Whitney Houston died more than a week ago and I said nothing. There were people who knew her far better and could talk of her accomplishments more accurately than I could ever hope to do. When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey ordered his state flags to be lowered to half-staff in honor of Ms. Houston, I said nothing, even though I felt our soldiers deserved at least the same treatment as a celebrity singer. But when a liberal says something as idiotic as “Whitney Houston was a Hero Too,” I can no longer hold my silence. I have to say something.

These liberals who put Whitney Houston on the same pedestal as our soldiers have no idea of what our military does, or else they would not make such idiotic statements. Ok…I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, hoping they would not intentionally make such an idiotic statement. But in the end, does it matter? The liberal mindset says there is no such thing as evil and there is no such thing as good since everyone is the same. The liberal mindset say that it is patriotic to denounce the US and unpatriotic to criticize those same individuals for doing so. The liberal mindset says there is no such thing as a military hero since we are all the same, but if there were, anyone who contributes to society is a real hero. The liberal mindset can not see the difference between those who protect our freedoms and those who use those same freedoms to abuse their own bodies. I guess the liberal mindset would also say that it is a tragedy that someone like Whitney Houston killed herself, but at least she did not kill anybody else like our soldiers are trained to kill and do so all the time. The liberal mindset can see no difference between those who kill for freedom and those who kill for money, or greed, or whatever. The liberal mindset has a screwed up view of the world since they see the US as the bad part of that world.

I found a post which sums up how so many liberals feel. Take a look at the last paragraph of the writer from the uber-liberal website, The Huffington Post:

The moving testimonies of those that knew her and worked with her define her as a very kind, giving person and a loving parent. How can anyone be so heartless as to disrespect Whitney by making these unfair, idiotic comparisons to how we view our military soldiers? If you really want to honor our fallen heroes, treat everyone with respect, especially one who gave so much of herself to the world through her art. (emphasis by TRS)

Ok….so Whitney Houston sang….okay, I get that. But that does not put her in the same boat as our fallen soldiers who gave their all so that those on the left could say such idiotic things. The writer made a passing reference to Lt. Michael Murphy who was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his bravery and linked it to Whitney as if they were the same thing. The writer is wrong. The two have nothing in common at all. The first died by her own hand by abusing her body. The former died trying to save his comrades and protecting our freedoms.

We could say this post was just an isolated incident, that the writer is a lone maverick in the liberal world. Unfortunately this is not the case. The liberal mindset can see no difference between those who contribute to society and die in a drugged stupor and those who gave their lives defending our freedoms. You have to understand, our soldiers kill people and that is wrong, they say. The liberal mindset does not like our military and they do not like the United States of America as they continually show to the world.

Whitney Houston was a great singer, but she essentially killed herself with drugs. He death is a shame and a loss to the music world, but to say that she was a hero just like our soldiers is misguided, foolish and wrong. Our soldiers are the true heroes and that is something we should strive to remember.

 

Sometimes I wonder about the intellegence of the Republican leadership. By caving in to the Democrats on the so-called ‘payroll tax relief extention’ the Republicans have allowed the Dems to frame the debate. This article by Charles Krauthammer details what is at stake, for all of us. I have to include this one little tidbit from Krauthammer:

To begin with, what even minimally rational government enacts payroll tax relief for just two months? As a matter of practicality alone, it makes no sense. The National Payroll Reporting Consortium, representing those who process paychecks, said of the two-month extension passed by the Senate just days before the new year: “There is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal,” because “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February,” thereby creating “substantial problems, confusion and costs.”
The final compromise appears to tweak this a bit to make it less onerous for small business. But what were they thinking in the first place? What business operates two months at a time? The minimal time horizon for business is the quarter — three months. What genius came up with two? U.S. businesses would have to budget for two-thirds of a one-quarter tax-holiday extension. As if this government has not already heaped enough regulatory impediments and mindless uncertainties upon business.
But making economic sense is not the point. The tax-holiday extension — presumably to be negotiated next year into a 12-month extension — is the perfect campaign ploy: an election-year bribe that has the additional virtue of seizing the tax issue for the Democrats.

Could not have said it better.

Hat Tip: Outside the Beltway

 

Does Attorney General Eric Holder actually believe that Republicans do not like him or the President, just because they are both black? These people are really delusional, they are totally off their rockers. I do not like them because they are destroying our country. That is all. I could care less about the color of either one of them. They could be green and I would not care. I do care about my country and what they are doing to her.

Spending is totally out of control with no end in sight. Regulations are coming at a pace unseen since FDR. Holder and Obama are suing the states who are attempting to enforce federal laws on immigration. They are seeing selling weapons to drug dealers and gun runners. The Attorney General is even trying keep states from having fair and free elections. And it is the Democrats who are concerned about race.

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Liberals have always loved playing the race card, it is a knee-jerk reaction to any attack. They know that throwing race into the mix will usually stop debate, because it changes the subject to one which is less palatable to your enemies. The idea of playing the race card is an old trick–accuse your enemies of something so heinous and they will back off.

Unfortunately, the card has been played too much by too many people. Look the politicians who have used race for their benefit: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shelia Jackson Lee, Jeremiah Wright, Cynthia_McKinney, Crystal Mangumand (Duke Lacross accuser) many, many more. It is a tired old story, and that dog don’t hunt.

So where do we go from here? Eric Holder will continue to be a distraction for the Obama administration and so he should resign. By accusing his enemies of racism, the Attorney General has diminished both the contributions of legitament black leaders before him, but also those who have actually suffered from real racism. Either way, Attorney General Eric Holder needs to resign. It is wrong for a sitting Attorney General to falsely accuse Republicans of being racists, just because they are questioning him. By playing the race card, Holder is disgracing his office.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

 

There are many on the left and on the right who have criticized presidential candidate Newt Gingrich for his desire to call activist judges before Congress who make bad decisions. Both sides have rightly denounced the move as dangerous because it eats away at the very fabric of our democracy—an independent judiciary.

Gingrich has suggested that judges who issue what he termed “radical” rulings out of step with mainstream American values should be subpoenaed before Congress to explain themselves before facing possible impeachment. As president, he said, he’d consider dispatching U.S. marshals to round up judges who refuse to show voluntarily. In extreme cases, whole courts could be eliminated.

Ok, they have a point, but how can the left complain when their own side has engaged in one massive power grab? They have been more than willing to give Barack Obama any power he desires. So far, the President has dozens of un-approved advisors he calls Czars. Isn’t this an abrogation of the Constitution? And that is not even discussing Obama Care which gives the Exectutive branch of government huge powers. He has signed 106 Executive Orders on everything from spending to regulations and others infringing on the Legislature. But that is not enough. Now Shelia Jackson Lee is suggesting that Barack Obama take upon himself the power once thought to be the purview of Congress. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200585-jackson-lee-urges-obama-to-use-executive-power-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut-

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Tuesday that President Obama “absolutely” should use his executive power to continue the unemployment benefits and payroll tax cut extension and said she hoped to discuss the option with the White House later in the day.

The amazing thing is that Ms. Lee is a sitting Congresswoman, someone who should know better, someone who should know what power Congress has and which of the powers resides in the Congress alone. She should know full well that only Congress can extend unemployment insurance, that only Congress can extend the payroll tax cut. If she wishes to give up this power, she should resign and let someone else assume the responsibility of representing Houston.

One thing we do not need to do is to give Obama even more power to turn the United States into another failed European democracy. Arbitrarily giving the President power reserved for Congress is stupid since doing so would make the President a virtual dictator.

You’ve got to love the Dems. Every time they attack someone for failure to understand the enter-workings in Washington, they make the same mistake.

 

There was a very short period of time immediately after 9/11 that I had a subscription to Time magazine. Thank goodness that period of temporary insanity did not last very long. Other than the September 11th issue, all of the others that year were all crap and utterly full of liberal bias. When it was time to renew my subscription, I decline. I even received a phone call from someone wanting me to buy another year, I told them my reasons for declining as the magazine was WAY to liberal for me.

So it comes as now surprise to me that Time magazine has since proved my reason for dropping the magazine was justified. Time has selected its Person of the Year and instead of voting for so many of worthy people who has been in the news all year, the magazine has selected—the protester?! By selecting this totally unworthy person, Time is cowardly. They could have selected Congressman Paul Ryan, or the killers of Osama bin Laden—Seal Team 6, or the new royal bride Kate Middleton. The editors are showing their hand by selecting the ‘protester.’ It is obvious who they really wanted to select was the ‘occupy wall street’ protestor, but did not want to face the criticism such a selection would envoke. So they were cowardly and choose the ‘protester.’

By selecting the protester for its person of the year, Time magazine will continue its slide into obscurity. What a joke. It is really hard to believe Henry Luce could have once started such a magazine, the same man who once coined the term—the ‘American Century,’ the ultra conservative, and the die-hard Republican. Time magazine has fallen a long ways since Henry Luce’s time. This year’s Person of the Year may be the final nail in Time’s coffin.

 

Is there collusion between the ACLU and the White House? The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin for having the temerity to want to prevent voter fraud. Attourney General Eric Holder is coming to Texas to denounce a state law requiring a state ID in order to vote. What is going on here?

“This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures,” said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Across the nation, legislators are robbing countless American citizens of their fundamental right to vote, and in the process, undermining the very legitimacy of our democracy. We intend to redirect their attention to the Constitution.”

Ohhh. I did not know that having honest and free and fair elections was going against the Constitution. Is it as simple as wanting to protect the voting rights of ordinary citizens, or is there something more sinister than that? Perhaps the reason for the cozy relationship between Democrats and the ACLU is the very fact of requiring state IDs before voting prevents voter fraud. The outrage is directed at the states where the Democrats can no longer steal an election. The Democrats are worried. To be fair, I would be scared to if the only way I could win was by stealing the election. And now the very act of promoting a fair election is taking away their power.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at these two quotes by our Attorney General.

“We are a better nation now than we were because more people are involved in the electoral process,’

“The beauty of this nation, the strength of this nation, is its diversity, and when we try to exclude people from being involved in the process …we weaken the fabric of this country.’’

Interpretation: without voter fraud, we (Democrats) can not win. Without the extra votes, the illegal alien votes, and the illegal votes, the multiple votes, and the intimidation, we can not win. As radio talk show host and author Hugh Hewitt said in his book, “If it’s Not Close, The Can’t Cheat.”

The job of conservatives is to make sure of the integrity of the vote is not compromised, no matter what the outcome. Conservatives will can can wait, the people will come back. Liberals can’t wait, because they can not take the risk. One rule of liberals is that the ‘end justifies the means.’ So if they need to break or bend a few rules and laws and steal a few elections to get their way, oh well. The liberals will not be happy until we are a socialist country. To ensure that takes place, it is paramount that Barack Obama win his re-election bid. Without him, their liberal/socialist agenda slows to a crawl.

So…is collusion really taking place? Absolutely! The ACLU is as left as it gets. And as it turns out, so is Obama. So what if a few elections are compromised, some elections are stolen, and a few politicians unfairly promoted to office. So what? Fair elections is what makes this country different than others. Otherwise…we will be no different than Russia. As our rights are slowly eroded away, we will cheer the return of our hero. Though his election may be tarnished. The important point is that he won. Is that where we have gone after 230 years. Where is Thomas Paine when you need him?

 

Today, the march of freedom took another step as the Supreme Court decided to they needed to take a look at how a three judges in a federal court in San Antonio redrew the Congressional districts. Showing their true colors, the judges made sure the Democrats would win all the new Congressional seats.

On Friday evening, the nation’s highest court granted Texas GOP officials’ request for a stay on a court-drawn map that benefited Democrats. The court’s future decision on the map will affect the boundaries of the Lone Star State’s 36 Congressional districts, a handful of which could be crucial in deciding control of the chamber next year.

Unfortunately, the decision by the High Court will not come until after the deadline for candidates filing for their seats. Even then, the court may do any number of things–send the plan back to the Texas House for redrawing, send the plan back to the three judge panel with instructions, throw the entire thing out, or even approve the San Antonio court’s plan. But most will take a lot of time which throws the Texas march primary into chaos. Candidates are left wondering where to file, when to file, and even what district to file in.

No matter what the outcome is, democracy has won today. Which ever way the Supreme Court rules, the federal court in San Antonio has been given an embarrassing reprimand. Gerrymandering is wrong, even if it is done by a court.

 

It is sad day when the President must distort history to become re-elected.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

To say that our economic problems of the past have come about, especially during the Great Depression, because of a national desire to leave the market alone. Obama says that deregulation and cutting taxes led to our problems now and the Great Depression before that, when the exact opposite thing happened. As I have stated here before, there were worse depressions than the Great Depression, namely the 1920=21 depression. Why was the Great Depression worse? Because a Republican, like Bush and Hoover, chose to intervene and try to help. Then along comes a Democrat who makes things far worse, like Obama and Roosevelt. These are the facts.

Obama has made things worse, a lot worse. The economy works the best when the government stays out of the way. Sure some regulation is needed to keep things on an even keel. But that is not what Obama is doing. Anytime a politician talks about ‘fairness’ and how the rich need to pay their fair share–this is tantamount to communism. Democrats will not want to hear this, but their hero Theodore Roosevelt was as close to a communist the United States has ever had until Barack Obama come along. This is judged entirely from his policies.

Then the President says that lowering taxes and reducing regulation has never worked. Wow, really!? It has worked EVERY time. Did they forget the economic prosperity the US went through after taxes were lowered by Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush. All had great recovery after taxes were lowered to a reasonable level. But when you are willing to do anything to win, then the truth does not matter–winning does.

Now here the President comes along giving us a very distorted version of how we got into the Great Depression. I could be cynical enough to believe that he is doing this deliberately. That is until I talk to some of my more liberal friends. It seems they all suffer from the same disease–they all believe the government got us out of the Great Depression and the government will get us out the the funk we are in now. We may eventually get out, but it will not be because of Barack Obama, it will be because the economy always recovers eventually. The recovery will be anemic, but……at least the Democrats can say they brought us out the this recession if Obama is re-elected. They still take credit for getting us out of the Great Depression, which they did not.

I have one message for the Democrats, learn your history, the real history of the United States.

 

President Obama warned Republicans on Wednesday that he would veto any proposal that attempts to attach “extraneous issues” to an extension of the payroll tax holiday set to expire at the end of the year.

Ever notice how if the Democrats add ‘extraneous issues’ to a bill, whether it is pork, trying to changes laws, or whatever, all is fair. The President even campaigned on the issue of vetoing any bill that contained pork. But when the Republicans do it….. I think the President speaks with a forked tongue.

Hat Tip: CNN

 

I am really getting tired of the all of the news organizations, including Fox in some instances, of mis-portraying the Republican Party in the Libya fiasco. Most Republicans are not calling for the US to pull out of Libya. This is not Iraq in reverse where the Democrats time after time tried to pull funding from the war with our troops in harms way. I you will remember, George W. Bush went to Congress and asked for Congressional approval. The Democrats helped to pass the measure and troops were sent to end Sadam Huseins’s quest for nuclear weapons. At least until it became politically expedient for them to abandon our troops after all the blood, sweat and tears they put into calming the region.

But this situation is different. Barack Obama did not consult with Congress. Not that I agree or disagree with the attack on one of the most brutal regimes the world has ever known. Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi needed removing. I am just not sure it was our job to do it. And if we did, where does our interference in the affairs of other countries end. If we can attack in Libya, why not in Egypt, or Sudan, or Iran, or …. Like I said, I am not sure. But Obama still needs to have the measure debated in Congress, regardless of whether or not the War Powers Resolution is constitutional. If George Bush was required to consult Congress under the auspices of the WPR when we were attacked, why shouldn’t Barck Obama allow debate on Libya when we were not attacked. As the old saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander.’ If Bush needed follow the WPR, then so does Obama.

And that is what this whole mess is about. It is not about pulling funding from our troops. It is not about making the President withdraw our troops. It is not about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (Which the Democrats did during the War in Iraq) It is not even about Congress asserting its authority in matters of war. It is about Barack Obama following the established law of the land. The War Powers Resolution was enacted over a Presidential veto. So it is the law and the President needs to follow the law, period. That is what this whole issue is about. Doing something right for the wrong reasons is still wrong.

For their part, the MSM ought to be ashamed of itself for allowing itself to be used once again by the Democratic Party for political gain. But then again, I am discussing the MSM who walk in lockstep with the Democrats. John McCain should also be ashamed of himself for allowing himself to be used in this manner…again. What can you say, but that the maverick is back to his old tricks of backstabbing one of his own…..again. And the MSM is still marching to the beat of their savior and liberator, Barack Obama.

© 2011 The Right State Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha