I've been disturbed about President Obama's attempts to simply "silence" anybody in the media who may dare to question him, or, worse yet (GASP!) - - DISAGREE with him.
He still has this very inconvenient thing called The United States Constitution, and the First Amendment, that prohibits him from entirely shutting-down the media he doesn't like.
But recall that, during the presidential campaign, when a local TV news anchor in Florida dared to ask VP nominee Joe Biden if the Obama/Biden economic plans were intended to make the U.S. more like a European socialist state, the campaign made it clear afterwards that the particular television station involved would "never again" have access to either candidates Obama and Biden, nor President Obama and Vice President Biden.
Now, in less that 7 weeks as President, Obama and his "team" have taken to personally attacking no less than three American media personalities who have dared to question or disagree. The White House plan to attack Rush Limbaugh is well known. But financial talk show host Jim Cramer of CNBC television (who is definetly non-political on his show) has been a target of the President, and so has CNBC TV's Rick Santelli (details HERE).
Cramer has offered his own response to the White House, and you can read it HERE.
But the really bad news here is that the President of the United States is behaving like the Dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Read the story of Dictator Chavez "cracking down" on media in his country that dares to question or disagree with him (story HERE) - - and consider the differences between Obama and Chavez.
The only thing standing in the way of Obama "going all the way Chavez" is the United States Constitution - - an "old, antiquated document" that has very little relevance to many Americans today
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Awakening The Welfare Recipient Within...
For millions of my fellow Americans, President Barack Obama is awakening the welfare recipient within.
Perhaps it’s his dulcet-toned voice. Maybe it’s his charming personality. Whatever the reason, it appears that in the era of Obama, millions of Americans have discovered that there is a welfare recipient deep within them.
For some Americans, an inner welfare recipient is not news. Yet for others, this seems to be a new discovery, and Washington’s invitation (which in some cases is a demand) to feast at the public trough is not only irresistible, it is as welcomed as a cup of cool, refreshing water.
To be certain, those with an inner welfare recipient comprise a diverse bunch. It includes highly paid corporate executives who, having managed their companies into failure, and not only welcome but demand welfare, lest they have to experience the consequences of their management.
It includes state Governors who without hesitation disavow responsibility for leading their state into deficits, blame it all on “the recession,” and now welcome the life-saving federal welfare to “close the budget gap.” Included here is the never-girly-man-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who, with California teetering on bankruptcy, instinctively sang praises to Obama for providing “relief,” and then implemented yet another crushing tax hike on the citizenry (note to Arnold: your state’s economy has long been lauded as “the sixth largest economy in the world,” but during your tenure it has slipped to number nine - - how girly-man is that?).
It includes people who purchased more of a house than they could afford, and now can’t make their house payments. It even includes Americans whose home is worth less than what they owe on their mortgage, and, while they can still make the payments, gosh darn, it just seems so “unfair” to have to keep your commitments in a situation like that…
It includes Americans who need condoms and digital tv converter boxes and environmentally friendly golf carts and tattoo removal and “cricket control” and childcare and “the arts” - - and don’t want the burden of paying for these things themselves.
In the short time since the current Congress convened and President Obama took the oath of office in January, we’ve seen lots of our scarce, hard-earned dollars allotted for things that awaken the welfare recipient within. Millions, billions, trillions - - who can really keep track of just how many of our dollars have been spent? President Obama and the Congress call this economic “stimulus” spending. But those who will be on the receiving end of these expenditures understand that, in reality, it is the welfare recipient within that is truly stimulated.
I, for one, am unable to relate to any of this. I was abused by my Great Depression-era Parents who indoctrinated me with the idea that independence and self-reliance were the means to a good life, and that there is a level of “shame” entailed in being a welfare recipient. But thank God Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina was on hand to set me straight, noting that it can actually be shameful to NOT be the recipient of government welfare. In fact, Congressman Clyburn went so far as to say that if South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford were to refuse federal welfare for his state, that act alone might even be deemed “racist.”
My only hope is that there are others in America who are like me, and believe that cultivating an inner welfare recipient is something to be avoided. Obviously, I’m out of step with the “values” of Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin and James Clyburn and Chuck Schumer - - heck, I’m even out of step with those family -oriented “Utah values” of Harry Reid.
But last week, After President Obama’s address to the nation, Michael Maslansky of the Luntz-Maslansky Strategic Research firm in Virginia conducted a poll. He discovered that there is now a new divide that has emerged in our country, a divide even greater than that between Republicans and Democrats. He calls it the “responsibility divide,” a philosophical distinction between those who, to use my terms, “have an inner welfare recipient,” and those who believe that our government has now begun to enable other people’s irresponsible behavior.
It’s not clear yet as to which category is greater in number - - those who embrace the welfare state, and those dull, boring, mean-spirited, humorless folks like me who are responsibility advocates.
But the era of Obama has now been defined, and the lines have now been drawn. And as more of our fellow Americans discover their inner welfare recipient, watch for the “responsibility divide” to get even bigger.
Perhaps it’s his dulcet-toned voice. Maybe it’s his charming personality. Whatever the reason, it appears that in the era of Obama, millions of Americans have discovered that there is a welfare recipient deep within them.
For some Americans, an inner welfare recipient is not news. Yet for others, this seems to be a new discovery, and Washington’s invitation (which in some cases is a demand) to feast at the public trough is not only irresistible, it is as welcomed as a cup of cool, refreshing water.
To be certain, those with an inner welfare recipient comprise a diverse bunch. It includes highly paid corporate executives who, having managed their companies into failure, and not only welcome but demand welfare, lest they have to experience the consequences of their management.
It includes state Governors who without hesitation disavow responsibility for leading their state into deficits, blame it all on “the recession,” and now welcome the life-saving federal welfare to “close the budget gap.” Included here is the never-girly-man-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who, with California teetering on bankruptcy, instinctively sang praises to Obama for providing “relief,” and then implemented yet another crushing tax hike on the citizenry (note to Arnold: your state’s economy has long been lauded as “the sixth largest economy in the world,” but during your tenure it has slipped to number nine - - how girly-man is that?).
It includes people who purchased more of a house than they could afford, and now can’t make their house payments. It even includes Americans whose home is worth less than what they owe on their mortgage, and, while they can still make the payments, gosh darn, it just seems so “unfair” to have to keep your commitments in a situation like that…
It includes Americans who need condoms and digital tv converter boxes and environmentally friendly golf carts and tattoo removal and “cricket control” and childcare and “the arts” - - and don’t want the burden of paying for these things themselves.
In the short time since the current Congress convened and President Obama took the oath of office in January, we’ve seen lots of our scarce, hard-earned dollars allotted for things that awaken the welfare recipient within. Millions, billions, trillions - - who can really keep track of just how many of our dollars have been spent? President Obama and the Congress call this economic “stimulus” spending. But those who will be on the receiving end of these expenditures understand that, in reality, it is the welfare recipient within that is truly stimulated.
I, for one, am unable to relate to any of this. I was abused by my Great Depression-era Parents who indoctrinated me with the idea that independence and self-reliance were the means to a good life, and that there is a level of “shame” entailed in being a welfare recipient. But thank God Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina was on hand to set me straight, noting that it can actually be shameful to NOT be the recipient of government welfare. In fact, Congressman Clyburn went so far as to say that if South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford were to refuse federal welfare for his state, that act alone might even be deemed “racist.”
My only hope is that there are others in America who are like me, and believe that cultivating an inner welfare recipient is something to be avoided. Obviously, I’m out of step with the “values” of Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin and James Clyburn and Chuck Schumer - - heck, I’m even out of step with those family -oriented “Utah values” of Harry Reid.
But last week, After President Obama’s address to the nation, Michael Maslansky of the Luntz-Maslansky Strategic Research firm in Virginia conducted a poll. He discovered that there is now a new divide that has emerged in our country, a divide even greater than that between Republicans and Democrats. He calls it the “responsibility divide,” a philosophical distinction between those who, to use my terms, “have an inner welfare recipient,” and those who believe that our government has now begun to enable other people’s irresponsible behavior.
It’s not clear yet as to which category is greater in number - - those who embrace the welfare state, and those dull, boring, mean-spirited, humorless folks like me who are responsibility advocates.
But the era of Obama has now been defined, and the lines have now been drawn. And as more of our fellow Americans discover their inner welfare recipient, watch for the “responsibility divide” to get even bigger.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
President Obama and "Only Government"
It was a rough press conference, to say the least.
President Obama was questioned about more bizarre remarks made by his own Vice President, and he seemed to laugh right along with the reporters in the room, as they were laughing at Biden.
More importantly, and more tragically, President Obama continued with his apocalyptic rhetoric about what will, necessarily, happen to the United States economy, if American citizens don't fully embrace (and the United States Congress doesn't pass) the big government giveaway bill, jokingly referred to as "the economic stimulus bill."
More alarming, still, was his insistence that - - to use his words - - "only government" can break the recession (read the details HERE).
No reference to the hard work and productivity of the American worker.
No reference to the job creation brought about from investors who take risks with their money and build business that employ others.
No reference to the fact that, even in an economic downturn, the wondrous American economy still produces a greater GDP than any other nation - - greater than that of China, a country with three times the population of the U.S.
Last fall, I published a national column about the similarities on economic ideas, between then-Senator Obama, and Mr. Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
Drawing from research compiled by Investor's Business Daily, I specified how Senator Obama's plans for the United States economy mirrored the proposals put forth by his communist father, while he was working for the government of Kenya back in the early 1960's.
Worse still, Senator Obama's socialistic ideas were seemingly being embraced by the American people. Yet the plans put forth by his communist father were resoundingly rejected by the Kenyan government, because Kenya was actually undergoing a pro-Western, free-market revolution, and Mr. Obama's socialistic ideas were considered to be a "step backwards" from where Kenya really needed to go.
In fact, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s plans were so extreme, he actually was fired from his job in the government of Kenya.
But President Barack Obama knows with certainty that "ONLY GOVERNMENT" can save the United States from the current recession.
It's been said that each new generation must, in some cases, learn the same lessons over and over again.
But must each new U.S. President learn - - on-the-job, no less - - how and why the U.S. economy works, while third-world economies do not?
"Change" is underway, and it's going to be a rough ride. Stay tuned. And stay vigilant.
President Obama was questioned about more bizarre remarks made by his own Vice President, and he seemed to laugh right along with the reporters in the room, as they were laughing at Biden.
More importantly, and more tragically, President Obama continued with his apocalyptic rhetoric about what will, necessarily, happen to the United States economy, if American citizens don't fully embrace (and the United States Congress doesn't pass) the big government giveaway bill, jokingly referred to as "the economic stimulus bill."
More alarming, still, was his insistence that - - to use his words - - "only government" can break the recession (read the details HERE).
No reference to the hard work and productivity of the American worker.
No reference to the job creation brought about from investors who take risks with their money and build business that employ others.
No reference to the fact that, even in an economic downturn, the wondrous American economy still produces a greater GDP than any other nation - - greater than that of China, a country with three times the population of the U.S.
Last fall, I published a national column about the similarities on economic ideas, between then-Senator Obama, and Mr. Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
Drawing from research compiled by Investor's Business Daily, I specified how Senator Obama's plans for the United States economy mirrored the proposals put forth by his communist father, while he was working for the government of Kenya back in the early 1960's.
Worse still, Senator Obama's socialistic ideas were seemingly being embraced by the American people. Yet the plans put forth by his communist father were resoundingly rejected by the Kenyan government, because Kenya was actually undergoing a pro-Western, free-market revolution, and Mr. Obama's socialistic ideas were considered to be a "step backwards" from where Kenya really needed to go.
In fact, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s plans were so extreme, he actually was fired from his job in the government of Kenya.
But President Barack Obama knows with certainty that "ONLY GOVERNMENT" can save the United States from the current recession.
It's been said that each new generation must, in some cases, learn the same lessons over and over again.
But must each new U.S. President learn - - on-the-job, no less - - how and why the U.S. economy works, while third-world economies do not?
"Change" is underway, and it's going to be a rough ride. Stay tuned. And stay vigilant.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Power Corrupts
As the government hand-out bill is hanging in the balance on Capitol Hill, my latest column from Townhall Dot Com details how quickly President Obama, members of his Adminisration, and members of Congress have abandoned campaign pledges, broken promises, and have embraced their own self-serving agendas, in this new era of "Hope and Change."
The link to the column is HERE
Stay tuned. This is NOT the end of wealth re-distribution in this current Congress. It is ONLY the beginning.
The link to the column is HERE
Stay tuned. This is NOT the end of wealth re-distribution in this current Congress. It is ONLY the beginning.
Friday, January 30, 2009
But If He's Republican, Is He Really "Black?"
Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele has been elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
I think this is great news.
But will Liberal America actually accept him as "truly black?"
Recall that 8 years ago, when Colin Powell was selected to be President Bush's Secretary of State, he was chided as "not really black." But why not? Powell's ancestry traces back to Jamaica, not to American slaves, and that was supposedly why he wasn't regarded as "truly black."
But more realistically, Powell was serving in a Repubplican Administration, and he himself (at the time anyway) was a Republican. And "real black" Americans can't be Republicans, right?
And when it was Condoleeza Rice's turn to be Secretary of State, she got the same treatment. A black person who is a Republican, just isn't "really black."
So what is to come of Michael Steele?
Let's talk about it tonight on the Austin Hill Show.....
www.TheAustinHillShow.Com for streaming audio. Join the show at 1-888-630-WMAL...
I think this is great news.
But will Liberal America actually accept him as "truly black?"
Recall that 8 years ago, when Colin Powell was selected to be President Bush's Secretary of State, he was chided as "not really black." But why not? Powell's ancestry traces back to Jamaica, not to American slaves, and that was supposedly why he wasn't regarded as "truly black."
But more realistically, Powell was serving in a Repubplican Administration, and he himself (at the time anyway) was a Republican. And "real black" Americans can't be Republicans, right?
And when it was Condoleeza Rice's turn to be Secretary of State, she got the same treatment. A black person who is a Republican, just isn't "really black."
So what is to come of Michael Steele?
Let's talk about it tonight on the Austin Hill Show.....
www.TheAustinHillShow.Com for streaming audio. Join the show at 1-888-630-WMAL...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Are You On The Side Of The Republican Party, Or On The Side Of Rush Limbaugh?
Politico Dot Com broke a story late this afternoon indicating that a Republican Congressman, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, has told Rush Limbaugh to "back off."
Over the past two days, Limbaugh has responded to President Obama telling Republican congressional leaders to "stop listening" to his show. Limbaugh has surmised that Obama MAY BE more threatened by himself, than by the Republican leadership in the Congress - - and that doesn't speak well of the Republican congressional leadership.
Limbaugh has also surmised that, in any event, Obama is talking about him, so as to distract people's attention from the real issue - - his huge, "stimulus" spending legislation.
NOW, however, Republican Congressman Gingrey has told Limbaugh to "back off," and claims that Limbaugh, Hannity and "the rest of them" (all us talk show hosts, I guess) don't understand what it is to exhibit leadership in the Congress.
Is he right?
And whose side are you on?
Listen on line at www.TheAustinHillSHow.Com . Join the show at 1-888-630-WMAL.
Over the past two days, Limbaugh has responded to President Obama telling Republican congressional leaders to "stop listening" to his show. Limbaugh has surmised that Obama MAY BE more threatened by himself, than by the Republican leadership in the Congress - - and that doesn't speak well of the Republican congressional leadership.
Limbaugh has also surmised that, in any event, Obama is talking about him, so as to distract people's attention from the real issue - - his huge, "stimulus" spending legislation.
NOW, however, Republican Congressman Gingrey has told Limbaugh to "back off," and claims that Limbaugh, Hannity and "the rest of them" (all us talk show hosts, I guess) don't understand what it is to exhibit leadership in the Congress.
Is he right?
And whose side are you on?
Listen on line at www.TheAustinHillSHow.Com . Join the show at 1-888-630-WMAL.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Is It Time For America To Become A Weaker Country?
President Obama campaigned on a pledge to reduce weaponry in space. Today, Reuters reports that on the President's website, there is a pledge to rid the universe of "weapons" in space....a nice goal, perhaps, but it is difficult to determine what a "weapon" is in space, given that even a weather tracking satellite can be used as a "weapon." If Obama enters into an international agreement, and commits the U.S. to not deploying "weaponry" in space, this would weaken the U.S.
Additionally, President Obama announced plans to allow individual states the freedom to set individual auto emissions standards...which makes it more difficult for an ailing car industry to manufacture cars tailored to more, individualized specifications...which makes the cost of the care rise....
In short, this will weaken the automobile industry.
And of course, last week President Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prision facility.
We seem to be headed on a path of a weaker America, weaker economically, militarily, and otherwise. Could this, perhaps, be the goal?
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright once lamented that America was during the Clinton years (and still is) the world's only remaining "superpower."
Could this lament now be permeating the Obama Administration?
And is it time for us to be "weaker" - - just to make it more fair for the rest of the world?
We'll talk about it tonight on The Austin Hill Show - - 1 - 888 -630-WMAL, if you'd like to join the discussion. Listen at www.TheAustinHillShow.Com
Additionally, President Obama announced plans to allow individual states the freedom to set individual auto emissions standards...which makes it more difficult for an ailing car industry to manufacture cars tailored to more, individualized specifications...which makes the cost of the care rise....
In short, this will weaken the automobile industry.
And of course, last week President Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prision facility.
We seem to be headed on a path of a weaker America, weaker economically, militarily, and otherwise. Could this, perhaps, be the goal?
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright once lamented that America was during the Clinton years (and still is) the world's only remaining "superpower."
Could this lament now be permeating the Obama Administration?
And is it time for us to be "weaker" - - just to make it more fair for the rest of the world?
We'll talk about it tonight on The Austin Hill Show - - 1 - 888 -630-WMAL, if you'd like to join the discussion. Listen at www.TheAustinHillShow.Com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
