American Thinker: “Obama’s Pay Grade Has Gone Up?

Obama’s pay grade has gone up?

Keith Riler

President Obama once opined that pre-born babies, and specifically their humanity, were “above his pay grade.”  Something has changed, possibly his pay grade, because the President recently offered an opinion about the pre-born, specifically about their sexuality.  Just yesterday, our increasingly capable President opined that people are born gay:

 

I don’t think it’s a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love.

 

Based on this assessment, the President has formed his policies about homosexuality.  However, he has thus far abdicated the use of science when forming his abortion funding and abstinence education policies.  Now that pre-born issues are within the President’s pay grade, perhaps the abortion question should be asked again and the President’s relevant policies revisited.

 

President Obama repeatedly extols the use of science over ideology but seems to selectively apply that standard.  There is no doubt about the humanity of a pre-born baby.  A baby’s heart begins beating about 20 days, hiccups begin 52 days, and organs function eight weeks after conception.  There is some developing but inconclusive research about the biological basis for sexual orientation, focused on brain structure, hormones and twins/siblings. The settled science about babies’ humanity influences the President less than the developing science about sexual orientation. Might science simply be a tool in service of the President’s ideology?

 

I also wonder about the President’s application of a pay grade standard that seems to be unusually precise.  Is there really a government pay grade that differentiates between pre-born sexuality and pre-born humanity issues. If there is no such pay grage subtlety, might the President really just be forming policies around his raw ideology?

 

The above article appeared at The American Thinker.

Lutheran Airlines Asks for Your Attention:

The last fifty years of growing Leftwing influence to control the American mind through its rules of political correctness have caused great damage on nearly all fronts of human intercourse.

I was raised Lutheran.  I am no longer “churched”.  But, I have the fondest memories of my Lutheran upbringing.  My synod was less European oriented than other national group Lutherans…German Finnish, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish.  No matter to the rest of the American world all Lutherans were the same and sounded like the Airline Steward in this wonderful touch of humor for me and my Lutheran past and the present in terms of the person I am. 

Please listen to the Airline Steward’s instructions.  You will be warned by the rules of Leftwing American Political Correctness in preview of the listening moments.  Be patient.  Endure our embarrassments of the childishness of the warning,   and never vote for another Leftist again should be the appropriate solution.

Special thanks to Prager fan, Gayle Lackny for sending me this audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATX9xrXVSHQ

Obama “Of Perpetual Virtue” and His Holiness’s Art of Discontent

Article by Peter Wehner at Commentary about the smallness of the president.

“Peter Baker, one of the nation’s finest and fairest political reporters, has written an illuminating story for the New York Times Magazine. “Education of a President” is based on interviews with Barack Obama and a dozen of his advisers.

There are three overriding impression I took away from the piece, beginning with how much events are humbling the president and his top aides. “This is an administration that feels shellshocked,” Baker writes. “Many officials worry, they say, that the best days of the Obama presidency are behind them.” One aide confessed to Baker, “We’re all a lot more cynical now.” In their darkest moments, Baker informs us, “White House aides wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed.”

The second takeaway from Baker’s piece is how the blame for Obama’s failures rests with everyone else. “Washington is even more broken than we thought,” one aide tells Baker. The system “is not on the level” — a phrase commonly used around the West Wing meaning “Republicans, the news media, the lobbyists, the whole Washington culture is not serious about solving problems.” Obama himself says, “Given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right.” (Read: we were too virtuous for our own good.)

The third impression from Baker’s article is the degree of self-pity and moral and intellectual superiority that remains so prevalent in the Obama White House. “The view from inside the administration starts with a basic mantra,” Baker writes. “Obama inherited the worst problems of any president in years. Or in generations. Or in American history.” Obama does little to disguise his disdain for Washington and the conventions of modern politics, Baker writes. He has little patience for what Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, calls “the inevitable theatrics of Washington.” And in his conversation with Baker, Obama used some variation of the phrase “they’re not serious” four times in referring to Republican budget plans. One prominent Democratic lawmaker told Baker that Obama “always believes he is the smartest person in any room.”

The White House, then, is characterized by habitual vanity, rising cynicism, collapsing morale, and increasing resentment toward politics and governing, itself. Having worked in the White House for most of two terms, I understand that life there can present an array of challenges. Still, those working in the Obama White House seem utterly devoid of any enchantment and joy rooted in an appreciation of history — the kind of that that makes working in the White House, even on the worst days, an honor beyond measure.

In writing about Edward Grey, John Buchan told about how he had been the most fortunate of mortals, for he had everything — health, beauty, easy means, a great reputation, innumerable friends. One by one, the sources of his happiness vanished, yet Grey persevered. “Under the buffetings of life he never winced or complained,” Buchan writes, “and the spectacle of his gentle fortitude was . . . an inspiration.”

Later in Pilgrim’s Way, Buchan, in describing himself, says, “I was brought up in times when one was not ashamed to be happy, and I have never learned the art of discontent.”

The White House today seems to be inhabited by people who have learned the art of discontent. Some day, it may dawn on them what a privilege and gift their White House years really were. But by then, the moment”

Comment.  One might think the Obama of Perpetual Virtue at least means well……Maybe, but not when he is campaigning and he feels his opponents are soiling his halo.

This shallow, very shallow man is even more shallow than he let on during his 2008 carefully orchestrated and choreographed dance to the White House.  What do you suppose the voting population expected when they viewed his performances in his Philadelphia “Gettysburg Address”, besmerching his white grandmother, who raised him, for admitting to him she had doubts about black males at times. 

Wow!!!   Just a few moments before in the same “Gettysburg Address” defended his father figure (Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright for his “Goddamn Americs stuff.  

Obamaland would be tolerant…..very tolerant.

Dick Morris: Tea Party Folks Return GOP to Grassroots….Both Support Right Over Wrong

“The coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of fiscal and economic  conservatives, evangelicals, and national-security advocates has always been dominated by the social issues at the grassroots level. While free-market economic conservatives lived in New York and dutifully attended their Club for Growth meetings and national-security types inhabited Washington, the Republican social conservatives dominated the grassroots of the party. They alone could turn out the numbers to rallies and to the polls on primary or Election Day.

Now, all that has changed. It is the fiscal conservatives and free-market supporters who own the Republican streets. Through the Tea Party, they have come to dominate the grassroots of the GOP. It is as if an invisible primary were held for supremacy at the grassroots and the Tea Party won.

And social issues are nowhere on the Tea Party agenda. I recently participated in a conference call with tea-party affiliates throughout the country. During the question period that followed my speech, one leader of a local tea-party group asked a question about abortion. The conference-call leader jumped in before I could answer and ruled the query out of order. “Our priorities are to oppose taxes, support fiscal conservatism, and advance free-market principles,” she scolded the questioner. “We do not take a position on social issues like abortion,” she added.

  

Along with this change has come a shift in what it takes to turn the litmus paper red enough to win Republican primaries. It used to be that abortion, gun control, and gay marriage were the hot-button issues, and anyone straying from orthodoxy was targeted in the primary and handicapped in the general election by a lackluster turnout. Now, a candidate’s social positions rarely even come up. It is fiscal and economic purity that rules the day. Anyone who voted for cap-and-trade is targeted in the primary. And there is no place for a candidate who ever backed a tax increase. Every candidate has to sign the no-tax pledge that Grover Norquist formulated for Americans for Tax Reform.Where Republican politicians were once terrified to move to the left on social issues, they are now more frightened of retribution for departures from fiscal orthodoxy. The once-elitist demands of the Club for Growth are now echoed throughout America by the surging Tea Party movement.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 71 percent of all Republicans regarded themselves as Tea Party supporters, far more than would identify themselves as pro-life or opposed to gay marriage.

This shift in Republican priorities is opening up the way for social moderates and libertarians to back Republican candidates in the 2010 elections. The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the Tea Party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the party and its nominating process.

Ironically, this change in the Republican grassroots has come at a time when abortion is falling into disrepute and larger numbers of Americans report themselves as being pro-life. This swing of voter sentiment might reflect the growth of the evangelical community of believers or simply the aging of the baby-boomer population. But even as the right to lifers move toward a national majority, their clout at the grassroots level of the Republican party is waning.

But despite this growing support for pro-life policies, no Republican candidate is basing his or her insurgency against an incumbent Democratic congressman, senator, or governor on social issues. There are no ads urging the ouster of a Democrat for his pro-choice policies or backing of gay marriage. All the ads and the rhetoric are devoted to fiscal transgressions like support of the stimulus package, the TARP bailout, or Obamacare.

The failure of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to win the GOP nomination in 2008 was, in retrospect, a harbinger of this grassroots shift. Governor Huckabee starred in the Republican debates with his witty sallies against big government and his commonsense folk wisdom. He capitalized on this strong performance to build mighty field organizations in Iowa and other early primary states. He looked like a real contender.

But the attacks on his spending programs in Arkansas by the Club for Growth — often inaccurate or exaggerated — undermined his ability to reach beyond the confines of the evangelical ghetto and doomed his candidacy to a regional one. He won state after state in the South but had trouble making inroads in the northeast. (If Huckabee runs again in 2012, it will be interested to see how his hosting of a weekend show on Fox News will affect his standing.)

But the Tea Party has flourished in all regions, drawing libertarians in the North and evangelicals in the South, all committed to its agenda of reduced spending, limited taxation, balanced budgets, and free-market economics. It is the new mantra of the Republican grassroots and has a lot to do with the massive gains the party will win on November 2.”

  

 Comment:  With the exception of the rise of the Reagan presidency, nothing has been better for the Republican Party in my lifetime than the Tea Party movemeng.  

  

Coastal pundits, especially in the East and sometimes including my heroes such as Charles Krathammer forget that in our democracy, therefore in our Constitution nowhere is it written that rather common folk, including those who have not been annointed with university airs and certitudes are disqualified from running from public office.    Remember, there is more than one insinuation of meaning to the word “common”…..one adulating the ideal of mankind as in the inspiring composition by Aaron Copeland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man”, and the less august connotation of the word when used to cheapen something….as in “Oh, that is so common”…..or “How could you be so common?”

Aaron Copeland’s “Common” rings Ronald Reagan in my ears.   “How could you be so common immediately suggests Barack Hussein Obama on the campaing stump telling lies to win friends……(No, that is worse than common…..It is the Democrat Party.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Continetti Rebuts 5 Myths about Sarah Palin…Persuasively

 Five Myths About Sarah Palin                        by Matthew Continetti…Washington Post

Think you know Sarah Palin? The former Alaska governor has been in the spotlight ever since John McCain named her as his running mate on Aug. 29, 2008. Yet, while practically everybody has an opinion about Palin, not all of those opinions are grounded in reality. Many of them are based more on a “Saturday Night Live” caricature than on the living, breathing, 46-year-old mother of five. The real Sarah Palin is a complex woman who has risen in no time from obscurity to the stratosphere of American politics, fusing celebrity and populism in novel ways. Now that she’s laying the foundation for a possible presidential run in 2012, it’s worth taking a moment to separate the facts about Palin from the fables.

 

1. Palin cost McCain the 2008 election.
She didn’t. CNN’s 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent.

Before Palin’s selection, remember, McCain suffered from an enthusiasm gap. Republicans were reluctant to vote for the senator from Arizona because of his reputation as a maverick who’d countered his party on taxes, immigration, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and “cap and trade” climate legislation. But Palin’s conservative record in Alaska and antiabortion advocacy changed the Republican mood. With her by his side, McCain’s fundraising and support from conservatives improved. It wasn’t enough to beat Barack Obama — but McCain probably would have lost the presidency by a greater margin if he had, say, selected independent Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate, further alienating the GOP base.

Yes, it’s possible that Palin’s conservatism and uneven performance on the campaign trail shifted some voters to Obama’s column. But even if Obama picked up some anti-Palin votes, he surely didn’t need them: The economy was in recession, Wall Street was in meltdown, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. In the end, it’s impossible to know how McCain would have performed if he hadn’t selected Palin — politics does not allow for control experiments.

2. Resigning as governor was rash.

No one expected Palin’s resignation on July 3, 2009, just 2 1/2 years into her term. Her hastily composed and clumsily delivered farewell address left many observers confused about her motives. Some of her critics were only too eager to fill in the gaps with conjecture and hearsay (She’s being investigated by the FBI! Sarah and Todd must be headed for divorce!). If there was one thing everybody knew for sure, it was that Palin’s career in politics was over.

But none of the rumored scandals ever broke. The Palins remain married. And as for Sarah Palin’s career, it’s taken off. She plays a far greater role in American public life than she did before she left office.

When Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, she confronted three problems. The political coalition on which she had based her governorship — a combination of Democrats and renegade “Palinista” Republicans — had collapsed. Her critics were using Alaska’s tough ethics laws to launch investigations into her behavior, sapping her finances and her energy. Finally, every time she traveled to the Lower 48, Alaskans criticized her for putting her political interests above the state’s.

Palin’s solution was to resign. Her agenda stood a better chance of passing if then-Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who shared Palin’s goals, succeeded her as governor. As a private citizen, meanwhile, Palin could make enough money to pay her legal bills. And she would no longer be accused of neglecting her official duties.

Some might say that Palin’s resignation was shortsighted and showed that she was not ready for the demands of executive office. But if Palin had remained governor, she would have been denied opportunities to rally the tea party and fight in the battle over the Obama agenda. She would have been stuck on a regional stage. Instead, she’s back on the national one.

3. Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP.

You’ve heard the spiel: The Republican Party is in the midst of a civil war between moderate incumbents and far-right challengers backed by Palin and the tea party. Driving Charlie Crist from the GOP and defeating establishment figures such as Robert Bennett, Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle spells electoral doom for the party. The only chance Republicans have for long-term success is to move to the center in a bid to win over millennials and Latinos.

But demographics aren’t destiny, and no one knows what the future holds. The reality, right now, is that Palin and the tea party are saving the GOP by dragging it back to its roots and mobilizing conservative voters.

Remember, by the time Palin arrived on the national scene, the Republican Party was depleted, exhausted and held in disrepute. An unpopular war in Iraq, an economy in recession and GOP corruption had driven away independents. Meanwhile, massive government spending and a liberal immigration policy had dispirited conservatives.

This is where Palin came in. In the wake of Obama’s historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn’t. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama’s win, Republicans are poised to reap major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven’t hurt the GOP one bit.

4. Palin is extreme.

On many of the most important issues of the day, Palin holds positions that are squarely in the center-right of American political discourse. And many of those positions, not incidentally, are held by a large segment or even a majority of the public. For instance, neither the public nor Palin believes the stimulus worked. And while most Americans may not share Palin’s views regarding “death panels,” many join her in opposing Obama’s health-care overhaul.

Over the past two years, Pew and Gallup surveys have tracked the public as it has moved to the right — not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of them. Even on the controversial topics of abortion, guns and same-sex marriage, Palin is not as far away from the center as some suppose. A May 2009 Gallup poll, for example, found that a majority of Americans identified as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice.” In October 2009, Gallup measured record-low support for gun control. The public is divided on same-sex marriage, with about half the country joining Palin’s (and Obama’s) opposition.

5. Palin is unelectable.

Without question, a Palin 2012 campaign would be an uphill battle. Palin is unpopular — massively so among Democrats, decisively so among independents. Even many Republicans don’t believe she’s ready to be president.

But opinions can change. Look at the political resuscitations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Palin works hard and runs an impressive campaign, wavering Republicans and skeptical independents may give her a second look.

To earn that second look, she may need to find a big idea. It’s hard to become president without one. Reagan had supply-side economics and the end of detente with the Soviets. Bill Clinton had the third way. George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism and the freedom agenda. Obama had national unity and hope and change.

At the moment, however, Palin still expresses her agenda mainly in negative terms, focusing on her opposition to Obama and the Washington establishment. She hasn’t defined her “common-sense conservatism” in positive language. And she hasn’t found a unifying, exhilarating theme.

Then again, she just might get along without one. After all, a presidential contest is a choice. The public might not love Palin. But by 2012, Americans might absolutely despise Obama. Two more years of a bad economy and an unpopular Afghan war, and anything is possible. Yes, there’s a ceiling to Palin’s support. But in 2012, there also will be a ceiling to Obama’s.

Whose will be higher?

 

Good News from Dutch News!!! Prosecutors Declare Geert Wilders Not Guilty on All Counts

Dutch News reported the following this afternoon: 

“THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON STATED THAT GEERT WILDERS IS NOT GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MUSLIMS.  EARLIER ON FRIDAY IT ANNOUNCED HE SHOULD ALSO BE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF INCITING HATRED.

Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after a careful reading of interviews with and articles by the anti-Islam politician and a viewing of his ant-Koran can be discriminatory, but because Wilders wants to pursue a ban on democratic lines, there is no question of incitement to discrimination ‘as laid down in law’.

On the comparison of the Koran with Mein Kampf, the prosecutors said the comparison was ‘crude but that did not make it punishable.  Dealing earlier on Friday with incitement to hatred, Van Roessel and Vellerman said some comments could incite hatred agasint Muslims if taken out of context, but if  the complete text is considered, it can be seen that Wilders is against the growing influencs of Islam and not against Muslims per se.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors said the MP should not be found guilt of group insult.”

The official government decision is expected on November 4 or 5.

(I was emailed this good bit of news from my good friend, Lisa Rich, who lives in California.  Attached to the e-mail was this quote by C.S.Lewis:

“Of all tyrannies, the tyranny excercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive…Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end,  for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Comment:  Obama, Obama, wherefore art thou????  Have you and your fellow Marxists now oppressing this American with your good will ever understand the perfect truth of this C.S. Lewis statement.  Have you folks ever read anything outside of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky? 

These ‘prosecutors” made the best decision to a very dangerous and bad law.  Can there be any doubt that a person of fainter fame than this courageous member of the Dutch Parliament likely could not have  been so lucky as Mr. Wilders?

It is inherent in atheistic Progressivism, which means Marxism, to pass laws.   For every law that is given passage, police action increases……

What is so difficult with understanding that fact?

Dennis Prager often stresses the the organized Left maneuvers to gain POWER.   Conservatives in contrast, strive for economic gain.

In the warmth of its self righteousness, the American Left has an endless list of Laws to enact to govern how citizens think, act, and vote.  It is the Leftist  religion to govern mankind.