Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers
Thursday, December 31, 2009
|
|
Well, At Least "Hope" Abides
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
3:21 PM
|
As 2009 draws to a close, the country is giving the first year of the Obama "hope and change" administration decidedly low marks.
Nearly 3 in 4 say it was a bad year for the country; the President has a -18 point approval rating (i.e., his disapproval numbers exceed approval by 18 points).
As attitudes have hardened toward "ObamaCare," Rassmussen finds that a hefty 58% oppose it. What's more, public confidence in the War on Terror is at its lowest point in over 2.5 years.
Even so, Americans remain upbeat about the year to come (our optimism is one of the best things about us, in my opinion).
And all of that, perhaps, offers a template for Republicans -- who will need to be at their most effective in order to win in 2010 and reverse some of the worst Obama/Democrat policies of "change." It's necessary, and right, to point out the problems with what's going on. But it's equally important to look ahead with specific and credible policies, so that the GOP may assert with confidence that -- if elected and given a change to enact their plans -- Americans' optimism can be well-founded.
It strikes me that much of the widespread discontent with the President and Democrats generally springs from the fact that their high-spending, high-taxing all-about-government style of governance is very different in tone and substance than what was promised during their campaigns. Part of the way that Republicans can show they're different from Democrats -- as well as tell about it -- is to be specific about their plans, realistic about how many of them can be carried out, and straightforward but hopeful about what will be achieved.
Aligning GOP priorities with those of regular Americans is a great place to start (and a great contrast to the Democrats). Righting the economy -- especially before embarking on great new government boondoggles -- should head the list, along with (of course) a real commitment to keeping Americans safe in the War on Terror.
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
|
|
DC murder rate lowest in 45 years?
|
|
Posted by:
Jonathan Garthwaite at
2:01 PM
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court overturns the D.C. gun ban in March and the city records the lowest murder rate in 45 years... Coincidence?
A criminal has to think twice these day don't they. The home they're breaking into might just have owner with a gun instead of a baseball bat.
Overall murders in D.C. are down 25 percent. I'm sure a lot of murders are criminal vs. criminal in gang fights... I'd like to know how much 'criminal vs. innocent' murders are down.
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
|
|
INTERPOL Immunity: RedState Weighs In
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
9:03 AM
|
Erick Erickson over at RedState is also paying close attention to emerging details of Obama's shady new Executive Order which grants global police agency INTERPOL immunity from laws and oversight from law enforcement agencies in conducting investigations in the US:
American law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal level are bound by open records act laws. At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act applies. Knowing that an intrepid reporter can, after establishing credible sources, file a judicially enforcible (sic) FOIA request to obtain information from a law enforcement agency is one of the chief deterrents to law enforcement agencies from abusing discretionary power. Additionally, Interpol is a foreign power, but operates out of the U.S. Department of Justice inside the United States. While Interpol has some limited immunities given by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980’s, it does not — or at least did not until last week — have immunity from the 4th Amendment. Consequently, this international agency could, should it abuse its powers, have the federal government seize its assets, etc. In other words, the international police organization Interpol was treated like every other law enforcement agency in America — it was subject to FOIA requests and could, like any arm of a municipal, county, state, or federal government agency, have its property taken by the federal government if it crossed the boundaries of criminal law protection for the accused. For no discernible reason whatsoever, last Wednesday when no one was looking, Barack Obama signed an executive order giving all immunities of foreign powers to Interpol. In other words, Interpol is now in a better position than any American law enforcement institution that operates on American soil. It cannot have its records searched or seized and it is not subject to the restraints of sunshine and transparency that FOIA requests can bring. At a time when Obama is worried about ensuring the rights of terrorists against the abuses of the American government, he has no problem surrendering American rights to an arm of the United Nations.
This is extremely important because it comports with Barack Obama’s world view in ways harmful to American sovereignty. Obama has said repeatedly that he views no nation as greater than any other nation. He has said repeatedly that one nation should not be able to impose its will on another. He applies this even to the United States. In Barack Obama’s world, the United States is no better and no worse than Iran, China, North Korea, or Kenya. In his world view, we are all players on an international stage with the United Nations as the leader. Therefore, while Obama will not give up American sovereignty to Peru, he is perfectly happy to give up sovereignty to the United Nations. ...
This is also a backdoor to the International Criminal Court (”ICC”). The United States chose, before Obama took office, to avoid the ICC. Interpol has become the law enforcement arm of the ICC. By taking away the limits to Interpol’s immunity in the United States, Barack Obama has freed the organization up to conduct criminal investigations of individuals inside the United States on behalf of the ICC without any of us knowing about it. And who does the ICC want to investigate? The lawyers, CIA operatives, and soldiers who have defended the United States in the War on Terror by setting up GTMO and prosecuting the war. These men and women now have yet another deterrent to keep them from being fully effective — the fear of an international criminal investigation that they don’t even know about.
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
|
|
Capitol Goes Into Lockdown
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
3:46 PM
|
The Capitol went into lockdown this afternoon after Capitol Police apprehended a man with a gun. It was only expected to last a brief period of time, but Hill staffers were instructed not to leave their offices, and no one was allowed into the halls.
No details were given about the suspect.
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
|
|
"The U.S. president - the practical saviour of our times."
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
12:54 PM
|
|
Here's a German newspaper on the Christmas Eve passage of the health care bill in the Senate: ...we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. At the same time, we have the wonderful parables about his life and deeds that we know from the New Testament, but which have been interpreted so differently over the past 2000 years that it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work. Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game.
HT: Gehragty
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
|
|
Byron York: Get Going For The 2010 Elections
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
11:50 AM
|
|
As Michael Medved noted in an earlier post, "elections have consequences." It's been a common refrain with the passage of stimulus packages, bailouts, and health care by partisan Democratic majorities. But Byron York says Republicans are the ones who should feel guilty:
They know the GOP created the conditions that set in motion the electoral swings of 2006 and 2008, leading to the overwhelming majorities that allow Democrats to pass legislation the public doesn't want. What should we learn? Get in gear for 2010. Voters have achingly little enthusiasm for mid-term elections when the Presidency isn't on the ballot, but that's not an option this time. November 2010 is crucial.
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
|
|
Re: Obama Speech On Terrorist Attempt Sounds Aggressive
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
11:20 AM
|
I'll agree with Jillian, that Obama's statement regarding the Christmas Day attempted bombing of an inbound international flight sounds aggressive. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath that the Obama administration is actually getting aggressive in dealing with the threats facing our country.
First of all, I'd just like to point out that President Obama noted he "will not rest" until those responsible are held accountable--an announcement made amongst his own tennis games, golf rounds and hula lessons. Give me a break... the guy took two days to even announce how outraged he was. His own press secretary and Homeland Security secretary denied the airport security system was even failing a full 36 hours after the attempted bombing.
Finally on Monday morning, Obama had a speech prepared made a statement, during which he noted, "As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.” Allegedly. This courtroom legalize is a perfect example of how this administration is failing to understand the jihadist threat against our nation.
Instead of treating the man who tried to blow up a plane (with hundreds of witnesses able and willing to testify to this fact), we're treating him like a guy who tried to rob the local 7-11! How about we start treating these "terrorists" like jihadists they are--Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a foreign national who was radicalized in London by mullahs at his local mosque and worked with known terrorists in Yemen in plotting to murder hundreds of Americans. He's not merely a defendent in a criminal case--he is instead an agent of war and should not be treated as if he were an otherwise law-abiding American citizen!
As this man is now being treated like your run-of-the-mill criminal, he has now lawyered-up and police officials can't even get a swab of saliva for a DNA sample. Instead of questioning him (dare I say interrogating him) to find out who sent him, who he's worked with, where they're located, finding out the chain of command in the line of terrorists still waiting to attack us, etc., we've given him a public defender.
And knowing that Abdulmutallab did NOT act alone in constructing this plan of attack and weaponizing an undergarment, Obama insisted in his statement that this was the act of "an isolated extremist.”
Obama's words might sound aggressive, but his view of this global war on terrorism is frighteningly narrow and short-sighted--a combination that will likely lead the way for more attacks on America in the future.
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
|
|
Obama's Latest Executive Order Grants Interpol Immunity From American Laws
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
10:50 AM
|
One of the latest stories buzzing around the blogosphere during this holiday break is one regarding President Obama's December 17 Executive Order, “Amending Executive Order 12425.”
EO12425 was issued by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1983 which granted the international policing agency INTERPOL diplomatic status in the United States to help conduct global investigations more effectively. However, Reagan specifically made two exceptions to INTERPOL's diplomatic immunities. The first had to do with taxation; the second required INTERPOL to operate under the oversight of US law enforcement agencies, be held accountable according to US laws and produce records when demanded by courts.
Obama's "amendment" to Reagan's original Executive Order, however, completely undermines these exceptions and threatens to give international policing agencies immunity from US laws when operating within our own borders. ThreatsWatch reports:
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates... on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. …
Read More...
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
|
|
Why Is Government-Run Health Care Problematic? Because Americans Live A Long Time
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
10:08 AM
|
|
Research from Dr. Jack Rowe of Columbia University's School of Public Health didn't directly consider the effects of a longer lifespan on the health care bill cost, but it did note that "U.S. government agencies' projections do not match the study's for increases in life expectancy because they assume improvements in mortality in the coming decades will decelerate."According to the research, Americans could be living eight years older than the current government projections. Women could average between about 90-92 years in 2050, and men about 93-86 years, but the U.S. Census Bureau and the Social Security Administration's budget projections don't allow for women to live past 85 and men past 81. Here's Rowe: We don't know that we're right, but we think rather than using these conservative estimates the nation is better served by having a range of estimates that include the potential for continued advances. There could be other problems associated with this conservative lifespan estimate, such as job structures, education, city planning, and retirement plans.
|
|
|
Monday, December 28, 2009
|
|
Michelle Obama's Polls Down
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
4:45 PM
|
The LA Times' Andrew Malcolm reports that the poll numbers of First Lady Michelle Obama are sliding down, even as her husband's approval ratings continue to erode.
This is an interesting phenomenon to me, as it's always seemed -- at least in recent years -- that the popularity of the First Lady was inversely correlated to that of the President. President George HW Bush had low poll numbers; his wife didn't. Bill Clinton polled well; Hillary didn't. The nation embraced Barbara "the Silver Fox" Bush, but voted her husband out of office. Although Americans loved Ronald Reagan, as for Nancy Reagan . . . not so much. You get the drift.
So it's noteworthy that Michelle Obama's numbers are falling. I think there may be two different explanations that are coming into play here.
(1) The Obamas came into office as very much of a "package deal" -- not in the "get two for the price of one" sense of the Clintons, but very much in a lifestyle sort of way. Barack Obama has been very canny about using his family to promote an image as just a "regular guy," and the press has been quick to peg them as the most glamorous twosome to occupy the Capitol since, say, Jack and Jacqueline Kennedy. Given that they are closely linked in the public's mind, then, it makes sense that as the bloom comes off the President's rose, the First Lady might experience something of the same phenomenon. Those who were worshippers at the temple of Obama are likely viewing its goddess with a measure of the same disillusionment as they do its god.
(2) Michelle Obama has worked hard to showcase herself as a "regular mom" -- but in its eagerness to rhapsodize about her glamour and elegance, the press has covered enough of her goings-on to make it clear to people that she's not living the same kind of lifestyle that they are. From the personal trainer to the expensive sneakers to the fashion focus, it's hard simultaneously to be the most fabulous First Lady in recent history -- as the press would have us believe -- and also just one of the girls. And the expensive tastes and ooh-la-la lifestyle contrast with her husband's policies, most of which apparently disdain and resent the kind of privilege that characterizes many of Michelle Obama's doings. That sort of implicit hypocrisy doesn't go down well, especially during a recession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 18 Minutes Ago
|
|
Last updated 1 Hours 3 Minutes 56 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 1 Hours 22 Minutes 48 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 1 Hours 33 Minutes 4 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 1 Hours 51 Minutes 9 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|