Opening lines of President Obama's National Security speech on 5/21 as published in the Los Angeles Times
"Good morning, everybody. Please be seated. Thank you all for being here. Let me just acknowledge the presence of some of my outstanding cabinet members and advisers. We've got our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We have our CIA Director Leon Panetta. We have our Secretary of Defense William Gates, Secretary Napolitano of Department of Homeland Security, Attorney General Eric Holder, my National Security Adviser Jim Jones, and I want to especially thank our Acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne Thomas.
I also want to acknowledge several members of the House who have great interest in intelligence matters. I want to thank Congressman Reyes, Congressman Hoekstra, Congressman King, as well as Congressman Thompson, for being here today. Thank you so much."
The New York Times Reports the same text, although they note the error in the name of the Secretary of Defense. Yes, ladies and gents ... the President of the United States introduced the SecDef as William Gates. Bet his momma wonders what is wrong with the name she gave him ... Robert!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Minnesota's Moment of Truth
For years we Minnesotans have prided ourselves on the smooth operation of our elections. Voting systems were standardized statewide many years ago, eliminating most of the problems that seem to creep up in other states. No hanging chads or butterfly ballots in Minnesota, thank you! Along with smoothly operated elections, we have consistently had one of the highest percentages of voter turnout in the nation.
Pride comes before a fall and we have fallen hard in the election of 2008. The news today says that Al Franken is preparing to take the Senate seat in Washington in spite of the challenge going to the Supreme Court. That seems wrong in an election with so many irregularities. From "found" votes to numbers of voters that are higher than the registered voters in a district to opposing rules for allowing absentee votes ... this election has more questions than answers.
It is my opinion that Mr. Franken should sit this one out and let the Supreme Court speak.
Pride comes before a fall and we have fallen hard in the election of 2008. The news today says that Al Franken is preparing to take the Senate seat in Washington in spite of the challenge going to the Supreme Court. That seems wrong in an election with so many irregularities. From "found" votes to numbers of voters that are higher than the registered voters in a district to opposing rules for allowing absentee votes ... this election has more questions than answers.
It is my opinion that Mr. Franken should sit this one out and let the Supreme Court speak.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Whose Choice?
305,641,537 - US Population (US Census Projection as of 1/19/2009)
50,000,000 - Abortions since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973
16.36 - Percentage of population who never had a choice
50,000,000 - Abortions since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973
16.36 - Percentage of population who never had a choice
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Minnesota Recount was a Rip-Off
Democrats have been learning lots of tricks to gain office, many of them questionable. Take for example, the Minnesota recount. We have enough irregularities to choke a horse, and surprise, surprise ... they all seem to favor the DFL candidate. Imagine that! Imagine how they "found" 100 more votes in one precinct. Imagine how they "found" more votes than signed in voters in another. Very strange stuff.
Even the Wall Street Journal has weighed in on this one: The Minnesota Recount is Unconstitutional. I concur
Even the Wall Street Journal has weighed in on this one: The Minnesota Recount is Unconstitutional. I concur
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Axis of the Outrageous
If we don't accomplish anything else in the next election cycle, we need to put our energy into defeating Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. These two public servants are so determined to put their own agendas into law that they will do anything to ensure their success. Witness Nancy Pelosi's recent rule changes meant to hamper the efforts of representatives who don't agree with legislation to modify or amend it. Further witness Harry Reid's calling the Senate into session to grab land and prevent energy exploration on millions of acres. Amanda Carpenter at Townhall wrote about Harry Reid's Land Grab and followed up with an interesting article on who voted for the bill.
Harry Reid knows that the public strongly supports domestic energy exploration and didn't have the guts to enact the ban which expired last fall. So he takes this way to ban exploration. Not to mention adding huge costs to a budget that is already so far in the hole one wonders if we will ever get out of it.
Harry Reid knows that the public strongly supports domestic energy exploration and didn't have the guts to enact the ban which expired last fall. So he takes this way to ban exploration. Not to mention adding huge costs to a budget that is already so far in the hole one wonders if we will ever get out of it.
Outstanding Response to the National Volunteer Team
The National Volunteer Team was announced on January 1 and ten days later we were just 6 members short of 2,000 volunteers. Read Mike Huckabee's announcement: National Volunteer Team Launches Today. I encourage you to join us and help us make a difference in the next election.
Monday, January 5, 2009
HuckPac Launches National Volunteer Team
Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 second place finisher for the Republican presidential nomination has been busy since ending his presidential run following the Texas primary in April. In addition to having a top rated show on the Fox News Network and publishing a new book, he set up a PAC (political action committee) to help support conservative candidates in the 2008 election. HuckPac was instrumental in supporting conservative candidates and in keeping the focus on critical issues.
Now HuckPAC is looking forward to the elections of 2010. One thing we learned from the 2008 election is the necessity of involving volunteers at the grass roots level. There will be some exciting things in store for the months ahead. One of our primary goals is to encourage people to be a part of a national effort to support candidates at the local, state and national level. To that end, we are building our team. To join the National Volunteer Team please visit HuckPac at the link provided.
Now HuckPAC is looking forward to the elections of 2010. One thing we learned from the 2008 election is the necessity of involving volunteers at the grass roots level. There will be some exciting things in store for the months ahead. One of our primary goals is to encourage people to be a part of a national effort to support candidates at the local, state and national level. To that end, we are building our team. To join the National Volunteer Team please visit HuckPac at the link provided.
RNC Debate
I just finished watching the debate between the candidates for the RNC Chairmanship. Here are my initial reactions (listed in the order they were seated and spoke):
Michael Steele - very smooth. Has a good stage persona, honed by his television appearances. But I didn't feel he was passionate about anything except getting the job, although he did well in his closing statement. He is Hannity's choice, which probably means he is also Romney's choice.
Katon Dawson - spoke well and has a solid record. He also has some negatives which will probably keep him from the chair.
Ken Blackwell - has been gathering a lot of support and may be unstoppable. He seemed to lack passion for the task ahead (IMO) and (again, IMO) spent too much time talking about me, me, me.
Saul Anuzis - just didn't come across well. Part of that was early problems with his microphone, but he just doesn't seem to have the wide range of experience necessary to take on the national chair.
Chip Saltsman - seemed like the youngster in the crowd ... oh, wait, he is. He didn't talk a lot about mechanics, but did demonstrate a passion for the battle that will be necessary to field candidates and rebrand the GOP.
Mike Duncan - in a defensive battle to keep his job in light of huge losses in the states and nationally. He didn't help himself, IMO.
cross posted from dei
Michael Steele - very smooth. Has a good stage persona, honed by his television appearances. But I didn't feel he was passionate about anything except getting the job, although he did well in his closing statement. He is Hannity's choice, which probably means he is also Romney's choice.
Katon Dawson - spoke well and has a solid record. He also has some negatives which will probably keep him from the chair.
Ken Blackwell - has been gathering a lot of support and may be unstoppable. He seemed to lack passion for the task ahead (IMO) and (again, IMO) spent too much time talking about me, me, me.
Saul Anuzis - just didn't come across well. Part of that was early problems with his microphone, but he just doesn't seem to have the wide range of experience necessary to take on the national chair.
Chip Saltsman - seemed like the youngster in the crowd ... oh, wait, he is. He didn't talk a lot about mechanics, but did demonstrate a passion for the battle that will be necessary to field candidates and rebrand the GOP.
Mike Duncan - in a defensive battle to keep his job in light of huge losses in the states and nationally. He didn't help himself, IMO.
cross posted from dei
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Saltsman for RNC Chairman
Chip Saltsman is running to be the next chair of the Republican National Committee. His new site launched this week: Chip Saltsman for RNC Chair. Visit the site and read the information there. Chip has taken time to spell out an action plan for moving forward. Clearly, the RNC needs to address many issues to win back the support of American voters, many of whom crossed party lines because they no longer trusted the party to support their values. Chip has a plan to answer that and bring the party back to its traditional roots.
The Republican Party was not born as a party of big business or elites of any stripe. The party of Lincoln was also the party of the people. Today, the platform of the Republican party is much closer to what people say they want than that of the Democrats. Yet the public rejected Republicans in record numbers in the last election cycle. Many would argue that it was due to drift on the part of the Republican candidates. Many argue that it was due to an unpopular president and an unpopular war. Many blamed the Republican party (not necessarily correctly) for the current economic situation. Many voters seemed to feel there was no difference between the parties. And if there was no difference, why not give the new guy a chance? We will have to wait and see what havoc that thinking might have wrought.
In the meantime, we can take steps to bring the party back to the people … to set it on the right track and to build a grassroots team that will support candidates at all levels who best express the values and beliefs of the electorate. To do that effectively, we need Chip Saltsman.
The Republican Party was not born as a party of big business or elites of any stripe. The party of Lincoln was also the party of the people. Today, the platform of the Republican party is much closer to what people say they want than that of the Democrats. Yet the public rejected Republicans in record numbers in the last election cycle. Many would argue that it was due to drift on the part of the Republican candidates. Many argue that it was due to an unpopular president and an unpopular war. Many blamed the Republican party (not necessarily correctly) for the current economic situation. Many voters seemed to feel there was no difference between the parties. And if there was no difference, why not give the new guy a chance? We will have to wait and see what havoc that thinking might have wrought.
In the meantime, we can take steps to bring the party back to the people … to set it on the right track and to build a grassroots team that will support candidates at all levels who best express the values and beliefs of the electorate. To do that effectively, we need Chip Saltsman.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Let's get real ...
Speaking in Springfield, IL last week, Joe Biden excoriated John McCain for supporting privatization of Social Security. The same lines were played again at the Democratic convention by more than one speaker. Let’s get real! That was George Bush’s proposal, and it’s not a bad one.
The fact is that you and I will never see a just return for the money we pay into Social Security. We aren’t meant to, because the government uses our money to subsidize people who don’t pay in or who pay in limited amounts. That made sense when the system was first established. But there is hardly anyone alive today who has not paid into Social Security for their entire working lives. And the Social Security Trust was breached long ago when our government decided they could “borrow” the money held in trust for the people. Pah!
Like many, I was not enthusiastic about privatizing Social Security. But, with some safeguards, I think it’s a good idea. The more I thought about Biden’s comments, the more I realized just how wrong politicians can be. He and other Democrats act like it’s a scandalous and diabolical notion. It is not.
Out of curiosity, I ran some numbers. I used a contribution rate of 12.4%, which equals the present rate plus the employer contribution. The figures below show how much money someone would have in their account after a working life of 40 years. Theses numbers are conservative, because I have used a 401k model with only 7% yearly gain. Most funds earn in excess of that. Also, I used the same wage scale throughout. Wages would increase for almost anyone over a 40 year span, but I wanted to be conservative in my estimates. For some reason Blogger won't let me post the table. Follow the link below to Dei for the numbers*.
Trust me, this is a much better return on your Social Security investment than letting the government muck with it. The Democrats should know better and they should serve the country better than to misrepresent what this could mean to future retirees.
*cross posted from dei
The fact is that you and I will never see a just return for the money we pay into Social Security. We aren’t meant to, because the government uses our money to subsidize people who don’t pay in or who pay in limited amounts. That made sense when the system was first established. But there is hardly anyone alive today who has not paid into Social Security for their entire working lives. And the Social Security Trust was breached long ago when our government decided they could “borrow” the money held in trust for the people. Pah!
Like many, I was not enthusiastic about privatizing Social Security. But, with some safeguards, I think it’s a good idea. The more I thought about Biden’s comments, the more I realized just how wrong politicians can be. He and other Democrats act like it’s a scandalous and diabolical notion. It is not.
Out of curiosity, I ran some numbers. I used a contribution rate of 12.4%, which equals the present rate plus the employer contribution. The figures below show how much money someone would have in their account after a working life of 40 years. Theses numbers are conservative, because I have used a 401k model with only 7% yearly gain. Most funds earn in excess of that. Also, I used the same wage scale throughout. Wages would increase for almost anyone over a 40 year span, but I wanted to be conservative in my estimates. For some reason Blogger won't let me post the table. Follow the link below to Dei for the numbers*.
Trust me, this is a much better return on your Social Security investment than letting the government muck with it. The Democrats should know better and they should serve the country better than to misrepresent what this could mean to future retirees.
*cross posted from dei
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
