There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

The Daily News: February 8, 2011

Sunday, February 6, 2011

The Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration

President Ronald Reagan
I have given much thought about what I should post today concerning Ronald Reagan's Centennial Celebration. So much has been said and written about Reagan that I could never equal in style, grace or depth.

I have five books on my shelves that have the writings of Reagan himself: Ronald Reagan: An American Life, Reagan: In His Own Hand, Reagan: A Life in Letters, Dear Americans: Letters from the desk of Ronald Reagan and The Reagan Diaries.

The fact that he wrote so much and did it all in longhand - no computers! - shows us the passion, depth and intellect of the man.

He had been a Democrat from 1932-1962 and then switched to the Republican party. He famously said, "I did not leave the Democrat party. The Democrat party left me."

I have decided to let Ronald Reagan speak for himself and am posting his first national speech A Time for Choosing, once again. I have posted it several times and it is linked on our homepage because it is powerful and timeless. Ironically, we are at that same crossroads, again. Will we ever learn, America?

I am also posting his 1st and 2nd Inaugural Addresses as well as his Farewell Address to the nation. Watch one, two or all four and you will feel his optimism and excitement for America.

A Time for Choosing was originally given in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. Reagan, himself, was not seeking office but this speech garnered the attention of many and Reagan was elected Governor of California in 1966. The rest, as they say, is history.

He was not a perfect man but he was a good man. He was a great leader that captured the ideas of our Founding Fathers in a way no man had done in generations and no man has done since. Not only did he capture those ideas, he was able to communicate those ideas and principles to a nation that embraced our founding as well as embraced and loved the 40th President of the United States.

This is why we miss him and yearn for a president that will lead us on to greater tomorrows and one that loves America like Ronald Reagan.


The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation YouTube Channel

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Televised Campaign Address for Goldwater Presidential Campaign - October 27, 1964

President Reagan 1981 Inaugural Address

President Reagan 1985 Inaugural Address

President Reagan's Farewell Speech from the Oval Office January 11, 1989

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Sarah Palin Speech Honoring Ronald Reagan's 100th Birthday

Keynote speech from February 4, 2011

Big Government Exclusive: Governor Palin Visits Reagan Country

Sometimes it’s the questions you don’t ask that are telling. Case in point: the New York Times account of our event with Governor Palin last night.

Young America’s Foundation hosted Governor Sarah Palin for the keynote address at the opening banquet of our Reagan 100 weekend. This weekend marks the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. Celebrations are taking place across the country, but this is a particularly significant weekend for our organization—since the spring of 1998 we’ve been preserving Ronald Reagan’s beloved Ranch home in the mountains north of Santa Barbara, Rancho del Cielo. Today Ronald Reagan’s Western White House is a place where young people come to be inspired by the life, the ideas, the character of Ronald Reagan.

Photo credit: (c) Jensen Sutta

And Governor Palin visited the Ranch for exactly the same reason.

The Governor gave a powerful speech at our banquet last night, before an enthusiastic overflow audience. She eloquently and gracefully paid tribute to one of the most significant speeches in American history, Ronald Reagan’s “Time for Choosing” address—while at the same time outlining a vision for America that builds upon President Reagan’s.

The speech was universally well received by our audience of all ages. But the New York Times chose to focus on some of the logistics of the event in their account:
Presidential contenders, regardless of their celebrity, are put through a gauntlet of rituals that require a delicate air of patience as they deal with their admirers. Prospective candidates, particularly if they are courting supporters, routinely sit through dinners and mingle with guests. But in her case, Ms. Palin entered the room only for her speech and left immediately after.
The appearance here was marked by tight security and rigid rules, with guests admonished to stay in their seats when she arrived. (“We’d all like to jump up and give her a high-five, but please stay at your tables,” Kate Obenshain, vice president of the foundation, announced from the dais. “There will be no book signings or autographs.”)
Governor Palin has a remarkable effect on people. For many conservatives, she’s a rock star. When the Governor walks into a room, normally even-keeled and good-natured people tend to forget their surroundings and rush towards her—to give her hug, to tell her how grateful they are for her courage, to tell her specifically how she has touched their lives. Event planning requires adherence to a basic schedule. At a minimum, you have to make it possible for your speaker to take the stage, in the “friendly confines” of tightly-packed and small room. Not an easy task with a superstar like Sarah Palin but our team sought to make the event run smoothly.

Read the rest of the story

In Brewing ObamaCare Contempt Showdown, Mark Levin Rips Into Press

On Wednesday, the inarguably correct Mark Levin, aided by flashbacks to monologues earlier in the week, laid out in detail the rule of law standoff the Obama administration has created in choosing to defy Monday's federal court decision declaring Obamacare null and void and continuing its implementation as if the ruling doesn't exist.

In the process, he also ripped in to the clear establishment press double standard at work.

Choice excerpts follow (internal links added by me; bolds refer to media-related comments; the rest is important for grasping just how serious this is):
... Look at Page 75 (of the ruling). The judge said, "This is a declaratory judgment," finding the entire statute unconstitutional, (saying in effect) "I don't have to issue an injunction. The government can't impose an unconstitutional statute on the nation."

I said that if the administration failed to follow the law, then it was lawless. (I said that) it was violating the constitution, that this was as serious as Watergate.

... There it is on Page 75. He voided the law. It's dust. It's gone, until a higher court does something else.

... What will the media in our country do when a President of the United States intentionally and knowingly refuses to comply with a court order? Whether it's civil rights in the 1960s, whether it's anything else, does this not remind you of Watergate in a sense if the Executive Branch does not comply with this federal judge? Do we not have a constitutional crisis if the Executive Branch refuses to comply with a Judicial Branch order?

... (the Executive Branch's) only relief is to appeal it. You must cease and desist from further attempts to implement it. But I guarantee you ladies and gentlemen, that the media in this country, which would call for the impeachment of a Republican president who openly defied a federal court order, and in fact did, will support this president because they believe in Obamacare and they want the result changed.

Wow. Even The Progressive Left Doesn’t Read The Washington Post!

The Progressive left is in full attack mode against Glenn Beck for his assertion that what’s happening in Egypt is not about democracy, rather it is about re-establishing a Muslim supremacist Caliphate.

Sad. Even these leading progressives don’t read the Washington Post! From 2006:
Come the caliphate
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The idea of restoring the body that governed and united the world’s Muslims for more than 1,000 years is beginning to resonate again. Karl Vick explains. The plan was to fly a hijacked plane into a national landmark on live television. The year was 1998, the country was Turkey, and the rented plane ended up grounded by weather. Court records show the Islamic extremist who planned to commandeer the cockpit did not actually know how to fly.
But if the audacious scheme prefigured September 11, 2001, it also highlighted a cause that, seven years later, President George W Bush has used to define the war against terrorism. What the ill-prepared Turkish plotters told investigators they aimed to do was strike a dramatic blow toward reviving Islam’s caliphate, the institution that had nominally governed the world’s Muslims for nearly all of the almost 1,400 years since the death of the prophet Mohammed.
Al-Qaeda named its Internet newscast, which debuted in September, The Voice of the Caliphate.
Yet the caliphate is also esteemed by many ordinary Muslims. For most, its revival is not an urgent concern. Public opinion polls show immediate issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and discrimination rank as more pressing.
But while Turks won self-rule, most of the former caliphate was divided among European colonial powers. One Arab scholar called it “the division of Muslim lands into measly pieces which call themselves nations.”
This is what inspired the group most directly focused on the push for a new caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), or Party of Liberation. The group, which claims to be active in 40 countries, began in 1953 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. But while the Brotherhood, which also favors a caliphate, embraced realpolitik, growing into a potent opposition force in Syria and Egypt, Hizb ut-Tahrir charted a more subversive path.

Big Labor Upset at Dems Choice of Charlotte NC for Convention (it’s the barbecue, stupid)

This post made me laugh out loud. Perfect!! - Reggie

By Doug Powers  •  February 5, 2011 02:27 PM 

The barbecue for which Charlotte, NC is famous (unbeknownst to Charlotte, NC) is evidently so good that other factors were overlooked when choosing a site for the People’s Convention this year, such as that only 3.2 percent of North Carolina workers are union members.

Some aren’t happy:
In picking North Carolina as the site of their 2012 convention, Democrats didn’t just pick a state that’s relatively unfriendly to unions. They picked the least unionized state in the entire country.
It was a stinging rebuke to one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal and influential constituencies. And labor leaders are fuming at the slight.
The selection was “a calculated affront,” said Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
What’s worse, Sloan noted, the convention is set to begin on Mon., Sept. 3, 2012 — Labor Day.
“Going to a right-to-work state and starting a convention on Labor Day for the Democrats?” he said. “Wow. That’s quite the equation.”
The hotel workers’ union specifically asked the Democratic National Committee several months ago not to consider Charlotte because of its lack of union hotel rooms.
Sheesh — they might as well hold the convention at Walmart!

Read the full post

EPA Spilled Milk Regulation Indicative of Broader Problem

Congratulations, America! We now live in a country with a tyrannical government. We will experience the joy the rest of the world has had for generations. - Reggie

EPA to Regulate Spilled Milk.

No, it’s not a headline from The Onion. The Wall Street Journal editorial board explains:

Two weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that subjects dairy producers to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, which was created in 1970 to prevent oil discharges in navigable waters or near shorelines. Naturally, it usually applies to oil and natural gas outfits. But the EPA has discovered that milk contains “a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil,” as the agency put it in the Federal Register.

In other words, the EPA thinks the next blowout may happen in rural Vermont or Wisconsin. Other dangerous pollution risks that somehow haven’t made it onto the EPA docket include leaks from maple sugar taps and the vapors at Badger State breweries.

The EPA rule requires farms—as well as places that make cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream and the like—to prepare and implement an emergency management plan in the event of a milk catastrophe. Among dozens of requirements, farmers must train first responders in cleanup protocol and build “containment facilities” such as dikes or berms to mitigate offshore dairy slicks.

These plans must be in place by November, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is even running a $3 million program “to help farmers and ranchers comply with on-farm oil spill regulations.” You cannot make this stuff up.

Friday, February 4, 2011

The Daily News: February 4, 2011

Egypt is the topic and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Joel Rosenberg and Damon Vickers are the guests.

Sneak Peek at Super Bowl Commercials

Volkswagen Commercial: The Force

Superbowl Camaro Transformers Bumblebee Commercial Video

There are more here.

More Information About Egypt

Walid Shoebat was on Hannity a few nights ago but the most interesting information I'm getting from him is on his website. I'm including an entire post and some links to different interviews and posts. - Reggie

The prophecy on Egypt now comes to fruition‏

From Isaiah:

19:1 The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, And will come into Egypt; The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst. (when Messiah comes)


19:2″I will set Egyptians against Egyptians; Everyone will fight against his brother, And everyone against his neighbor, City against city, kingdom against kingdom.

19:3 The spirit of Egypt will fail in its midst; I will destroy their counsel, And they will consult the idols and the charmers, The mediums and the sorcerers.

19:4 And the Egyptians I will give Into the hand of a cruel master, And a fierce king will rule over them,” Says the Lord, the LORD of hosts.

Through Walid’s study of the Bible all what we see is happening Just as G-d predicted.

There is a G-d or the Prophets of Israel were perfect guessers.

Over the next months and years look for the rise of Turkey as the major power in the Middle East and all other Sunni Muslim nations to “fall into submission” to the leadership of Turkey. Here are the verses of the Bible that show us this:

Daniel 11:42 He (The Anti Christ) will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.
Dan 11:43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.
Dan 11:44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many.
Dan 11:45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [fn] the beautiful holy mountain (Jerusalem). Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

Interview with Michael Medved here

Interview with Rusty Humphries here

Interview with Jim Bohannon here

Bernanke headlines a day of grim warnings about the nation’s fiscal standing

If Washington had grown fuzzy about the razor’s edge the U.S. economy is currently balanced on, it got a bracing reminder Thursday.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the nation’s projected deficit and debt levels “cannot actually happen” because creditors would refuse, at some future point, to finance the government’s spending.

“By definition, the unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the [Congressional Budget Office] outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government whose debt, relative to national income, is rising without limit,” Bernanke said at the National Press Club.

The national debt of roughly $14 trillion is currently about 60 percent of the economy, or Gross Domestic Product. It is projected to reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020 and 150 percent of GDP by 2030.

Bernanke quoted economist Herbert Stein as saying, “If something can’t go on forever, it will stop.”

The audience at the Press Club laughed. But Bernanke’s point echoed mainly because of its absurdity.

The Fed chairman once again warned that if Congress does not act soon to cut spending or increase revenues, or some mix of the two, the U.S. economy will be forced by crisis to correct.

“One way or the other, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the federal budget must occur at some point,” he said.

Bernanke did not give a prediction of when he thought the U.S. could experience a debt crisis similar to the ones that have shaken Europe over the past year. Republicans and some Democrats fear a crisis could come at any point given the right mix of circumstances, and will happen for sure in the next few years. President Obama has shown far less concern about the near term and has said he is focused on the mid- to long-term future.

As for the looming fight between Obama and Republicans over whether to raise the government debt ceiling from its current $14.3 trillion mark, Bernanke warned lawmakers against playing a game of chicken with the issue.

“I would very much urge Congress not to focus on the debt limit as being the bargaining chip in this discussion, but rather to address directly the spending and tax issues that we all have to deal with if we’re going to make progress on this fiscal situation,” he said.

But Bernanke also appeared to give some credence to the argument put forward by Republicans such as Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who say that hitting the debt ceiling will not mean immediate default on the government’s debts.

“Under current law, if the debt limit is not extended, for a time, the Treasury has various resources that it can use to make payments on our national debt,” he said.

But Bernanke’s emphasis was clearly on the need to handle the debt ceiling with extreme caution.

“Beyond a certain point, [the government] would not have those resources and the United States could conceivably — I think this is very remote, but it’s not something you want to play around with — the United States would be forced into a position of defaulting on its debt,” he said. “And the implications of that for our financial system, for our fiscal policy, for our economy would be catastrophic.”

US response to Egypt draws criticism in Israel

JERUSALEM (AP) - President Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Egypt is drawing fierce criticism in Israel, where many view the U.S. leader as a political naif whose pressure on a stalwart ally to hand over power is liable to backfire.

Critics - including senior Israeli officials who have shied from saying so publicly - say Obama is repeating the same mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East have often backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power.

Israeli officials, while refraining from open criticism of Obama, have made no secret of their view that shunning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and pushing for swift elections in Egypt could bring unintended results.

"I don't think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into," said lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently was a Cabinet minister and who is a longtime friend of Mubarak.

"If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn't be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn't win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament," he told Army Radio. "It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam."

Utah Attorney General considers Obamacare unenforceable

I have heard Mark Levin say that Florida and Wisconsin have also said ObamaCare is dead and they will cease all implementation of it. I believe Florida returned $1M to the feds that was sent to them to help start the wheels rolling on this health care takeover. Great! Three states have come to the necessary and proper conclusion. Where are the other 23? - Reggie

SALT LAKE CITY - Following a ruling Monday by a Florida judge that deemed the Obama administration’s healthcare reform program unconstitutional, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has decided the ruling is the “functional equivalent” of an injunction, making the policy unenforceable.

US District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s decision was in favor of 26 states who filed suit against the federal government over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The ruling said Congress could not force individuals over the age of 18 to purchase health insurance. Because the mandate is central to the law, the judge declared the entire act unconstitutional. Utah’s Shurtleff was among the first to file after the President signed the bill into law last spring.

Utah Deputy Attorney General John Swallow declared, “It is our legal opinion that we are no longer bound by the act.” The Attorney General’s office has told Governor Gary Herbert of their decision and he is weighing his options.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Radical Imam's Frightening Prediction

We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East.  Jordan is facing similar unrest, as are Algeria and Yemen.  Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January.  It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated.  A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel.  Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or two, they will combine forces to attack Israel.  If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us.  He supports Mubarak's opponents, and he probably has been all along.  The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed.  And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different story.

And if that weren't bad enough, Obama's latest comment to Egypt's leader is that "an orderly transition ... must begin now."

Must begin.  Now.

Simply stunning. 

Soros has Spoken: Toe the Leftist Line on Egypt

As the protests in Egypt have raged on now for more than a week, President Obama and members of his administration continue to practice restraint in their communications and careful selection of the words that are spoken.  Hillary Clinton has cautioned against anything that could increase chaos.  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told television networks that the “complex, very difficult situation in Egypt requires careful progress toward a peaceful transition to democracy rather than any sudden or violent change that could undermine the aspirations of the protesters.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs echoed the sentiments that while Egypt needs to change, it’s not the place of the United States to publicly support or oppose the removal of Mubarak.  Likewise, most Republicans are also on the same page as the Obama administration, speaking out in support of democratic reforms in Egypt, yet taking great care not to back or oppose Mubarak either way – at least not publicly. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “I don’t have any criticism of President [Barack] Obama or Secretary [Hillary] Clinton at this point.  It’s important for U.S. officials “to speak as one voice during this crisis.”  As many have noted, Egypt is perhaps one of the only issues that’s rendered an overwhelmingly bi-partisan response.

But one man in particular is not exactly in agreement with that bi-partisan response:  George Soros.  And he’s warning us to toe the line – his line, that is.

The leftist billionaire who made his fortune on the back of US capitalism is taking aim at all the “rigid and ideological supporters of Israel” and “the religious right” for standing in the way of democracy for Egypt.

Beck Responds to ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Accusations

The Daily News: February 3, 2011

Virginia to seek expedited Supreme Court review of suit over health-care law

I have a theory as to why the Obama administration does not want to fast track the question of the constitutionality of ObamaCare to the Supreme Court.

Consider this: Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is 74 years old, Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas is 62 and Justice Anthony Kennedy is 74. Of course, the belief is that Justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote and because of his previous rulings about the Commerce Clause, it is widely believed he will declare ObamaCare unconstitutional.

Due to the ages of these three Justices, Obama and his radical regime may be hoping one of them will die (God forbid!) or retire before the case makes its way to the court and Obama would be able to appoint the Justice that would cast the deciding vote.

Does this theory seem cold, calculating and evil? Well, so are the people currently in charge of the Executive Branch.


RICHMOND - Virginia will ask that the U.S. Supreme Court immediately review the state's constitutional challenge to the federal health-care overhaul, a rare legal request to bypass appeals and ask for early intervention from the nation's highest court, Attorney General Ken T. Cuccinelli II said Thursday.

Cuccinelli (R) said that conflicting court decisions about the law's constitutionality have created sufficient uncertainty about implementation of the sweeping law to justify speeding Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department will oppose the motion, saying that the case should be fully heard by lower courts before the Supreme Court takes action.

The high court has granted such requests infrequently, and many experts said they think Cuccinelli's filing is a longshot. Supporters of the law said that the provision at the heart of the legal dispute - a requirement that individuals buy health insurance - will not go into effect until 2014.

A U.S. District Court judge in Virginia ruled in December that it is unconstitutional to require people to buy health insurance, as envisioned in the law. The federal government appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case in May.

A federal judge in Florida ruled this week in a suit filed jointly by Florida and 25 other states that the law is unconstitutional. In other cases, two other federal judges have said the law is constitutional.

According to court rules, petitions to bypass appellate review are granted only in cases that are of "such imperative public importance" that they require changing normal procedures.

Cuccinelli will argue that conflicting opinions over a law that will reshape one of the largest sectors of the economy justify the speedy review.

"Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest," he said in a statement.

But a spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that the expedited review would not significantly change the case's timeline, since it is to be heard in May, likely allowing the Supreme Court to take up the case during its next term.

"The Department continues to believe this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the court of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments concerning the Affordable Care Act can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. "Virginia's suit is based on a state statute that is not applicable nationwide."

Cuccinelli had indicated that he was considering filing a petition for certiorari with the court. He originally requested that the Justice Department join the motion. He said Thursday that he would proceed with the request, even without agreement from his federal opponents.

The Democrats' Spending Spree

From: House of Representatives Committee on the Budget
Paul Ryan, Chairman

Since he took office in January of 2009, President Obama has signed into law a massive spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us deeper into debt.

The onslaught of new spending was primarily focused on special-interest spending for domestic government agencies. As Democrats dramatically increased the size and scope of the Federal government, families and small businesses continued to work harder to make ends meet.

Table 1 details both defense and non-defense discretionary spending, excluding emergencies. The table breaks spending into base budget increases and stimulus spending on top. Democrats’ appropriation bills increased non-defense discretionary spending by nearly 25 percent – an 84 percent increase when you include the stimulus.

Table 2 details the massive increase in both the base budgets for major government agencies, as well as the added funding provided to each in the failed stimulus. Among the many egregious examples: The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget increased by 36 percent in just two years. When the $7 billion the agency received in stimulus funding is included, the EPA enjoyed a two-year increase of 131 percent.

Halt Government Overreach Now, Or Else

I remember working on a history project at a local library in high school. In the midst of photocopying, my best friend and I overheard a woman passionately whispering to a friend about the dangers of government overreach. When she noticed us staring, she smiled and said, "You'll see. If we don't get this under control, one day the government will be forcing you to buy this or that."

My friend and I nodded, rolled our eyes in that obnoxious way that teenagers often do, then finished up and headed to lunch. But not before assessing that the lady who had just spoken to us was a bit of a loon who had a flair for hyperbole.

It's amazing what 15 years can teach you, especially when you discover that what once sounded hyperbolic is happening right before your eyes.

On Jan, 31, Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, stating, "It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. ... It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

If Congress can mandate us to buy health insurance, what's next? I know, everything you think of sounds awfully hyperbolic. But will it sound that way to you in 15 years? Depends on what our country looks like.

America's Naivete About Egypt

The author of this article is a progressive, liberal columnist but most of the time I have found that she is fair and has some common sense. - Reggie

Don’t buy the hype about the moderate Muslim Brotherhood. Kirsten Powers on why the U.S. should worry about the rise of an Islamic power in Cairo.

by Kirsten Powers

Americans are notoriously naïve.

This is the message I am getting from people I know in Egypt today.

Article - Powers Muslim Brotherhood
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood movement shout slogans in Amman. (Photo: Khalil Mazraawi, AFP / Getty Images)

When the protests first began in Egypt, I was in constant contact with an Egyptian relative who is a successful businessman, university professor and astute student of world politics. As my husband and I panicked for our family’s safety, this relative was calm, assuring me that Hosni Mubarak would appoint an interim government and that there would likely be an important role for Omar Suileman, who is a well respected leader in Egypt. Both these things quickly came true. Day after day he assured me that everything would be fine. He was sure that the Muslim Brotherhood—which he regards as a radical Islamist group – was not organized enough to gain any significant power.

Today, he was not so calm. Our family in Egypt is shocked and alarmed by what they are hearing from Western voices and even the apparent leading opposition candidate Mohamed ElBaradei—who has partnered with the Muslim Brotherhood -- who claim that the Brotherhood is a moderate group that should not be feared.

As Coptic Christians—native Egyptians who comprise the largest religious minority in the Middle East—they are especially attuned to the double-speak of Islamist groups trying to attain power.

Federal judge holds Obama administration in contempt over drilling “permitorium”

When Judge Martin Feldman ordered the federal government to end its moratorium on deep-sea drilling, he actually meant it.  In a ruling earlier today, the federal judge in New Orleans has held the Obama administration in contempt for its “defiance” in reimposing the moratorium through other means:
The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.
Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.
Read the full post on Hot Air

And there's this from Bloomberg -

U.S. Administration In Contempt Over Gulf Drilling Moratorium, Judge Rules

Fox News Journalists Attacked and Beaten in Egypt

White Political Ralliers Call for Lynching of Black Justice (Sorry MSM, No Tea in this Blend)

I recently took a two-day trip down to Palm Springs to attend an event called “Uncloaking the Kochs” hosted by Common Cause. Accompanied by my dear friend, former assembly candidate Alvaro Day, I traveled as an independent investigative journalist, and not in any official capacity on behalf of Big Government or (though I was pleasantly surprised to run into a familiar friend of mine on rollerblades jovially inviting everyone to Applebee’s).

Among Common Cause’s, well, common causes, are campaign finance reform, net neutrality, outlawing the filibuster, promoting cap and trade, and in this particular case, herding a mass of protesters outside a nearby hotel to yell at Charles and David Koch for being conservative and rich.

Unfortunately several “haves” have missed the memo that you’re not to be both rich and conservative at the same time, and that bankrolling your pet causes is an extra no-no if you’re conservative—thus exempting left-wing billionaire philanthropists George Soros (from whom Common Cause has received $2 million over the past eight years) Peter Lewis, John Doerr, Julian Robertson, Nicolas Berggruen, and many others from being yelled at too.

Beginning of an Islamic Uprising?

The 'religion of peace' is exposed for what it truly is, once again. Besides his radical views, I noticed two other disturbing things. First, he is a judge on the UK Sharia Court! At what point did the UK welcome Sharia law and set up a court for it? Second, in part two of the interview he uses the phrase "social and economic justice." Where have we heard that?

To say these people are sick and dangerous is an understatement. Once these people control the Middle East and Europe nuclear war will be the result. - Reggie

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

The Daily News: February 2, 2011

Eric Bolling hosts tonight.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Robert Spencer and Michael Scheuer are among the guests.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Ronald Reagan's America

"It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital, such as it was -- and it has done its deeds."
-- President Reagan on liberalism
Conservative Political Action Conference

March 1, 1985  

With every passing minute of every passing day, the truth Ronald Reagan long ago understood is once more emerging from the political fog.

"Somewhere a perversion has taken place," Reagan said in discussing his former political faith as a Democrat and a "near hopeless hemophilic liberal." The party of Jefferson and Jackson had headed down a different road altogether "under the banners of Marx, Lenin and Stalin." Or, as he was also unafraid to say and in words that resonate vividly today in the Obama era, the objective of the modern liberal was "to impose socialism" on the American people.

Reagan would have none of it.

He had spent decades carefully studying what was happening, leading the Hollywood branch of the fight as the president of the Screen Actors Guild. As he made the change from actor and union leader to governor of California and president, Reagan minced no words, which is precisely why Americans would come to revere him. He was not afraid to speak the truth -- and that truth applies even more today than when he was sharply critical of the Democrats of his own day.

In the midst of what can only be described as a laughable attempt by Obama aides and the President's left-wing media allies to wrap Obama in the Reagan mantle -- a photo-shopped Time magazine cover has the two paired like grinning escapees from a presidential buddy movie -- the nation prepares to celebrate Reagan's centennial birthday. More to the point, the reminder of exactly why Reagan's presidency was such a stunning success, and Obama's thus far a stunning failure, can easily be found by pairing Reagan's wisdom with Obama's results.

Ronald Reagan understood to his core what Barack Obama has not only never accepted but rejects out of hand based on both his actions as a private citizen and president: that socialism is now and has always been a failed philosophy. Obama, as well documented from his days at Occidental College to today -- is a now (if belatedly)   well-documented socialist true believer.

To believe that the Obama presidency will end in other than utter failure because he thinks he speaks Reaganite at a State of the Union speech is to believe that a man who has spent an adult lifetime disbelieving in gravity will survive a leap from the Empire State Building because he's suddenly muttering incantations from Newton on the way down.

Amidst all the sudden veneration for Reagan from today's left as a man of moderation (in contrast, but of course, to the wicked conservatives of today) those with longer memories recall vividly that liberals of the day hated Ronald Reagan's guts. This jewel of a statement from his arch-adversary House Speaker Tip O'Neill is but an understated example, as Reagan biographer Steven Hayward has noted:
"The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."
In fact, as Time magazine notes well, while Tip O'Neill was fuming about Reagan and others compared him to Hitler, Columbia student Barack Obama was so angered he decided to personally devote himself to the task of changing the White House. Reports Time of Obama's sentiments toward Reagan:
"I personally came of age during the Reagan presidency," Obama wrote later, recalling the classroom debates in his courses on international affairs. When he graduated from Columbia in 1983, Obama decided to become a community organizer. "I'd pronounce the need for change," Obama wrote in his memoir. "Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds." A decade later, he was still at it, leading a 1992 Illinois voter-registration effort aimed at breaking the Reagan coalition's hold on his state's electoral votes.
Right, right, right.

But why did Ronald Reagan summon such utter hatred and contempt as exhibited in the 1980s from House Speaker O'Neill and Columbia graduate Obama? Amid the current cries for civility it should be noted that Reagan's career brought forth a particularly vehement vitriol from the left on a regular basis. Whether it was the liberal fellow actor who spat in Reagan's face in a chance street encounter in late 1940's Hollywood (hissing "Fascist!") or the anonymous voice on a phone threatening to throw acid in his face (as was actually done to labor columnist Victor Riesel, like Reagan prominent for his anti-communist views. Riesel was disfigured for life, losing his eyesight), Ronald Reagan's habit of plainly speaking truths obvious to increasing millions infuriated leftists while worrying his friends. The latter acid-throwing threat against then-actor Reagan had his alarmed movie studio boss Jack Warner summoning the police, who insisted on issuing Reagan both a gun permit and a loaded .32 Smith and Wesson.

From threats of violence to the type of sentiment like the one expressed by O'Neill -- the sitting Speaker of the House when he made the remark -- Reagan decades later was still targeted for a special hatred reserved both for himself and his fellow conservatives. With liberals simply not caring in the least. Imagine the reaction today if House Speaker John Boehner referred to President Obama as the "evil… in the White House." And how long would it take before the drumbeat would begin for Boehner's resignation?

The Daily News: February 1, 2011

Monday, January 31, 2011

Workers of the World Unite: The American Left’s Role in Leading Mid-East Regime Change

Twitter, Facebook, and various instant messaging platforms (SMS, Skype, Google Chat, etc.) act as force-multipliers for revolutionary movements…” — Jeffrey Carr

As the world watches Egypt crumble into chaos, with over 100 dead and 2000 injured, the Obama administration continues to be somewhat and rather curiously ambivalent. On the one hand, on Friday, Vice President Biden came to the defense of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, saying that he shouldn’t step aside. Yet, on the same day, the Telegraph (ala Wikileaks) reported that the U.S. had planned “regime change” for the “past three years” while both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton demand that internet be restored to the Egyptian protesters. This morning, Secretary of State Clinton again clarified the United States’ official position, ”We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back.”

For all the lack of clarity on where the Obama administration stands, one thing is becoming more and more clear: Signs are beginning to point more toward the likelihood that President Obama’s State Department, unions, as well as Left-leaning media corporations are more directly involved in helping to ignite the Mid-East turmoil than they are publicly admitting.

If it is indeed the case that the Obama administration, with help by private-sector companies and the union movement has led an “internet revolution” in the middle east and toppled two governments within a month, the longer-term ramifications for U.S. relations with other allies such as Saudi Arabia and certain other Arab monarchies, could prove to have much more far-reaching consequences.  

The Daily News: January 31, 2011

Egypt and the Future of the Middle East

This is the full statement about the crisis in Egypt given by Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian terrorist and former member of the Muslim Broherhood. He will be on Hannity tonight on the Fox News Channel. - Reggie

By Walid Shoebat

With socialist revolutions, the rule is: “take out a Czar and you will get a Stalin!”

Keep in mind the fire of revolution that engulfs Egypt was ignited by socialists and later embraced by Islamists. It is true that the Muslim Brotherhood was banned as an organization in 1954 but it’s been tolerated and has forged alliances with legal and political groups in the last two decades; the liberal socialists, the Wafd, and other socialist labor parties have been allies.

Of course, the U.S policy led by closet socialist president Obama has been to publicly support the Egyptian people. Obama wants “rights of assembly” and “elections” in Egypt. Americans need to realize that democratic elections in the Middle East have never resulted in western style freedom! The rule in any Muslim majority nation, is that democracy is used DURING the elections ONLY… Period!

What did democratic elections in Muslim majority nations do? Iran is now a theocracy, Lebanon is in a state of chaos, Palestine is still a state of psychosis, Sudan is on the verge of splitting, and Turkey’s democratic elections are slowly emerging as an axis that will eventually lead to an Islamist alliance against Israel and the West. Soon, we’ll also see North Africa – in the name of democracy – remove all their dictators so they can elect you know who!

The most plausible outcome for Egypt’s chaos is a future election as demanded by world opinion, the outcome of which can be seen from the experience we had in the Palestinian elections, on which president George W. Bush insisted. The results ushered in a divide between Islamists and so-called moderate Palestinian Authority. Palestinians were killing Palestinians in the streets as Hamas ran rampant, executing other Muslims who didn’t agree with their agenda. But unlike that miniature state of psychosis, the scale of mayhem in Egypt will be immense! Egypt’s “democratic elections” will simply change one form of dictatorship into another!

Whether it is the Iranian Shia or Sunni Revolutions, the way to victory will not be only by stepping over Israel but also over Arabia – the cradle of Wahabism that started the trouble in the first place. As a consequence, the world will kiss its addiction to Arab oil good-bye after Iran destroys Arabia with nuclear weapons. You can say that I am mad, but the documents released by Wikileaks revealed that King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran in order to halt its suspected nuclear weapons program. If in doubt, ask yourself, didn’t Saddam Hussein send scuds crashing over Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War? If he’d had nuclear warheads wouldn’t he have used them there?

And while the progressives cry “where are the weapons of mass destruction,” is there any doubt that Iraq’s neighbors are building them? Once Obama succeeds in pulling our troops out of Iraq as a good gesture to satisfy the screaming and complaining progressives that the U.S is not an occupier, then Iraq will immediately be gobbled up by Iran. And like the miniature Hezbollah-Hamas alliance against Israel, you will have a future Turkish-North Africa-Iranian alliance which will try to put the Islamic Caliphate “Humpty-Dumpty” back together again so they can dash in and “liberate” Jerusalem!

In the meantime, the Islamists will lay low, calling for democracy and – just like Arafat did – pretend to denounce terrorism at the cost of upsetting Al-Qaeda, who then gobbles it up and into the belly of its Trojan Horse, which, upon fully entering the fortresses of the West, will release its Al-Qaeda “locusts” into Israel, where they will meet their final destruction!