Tag Archives: New Jersey political

Liberals To Tea Party Activists “Drop Dead”

Bookmark and Share   One week after highly demonized former Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin was featured at a Tea Party rally in Harry Reid’s backyard, the politically ailing Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, has begun to kick his Nevada reelection campaign into high gear. But the two events had very different moods. Despite the lefts desire to paint Palin as an unpopular and undesirable figure, at her rally there was an enthusiasm and energy that emanated from the approximately 10,000 anti-Reid protestors in attendance. Yet in one of Reid’s first rallies, there was a sense of desperation from the near 100 hundred people in attendance.

Such small and unenthusiastic turnouts are the best that one can expect when they possess a nationwide approval rating that CBS reports stands at 8%. That’s 3% behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi! Nancy Pelosi……3% behind her! Imagine that. So the small turnout for Reid’s campaign event is no surprise and it is also indicative of his own state polls which have him behind all of his possible Senate opponents by anywhere from 7% to as much as 15%.

These numbers are a reflection of Reid, his leadership, his policies and the process which, as the leader of the Senate, he has manipulated. People are not pleased by any of it and so the polls show it. And in Reid’s case, they are more than dissatisfied, they are angry. All except for the handful of Reid’s loyal supporters.

These supporters are a dedicated portion of the liberal-Democrat base.

These are people who are devout liberals, believe that the federal government is a service industry and rely heavily on the government for their survival. They are people who believe that we need more government, not less. They are largely Democrat forced union voters and they are essentially those liberals who vote the Party line no matter who is on the ballot.

But they are something else too.

These liberal Reid-supporting Democrats are also angry, and they are dangerous, violent, extremists.

How does one reach this conclusion?

Well, at Harry Reid’s campaign event, he began his remarks by referencing Sarah Palin and the anti-Reid crowd in attendance at the rally the week before. As he began those remarks in a way that was meant to belittle them, one of the loyal Reid supporters yelled out “let them drop dead.”

Clearly such a contemptuous outcry from Reid’s followers reflects a deep hatred for those who oppose them and their beliefs. One could say that it is similar to the terrorists of radical Islam. They too harbor the same feeling as the liberal Reid voter who called for those who think differently than her to “drop dead”.

Or is that in and of itself an extreme characterization of all liberals like those who support Harry Reid?

Personally, I think it is extreme. But by the standards of Democrats, it is not.

Last summer when lawmakers went home to their districts and met with constituents who were truly angry with the liberal agenda and how Democrats were ramming it through Congress, Nancy Pelosi stood before the Washington press corps and said that the anger out their worries her and in a reference to the assassination of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California and San Franciso Mayor George Moscone in 1978, claimed that she fears reliving such a climate again.

Then of course you have people like scandal embroiled Congressman Charlie Rangel who claimed that those protesting the government healthcare takeover reminded him of those who protested against civil rights in the 60’s. There is also Bawny Fwanks, who claimed that the people opposing the healthcare scheme spit at him because he is gay. Where he came up with that one bugs the hell out of me because I for one know that given the opportunity, I would not spit on Bawny because he is gay. I would spit on him because he is a disgrace to gays and a despicably corrupt, socialist member of Congress.

But between Pelosi, Rangel, Fwanks and Democrats et al, and those sectors of the media that is biased in their favor, all these conspiratorial concoctions are invented and exaggerated in a way that makes for great theater and is meant to marginalize those who disagree with their agenda.

But when is enough, enough?

If the media maintained any semblance of objectivity, they would have been reporting on the Reid supporter who interrupted the Senator at his campaign event to yell out “let them drop dead” and they would have done so with the same vim and vigor that they display whenever Democrats try to depict conservatives or Tea Party members as violent racists.

The truth is that, from the sound of it, the women who yelled out her crude remark at the Reid event, was an elderly women. Granted, she was probably not your typical blue haired, church going grandmother or Mayberry’s “Aunt Bea”, but she was a relatively harmless senior citizen who is not likely to be running with a bat in hand and breaking skulls and windows. But she did call for those who disagree with her to “drop dead”.

That said, should that woman’s remark be swept under the rug as Democrats and the media have done? Had they not tried to falsely paint conservatives and Tea Party protestors as dangerous radicals, I would say “yes”. It should be ignored. However, unless one supports double standards, the remark can’t be ignored.

To apply the left’s standard to this situation, one would have to suggest that Reid voters and the liberal base that make up those supporters are “calling for violence”. You could say they are full of hate and contempt and that they are dangerous extremist who must be stopped.

Furthermore; should we ignore the fact that as the leader of the senate, Reid failed to put an end to that type of conduct and language?

There is no denying the fact that Reid heard the old biddies raspy and shaky voice as she yelled her uncalled for remark. So why did not this leading figure of the Democrat Party pause to say something like, “Now, now. There will be none of that. These are fellow Americans who simply disagree with us and such uncivil and untoward language has no place in political discourse”?

But no, not Harry. In fact you could say that his negative remarks about Sarah Palin and the people in attendance at the protest rally she spoke at, incited the aggressive reaction that he got from the bitter, decrepit spinster who wants all of those who disagree with her to “drop dead”.

The outrageous remarks of some bored old lady who was enticed to come to a Harry Reid campaign event because of free coffee and cookies, should not change the political landscape. It should not have a bearing on how much more debt our nation accumulates, how many I.R.S. agents it should take to implement healthcare or how we can prevent sworn enemies from obtaining the nuclear capacity to wipe sections of society off of the map. And the same should hold true of a handful of malcontents who may infiltrate a crowd of 50,000 or more people who come together to oppose some of the most transformative pieces of legislation we have ever known.

If this cycle of demonizing one another is to ever stop, perhaps liberals should stop printing labels and stop trying to pit white against black, rich against poor, men versus women, gay versus straight and all the other division that they pin their hopes for future success on. And perhaps it is time for them to live by one standard, not a double one. For if you think about, do you really think that a remark for the opposition to drop dread coming from an audience gathered to hear Dick Cheney would have gone unnoticed? Imagine for a moment, how many days such a remark would have grabbed the headlines if it was yelled out at an event featuring Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich?

The remark spoken to Harry Reid at a campaign event is less a statement than how it was handled. The fact that the right is not labeling the left as vicious and dangerous because of it, says something pretty decent of them but the fact that the media hasn’t hung it around the left’s neck like they do with Republicans and that Harry Reid did not denounce the remark says volumes of substantially negative political nuances.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Democrat Lies and Their Conspiracy To Abuse Power Through Legislative Reconcilaition

Bookmark and Share  Democrats are trying to defuse criticism of their attempts to pass the same federal healthcare reforms that the American public already rejected and they are trying to do through misuse of  the legislative process called  reconciliation. They are doing so by claiming that Republicans have used the process of reconciliation in the past. This is true. However it is also true that Republicans have not passed any legislation through the process of reconciliation that dealt with any major national overhaul of anything that was not limited to the federal budget.

That difference is essential and the reason for the essential difference between Republican use of reconciliation regarding budgetary matters and Democrat attempts to use the process for healthcare reform is as follows.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created a “Reconciliation” process that was meant to deal strictly with the budget. It was specifically meant to be used regarding the passage of budgets effecting a single fiscal year and primarily on proposed spending and revenue legislation that was being dealt with at specific points in the budget process.

Below you will see all the bills that were passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress recosiliation since 1980.

  • Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-499 (1980)
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-35 (1981)
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, Pub.L. 97-253 (1982)
  • Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub.L. 97-248 (1982)
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983, Pub.L. 98-270 (1984)
    Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub.L. 98-369 (1984)
  • Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Pub.L. 99-272
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-509 (1986)
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203 (1987)
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-239 (1989)
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-508 (1990).
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66 (1990). Balanced Budget Act of 1995, H.R. 2491 (vetoed December 6, 1995)
  • Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 104-193 (1996)
  • Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33 (1997)
  • Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-34 (1997) Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, H.R. 2488 (vetoed September 23, 1999)
  • Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, H.R. 4810 (vetoed August 5, 2000)
  • Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), Pub.L. 107-16 (2001)
  • Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub.L. 108-27 (2003) Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171 (2006)
  • Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), Pub.L. 109-222 (2006)
  • College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-84 (2007)

Look at that list.

Now add healthcare reform to it.

  • “The American healthcare reform act of 2010”

Does anthing strike you as being different or standing out on such a list?

Then there is this. In 1985, long serving West Virginia Democrat Senator Robert Byrd championed an amendment to the reconciliation process that would prohibit its use for any action that would effect the deficit beyond 10 years after that specific reconciliation measure was passed. This is why the Bush tax cuts were created to last for only ten years. During Bush’s presidency, the three major tax cuts that he was responsible for, were passed by reconciliation and to satisfy the requiremens that t reconciliation called for, the tax cuts were limited to the ten year clause of the reconciliation process.

These are the facts which limited Republicans to the proper use of reconciliation. They are important facts, facts that Democrats are leaving out when they accuse Republicans of having used reconciliation in the past, and then try to claim is the reason why Democrats can use it to pass a government takeover of healthcare in America in the future.

The claim is a half truth and an attempt to decieve.  The reasons for that conclusion are as such.

First, the Democrat healthcare takeover scheme most certainly effects the budget beyond the 10 year mark that reconciliation required.

Second, the proposed government healthcare takeover contains legislative initiatives that deal with far more than taxes or the budget which is effected by taxes. It is a major reform of a significant portion of the national economy, places mandates on individuals and businesses, increases the size of government and creates new government panels, bureaus, departments, and agencies, changes regulations and reforms the process of health treatment decisions.

This goes far beyond anything that reconciliation was ever meant to deal with.

It is also MOST important to know this additional crucial fact.

In 1993, when Hillary Clinton wrote the healthcare reform proposal that Bill Clinton was championing, he tried to pass it through reconciliation. However; Democrat Senator Robert objected on the grounds that healthcare reform was so broad, that it effected and dealt with much more than reconciliation theoretically allowed for.

Now, 17 years later,  reconciliation is suddenly alright to use for passage of healthcare reform?

NO!  IT IS NOT ALRIGHT! It is wrong! It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

So while Democrats may gain some traction by trying to label Republicans as hypocrites because of their own use of reconciliation in the past but now object to Democrats use of it, a look at the facts, is proving that Democrats are lying through their teeth.

Republicans never passed a major overhaul of life in America with a simple partisan majority. Furthermore; they never passed a major overhaul of life in America over the objections of the American people. 

To be sure, elections have ramifications. As a result of the 2008 elections, Democrats have complete control over the House, the Senate and the White House. As such, Republicans must understand that those majorities can and will be used to pass legislation that Republicans may oppose. However; one of the ramifications of the 2008 election should not be the illegal use of a process that is designed to insure that a clear and somewhat bi-partisan majority is used to pass any legislation that significantly changes life in America.

So any attempts to paint Republicans as hypocrites on the issue of reconciliation is not only dishonest, it is evidence of a conspiracy to mislead the American people and an attempt for Democrats to abuse their power through the improper  use of the reconciliation process.

The more Democrats push this, the more excuses they make and the more they try to deceive the American people and advance legislation that the American people oppose, and try to do so through a process that they oppose, the harder Democrats shall fall in the coming months. And from there, rapidly, shall the presidency of Barrack Obama begin to unravel and the liberal majority in Congress will quickly begin to fade away into ineffectiveness and obscurity.

Stop the lies. If the President and the liberal lead Congress truly want bipartisanship, than stop trying to find a way to pass a major overhaul of American life through partisan measures.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Glenn Beck’s CPAC Keynote Address; An Oratorical Political Tour de Force

Bookmark and Share   The annual Conservative Political Action Conference saw one of its most energetic, optimistic, and well attended events in its history. It was the result of a turning tide that is washing over the sands of false hope that President Barack Obama began promising just two short years ago.

With a turbulent wind of national anger, America has come to understand that the fundamental change that President Obama and the Democrat Party vowed to bring to DC, is not the fundamental change that many now realize they meant. While many Americans wished for fundamental change in the way that politicians operate government, Barack Obama actually meant fundamentally changing the founding principles that gave birth to and are suppose to guide our great invention known as the American democracy.

Many Americans have come to realize that with unbridled and unchecked control of government in the House, the Senate and the White House, Democrats have become so fundamentally radicalized that their policies border, and in some cases strike socialism. This sudden lurch to the left of the political spectrum, in a nation that is predominantly conservative, gave the American electorate whiplash and it is now resulting in a backlash against those who caused it.

For this reason, with many indications of a total reversal of fortunes, Democrats are in danger of quickly becoming the minority party in Congress once again. The most shocking part of that possibility is the speed in which they have brought about this reversal of fortunes. It took Republicans 40 years to gain control of the House of Representatives in 1994. Forty years. And it took Democrats another twelve years to gain back control. These numbers are indicative of the long, and incremental process that is normally required to switch ones hold on to power in Washington. Yet despite the historical evidence, Democrats have managed to make it possible to lose their power in just two years time.

The situation is remarkable but what is even more remarkable is the fact that all of this is no ones fault but their own.

Democrats and Democrats alone are responsible for their seemingly rapid retreat into minority status. Republicans can take no credit for the possible hemorrhaging of Democrat seats in the U.S. Senate and House of representatives in 2010. Republicans essentially have done nothing to warrant any credit for anything over these past few years. They simply may be the beneficiaries of the Democrats own failures and extremism.

This is a point that I noted in what I called a State of the Party Address. In it I point out that any Republican rise to power that is based only on the failures of others, is no victory. I also point out that any majority hold on any branch of government that is achieved in such a way, will only prove to be a very short-lived hold on to majority status.

In the State of The Party Address, I assert that we must have our own ideas, and prove that we have learned from our mistakes and demonstrate a sincere commitment to the core values that made us great such as our commitment to states rights, smaller government, less spending, and a responsible national defense.

This is the same message that the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference gave this weekend.

Glenn Beck has risen to stardom with great acclaim from Americans who are moderate in their politics and Americans who are conservative in their politics. Many see his message as something that is more commonsense than ideology and it is this commonsense message that Glen Beck wowed the record audience at CPAC with.

Although I offered a somewhat technical assessment of the Republican Party in my State of the Party Address, Glenn Beck offered an unmatched display of inspirational oratory skill that helped drive home the points and message that Republicans need to hear. And he did so far better than I or many others could ever hope to.

Beck’s almost hour long keynote address was both eloquent and hard-hitting. It was packed with intelligent humor, powerful prose as well as inspirational poetry. From beginning to end, the speech was brutally honest and profoundly accurate.

I have not found myself to be a big fan of Glenn Beck. I have often felt that his entertainment value exceeded his political value. But at CPAC, Glenn Beck won me over.

Between his denunciation of Republicans for not realizing and admitting that they lost their way and are addicted to spending, to his reprimand of the GOP for relying on winning at the polls merely “because they don’t suck as much as Democrats”, Glenn Beck hit a home run so hard, fast and far that no catcher on earth will ever be able to get their hands on the ball that his verbal bat beat out of the ballpark.

Beck touched just about every fundamental aspect of life in America that we have twisted and turned into  a politically correct, dysfunctional society that attempts to put a cap on success and deem competition a sin. He drew a clear picture of a nation that is being steered by a government of nearsighted drivers who are more concerned with the sights and sounds along the side of the road than they are with what is right in front of them.

But don’t take it from me. See it for yourself. I urge you to find the time to watch and listen to Glenn Beck’s oratorical political tour de force. Below, you will find several clips that together present Beck’s spectacular address in its entirety. It will make conservatives feel empowered once more, make Republicans who are not already conservative, conservative, and force liberals to reevaluate their beliefs. I am sure they will never admit it but I am also sure that they will at the very least begin to doubt the direction our nation is headed in and question their confidence in the Democrat majority that currently has much to be blamed for and nothing to be credited with.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll

Bookmark and Share   As the political atmosphere turns its turbulent winds of unrest against the Administration of President Obama, anger and dissatisfaction within the American electorate has forced them to focus and rally for a change from the change that Barack Obama’s promised false hope produced. As a result, the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington, D.C. saw its largest gathering ever.

Amid countless speeches from the likes of Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, J.C. Watts and rising star Marco Rubio to Mike Pence, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, countless rally cries for change are echoing from throughout the ballrooms of the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel and into the political world.

Along with insightful and inspiring, pep-like speeches to motivate the conservative forces, there are countless workshops and organizational training classes that are aimed at allowing dedicated activists to focus their energies on the development of increasing effective grass development and activism.

Among one of the highlights of the annual conference is the CPAC Presidential Straw Poll. The results of the straw are a clear signal of whom the base of the Republican is most energized by and a hint of who has the base’s momentum as we move closer and closer to the presidential election.

For the last three years, former Governor Mitt Romney has taken that honor. Last year he won the CPAC just a day after he withdrew from the Republican presidential nomination contest that ultimately went to Senator John McCain.

This year the CPAC ballot consisted of eleven names Mitt Romney, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, former Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, South Dakota Senator John Thune, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Texas Congressman and perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. A twelfth option was offered on the ballot in the reform of a space for voters to write-in any other preference that they may have.

Just moments ago, in what can only be seen as a surprie upset, the results of the straw poll were released and this is how it turned out:

  1. Ron Paul                     31%
  2. Mitt Romney            22%
  3. Sarah Palin                  7%
  4. Tim Pawlenty             6%
  5. Mike Pence                  5%

Of the 10.000 people in attendance, only 2,400 cast a straw ballot and from the looks of things, the ever dilligent Ron Paul had his very loyal, vocal militant supporters passing out as many ballots as possible.  

So although Congressman Paul can claim this victory, most people, including those in attendance at the CPAC conference, will tell you that no one expects Ron Paul to be the nominee of any major party in 2012. 

Two good signs from this poll though are that even without a corrdinated push for a ballot position thi year, Mitt Romney remains to be a favorite.   The other optimistic sign is Mike Pence’s 5th place showing. 

As a relatively unknown Indiana Congressman, Mike Pence has made quite a name for himself, especially in the area of fiscal conservatism.  Apparently that is beginning to catch the eye of many.

Bookmark and Share


Filed under politics

Al Haig, An American Hero, Dead At 85

Bookmark and Share   General Alexander Haig has died today at the age of 85.

Beginning as an aide to General Douglas MacArthur, up to and even beyond, his Reagan era involvement in the defeat of communism, General Alexander Haig’s life was a record of American history similar to that which you could find in the history that is recorded in the rings of tree’s trunk.

As a graduate of West Point,  Alexander Haig’s military career took him from waking up General McArthur one morning to inform him that the communists of North Korea had penetrated past the 38th parallel and started a war, to joining with Ronald Reagan and setting the table for a strong anti-communist foreign policy agenda that would remain in place throughout the entire Reagan Presidency and help tear down the Berlin Wall and free Europe from the grip of the Soviet union.

In Viet Nam Al Haig eventually served as a battalion and brigade commander where his bravery and brilliance won him the Distinguished Service Cross during battle at An Loc. As described in his Distinguished Service Cross citation Haig’s “personal courage and determination, and his skillful employment of every defense and support tactic possible, inspired his men to fight with previously unimagined power. It continues; “Although his force was outnumbered three to one, Colonel Haig succeeded in inflicting 592 casualties on the Viet Cong.”

For many, this may have been the height and limit to such dedicated sacrifice in the service of his nation but for Al Haig, it was just the beginning.

His knowledge and strategic mind would earn him a call to serve as aide to President Nixon’s, then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. His stellar abilities in this post eventually caught the eye of the President, who in turn scooped up the masterful  military and political strategist for himself as Nixon made Haig his Chief of Staff.

It was in this roll that Al Haig would end up becoming a major figure in one of the most tumultuous times in our nation’s history…..the negotiations that would end up convincing President Nixon to resign from office before he was officially impeached by Congress. In this, Haig was instrumental in negotiating the resignation and setting up the smooth transition from the presidency of Richard Nixon to the presidency of Gerald Ford.

For his part, President Ford would end up having Al Haig answer another call to military service as he made Haig NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. But this was a position that Haig would resign from when in July of 1979, President Jimmy Carter helped the Iranian Revolution remove the Shah of Iran from power. Haig felt that the decision would throw the region in to unprecedented turmoil and he considered Carter’s decision a stab in the back of an important regional ally of the United States.

Shortly after all hell broke loss in the region and American hostages became the center of attention in the Iranian Revolution, the election of President Ronald Reagan meant that Al Haig would again serve his country. This time as Secretary of State.

In the first 18 months of the Reagan Administration, Secretary of State Haig was a brash and unavoidable influence on the Administration and in foreign policy. His hard line against communism would remain a staple of foreign policy throughout the entire 8 years of the Reagan Presidency.

But on March 31st of 1981, Haig’s influence met a bump in the road.

On that day, an assassination attempt on President Reagan sent  the President to the hospital with what would later be describes as wounds much more potentially fatal than was originally disclosed.

At the time of the shooting, all that was known was that the President was hit. The severity of the wound was not immediately clear. But a shocked nation sat in fear, not knowing if President Ronald Reagan would survive or if the assassination attempt was part of an unfolding and continuing conspiracy. Possible even one conspired by a Soviet Union that was rattled by Reagan’s vehement anti-communist foreign policy. At the time the Pentagon had long understood that in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack on the US, the Soviet Union would first attempt a “decapitation” operation that would sever channels of communications and the American chain through assassinations of our leaders.

During all the urgency and fear, Vice President George H. W. Bush was in flight, somewhere over the country. White House attorney’s were preparing for the legal transfer of power from the possibly dying President to the flying Vice President and back in the White House, the Administration’s voice, White House Press Secretary James Brady was being reported as dead, after receiving a bullet to his head during the assassination attempt on the President.  The report of Brady’s death ended up to be errneous.  Brady did survive the shooting but suffered neurological damage and lives life in a wheelchair.

In the midst of all the chaos, in an attempt to insure the nation and the world that the government was running smoothly, Secretary of State Haig rushed to a briefing room where he addresses the nation and throngs of anxious and rattled reporters. It was here that Al Haig said the words that would ultimately help force him out of the Administration.  He stated;

“As for now, I’m in control here, in the White House”

That was all that anyone really listened to.

Word that Al Haig was in charge of the nation immediately ran out.

The actual quote however was;

“Constitutionally gentlemen, you have the president, the vice president and the secretary of state, in that order, and should the president decide he wants to transfer the helm to the vice president, he will do so. As for now, I’m in control here, in the White House, pending the return of the vice president and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.”

Haig did later try to clarify that he was simply communicating that he was controlling the flow of information and was insuring to send all the right messages out to the right people, and being available to speak should if anything needed to said or done, pending return of the vice president. He also expressly stated that he was not referring to any transition of power.

But it was too late. Haig’s enemies used the authoritarian sounding comment to bury him as a brash, power hungry zealot who was out of control.

Such was not the case, but in politics perception is reality and during this time of crisis, Haig’s enemies would define the perception that they wanted to convey. However history did in the end show Al Haig to be an important figure during the hours that followed the assassination attempt.

Audio tapes of meetings in the Situation Room indicated that during the crisis, the US was dangerously close to sparking an unimaginable confrontation with the Soviet Union.

During the assasination crisis, Haig had repeatedly stated both publicly and privately that there was no increase in the American military alert status. However, unbeknownst to Al Haig, Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger raised the US alert to Defcon 2. This meant that Air force pilots were readying nuclear bombers in preparation for a Soviet attack. When Haig found this out, he quickly told Weinberger that he will not alow himself to be seen as a liar and if he assured the world that we were not at a raised level of alert, than there must not and would be no rased level of alert.  Haig knew that if Soviet intelligence discovered that while we declared that there was no hieghtened level of military activity, we secretly were raising the alert and arming nuclear weapons, they would believe that we were readying for a surprise attack against them which in turn could lead them to possibly try to launch a preemptive attack of their own on us.

It was Al Haig who calmed and corrected the potentially dangerous situation.

Nevertheless, accepting of how perception often trumps reality in politics, Haig exited the Reagan Administration, unapologetically and proud.

In the years to follow he would embark on different private sector ventures and do so quite successfully but in 1988 he decided to reenter public service

He ran for the Republican presidential nomination.

Haig was a strong figure and his campaign took aim at Vice President George H. W. Bush and criticized the Vice President on his leadership and competence and even pressed the Vice President on the Iran-Contra issue.

It was during this time that I met Al Haig. I was in New Hampshire working for Jack Kemp’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

I found Al Haig to be a commanding figure, but ironically, when face to face with him, I was surprised to find him to be  a very gentle person. Most startling to me was his size.  This leader, this mighty warrior and stoic historic figure who had wielded such power and attention seemed larger than life on television, but in person he was actually much shorter than his TV persona depicted him to be on screen.

Ultimately, Haig did not get very far in the 1988 Republican presidential primaries and shortly after New Hampshire he withdrew from the contest, but only after endorsing Senator Robert Dole…..not Vice President Bush.

Al Haig was one of our nation’s most colorful figures. His military and political service are matched by few and surpassed by even fewer. And the same goes for his accomplishments. Al Haig’s fingerprints are allover some of the most dramatic events of contemporary history. From fighting and defeating communism to opening up Sino-American relations, preventing nuclear Armageddon and adding ideas and perspectives to the American political debate, Alexander Haig is a true American hero and he leaves behind a legacy of commitment to freedom and justice and service and integrity.

May he rest forevermore in pride and peace.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Liberals Trying To Use Texas Plane Attack To Paint The Right As Dangerous Anti-Government Groups

Bookmark and Share    We knew it would not take long for the left to take Joe Stack’s suicidal terrorist flight into an Austin, Texas building that housed IRS offices, and associate it with those to the right of the political spectrum.

Within a few hours of the unimaginable horror that Stack wreaked, Washington ComPOST columnist Jonathon Capehart went ahead and did it.   He stated that the sentiments expressed were like those of the extreme elements of the Tea Party protestors.

Capehart also proceeds to post segments of Joe Stack’s suicide message in his column as evidence of his association between the terrorist act of a lunatic and those who dissent against the excesses of government. (see the full Stack manifesto here)

In less than a paragraph, Capehart essentially labels those who oppose this Administration or the strong hand of government as extreme anti-government groups. Does Capehart include himself in this dangerous group of “anti-government” groups? Because if he doesn’t, he needs to. Not long ago Capehart was opposed to everything that the government of President George W. Bush did. So should Capehart not be on a government watch list now? Maybe someone needs to send his name to that fishy@whitehouse.gov website that the Obama Administration had once created for the purpose of reporting to them those who disagree with the government healthcare takeover scheme.

It is time for the left to get a grip and start revaluating their shtick. They have gotten away with their double standard for far too long .

In the wake of 9/11 and the rise of radical Islamic terrorists, the left stood firm in their goal to insure that all Muslims were not condemned. They were right too. And they were not alone. President Bush went out of his way to make it clear that we were not at war with Islam or any faith but the terrorists. Profiling was disallowed and instead of doing a second search on the veiled and burkah clad airplane passenger traveling from Yemen, they demanded that the blue haired Grandmother from Pasadena be stripped and frisked.

But when it comes to political ideology, the left suddenly loses any guilt by association beliefs. Suddenly , if you do not think like them, if you did not support Barack Obama for President, you are part of a dangerous anti-government group or movement.

If liberals were as steadfast in their cries and warnings about terrorism as they are with their knee-jerk tendency to label Republicans as dangerous killers, than this nation would be a much safer place.

But such is not the case. Instead, liberals like Jonathon Capehart will use the acts of a lone lunatic who targeted the IRS and associate it with Tea Party protestors and right wing groups.

In Capehart’s case, while he posted the last few remaining paragraphs of Stack’s manifesto, he conveniently left out the last two lines that were between the last paragraph of his message and his name at the bottom.   They were;

“The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

While Capehart associated Stack’s opinions with the Tea Party movement, in addition to conveniently leaving those last two lines out of his post, he neglected to associate many of the other very left leaning positions that Stack espoused. Gone were the references to Stack’s anti-Bush remarks or his desire for government run healthcare. Combine these sentiments along with the final two sentences of Stack’s suicide note and what you have are the words of someone who sounds like a left leaning Marxist.

Maybe it is time for Jonathon Capehart, the Washington ComPost, the New York Slimes and other disreputable liberal entities to put an end to their attempts to label those who oppose big government as terrorists. After all, President Obama has ties of his own to quite a famous anti-government, liberal figure who happens to also be a confessed domestic terrorist, responsible for plots against several different government building and deaths.

Does the name William Ayres sound familiar?  We can start disussing that name and the Weather Undrground again?

So if liberals want to play this game, let’s play it. Let us see how many liberals who cried that dissention was patriotic when Bush was President, but find it not the case now, could be considered dangerous radical anti-government elements based on their dissention back during the Bush years. There are many moves to be made in this game if they wish to continue playing it.

Or we can stop the game. They can drop the double standard and stop trying to associate a dislike of socialism with violent radicalism or stop equating opposition to President Obama’s policies to racism.  And I can stop blaming them for their endless use of double standards and continuous hypocrisy.

If the left can actually drop their hypocrisy, perhaps we can unite against violence and terrorism instead of exploiting tragedy in an attempt to dilute the effectiveness of those who disagree with them.

What Joe Stack did was beyond wrong. It was horrific, reprehensible and deserving of  all of us  going out of our way to join in a united national denunciation of his acts. And what Jonathon Capehart did was also wrong. Instead of using Stack’s act of terrorism as something for all of us to unite against, he used it to divide the differences between left and right even further apart. 

Bookmark and Share


Filed under politics