Sarah Palin facebook.palin We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.
We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.
I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.
We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.
But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all. Read more
Friday, January 27, 2012
U.S. Union Rate at Record Low in 2011 and Falling
Government Cuts Kept U.S. Union Rate at Record Low in 2011
businesswk The rate of union membership in the U.S. fell to a record low in 2011 for a second-straight year, as a loss of government jobs partially offset a rise in private- sector employees, the Labor Department said.
Labor unions represented 6.9 percent of employees in private companies, unchanged from 2010 and down from 7.2 percent in 2009, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate in the public sector was 37 percent.
The total union membership rate -- reflecting both public and private-sector workers -- was 11.8 percent, down from 11.9 percent in 2010. The number of unionized workers went up by about 50,000, to 14.8 million.
“We may have reached a level where the union numbers simply can’t decline anymore, but if you’re not expanding, how can you call yourself a movement?” Gary Chaison, a labor professor at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, said in a telephone interview. “Unions simply can’t make any gains in the private sector because it’s so expensive to organize. In the public sector, the layoffs of teachers and firefighters are really where the labor movement is hurting.”
Workers in education, training and library occupations had the highest unionization rate, the Labor Department said. Among states, New York again had the highest union membership rate at 24 percent, while North Carolina had the lowest, at 2.9 percent. The report also showed the average weekly earnings of union workers was $938, while non-union workers were paid $729.
In 1983, the first year the agency collected the data, 20.1 percent of the U.S. workforce and 16.8 percent of company workers were members of a union.
The number of private-sector workers who are represented by a union rose to 7.2 million from 7.1 million last year, while in the public sector it fell 61,000 to 7.6 million. Read more
VIDEO--The 3 Obama Years-- Look Familiar?
As you will see in the video, back Then the US built things, BIG things,trains, tall buildings, lots of manufacturing. People worked hard to buy a houses, raise kids, soldiers fought long wars and came home to no jobs.The 20s look alot like 2012 and that was 90 Years ago!
Nothing is getting better,3 years.These depression pictures dont look that different than some parts of todays America. SHAW
Labels:
the obama years
VIDEO--Obama: Bush is the Food Stamp President, Not Me!
STILL BUSH'S FAULT. Obama: Bush is the Food Stamp President, Not Me!
Labels:
obama food stamp pres
Photo, story--Rep. Barney Frank to Marry Longtime Partner
yahoo.miga Retiring Rep. Barney Frank, a gay pioneer in Congress, said Thursday that he will marry his longtime partner, Jim Ready.
Frank spokesman Harry Gural said the liberal Massachusetts Democrat's wedding will be in his home state, but that no date had been set.
Ready, 42, lives in Ogunquit, Maine. He has a small business doing custom awnings, carpentry, painting, welding and other general handyman services, Gural said. Ready is also a photographer. The two men have been together since spring 2007.
Frank was attending a retreat Thursday with other House Democrats on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
During an appearance on PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show" earlier this month, Frank said he was looking forward to leaving Congress and spending time with Ready.
"Look, I have a partner now, Jim Ready; I have an emotional attachment. I'm in love for the first time in my life," Frank said on the show.
Labels:
barney frank
Meet the Political Cash Bundlers
Republican candidates should name all of their bundlers
WExamEd: Meet the bundlers.
For that reason, federal campaign finance law requires full disclosure for registered lobbyists who bundle donations for campaigns. After all, lobbyists stand out as the clear beneficiaries of our current system of strictly limited contributions to candidates. Their clients make for ready-made and easily accessible donor lists, full of wealthy people who may have something to gain from government and ample interest in political giving. It makes sense that the disclosure of registered lobbyists' names be mandatory.
But disclosure for all other bundlers is optional. And, as advocates of transparency in politics and government, we are disappointed that the Republican candidates for president have opted against it. For one thing, the concept of a "non-lobbyist lobbyist" is becoming familiar even to Americans outside the Beltway during this presidential campaign. Washington political operatives are well aware that Newt Gingrich IS NOT the only one. Read more
WExamEd: Meet the bundlers.
They are usually wealthy campaign supporters with social or business connections to many similarly situated friends. Their job is to solicit political donations from these friends and colleagues, and then to deliver the funds to a chosen candidate.No person can donate more than $5,000 to a campaign (primary and general election combined), but bundlers can take credit for corralling maximum donations from dozens or even hundreds of donors. When bundlers dial their numbers, senators, representatives and presidential candidates in both parties take their calls.
For that reason, federal campaign finance law requires full disclosure for registered lobbyists who bundle donations for campaigns. After all, lobbyists stand out as the clear beneficiaries of our current system of strictly limited contributions to candidates. Their clients make for ready-made and easily accessible donor lists, full of wealthy people who may have something to gain from government and ample interest in political giving. It makes sense that the disclosure of registered lobbyists' names be mandatory.
But disclosure for all other bundlers is optional. And, as advocates of transparency in politics and government, we are disappointed that the Republican candidates for president have opted against it. For one thing, the concept of a "non-lobbyist lobbyist" is becoming familiar even to Americans outside the Beltway during this presidential campaign. Washington political operatives are well aware that Newt Gingrich IS NOT the only one. Read more
VIDEO--MSNBC's Maddow: Drudge 'the Republican Party's home page'
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow dubbed Drudge Report "the Republican Party's home page," and thus the internet-equivalent of television's Fox News Channel, as a means of arguing that the Republican establishment opposes Newt Gingrich while foolishly supporting Mitt Romney.
"Drudge is essentially the Republican home page," Maddow said, showing a screen-grab of today's Drudge Report while discussing Drudge's series of negative stories about Gingrich, such as the CNN story that Gingrich admitted he made a false statement whie rebuking John King in the debate earlier this week. "Again, this is basically the Republican Party's homepage," Maddow emphasized.
Maddow argued that, even though she thinks Gingrich is "wacky," the Republican candidate has some compelling attacks on Romney that should cause "establishment" Republicans to hesitate before supporting Romney.
Labels:
drudge page,
fox news channel,
mitt romney
Santorum wins Debate, but Romney beats Newt
wexam.klein A week ago tonight, Newt Gingrich slapped down CNN's John King, who cowered when asking the former House speaker about his ex-wife's claim that he had requested an "open marriage." But tonight, Gingrich experienced the John King-moment in reverse as moderator Wolf Blitzer refused to back down when Gingrich tried to weasel out of talking about Mitt Romney's tax returns and offshore investments, reminding the former House Speaker that it was he himself who raised the issue by making the comments.
Though that Blitzer exchange may have been the starkest example of how Gingrich flopped tonight,
it wasn't the only bad moment for him. He came under heavy attack from a much more aggressive and effective Romney, who dominated Gingrich from the very first question on immigration.
At another point, Gingrich showed his "zany" side when he provided a detailed defense of why he supports building a lunar colony and granting it a path to statehood once 13,000 people move there. Romney joked that if anybody in business ever proposed such an idea, he'd fire them.
If it were for these moments alone, Romney would have been the clear winner of the debate. But there were at least two problematic moments for him. The first came when he claimed to have never seen an anti-Gingrich attack ad that actually ends with him approving the message.
And the second, much more significant moment, was when Rick Santorum scorched him on his health care record.
Santorum didn't just offer a grazing attack of Romneycare like many other candidates have in prior debates. He got very specific. He noted that it was top-down government control -- from the mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance to the expansion of Medicaid. And when Romney tried to wiggle away, and defended the individual mandate making the same arguments as President Obama, Santorum pinned him down, explaining all the problems with the health care system in Massachusetts under the law. Romney's response to Santorum's passionate case against government-run health care was to say, “It’s not worth getting angry about,”
So overall, Santorum won the debate if we're looking at it in a vacuum. But if we're looking at it from the perspective of what happens in Florida Tuesday, I think Romney staved off the possibility of a late Gingrich surge there, and will likely win the state. Full Article
Though that Blitzer exchange may have been the starkest example of how Gingrich flopped tonight,
it wasn't the only bad moment for him. He came under heavy attack from a much more aggressive and effective Romney, who dominated Gingrich from the very first question on immigration.
At another point, Gingrich showed his "zany" side when he provided a detailed defense of why he supports building a lunar colony and granting it a path to statehood once 13,000 people move there. Romney joked that if anybody in business ever proposed such an idea, he'd fire them.
If it were for these moments alone, Romney would have been the clear winner of the debate. But there were at least two problematic moments for him. The first came when he claimed to have never seen an anti-Gingrich attack ad that actually ends with him approving the message.
And the second, much more significant moment, was when Rick Santorum scorched him on his health care record.
Santorum didn't just offer a grazing attack of Romneycare like many other candidates have in prior debates. He got very specific. He noted that it was top-down government control -- from the mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance to the expansion of Medicaid. And when Romney tried to wiggle away, and defended the individual mandate making the same arguments as President Obama, Santorum pinned him down, explaining all the problems with the health care system in Massachusetts under the law. Romney's response to Santorum's passionate case against government-run health care was to say, “It’s not worth getting angry about,”
So overall, Santorum won the debate if we're looking at it in a vacuum. But if we're looking at it from the perspective of what happens in Florida Tuesday, I think Romney staved off the possibility of a late Gingrich surge there, and will likely win the state. Full Article
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Limbaugh: Gingrich Was 'Premier Defender' of Reagan
newmx Recalling how candidate and President Ronald Reagan was relentlessly attacked in the mainstream media in the early 1980s, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on Thursday detailed the myriad attacks now being launched against GOP candidate Newt Gingrich.
He also detailed how Gingrich personally led the defense of Reagan in the early 1980s, before the advent of conservative talk radio and Fox News.
Gingrich, Limbaugh recalled, organized a group of young Republican representatives who would take to the floor of the House at night and muster a detailed defense of Reagan and his policies when many in the Republican establishment were turning their backs or refusing to defend the Reagan record.
Specifically, Limbaugh said:
“I first heard of Newt Gingrich when he was perhaps the premier defender of Ronald Reagan. This was in the early 1980s; of course, Reagan assumed office in 1981.”
- “Newt had appointed himself the personal defender of Ronald Reagan and had appointed himself the singular person with his buddies to counter all of what he thought were the lies of the day being spouted by the media and the Democrats.”
- "It was everything you wish was happening today, is all I can tell you. It was everything you wish the entire Republican Party was doing today. It was led by Newt Gingrich, and what was he doing? He was defending Reagan. Now, all of this stuff that hit Drudge and everywhere else last night about Newt telling everybody the country goes to hell if they continue Reaganism and that Newt insulted Reagan and that the Reagan administration failed and Iran-Contra... I never heard any of that. I started doing this particular program in Sacramento in 1984, and I was just as immersed in national politics then as I am now, and I could honestly tell you this.”
- "Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker and a couple of others that were members of what was called the Conservative Opportunity Society, I don't know that it had been named as such yet, but it was a bunch of young, relatively new members of the House on the Republican side who were conservatives. They had special orders every night. Once the House had finished its official business, as long as somebody shows up on the floor of the House to speak, the cameras on C-SPAN stay on. It didn't matter that nobody else was in the House chamber. They stayed on until the last person left the floor."
Limbaugh was responding to a series of media hit pieces on Gingrich that appear online today representing an apparent “coordinated attack” on the Republican presidential candidate in the days leading up to Florida’s primary election.
Limbaugh cited the blog of Greg Sargent of The Plum Line, who wrote a story titled “Romney paints Gingrich as mentally unstable,” as well as a headline on the Drudge Report proclaiming, “Gingrich reportedly insulted Reagan.” He also denounced an article by Elliott Abrams of the National Review.
“I hope that Elliott Abrams and [American Spectator chief] Bob Tyrrell and the rest of them will have just as much fire against Obama as they do Newt. I hope that we see this same kind of focused opposition to Obama once that day comes. I really do.”Read more on Newsmax.com: Limbaugh: Gingrich Was 'Premier Defender' of Reagan
VIDEO-Sen.Jim DeMint Evaluates the GOP Candidates
The VIDEO--Sen Jim DeMint Evaluates the GOP Candidates can be seen in SHAWS VIDEO ROW just to the right of this post.
Video Link-- http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/22/exp-sotu-demint-pt1-1-20.cnn?iref=allsearch
Labels:
Sen Jim DeMint
2 VIDEOs--Special Forces, Black Helicopters, LADP exercises over LA
Military, LAPD fly practice missions over L.A.
YOU TUBE LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoUF2sU1HjM&feature=player_embedded
SHAW-- The military and the police are conducting special forces exercises so they can be ready for problems in an urban environment. Traing in Cities as big as LA , Boston, Miami. These exercises as you can see in 2 videos involve helicopers and many, many, TANKS. Every terror attack in the US has been by one to 4 men. To use many tanks and groups of helicopters suggest these forces will be ready to control millions of people. Either we are going to be invaded by an army of terrorists or these forces will control another large group of people........
SHAW_ I couldnt secure another video of this event, that is well worth seeing, but you can click on this link http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/lapd-and-special-forces-conduct-military-maneuvers-in-the-skies-above-downtown-la/
Similar military exercises have been conducted in and over Miami and Boston.
cbslocal The Los Angeles Police Department teamed with military special operation forces Wednesday evening to conduct multi-agency tactical exercises in the skies above downtown LA.
Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as Black Hawk helicopters and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.
Someone could be seen sitting inside an open chopper with his legs hanging off the side.
Sky9 spotted the Black Hawk in the dark, making what appeared to be a drop off at a park before quickly ascending back into the air.
Throughout the exercise, the five rotorcrafts were staged at Dodgers Stadium.
The LAPD said the purpose of the training was in part to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments.
Chief Warrant Officer David Duran was a U.S. Army aviator for 12 years. He now flies Blackhawk helicopters for the National Guard in California. Duran says what KCAL9 saw Wednesday night could be a dry run for a future mission. More
YOU TUBE LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoUF2sU1HjM&feature=player_embedded
SHAW-- The military and the police are conducting special forces exercises so they can be ready for problems in an urban environment. Traing in Cities as big as LA , Boston, Miami. These exercises as you can see in 2 videos involve helicopers and many, many, TANKS. Every terror attack in the US has been by one to 4 men. To use many tanks and groups of helicopters suggest these forces will be ready to control millions of people. Either we are going to be invaded by an army of terrorists or these forces will control another large group of people........
SHAW_ I couldnt secure another video of this event, that is well worth seeing, but you can click on this link http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/lapd-and-special-forces-conduct-military-maneuvers-in-the-skies-above-downtown-la/
Similar military exercises have been conducted in and over Miami and Boston.
cbslocal The Los Angeles Police Department teamed with military special operation forces Wednesday evening to conduct multi-agency tactical exercises in the skies above downtown LA.
Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as Black Hawk helicopters and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.
Someone could be seen sitting inside an open chopper with his legs hanging off the side.
Sky9 spotted the Black Hawk in the dark, making what appeared to be a drop off at a park before quickly ascending back into the air.
Throughout the exercise, the five rotorcrafts were staged at Dodgers Stadium.
The LAPD said the purpose of the training was in part to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments.
Chief Warrant Officer David Duran was a U.S. Army aviator for 12 years. He now flies Blackhawk helicopters for the National Guard in California. Duran says what KCAL9 saw Wednesday night could be a dry run for a future mission. More
Gingrich Repeatedly Insulted President Reagan
| GINGRICH and REAGAN |
natrev.abrams In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.
The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.
But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.
But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





