Friday, April 30, 2010

Did I just hear that Iran will be on a women's commission at the UN?

Please sit down and buckle your seat belt.

"Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest.""

Iran on a commission about women?

Wonder how the women of Iran feel about this bit of news?

Don't you remember the murder of Neda, the young woman murdered in the streets last year? How can the murderers of Neda be elected to a commission about women?

My question is this: Where was the Obama administration during this selection process?

Why didn't the US object to this?

Are you telling me that the US was not able to stop this or object to it publicly?

P.S. I agree with Anne Bayefsky, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust:

"This is another example of just one more U.N. body created to do one thing and now doing the opposite, for which American taxpayers foot 22% of the bill.

And it will continue unless those with their hands on the spigot in Congress finally decide to turn off the tap."

A lot of hypocrisy to go around on the reaction to the Arizona law!

Before you get on the anti-Arizona bandwagon, you may want to consider a couple of details.

First, Arizona is actually enforcing a law based on something signed by Pres Clinton:

There's a federal statute -- 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years -- requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it."

Second, it's hysterical to hear criticism from Mexico.

Today, we learned this about Mexico and its treatment of illegal immigrants:

Amnesty International called the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis Wednesday, and accused some officials of turning a blind eye or even participating in the kidnapping, rape and murder of migrants.

The group's report comes at a sensitive time for Mexico, which is protesting the passage of a law in Arizona that criminalizes undocumented migrants." (AP)

There is a lot of concern about Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law:

"Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

Isn't Mexico doing the same thing that they accuse Arizona of doing? (Mexican Hypocrisy? U.S. Neighbor Has Its Own Tough Take on Immigration)

Don't get me wrong.

I understand completely why Mexico wants foreigners to prove that they are in the country legally.

And I agree with Pres Clinton for signing the statue that authorized the feds to check a person's immigration status.

I agree with Mexico and Pres Clinton.

I just don't agree with the hypocrisy coming from Dems and Mexico!

Check out our interview with Fausta Wertz:

This is about a border out of control!

Susan Estrich, a well known liberal, has a message for the Dems:

"The federal government is supposed to secure the border.

Its failure to do so effectively not only invites measures like Arizona's, but complicates -- if not dooms -- the prospect of immigration reform at the national level."

Are you listening Pres BO?

Estrich is exactly right.

We are fighting well armed cartels who've taken over large segments of Mexico and use routes to come to the US.

They are not immigrants looking for work. They are bad people who will kill anyone who stands in their way.

When is Pres BO going to get serious about protecting our border? The clock is ticking!

Click here for Thursday morning's thoughts:

Thursday, April 29, 2010

BO's border logic: Let's violate NAFTA and close the border to Mexican trucks BUT LET'S DO NOTHING about the cartels and border violence!

The NY Times got this one right: For Parties, Immigration Poses Risks

No kidding?

We hear more:
Chorus Grows to 'Secure the Border'

A bipartisan group of House members was sending a letter to President Obama on Wednesday asking him to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.'s southern border to assist Border Patrol agents."

Why are border states up in arms over the border?

The answer is that border violence has exploded out of control.

We are not debating immigration anymore.

We are now trying to figure out what to do with the war on the US-Mexico border.

Just ask ranchers in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

We want well armed troops to protect the border and the citizens in border states.

And we call on Arizona's critics to read the bill before they embark on pathetic criticisms or accusations about its intentions.

WE also call on the critics to understand what is actually happening in Arizona.

Please read
Leo W. Banks who covers the border for The Tucson Weekly:

"Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business.

They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods

Any group wanting in has to deal with them, and the going rate is $2,500 per person.

If you don't have the cash, the cartel coyote will offer to bring you in for free if you carry his dope.

Welcome to the US-Mexico border. Welcome to our reality. Read Ralph Peters:

"The rate of killing accelerates each month.

And Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie.

Well, the Mexican narco-insurgency, in which well-armed guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence of the state, is our No. 1 security challenge.

The chaos in northern Mexico has far deeper implications for our country than Islamist terror or even an Iranian nuclear capability (as grim as those threats are)."

It's time to do something!

Since he became president, Pres BO has shown no interest on the big things, such as nuclear missiles in Iran or the war on the border.

We need Pres BO to protect our borders. It's time to defend the homeland rather than do another "hope and change" round!

Want to help Mexico? Fight the cartels rather "child obesity" in Mexico!

Have the critics actually read the Arizona bill?

We found this about the new law in Arizona: Fears of Arizona's Immigration Law Are Bogus By John Lott

"The law specifically bans picking up someone just because they are Hispanic or even because the person was originally from Mexico or any other country
you can read a copy of the law right here.

Anyone arrested for a crime must have their immigration status determined before they are released.

Thus, it is not just Hispanics who will be required to provide evidence of citizenship, but so will all whites, blacks and Asians.
If the eligibility for public services depends on citizenship, again, everyone who applies, regardless of race, will have to provide an ID.

In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person's race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone's ID."

Let me translate: No one is going to be picked up in Arizona because they "look Mexican" or whatever that means.

Furthermore, 30% of the Arizona population is Hispanic.

Is the Arizona police going to stop 30% of the population?

Also, George Will makes an excellent point about the Arizona law:

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction."

It's simple: It's illegal to be illegal in the US. Therefore, it is also illegal to be illegal in Arizona.

Is that radical?

What we are seeing in Arizona is utter frustration with a federal government that won't solve a crisis.

Pres BO should call for an emergency meeting with border governors. He should support their efforts by deploying 10,000 troops to the US-Mexico border.

And he should close the deal by making a speech saying that he will support US sovereignty on the border.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

A VAT or a cut in spending?

Michael Barone has a warning for Pres BO & Dems:

The assumption in some quarters is that a tax increase is inevitable and that the public won't allow any significant decrease in public spending.

But there's reason to question that assumption."

Why not cut spending? Who said that cutting spending is politically unpopular?

I think that the country is ready for a national version of Gov Christie of New Jersey.

Yes, the voters are hungry for a politician who tells them that the free lunch is over.

On Tuesday's show, we spoke with Mario Yngerto about VAT. Click here for the show:

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Remember when BO-Care was going to lower costs?

Pres BO and the Dems sold BO-Care on the grounds that it was necessary to control health care costs.

In fact, health care costs are going up and will continue to go up.

Check this:

"President Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs.

It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15% of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts." (AP)

In less than two months, BO-Care has been exposed as a first rate fraud!

Who was foolish enough to believe that a government takeover of 16% of our GDP would make things better or lower costs?

I didn't buy it. And lots of voters don't buy it either:
56% Support Repeal of Health Care Law

Ed Morrissey nailed it:

We’ve heard a lot of nonsense about ObamaCare and its fiscal discipline coming from its authors, advocates, and the national media.

We’re finally starting to get the truth, but only after the bill became law.

The electorate needs to punish all of those who voted for this disaster despite its deep unpopularity and work to defund it in the short term and repeal it when possible."

We've also heard a lot from this administration about Wall Street and how they misled investors.

Who is going to investigate this administration for misleading voters?

Let's hope that voters turn out and punish the charlatans responsible for this budget buster called BO-Care.

P.S. The WSJ called it:
ObamaCare Mulligan

The Washington Examiner called it: Obama's credibility crisis

Brian Calle wrote this:

What that means for the industry, according to Pyott, is that doctors will see downward adjustments to their payments while drugmakers and device manufacturers will face higher taxes and lower sales."

P.S. Check out Monday's thoughts:

Monday, April 26, 2010

Monday morning thoughts

We discussed a number of issues this morning.

First, what happened to the Mavs in San Antonio? How did an NBA team look so rattled in the 3rd quarter? Where was the court discipline? Where were the team leaders?

Second, check out our interview with Jose Brechner about Iran and Latin America.

I agree with Jose that the Obama administration is not serious about the growing Iranian influence in Latin America.

Third, let me say this about Arizona.

No one supports racial profiling. At the same time, 38% of the population of Arizona is Hispanic.

How can the Arizona police stop 38% of the population? They can't and they won't!

Also, I trust that Arizona's police officers will be professional and thoughtful. In other words, I am not afraid of the police!

Let's have a discussion about the real issue in Arizona: no federal action and a border out of control!

Fourth, we learned a few days ago that BO-Care is not going to control health care costs. (See the WSJ editorial:
About Those Lower Insurance Costs We Promised . . . )

Who is surprised? I am not!

Fifth, is a VAT coming? I don't think so because the public is in a very strong anti-tax mode.

At the same time, I'll trade the current IRS code for a VAT, or a national sales tax, in a heartbeat!

Click here for the show:

Iran and Latin America

On Sunday night, we spoke with Jose Brechner about Iran's influence in Latin America.

Jose is a political analyst and author.

Click here for the show:

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Phoenix is turning into Juarez....AND....that is why 70% of Arizonans (and 51% of Dems) support this law

A few years ago, we had a huge debate in the US about illegal immigration.

It was a debate about processing the 10-12 million illegals in the US.

It was an issue that had a rational solution in 2007: expand our "guest worker" program and allow millions to work here legally and pay taxes.

It did not pass for a lot of reasons, including the pressure that labor unions put on Dems to oppose a "guest worker" program.

By the way, we have the same problem today!
The labor unions have always opposed any effort to bring in guest workers!

This is Pres BO's dilemma. He promised a lot to "los hispanos" but he also took millions of dollars from the labor unions that forced him to violate NAFTA over Mexican trucks!

Today, we face an entirely new debate rooted on border security and an explosion of violence in Arizona and everywhere else along the US-Mexico border!

In case you missed it, killings are a daily tragedy across the border.
Worse than that, Phoenix is turning into our version of Cd Juarez:

An unprecedented wave of Third World-style kidnappings by well-armed drug gangs in Phoenix has stymied city leaders and law enforcement while driving up the city’s crime rate dramatically.

Despite arrests and the dismantlement of at least 20 kidnapping “cells,” the crime wave has turned the city into the “kidnap for ransom capital” of the United States.

Police say the crimes are linked to the local drug trade — the surrounding Valley of the Sun is a national distribution hub for the U.S. drug trade — but others suggest that Mexico’s narcotics war has now fully engulfed the city." (Newsmax)

Arizona is under seige:

Wave of Drug Violence Is Creeping Into Arizona From Mexico, Officials Say

We did not have those stories in 2007.

This is why 70% of the citizens of Arizona support the law......including 51% of Dems who understand the violence wave!

This is why poll after poll shows that US voters want their border protected.

In other words, they want the federal government to protect them and their private property from a chaotic US-Mexico border.

We have a whole new political climate in the US.

There won't be immigration reform until Americans are assured that their personal safety and private property are not threatened by a chaotic border!

Sen McCain is right. We need more troops on the border:

Did I hear that Karen Carpenter would have turned 60 this year?

Karen Carpenter died in 1983. And I just read that she would been 60 this year!

Richard and Karen were one of the most successful duos in pop history.

Karen's voice is one of my favorites! Her life story is very tragic to say the least.

Many Carpenters' fans don't know that Karen was the group's first drummer, a pioneer for a woman in pop music.

A few years later, Karen concentrated on singing and someone else played drums.

This is "Reason to believe", a song written by Tim Hardin and from their second album:

"If I listened long enough to you

I’d find a way to believe that it’s all true

Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried

Still I look to find a reason to believe

Someone like you makes it hard to live

without Somebody else

Someone like you makes it easy to give

Never thinking of myself

If you took the time to change my mind

I’d find a way to leave the past behind
Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried

Still I look to find a reason to believe

Someone like you......
If I listened long enough to you

I’d find a way to believe that it’s all true

Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried

Still I look to find a reason to believe

Someone like you makes it hard to live
without Somebody else
Someone like you makes it easy to give

Never think about myself"

Dear ladies: The greatest song about a man who loves to look good!

The Kinks were one of the greatest British bands ever. They recorded rock classics like "You really got me" and the very interesting "Lola".     The original band was Pete Quaife, Dave Davies, Ray Davies and Mick Avory.

This is "Dedicated follower of fashion", one of the best songs ever.

"They seek him here, they seek him there,
 His clothes are loud, but never square.
It will make or break him so he's got to buy the best,
'Cause he's a dedicated follower of fashion.
And when he does his little rounds,
'Round the boutiques of London Town,
Eagerly pursuing all the latest fads and trends,
'Cause he's a dedicated follower of fashion.
Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
He thinks he is a flower to be looked at,
And when he pulls his frilly nylon panties right up tight,
He feels a dedicated follower of fashion.
Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
There's one thing that he loves and that is flattery.
One week he's in polka-dots, the next week he is in stripes.'Cause he's a dedicated follower of fashion.
They seek him here, they seek him there,In Regent Street and Leicester Square.
Everywhere the Carnabetian army marches on,
Each one an dedicated follower of fashion.
Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
His world is built 'round discoteques and parties.
This pleasure-seeking individual always looks his best
'Cause he's a dedicated follower of fashion.
Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
He flits from shop to shop just like a butterfly.
In matters of the cloth he is as fickle as can be,
'Cause he's a dedicated follower of fashion.
He's a dedicated follower of fashion.
He's a dedicated follower of fashion."

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Too many people were foolish enough to believe what BO said during the campaign!

Pres BO is under attack by the homosexual wing of the Dem party. (Barack Obama heckled out West)

Why not?

Candidate BO made a lot of promises and he is painfully discovering that the Oval Office is different than the 'yes we can" rally.

It's easy to's a lot more complicated to govern!

The disappointment grows, according to this Reuters story:

Five million first-time voters turned out in 2008, many drawn by Obama's promise of hope and overwhelmingly voting for Democrats.

Now disappointed, or at least apathetic, they may not go to the polls this year.

Obama's support has dropped below 50 percent from nearly 70 percent after 15 months in office, Gallup opinion polls show."

Today, we learned that "los hispanos" are mad at "hope and change" too.

Yesterday, Rep Luis Gutierrez, the self appointed leader of "los hispanos" in the Dem party, unloaded on "hope and change":

He is threatening to call on "los hispanos" to stay home in November!

For the record, Mr Gutierrez does not speak for me and a lot of other Hispanics.

Nevertheless, I feel all of that "yes we can" pain.

However, we did warn the "jumpin' yes we can screamers" during the campaign that BO was making too many promises!

I do recall sharing
Professor Ajami's warning from October '08, or a week before Election Day:

Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic."

Again, don't blame me. I voted for McCain!

And I believe that Pres Clinton was right on target when he called BO's candidacy a "fairy tale":

Don't blame Arizona because Pres BO can not get a Dem majority in Congress to protect our citizens or private property

In a perfect world, the federal government would be on top of the border mess.

Unfortunately, we live in BO's world or a world where the federal government fails to take the border violence seriously.

Pres BO does not understand the public mood over the border.

This is not 2007 when the issue was processing the 10-12 million illegals in the country.

This is 2010 and the country is concerned about a chaotic border and the violence in cities like Phoenix.

Pres BO continues to talk about immigration reform whereas the public wants to protect the border.

Incredibly, Pres BO criticized the Arizona law in front of new US citizens.

We assume that these new citizens followed the law, played by the rules and now enjoy US citizenship.

Again, it's not the optimum situation to have a state enforce immigration laws.

However, Pres BO is not serious about immigration laws and the citizens of Arizona are!

And I don't think that the Dem majority is in a mood for tackling another controversial topic.

Don't expect Pres BO and the Dems to tackle immigration reform.

Do expect Pres BO to blame the Republicans because his Dem majority can't do a darn thing about immigration reform!

P.S. I like this from
Power Line:

How, exactly, does Arizona's law "threaten[] to undermine basic notions of fairness"?

Why is it unfair to enforce the immigration laws?

Most Americans would say that it undermines basic notions of fairness when our government deliberately refuses to enforce the laws Congress has passed, to the disadvantage of our citizens.

And as far as trust between police and "communities" is concerned--assuming we are talking about communities of American citizens--one would think it would improve trust if citizens can see that the laws are being enforced.

It's funny, isn't it: liberals love to talk about the "rule of law" when they are trying to create never-before-seen "rights" belonging to enemy combatants.

But where is the "rule of law" when the laws relating to immigration are studiously ignored, if not deliberately undermined?"

What exactly is Blago up to AND why is he going after BO?

Blago is back and he wants Pres BO to speak at his trial:

"Blagojevich's attorneys had filed a motion Thursday asking to have President Obama give testimony for the ex-governor's corruption trial."

John Kass has a few thoughts about Blago's intentions:

"So allow me to translate the Chicago Way.

"Dear Barack, my old friend. I want you to use all your powers, all your skills, to make me an offer I can't refuse.

I'm Mr. Celebrity-get-me-out-of-here, and you better get me out of here.

Thanks, Rod.""

Of course, it's tough to believe Blago, a rather corrupt Chicago politician.

At the same time, it's tough to believe that Barrack Obama grew up in the Chicago Way without getting his hands dirty or making some bad deals.

BO is a man who hung around with some rather strange people on his way to the White House: the racist minister that he never heard, Tony Rezko and the whole Chicago machine!

For the sake of the country, let's hope that Pres BO told the truth about his involvement in the sale of the US Senate seat.

We don't need a president with legal problems, specially the kinds of legal problems that Chicago is well known for.

Again, let's hope so because the country does not need this right now.

P.S. Check some of these items because they are interesting, to say the least:

Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich

Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia.

On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama.

The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.

That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy.

Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation.

The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony."

We are not trying to play Perry Mason. Nevertheless, this could get very interesting and extremely embarrassing for Pres BO!

Friday, April 23, 2010

Let's talk about Mexico with Patrick Corcoran

On Thursday's show, we spoke about Mexico and other US-Mexico concerns.

Our guest was Patrick Corcoran (blogger in Mexico and contributor

Check out the show:

Thursday, April 22, 2010

You will see everything in a baseball game!

This is from a college baseball game.....a runner comes around the bases and "jumps" a run?

This is Fordham vs Iona!
I have never seen anything like this before:

The tea parties are rooted on a rejection of the welfare state and the culture of dependence

What are they talking about at your neighborhood tea party meeting?

Listen and you will hear a rejection of the welfare state, or the culture of dependency rampant in Europe.

Michael Barone wrote about this a few days ago:

But they recognize, correctly, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens' dependence on it.

And, invoking the language of the Founding Fathers, they believe that this will destroy the culture of independence which has enabled Americans over the past two centuries to make this the most productive and prosperous -- and the most charitably generous -- nation in the world."

That's exactly right!

The tea party movement is about rejecting the uncontrolled expansion of government.

We learned this week that the Obama administration is looking at controlling how much salt we eat!

They want to control the financial sector, the insurance industry and manufacturing through something called "cap and trade".

How much is enough? The Dems are trying to turn the US into a Euro-welfare state.

Lots of lots of Americans don't want that! Read
The Democrats' Big Disconnect By William Murchison!

That's what the tea parties are all about! Again, listen to what the tea parties are saying!

Check out our show with Dan Riehl and Mario Yngerto:

Remember when it was patriotic to march and call Pres Bush names?

We continue to watch the other side go into commotion over placards or criticisms of Pres BO.

We see hypocricy all over, specially from MSNBC.

How can a network with an "all-white prime time lineup" say anything about diversity in The Tea Parties?

Maybe this is why MSNBC is doing so poorly in the ratings!

Today, Professor VD Hanson posted:
Five Lies We Live With

"I fear “civility” does not mean one should not write novels or produce movies contemplating murdering George Bush — that’s sort of an understandable agitprop art.

“Civility” does not mean the
New York Times should not give discounts to run ads in wartime like “General Betray Us.”

That’s needed dissidence.

Civility does not suggest that a Sen. Durbin, or Sen. Kerry, or Sen. Kennedy not use inflammatory language that compares our own troops or personnel to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalinists, or Saddam Hussein’s torturers; that most certainly in not uncivil.

And it was certainly not impolite for Rep. Stark to call President Bush a “liar.”

“Civility” does not mean that we should not spew hate at anti-war protests; that’s grass-roots popular protest.

It doesn’t mean that we should not employ Nazi and fascistic labels to tar the President of the United States like John Glenn or Al Gore or Robert Byrd did.

“Civility” does not mean that a shrill Hillary Clinton should not scream that the Bush administration is trying to silence critics, or suggest that the commanding general of an entire theater was lying to Congress in ways that require a “suspension of disbelief.”

That’s needed pushback.

O Ye of Little Memory! Do we recall any American shock when the Guardian published Charles Brooker’s lament — “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?”

And I don’t recall anyone felt that language was getting too heated when Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, fumed, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”

And was it not The New Republic that highlighted Jonathan Chait’s infamous “Why I Hate George W. Bush” article?

Of course, there was that thoroughly civil New York play, “I’m Gonna Kill the President.”

So, please, spare us the sanctimonious rot about being shocked by conservative metaphors like “lock and load” or “targeting” vulnerable Democratic districts."

Yes spare me the whining!

We were big enough during the Bush years to take every excess of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Dems should stop whining and take the criticism that comes from governing.

Speaking of Tea Parties and all of the selective indignation, check out our interview with Dan Riehl:

What happens when BO is more interested in creating "a nanny state" rather than border violence? You get ARIZONA!

Have you spoken with anyone living on the US-Mexico border?

It's violence and more violence.

As we posted before, the US is the one consuming the illegal drugs. We are the ones responsible for sending US$ 10 to 50 billion south of the border!

Yes! We consume!

Yes! We need to consume less!

However, we also have a responsibility to protect our border and our citizens' private property!

Arizona just passed a very tough "illegal immigration" law.

Let me repeat: Illegal immigration law!

It's difficult to disagree with Arizona.

What are you going to do when the federal government refuses to protect your borders?

What are you going to do when Pres BO is more focused on transforming our society into some Euro-welfare state?

Well, you do what the citizens of Arizona have done!

You pass a law that enforces illegal immigration laws and protects private property from intruders.

Arizona is just the beginning.

Other states will follow! 70% of the people in Arizona support this law, i.e. a lot of Dems and hispanics must be in favor of it!

Check out Wednesday's thoughts:

Remember Mr Blow of The NY Times?

A few days ago, we brought up that column by Mr. Blow of The NY Times:

Check out Mr. Blow:

"I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse.

And, on the stage at least, it was.

The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God.

It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad."

It turns out that our friend Zo was there and responded to Mr. Blow.

Check out Zo:

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Let's chat with Dan Riehl about the tea parties!

We spoke on Tuesday with Dan Riehl of Riehl World View.

Click here for Dan's blog!

We also heard Mario Yngerto's economics commentary.

Click here for the radio show:

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Iran needs to know that we will attack, with or without the UN!

Iran is back on the front pages:

Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015

It was Sec Gates's memo that put Iran back in the news.

Today, The Washington Post has a good editorial:
Confused on Iran

If allies and adversaries are presently confused, that would be understandable."

Yes indeed!

During the campaign, "hope and change' made a lot of silly remarks about sitting down with our adversaries.

Unfortunately, the Oval Office is not a 'yes we can' rally.

This is very simple: Iran needs to know that we will not allow them to get a bomb.

They must be told in very clear words: We "will bomb them to rubble" with or without a Security Council resolution.

Can "hope and change" speak to our adversaries like Bush? Time will tell but lots of people, including the liberal Washington Post, are very worried!

P.S. Check our interview with Bill Katz on the memo and some of the underlying motives:

"Hope and change" is now the face of a very unpopular federal bureaucracy!

Pres "Hope and change" is now hounded by those who screamed "yes we can" in 2008.

Yesterday, Pres BO was interrupted by homosexual activists. (
Gay rights protesters interrupt Obama speech at fundraiser)

Why? They voted for a guy who promised to end "don't ask don't tell"!

They voted for change and got none of it.

Lots of people voted to close GITMO, withdraw troops from Iraq and to get more allies to support us in Afghanistan.

No way! It ain't going to happen! It was all a presidential candidate telling a lot of people what they wanted to hear!

Worse than that, Pres BO has now become the face of an extremely unpopular federal bureaucracy.

And he is now the man who will have to raise our taxes to finance it!

PEW Research reported more bad news for "Hope and change":

About 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve the nation's problems, according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center."

Gallup added to "hope and change's" woes:

"Registered voters are about evenly divided over whether President Barack Obama is deserving of a second term in office.

Currently, 46% say he deserves re-election and 50% say he does not."

We don't know what will happen in 2012.

However, it is obvious that this presidency is turning to be a lot different than the "yes we can" screamers had in mind.




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog