About Me

Name: C-Hayes
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Auto Bailout

To be honest, these days it seems as if there are no discernible differences between Democrats and Republicans.  

But just maybe...Republicans want less "big government" than Democrats do.  That line for less big government is drawn at the auto bailout.

So why is President Bush (yes, he's still the President) expected to veto an auto bailout?

Probably because the true motivation behind the auto bailout isn't saving working class jobs.  It's control.

Here's the deft summary from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer:

"Once the government owns Detroit, it can remake it. The euphemism here is 'retool' Detroit to make cars for the coming green economy.

"Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone shoulddrive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it.

"In World War II, government had the auto companies turning out tanks. Now they would be made to turn out hybrids. The difference is that, in the middle of a world war, tanks have a buyer. Will hybrids? One of the reasons Detroit is in such difficulty is that consumers have been resisting the smaller, less powerful, less safe cars forced on the industry by fuel-efficiency mandates. Now Detroit would be forced to make even more of them.

"If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, but now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to fit five-year plans to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards -- to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia.

"Republican minimalism -- saving the credit-issuing utilities -- certainly risks not doing enough. But the Democratic drift toward massive industrial policy threatens to grow into the guaranteed inefficiencies of command-economy maximalism."

Lest you think Democrats really want what's best for you...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vent...

How many people purporting to be "fiscal conservatives" have said that the bailout is necessary?  How often are we going to hear the excuse "I believe in free-market principles", but when it's this bad, something has to be done?
 
Is anyone else sick of the inconsistency?
 
American Express is now getting in line for its bailout handout.  Automakers like Chrysler, GM and others are receiving assurances from Democrats like Nancy Pelosi that their piece of the bailout pie is coming soon.  AIG's initial relief was way too low to correct any of its problems, yet that company still finds time and money to throw lavish parties for its employees.
 
We know that the $700 billion dollar bailout figure was made up because a "really big number" had to be chosen.  And the mainstream media always reports that figure as truth.
 
But...what is the actual number?
 
Right now - it's closer to 3 trillion (via Michelle Malkin):
 
"'Adding together the $170 billion that the Treasury Department has currently agreed to provide banks in additional capital, the $150 billion that the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are providing to AIG and the $2 trillion that the Federal Reserve has provided banks in emergency loans brings the total assistance to $2.32 trillion. If the estimated savings from the new tax breaks are included, the assistance would climb to $2.46 trillion.
 
"'That total does not include other measures not focused directly on banks, such as Treasury Department's $200 billion in support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration's $300 billion HOPE for Homeowners program.'
 
"Add in another $50 billion for automakers, and that's how you get to $3 trillion."
 
When will these "free-marketeers" say that this is too much money?  How is it determined who's eligible for a bailout, and who isn't?  Why is bad behavior being rewarded?  Why should AIG, American Express and others EVER manage money and assets responsibly?  Why aren't Fannie and Freddie allowed to fail when they clearly should have?  Why should anyone pay his mortgage?  When can the government interfere with a free market?
 
Why does ANYBODY think any of this is going to work???
 
This is maddening, and Obama's presidency hasn't even begun.  When did we sign up for this?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Know Who I Haven't Heard From In A Long Time?

John Edwards.
 
I'm just sayin'...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's True Stance on Abortion

To the LEFT of NARAL?
 
“'We have a smoking gun committee report,' said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett.

"Muskett’s 'smoking gun' is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent 'final action' vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

"This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002, 'NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.'

"For those who may doubt partisan records, the Republican committee report is backed by an Associated Press article that documented the 6-4 vote on the amended version of the bill."
 
Amanda Carpenter has it all here.
 
Let's hear Palin talk about THIS on her trips to swing states Pennsylvania and New Hampshire - this can't be construed as racist, can it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Strassel Treats Us to a Magic Show

Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal does a great job demystifying Obama's proposed policies here.  While she goes after taxes, health care, and Iraq, the most important paragraph of the piece may not even be about Obama at all; in fact, it may be about John McCain. 
 
Strassel writes:
 
"...We'd like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone's fun. (CH: which, of course, Strassel just did) 

"We know he's in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today's financial crisis on corporate 'greed,' and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We'd also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show."
 
This makes me wonder if tomorrow night McCain will not "focus on himself" and come out of that box Strassel speaks of.  It's really his last chance...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Obama is Defined Only By His Vibe..."

Fresh off his "not guilty" verdict in his Canadian "Flagrant Islamophobia" case, here's Mark Steyn in the OC Register - imagine if we lost this voice?
 
"That's John McCain's problem. Traditionally, when an unknown politician emerges on the national scene, it's a race to define him. Gov. Palin is a good example: within days, the coastal sophisticates were mocking her as a chillbilly ditz with a womb that spits out inbred kids faster than the First National Bank of Welfare Swamp issues subprime mortgages. That's politics as usual: Define your opponent.

"But Obama is defined by his indefinability. When I pointed out to my Vermont gals that he lives in a swank pad that was part of some shady real estate deal with a convicted fraudster (Tony Rezko), that he entrusted his daughters' entire religious education to a neo-segregationist anti-American nut who preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people (Jeremiah Wright), that he attended fundraisers with a political patron who's an unrepentant terrorist proud of plotting to blow up young ladies just like them at a dance at the Fort Dix military base (William Ayers), when I pointed all this out, they looked at me as if I'd brought a baseball bat to a croquet match. Mere earthbound politicians are defined by their real estate deals and sleazy buddies, but Obama is defined only by his vibe....

"Besides, said one of the cuties, it's racist to try to link him to unsavory white men (Ayers). And black men (Wright). And Arabs (Rezko). And, just to be on the safe side, any dodgy Uzbeks or Papuans who might have been lurking around the greater Chicago area for the past quarter-century."
 
Every day from now until Election Day, the McCain camp HAS to attempt to define The One outside of "his vibe."  Governor Palin has been trying to do just that, most recently highlighting Obama's abortion record, explaining that it's not negative, and not mean-spirited, to call into question Obama's record. 
 
Maybe she should tell John McCain that.
 
Otherwise, this is just campaigning for '12...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Spirit of 1876

Awe-inspiring stuff from Bill Bennett:
 
"Americans had many reasons to congratulate themselves as they approached their great centennial celebration.  They had declared their independence and made it stick in a long but ultimately successful revolution against the British monarchy.  They had accepted a French alliance but had been relieved to see the large and powerful French army peacefully sail away.  They had drafted and ratified a Constitution unprecedented in the world that established a 'new order of the ages.'  Their new federal republic in 1789 stretched from the Maine woods to the Florida border and west to the Mississippi River.  They negotiated the greatest land deal in history - the Louisiana Purchase.  Americans fought the War of 1812.  They had repulsed the British invasion from Canada, withstood the enemy burning their capital city, and finally they had triumphed over the most serious British threat at New Orleans.  Following an extraordinary period of national expansion, Americans carried their democratic institutions across the continent, as far as the Pacific Ocean.  And they had saved their Union, with liberty, after a harrowing four years of civil war.  They freed four million slaves.  By constitutional amendment, Americans abolished slavery, pronounced equal protection of the laws, and proposed votes for men newly freed from bondage.  America, it seemed, had truly seen 'a new birth of freedom.'  Following the Civil War, Americans referred to their united nation as a singular noun: the United States is, not the United States are."
 
I wonder how many high schoolers - or, college kids, for that matter - OR GROWNUPS for that matter - would say of our first 100 years as a nation: "We oppressed Blacks, Native Americans, and women.  Thomas Jefferson slept around with his slaves.  Abraham Lincoln owned slaves so he was a hypocrite.  We invaded Mexico.  Lots of people died."
 
Criticism of our history is vital - yet a PATRIOTIC understanding of it is the best way to ensure good citizenship.
 
A great building block towards a patriotic citizenry is Bill Bennett's book - pick it up and take time to engross yourself in it. 
 
It should be required reading.
 
It'd be nice to see the "Spirit of 1876" reinvigorated today...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Overheard at the Debate Tonight...

Warren Buffett as a possible Treasury Secretary in a new administration...

"Renegotiating" home loans...through government buyouts of bad loans...(though, government is the problem, remember...)
 
Keeping people in their homes...
"Reaching across the aisle" to work with Joe Lieberman on combating climate change...
 
"Bringing people together" to solve problems...
 
"A clear record of bipartisanship..."
 
"rescue" package v. "bailout" package - problem is "greedy Wall St."...
 
All of these coming from JOHN MCCAIN...NOT BARACK OBAMA...
 
Is conservatism dead?
 
Be nervous, people.  Be very nervous...
 
Sister Toldjah with the best liveblogging here.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do Republicans Deserve to Lose?

Thomas Sowell seems to think so.
 
I'm starting to agree with him...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and Infanticide

Change I can NOT believe in!
 
Vital read:
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why the Edwards Affair is Important

I think Kirsten Powers gets it right:

"...Following his affair, Edwards chose to run for president, using his family as a centerpiece for his campaign. In June of last year, he accepted the Father of the Year Award from Father's Day/Mother's Day Council. Shortly afterward, he renewed his vows with his wife and provided pictures to People magazine."

Ladies Home Journal readers were certainly fooled - in 2007, 52% of its readers believed John and Elizabeth Edwards' marriage was the happiest among Democrat presidential candidates. 

Ann Coulter on the mainstream media's complicit silence before Friday's announcement:

The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!

Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:

"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."

There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!

Not sure that the media has "gone to town" on this story.  News outlets such as the New York Times are reporting the affair thusly:

"John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate, admitted publicly Friday to an extramarital affair, but said he did not father a child out of wedlock."

Is it me or does this statement have an "incidental" tone to it?  It's as if they're still trying to insist he's a moral person because he didn't have a child out of wedlock with the woman he had an affair with!

Of course, that would also mean you'd have to believe John Edwards' "excruciatingly personal" statement.

And why should we?

UPDATE: (9:40pm EST) The AP is already referring to Rielle Hunter as an "ex-mistress"...what proof, exactly, do they have of that?  If the three-month old child is not his, and she's an "ex-mistress" - why is he visiting her in a Beverly Hills hotel room?  Clearly the AP believes his statement that the affair took place only in 2006.  But he's lied through this whole process and there's no reason for me to believe that she is an "ex-mistress."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gas Prices - Home and Abroad

Interesting piece by Deb Saunders today (emphasis mine):
 
"...a switch to European-style gas taxes would kill the American economy. But when you look at how many Americans reacted to $4-a-gallon gas -- including people who say they want to curb energy use -- you have to respect how Europeans enunciated a set of goals -- less congestion, less pollution, more public transit -- and agreed that everybody has to pay to achieve those goals. They don't just dump the burden on smokers and "the rich," and many Europeans are proud that they pay through the nose for gas.

"Back in America, a different dynamic is at play. Many voters say they want to fight global warming, while everyone wants to increase America's energy independence. Yet somehow many Americans seem to think that they are entitled to expect politicians to deliver greenhouse-gas reductions and energy independence -- along with cheap gas and big cars. Politicians duly tell voters that they will pass laws to reduce energy consumption, and voters like what they hear -- in part because they think they won't have to pay more at the pump or think about fuel efficiency at the car dealership."
 
"...McCain and Clinton have said that they want to sharply reduce greenhouse gases and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. You don't get there with cheap gasoline. You get there by curbing energy use, which higher prices will do.
"Or you get there by increasing supply. Instead, McCain and Obama support Congress' refusal to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as bans on new drilling off the coasts of California and Florida. They say they support energy independence -- while they support policies that guarantee more importation of foreign oil."
 
In a nutshell - nobody gets it.
 
By the way - there are more important things going on anyway...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's "Remake" Rhetoric

The inestimable Mark Steyn:
 
"...A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine — John Gross of Quebec — sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

"'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.'

"I thought this was so cute, I posted it on 'The Corner.' Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Senator Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting emails from reporters from Florida to Oregon asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator in fact uttered these words. And I’d patiently write back and explain that they’re John Gross’s words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we 'come together to remake this great nation' came awful close.

"Speaking personally, I don’t want to remake America. I’m an immigrant and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there’s nowhere for me to go — although presumably once he’s lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.
"...Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don’t. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON...

I've been uninspired for 2 months now about posting.  The same tired stories are being hashed and rehashed in the media: Obama's pastor, gay marriage in California, rising gas prices.
 
Even Rachel Ray's scarf in a Dunkin Donuts ad made front-page news this week.
 
Sure, these stories are all newsworthy, I suppose, to some degree. 
 
But, as the title of this post explains, THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON...
 
...and, of course, you have to go to the blogs to find out what these things are.
 
Courtesy of Pamela Geller, always ahead of the curve: Brave Mother of Honor Killing Victim Gunned Down By Muslims
 
Leila Hussein was the mother of a 17-year-old girl who was brutally beaten and killed by her father for "dishonoring the family name" by "talking to the enemy" - namely, a British soldier.  Leila fled from her husband but only survived a few weeks before being gunned down herself - a murder the police are saying is "unrelated" to her daughter's death.
 
Uh-huh.
 
Pamela speaks:
 
"Where is feminist outrage? Where are the damn womens groups, the leftards, the commies, the socialists, all the full-of-shitniks? Why wasn't this women protected? She was being threatened daily."
 
From the Guardian:

"Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.
 
"...Her death, on 17 May, is the shocking denouement to a tragedy which had its origins in an innocent friendship between her student daughter, Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, and a blond, 22-year-old British soldier known only as Paul.

"The two had met while Rand, an English student at Basra University, was working as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water. Although their friendship appears to have involved just brief, snatched conversations over four months, Rand had confided her romantic feelings for Paul to her best friend, Zeinab, 19.

"She died, still a virgin, four months after she had last seen him when her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, discovered that she had been seen talking 'to the enemy' in public. She had brought shame on his honour, was his defence, and he had to cleanse his family name. Despite openly admitting the murder, he has received no punishment.

"...Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done.
 
"...Police said the incident was a sectarian attack and that there was nothing to link Leila's death to her family.
 
"...Leila's burial was arranged within hours of her death by the husband of one of her cousins and Mariam's father.

"The Observer visited Rand's father and two brothers at their Basra home, but they refused to talk beyond Hassan proclaiming his father's innocence. When asked if he would be visiting his mother's grave, he shrugged: 'Maybe in the future.'

"Leila was an orphan, raised by an uncle who died in the Shia uprising against Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. Hamida Alaa, 68, a friend of the uncle, said: 'The poor woman was killed and now her name and history is buried with her. No one wants to speak about it. She is just one more woman killed in our country who has already been forgotten by the local society.'

In the last days of her life, Leila was suffering from the pressure of having gone against her husband. 'She was sleeping with the help of sedatives,' said Mariam. 'She would wake up at night with terrible nightmares, even dreaming of being suffocated as her daughter was. She had been threatened so many times and that's why she was so scared. Her indignation over Rand's death is what led her to her own coffin. Their history ends here. BUT LEILA WAS A HERO. A woman who was strong enough to say no to Iraqi men's bad attitudes. Sadly most Iraqi women do not have the same strength and they will stay in their homes.'"

Fantastic coverage as always by Pamela Geller.  I would add the additional outrage that this story isn't plastered all over the cable networks, featured on all right-wing blogs, headlined by international newspapers, and publicized by human rights organizations.
 
Spread the word on this story.  Pray for justice.  And wake up to the reality that THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON...
 
Higher gas prices?  Please...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary's "Comeback"

Remember all that talk about Hillary Clinton being the "comeback kid" after Texas?
 
Or, more recently, comparing herself to Rocky?
 
Well...it's really all for naught.
 
This should raise the ire of those in her own party who want her out:
 
"Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas thanks to a strong showing in Democratic county conventions this past weekend.
"Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party’s national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press."
 
Not that I think she should quit by any means - I mean, isn't this fun? - but, is the press maybe manufacturing the race a bit?
 
Just look at the stories:
 
 
If Obama's smart, he'll use this...
 
Oh wait...he's not...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »