Unlike many of the hilarity of the day videos, this video is real. Without question, this is a very interesting way to make a few bucks. Unlike other citizens, the president's image can be used by others without the president's permission.
So, whether you love the idea or hate it, you can't blame the gas station owner for coming up with an inventive way to make a few bucks!
Take a look at this video. It points out a lot of good information about things we should be thinking about as the debate over how to handle Medicare's ballooning costs continue.
As I reasoned before, the decisions by Trump and Huckabee not to seek the GOP presidential nomination has essentially placed a frontrunner status on Mitt Romney.
Make sure to watch this video as Dick Morris takes you through the most recent polling on how Romney is impacted by the dwindling GOP field. He also points out Romney two biggest weakness with voters. The first is his support for a healthcare system, RomneyCare, that is eerily similar to ObamaCare. The second is Romney's faith.
Voters do feel good about Romney's business background and believe that he could do a much better job at solving the economic problems facing the country than is President Obama. Morris also hypothesizes what will happen if Mitch Daniels and/or Michele Bachmann jump in the race.
Dick Morris ends his video by stating a very real truth: No matter how you feel about Mitt Romney, President Romney is much better than President Obama.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not a big Romney fan. In fact, I'll do what I can to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. That being said, if Romney wins the nomination, I'll fully support his effort to become President Romney. That's because Dick was right--President Romney does have a much better ring to it than President Obama!
The Texas governor has long denied any interest in pursuing the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. In fact, I was at CPAC where many of these denials took place.
Real Clear Politics (RCP) is reporting that a few Perry confidants are reaching out to other consultants and operatives--especially in states with early primaries. It seems that, at least in recent months, Perry's close associates have begun to say that the governor would not consider a run until after the end of the Texas legislature's term. Since that date is only a few weeks away, could it be that something is in the mix?
I've discussed how some speculate that Romney benefits from both Huckabee and Trump deciding not to run. A factor that hasn't been taken into consideration is what would happen if no Southern top tier GOP candidate entered the race. This is exactly what has happened--both Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee passed. Newt Gingrich is generally considered a top tier candidate but has stumbled mightily in the last few days.
This leaves a chasm into which a strong candidate like Rick Perry could jump. Will he or won't he? That remains to be seen. There is no question, however, that Perry's entrance into the race could prove to be "game-changing."
Rick Perry has an excellent record as governor, is extremely likable, and has fought the Obama Administration tooth-and-nail every step of the way. Despite Romney's success in polls and fundraising, he would be amiss to take lightly Perry's potential candidacy.
Needless to say, Rick Perry brings a great deal to the table. Check out his statements below on ObamaCare and the 10th Amendment.
Take a look at this video. It gives a general overview of the most recent news surrounding the GOP nomination race.
Make sure to pay special attention at about 1:40 into the clip. This is where former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is politely lambasted by a concerned citizen in a hotel lobby.
There is no question that Gingrich is trying to walk back his comments on Paul Ryan and the GOP plan. What are your thoughts?
GOP candidates seem to be falling like flies the last couple of days. The latest in the installment of "He's Out" is Donald Trump.
To be certain, Trump was doing quite well in the polls. Of course, his support had waned in the wake of Obama's birth certificate release. Even so, he was a consistent top tier choice among GOP voters who were polled.
So, the big question is, why did he bow out? The polls showed he had a much better chance to lock up the nomination than did many of his counterparts. By his own admission, he felt that he could win both the primary and the general election. He had even started to lineup campaign consultants and tour stops.
Again, it begs the question, why did Trump decide not to run? I suspect, and can confirm, that a great deal of it had to do with Trump and his "Apprentice" empire. Much like Huckabee's decision was tough because he would have to leave behind an important and lucrative media empire, Trump's was as well.
NBC executives had begun to apply extensive pressure on Trump asking him to make a decision soon. They were planning to air Trump's "Celebrity Apprentice" with or without Trump next season.
In the end, Trump noted the charitable work he was able to accomplish through his, and NBC's, highly popular "Apprentice" empire. Continuing in the work he started simply proved too much for Trump's presidential ambitions.
The question remains, who's the next to drop out? Share your thoughts!
This morning, on NBC's Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich took an ax to the base of the party from which he is seeking a 2012 presidential nomination.
Gingrich first criticized Paul Ryan and the GOP plans for healthcare. He then proceeded to detail how he and Mitt Romney were not that far apart on the issue of the individual mandate and healthcare overall. This, of course, makes neither of the two GOP candidates very far from President Obama and his plan.
This hurts Gingrich at a time when he could stand to gain at least some of Huckabee's supporters. It now looks as though any path to the nomination Gingrich may have had is gone.
Some might ask why has Romney's stance on healthcare not already sunk his nomination chances? To be certain, his nomination chances haven't been helped any. Even so, it seems that many simply believe he is the most electable. This could explain why he polls so highly despite the GOP electorate's general disdain for Obama's healthcare initiative.
Without question, this story is far from over. More on this subject will be coming in the following days. Check back for further updates, and don't forget to vote in the poll.
Also, take a look, below, at Huckabee's full announcement on his Fox News show.
If you haven't already heard, Mike Huckabee will not seek the 2012 GOP nomination for president. This is despite the fact that he is currently leading or placing second in the major polls.
Even before Huckabee made his announcement on his FoxNews program on Saturday night, many had speculated that he would not run. This was due largely to his inactivity in the realm of putting together a campaign staff. Many of his 2008 staff members and/or consultants had already signed up to work for other candidates.
Another one of Huckabee's considerations was his ever expanding media empire. Admittedly, it would be difficult for anyone to walk away from a position which allows him to have a sense of security. More importantly, Huckabee's television and radio programs allow him to have a very large say in issues of public policy.
Everyone is already wondering who will benefit most from Huckabee's dropping out of the race. This, of course, is still very up in the air. Many, for some reason, would suspect that Romney would benefit most since he is polling second. While Romney may pick up some "Huckabee votes," it is unlikely that he will get the lions-share of them.
For starters, you might recall that Huckabee and Romney did not have the greatest of relationships during the 2008 campaign. In his announcement, Huckabee even mentions the mildly bad blood between the two. Another reason is that many Huckabee voters are social conservatives and will likely look for a candidate with better social conservative credentials than Romney. Some have speculated that candidates, or potential candidates, like Santorum, Cain, or Palin would benefit most from Huckabee's decision not to run.
Whatever, the case, it is fairly clear that the most consistent early frontrunner has now taken himself out of the race. Only time and GOP voters will reveal the current frontrunner.
Is he in or is he out? Nobody knows. What we do know is that everyone will know tonight after Huckabee's show of the Fox News Channel.
I has to be a tough decision for Huckabee. If he decides to run for president, he will have to give up, at least temporarily, his very successful news career. That, of course, is not to mention the incredible stress of the campaign for which he would be signing he and his family.
So, make sure you check out Huckabee's show tonight if you want to be among the first to know. Many of Huckabee's close friends don't even know what he has decided. Read, below, the e-mail he sent to many of the people close to him, and watch the show tonight!
Tomorrow night (Saturday) I will announce the next step in my plans for 2012 during my show on the Fox News Channel. I would like to be able to call you or email you personally and in advance of the announcement, but due to the fact that the decision was not finalized until today and that I committed to Fox that I will absolutely not release it prior to doing so on the channel, that became impractical.
A lot of information and speculation was already rampant in the press today, and it frankly isn't fair to you to tell you the details and then put you in the awkward position of saying you didn't know (which at that point wouldn't be true) or saying you did know, but couldn't reveal or discuss it.
It was this afternoon before I could even get word to all of my own children and even now, the executive producer of my show and the staff and crew of the show don't know and won't until I actually do the final preparation literally minutes before I share the decision live Saturday night.
I will look forward to speaking with you soon and once I fulfill my sworn obligation to Fox, I will be free to discuss things that I can't now due to promises to them and to some possible legal considerations of the announcement.
Many friends have said, "how can we help you in the decision?" My answer has consistently been, "Pray that I have clarity." I have it and will share it Saturday night during the show. Please be patient if I don't respond immediately to an email because I expect that once I pull the trigger Saturday night, things will get even crazier, as if that's possible.
My heartfelt thanks for your friendship, prayers, and support,
Let's face it, we lost the debate over the continuing resolution. Even if you thought it was pretty good, you have to admit that we didn't force anywhere near the level of cuts that were needed.
The Democrats held the pay for our troops hostage and forced Boehner and the Republicans to cave to avoid not paying the troops and supposedly shutting down the government. They are up to a similar trick on the debt limit debate as well.
The Democratic argument on the debt limit is akin to saying that the full faith and credit of the United States will be irreparably damaged by not raising the debt limit. They seem to think that by not raising the debt limiting we are choosing not to pay our debt. This doesn't have to be the case.
The same way that we could have paid the troops and still cut significant amounts of money in the continuing resolution, we can pay our creditors and and still not raise the debt ceiling. All that needs to be done is to pass a law saying that our creditors will be paid first--before anything else. In this way, we will meet our financial obligations by paying our creditors. Secondly, it will force significant cuts to occur in the budget. This is exactly what we want and need in order to ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit an America that is as good or better than the one we have loved.
So, watch Dick Morris discuss his strategy, and vote in the new poll which will be posted shortly!
I apologize for the lack of posts today and yesterday. Blogger has been having difficulties, and the website has been down until now.
Anyways, if you thought you understood Obama's budget plan, think again! Watch this amazing video where Ray Stevens explains Obama's budget plan to you!
If you thought the healthcare debate was intense, you haven't seen anything yet. The debate over increasing the debt ceiling is potentially the most important and biggest debate we have seen yet.
President Obama has released some of his ideas on lowering the deficit. Of course, he and the Democrats have the same old ideas that liberal have always had--tax and spend. The Obama administration wants to eliminate tax credits, raise taxes, and that's pretty much it.
As far as eliminating tax credits is concerned, don't be fooled by the Democrat's "hard-line stance" against "Big Oil." The credits they really want to eliminate go to small companies who drill exploratory wells looking for new sources of oil. As Mark Levin explained on his program last night, these tax credits were put in place for the express purpose of encouraging businessmen to take risks to find new sources of energy.
Why would Congress do such a thing? Let's put it this way, it is an economic fact that the greater the supply of oil, the lower the price paid at the pump. So, Congress offered these tax incentives as a way to encourage individuals to increase the oil supply and, in turn, lower prices paid by consumers.
I guess the president and his Democratic colleagues aren't really doing anything that disappoints them. Certainly, they know the facts of simple economics. Simple economics and low gas prices for the American people isn't their primary concern. Instead, it is pursuing policies that punish America's success and redistributes wealth to other countries. For an example, think cap and trade. Also, recall that Obama said that under his plan energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket."
Whatever their intentions, it is safe to say that the Democrats are totally unwilling to give up their government largesse in order to reign in spending. In fact, this has been their whole plan all along--to greatly increase the size of government through ballooning bureaucracy and spending.
As Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, points out, Republicans better hold the line on raising the debt ceiling. Normally, people say such things in relation to holding the line so one can be reelected. In this instance, the GOP should have more in mind that simply being reelected. They must keep in mind that we are in a fight for our future. Our debt and spending habits are simply unsustainable and must be controlled.
Now is the time for the fight! Draw a line in the sand and stand firm!
In yesterday's "Hilarity of the Day" segment, we saw President Obama's plan to lower the budget deficit and national debt--some combination of card counting and befriending a rich elderly widow. You might find those plans to be far fetched. If so, you're really going to be blow away by the Treasury Department's latest plan.
I hope you got your bags in the mail to send all your money to the Treasury Department! If you haven't, you should check in to it! All of the ink in your money will become poisonous on Friday. Don't worry, the Treasury Department has a solution--it is recalling the entire money supply. That, of course, is why they sent you the money bag.
If you thought you could just destroy the poisonous money yourself, you better think again. The Treasury Department spokesman has warned that only the government is able to undertake this task. Also, he assures the American people that this recall is not at all related to the ever increasing deficit and national debt.
There are no other options; they've considered others and recalling the entire money supply is the only way!
Today, Newt Gingrich officially announced he is seeking the Republican nomination for president. You might recall that Gingrich is the 67 year old former Speaker of the House. He led the Republican Revolution of 1994, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
On Monday, Gingrich announced he would soon announce his bid for the presidency. That day was, in fact, today. Take a few minutes to watch his announcement address, and see what you think.
Tomorrow, I will put up a poll asking you to consider who your favorite candidate for the GOP nomination. Unlike the current poll, your choices will include even those who are just being talked about in the media. Remember to vote in the current poll!
Could it be that Obama is now starting to see that bump in the polls everyone suspected after UBL's demise? Just yesterday, it was reported that Obama was only getting a three point approval bump. Now, today, we are told that polls show Obama with 60% job approval and and 53% believing he should be reelected. Which one is true?
The problem with polls are that the results can be misleading if you don't look closely at the details. It is not that AP necessarily did anything underhanded or shady. They rightly admit that their poll was a poll of adults. In other words, they did not take into account party identification when deciding whom to call. However, each adult who was called was asked to self-identify their partisan affiliation. The results of this question should tell us a great deal about the actual results.
If the breakdown in party identification comes out being similar to what turnout is expected to be, the results tell us a great deal. However, if the results are so skewed to one side that it isn't even feasible to assume that the turnout could ever be that way, we don't really come to understand that much.
Unfortunately, the results of this AP poll are in the latter category. 46% self-identified as a Democrat or Democrat leaner. That is compared to only 29% identifying Republican or Republican leaning. 4% were Independents and 20% didn't know.
So, unless the 2012 breakdown is expected to be 46% Democrat, 29% Republican, 4% Independent, and 20% Undecided, these poll numbers tell us absolutely nothing.
About the only thing we did learn from this poll is that people really approve of George W. Bush--including many Democrats. We know this because Bush's approval rating in this poll was 50% to 49%. We can learn something from this because the partisan makeup of the poll was very skewed against the former president yet he was still able to garner a positive result. This actually means that his approval is higher. Likewise, the skewed partisan affiliation in the poll likely means that President Obama's support is much lower.
Again, AP, through the poll itself, wasn't necessarily trying to fool the public. Even so, it could be said stories written by AP writers have done just that. Was that their intention? Who knows. What we do know is that the authors conveniently leave out the self-identified partisan breakdown of the respondents. So, was it a hatchet job--you decide!
You can check out the article put out by the AP here. Also, check out the National Review Onlinepiece on debunking the AP poll.
So, as conservatives, or those on the right side of the political spectrum, we have to answer for other right-wing fanatics like Adolf Hitler right? I mean he was definitely a right-wing radical wasn't he? That's what they said on television--so it must be true! Or is it?
Despite what you've seen or heard, nuts like Adolf Hitler were not right-wing. We are constantly told that fascists were an outgrowth of the extreme right-wing. The fact of the matter is, in the American context, liberal Democrats have much more in common with the National Socialists than anyone on on the right side of the political spectrum.
This, of course, is not to say that American liberals share the same racist, genocidal beliefs of hardcore fascists like Hitler or Mussolini. Hence the title of the book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. What Jonah Goldberg is saying, however, is that it is undeniable that American liberals, especially since the heyday of the Progressive era in the 1920s, share an intellectual heritage with the fascists of old.
That's right, Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson were liberal fascists. In the American context, fascism is obviously much more "friendly" than the fascism of many European states. In the United States, fascism, and therefore progressivism, has seemingly operated under the notion that government is the parent and the populace are children who have no way of understanding what is truly best for them. The people's only hope of receiving care and direction is for government to lead them. They can't even be taught to fend for themselves, government must hold their hand from the cradle to the grave.
If you don't believe that liberals today share similarities to the fascists of old, recall that, like today's Progressives, they favored national healthcare, the purging of religious influence from public life, government pensions, and much more.
That's the basic overview of what you will find in Goldberg's book. I was both informed and entertained while reading this book.
You should definitely consider reading it for yourself!
I know you always thought it and now you know its true--Facebook "creator" Mark Zuckerberg is really CIA agent The Overlord. Do you think Farmville is cool? Its really a mechanism by which to keep Americans pacified while unemployment continues to rise. So, there you have it. Have fun using your CIA gadgets!
If you thought you understood Obama's plan to lower the national debt, if there ever has been one, you were wrong! The Onion reports how President Obama really intends to lower the national debt. It seems there is an extremely rich widow who just might decide to leave the US Treasury some money. If that doesn't work out, there's always learning to count cards so he can win back all the money that we are already down! Enjoy!
Does the Obama Administration know anything about what's really going on in the world? A better question might be, are they willing to admit the truth about the standing of international relationships?
Just yesterday, it was reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that the relationship between the United States and China was excellent and had no real issues. Through her comments, she attempted to dispel the notion that "some in our country see China's progress as a threat to the United States." Her additional comments may be viewed here.
So, President Obama has promised to improve all of our relationships around the world and Secretary Clinton argues that China is not a real, present, or future danger to the United States. Is this what the evidence really shows? Could it be that China has recently been engaged in activity which could only stand to harm us?
In the UBL raid, a US Blackhawk helicopter had mechanical failure and had to be abandoned at UBL's Pakistan compound. US forces did their best to destroy the crippled helicopter to prevent it from being copied by Pakistan or others. Even with it being mostly destroyed, Pakistani officials believe they can still salvage some information from it.
It is bad enough that Pakistani officials have, as of yet, refused to turn over the wreckage to US officials because of their own desire to study the remains. Even worse is the breaking report that Pakistani officials have commented that Chinese officials have expressed interest in taking a look at the wreckage.
Instead of shooting down the idea at the outset, Pakistani officials have declared that they have at least some interest in sharing the wreckage with China. This should not be seen as surprising considering the fact that Pakistan and China have a fairly close relationship. Pakistan potentially sharing the helicopter wreckage with China could be seen as payback for China allowing Pakistan access to its missile systems.
The last time China knowingly gained access to sensitive American technology was 1999 when a stealth bomber was shot down over Serbia. The wreckage eventually found its way to China and, a decade later, it unveiled its version of a similar bomber.
Ultimately, US-Chinese relations may not be quite as rosy as the Obama Administration would have you believe. It is very unfortunate that the administration seemingly spends its precious time and resources attempting to make traditionally antagonistic countries like us while it spends very little time maintaining good relations with our friends. The net impact of such efforts has led to worse international relations overall--and that's definitely something the "lame-street media" isn't telling you.
Tell me what you think--leave a comment! Remember to vote in the GOP poll!
Pervez Musharraf, George W. Bush, and Hamid Karzai (Courtesy: The Guardian)
Urgent Update: The Guardian is now reporting that then Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and President George W. Bush struck a deal ten years ago. The deal authorized the United States to unilaterally attack inside Pakistan's borders if there was sufficient evidence that UBL was hiding at a particular location inside Pakistan. This accord was struck in 2001 and was largely due to Osama Bin Laden's escape from the mountainous Tora Bora region. The thought that he had escaped to Pakistan has certainly proven correct.
A former US security official is quoted as saying that there was an understanding that Pakistani officials would feign outrage at not being notified--but would take no real additional action. A former senior Pakistani official also stated, "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement." Referencing the apparent recent Pakistani outrage, The former US official said that was just the "public face" of the agreement and that the US "knew they would deny this stuff."
From documents released in the WikiLeaks fiasco, we know that Pakistan has a similar policy allowing the CIA to conduct strikes in Pakistan's tribal region. In fact, one document shows a Pakistani official telling a US official, "I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
In the end, and regardless of how everything happened, the fact that UBL is dead is great for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. This new information does help us to better understand the outrage in Pakistan. Interestingly, we are again led to the conclusion that things done by the Bush Administration have a lot more to do with getting UBL than most media outlets want to admit.
Have you ever heard of the 1947 Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education? My guess is that many haven't. We should take the time to briefly consider its significance to our history and lives today--especially as it relates to religious freedom.
The opinion of the Court stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The question I ask here, which the justices seemingly had no interest in, is whether or not such a judgement was based on the Constitution. If not, on what did the justices base their decision. Understanding such is of the utmost importance if we, as a country, ever hope to return to the Constitutional foundation on which we were first planted.
The document on which the justices based their decision was a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists Association of Danbury, CT. You might think, well Jefferson's letter isn't the Constitution--but at least they based their decision on a letter written by a Founding Father. Oh, if it were only so. The problem arises in the sense that the justices based their decision on a completely, and potentially malicious, false understanding of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists.
As Baptists had suffered from the centralization of power in several states, especially Rhode Island, the Danbury Association was concerned that the federal government would centralize its power in the realm of religious activity. The Association was especially concerned that the Bill of Rights looked as though it were a grant of liberties by the government--not from the Almighty. Accordingly, they were worried that the same federal government which granted freedom of religious expression could take it away at the stroke of a pen.
To a large extent, Jefferson shared the Danbury Baptists' concerns. He made it a point to speak to the notion that government had no authority to interfere with the public's rights of religious expression. In the Kentucky Resolution, 1798 Jefferson wrote, "[N]o power over the freedom of religion...[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution." In his Second Inaugural Address, 1805 Jefferson declared, "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government." To the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1808, Jefferson wrote, "[O]ur excellent Constitution...has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary." Finally, in 1808, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller that he considered "the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions...or exercises."
The fact of the matter is that Jefferson was absolutely not stating that the First Amendment "erected a wall between church and state," as the Supreme Court essentially attributed to him in 1947. Instead, Jefferson's ardent belief and understanding was that the federal, or general, government could never establish a national religion. Jefferson makes this point in a letter to a fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence--Benjamin Rush. Jefferson wrote:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.
It is clear, then, that, at best, the Supreme Court, in 1947, partially based their decision upon a historical misunderstanding of Jefferson's writings. At worst, the Court aided and abetted those who were maliciously working to undermine Jefferson's beliefs and the true meaning of the First Amendment.
For more information of the supposed separation of church and state and Thomas Jefferson's writings, read this article from David Barton, a Founding era scholar. Also, make sure to check out both of David Barton's attached videos.
If you're even considering not watching this video, you're missing out. I know, I know, its Jon Stewart. All I can say is that funny is funny.
Stewart does a great job in this piece making an excellent point and having fun doing it. Doesn't it seem like the media believes everything President Obama does is, or could be, his "defining moment?" It makes one wonder if anyone even knows what a defining moment really is anymore.
On top of Stewart's dig at the press coverage of Obama, he takes on a few members of MSNBC's Dream Team--Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz. In this video, you'll find Chris Matthews asking himself questions and Ed Schultz being--well just being Ed Schultz.
Whether you love Jon Stewart or hate him, this is a great video. You'll regret it if you don't check it out!
Check back daily for the new segment "Daily Hilarity." Enjoy!
At least once a week, I'm going to keep you up-to-date on what I am currently reading, have recently read, or will soon be reading. As a part of this endeavor, I will provide a brief review of the work. Rest assured that the books I review are excellent, and you should definitely consider reading them! I hope you find these reviews/suggestions helpful, and I hope you enjoy the books as much as I have!
I could think of no better book to start with than President George W. Bush's Decision Points. I finished reading it about a month or so ago, but it has stuck with me. It was especially interesting to me because I got to see the president discuss his book at Freed-Hardeman University.
President Bush's book tells the story of his life--but in a much different fashion than most of us are accustomed. Instead of going into great detail about every moment of his life as many do in their autobiographies, Bush centers his comments and anecdotes on a number of key points of decision. These "decision points" span his entire career. Even though he doesn't talk about every detail of every part of his life, the reader comes to appreciate his style of leadership and decision making process.
Bush talks about his work as part-owner of the Texas Rangers, how he lost a bid for a US House seat, and how he finally decided to throw his hat in the gubernatorial and presidential rings. Of course, he discusses a number of policy issues and the decisions he had to make as a businessman, a governor, and as president.
Sometimes we forget that our leaders are humans and actually have to overcome problems in their own lives. President Bush's case was no different. He discusses how he met Laura over some grilled hamburgers in a friend's backyard. He immediately fell in love--and I don't mean with the hamburgers either! As one would expect from a father, Bush discusses how proud he is of his two daughters and his one son-in-law. Other extremely uplifting parts of the book are when he talks about the wonderful relationship between he and his father. Another is that Bush details his reasons for completely giving up alcohol and how he came to his Christian faith.
As far as political and/or policy matters are concerned, we find that Bush, like most Americans, felt both his world and the world in general was turned upside down by the events of September 11, 2001. Even if you happen to be someone who hasn't agreed with everything he did in the years following 9-11, you can greatly benefit reading his reasoning behind going into Afghanistan and, later, Iraq. There is no doubt that these decisions were made after gathering facts and consulting advisers. But, as Bush often says, there is a time at which fact gathering, analyzing, and advice must end. He had been hired by the American people to make decisions--and thoughtful and well reasoned decisions he did make. President Bush also details his decision making process on other issues such as stem cell research, the financial crisis, Katrina, AIDS research and prevention, international freedom, and many others.
Overall, I greatly enjoyed the book and found it hard to put it down. It is written in a very narrative style that makes it both very easy to understand and enjoyable. Don't pass up reading this book by a great American statesman!
The USS Michael Murphy was recently christened in honor of Lt. Michael Murphy who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell was the only member of the four-man team to survive being attacked by 2,500 Taliban fighters. Glenn Beck has since become a close friend of Luttrell and is deeply committed to telling the courageous story of Luttrell and his fallen friends and fellow SEALS.
Even if Glenn Beck isn't your favorite television or radio host, please check out these videos. You will regret it if you pass up hearing about this great American hero! If you see a military man or woman today, thank them for all the do for us.
May God bless the troops and The United States of America!
Last night's GOP presidential debate had a lot of great moments. As is normally the case, Ron Paul pulled off a series of zingers and flat out hilarious comments. That's not to say that he didn't make some excellent points. Instead, it simply means that Paul's answers were both informative and entertaining.
Rick Santorum showed primary voters why he had been a rising star before his reelection defeat in 2006. Tim Pawlenty had the courage to admit that he had been wrong when he had, at first, supported cap and trade legislation. He explained how he changed his mind after studying the issue in much more detail. Gary Johnson rightly used his opportunities to discuss a number of his accomplishments as governor of New Mexico.
You might say that each candidate had his flash of excellence--that is clear. That being said, businessman and former radio host Herman Cain consistently performed at a high level. In reality, he stole the show.
Mr. Cain had two especially outstanding moments. One was when moderator Chris Wallace asked Cain about his support for the Fair Tax, noting that experts argue that such a taxing system would actually hurt the middle class. Cain quickly responded by saying, "With all due respect, your experts are dead wrong." He followed up his great one liner with an explanation of exactly how the Fair Tax would be good for all taxpayers.
Cain's second great moment was when he was asked about his having never held an elected position. Mr. Cain quickly responded that most of the folks in Washington had previously held public office. His next sentence really brought the house down. He said, "How's that working out for ya?" RedState.com's Erick Erickson discusses Cain's performance in more detail here.
Dr. Frank Luntz's focus group was near unanimous in their opinion that Cain dominated the debate. In fact, this opinion was near unanimous in a group of more than twenty-five South Carolina GOP primary voters. Luntz was visibly taken aback by the overwhelming opinion that Cain had won the debate. He proceeded to ask the group how many had come in supporting Cain--only one raised her hand. In the end, the "no-name" Cain left with at least half the room solidly backing his candidacy--and the others weren't far behind.
In case you aren't familiar with Dr. Frank Luntz, be assured that this isn't his first time around the focus group block. The man is a consummate professional and wordsmith. Trust me, if he is taken aback at the response to Cain's performance, we all should be. When you have the time, you should check out Dr. Luntz's amazing book, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear.
Be sure to watch Dr. Luntz's focus group below, and vote in the poll to pick your favorite candidate out of the five who participated in last night's debate.
. What Jonah Goldberg is saying, however, is that it is undeniable that American liberals, especially since the heyday of the Progressive era in the 1920s, share an intellectual heritage with the fascists of old.
