Sunday, May 31, 2009

Open Letter To President Obama

Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

"Justice" Sotomayor: The Court Takes A Turn For The Worse

Quin Hillyer of the American Spetator Laments:
I never in my life thought I could possibly see a Supreme Court pick as bad as Sonia Sotomayor. Barack Obama is quite clearly trying to upend all the underpinnings of American society in order to create his own version of a Brave New World. Government takeovers of banks and car companies, firings of executives, politically based decisions on which individual car dealerships remain open, world tours apologizing for supposed American sins, mollycoddling our enemies while insulting our friends, broken promises about transparency combined with selective release of classifed documents to serve political purposes.... and so much more, and now.... THIS. He nominates the most radical possible choice for the Supreme Court, a woman whose speeches and writings are so obscenely racialist that no white male could possible get away with saying anything like those things and live, professionally, for even a single additional day. Obama's emphasis today, in introducing Sotomayor, on biography over all else was absolutely sickening. And despicable. To which all decent Americans ought to respond: No, it does NOT make a difference whether she grew up rich or poor, black or white or Hispanic, left-handed or right-handed, ill or healthy, Jew or gentile. All that matters is whether or not she will uphold her oath to serve the Constitution and laws as written, including the explicit and tacit restrictions therein on judicial authority. In America, judges are not supposed to be fonts of wisdom, not supposed to "feel" the right things and not supposed to be demigods purveying some sort of cosmic notion of fairness. Instead, they are supposed to apply the laws as provided to them by the political branches within these United States. Period. As Justice Potter wrote in a famous dissent {Griswold vs. Connecticut}, later echoed by Clarence Thomas, a judge's duty is not to decide whether or not a law is wise or fair or even whether it is "uncommonly silly." His duty is just to do what the law says, and let the political branches change it if its silliness or unfairness is manifest.
What does this nomination teach us?
1. Well, elections have consequences. Staying home and pouting that McCain sucked and not voting led to this. Then again, given that Sotomayor got her start as a George H.W. Bush appointee, and that Bush appointed a clown like David Souter to the Supreme Court, there are no guarantees of judicial patriots from RINOs. That is still better than judicial commies from the likes of Obama however.
2. "Empathy" and "Feelings" now trump the Rule Of Law.
3. Nicholas Stix notes that Sotomayor was schooled by the worst of politicized judges, Robert Morganthau.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Memorial Day

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."John 15:13 NIV

Click here for a riveting account of the World War II battle of Tarawa in 1943, as told by the late Gil Ferguson, who, at age 19, survived the battle, and later served 10 years for pro-family, conservative values in the California Assembly. Tarawa was the first US amphibious assault against a defended beachhead. Victory here came at the price of 3,000 dead or wounded U.S. Marines.

Friday, May 22, 2009

US to Expand Immigration Checks to Local Jails‏?

At first, the Washington Post article made me think that I have to give the Obamunists credit where credit is due:

The Obama administration is expanding a program initiated by President George W.
Bush aimed at checking the immigration status of virtually every person booked into local jails. In four years, the measure could result in a tenfold increase in illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and identified for deportation, current and former U.S. officials said.
But upon reading further, I find that:

The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforcement, current and former executive branch officials said. It comes as the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress vow to crack down on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, rather than those who otherwise abide by the law.
In other words, the Bush administration WAS deporting illegals as illegals, and the Obamunists just intend to deport those who are illegals and commit other felonies too? In other words, Amnesty! Oh boy!

Or does it really? Since:

But even some supporters of the program wonder whether it can be implemented smoothly and whether there will be sufficient funding. A surge in deportation cases, noted Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of homeland security for policy, would require more prosecutors, immigration judges, detention beds and other resources.
Wait a minute, I thought the article said the Obama administration would be more selective? So which is it? Way to muddle the issue, Washington Post!

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Nancy Pelosi--dishonest

The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:
The person who is No. 3 in line to be commander in chief can't have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation. America can't afford it.

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this: If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide and proclaim publicly that you were a criminal, even though she previously approved of what you were doing in private, if she needed to appease her leftist voting bloc?

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn't political -- SHE may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way...But this isn't just about politics. It's about much more than that. It's about national security.

At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques -- specifically "waterboarding" -- on captured al Qaeda terrorists.

Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used. At last week's press conference she went beyond this position to assert, "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."

In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated, "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'" To his credit, Panetta is honest.

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory: Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?

If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA's, Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself. She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it. Not good, but not disqualifying.

But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory. Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her -- misled Congress -- and not just once, but routinely.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.

And with that allegation, refuted by Leon Panetta among many others, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.

And the question that remains is why? Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?

Perhaps it's because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented to waterboarding, fully informed and without complaint, back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is:
The Left's attempt to dishonestly smear its political opponents.

If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 -- just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet believed! -- then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks (in other words, the Bush Administration policy) is vindicated.

But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of "ignorance". She didn't know... so she claims. THAT'S why she didn't do anything about it.

But President Bush did know. It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.

It was Nancy Pelosi's job to know too. But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she's now telling us she didn't know. And she's calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Gay Leftists Bash Carrie Prejean

I thought about this during the recent flap over Carrie Prejean's (Miss California) answer to a loaded question from a nasty little scumbag who goes by the pseudonym Perez Hilton - one of the judges in the Miss USA pageant. It's not just that a question about gay "marriage" would have been unthinkable in a Miss USA contest not that long ago, it was an outrageous question even in today's upside-down America.

What in the world does anyone's personal opinion about gay marriage have to do with being a worthy Miss USA? Obviously, nothing. So, why did this Hilton character pose the question to Ms. Prejean? Because, having taken control of the body politic in Washington, the Demunist Commiecrats are feeling their oats. Agree with us, or else, Comrade! Much like a Red Guard youth having to swear his allegiance to Stalin or Mao back in the day of either, having the "right" opinion of gay marriage is a litmus test for liberal Demunists.

As to the gorgeous-times-10 Ms. Prejean, her answer, under enormous pressure, earned her an A+ for poise on my scorecard: "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," she said.

And you know what ... I think ... in my country ... in my family ... I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.
Would it have been possible for her to be any nicer ... any more tactful ... and still have the courage to say what she believed in? Now, juxtapose her gracious response to the Barney Frank-like hysterical babble of gay militant Perez Hilton.

Until I saw him in the news, I had never heard of this little creep. In fact, I just now looked him up on the Internet and found that his real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. Converting that to "Perez Hilton" took quite an imagination. Though I would never be one to disparage anyone who calls himself a Hilton, as far as I can tell he is a nobody whose only achievement to date has been to find a way to mingle with minor celebrities.

After he stated, on camera, that Carrie Prejean lost the Miss USA contest because "she's a dumb bitch," the media was all over the story. When Sean Hannity asked her about the remark, Ms. Prejean politely replied that he was obviously a very disturbed individual and that she felt genuinely sorry for him. I believe she meant it. I wish I could be so generous.
I know, waah, the Commiecrats will cry, I'm a "hater". But really, no. Homosexuality, of and by itself, is a yawner.

In fact, I think that I CAN sympathize with the plight of "gay" people. Like anything else that makes a person feel like a outcast, I have to believe that homosexuality has to be the source of an enormous amount of pain and frustration for those saddled with that condition from birth, or came to it as a result of experiences in one's formative years, or whatever (as opposed to those who simply choose to lead a perverse lifestyle). A gay person has a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, the same as anyone else, and I'll stand up and be counted on that every time.

What is distasteful, however, is the in-your-face, hateful attitude of a significant number of "gay" men and women. If only they were smart enough, and secure enough, to just go about their business in private and leave others alone.

But being an integral part of the Commeicrat "progressive" movement, they cannot settle for that. They feel compelled to force others to think as they do. Probably nothing short of outlawing the traditional family will appease them.

After watching Mr. Lavandeira-Hilton-Butthole spew out his hateful remarks, I couldn't help but think about a gay actor, Richard Chamberlain. In his 2004 book "Shattered Love", Chamberlain discusses, in a calm, forthright, dignified manner, the trials and tribulations of his formative years and his coming to grips with his homosexuality. What sticks out in my mind is that he came to realize that his homosexuality was actually a "pretty uninteresting fact."

So you see, Mr. Mario-turned-Perez Butthole, you can be as gay as a "Thorn Bird" if you want, without feeling the need to shove it in everyone's face. Sorry, but your sex life is about as interesting to the rest of us as is Rosie ODonnell's - and interest in her sex life hovers around zero. And whether we - and, for sure, a contestant in a beauty pageant - are against gay marriage is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. And that's the politically incorrect truth.

But none of this will stop the leftist Red Guards. They are furiously digging up dirt on Carrie Prejean. Their latest gambit is to call her "hypocrite" because--gasp--she had cosmetic surgery, namely, lovely breast implants:

Oh, puhleeze, Commiecrats. As if conservative women don't like to look good. Many beauty pageant women have had work done -- nose, lips, cheeks, breasts, buttocks -- and yet there's a rather large firestorm about this particular woman's breast enhancement. I hate to be cynical, but for some reason, I think people are leaking stuff about her -- and the media is eagerly running with those leaks -- because she dared to express an unpopular thought.

Did I say "unpopular thought"? My error. It's the OVERHWELMING majority thought in the country, including the liberal President, but it's unpopular with those who matter, namely, those in the liberal media-political industrial complex. As noted admirer of the female form Perez Hilton said, she's a "dumb bitch," and deserves to be destroyed.

The Commiecrats also want to accuse Carrie Prejean of "hypocrisy" because she modeled lingerie and made racy poses. As if conservative women don't like to feel sexy for themselves, let alone their husbands or boyfriends:

This really is leftist retardation in motion - The Commiecrats make pretend, caricatured standards of what conservatives and patriots care about and then call balls and strikes based on their fantasy.

Oh, but she claims to be a Christian, the leftists simper.

Let me get this straight: for leftists hamster-stuffing, fisting, and buttpiracy is all right? But if a beauty pageant contestant poses semi-topless that’s the heighth of hypocrisy because she’s a Christian? What’s next? Releasing audio of Christian truck drivers who curse? Publishing photos of Christian plumbers who show booty crack? How about surveillance photos of Christians who SKIP church!? Will the hypocrisy never cease?

The reason any conservative’s failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It’s an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being traitors, philanderers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Special Election May 19: VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING

I looked it over, and it is all a crock. Even Props 1D, 1E and 1F, which seem good at first.

NO on Prop. 1A - Tax Hike and Phony Spending Cap

In a state that already has the highest aggregate tax levels in the nation, Proposition 1A would impose the "temporary" sales tax and income tax hike for *another* full year, the increased car tax for another two years, and would continue punishing parents with a pseudo-tax of $210 per child (a two-thirds reduction in the state child tax credit) for another two years.

So these taxes are not even "progressive" (although frankly California has played the "progressive" card so often that businesses that earn the high incomes are progressively leaving the state, making everyone poorer and decreasing revenue as a result).

Prop. 1A is nothing more than a massive tax increase masked as a phony spending limit.

Here’s the year-by-year tax increase if 1A is passed or defeated.

Vote NO on 1A to limit the tax increases on California families. Vote NO to defeat 1A, which will also defeat the $9.3 BILLION “bribe” of Prop. 1B. But most of all, vote NO on 1A to force the Governor and the California Legislature back to the drawing board to make the politically difficult but necessary changes to save us tens of billions of dollars and never raise taxes again. (as you might have guessed, the politically difficult changes involve illegal aliens and stifling unions).

NO on Prop. 1B - Exempts schools from said spending cap

So just when they try to sell you with a phony spending cap in Proposition 1A above, they then turn around and say, "But not for the schools!" The effect of this is to undo the spending cap, as (1) schools are such a massive part of the budget, and (2) funding for a good many infrastructure projects can fall under the schools banner.

Just as Prop. 1A is deceptive and tricky because it doesn’t talk about extending tax increases, Prop. 1B is based on a fundamental deception not adequately explained by the ballot pamphlet.

In 1998, California voters passed Prop. 98 to guarantee K-12 public schools and community colleges at least 40% of the state budget revenues. Yet since revenues are down due to lost income, lost jobs, and depressed property values, the amount of funding to government schools under Prop. 98 has also declined, just like the amount of funding available to anything else.

But the government education unions can't face this fact, so they have taken an odd reading of the law, claiming that the state has to pay back the funds they "lost" the last two fiscal years. This amounts to around $7 BILLION. However, most Prop. 98 experts agree that government schools are NOT entitled to be paid the money now or in the future as a constitutional guarantee.

Yet in order to avoid a lawsuit and avoid negative press relations, the Legislature agreed to place Prop. 1B on the ballot to satisfy the government education unions. But it’s much more money – $9.3 BILLION, not $7 BILLION. This is a very expensive "bribe" just to avoid an unjustified lawsuit. And there would be no education reforms at all in exchange for this money. This is deceptive and wrong, making 1B perhaps the worst proposition on the ballot.

Even if 1B weren’t a "bribe," more money still won’t solve education problems in California. Already, the average cost per pupil exceeds $11,000 for substandard education. A quarter of California public schoolchildren are so uninspired by establishment schools that they drop out. It’s even a bigger problem among blacks and Hispanics where the drop-out rate hovers around 50%. (And again, there's that proverbial elephant in the room called illegal aliens).

California public schools receive more than 40% of the state budget yet have chronic problems: "multicultural" agendas that teach falsehoods when they teach at all, low academic performance, high drop-out rates, lack of accountability, language confusion, negative socialization, sexualization, and violence. In the mid-1960s, California had an admirable public school system and spent $3,000 per pupil in year-2000 inflation adjusted dollars. Now, California taxpayers spend much more for a vastly lower quality of education. Current per-pupil spending statewide averages $11,626, a 27% increase in real, inflation-adjusted terms over the past decade. But all these billions of dollars aren't meeting the academic needs of children. And still, the well-moneyed government employee unions continue to call for more spending and higher taxes, which shouldn't even be considered when public school enrollment is declining.

NO on Prop. 1C - Lottery Manipulation

Prop. 1C would put Californians in greater debt and greatly expand gambling. This measure borrows $5 BILLION against future lottery sales and would immediately spend all of it in an attempt to decrease the budget deficit – without slashing billions of dollars in anything. Even worse, 1C allows unlimited future borrowing – without cutting anything.

Prop. 1C was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature to enable it to continue its foolish overspending instead implementing substantial structural reforms. If 1C passes, all of the $5 BILLION borrowed from the lottery fund would be spent in one fiscal year beginning in July. But these funds would have to be paid back with interest, increasing taxpayer debt. 1C is risky because it’s unknown whether the state can pay back this debt and avoid digging an ever bigger financial hole. Interest rates are low for the moment, but with inflationary "stimulus" pressures, will that remain the case?

Our school system receives around $1.1 BILLION each year from lottery funds. Yet, under Prop. 1C, these payments won’t be paid from the lottery fund but from the deficit-ridden state general fund. But where will this $1.1 BILLION per year – in addition to the $50 BILLION or so every year in Prop. 98 funds, plus the $9.3 BILLION in Prop. 1B funds – come from? It’s time for our state government to cut up the credit card and slash spending just like families and businesses have had to do. Vote “no” on Prop. 1C.

NO on Prop. 1D - Fund juggling (Children's Services) -- although not so bad

Prop. 1D started off as a good idea – to pay down the state budget deficit by billions in surplus money from Prop. 10 (Rob Reiner's cigarette tax from 1998 to fund big-government “universal childcare”). But in the legislative process, the idea of using the money to pay down debt was scuttled in lieu of diverting only $340 million in immediate funds. In the final analysis, 1D doesn’t do very much except to co-dependently enable the state government’s overspending problem.

Prop. 1D would instead use a portion of these funds – $340 million now and then $268 million a year for the next four years – to spend on “children’s programs” in the state general fund. In the big picture, Prop. 1D only takes a little bit of wasted funds and gives it to the irresponsible California Legislature. To vote “yes” on 1D would be to endorse the Legislature’s irresponsibility and fake reform. To vote “no” on 1D is to say you know better and aren’t going to facilitate any more dysfunction. Vote “no” on Prop. 1D.

NO on Prop. 1E - Fund juggling (Mental Health) -- although not so bad

Prop. 1E is similar to 1D, and admittedly is better. Instead of slashing wasteful spending, the Legislature is proposing Prop. 1E to divert $230 million a year for two years from Proposition 63 (a 1% surtax on millionaires from 2004 to fund children’s mental health programs) to offset general fund debt. Mind you, paying down debt is good, but like Prop. 1D, this is too little, too late. Prop. 1E allows unsustainable, wasteful government to continue instead of reforming. Vote “no” on 1E.

NO on Prop. 1F - Pay Raises -- although not so bad

At first, this sounds just great. Prop. 1F says California state elected officials can’t get a raise in pay during a deficit year. It sounds good, but this “cure” is actually worse than the problem.

Proposition 1F was placed on the ballot by the Legislature to help a couple of legislators -- Republicans at that -- feel better about violating their promises not to raise taxes. (yes, Abel Maldonado and Mike Villines, I'm referring to you two). This ridiculous waste of ballot space allowed these legislators, among others, to pretend that they got something in return for supporting large tax increases.

Proposition 1F does not really change anything. It prohibits constitutional officers and legislators from receiving pay raises in deficit years. The salaries for these elected officials are set by the California Citizens Compensation Commission (not the Legislature), and that Commission has never increased salaries in a deficit year anyway.

Proposition 1F does not even accomplish what it pretends to do. Pay increases, when they are authorized by the Commission, do not take effect until after the next election. So they are not likely to have any influence on any legislator’s vote.

I share the outrage that many voters have toward our state’s dysfunctional budget process. I do not believe that "deficit years" should be allowed to exist at all, since our spending should decline whenever revenues decline. However, Proposition 1F does nothing to improve that situation. All it does it allow a few legislators to pretend that they got something valuable in return for breaking their campaign promises. We get to pay tens of billions of dollars in new taxes while they brag that future legislators might not get raises, maybe.

I urge a "NO" vote on Proposition 1F. First, 1F’s goal is to apply pain to legislators and the Governor to get them to balance the budget. But 1F doesn’t have the teeth to motivate the legislators. The majority of them primarily get their power from the unions, and that money will continue to be their “security.”

The current salary for nearly all legislators is $116,208. Yet in the last 10 years, the California Citizens Compensation Commission has only increased pay a few times.

Prop. 1F is a tortured and tricky way to try to make you think the California Legislature is interested in reforming itself, which it is not.


Turnout was low, but those who turned out essentially told the Demunist Commiecrats and RINO Republicans like Ah-nold to get lost. I must say, I am heartened by the results of yesterday's election. The faux reform propositions were rejected and Proposition 1F, the one symbolic F-U to the legislature, passed. (I opposed that because it was symbolic, but the results are great anyway). I don't know if we just got lucky and dodged a bullet or if this has greater implications vis-a-vis voter attitudes in 2010 as regards government spending and overreach.