Join the NRA for free

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Comments

Thanks to @WomenGunOwners for sharing this.

The NRA is offering free one-year memberships at the following link:

NRA Special Bonus Offer

Even if you don't own a gun, please join and support the NRA in their efforts to protect Americans' 2nd amendment rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ~ U.S. Constitution, 2nd amendment (emphasis added)

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. ~source unknown

Read full post >>

Deja vu all over again: the New Deal and today's economy

Friday, March 27, 2009 Comments

I started doing some research on FDR and the New Deal a few weeks ago. I expected to see some similarities to what we're experiencing now, but was stunned at the feeling of deja vu as I read the details. We've been down this road before. It didn't go so well, and not just the prolonged Depression but the lasting effects of the New Deal that still impact us today, decades later. I hope this isn't a blueprint for where we're headed.

One of the things I found was an essay called, "The Revolution Was," written in 1938 by Garet Garrett, a journalist and writer. This is an amazing essay and well worth the time to read in its entirety. I'd like to summarize and discuss here though.

He begins with this:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

Garrett's argument is that the administration of FDR was a revolution from within, a peaceful revolution that created a paradigm shift in the government and in the relationship between the people and the government, all within the existing laws and new laws created through existing processes.

He talks about how certain steps were necessary, in a certain order, in order to seize power from the people and he discusses how the New Deal went about accomplishing that. This line was especially chilling, given what we are experiencing now:

The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention. The end held constantly in view was power. (emphasis added)

He goes on to say,

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent. (emphasis added)

Does this not bear some resemblance to what we are seeing today? The initial bank bailouts last year were a mistake, but rather than undo them the government compounds them with more bailouts, with special provisions to protect executive bonuses and then a special retroactive tax law to take those bonuses away, after they have riled up the public anger against the "greedy executives," thus deflecting anger away from themselves and their own incompetence and power grabs. And now they're talking about regulating all executive pay, whether the companies have taken federal money or not. What's next, regulating everyone's pay? Where does it end?

While the economic downturn was already well underway, I believe that Obama's stated plans during the campaign to increase businesses taxes and "spread the wealth around" played a role in driving the economy further downward, as evidenced by the precipitous drop in the stock market as it became more likely that he would be elected, and then following his election.

Who is going to invest, hire, or try to grow a business in a climate with a government hostile to business? Instead, sane people will try to batten down the hatches and preserve cash at the expense of growth. The result is reduced productivity and increased unemployment.

And so the administration took a bad situation and made it worse. In addition to the bailouts, they passed an unprecedented $800 billion "stimulus" package, purportedly to stimulate economic growth. However, there was nothing in that bill for small businesses, the backbone of our economy. Well, to be fair, Joe Biden assures us that if a small business relies on a bridge, the "stimulus" package will make sure that bridge is still there. Whew, what a relief!

Instead of promoting business growth, what they "stimulated" was more government growth and control. They expanded existing programs, created new programs, and even included requirements that states taking stimulus money will be required to increase their budgets to cover associated costs when the federal money has been used (because while the federal money is said to be temporary, the programs they put in place are more or less permanent).

Garrett goes on to talk about the elements that made America susceptible to a revolutionary.

The basic ingredients of opportunity are few; nearly always it is how they are mixed that matters. But the one indispensable ingredient is economic distress, and if there is enough of that the mixture will take care of itself. (emphasis added)
He then describes what he calls the "revolutionary elite" in more detail.

What it represented was a quantity of bitter intellectual radicalism infiltrated from the top downward as a doctorhood of professors, writers, critics, analysts, advisers, administrators, directors of research, and so on -- a prepared revoluationary intelligence in spectacles. There was no plan to begin with. But there was a shibboleth that united them all: "Capitalism is finished." There was one idea in which all differences could be resolved, namely, the idea of a transfer of power.
"Capitalism is finished." "Capitalism has failed." "Failed economic policies of the past." Is any of this sounding familiar? The truly failed policies of the past are the bailouts that started under the Bush administration, but obviously that's not what the Obama administration has in mind when they say that, because they are not only continuing with the bailouts, they are taking the bailouts and rampant spending to unprecedented levels.

Garrett goes on to describe the obstacles that the "revolutionary elite" would face. In summary:

1. capture the seat of government
2. seize economic power
3. mobilize by propaganda the forces of hatred
4. reconcile & attach to the revolution the two great classes (in the New Deal: the wage-earners and the farmers)
5. choose whether to liquidate or shackle business
6. make the individual more dependent on government
7. systematic reduction of all forms of rival authority
8. sustain popular faith in an unlimited public debt
9. make government itself the great capitalist and enterpriser

Each one of these problems would have two sides, like a coin. One side only would represent the revolutionary intention. The other side in each case would represent Recovery -- and that was the side the New Deal constantly held up to view.
Similarly, look how much has been done in the name of "stimulating the economy" just in the last two months. The amount of spending, the trampling of states' rights and individual autonomy, all in the name of getting the economy back on track.

I have a lot of faith in the American people and in our capitalist system. I believe we will make it through this, but it will be in spite of rather than because of the relentless government interference.

I'll try to write another post that goes into more detail, this one is getting a bit long already but I found Garrett's writing pretty interesting.

Read full post >>

Civilian national security force becoming reality?

Monday, March 23, 2009 Comments

Two recent government actions have me wondering if Obama is making a "down payment" on his "civilian national security force"?

Last Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act (you can see how your Representative voted here). The bill is now in the Senate and a vote is expected later today. If you don't want this passed, please call your senators today!

The GIVE Act will significantly increase funding and expand the scope of the existing AmeriCorps program. The stated goal is to expand the current 75,000 volunteers to 250,000 and it applies to all ages from children to seniors.

There are a few things concerning about this bill. First, they talk of the increased need for volunteers given the current economic conditions. Sure, but there are already countless volunteer opportunities through countless private organizations, as well as the existing opportunities through the government, for anyone who is interested. There is no shortage of volunteer opportunities in this country, and people are already doing that on their own. We don't need the government to tell us to volunteer, and we don't need them to create / expand government programs and spend more money in order to promote volunteerism.

More troubling is the "Congressional Commission on Civic Service" established by this bill (thanks to E3 Gazette for sifting through the details):

There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be known as the ‘Congressional Commission on Civic Service’ (in this title referred to as the ‘Commission’).

SEC. 6104. DUTIES.
(a) General Purpose- The purpose of the Commission is to gather and analyze information in order to make recommendations to Congress to--

(b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:

The "specific topics" include:

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

(7) The need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders.

(8) The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives.

(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.

(11) The constraints that service providers, nonprofit organizations, and State and local agencies face in utilizing federally funded volunteer programs, and how these constraints can be overcome.

(12) Whether current Federal volunteer programs are suited to address the special skills and needs of senior volunteers, and if not, how these programs can be improved such that the Federal Government can effectively promote service among the ‘baby boomer’ generation.

So while the liberals assure us it's all voluntary, nothing mandatory here, the bill clearly indicates that the intention is to one day make it mandatory, they just need to figure out the best way to do that. They're targetting everyone from elementary age to senior citizens. Regarding #12, I can't help but wonder if government-mandated "service" could become a requirement to receive Social Security - nevermind that people have been paying into it their entire working lives.

Call me crazy, but once it becomes forced, it ceases to be "service" and becomes "involuntary servitude" (also known as slavery). Last time I checked, the Constitution outlawed slavery a long time ago.


On a related topic, I recently learned about Dept of Defense Directive 1404.10, which establishes a "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" and rescinds a prior directive from 1992 regarding the emergency use of civilian personnel.

So what did Obama change compared with the prior version?

The 1992 directive specifically deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel. It does not mention terms like "restoration of order" or "stability operations", prominently featured in the new directive.

The wording now reads,

Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05...

What exactly is meant by "contingencies," "restoration of order," and "stability operations"? Also, the 1992 directive does not appear to be geared toward domestic use of this "expeditionary workforce" while the current version does:

The 1992 directive mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times.

The 2009 directive does not mention the term "overseas" in the body of the directive even once.


These two items are troubling in and of themselves. Taken together, one can't help but wonder if it is part of a larger effort to, as I said in the beginning of this post, make a "down payment" on the Civilian National Security Force that Obama envisions.

Back in July, Obama had this to say on the campaign trail:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Here's the video clip:

Read full post >>

Speaking of Special Olympics

Saturday, March 21, 2009 Comments

Gov. Sarah Palin's address To The 2009 Special Olympics In Boise, Idaho (last month):

"You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a Special Olympics hockey mom? Nothing." - Gov. Sarah Palin


Read full post >>

More on Obama's "Special Olympics" remark


As a follow-up to my post yesterday, here are my thoughts.

In case you missed Obama's comments, the video is at the bottom of this post (click "read full post" below). Obama was telling Leno about bowling in the White House bowling alley.

"I bowled a 129," Obama told Leno.
"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.
"It's like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

Do I think that Obama meant to denigrate individuals with special needs? No, I don't think it was intentional. But that is precisely the problem. His remarks DID belittle those with special needs regardless of his intentions. And the fact that it was unintentional just points to his own underlying biases and stereotypes, which he is obviously not even aware of.

I've seen many comments online along the lines of, "lighten up, he was making fun of himself, not anyone else."

Yes, making fun of himself by equating himself with a person with special needs.

Look at what he says. He's saying he's bad at bowling. Ok, no big deal. He then goes on to say it was like the Special Olympics. The implication there is that he's SO bad at bowling that he's as "bad" as people with special needs.

Two problems with that. First, that he just assumes that the Special Olympics athletes are bad at bowling. To the contrary, I've seen many, many instances over the last day of Special Olympics bowlers who could embarrass Barry in a bowling match. Second, that comparing yourself to someone with special needs is funny. It's not funny, Mr. President. It's hurtful.

Even more hurtful - the fact that while he personally apologized to Tim Shriver, the Chairman of the Special Olympics board (and a Kennedy, so not someone that will give Obama a hard time about anything), he did not see fit to apologize directly to the American people. Instead, a staffer offered their opinion that he "didn't mean it." That does not constitute an apology to the special needs community, in my opinion.

Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters traveling with Obama that the president's offhand remark was not meant to disparage the Special Olympics, only to poke some fun at the commander-in-chief's bowling skills.

"He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world," Burton said.

When he's speaking specifically on disabilities, Obama says the right things:

"We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes, and discrimination.... policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the education they need and live independently as full citizens in their communities."

-- Barack Obama, April 11, 2008

But given that his own comment unintentionally serves to perpetuate stereotypes rather than overcome them, I can only wonder if his speeches are not indicative of his true feelings.

This isn't the first time Barry O. has given reason for concern about his regard (or disregard) for people with disabilities. He expressed regret for voting in support of efforts to protect the life of Terri Schiavo, a woman who was profoundly disabled due to brain damage but was not on life support or in a coma. Rather, she had a family who loved her, was taking care of her, and wanted her to live. The only reason her life hung in the balance in the courts, was because of her disabilities.


I have three sons with autism. We are considering letting our older two, who will be 8 this summer, compete in Special Olympics track & field because they love to run. To my knowledge, they haven't heard the President's thoughtless comment. But wouldn't it be great for them to be able to see in the President someone who respects them and people like them, rather than seeing them as a punchline for a joke.

Did the president mean to hurt countless children and adults with disabilities and their families? No, but that is precisely what he did. He then refused to apologize directly to those he may have hurt with his comment. And from the President of the United States, we expect and deserve better.

Read full post >>

Obama insults special needs community

Friday, March 20, 2009 Comments

Here's a link.

Apparently, giving TOTUS (his Teleprompter) the night off was not a good idea.

More on this later.

Read full post >>

Memo to the White House

Thursday, March 19, 2009 Comments

Newsflash: The election is over. The campaign is over.

As you've so eloquently reminded us on several occasions, you won. So now it's time to stop galavanting around the country. (how much are all those trips costing the American taxpayer?)

While I'm relieved to hear that you got your tournament picks done, and that you've made time to visit with Leno, it would be great if you could just focus on more pressing issues. That is all.

Read full post >>

AIG debacle continues


So much going on this week, so little time to blog about it all.

I wanted to make a few comments about the recent AIG bonus debacle though. First off, Geithner has already said that he will likely deduct the $165 million that AIG paid out in bonuses from the next installment of $30 billion that they plan to send to AIG.

Really? Another $30 billion huh? Shouldn't that be the real story here? That and the fact that some $58 billion of what we already gave them went to bail out other countries, and tens of billions more went to other U.S. banks?

And where is the outrage over bonuses at Fannie Mae?

Washington - if you don't want to reward the folks who have driven companies into the ground, how about letting them go bankrupt? Chapter 11 would allow them to reorganize. We shouldn't have the government bailing out private enterprises. No one is "too big to fail."

So back to my original point, if they're going to deduct the amount spent on bonuses from the next installment, then that essentially recoups the money and makes the whole bonus thing a non-issue in which Washington can quit talking about making taxes targeted to individuals and call off the mobs.

Seriously, whatever your opinion on the bonuses, these people are getting death threats and that is just wrong. Barney Frank continued to insist on getting a list of names. Senator Grassley suggested the executives "resign or commit suicide." And yet, the administration continues to fan the flames of anger at AIG, while skirting around their own culpability (Geithner knew about the bonuses well before this, Dodd put into the stimulus a clause protecting such bonuses, and both Dodd and Obama received significant campaign contributions from AIG, not to mention a number of other politicians.

Maybe they should pay those contributions back, you know, for the taxpayer.

Maybe Congress should give back the automatic pay raise they got this year. Where is the outrage over that? Who would argue that Congress has done an outstanding job deserving of a raise? Many deserving Americans aren't getting raises (or worse losing their jobs) due to the economy, but we can afford to pay Congress more every year no matter what?

WE the people are their bosses, and WE should determine whether they have EARNED a raise or not. It should have to be voted on by the people, not happen automatically because they decided they can't even be bothered to have a vote on it themselves.

Read full post >>

Shopping in Texas?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Comments

Found this on, too funny.

LOL, I suppose that is why zombies don't attack Texas. Well, except for that one incident in Austin:

Read full post >>

Gun control does not equal crime control

Saturday, March 14, 2009 Comments

There has been a lot said recently about efforts by the government to limit 2nd amendment rights, most recently with the introduction of H.R. 45, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. The law would require federal licensing with a rather stringent (and likely expensive) process involved, and puts all the control in the hands of the Attorney General (and our current Atty General has made his opinions quite clear regarding citizens and gun ownership).

We are likely to hear more efforts toward imposing stringent control over firearms and ammunition in any number of ways from this administration in the coming months. They will probably point to tragedies like the recent shootings in Alabama. These events are horrific, but the fact is that criminals will be able to obtain guns regardless of the laws, and unstable people who want to harm or kill others will find other ways to carry out their plans if firearms are not available. Germany has very strict gun laws, but that didn't stop a 17-yr-old gunman from killing 16 people before turning the gun on himself the other day. What is really at stake is whether we are going to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from such individuals.

Aside from the fact that our Constitution specifically prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, it just makes sense from a public safety perspective. Gun control advocates will say the opposite, but yet time after time when it is tried, stringent gun control does not have the desired outcomes.

Take what happened in Great Britain, for instance. The government banned guns in 1997, telling the people that the new laws would make them safer. In reality, crime rates in England increased significantly after the 1997 ban. Australia has seen similar results.

Why? Because criminals, by definition, are people who disregard the law. Therefore, the only people who turned in their guns were law-abiding citizens. The criminals held on to theirs, and the law-abiding citizens became sitting ducks for criminals who no longer had to fear that their victims might actually be able to defend themselves with a gun.

You can see more details about the English gun ban and citizens' protests of the law here.

Further evidence is found in a 20/20 special on the issue:

In the 1990's, some detailed studies were conducted looking at the impact of gun-control laws on violent crime. What they found was that often just having a firearm (not even having to use it) plays a key role in averting would-be criminals. The effect is even more significant for women, for whom having a gun helps to "level the playing field" so to speak, negating to some extent the physical advantage that some criminals might have over them. On the other hand, in areas with stringent gun-control laws, the criminals are emboldened by the knowledge (or increased likelihood) that potential victims are unarmed.

You can read more about the studies here and here. Here are excerpts:

Professor Gary Kleck is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He had expected the research involved in that writing to infer negatively on gun ownership. He discovered a vast amount of violent crimes were prevented by firearms usage. Even though this was contrary to his original premise, he had the integrity to stand by his research. Although that book was awarded the best book (of 1993) on criminology by the American Society of Criminology it was largely ignored by gun control advocates such as most medical journals and our Government's Justice Department and Center for Disease Control.

In 1996, the most comprehensive "gun control" study of all time was published by John Lott of the University of Chicago Law School. Fifteen years of FBI files from all 3,054 counties in our country were analyzed regarding the correlation between the occurrence of violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. Invariably, where responsible, law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms, the rate of violent crime plummeted. The criminals were afraid to attack those who "might" be armed.

Read full post >>

Embryonic stem cell research: unintended reversal?


It looks like Obama has managed to reverse himself again, only this time in a good way if you're opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

You may recall that on Monday, Obama signed an order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Although he made it sound like embryonic stem cell research itself had previously been banned, it hadn't. It simply required private funding since federal funding was restricted. He also neglected to mention that in the years since the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was put into place, promising advances have been made in the area of adult stem cell research, which does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Two days later, he signed the $410 billion omnibus porkfest, complete with 8,000 earmarks. Yes, after he campaigned on "no earmarks". But don't worry, he's going to make sure they do something about earmarks next year.

Apparently, he didn't bother to read it (anyone surprised?), because the omnibus budget bill included a provision that bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Which basically undoes what he did on Monday, does it not?

Read full post >>

A Time for Choosing

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 Comments

H/T A Voice for Moms - Mel posted this a while back and it has stayed with me, so I thought I'd share it here today. Reagan's words are inspiring, and every bit as true today as they were when he delivered this speech in 1964.

Read full post >>

Is sanity making a small comeback?


We keep hearing from the Obama administration that the $410 billion omnibus spending bill now in the Senate is "last year's unfinished business" but the reality is that Bush wouldn't sign off on it so Pelosi held it until Obama took office. And Obama can't blame this one on Bush if he signs it, because it will be his signature on it, 8000+ earmarks and all, after he campaigned on "no earmarks." This "well, no earmarks NEXT year" just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. I am not interested in funding pig odor research, and if the folks living near said pigs would like to, they are more than welcome to fund such research themselves.

So I was surprised and relieved to read this WSJ op-ed by Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, arguing in favor of rejecting the pork-laden omnibus bill.


The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.


Our nation's current fiscal imbalance is unprecedented, unsustainable and, if unaddressed, a major threat to our currency and our economic vitality. The national debt now exceeds $10 trillion. This is almost double what it was just eight years ago, and the debt is growing at a rate of about $1 million a minute.

Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy. The amount of U.S. debt held by countries such as China and Japan is at a historic high, with foreign investors holding half of America's publicly held debt. This dependence raises the specter that other nations will be able to influence our policies in ways antithetical to American interests. The more of our debt that foreign governments control, the more leverage they have on issues like trade, currency and national security. Massive debts owed to foreign creditors weaken our global influence, and threaten high inflation and steep tax increases for our children and grandchildren.

The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future. Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy. Most people are willing to do their duty by paying taxes, but they want to know that their money is going toward important priorities and won't be wasted.


[T]he bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning. Voters rightly demanded change in November's election, but this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate.

Mel at A Voice for Moms has a great post with more about the omnibus bill.

I hope the Senate and/or the President listen to reason. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the voters who wanted "change" weren't of the opinion that Bush didn't spend enough during his 8 years...

Read full post >>

The gift of gaffe

Monday, March 9, 2009 Comments

After 8 years of liberal hand-wringing over what the rest of the world thinks of America (what with our "cowboy" president and all), I'm sure we're all happy to see how much higher an opinion the world has of us with them in charge of things.

After all, the administration only managed to offend two countries this week.

Apparently, the Obamas' treatment of Gordon and Sarah Brown of Britain wasn't exactly what they are used to, and was actually taken to be quite rude. Typically they have a full press conference when they visit, this time no press conference was planned, but when they asked a small one was hastily put together. And the exchange of gifts... well, I can only wonder what in the world was Obama thinking?

The Browns gave the Obamas an ornamental pen holder made from the wood of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet, the sister ship to the HMS Resolute, from which the oak was used to make the desk in the Oval Office. In addition, they gave the Obamas a framed commission for HMS Resolute, a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert, and for the Obama children, nice dresses with matching necklaces, and six children's books by British authors. All very thoughtful gifts.

What did the Obamas give them in return? A box of 25 DVD's (including such titles as "Psycho," "Star Wars," and "ET." Niiiice. And for their sons? Little plastic Marine One helicopters. I'm sure the boys will like the toy helicopters, but it just doesn't seem to have the same thoughtfulness to it.

This story hasn't received much coverage in the U.S., but as you can imagine, it's all over the news in England. And now the question has been raised as to whether the DVD's were actually compatible with British DVD players, which apparently use a different format. LOL.

Meanwhile, in Russia, Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button. A red button. From us to Russia. Anyone see any symbolism there that we might not want to be bringing up??

Anyway, the point of the red button was to be a "reset" button to "reset" our relationship with Russia. Cheesy like a block of Velveeta even if it had worked out, but as it turns out, no one in the State Department could appropriately translate the word "reset" into Russian, so what she actually gave him a button that said, "overcharged." Huh? When he pointed out the error, she laughed and said, "Well, we won't let you do that to us." Groan.

The Obama administration isn't out offending everyone though, they're actually considering reaching out to the Taliban. Can't wait to see how that goes.

Read full post >>

The teleprompter strikes back

Friday, March 6, 2009 Comments

I heard on the radio yesterday about this article from Politico regarding Obama's "unprecedented" reliance on his teleprompter, not just for speeches but for even the smallest of announcements. Ever notice how he never looks straight at the crowd, but goes back and forth looking side to side as he speaks?

Then I saw this on Redstate, and it's just too funny not to share.

Read full post >>

Tax Day Tea Party

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Comments

The taxpayer protests of February 27th were just the beginning. The next one is scheduled for April 15th and will be held in cities across the country.

Michelle Malkin has more information here.

Read full post >>