Who Exactly are the Terrorists here?

After the attacks of 9/11 some apologists of Islamic extremists fought against certain people being labeled terrorists. Some repeated the cliche "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" which was coined decades prior during the conflict between British forces and the Irish Republican Army. Since then some on the left have used that phrase to excuse supporting murderous thugs like Che Guevara. The general gist of the phrase is meant to imply that if the people we are calling terrorists were on our side we wouldn't be denouncing their actions, but would rather celebrate their successes. Obviously, intelligent people can see through that flawed logic and dismiss it as nonsense. What brings the question up now? Well, today Vice President Joe Biden said the following: "They have acted like terrorists" in reference to Tea Party congressmen. So, let me get this straight, we have to be very careful about using labels like terrorist and must not rush to judgment in regards to crazy Muslims who kill people, but it is perfectly fine to equate citizens concerned with our national debt exceeding 14 TRILLION dollars with terrorists. No, Mr. Biden, it is slimy politicians of your ilk who have spent other peoples money to bribe voters with promises of never ending government largesse that are terrorizing our grandchildren with debt they'll never be able to realistically pay down with out creating an economy that will put the great depression to shame. Mr Vice President by once again refusing to deal with our nations debt problem, you and your colleagues in DC have only assured the problem will get much worse. Anyone who has ever paid for anything with credit knows full well that debt is not like wine or cheese it does NOT get better with age. The entrenched political hacks in DC failed again and some like Biden are attacking the only people who wanted to actually address the problem. Pathetic!

Memo to Establishment Republicans

Here is some free advise to former senator John Danforth and other establishment Republicans: You are not helping your friends when you say they shouldn't face a primary challenge because they've been in DC for decades. Being in DC for decades is a major reason to kick a politician to the curb. What precipitates this post is a New York Times article praising Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN). Of course, if the NYT praises a Republican it must mean he is taking positions at odds with other Republicans. In the article, we get this statement that is very revealing about the political mindset:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Funny thing is, before reading this I would have laughed at the idea of Lugar facing a challenge. Now, I expect he will not only face a challenge, but the challenger will be raking in donations. While the Tea Party movement is thought to be mainly against the excessive government spending, which it is, it also has grown to be against the entitlement mindset of career politicians. For decades people have complained about not having a choice in elections. Between gerrymandered congressional districts, establishment backed candidates getting all the funding, and primaries being decided before your state gets to weigh in, people had valid complaints, but no recourse. The 2010 elections showed the electorate they can have a choice if they demand a choice. Prior to seeing Sen. Bob Bennett lose in Utah, I assumed that absent a major scandal no incumbent senator could be beaten in a primary. Shortly thereafter, Alaska Republican voters decided Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn't deserve their nomination. All incumbents need to understand they are subject to performance review and dismissal if warranted.

REMINDER: Don't give one thin dime to the national Republican apparatus. Whether it is the RNC, NRSC, or NRCC the goal of all is the same - Incumbency protection. Public service in elected office should not be a career!

An Important Question to Ask Before Voting for a Republican

While I'm opposed to most of the policies of the current party in power, don't assume all Republicans are necessarily a big improvement. Some will pay lip service to being concerned about spending and then will move to DC and then play along to get along. One question to ask to get some insight into the candidate is to ask them whether they will listen to former senator Trent Lott (lobbyist on behalf of the ruling/spending class) or Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). Here is an article to get a sense of what Lott thinks of the Tea Party movement.

Any possible shred of doubt remaining in anybody's mind about former Senate GOP leader Trent Lott's true allegiance have now been definitively removed: Lott is a paid tool of the Washington Establishment who hates the Tea Party and all other insurgents who have had it with politics-as-usual.

"We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them," Lott told The Washington Post in an incredibly revealing story.

Sen. Jim DeMint, of course, is the South Carolina conservative Republican who last year formed the Senate Conservatives Fund to back precisely the kind of insurgent conservative Senate candidates most feared by the Lotts of the world. . . . . It's the same old story that such GOPers want the votes of "the base" but they don't want to do what the Tea Partiers and a clear majority of their fellow Americans, want them to do.

Several of the Republican senators are of Lott's ilk and not much better than the Democrats. John McCain and Lindsey Graham among others will talk the talk every few years when concerned about reelection. However, once safely back in DC they go back to thinking they know better than the rubes who voted for them.

Today's Must Read Articles

In an article titled: Obama succeeded only in creating uncertainty, Thomas Sowell explains why the stimulus did not lead to job creation. I can sum it up by explaining that every time a business considers increasing hiring they evaluate the risks and decide whether or not the costs of the employee will be outweighed by the value gained from his work. Uncertainty over what the government may impose makes it impossible to calculate the costs of doing business causing companies to wait to make expansion decisions until they can have some confidence in their calculations. One thing Sowell neglected in his article is fear of the looming Cap and Trade scam legislation.

Our second Must Read is an article by Karl Rove discussing his biggest mistake in the Bush administration.

A couple of the founders of the Tea Party movement wrote an op-ed piece about being labeled as racist by the racist organization called the NAACP. At some point the lefts weapon of choice - crying racism - will lose its power if enough people fight back instead of cowering at the charge.

Speaking of racism, Newsbusters has a piece showing how MSNBC's Chrissie Matthews is race obsessed and confused.

Perplexed Matthews: How Can South Carolina GOPers Vote for Indian-American But Not Support a Black President?

I think Matthews honestly believes that opposition to Obama's policies must be based on race and can't understand how the "clearly racist" South Carolina GOP can turn around and support a candidate who is the child of Indian immigrants. The left floated the idea a few years ago about Bush being in a bubble of people all in agreement with him. I think the same can be said about Matthews and his ilk. Everyone he knows believe in liberal policies so the disagreement with Obama's liberal policies must be about race instead of policy. Matthews needs to get out of his bubble meet some ordinary Americans and find out we have opinions on hundreds of subjects and the vast majority of us don't form our opinion based on racial considerations.

UPDATE:


Here is another MUST READ which ought to be read by the president's advisers. Victor Davis Hanson has a column titled: A Ten-Step Reset Regimen for the President. The only thing that could save President Obama from going down in history as the largest failure as a president would be to back off his desire to radically re-make America into a socialist "utopia" and instead move towards the center. The Republican take over of congress in 1994 forced Bill Clinton to move to the center thereby saving him from destroying his presidency. In fact, he later was able to take credit for the things he didn't want to do. Well, Hanson's columnis in a similar vein, but more specifically tied to changes Obama needs to make personally to save his presidency. Here is one of the ten suggestions click the link for the rest:

10) Take a breather on the green agenda. Al Gore imploded, both from revelations about his personal life and the labyrinth of his financial machinations. Climategate discredited academic finger-pointing. Promises about “skyrocketing” power bills don’t go well with a recession. The old “millions of new green jobs” wonkery is a bad joke from a college bull session. Nuclear, natural gas, clean coal, and drilling in ANWR have more resonance than subsidized wind and solar jobs at a million or so in federal subsidies each.

Will Obama adopt any of my suggestions? No, of course not. Why? Because he is pushing an agenda that 55-70% of the American people do not want, and so it is necessary to evoke the kitchen sink to get it across: Bush did it, the oil cadre did it, racialist America, Islamophobia, “them,” a cool hip president, raise the bar — all that is a desperate (albeit doomed) way of venting, threatening, pleading, and pushing a blueprint that on its merits goes nowhere.

Sadly the last paragraph quoted above is most likely correct. This president is too arrogant and certain he knows what's best for the rest of us to bother listening to advice.