Pelosi's Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics

Nana is up to it again. She can't help herself. Once a Baltimore street politico always a Baltimore street politico.

This from her street corner website (now being altered).

Only problem, it is a fabrication which is a nice way to say a lie. This hasn't prevented Pelosi from publishing such things even when she's been told that they are a lie. She'll just have staff alter it a bit and move on to the next fabrication

BTW, the real figures are:

Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

Communism Failure

Church of Christ the Savior [Khram Khrista Spasitelia]

I took approx. 44 years to build the cathedral which was a memorial to the Russian dead of 1812. When completed in 1883 it was the largest structure in Moscow.

In 1931 Joseph Stalin, the communist dictator, had the cathedral blown up because he said it was the breeding ground of "the narcotic" (religion).

Stalin wanted to replace this breeding ground with the absolutely ridiculous Palace of the Soviets. There was to be a 6,000 ton statue of Stalin atop the palace that, if finished, would have been taller than the Empire State Building.

Nikita Kruschev decided the empty space was an eyesore, much like our government produced with Urban Renewal, and decided to build a huge series of very large swimming pools. As with much centralized government planning and the mindset that goes with it, the design and construction was very poor and the pools leaked, sometimes they leaked in reverse allowing dirty water from the Moskva River to dirty the waters of the largest pool in the world.

By 1995, President Reagan had brought the Soviet Union to its knees and as freedom and religion again flourished in Russia construction on a new cathedral, to be identical to the original, began. It was completed in 2000.

Reagan To Make An Appearance At Super Bowl

Is there anything he can't do?

President Reagan Once Again Back To Comfort The Nation

Republicans have looked for another Reagan since he left office never knowing they didn’t find him, he found and saved them. Democrats hoisted Tip O’Neill as the anti-Reagan, vilified Reagan, called him a stupid B movie star and then vilified Reagan further from the comfort zone of a defanged Evil Empire. Up until his death Reagan gave comfort to all, but the raging left and right of our political spectrum.

He’s back.

The 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth is February 6. This anniversary has authors, writers, activists and any who have a political stake bringing up his name. The Gipper is back, for good and bad, for one more moment in the political discourse of the chattering class of our time.

Conservatives say, “if only he were here,” Liberals say, “if only he hadn’t,” and those in power imply, “if only you knew.” If only we knew just how much our current president is like Reagan, if only our president stopped acting like Reagan and if only our president thought like Reagan.

He never left.

As Craig Shirley, Reagan author/historian said of Reagan on Washington Post Live online;

As an historian, I focus on the facts. And the facts about Reagan make him one of America's four greatest presidents. But don't ask me, ask Ted Kennedy who gave Reagan all the credit for winning the Cold War, ask liberal historians John Patrick Diggings, who rated Rr as one of the four greatest because they all liberated many people (Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan) or liberal historian James MacGregor Burns, who put Reagan in the great or near great category.

Beyond the facts is what Reagan did best. He returned America to us and with America he gave us comfort. Comfort in who we were and were not. Comfort in the great experiment called the United States of America. Reagan gave us our identity back. The identity we knew in our hearts, but had seemed to have lost. The identity that made us good Americans. Made America good. The identity that made America the “shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

As long as America is America Ronald Reagan will be with us, for good and bad, for he still gives us enough comfort to voice our opinion of what America should be. Those who still oppose Reagan will use him to bolster their argument. Those who still support Reagan will use him to support their argument. Those desperate will use Reagan to compare or contrast themselves or their candidate to Reagan.

Mainly, there will people who will keep Reagan in their hearts as that to which America should strive to attain. It is comforting to do so.

Pundits Wrong About Reagan And Obama

Obama never mentioned Reagan let alone praised Reagan.

Musta come to his senses. Any mention of Reagan would have put the lie to his administration.

'The whole south shifts to the Republican Party over one issue, they don’t like black people…'

M.J. Rosenberg, a progressive, was speaking about why Americans support Israel. His contention is that America supports Israel because Americans hate Muslims. For context and to point out how stupid and hateful Americans (ie, conservatives) are, Rosenberg dropped this little gem concerning the electorate during the 1980's:

"The whole south shifts to the Republican Party over one issue, they don’t like black people…so you have the racism thing,.."

That is a lie. An outright lie. A known lie. A stupid lie.

How do I know? I worked the southern region when it went for Reagan, Republicans and conservatives at the federal level. As a researcher for the NRCC I had studied the issues, plus the whole votes and quotes thing and worked with candidates throughout the south in 1984 and it was not racism that shifted the south to the Republican Party.

The South had remained a solid Democrat stronghold following not just the War of Northern Aggression and their defeat, but especially following the humiliation of "Reconstruction" which purposely heaped scorn and shame on southerners at all levels. Their pride besmirched, the South reacted with a hatred of Republicans, Northerners and those they felt destroyed their lives. As Michelle Obama, they felt no pride in the country they were forced to be part of.

Enter Ronald Reagan and his "Let's Make America Great Again" message. In 1980 Reagan not only beat Jimmy Carter, he embarrassed Carter and those that thought like Carter. In what was supposed to be an election "too close to call" Reagan had a landslide. Carter was thought to be a quintessential southerner and his every action and manner had become an embarrassment to a large segment of the nation as well as in the south. This was when the South, as a voting bloc, started moving away from the Democrat Party.

By 1984, many waves of new thoughts were occurring which were personified by Reagan's "Morning in America" theme. President Ronald Reagan had tapped into the deep patriotism of the nation which deeply wanted a renewal of not just the American ideal, but also a renewal of faith in America by Americans. People had begun to believe again that America was an exception. That America was special.

The South still searching for a patriotism they could embrace started feeling the pull of Reagan's unabashed love for the United States of America. Ronal Reagan's America included the whole of the United States, not just a selected few nor did Reagan exclude people or regions of the country. This resonated with southerners who felt they had been ignored or ridiculed for generations and they did something they had not done in the past. They listened carefully to a Republican. What they heard, they liked which then allowed southerners to start listening to other Republicans running as state legislators, governors and federal offices such as Congress. They liked what they heard.

At the same time, the NRCC established a field staff broken out by regions of the country with regional strategies and tactics. The southern region, which I was a part of, was led by Jim Weber and he put in place a theory of campaigning that included southern voters in ways they had not been part of before. Republican candidates left their historically safe enclaves and actually spoke in democrat strongholds and asked for their votes. New campaign techniques traditionally not used in the south were employed and most importantly rank and file southerners were asked to become part of the process in political, financial and emotional terms. In short, they became engaged voters.

Did race play a part? Absolutely, because Democrats pushed back with messages of racism in an attempt to solidify their base which they felt included all southerners, especially confederate (battle) flag waving, truck driving whites. They had no idea that a storm of change was occurring in terms of political thought, economics, national identity and the long awaited resolution of southern historical identity.

The South went Republican. As Reagan before them, southerners began to say, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me." Reagan spoke to the rising southern middle class with his message of fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget and cutting taxes. Many politicos say that white southerners rebelled against the Democrat embracement of the Civil Rights movement, when in fact it was Democrats that filibustered and voted against civil rights legislation which was supported by Republicans. To say that southerners rebelled against LBJ's cynical civil rights programs may be correct, but to say they rebelled against civil rights by supporting the party that passed civil rights is a tad shallow. LBJ's 1964 Civil Rights Act would have been defeated if not for Republicans such as Evertt Dirkson who broke the filibuster to get it passed. While Dirksen stated, “When it comes to the rights of others, I don’t play politics. It is the right thing to do.”, LBJ was privately saying, according to Ron Kessler's book "Inside the Whitehouse", "I'll have them niggers voting Democrat for two hundred years."

The south did not switch to Republican because of racism. It is still a useful lie for Democrats to say so, but it is still a lie.

Obama Must Succeed In Afghanistan Because He Refuses To In Iraq

Obama cannot further succeed in Iraq because that would prove George W. Bush right. That's a given. If Obama proves Bush right, then what is left of the shreds of his base will simply disappear into the chimera covering the door named disappointment.

So, what is Obama going to do in Afghanistan and the region?

Well, he quietly added 13,000 support troops to the 21,000 he approved in March for service in Afghanistan. His generals want an additional 40,000, but Obama is fiddling for his "base" and for the morons that make up the leadership in congress. Add into the mix a bureaucracy that permeates everything from food servers, elevator operators that operate computerized elevators and all the way up to analyzers and the leadership of our covert operations. One is left with a president worse off than Bush because the bureaucracy openly hated of Bush, but cannot do so with Obama. That bureaucracy has become the true decision maker in our government, not the elected officials that we vote for and who doesn't listen to us anyway, but in a different way that the bureaucracy doesn't have to listen.

Obama needs to show he has some vision, any vision beyond community organizing, concerning Afghanistan and terrorism or he will fall to more ridicule than the ghost of Alphie "TNT" Nobel.

I have a nominal idea of what has to occur in Afghanistan, in fact I believe I'm right, but my phone ain't ringin' so I'm assuming it ain't him. So, from afar and in fly-over country I will offer this.

Why not win?

The United States helped the Mujaheddin to win over the Russians, but squandered that victory by no follow through allowing crude forces to tame the vacuum left over and then pacify the citizens of Afghanistan by allowing simple goods to be delivered and sold so people could feed their families. Napoleon. Food. A chance of victory.

Now, the U.S. military appears to be going through phase II of the late Mr. Johnson's war which allows bureaucrats and Obama to direct the effort in Afghanistan from thousands of miles away through the prism of political needs, not military necessities.

If the military asks for 40,000 more troops, why doesn't Obama ask back, why not 60,000? If 40,000 is good, why isn't 60,000 better? What will it take to militarily defeat the Taliban and to bring the Afghani citizens into the effort of helping us bring stability to the country and to some degree, the region.

Most Americans don't know, and don't know whether to care, that Afghanistan and Iraq are just the advertised disaster specials for upcoming stories that are are designed to drive fairly inconsequential political desires here in the United States. Inconsequential when compared to having limbs cut off, wives and daughters raped or killed and villages enslaved to ideologies they don't want or understand. I'm not sure if a cash for clunkers program was considered a necessity in Afghanistan, but I do know feeding a still alive family is a necessity for what's left of the adults in Afghanistan. New cars, not so much.

How inconsequential is Iran or the Chinese military buildup on a nuclear India's northern border? What could be the consequences of a blundering bully from Russia trying to resurrect its once not so-greatness in the region by clumsily stomping throughout? Is it consequential that SoS Clinton appeared to recap the nuclear genie in Pakistan or has she really put those weapons out of the reach of terrorists? How resolved are we to following and resolving these threads that do not fit the narrative that this president got elected on?

Does Obama understand that resolve is a value that transcends language?

One can say what they will of Israel, but Israel's resolve has impressed even their enemies. The United States enjoys no such respect. Once again, looking back to the late Mr. Johnson's war in Vietnam, the United States offered no and gave no follow through to the Republic of Vietnam's government. We left them holding the ball, hence, all of Vietnam is now communist and a model used to ridicule and defeat the United States in other theaters. Mr. Nixon's pinpointing of priorities in southeast Asia was a poor as Mr. Johnson's bombing target lists were in Vietnam. No resolve.

Our current lack of resolve in eastern Europe is squandering historic gains for freedom in the region made by past presidents, ergo the world. Poland wouldn't believe Obama if he said 'good morning' and they'd be right to believe as such. I'm hoping Obama understands the difference between resolve and back stabbing, but I wouldn't believe him if he said he did. Maybe Obama would get a better feel for the political reality outside the United States if Axlerod or someone would inform him that eating a Chicago Polish sausage is not an education in the needs and trust of the Polish nation. And sauerkraut on the wiener is not evidence of advanced thinking on such a situation.

We're in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time.

The need to win militarily so we can win, thus stabilize, the hearts of Afghanistan to a truly safe and free Afghanistan is a long term necessity. It is a necessity to the emergence of freedom across the world, thus the spreading of peace, and it is a necessity to prove to potential allies that the United States can be trusted in the short and long term. Resolve in Afghanistan means not just winning militarily and then building roads, schools and hospitals, but resolve also means protecting Afghanis from a re-emergence of a Taliban by any other name and by bringing as many Afghans, as possible, into our current century of knowledge and the free flow of information.

What Obama is going to do in Afghanistan is unknown and that scares the hell of of me. It should scare you too. I know it scares the people of Afghanistan.

Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!

Berlin Wall is built by the Communists to keep slaves in and free people out, 1961

Berlin, Oberbaumbrücke 60s

Remembering on an unknown refugee who was murdered by East German border guards

(c) 2001 Heiko Burkhardt

Berlin, 1963.

John F. Kennedy visiting Berlin on June 26, 1963

(c) 2001 Heiko Burkhardt

President Ronald Reagan, Berlin, 1987

Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate West Berlin, Germany June 12, 1987

Destruction of the Berlin Wall, November 10, 1989.

Cohen, Reagan and Thompson

I was going to write something concerning Fred Thompson and the Presidency. I like Thompson's approach to being President, which I read as; okay, if it's possible, but if it isn't that's okay as well.

I liked Ronald Reagan, in fact I liked him enough that I quit what I was doing and campaigned for him and when he was elected I moved to Washington to work in politics to indirectly and then directly support Reagan and his beliefs. Liberal denunciation of Reagan as a man and as an intellect exhibited their fear of the man. The media, the Congress and others whispered loudly that Reagan was stupid which sent me into fits of giggles and sometimes rage. Tip O'Neill tried to take on this "stupid man" and Reagan out thought him. What scared them the most was that Reagan didn't fit the mold. Reagan did what worried them the most. Reagan went directly to the people and told them the truth and told them what he wanted to do and why. In Washington, that was dirty pool because in Washington politicians are the "people" except they, as our "representatives, are a whole lot smarter and better people. They believe themselves Sonnenkinder.

Destiny chose Reagan because Reagan chose his own destiny at a time when a Reagan was very much needed by the country and deeply desired by the people.

Fred Thompson is not Ronald Reagan. Reagan was Reagan and Thompson is Thompson. Reagan became a politician and a damned good one. He had a passion based on deep intellectual and ideological beliefs that, full circle, created a fire-in-the-gut. His passion lit a room when he entered. I saw rooms stop when he entered. Even people who had never set foot in Washington knew that Reagan was the cure for the virus called politics.

As Patton would have had little effect at Waterloo because Patton's essential skill was destined to be used in another conflict, Thompson brings his essential skill to the present. A skill of common sense. Thompson is a Thompson that people can recognize and be comfortable with because he is not Reagan, but Thompson. No hidden agendas, no secret burning passion to reshape the essential America, because he likes America. He likes us. Thompson doesn't think America is wrong. Yes, we can do better, but we are a good people with good intentions who do good things in the larger picture of the world. That scares the living crap out of Liberals.

So now, Liberals have begun the tear down of Thompson by negating some of their earlier attacks on Reagan to better hone their attacks on Thompson. Reagan was stupid, but he was driven and passionate. Thompson is smart, but lacks passion because he is lazy and stupid about what America needs right now.

They have made Thompson important and for that Conservatives should thank Liberals. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This ain't Hell nails it with his post on the estimable Richard Cohen's Washington Post article concerning Thompson.

WaPo’s Cohen: Thompson is no Reagan

I have nothing good to write for almost all of Washington Post’s
columnists, well except maybe Novak and Krauthammer, but this clown Richard
Cohen really writes some stupid crap sometimes. Take today’s column for
instance; Can He Find His Motivation?

Cohen, who also wrote “Wasted Lives“, in which he said our troops were
dying for nothing in Iraq and I criticized back in March, claims in this
piece that Thompson shouldn’t be allowed to be President for this
reason;

If Thompson’s name came up in some sort of free-association game, he would
be a genuine stumper: Thompson and what? There is no Thompson Act, Thompson Compromise, Thompson Hearing, Thompson Speech or Thompson Anything that comes to mind. No living man can call himself a Thompsonite. Instead, Thompson came and went from the Senate as if he were never there, leaving only the faint scent of ennui. “I don’t want to spend the rest of my life up here,” he once said. “I don’t like spending 14- and 16-hour days voting on ’sense of the Senate’ resolutions on irrelevant matters.” As a call to action, this lacks a certain something.

Read the rest you lazy ......