Update: This afternoon (Sunday) I saw the video of Palin consulting her hand during the post-speech Q and A. You know, while I don’t fault her for keeping notes - even notes written on her hand (as someone who does it all the time, I completely get it) - I still have to wonder what the heck she was thinking…as though the nutjob leftie blogs wouldn’t get a hold of some video stills and run with it. Good grief….

Still, at least she didn’t mispronounce ‘corpsman’. Three times. Interesting how the hypocrites on the left have nothing to say about that.

But let’s face it, their real problem with Palin’s speech last night is that she decimated their president and his fatally flawed ideology.

They probably oughta get used to it…

…..

So what is the left going after this morning? They’re going after the fact that Sarah Palin had to refer to notes and what were presumably a few bullet points scribbled in the palm of her hand during her Tea Party convention speech last night.

Because really, that’s so much worse than mindlessly reading every single word that’s been carefully scripted for you by someone else off a teleprompter.

And, you know….it’s not necessarily even Zero’s incessant teleprompter use in and of itself that’s the problem, it’s his utter inability to speak clearly and intelligently without it which both amuses and frightens us.

Unlike Zero, Palin speaks with conviction, from the heart, with a clarity of purpose that connects directly with the conservative majority in America, and which rightfully scares the living shit out of the progressives/leftists of the world as they see their agenda crumble before their eyes.

So, the next time you hear one of your moron leftist friends attempting to ridicule Palin, understand they’re just not capable of better. Immaturity and intellectual dishonesty of the type they’re displaying this morning is their stock in trade, especially when they’re getting their asses handed to them.

Pity them as you might an unruly emotional child, but then just smile and walk away.

…..

-Cnation

A speech given by an American who truly loves her country, to her fellow Americans who truly love their country.

The smackdown she laid on the current administration and its policies was thorough and dead-on accurate.

AND….not a teleprompter in sight.

This video is in 5 parts, all selectable from the bottom and sides of the video frame.

…..

-Cnation

I just received an email that requested I visit an anti ‘r-word’ website and pledge my support towards ending use of the word ‘retarded’, which these P.C. pussies boldly refer to as the ‘r-word’.

I went to the site. This is what I wrote:

“I pledge and support the elimination of Politically Correct insanity that would eliminate the use of a completely acceptable and accurate word from our vocabulary rather than admonish those who would misuse it.”

Yes, I’m fully aware they won’t publish it.

This uproar over Rahm Emanuel’s use of the term ‘fucking retarded’ is ridiculous; his response and the media reaction is pure insanity.

It’s not the word that is the problem, it’s the use of the word as a pejorative. I’ll even go so far as to admit that its as a pejorative is a rather large problem. But is the answer really to ban the word or refer to it - in a most infantile way - as the ‘r-word’?

Of course not.

Banning a word or referring to it as we once did as children (MOM! JOEY SAID THE F-WORD!!) does nothing but attempt to mask the problem. It’s like trying to fix rust by hiding it under a fresh coat of paint.

The idea, that by somehow eliminating a word deemed offensive from our vocabulary we will also eliminate the stigma attached to its misuse, is flawed to its core. The stigma will simply transfer to whatever word or term is used to replace it. In fact, it already has. If you haven’t heard the jokes and slurs centered on the word ‘challenged’, you have simply not been listening.

If we want to attack the underlying problem, we start - as we do in so many situations where the PC police would otherwise attempt to run the show - by teaching our children the difference between right and wrong, and that intentionally insulting anyone - regardless of physical/mental abilities or lack thereof - is unacceptable. That is where this whole argument should begin and end. Unfortunately, this would require both discipline and personal responsibility, two concepts virtually unknown to the liberal PC crowd except as the occasional punch line.

The word ‘retarded’, like it or not, is accurate and correct when applied to those now referred to ‘mentally challenged’ (or whatever the acceptable-pc-obfuscation-of-the-week happens to be as of this writing), and probably the least offensive of any of the PC-concocted terms created to replace it.

I’m not going to devote a lot of time to this, but in closing I would like you to consider the following: how many words in the English language are or can be used in an ‘offensive’ manner? If we eliminated all of them, what would we be left with?

We as free Americans need to draw the line.

American Thinker has a great piece on this very subject this morning that begins with a Confucius quote:

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

…..

-Cnation

From the GOP:

Pence Decries Democrat Debt Limit Increase and PAYGO

“American people long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the brink of fiscal disaster

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, delivered the following remarks today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in opposition to H. J. Res. 45, Democrat legislation that will increase the national debt limit by a record $1.9 trillion:

“Time for a little bit of truth telling about their side and about our side. The truth telling about our side is that back when we were in charge we didn’t do so well on controlling runaway federal spending. My colleagues, who know me well, know that I, many times, found myself at cross purposes in fighting the president of my own party and some leadership of my own party in some of those big spending fights. But under the last administration we doubled the national debt. I want to stipulate to that. But frankly, that’s no excuse for what’s happening today, Madam Speaker.

“Over the last three years, the Democrat majority has literally broken the ceiling on fiscal responsibility, and as I just admitted, that ceiling was pretty high. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007, the national debt had increased by $3.96 trillion, a 42 percent increase in three years. To keep up with this spending binge, Congress has increased the debt limit five times over the last 19 months. Three times since the current administration took office one year ago. And the statutory debt increase that comes before us today, $1.9 trillion, is the largest one-time debt increase in U.S. history.

“This is the fifth increase, as I mentioned, in the last 19 months. This one-time increase in the debt limit of $1.9 trillion is actually larger than the entire GDP of almost every country in the world.  It’s larger than the GDP of Canada, Russia, Spain, or Brazil. And it’s larger than the GDP of Australia and Poland combined. The American people are looking at this extraordinary gusher of spending and debt and they are asking the question: ‘When will it stop?’  And the answer is, as we look at the budget that the administration submitted earlier this week, no time soon.

“I hasten to add, the administration, just this week, announced plans for a budget $3.8 trillion in scope, with a $1.6 trillion deficit and $2 trillion in higher taxes.  And let me say with respect, the American people looking in ought not to be deceived by the promises of fiscal discipline known as ‘PAYGO.’  And the truth is, the bill before us today is 58 pages long and 32 of those pages are all the programs that are exempted from the PAYGO requirements.  Forty percent of federal spending is exempted from the fiscal discipline fix that we’re being told is encompassed in PAYGO.  The truth is, PAYGO really means here in Washington: you pay and they go on spending.

“The fact is that what we see here is a failure of leadership.  President Obama, as a United States Senator, said in March of 2006, when he came out against raising the debt limit in a vote, ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s recklessness.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.’  So said then-Senator Barack Obama, March 2006.  Let me suggest he was right, then, and his words are equally true today.

“The American people long for us to put our fiscal house in order.  They long for us to embrace true fiscal discipline and reform.  They long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the brink of fiscal disaster.
This PAYGO, this debt ceiling vote, is no solution, and I urge its opposition.”

To view this floor speech, click here.

…..

-Cnation

When Did the American People Elect Eric Holder Commander in Chief?

Following weeks of strong bipartisan criticism of their handling of terror trials and detainees, Attorney General Eric Holder released a letter yesterday defending the Obama administration’s criminal justice system approach to prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda. Defending his administration’s handling of the Flight 253 terrorist, Holder wrote: “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government.”

First, this statement directly contradicts the sworn Congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair who, when asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) under oath if he had been consulted about how Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated, responded: “I was not consulted.” Under intense political pressure from the White House, Blair has since said his remarks were “misconstrued.” But his politically-pressured retraction was not made under oath. His initial statement was. At the very minimum, Congress must demand that both Holder and Blair testify under oath to settle this contradiction.

But more importantly, both the personal pronouns and the underlying substance of Holder’s letter speaks volumes about this administration’s approach to protecting the American people. Holder wrote yesterday: “Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence.” Holder appears to be arguing that reading suspects their Miranda rights is a great way to get them to talk. But as American University law professor Kenneth Anderson notes: “The point of offering suspects the Miranda warning and associated rights is not in order to persuade them to talk, but in order to make sure they know they don’t have to and, if they have much in the way of brains, won’t.” Read the rest of this entry »

…fucking Avatarded:

…..

-Cnation

The downward spiral continues as the most inept and destructive administration in American history works its magic.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year and more big shortfalls for the next decade in its upcoming budget proposal, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.

In its budget proposal to be released on Monday, the White House predicts a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30, the Capitol Hill source said.

According to the estimate, deficits will narrow to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before gradually rising back to $1.0 trillion by the end of the decade, the source said.

President Barack Obama will seek to strike a balance between reducing the deficit over the long term and stimulating the economy in the short term to ease the pain of double-digit unemployment.

Criticized by Republicans as a big spender, Obama used his State of the Union address last week to tell Americans he would dig the country out of a “massive fiscal hole.”

That hole is even deeper than previously believed, according to the estimate by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

The estimate for the current fiscal year is significantly higher than the $1.35 trillion figure forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week.

Despite the difference, both estimates indicate that the deficit will continue to hover at a level not seen since World War Two, when measured as a percentage of the economy. Last year the government posted a $1.4 trillion deficit.

Notice that the throngs of liberal weasels who were all over president Bush for his deficits - a fraction of what the Obama administration has rung up - are nowhere to be found on this. It’s really quite amazing, isn’t it?

…..

-Cnation

Charles Krauthammer: Soft on Terror

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane — that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration — but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him. more…..

…………….

CNSNews: Obama Wrong on Claim about Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Campaign Donations

The high court’s 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

The court decision, however does not allow unlimited contributions directly to a campaign or in coordination with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

In his speech, Obama also claimed the court reversed 100 years of law when, in fact, it overturned a 1990 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, parts of the McCain-Feingold reform bill from 2002 that restricted independent political advertising in the closing days of an election were struck down. more…..

…………….

Red State: Chris Matthews and the Soft Bogotry of Low Expectations

So, after remembering that Obama is Black, Matthews then remembers that black = lesser. This sort of thinking is anathema to the ideas put forward by true deep thinkers and civil rights activists like MLK Jr., yet it is the wheelhouse of the left as Matthews continues to display. more…..

…………….

American Thinker: The Lesson of an Affirmative Action President

Affirmative action was allowed by the Supreme Court as a temporary exception to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution until blacks had the same opportunities others did. It has now been about forty years, and the goal posts have just moved farther and farther Left. Today it’s not just blacks — it’s women, homosexuals, and illegal aliens. And it’s no longer equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome, which was the goal of Communism for seventy years in the Soviet Union, until the whole Soviet Empire crumbled as a result.  more…..

…………….

Nate Beeler: Explaining Healthcare Reform

…………….

Washington Examiner: A Speech With Nothing For Everybody

That was some performance Wednesday night by President Obama, delivering one of the longest-ever State of the Union addresses but offering no evidence whatsoever of a willingness to listen to the swelling nationwide chorus of voices of discontent with his policies. For example, rather than acknowledging that clear majorities of Americans have decisively rejected his signature health care reform plan and suggesting a different approach, Obama doubled down on his insistence that Congress approve his proposal to put federal bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. Thus, Obama’s congressional supporters get nothing on which to try to build a credible health care compromise, and his congressional critics come away with nothing beyond vague rhetoric about working together. more…..

…………….

Liberty Works: ObamaNomics: An Endless Downward Spiral

ObamaNomics is built on the assumption that politicians are better stewards of economic resources than the millions of individuals and business enterprises who created those resources.  The Democrats’ plan is to dramatically increase taxation to fund programs through which government can exert greater control over our lives.

But these data show that the private sector’s ability and willingness to generate wealth for government to seize through taxation is rapidly diminishing.  These data show that Obama’s own actions are are literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs he needs to fund his agenda. more…..

…………….

Judicial Watch Uncovers New Documents Detailing Pelosi’s Use of Air Force Aircraft

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. more…..

…..

-Cnation

It is time to take to the streets again.

From a story at Hot Air; according to Senator John Kyl, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may have come to an agreement and found a way to get Obamacare through both chambers of Congress.

First, here’s the basic mechanics of how they will do it. From Dick Morris @ Newsmax:

Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are “flipped” and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.

Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.

But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or “fixes,” the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under “reconciliation” and don’t require 60 Senate votes.

To pass the fixes, he won’t need one Republican; he won’t even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi’s House and signed by Obama.

This plan, of course, is a total subversion of the legislative process.

Typically, the Senate and House pass their own unique legislation and then both bills go to a conference committee. In conference, the leadership of both Democrat-dominated houses wheels and deals and irons out differences.

The final compromise bill is then sent back to the full Senate and full House for a vote and has to pass both to go to the president.

In the House, a simple majority passes the legislation. But under Senate rules, major legislation requires 60 votes to end a filibuster.

As it stands, the House bill and Senate bill have major discrepancies. Reid does not have 60 votes to pass a compromise bill that would no doubt include some of the radical provisions House members have been demanding.

But if the House passes the exact Senate bill that passed by a 60-39 Senate vote last month, there is no need for a conference on the bill. It will go directly to the president’s desk.

That was this past Sunday. Yesterday (Wednesday 1/27/2010), the LA Times reported:

Reporting from Washington - Laying out a possible path to approving healthcare legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Wednesday that the House should pass the Senate’s version and then use a process known as “budget reconciliation” to make the changes some lawmakers are demanding.

The politically fraught strategy might allow Democrats to salvage a version of the overhaul that senior lawmakers pushed through the House and Senate late last year. Because budget reconciliation requires only a simple majority in the Senate, it could enable Democrats to circumvent a threatened GOP filibuster.

But in order to get this cluster you-know-what in motion, Reid and Pelosi first have to rewrite the bill in a fashion that would not only satisfy the requirements of the reconciliation process, they’d have to write it in a way that’s agreeable to the relevent majority of both chambers. That brings us to the present.

From Fox News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing a $300 billion “fix” to the Senate health care bill, saying that her chamber could approve the Senate’s package if those changes are made first.

Senior Democratic aides told Fox News that Pelosi has offered up the new package of changes to Senate Democratic leaders, with the hope that they will be able to pass it using a controversial procedural maneuver known as “reconciliation.” The maneuver would allow Democrats to pass the measure with just 51 votes, without having to first overcome the normal 60-vote threshold.

Some Democrats are keen on using that process, since the election last week of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts broke the Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority. However, some Democratic moderates — notably Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh — have balked at using the controversial tactic to ram through health care reform measures.

Pelosi announced last week that she did not have the votes in the House to pass the Senate health care reform bill as is. But Pelosi is now floating the possibility that if the Senate, and House, approve the package of adjustments first, the House can then take up the original Senate bill.

So there it is. Morris was right, and the Dems, it seems, are going to be moving ahead, the voice of the American people be damned.

All is still not lost though. The reconciliation process has its own unique set of rules, one of which the Republicans have said they’d use to kill this thing. Unlike normal senate procedure wherein debate on a bill can be ended at any time, reconciliation has an open-ended amendment process, which means there is literally no limit to the number of amendments that can be offered, and each and every one would have to be voted on. The Republicans could therefore theoretically stall this all the way through the end of the current session, while simultaneously forcing Dems to vote on things that could hurt them badly politically.

If this thing does make it to reconciliation, and IF Harry Reid can scrounge up the 52 votes he would need, then it would remain to be seen if the Republicans have the stones to follow through on their threat.

They’d better. For all of our sakes.

Further reading:

TNR: How Reconciliation Would Work

Project Vote Smart: GOVERNMENT 101: How a Bill Becomes Law

…..

-Cnation