Jeb Bush needs to grow a pair

In a recent CBS Snooze interview with Jeb Bush, dear ol’ Jeb chimed up with this claim: 

“My personal belief is that for Governor Palin to be a successful candidate for higher office, she needs to take this charisma she has and also add to it some depth of understanding of the complexity of life that we’re living in today,” he says. “And if she had the combination of that she would be an incredible candidate.” 

You know what this is?  I see it a lot in people, and I don’t like it.

People look at Sarah Palin and they see a girl.  A girl as in “Hi.  I’m Barbie.  Math is hard!”  They don’t see an intelligent and assertive decision maker.  They don’t see someone more in touch with everyday life than they could ever hope to be, sitting in their mansions, calling the shots from above the rest of us in their imaginary worlds. 

Jeb did get one thing right.  If she has charisma and a deep understanding of the complexities of life, she would certainly be an incredible candidate.  The thing is, she does have those qualities.  GOP blue bloods like Jeb don’t get Sarah Palin.  They never will.  And they don’t see what’s coming at them. 

Half of the issues facing conservatives in these complex times is the struggle against our current neo-Marxist government which is trying to usurp and overthrow our government.  The other half of the issues we face are the struggle with the blue blood Republicans.  Both sets of issues are being addressed as you read this.

Sarah Palin and the 5th American Revolution

Of the four past and the one current American Revolutions, the first and third are the most well know.  The first of course was the war for independence from Great Britain.  

The second American Revolution ended in 1800 with the election of Thomas Jefferson as President.  Some American leaders were trying to push statism onto the US.  Among the statists were John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.  Other American leaders were pushing for limited government.  Among that group was Thomas Jefferson.  The election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency was a mandate from the American people for limited government. 

The third revolution was the Civil War.  Lincoln changed our form of government.  He returned to the principles in the Declaration of Independence, namely Natural Law, to hold the Union together.  Lincoln made Natural Law, not the Constitution, the highest law of the land.  Natural Law is essentially natural truths and some important principles.  Among those principles is the necessity for nations to prevent their own demise by forbidding states to separate from the Union at will. 

The fourth revolution was a negative one.  This would be the Roosevelt socialist revolution.  Franklin Roosevelt and his supporters introduced large amounts of socialism into American government. 

The Reagan revolution was a minor revolution, but I won’t count it because even though it fixed some contemporary problems and laid a groundwork of principles for today’s revolution, Reagan did not introduce deep and longstanding changes to American government, so I won’t count the Reagan revolution as a major revolution.  The Reagan revolution was more of a cultural revolution than a major change in government.

The fifth revolution is the one we are going through today.  Another group of leftists, led by President Barack Obama and leftists in government, is trying to transform America into another failed leftist state.  They are trying to change the character of American government completely against the will of the American people.  The American people are rejecting the attempts at usurpation and sedition. 

The next two federal elections, the one in 2010 and the one in 2012, are the medium for the revolution.  The Tea Party movement is a major part of the revolution.  The political fight to prevent the leftist wannabe leaders from putting into place a leftist government is also a part of the revolution. 

Today we are faced with a repeat of the choice we faced at the end of the Second revolution in the 1700’s.  Today’s revolution is our fight between push for a statist transformation which will reduce the freedoms found in America and replace our freedom with powerful state control, or a conservative transformation which will limit the power of government by putting in place measures to minimize the kinds of statism that are being forced upon us .

The medium for the revolution is education.  The American leftists have gotten away with a lot of legal and moral crimes.  They have been able to do that because the American people are not fully knowledgeable about principles of American government.  As time passes and people are brought to suffering by a leftist government, the people are beginning to remember and care again.  Again, as we are coming face-to-face with the horrors of a statist government, we are being reminded of the meaning of liberty and happiness and the associated values of limited government.

Sarah Palin is fast becoming a leader in the Fifth Revolution.  She is not a political genius along the lines of Jefferson or Lincoln.  She is not a dominant political figure, coming from what, by political standards, are humble origins.  Rather, she represents something more important; Sarah is simply a common sense American and she represents the common sense of the American people.  There is nothing special about her.  Sarah’s genius is not a personal greatness.  To the contrary, her genius is simply the genius of everyday common sense.  Which is something the politicians in Washington DC seem to have lost.  

The Fifth American Revolution is the revolution of common sense in government.  Sarah Palin is the leading voice of the revolution.  

Vive la Révolution!

Palin rescues the GOP by speaking for Tea Party

Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker for the Tea Party convention this weekend.  I finally fully realized what she is doing, whether intentionally or guided by another hand.  She is rescuing the Republican party from splitting and losing its political power. 

There has been a lot of Internet chatter about forming a new party with the Tea Party movement as its base.  That would be a disaster for conservatism.  The conservative vote would be split between two parties, the “Tea Party” or whatever it would be called, and the Republican party.  This would guarantee power for America’s leftists. 

By taking the lead in the Tea Party movement, Sarah is directing it towards constructive ends, which will, for the most part, mean supporting the GOP.  

At the same time she is leading the Tea Partiers, she is tapping into the Tea Party for political support.  This will pay off grandly when she runs for President in 2012.  

I believe that the American citizens are so angry at the current US federal government that Sara’s presence isn’t necessary for a Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 2010.  A lot of what she is doing now is building her base for 2012.  She doesn’t need a majority to win in 2012, she needs an overwhelming majority so she and a conservative congress can get a lot done to clean up the mess made by the current bunch of Marxist thugs.

Rahm Emanuel it toast

As Sarah Palin quoted him in her recent Facebook post, Rahm Emanuel called the Republicans at the recent GOP retreat “f–king retards.”  Rahm Emanuel said something incredibly irresponsible and indecent.  He represents today’s political liberalism.  

It isn’t enough that liberals make absurd and irresponsible statements about race.  Now they are going after disabled children.  Isn’t it enough to turn your stomach? 

There is a house in my neighborhood that takes care of people with Down’s Syndrome.  It’s kind of  a daycare place.  I see the residents every once in a while.  They come out for some exercise.  Or some sun.  They are the sweetest folks you could ever hope to meet.  No scheming.  No bad intentions.  No desire to hurt or demean anyone. 

And then there is Rahm Emanuel, the f–king Marxist thug.  

Rahm is in trouble politically.  Before Sarah called him on his immoral and outrageous comment, he was on the ropes.  There have been rumors coming from Washington DC that Rahm Emanuel may be on the outs.  Then he goes and shoots his mouth off and just out-and-out offends a bunch of the most innocent people on the planet.  Sarah Palin called him on it and gave him the equivalent to a hard right across the jaw.   And just recently she took off her kid gloves.

Rahm Emanuel is down.  The count is going.  Even if he manages to get to his feet one more time, the smart thing for the f–king Marxist thugs in his corner to do would be to throw in the towel before he gets pummeled more.  If they don’t, they’ll be joining their guy in the ring. They really don’t want to be that guy.

Sarah Palin, the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, and the prevention of corruption

The Devil’s Excrement has an article that reminded me of something Sarah Palin did as Governor of Alaska.

The Devil’s Excrement has an interesting post that analyzes a summary article, “ Oil windfalls and living standards: New evidence from Brazil” that summarizes a study that looked at social results of publicly owned oil.  The study looks at how municipalities in Brazil that get varying amounts of income from land-based oil revenues.  The study concluded that “it may be somewhat unwise to channel revenues from oil operations directly to local governments, at least if the officials are not properly monitored and accountable.” It also suggested “Reporting schemes should document the actual effective disbursement of sums, and not merely their recording on balance sheets.” In other words, socialism doesn’t work.

The name “The Devil’s Excrement” doesn’t just refer to oil, but it also refers to the corrupting influence of abundant resources.   The DE analysis reviews the oil study and adds “The only thing I was not clear about is how municipalities with more infrastructure thanks to oil don’t have a higher standard of living…”  

Basically, when oil revenues are channeled into government, and accounting isn’t appropriate, the revenues tend to be stolen by the government and directed to channels other than social betterment.  Better accounting could keep the revenues from being stolen, but I would guess that the same people responsible for stealing the oil tend to the same one that control the accounting practices. 

I would expect that the infrastructure built using government controlled oil revenues may be a major medium for the theft of oil revenue.  The use of infrastructure to take oil revenues would be a great source of moral corruption.  Recall that Osama bin Laden’s father made his fortune building oil infrastructure. Perhaps Osama is on the outside what his father was on the inside. 

Sarah Palin directed revenues from Alaska’s oil money directly to the hands of the citizens of Alaska.  What she did, in essence, was minimize the theft of oil revenues by politicians and their associates.  I’m curious now, how well Alaska’s oil revenues are tracked with respect to “the actual effective disbursement of sums.”  How much of those revenues are absorbed by corruption and bureaucracy, and how much really ends up in the hands of the public?  I would expect that a relatively small amount gets absorbed by government, and little social corruption results.  

The availability of natural resources don’t seem to be a strong influence on the well being of the citizens of a society.  The morality of the society as seen on its insistence on effective checks and balances, especially with respect to natural resources, appear to have more influence on the well being of the citizens.  The study suggests that values have more to do with happiness than the abundance of resources.  I had always believed that our abundance of natural resources was one of the things that made America great.  Perhaps our resources contributed.  But now I am more of the mind that our greatest natural resource is our values.  The people trying to usurp our values are taking more from us than any person trying to steal our physical resources. 

You can’t have happiness without virtue, or as Sarah said recently in her discussion with Glenn Beck, “In politics you are either eating well or sleeping well.”  Politicians in socialist states don’t sleep well.

Obama’s State Department throws Google under a Chinese bus

Google has publicly claimed that the Chinese government has been hacking into the Google email systems. The Chinese had two primary targets. One is private business: “As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted.”

Their second target was Chinese human rights activists: “Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists”

Google would not be making this claim without substantial reasons to believe China has been doing this. Google has every reason to continue doing business with China.  China’s business represents major potential income for Google.  Making a public claim of espionage will only hurt Google’s bottom line. Those facts makes their statement credible.

The US Department of State responded to Google’s claim. On January 21, 2010 Hillary Clinton spoke about Internet freedom.

Mrs Clinton’s speech on Internet freedom, in which she exercises a Richard Simmons quality of hand waving, all but apologized to the Chinese for Google’s exposing their spying activities. In her speech she says in summary: “Internet Freedom is good.” “Franklin Roosevelt was good.” “Eleanor Roosevelt was good.” “I feel bad for those poor people in Haiti.” And somewhere in her hand waving aerobics she finally addresses the main issue of China’s hacking the Google systems:

Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.

Mrs. Clinton is asking China to investigate claims that Chinese spies are spying on US companies and Chinese human rights activists. Then she asks the Chinese Communist, who are known tyrants, mass murderers, and large scale social engineers, to voluntarily turn over the results of their investigation to the US. Mrs. Clinton’s response was ridiculous and irresponsible to the point of criminal negligence. This is the same Hillary Clinton and State Department that was responsible for letting the Christmas Underwear Bomber onto a US-bound commercial jetliner. She is totally out of touch with reality.

The ideas of transparency and human rights are not bad by themselves.  As Sarah Palin stated in her speech in Hong Kong in September of 2009:

My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.  

Notice that Palin at least dangled the carrot of “friendship” where Clinton simply makes bland statements.  The idea of friendship is the foundation for positive advancements when negotiating.  It is a well known principle in negotiating that trying to achieve mutual positive benefits generally do more to advance the negotiations than threats do.  Clinton, as I’ve documented previously, uses threats freely, as she has when negotiating with Pakistan to get the Paks to act assertively against Taliban and Al Qaeda within their borders, and when trying to dictate to Brazil who they could be friends with.

Likewise, Palin spoke to human rights in China: 

I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties. They apply to citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter 08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel’s Charter 77. Charter 08 would not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself. No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry about a China where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear. 

Notice how Palin speaks highly of the idea of human rights.  She ties them to America’s “Founding Fathers” which has a great impact in China where the elderly are held in high regard.  Some Chinese even practice a form of ancestor worship.  By speaking about the Founding Fathers she spoke to something the Chinese could identify with on a human level.  

Palin also points out that some Chinese have already signed on to Charter 08 manifesto.  It called for democratic reform in China that would make China more like a Jeffersonian Democracy.  By referring to Charter 08 she points out that some Chinese have already started on the path of recognizing human rights and that some people in China want to pursue the path of government based on natural rights.  (Of course after Palin’s speech in December of 2009 China arrested and sentenced the manifesto’s co-author, Liu Xiaobo, to 11 years in prison.)

Where Palin presented a positive message, Hillary of course acknowledged human rights, but she spoke more to common international values, not American values, and not the desire of the Chinese people to live in a society based on human rights. 

Palin spoke to the consequences of China’s failure to use sound policies, and she made it clear that the consequences would be poor economic relationships, and that China, not the US, would be the source of the problem: 

We must talk about these issues with more candor. If China adopts policies that keep our highest value products out of their markets, by manipulating technical standards or licensing requirements, our economic relationship suffers.

Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high-tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law and protect our intellectual property. 

Clinton did not speak at all to the consequences of China’s failure to use sound financial and technical policies. 

I am very much of the opinion that the Chinese Communists are deeply entrenched in the Obama administration and have a lot of leverage in the decision making in his administration. Comments like those from Obama’s Secretary of State are why I believe this.

Barack Obama: The Frankenstein Monster of Leftist University Professors

Something Sarah Palin wrote in one of her recent Facebook articles shed light on one of the main problems with Barack Obama.  In her article, It’s War, not a Crime Spree, she ends with: 

President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor. 

She ends with the phrase “a constitutional law professor” as if to call attention to the idea.  

After sleeping on it a few nights the truth of this has finally sunk in.  

The radical leftists in America have a stronghold in the halls of America’s universities and colleges.  That is by design.  The enemies of America have been working for a long time to install their people into the educational system as a means to subvert the USA.  

Look at Obama’s educational background.  Barack Obama attended Occidental College for two years from 1979 to 1981.  He received his B.A. from Columbia University where he attended 1981 to 1984.  He later received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991.  Obama was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.  He ran for president in 2008 and was elected President in the election of November 4, 2008.

While attending Occidental, Columbia, and no doubt Harvard, Obama was surrounded by radical leftist organizations and instructors.  He dived in head first.  He was exposed to leftist ideals.  He became a leftist radical instructor. 

After becoming a leftist radical instructor he became President of the USA.  He is their creation, their creation, their monster.  Barack Obama is the leftist radical intellectuals.  As he fails in his duty as President, so do their ideals fail with him.  His failure is their failure.  When we finally oust him, we will also oust the radical ideologues.  

The sooner the better.

What that -21 Obama index really means

From Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

And Rasmussen reports that party affiliation as of October 2009 are Dem. – 31.9%, Rep. – 37.8%, Other – 30.3%.

If all the Democrats said they strongly approved of Obama, he would have a 31.9% Strongly approve. He doesn’t have that. He only has 25%.

The majority of Democrats might Strongly Approve, but a substantial block, the remaining 6.9%, at best give him weak support. I know enough Democrats to know that not all Democrats give him even weak support. Some of the “others” (the greens, socialists, communists, some leftist Independents, etc.) support him.

There is substantially less Strong Support than there are Democrats. Right now Obama is starting to eat into his Golden Goose, the Democrat party. Bottom line: He is losing the support of the core of the Democrat Party.

I said during the 2004 presidential campaign that I could have run my dog against Geo. Bush and my dog would have won. Instead of my dog, the Democrats ran John Kerry; Lurch with an Ivy League law degree and an air of arrogance. Doh!!!

The 2012 presidential campaign will be a blowout, unless the Republicans run an incredibly bad candidate for President. Sarah Palin is actually a very strong candidate with Reagan-like character. I expect good things in 2012, assuming we still have a country three years from now.

Michelle Malkin verifies what I said weeks ago about the socialized health care bill: Payola, then the bill dies

I wrote about this a while back.  The Democrats don’t care about health care.  They care about passing this bill, I said.  They know that socialized medicine won’t see the light of day.  The bill has a four year delay before it gets implemented.  In four years the conservatives will be running the government.  Probably Sarah Palin will be President.  The House and Senate will definitely be Republican controlled. The conservative government in 2012 will not allow the economic time bomb to go off.  The leftists know that. 

So why did they pass the bill?  Payolla.  They will start the programs and start the cash outlays before the program is killed.  That way they have at least three years to siphon funds out of the public.  They don’t need to have the socialized medicine program actually implemented to make boo-koo bucks.   I doubt if most of the members of Congress who voted for it actually believe in it.  They are just gaming the system to their benefit. 

Michelle Malkin is writing about the many billions in “bribes” given to different Congressmen. 

The members of Congress know that if they have a close vote and the Dem. leadership really want to pass the bill, they can leverage that for their own game.  These last minute hold-outs getting these ridiculous political payolla billions?  Its a game.  They win.  You lose.  To hell with America’s future.  ”I’ve got mine.”

Guess where the payolla will go… It will go to buddies and associates of the Congressmen.  You can bet on it.