, yet Team Obama wants to call and harass your doctor’s receptionist just to be sure.  This snoopy survey is redundant; the WSJ article has the numbers:

    Back to the NYT (emphasis mine):

    The administration says the survey will address a “critical public policy problem”: the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

    What is this “will address” part of the equation?  What are the consequences if you’re busted not accepting new patients?

    It will also “try to discover” if your doctor isn’t accepting Medicaid patients.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but is there some law that says a doctor MUST accept Medicaid patients?  Aren’t we still in a free market economy where a doctor can treat whomever he wishes?  Doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath bind the doctor to ethical practices?

    Needless to say, doctors aren’t thrilled by this new snoop scheme.  The government snoops won’t be identifying themselves as snoops, of course; if you’re attempting to entrap someone, you don’t blow your cover right off the bat.

    Here’s one of the scripts they’ll be using:

    Mystery shopper: “Hi, my name is Alexis Jackson, and I’m calling to schedule the next available appointment with Dr. Michael Krane. I am a new patient with a P.P.O. from Aetna. I just moved to the area and don’t yet have a primary doctor, but I need to be seen as soon as possible.”

    Doctor’s office: “What type of problem are you experiencing?”

    Mystery shopper: “I’ve had a cough for the last two weeks, and now I’m running a fever. I’ve been coughing up thick greenish mucus that has some blood in it, and I’m a little short of breath.”

    Seriously.   And they’ll be blocking their phone number so they won’t be detected through caller ID.  The offices of over 4,000 doctors in nine states will be called at least twice.  Eleven percent of those will be called a third time; this time the caller will identify himself as part of the HHS, ask if the doctor accepts new, Medicare or Medicaid patients and check for discrepancies in the story.

    And guess who has been contracted to do the survey?  National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.  Shocker.

    What are the consequences for these doctors who refuse to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or don’t feel they can take on additional patients?  Is there something in Obamacare that says they must?  Remember, you’ve got to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.  Where does all this lead?

    This all reminds me of the White House Fishy campaign of 2009 which turned out to be full of legal problems.

    Call me paranoid, but it seems like a huge waste of government dollars and a whole lot like Big Brother.

    • RightKlik 9:21 PM on 06/26/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Are we supposed to be surprised when they find out that people who are stuck with cheap, crappy government health care wait longer for non-urgent health care services?

      I guess we can never have enough anti-private sector propaganda.

      While we’re on this theme, how about some mystery lobbyists at the White House? Send them to congress too. Send in some mystery billionaire donors while you’re at it. Send some mystery constituents to congressional offices.

      Let’s collect some data!

    • just a conservative girl 12:09 PM on 06/27/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know about Cuba, but you certainly woke up in MA instead of LA.

  • Pat Austin 10:18 AM on 04/25/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Guantanimo,   

    It’s Another WikiLeaks Drop Day 

    It’s another WikiLeaks day and this time it concerns GITMO.  How much concern should this generate?  It depends on your perspective.  From Hot Air:

    Mainly, these revelations don’t reveal much at all about AQ plots in the past, nor their operations today.  The most recent data in either report is years old.  They are both interesting for purposes of background information, but neither tells much of a story on its own or together that we didn’t already know.

    And over at The New Yorker where bleeding heart Amy Davidson laments the use of “torture”:

    One sees how Guantánamo became a whisper factory: after years of interrogation, the subject many prisoners had left to talk about was other prisoners. Some were doing so after being tortured. The Times notes that Mohammed al-Qahtani was “was leashed like a dog, sexually humiliated and forced to urinate on himself” before implicating himself and sixteen other prisoners, and that those claims appear in the others’ files “without any caveat.”

    If this is “torture” then I’d suggest Davidson expand her reading list to include Surviving Hell by Leo Thorsness, or Devil at My Heels by Louis Zamperini.

    Michael Tomasky at the UK Guardian:

    An honest inquiry into these errors that tried to assess what actually happened without pinning blame would be instructive. But what we’re actually likely to get in the US, if we get anything at all, is a set of hearings in the House of Representatives under Republicans that’s going to ignore Bush-era problems and focus completely on Obama-era ones.

    The “errors” he refers to are repatriation and recidivism, specifically the Saudi and Yemini programs.

    Michelle Malkin is not impressed with the release and points to the coordinated suicide attempts as discussed in the New York Times piece:

    Gitmo sympathizers continue to characterize the suicides/suicide attempts as acts of desperation by poor, innocent potato farmers and bystanders. But these were clear acts of asymmetric warfare by cunning, cold-blooded jihadists versed in exploitation of Western sensibilities.

    Lawyers, Guns and Money thinks this leak might not be all bad:

    My only other reaction for now is that while the past four major WL releases were carefully framed to make US foreign policy decisions in the war on terror look bad, this new release may well have – or have been calculated to have – the opposite effect. While some news sources are stressing that “children and senile old men are among the detainees” other are almost making Obama look too soft on Guantanamo detainees (breaking news from the leak includes detainees’ threats against interrogators and claims of a nuclear holocaust if bin Laden is captured).

    The Memeorandum aggregation is growing and is worth surfing through.  The value of the dump depends on your perspective.

    Meanwhile, Private Bradley Manning has been moved to a more “humane” prison than his former digs at the Quantico brig.

    (Cross Posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport)

  • Pat Austin 12:52 PM on 11/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Obama Around The Web 

    A quick check of how The Won is faring in the press this week:

    On the Middle East peace process:

    Instead of becoming a heady triumph of his diplomatic skill and special insight, Obama’s peace process is viewed almost universally in Israel as a mistake-riddled fantasy.

    On the nukes issue:

    So has nothing changed in the past quarter-century? In fact, almost everything has – especially when it comes to nuclear arms control and Israel’s national objectives. What hasn’t changed, it seems, is Barack Obama – who has led his administration into a foreign policy time warp that is sapping its strength abroad and at home.

    On the TSA gropings:

    “I think the American people are worried when they see an administration worried about reading Miranda rights to the underwear bomber,” Jindal said. “[They’re] so worried about rights of the terrorists, what about the rights of innocent American travelers?”

    On the psyche of the American people:

    It appears that Obama is literally driving us crazy. According to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20% of Americans had some form of mental illness in 2009. Which they attribute to unemployment, not the accumulated effect of listening to Barry’s teleprompter speak almost daily.

    On the outcome of the Ghailani trial:

    Obama & Company have been called the Keystone Cops too many times to count. But they are far, far worse than mere incompetents.  They are blowhards who believe in their own mental and moral superiority to the point where they put all Americans at gratuitous risk.

    On Obama’s failure at the G20:

    Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can’t think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.

    The bloom is off the rose.


    Cross posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

    • rubyslipperblog 1:52 PM on 11/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Wait, I thought we were supposed to be thanking him or something. That middle east piece is loaded with snarky goodness about the Won. I hadn’t read all the rest of this though, nice roundup

      • vegas art guy 9:37 PM on 11/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I’m going to properly thank him next election day when I choose to vote for his opponent.

  • Pat Austin 4:30 PM on 09/08/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , czars   

    Obama Finally Appoints…an Asian Carp Czar 

    Who said Obama’s jobs initiative isn’t working?  Why, he created one today.  One new job.

    The Asian Carp Czar.

    Yessir, John Goss is the man charged with keeping the offending Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes, and Obama is giving him a budget of nearly $80 million, to lead this “multi-pronged federal attack against Asian carp.”

    What could an Illegal Immigration Czar do with $80 million?  Suggestions?

    Cross posted at And so it Goes in Shreveport

    • Obi's Sister 9:06 PM on 09/08/2010 Permalink | Reply


      America is crumbling around Obama’s Great Ears, and he’s worried about a stupid fish? Will the Asian Carps be caught and then released? Will Eric Holder intervene to dismiss charges against Asian Carps that threaten fisherman voters?

      The jokes just write themselves…

  • Pat Austin 10:51 AM on 08/03/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , farming   

    EPA Continues Plan to Regulate Farm Dust 

    In one of its more idiotic moves, the EPA is continuing its move to regulate …farm dust.  Farm dust!

    This issue has come up before; in 2009 a federal court upheld the EPA’s right to regulate farm dust when the Bush administration tried to regulate airborne soot and dust:

    The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council challenged EPA in 2006 over its decision to regulate coarse particulate matter — or dust — in rural areas, arguing that the agency had failed to show any negative health effects associated with the dust (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2006).  EPA had considered exempting farming and mining operations, but the agency ultimately decided it could not exclude particular industries.

    Farmers then, and now, naturally decry the move as stifling and ridiculous.   Anyone who has ever been on a farm, or on a rural gravel road, knows there’s dust on a farm:

    Farming and agriculture groups said the regulations would hurt their industries, affecting everything from combine dust to feedlot dust and even the dust from gravel roads.

    In February 2009, the Iowa Defense Alliance wrote:

    What the regulations do not do is taking into account the fact that most often farmers do not have control over the creation of this dust. For instance, when you are traveling down the highway and see a farmer planting his field in dry years you see a cloud of dust shadowing the machinery. This dust is created when the machinery stirs up the dirt during the planting process. Or perhaps it is sometime in fall, you see a combine harvesting the beans or corn. As the combine harvests the crop dust is created from the dry plant material in combination with the dirt being stirred up by the combine’s wheels. Another situation when dust is created is not necessarily related to farm work. When a vehicle travels over a dry gravel road dust is created. There really is not much that can be done to quell the production of this dust, but the EPA is insistent on regulating it nonetheless.

    The latest maneuver in the debate is a letter to the EPA signed by 21 senators protesting the move to regulate farm dust as explained in a July 8, 2010, Policy Assessment related to the Clean Air Act.  The new guidelines “would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation’s history.”

    You can read the letter here (pdf – 3 pgs).

    Ed Morrissey at Hot Air wrote about this in March 2009:

    Now, farmers will be held accountable when their dust moves outside of their property lines and towards towns and villages.  That will impose extra cost on them depending on which way the wind blows, an excellent metaphor for Congress but a deadly imposition on a farm sector already struggling with an economic turndown and falling land prices.  The compliance costs to keep dust tamped down will be enormous, and will force out the smaller farmers who can least afford the mitigation costs.  It pushes the productive family farm even further into the anachronism category.

    And he closes:

    We need a strong agricultural sector to produce food as inexpensively as possible with maximum efficiency to keep us fed and healthy.  Dust may provide some health risks, but nothing as acute as poverty and starvation, which existed in much more significant scale in the US before the Green Revolution of the 20th century.

    If such a plan ever moves out of the realm of debate and into practice, it would indeed crush the agriculture industry, especially the family farm.  Large corporate farms might be able to handle the extra costs, but the small farmer doesn’t stand a chance.

    Where do they think our food actually comes from?  It just materializes in a Whole Foods on its own?


    Cross posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport

    • backyardconservative 8:26 AM on 08/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      They are idiots.

      Farmers don’t want dust either–they don’t want their topsoil blowing away.

      You know, like the Dust Bowl Days of the Great Depression.

      They work to preserve their soil every day. What does the EPA know about this anyway.

    • Jill 8:52 AM on 08/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Tilling the soil is also discouraged, because there’s deadly carbon in there! So Monsanto sells herbicide-resistant seeds – “Roundup ready” – that will sprout and mature no matter how much herbicide is poured on them. (I’m not into organics but this could push me over the edge.) And this is supposed to make the environment cleaner somehow? It’s madness.

      • jeff 7:30 PM on 03/15/2011 Permalink | Reply

        i am a farmer, “tilling” of the ground is a nessesay part of growing crops for food. without doing so the seed bed would be very poor especailly in heavy soils. As for roundup ready crops, they are only resitant to round up, wich is much much safer than the cocktail of chemicals we used before, you can drink a glass of round up and be perfectly fine, trust me.people need to learn the facts before they bash round up it is extremly safe

    • Quite Rightly 10:42 PM on 08/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Hungry people are easily led.

    • Jerry Cope 9:15 PM on 08/20/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yes, hungry people ARE easily led. The Demorrhoids and the EPA need to be stopped by normal, sane people. The upcoming election may be our last chance. I would like to hear from a greenie weenie who agrees with this insanity.

  • Pat Austin 11:56 AM on 06/27/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Day 69: Thad Allen Needs to Go 

    The federal response to the Gulf crisis has not improved this week as far as I can tell.  Admiral Thad Allen’s Friday briefing makes that abundantly clear.

    This man need to be replaced.

    At issue is the question of skimmers in the Gulf.  Karen Nelson of the Biloxi Sun Herald reported on the anger and frustration along the Gulf at the lack of skimmers along the Mississippi Gulf coast.  U.S. Representative Gene Taylor was apoplectic and beginning to sound like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

    Back on land in Gulfport, Taylor let loose.

    “A lot of people are getting paid to say, ‘Look! There’s oil’ and not doing anything about it,” Taylor said. “There shouldn’t be a drop of oil in the Sound. There are enough boats running around.

    “Nobody’s in charge,” Taylor said. “Everybody’s in charge, so no one’s in charge.”  “If the president can’t find anyone who can do this job,” he said, “let me do it.”

    Admiral Allen was asked about the lack of skimmers by Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald.  His response?

    The discussions we are having with the Navy and other folks right now is the availability of skimmers that are on standby because they might be needed for a spill someplace else and how we might go about assessing the availability of those resources. So I would separate out the resources that the Navy had that they’ve already given to us and the discussions we’re having across the entire country where we have equipment that’s out there as a requirement—legal requirement to cover spill response of those areas and how we might free those up, and that’s a work in progress inside the administration right now.

    Got that?  We’ve got skimmers on standby but can’t use them because they might be needed somewhere else. Her next question was whether or not the Jones Act has been waived.  Allen’s response:

    Oh, there are a lot of foreign vessels operating offshore, Carol. The Jones Act—we have had no request for Jones Act waivers. If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don’t require a waiver. All that we require is an Affirmation of Reciprocity, so if there ever was a spill in those countries and we want to send skimming equipment, that we would be allowed to do that, as well, and that hasn’t become an issue yet, either.

    Allen should check his mail more often.  One request was made on June 17.  John Cornyn sent a request on June 22.  On June 18, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison filed a bill requesting waiver of the Jones Act.  Florida Senator LeMieux and Rep. Jeff Miller requested a waiver two weeks ago.

    Allen’s excuse that foreign vessels are working the spill three miles and more offshore is lame.  A waiver of the Jones Act would get foreign skimmers near the shore where they could protect the fragile coast.

    Overall there are just too many cooks in the kitchen.  What is needed is take-charge leadership to make the tough calls and get the job done.  There’s just no excuse for the lack of skimmers in the Gulf.  Every available asset should be utilized.
    When does incompetence cross the line and become criminal?
    (More at Memeorandum)
  • Pat Austin 8:38 PM on 06/17/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: terror   

    17 Afghan Pilots MISSING from Texas AFB?! 

    Holy smokes – Doug Ross says this should send shivers down your spine, but, man – that doesn’t even get it.  This is just nuts – from FOX:

    A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from a Texas Air Force base where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.

    The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, “Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.],” issued by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas, and obtained by FoxNews.com.
    You just can’t make this stuff up.  How in the world did this happen?
    And we’ve got to trust Eric Holder and Team Obama to find them?  OMG.
    • Ricky Vines 10:21 PM on 06/17/2010 Permalink | Reply

      It’s Bush’s fault.

    • fuzislippers 10:28 PM on 06/17/2010 Permalink | Reply

      According to Carol’s post, they’ve been roaming around the country for up to TWO years. What. The. Hell?

      • Jill 7:06 AM on 06/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Best part from the FOX story:
        “A senior Defense Department official in Washington told Fox News he had no direct knowledge of the 17 men being AWOL. The official added that this is not the first time foreign trainees have gone missing, and said some cases in the past have turned out to be more of an immigration concern than a national security threat.”

        So don’t worry your pretty little head.

  • Pat Austin 11:56 AM on 06/12/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Not Resting, Again 

    Thank goodness Obama has his boot on the neck of BP and isn’t resting until this crisis is solved and people are back to work in south Louisiana.

    Last night he was not resting at the Kennedy Center, taking in a performance of “Thurgood.”

    The New York Times says of the play,

    At the end of the play Marshall recites from a Langston Hughes poem opening with the following line: “Oh, let America be America again.”

    Amen to that.

    Meanwhile, NOLA reports:

    Coast Guard Rear Adm. James Watson has written a letter to BP, giving the company 48 hours to come up with additional “leak containment capacity” to deal with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    At least somebody is on the job. 

    Cross posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport

  • Pat Austin 7:36 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    No Worries; Obama is “Not Resting” 

    Via Mark Knoller, the Congressional picnic is underway on the White House lawn.  The salmon is cooking, Pelosi is schmoozing and Obama and Michelle hold court.

    All is well.

    Not resting.

    Cross posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport

    • heyitseliza 7:41 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, I love Obama’s ‘not resting’ talk. He’s had a couple of parties since the oil spill started. I’m not saying he could solve this overnight, but his response has been so slow. And when you think about the parties too it’s hard to take his ‘not resting’, take charge attitude seriously. And that’s pretty sad.

    • rubyslipperblog 7:51 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      They sure do like a party don’t they? How about they give it a rest, it’s our dime after all.

      • Jill 8:08 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Let the poor guy unwind. It’s not easy being enraged and kicking a$$ all day.

    • Jill 8:12 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Caption: “At picnic, Pres. Obama, w- Michelle at his side, thanks members of Congress for their devotion & sacrifice.” Devotion is exactly right. Are they pouring libations at his feet or what?

    • Sherry 8:37 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Memo to the administration: The oil leak in the gulf is “not resting.” The national debt is “not resting.” The insurgency funded by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are “not resting.” You my friend, you my dear president, may not be “resting,” but you sure as hell aren’t working either.

    • Quite Rightly 9:59 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I’d be tired too if I went to four formal galas this week.

  • Pat Austin 9:51 AM on 06/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Silly Democrats 

    Do Democrats really think this will help them in the fall?

    If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.

    It was no scheduling accident.

    With images of overheated, finger-waving crowds still seared into their minds from the discontent of last August, many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects.


    (Laughing all the way to the polls)

    (H/T) Memeorandum

    • nicedeb 11:25 AM on 06/07/2010 Permalink | Reply


      As Ann Coulter likes to say – every so often the country goes a little crazy and votes Dems into majorities. Then, after they get a good look at them, they recoil in horror.

      The backlash will hopefully come this Fall.

      • fuzislippers 11:29 AM on 06/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Agreed. This is appalling behavior, cowardly and indicative of how little they deserve to represent the people. Remember this in November (like we’d forget).

    • backyardconservative 11:39 AM on 06/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

      One of the Dems by me held hers in a grocery store I guess thinking that would save her. Tea Partiers wanted to film it and did until she insisted they not, then walked out. So she did herself in.

      Let’s hope the voters toss Melissa Bean out.

    • Andrea Allen-Lee 2:19 PM on 10/27/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I have tried to go to town hall type meetings here and both sides had some making up to do as far as I am concerned. The visibility of the elected officials is pretty close to nil. I would say the dems here in my county are making an effort to be accessible. We have serious local issues that need to be addressed. (Most towns have something) Maybe if we Americans stopped blaming everyone else for five minutes and worked together we might solve a problem or two.

  • Pat Austin 8:45 AM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Peter Ferrera at American Spectator is n… 

    Peter Ferrera at American Spectator is no longer predicting Obama’s absence on the ballot in 2012; now he’s going a step further and predicting an Obama resignation.

    Over at And So it Goes in Shreveport I’ve looked at what Obama is facing and I come to a different conclusion from Mr. Ferrera.

    I think he sees it as his destiny to reshape America into his vision of what it should be.  He has no abiding love for the country as it is which is what would be necessary in his heart for him to resign.

    Besides, he’s too narcissistic to admit failure.

    What do you think?

    • rubyslipperblog 11:44 AM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with you Pat, he is too narcissistic to admit failure. I think it is wishful thinking to believe Obama would be undone by an impeachable offense. I also think this is the wrong focus if the GOP wishes to show voters they are working on issues that matter to voters. Ezra Klein had an article last week predicting that if the GOP took the House in November Obama would face an impeachment hearing. Suppose the Sestak affair showed some connection to Obama, most voters think this stuff is tit-for- tat partisan politics. Unfortunately most have come to the point they expect things like this happen all the time.

      Pennsylvania runs the risk with all this focus on Sestak that he distinguishes himself as the candidate who can stand up to the Obama White House.. Moe Lane last week said it created an impression Sestak can’t be bought. Maybe he can’t be bought to get out of the Senate race but he wouldn’t need to be bought when it came time to support Obama’s left wing agenda. Sestak is as far left as Obama. He was all there for health care and he voted with Pelosi on every single lousy thing they had on the agenda. I think we are doing Sestak a favor with all this focus on his refusal of a job offer. We would be far better off focusing on defeating Sestak in 2010 and defeating Obama in 2012.

      • fuzislippers 1:08 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I definitely see what you are saying and think that you are right in your assessment of people expecting this sort of thing . . . people on the right. Don’t forget that the people who voted for BO are completely naive and have near-total faith in government, particularly in BO himself, the Messiah, the One. He promised to be post-partisan, to change the way Washington does business, to part the seas and feed the hungry, etc. and etc. That he’s just another slimy politician is something that should be pointed out to the left. Often. His myth is his success, destroy the myth, destroy his presidency. They’ll not learn, of course, being near-childlike in their need for the government to be all things to them, their god, but they won’t see him as that figure if they are forced to see him as what he is: a petty, power-hungry, Chicago-style thug who is all smoke and mirrors, lies and broken promises.

    • fuzislippers 1:00 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      He’ll not resign, no way. Your reasoning is spot on, and I don’t think he sees his presidency thus far as a failure. He thinks, truly believes, that we, the people, are the failure . . . we fail to see that we should be happy to destroy our nation, happy to be “taken down a few pegs,” happy to see our economy, our values, and our heritage trashed. I don’t think he realized, from his ivory tower and total immersion in anti-American radical and “community organizing” culture that there is such a large percentage of the American population who not only don’t tow the PC, leftist, radical line but would be sufficiently ticked off and feel threatened enough to resist en masse. I don’t think he anticipated his dismantling of our entire economy and destruction of our Constitution being so haaaard. But he won’t give up, he believes . . . who knows what he believes, but he’s still immersed in his radical counter-culture, and he’s not going to see, much less understand, that he’s going to fail.

      The only way he’ll leave 1600 is by impeachment and even then it’ll be kicking and screaming. They’ll learn, too, from their mistakes and when they slither back into the dark corners to regroup, they’ll realize that they misjudged the American public and find ways to ensure that we are sufficiently silenced and isolated before they take office again. We must ensure that none of that ever happens.

      • Pat Austin 3:29 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I agree about Biden. He’s a doofus sometimes, but I don’t question his love for this country.

        It enrages my liberal friends when I suggest Obama doesn’t care for America the way I think he should; I just think he sees it as something that needs to be changed … by him.

        Biden, on the other hand, I think, just couldn’t be worse than Obama.

    • Jill 3:44 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I can’t imagine him resigning under any circumstance.

      • Sherry 3:54 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Agreed Jill. Except President Obama’s pattern has been 2-3 years and up in perpetuity, always bored with where he is and seeking the next place that brings him higher. What is left?

        • backyardconservative 6:37 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Dems don’t resign. I think he may not run for another term–yeah, he’s bored, and now he owes Bill Clinton for helping cover up Sestak.

          As for Sestak, it seems to me he colluded in this cover-up. He’s vulnerable there because the story doesn’t hold water.

          • Yukio Ngaby 11:20 PM on 06/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Gotta agree. Obama’ll never resign and it was silly for Ferrera to mention it. And Sestak is vulnerable. No matter how you slice it, this doesn’t look so good for him.

            I don’t think Obama is bored. He’s frustrated. He expected America and the world to bend to his will, to work out exactly as he envisioned– a common mistake among people of no experience in any project or industry. And now he’s sulky and believes he deserves better while hitting the links and avoiding the press. Obama was seeking a legacy– and his legacy will probably be the last hard Left presidency for 20 years or so… It depends on how bad the disasters he creates resolve themselves in the next 2 years when he’s culpable.

    • ahem 9:51 AM on 06/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

      He won’t resign; he’ll try to kill the next election.

  • Pat Austin 8:18 AM on 05/30/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    OilBama is Outraged! 

    Fearless leader is unhappy.  With the news that the BP “top kill” procedure has failed, Obama is now “enraged.”  On top of that, the AP reports, this comes after “Obama interrupted a long holiday weekend at his home in Chicago to visit the Louisiana coast on Friday and show its angry residents that he is in command of the situation.”

    In command?  Not so much, I think.

    You may have seen pictures of Obama’s visit to the coast Friday.  There’s one where he is stooping down in his slacks and dress shirt inspecting a tiny tar ball on the beach.  Apparently the hundreds of BP workers bused in to clean up the beach before his visit left a few tar balls for just such a photo op.  The residents on the coast would have loved for those workers to stay and keep on cleaning their beaches, but as soon as Obama left, they were out of there.

    “The level of cleanup and cooperation we’ve gotten from BP in the past is in no way consistent to the effort shown on the island today,” [Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris] Roberts said by telephone. “As soon as the president left, they were immediately put back on the buses and sent home.”

    I don’t think for one moment that Obama gives a damn about the coast or the people in south Louisiana who are losing their livelihood because of this spill. Such a narcissist can not be concerned about others to the level he would have us believe he is.

    The responsibility belongs to BP.  To be fair, I don’t think we can hold the government responsible for what happened anymore than we could hold George W. Bush responsible for Hurricane Katrina.  But it is imperative on Obama’s administration to provide everything necessary for the protection of the Louisiana marshlands and coastline.

    Appearances count for something.  Obama batting off to Chicago for the weekend, his second vacation since this spill occurred, sends a message opposite of the one intended by his handlers with the staged photo of him inspecting a tar ball.  One says, “I don’t care!  Solve it yourself!  I’m outta here!”  and the other says, “I care.  Look at this foul tar ball on American shores.  I’m enraged.”

    Governor Bobby Jindal was on ABC This Week and HE is outraged.  Politco quotes him as saying:

    Now, we have said for weeks now we’d much rather fight this oil on a sandy barrier island than fight it inside our wetlands. We’ve got miles and miles of these islands… [and w]e proposed a plan, 24 segments, to rebuild or refortify these islands.

    “After weeks — and if they had approved this when we first asked, we could have built 10 miles. Ten miles… Yesterday, the Army Corps of Engineers approved six segments out of 24, over 40 miles out of 100. But here’s where our concern was. The federal government only ordered BP to pay for to do one of those six segments. That’s two miles out of 100. Our message to the president today was, make BP pay for this. The federal government shouldn’t be making excuses for BP. This is their spill, their oil. They’re the responsible party. Make them responsible.

    Jindal rightly laments the lack of urgency on the part of the federal government to provide what he’s asked for.

    Needless to say, this story will continue to play out through the weeks and will only get worse.  The politics aside, people are losing their way of life and their way of making a living.  The wetlands are dying.  No amount of federal dollars can replace what will be lost there.

    Obama can keep his outrage.

    (Cross-posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport)

    • backyardconservative 6:36 PM on 05/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Good post. This is so sad. I totally agree with this: The responsibility belongs to BP. To be fair, I don’t think we can hold the government responsible for what happened anymore than we could hold George W. Bush responsible for Hurricane Katrina. But it is imperative on Obama’s administration to provide everything necessary for the protection of the Louisiana marshlands and coastline.

      • Jill 6:17 AM on 05/31/2010 Permalink | Reply

        The problem with being president is that little things, like oil spills, keep coming up and interrupting your waffles.

  • Pat Austin 6:26 PM on 05/12/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    White House to Slash NYC Anti-Terror Funds 

    This via The New York Post.

    Because we’re no longer in danger from terrorists…

    The Obama administration will announce tomorrow it has slashed anti-terror funds for New York City, despite the attempted Times Square bombing less than two weeks ago that underscored the enormous threat to the city.

    The Department of Homeland Security informed New York officials yesterday that grants to the city were cut 27 percent for mass transit security and 25 percent for port security.

    The mass transit funds dropped $42 million, from $153 million last year to $111 this year.  Port security funds suffered a $11.2 million cut, from $45 million to $33.8 million, officials said.

  • Pat Austin 6:53 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Who is Really Coming Across the Southwest Border? 

    Over at And So it Goes in Shreveport I’ve posted a video from Justin Farmer at WSB Atlanta in which he looks at the folks “other than Mexicans” coming across the border.  It’s a real eye opener.  Pop on over there and watch it, then come back.  It’s only 3 minutes long.

    Mr. Farmer says thousands cross who are from places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq among others.

    One Arizona rancher found a Muslim prayer rug on his ranch.  Justin Farmer examined a Congressional report from 2006 entitled “A Line in the Sand:  Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border” (PDF – 39 pages) which confirmed members of Hezbollah have crossed the border.  It also contains photos of military jackets found on the border, one in Jim Hogg County, with Arab insignia praising martyrdom and depicting pictures of planes flying into the Twin Towers.

    In 2005, Border Patrol apprehended about 1.2 million illegals and of those about 165,000 were from “countries other than Mexico.”  All of this traffic includes human smuggling, drug smuggling, and “special interest” individuals coming into the country and creating a threat to not just those border communities but to the nation as a whole.

    The report also reveals the route taken by the Middle Easterners from Europe to the tri-border region in South America.  Then they learn Spanish, trel to Mexico,  blend in with other illegals and come on in.

    Farmer reports on several terrorists seen in the U.S., in the Atlanta area, who likely came in from the southwest border, it is believed.

    If the problem was this bad in 2006, I can hardly imagine how much worse it is now.

    Meanwhile, we’ve got John McCain tromping around down there saying “Complete the danged fence!” and the U.N. is worrying about the human rights of illegals.  The U.N. issued a statement today criticizing Arizona’s new immigration bill saying  it could lead to racial profiling and also laments, “It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.”

    The world is truly upside down.

    • Obi's Sister 7:46 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I bet that estimate is a bit low. If memory serves me, didn’t some of the 9/11 murderers come over the the border in the same way? And don’t forget that one of them took flight lessons just outside of Atlanta.

      John McCain didn’t give one lick about that fence, until it was election time. Blech.

      • Pat Austin 8:00 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, I think he mentions the 9/11 connection in the video, but it might have been in the report; I’m getting them confused now.

    • Obi's Sister 8:36 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      So many interlopers, so little time…

      • nicedeb 12:42 PM on 05/12/2010 Permalink | Reply

        It was once widely believed that the 9/11 hijackers crossed the Canadian border into the USA, but they were all here on visas.

  • Pat Austin 8:29 PM on 04/28/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    On Puerto Rico and Dr. Donald Berwick. No, not together… 

    A couple of quick things:  the post on Puerto Rican statehood is continuing to get some interesting comments.  Since it’s dropped off the front page now (because we are so prolific!) you might want to hit the link and check it out.  Feel free to keep the discussion going.

    Also, I’ve got a lengthy (for me) post at And So it Goes in Shreveport on Obama’s pick for the CMS – the guy who will be over Medicare and Medicaid decisions, among other things.  He’s in love with the British health care system and has some serious concerns about our own, one of which is reflected in this quote:

    “The more I have studied it, the more I believe that less discretion for doctors would improve patient safety.” He then looks down. “Doctors will hate me for saying that.”

    Crikey!  That scares me. There’s more.

    This man, Dr. Donald Berwick, is no ideologue and no Van Jones or Kevin Jennings.  But his plans to revolutionize the health care system in America are definitely worrisome and bear examination.

  • Pat Austin 7:07 PM on 04/24/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Thoughts on Statehood for Puerto Rico 

    I’ve done a post over at And So it Goes in Shreveport on the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico.  There are both pros and cons and there is an important vote on the issue in the House this week on H.R.  2499.

    One piece of legislation that is garnering interest  is H.R. 2499, The Puerto Rico Democracy Act, introduced in May 2009 by Pedro Pierluisi (D.-Puerto Rico) and coming up for a vote before the House of Representatives next week.

    The bill basically gives Puerto Ricans the chance to vote between retaining their current status or choosing a new status, to include Statehood.  The text of the bill can be found here.

    One issue seems to be the poor economic baggage that the island would bring.   Another problem is that the vote in Puerto Rico will be via plebiscite rather than giving a true choice to voters.  The wording on the ballot is likely to be in such a way that voters will have no choice but to choose statehood when many Puerto Ricans would prefer “enhanced Commonwealth” status.


    • Agnes B. Bullock 7:58 PM on 04/24/2010 Permalink | Reply

      It is yet another end run by the Dems to ensure their permanent majority status. First PR, then DC- each with 2 Dem Senators and Dem Reps in the House!!! AND, with 435 seat seseats seats in the

    • fuzislippers 12:32 AM on 04/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I’m still not convinced that Puerto Ricans are or would remain a democrat voting block lock. It’s going to be interesting to see how this all pans out, though.

    • Agnes B. Bullock 1:26 PM on 04/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Anytime the Democrats sponsor a bill like this one, it’s only purpose is to increase thier power and influence. This is an election year and they are in deep trouble- they tried this wiht Citizenship USA back in 1995 with getting aliens naturalized, etc through an expedited process. Once PR becomes a state (and this bill will pass- the RINOs won’t dare vote against for fear of being labelled racist) Then comes DC, which is directly against the Constitution. Orrin Hacth will sell out the Constitution for another House seat for Utah, never mind that if Dc becomes a state, there are a guarnateed two Democrat Senators to be elected from it.

      This bill is meant to blunt the REpublican gains, which will only be temprary if this bill passes and PR becomes a statte

      Another point is that the House has 435 members- this number will not change, but states that are due to pick up one or two seats due to the 2010 census will not get them- they will go to PR and DC instead and Americans in these states, most of which lean Republican by the way, will be denied representation.

    • Jim Mceldowney 3:54 PM on 04/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      what a great site and informative posts, I will bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!

    • Jeff 4:11 PM on 04/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      One of the “problems” you cite is that some Puerto Ricans support a “Commonwealth” proposal sometimes called ‘enhanced commonwealth.’ The proposal would permanently empower Puerto Rico to nullify federal laws and court jurisdiction and to enter into international organizations and trade and other agreements requiring national sovereignty while Puerto Ricans would also be perpetually guaranteed all current program benefits and U.S. citizenship, a new subsidy for the insular government, new incentives for companies based in the States to locate plants in Puerto Rico, and free entry into the States of goods shipped from (or through) Puerto Rico. This proposal is not possible for constitutional and other reasons, as determined by the Justice and State Departments under Republicand and Democratic administrations, the congressional committees of jurisdiction under Republicans as well as Democrats, and the Congressional Research Service. It would be misleading and unproductive for Puerto Ricans to vote on it. It is the reasons that a plebiscite held under Puerto Rico law only in 1998 was inconclusive. Somewhat similar proposals in Puerto Rico’s two previous status plebiscites, in 1967 and 1993, made those votes inconclusive as well. (The 1967 vote produced a majority for the proposal but it was rejected by the federal government.)

      The alternative to a plebiscite that has been promoted by advocates of the ‘enhanced Commonwealth’ proposal is a convention on the theory that a local convention could come up with a governing arrangement that federal officials would not put before voters. Puerto Ricans rejected the idea in the 2008 elections. Candidates who ran on a platform of seeking the current legislation in Congres won the governorship, the non-voting seat in Congress, and two-thirds of the seats of each house of the legislature. opponents won the lowest percentage of the vote of any candidates of their party since 1940.

      I am not an advocate of any particular status for Puerto Rico but mitigating the cost that would relate to Puerto Rico’s low per capita income would be additional revenue from equal taxation and, probably, the economic boost of statehood experienced by Hawaii and Alaska.

      The bill is not a Democratic proposal, as one of your readers assumed. It is bipartisan; about one third of the 181 sponsors are Republicans, including several Republican leaders. A similar proposal was made by President Bush. Whether Puerto Ricans would primarily vote Democratic if Puerto Rico became a State is speculative. Most Puerto Ricans are not members of the national political parties. Most are socially conservative. The Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, and Mayor of the largest city (San Juan) are national Republicans, as are many other legislators and mayors. When Alaska was made a State, the assumption was that it would be a Democratic State.

      Regarding the House representation of the existing States if Puerto Rico became a State, the numbers of members of the House would almost certainly be increased. That is what has been done in the case of most statehood admissions.

      Finally, even if statehood were voted for by Puerto Ricans under the bill in the second of two plebiscites — and Congress acted to grant statehood, statehood would probably not take effect for years. Proposals for Puerto Rican statehood have always assumed a substantial transition for the phase-in of equal taxation and equal program funding. A bill that passed the House in 1998 sponsored by Don Young (R-AK) and backed by Speaker Newt Gingrich that would have provided for statehood after a series of plebiscites provided for a transition of 10 years.

      • rubyslipperblog 1:29 AM on 04/26/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for all that background information Jeff. I agree there is room to argue the voters of a Puerto Rican State wouldn’t necessarily vote Democratic. Some of the talk in the media that Democrats are going to have the bulk of the hispanic voters for years is wishful thinking. They are indeed quite socially conservative and less likely than other voting groups I can think of to forget that when they get beyond the point of latching on to the party who will do something on immigration. I do think they hitched their wagon to the wrong cart in 2008, McCain took a beating for immigration and knowing how stubborn he is wouldn’t have forgotten about hispanic voters once he was elected. He was rightfully angry when they went to him for help after Obama was elected.

    • Robert Deposada 8:27 PM on 04/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      The reason this is a so-called “Bi-Partisan Bill” is because statehood supporters have successfully fooled supporters into believing this is a simple non-binding self-determination process with no serious implications. But don’t be fooled: this is a statehood trap. You don’t have to believe me, just read the Pro-Statehood Party 2008 platform, and the companion legislature in the local State legislature which clearly spells out their strategy. First get a congressionally sanctioned bill passed by Congress. Then hold an election between statehood and independence. 90 days after statehood wins a simple majority, hold an election to elect a congressional delegation and send them to Washington and demand they be seated. Even the former Governor Carlos Romero Barcelo told a local newspaper that this will work because they (congressional leaders) don’t want to be labeled as racists.

      Statehooders are dooing this quietly and under the radar because they know that once legislators know the cost associated with statehood, every conservative and fiscal moderate will staunchly oppose their efforts. the estimated costs are as low as $30 billion a year in additional welfare spending.

      Also, how do u justify bringing in a state where according to the US Census, only 20% speak English fluently. BTW, PR is the only jurisdiction in the country excempt from the No Child Left Behind English requirements.

      Also, Puerto Rico has one of the strictest and most arcaic gun control laws in the country.

      Can you imagine what will happen when the DC statehood supporters realize that Congress will admit PR as a state? This guarantees a democratic majority for many years to come. 4 new liberal senator and 7-8 new liberal members of the House. Trust me, Puerto Rico will be as reliable Blue as DC. I serevd as Director of Hispanic Affairs for Lee Atwater at the Republican National Committee and all polling data showed it very clearly.

      Oh but they currently have a Republlican Governor! Yes, but one that ran as a statehooder, not as a Republican, and against one of the most unpopular incumbents in their history. And the new Republican Governor, who by the way supported ObamaCare, and only criticized him when it did not have enough money for Puerto Rico, has an approval rating of low 20s. So there goes the possible Red State argument.

      Have no doubt about it, Puerto Ricans will see passage of this bill as a marriage proposal. But before we make this huge mistake, why dont we have a clear and extensive debate on what our conditions are before statehood is allowed to be even considered? Why dont we demand economic parity with our poorest state before statehood is even a possiblility? why not demand that all state government business be conducted in English and that at least half the population be fluent in English before statehood becomes an option?

      We cannot afford this bill. Hopefully Republicans and conservative Democrats will wake up this week!

    • William-José Vélez González 2:49 AM on 04/28/2010 Permalink | Reply

      How is a plebiscite not a true choice? We will be able to say if we want to change or not. It is quite disheartening to see so many against us deciding if we want to change the current status. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Puerto Rico want to change the current status, and should be granted the opportunity to say so, and choose from constitutionally viable (this excludes the enhanced commonwealth joke) non-territorial options.

      This is a matter of principle, of allowing 4 million American citizens elect their future. This is the US, these principle have precedence over anything else. Its time people like Doc Hastings recognize that.

    • Quite Rightly 7:26 AM on 04/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Glenn Beck has been on this. He has shown copies of the PR “Republican” governor’s party platform, which outlines the methodology his party is going to use to force statehood on both PR and the US. It involves using the “Tennessee method” of achieving statehood; that is, to elect a Congressional delegation, send them to Washington, and demand that they be seated. That method worked for Tennessee when it got tired of waiting for Congress to approve statehood, so there is legal precedence for it.

      The problem is that the vote is rigged in the same way that polls are often rigged: by careful control of the questions being voted on. If you construct the questions carefully, you can get the answer you want.

    • nomad3790 5:05 PM on 07/12/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Simple method: Instead of using the standard ballot choices (Commonwealth, State, independence) just put “Independence or Statehood”. As a Puerto Rican born and raised in New York City, I have to say that the Commonwealth does more harm than good. I prefer Independence, but statehood will do. As a proud PR I just want to see whats best for the Island my ancestors called home

    • annexx51 6:32 PM on 08/15/2010 Permalink | Reply


  • Pat Austin 5:21 AM on 04/22/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: SEALs   

    Navy SEAL Cleared 

    Some good news to start the day:

    A U.S. military jury cleared a Navy SEAL Thursday of failing to prevent the beating of an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding a 2004 attack that killed four American security contractors.

    Although I AM curious why it took two hours to reach the verdict.

    • fuzislippers 5:41 AM on 04/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is great! I just saw it on Fox & Friends. I’m still very nervous about the other guys, though. This guy wasn’t the one accused of doing the actual “beating” or whatever. Still, am thrilled that he’s been cleared.

    • Quite Rightly 7:04 AM on 04/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Major Happy Dance here, too! Yay, our guy!

      But, like Fuzi, my first thought was that this does not necessarily point to a good outcome for the other SEALS.

    • Obi's Sister 8:56 AM on 04/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

      God is good!

  • Pat Austin 11:39 AM on 04/11/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    No Seething Hatred Here 

    Mark Steyn at The Corner points to this headline from The Miami Herald:

    Unified By Hatred Of Obama, GOP Still Searches For Challenger

    Against my better judgment and concern for my blood pressure, I clicked on over.

    Can I just address the fact that first of all “hatred of Obama” misstates the point, and I’m not speaking for the GOP because I’m not empowered to do that, but I’m speaking only for myself.  We had this argument way back when Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama’s policies to fail.  Oh, I know; he said “I hope he fails,” but anyone with a grain of sense can read the context and know he meant Obama’s radical policies.  We’ve been there and done that.

    This headline only takes us back there.  It’s the same argument.

    Let me be clear.  I don’t hate Obama.  I hate Obama’s policies.  Period.

    Now.  As to the rest of the article which addresses potential GOP challengers to Obama in 2012, let me suggest that Steven Thomma, author of the piece, missed the point or major theme of the SRLC in that the next battle the GOP is anticipating is 2010.  We’re looking at the fall.  As Haley Barbour said, 2012 will take care of itself after that.

    I’ll go on record right now and say that I don’t believe any of the current leaders on the Des Moines Register GOP Caucus poll will be the actual nominee in 2012.  But, I’m not worried about that right now.

    • richard mcenroe 12:07 PM on 04/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Oh, I’m perfectly willing to despise Obama. But contempt and hate are too different things.

    • fuzislippers 1:26 PM on 04/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      That headline does miss the point for me, too (I’m recovering from a rather nasty lung infection, or I’d go and read the article. Don’t think my health can take it, heh). Not because I don’t hate BO–I try not to hate anyone, but he makes it very difficult, but because it implies that “the hatred” is the motivation of conservatives (I’ll not include or speak for the GOP, either–I’m not a republican, I’m a conservative). Conservatives in the republican party, associated or identifying with the Tea Party movement, and conservative democrats are alarmed by, motivated by, and speaking out against the far left lunge of this administration (including the leaders of both houses of Congress). I firmly believe that the same reaction would come from these same people if the sitting president were a white man (or woman) or if it were any other black (brown, any color) person. It’s about ideology, anti-American values, and what we see as the weakening (at best) and/or destruction (at worst) of our country. It’s not personal. Or it didn’t start that way, and for you, is still not that way.

      For me, however, I can honestly say that over the past year I have developed a strong dislike (yes, bordering on hatred) for BO . . . as a person. He’s petty, whiny, mean-spirited, and unkind. Not exactly winning qualities. He has mocked, belittled, ignored, and denigrated me (yes, I take it personally, and everyone else should, too. It IS personal for him–see “petty” above). I would walk across the street to avoid being put a position of greeting the man (as president, I would have to respect his office, but as a man, he’s pure slime–that’s a dilemma that I’m not sure I’m a good enough person to rise above and do the right thing, which I know is to shake his hand, but *shudder*).That said, I would never wish him ill, never “boo” him or hold up signs calling for / make models of his death by guillotine or hanging (as was ALL done by the left against President Bush, including the now-“uncivilized” Hitler ‘stache posters)–I’ll leave that seething hatred to the left.

      I guess what I am trying to say, inarticulately, is that there are two things going on: one, BO’s policies are crippling and possibly destroying not only our country but leaving our allies (those we still have) open to attacks from rogue (or I guess the “new” term is “outlier”) nations. And two, BO is a loathsome human being who is all crazy leftist ideology and motivated, I think, by a good dose of his own seething hatred . . . and no heart or soul at all. For all his talk about helping “the American people” on the one hand, his other hand is slapping our faces while he tosses looks and words dripping with scorn and condescension. Ugh. Tell me again how you manage not to hate him, I’m still working on that one.

      • Carol 3:55 PM on 04/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

        About all I can add to what Fuzzy said is, Amen. I feel like everyday there is a fresh assualt launched aginst our country, by our own government. Do I hate Obama, no. But I hate what he is doing. And I am incredibly frustrated that I can’t speak out against Obama’s crippling policies without be accused of rascism. We no longer have the free exchange of ideas in this country because of the vitirol of the Left. Good people are afraid to speak out.

  • Pat Austin 9:57 AM on 03/28/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Marco Rubio   

    The Rubio – Crist Debate 

    I pulled my sick self out of bed to watch the Rubio – Crist debate this morning on Fox News Sunday.  I’d say this one was an easy Rubio victory.  All Crist could seem to do was make personal attacks on Rubio while Rubio tried to stick to the issues. Crist looked like a loser.

    Most telling to me is that Crist defended the McCain/Bush immigration plan and he said his favorite Senator is John McCain.  That tells me all I need to know.

    Chris Wallace asked Crist if he could end the rumor that he might run as an Independent and Crist’s answer was “I am running as a Republican.”  Well.  Right now you are, yes.  He never said, I won’t switch, but Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO took it to mean that he ruled it out, so maybe he did.  In looking at the literal words, I don’t think he did.

    I live-blogged the debate – you can check out the finer points here.

    On Twitter, @Rubiopress was debunking Crist’s misinformation as fast as he churned it out.

    • fuzislippers 10:32 AM on 03/28/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I haven’t been following this very closely. What is going on with Rubio and the accusations Crist is making about using PAC and RNC funds for personal uses? If that’s true, I think that undermines Rubio’s fiscal responsibility argument and find it difficult to support him. The problem would be in his attitude to public and donor funds, not so much in how much money he spent, etc. I’m sure Charlie Rangel didn’t start his tax evasion career hiding money off-shore, either.

      But I only know what Crist is saying, and suspect that as Rubio didn’t appear to want to address these accusations that there may be some truth to them? If not, then he’s golden.

    • psychonauticalmindbloom 6:32 AM on 03/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I find it funny that republicans think they can talk about fiscal responsibility at all after 8 years of george w. bush. All he did was spend money overseas. At least the current president is spending the money here at home. The republicans are making a mistake every time they elect someone like Rubio because although the majority of republicans are behind him, the majority of americans are not. What the republicans would like to think of as a cleansing of their party actually seems to me to be a shrinking. So I invite nominees like this. They will win republican primaries but lose general elections because the extreme righties alienate themselves from so many parts of society like homosexuals, minorities, and young people. Charlie crist is a good common sense politician compared to most & I think the GOP should be glad to have him aboard instead of throwing him under the bus. Plus I don’t think a state could ever work… a congress could never coexist properly with an extreme left like Alan Grayson and an extreme right like Rubio working along side each other. These “teabag” candidates will simply not have the support of the mainstream…

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc