Scott Brown Breaks Promise With First Vote

Everyone is in a tizzy about Scott Brown’s vote on Scary Harry Reid’s jobs bill. They have a right to be upset, but not just because he chose to side with Democrats. They should be upset with him for his “business-as-usual” vote which completely contradicts the very reasons he was running for office in the first place.

When he was elected, Mr. Brown said that the voters were tired of “business-as-usual” politics in Washington, D.C., yet that seems to be exactly what he brought with him as he settled into Ted Kennedy’s former office.

While running for his senate seat, Mr. Brown said he was running because…

America is a great country but we also have some challenges that we need to solve if we’re going to remain the world’s superpower. The most important of our challenges is getting the U.S. economy moving again. People are hurting as they struggle to make ends meet. They’re worried about their future, and that of their children and grandchildren. I want to ensure that we leave them an America that is financially stronger and independent: minus a national debt that we can never repay.

He wants to make sure we leave an America that is financially stronger and independent, minus a national debt that we can never repay. Harry Reid’s jobs bill is a pork filled $15 billion monstrosity which just adds more to our national debt. Nice promise there Scott.

Harry Reid did not have the votes for cloture on this bill, so he politically bribed Republican Sen. Voinovich from Ohio with a promise to bring a transportation bill to the floor of the Senate, just to get his vote. If that isn’t business-as-usual, I have no idea what is. I’m sure many of Scott Brown’s constituents are happy with his decision, but the moderates and independents who put him in that chair are sure to remember his “business-as-usual” vote 2012 comes around.

If Scott Brown really wanted to stop “business-as-usual” and change things in Washington he should have made his case while voting against this bill. They say actions speak louder than words and right now his actions make his words sound an awful lot like Barack Obama’s.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

The Disgraceful Treatment Of The Dalai Lama

Do you remember the news back in April of last year, when President Obama met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, not once but twice, at the meeting of the Union of South American Nations?

You probably don’t, so I will remind you.

Obama, Chavez Meet; Chavez Gives Obama a Book

 

Obama has come face to face with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, one of Washington’s fiercest critics, twice so far at the Summit of the Americas. According to a senior official, when the two men were lining up for the ceremonial entrance last night, Obama strode over to Chavez and introduced himself. Chavez reportedly told Obama he hoped for a new start to relations between the two countries, an account the U.S. official did not dispute. According to the official, Obama smiled and returned to his place in the line. Later that night Obama joked to reporters that he’d said “Como estas?”

This morning, at the beginning of a meeting of the Union of South American Nations, Chavez gave Obama a book: “Las Venas Abietas de America Latina” or “The Open Veins of Latin America”, a scholarly text that analyzes Latin America’s dependence on the north. The media friendly Chavez waited until the press had been allowed into the room for a photo opportunity before gifting the book, which Obama accepted.

Do you remember the photo op that went with that second meeting?

 

So why am I reminding you of something that occurred ten months ago? It’s simple, really.

I think it’s important to remember who our President chooses to surround himself with, and more importantly, who he chooses to be seen with.

The two photos of President Obama greeting Hugo Chavez are unscripted. They are candid shots taken by photographers at the event who captured that historic moment in time when the leader of the free world met one of the world’s most vicious dictators and smiled while doing so.

Now, fast forward to this week.

Obama meets Dalai Lama; Only one photo allowed

The only photograph of President Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama was taken by a White House photographer. Independent media was not allowed to cover the event. The President of the United States was so worried about offending China that he met privately with the Dalai Lama and released an “official” photo which depicts President Obama with a stern face and the Dalai Lama looking a bit shocked, or something.

 

It’s clear that the Obama administration staged this photo opportunity so they could whitewash the meeting with the Dalai Lama and save face with China. Articles from the media reveal the real reason that independent photographers were not allowed to record the meeting.

The sensitivity comes for fear of offending China which, as the Associated Press notes, now holds nearly $800 billion in U.S. federal debt. And for fear of reprisals in other areas by the rising Asian superpower. (Gee, what if China used lead in its paints?)

China sees the Dalai Lama as a separatist seeking to overthrow the sovereignty that China imposed militarily in 1950. Well, no one said it had to make sense. The Dalai Lama fled in 1959 after a failed revolt and lives in India now.

If meeting with the Dalai Lama in private without independent media covering the event wasn’t bad enough, just wait til you see what happened next. You see, when President Obama met with Hugo Chavez at the meeting of the Union of South American Nations, they were both allowed to use the front door while entering and exiting. The same cannot be said about the Dalai Lama.

 

I thought President Obama promised us hope and change. I thought this was the 21st Century. Since when do we, the American people, usher guests in and out of the back door at America’s House?

Didn’t Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat on a bus so this type of thing wouldn’t happen again? Wasn’t Medgar Evers sacrifice enough? He believed that everyone was indeed created equal.

No one should be ushered out through the back door of the White House, for any reason, let alone to save face with a country that wouldn’t know civil rights if it came crashing through their window tied to a brick.

February is Black History Month here in the United States, which is good timing, because it’s clear to me that our own President needs a bit of a refresher course. If anyone in the White House should understand the significance of ushering people out the back door, it’s our current President.

It’s time to change, Mr. President. This is no time to be yellow.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

Tea Parties & Mount Vernon

This has been a busy, and hectic, week. My sister is in town for the weekend, so posting will be a bit light. I did, however, want to mention a couple things.

Did you see what Glenn Reynolds had to say about the Tea Party Convention? Here are some excerpts.

The political elites have failed, and citizens are stepping in to pick up the slack.

He sure got that right. For years we have depended on our elected officials to get the job done, and they have failed. It’s time to make sure things get done and sometimes, especially this time, the only way to get something done is to do it ourselves.

While writing about Sarah Palin’s appearance at the convention, Reynolds went on to add,

Right now, the tea party isn’t looking for leaders so much as leaders are looking to align themselves with the tea party.

The Tea Party movement does not need leaders. The heart of the Tea Party movement is the collective voice of the citizens involved within it. It wouldn’t make sense to silence so many people just so their “leader” could speak would it? That’s the problem that started the Tea Party movement in the first place. Our political leaders failed us and refused to listen.

Never again. It’s time for real change.

The Mount Vernon Statement
 
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.  Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the?rule of law to every proposal.
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American?politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and?economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom?and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that?end.
  • It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,?community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

If you agree with the Mount Vernon Statement, head over to the Mount Vernon Statement website and sign the petition. As of right now, there are more than 24,000 signatures.

Some People Will Say Anything

So, after everything you’ve read in the past week, do you still support John Oxendine for governor of Georgia? You might want to know what he said back in 2003.

During a conference for auto-insurance managers, he said,

“We are a pain in the butt. We are very high-maintenance…. I am not a professional regulator, I am a politician…. I’m going to do what I think is going to get me reelected.”

The, he went on to say,

“you need to realize that you have to find a way to always make me look good in front of the voters.”

People of Georgia, is this really someone you want running your state? Is this the type of person who should be living in the Governor’s Mansion? Can you imagine the other interests and industries he will pressure if he is actually elected to the highest office in the state? Still not convinced?

When speaking about campaign contributions, He insisted he was not allowed to take contributions from insurance companies but he was allowed to collect them from individuals. So he added,

“I’m the incumbent. You all are going to give me money because you’re afraid not to.”

In an attempt to take a step back, he put his foot in it further by responding,

“The article didn’t tell the whole story. I was commenting on the benefits of having an Insurance Commissioner who is elected, not appointed, and that incumbent officials receive contributions from people who have an interest in that office.”

Hello. He was the incumbent, who received contributions from people who had an interest in the office. What a dork.

If you want a governor who will say and do anything to coerce people to make him look good in front of the voters you should vote Oxendine, but if you want a governor who will actually work for the best interests of the state of Georgia, you may want to re-think your choice before you step into the voting booth.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

Time For A Quiz

I was going to try and take the night off tonight to catch up on some much needed rest. I’ve been working on a project, the house is a mess, I need to get a load of firewood (which involves a lot of lifting and stacking), my sister will be arriving in town tomorrow afternoon, and I’ve had these headaches off and on for two weeks. Instead, what do I do?

I spent hours watching the Winter Olympics. Curling (my favorite), women’s downhill skiing, speed skating, the half-pipe, all of it. Then what did I do? I sat here and watched more curling online, worked a bit on my project, and took the Pew Research Quiz.

I did pretty darned good.

Now that I have reassured myself that I know what the heck is going on, I can relax and go to sleep. That is, if curling isn’t being broadcast at this very moment.

So, how did you do on the quiz?

— Posted with Stuffr! —