<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>lonestar818's Diary</title>
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/lonestar818</link>
	<description>Just another RedState: Conservative News and Community weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.2.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>Fiscal re-what?!</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I literally laughed out loud when I heard Obama was hosting a &#8220;fiscal responsibility&#8221; summit.  What a joke.  He and his friends in Congress just spent more in one month than we&#8217;ve spent on the entire Iraq war, and now they want to talk about being fiscally responsible.</p>
<p>Well, they may be talking about it, but they sure as heck aren&#8217;t doing anything about it.  Unless, well, hmm&#8230;  let me think about that.  Perhaps when Obama tells us he&#8217;s getting away from the &#8220;failed policies of the past&#8221; what he really means is the &#8220;failed dictionaries of the past.&#8221;  Because, from the looks of things, the term &#8220;fiscally responsible&#8221; in his new-fangled dictionary is the exact opposite of what I think most of us have generally thought it to mean.<br />
<span id="more-10"></span><br />
So maybe what we really need to do is just get with the program and get ourselves a new dictionary.  The old one would have said that fiscally responsible means:</p>
<p>- saving money, and living within your means<br />
- not spending money you don&#8217;t have<br />
- not borrowing money you know you can&#8217;t afford to pay back<br />
- not stealing money from your children</p>
<p>Ha, that is SO yesterday.  FAIL.</p>
<p>The NEW dictionary defines fiscally responsible as:</p>
<p>- borrowing money you don&#8217;t have to spend on things you don&#8217;t need and can&#8217;t afford<br />
- stealing from your children to spend on things you don&#8217;t need and can&#8217;t afford<br />
- spend, spend, spend, spend, spend<br />
- when you run out of money, take out a new credit card in your children&#8217;s name<br />
- just keep spending and all your troubles will just float away&#8230;</p>
<p>Yep, if that&#8217;s the new definition, I think this administration has it NAILED.  The proof of their fiscal responsibility is everywhere.</p>
<p>Here are just a few examples:<br />
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&#38;sid=aGcZFK6kDeQo&#38;refer=us">House Approves $410 Billion ‘Omnibus’ Spending Bill</a><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022502587.html?hpid=topnews">Obama Proposes $634 Billion Fund For Health Care</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601104&#38;sid=a5iZ74X8bcvc">Obama Will Unveil $205.5 Billion War Spending Through 2010</a><br />
<a href="http://www.zimbio.com/mortgage+industry/articles/5375/Housing+Bailout+at+275+Billion">Housing bailout at $275 billion</a><br />
<a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/industrials/bailout-detroit-auto-makers-cost-b-plus/">Detroit auto bailout could cost $100 billion</a></p>
<p>That&#8217;s well over another $1.6 trillion on top of the $800 billion for the recent &#8220;porkulus&#8221; bill.  Wow, so much of other people&#8217;s money to spend, so little time.  Just imagine how much they can spend in the next 47 months!  Oh yeah, and don&#8217;t forget $700 billion for TARP 1 (yeah, I know that was Bush but it was also Pelosi / Reid) and who knows how much for TARP 2.  The fun just never ends when we&#8217;re busy being &#8220;fiscally responsible!&#8221;</p>
<p>How do they propose to pay for all of this?  Well, aside from the ever-popular printing presses, there&#8217;s the off-chance that China might actually still loan us money, and in addition to that, tax increases.  Because nothing stimulates an economy like hiking taxes on the backbone of the economy &#8211; small businesses.  You know, the ones that employ a large percentage of Americans?  That will pull more money out of the economy, force businesses to lay off more employees and making a bad situation much worse.</p>
<p>So there you have it.  Spending like there&#8217;s no tomorrow and crushing small business is the new &#8220;fiscally responsible.&#8221;</p>
<p>Cross-posted at <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/fiscal-re-what.html">Eternal Vigilance</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/lonestar818/2009/02/26/fiscal-re-what/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Broken promises</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Sigh. I realize that broken promises go with politicians like chocolate fudge goes with ice cream, but come on. It&#8217;s only been 25 days and seven promises from just this one speech have already gone by the wayside.</p>
<p><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o5t8GdxFYBU&#38;hl=" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></p>
<p><span id="more-5"></span><br />
1. Make Government Open and Transparent<br />
2. Make it &#8220;Impossible&#8221; for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects<br />
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public<br />
4. No more secrecy<br />
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill<br />
6. You&#8217;ll know what&#8217;s in it<br />
7. We will put every pork barrel project online</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s see.</p>
<p>Impossible for pork to be slipped in? Almost the entire bill is pork! We&#8217;re told there are &#8220;no earmarks&#8221; in this bill, and that&#8217;s only because all the pet projects are just part of the bill and therefore no need to slip them in as earmarks. At least with earmarks, we&#8217;d be able to see who put each project in. But as it stands, we have no idea who is responsible for each of the &#8220;porky&#8221; projects. So while they&#8217;re telling us it&#8217;s more transparency, it&#8217;s actually much less.</p>
<p>No more secrecy? The bill was written with no Republican input, much less public input. The final negotiations took place behind closed doors, with Republicans completely shut out (including the three who had promised to vote for it). They didn&#8217;t have an &#8220;open&#8221; meeting until the negotiations were over.</p>
<p>Not only did the public not get access to the bill until the 11th hour, but Congress didn&#8217;t even have access to the final bill until just a few hours before they were expected to vote on it. There was no time to actually read it, and they didn&#8217;t get it in a web-based, searchable format, they got 8 inches of paper. Obama is set to sign it on Tuesday, the first business day after the House and Senate passed it.</p>
<p>So much for 5 days time for the public to review before it is signed into law, not to mention the 48 hours we were supposed to have to review before it was voted on.</p>
<p>And these are just the broken promises that are relevant to <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/porkulus-passes.html">this one particular bill</a>. We were promised a &#8220;new era of bipartisanship,&#8221; the &#8220;<a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&#38;pageId=88361">most ethical administration in history</a>,&#8221; with &#8220;no lobbyists&#8221; in the administration.</p>
<p>What we got instead was Nancy Pelosi <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143">rewriting the rules of the House</a> to bar the minority party from offering alternative bills, amendments to bills, or even having a guarantee of open debate.</p>
<p>What we got instead was one cabinet pick after another riddled by ethics issues.<br />
- <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481347,00.html">Timothy Geithner</a>, Treasury Secretary &#8211; nonpayment of taxes (confirmed anyway)<br />
- <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/daschle-withdraws-nomination-health-human-services-secretary">Tom Daschle</a>, Head of HHS &#8211; nonpayment of taxes and conflict of interest (finally withdrew from consideration, but Obama was prepared to stand by him despite the fact that any other citizen with so much backtaxes owed would be in jail)<br />
- <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493919/">Bill Richardson</a> &#8211; Commerce Secretary, withdrew when the fact that he was under investigation for ethics violations surfaced<br />
- <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp?idArticle=16101&#38;r=mswgc">Hilda Solis</a> &#8211; tax issues &#38; conflict of interest issues &#8211; confirmation hearings not yet complete<br />
- <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9646DBG0&#38;show_article=1">Nancy Killefer</a> &#8211; &#8220;Performance Czar&#8221; (newly created position) &#8211; tax issues<br />
- <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323887,00.html">Hillary Clinton</a> &#8211; conflict of interest, confirmed anyway<br />
- <a href="http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&#38;pageId=88234">David Ogden</a> &#8211; Deputy Atty General, has defended the porn industry and opposed a law that would protect children from predators on the internet.</p>
<p>As for the &#8220;no lobbyists&#8221; rule? Instead, he <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_reform_promises_2">started filing for exemptions</a> almost as soon as the rule was passed. What&#8217;s the point in setting a standard if you have no intention of actually living up to it? Oh yeah, he&#8217;s hoping no one is paying attention.</p>
<p>The so-called most &#8220;ethical&#8221; administration ever has been a big disappointment so far, and it&#8217;s only been 25 days. It&#8217;s going to be a long four years.</p>
<p>Cross-posted at <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/broken-promises.html">Eternal Vigilance</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/lonestar818/2009/02/15/broken-promises/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Not the America I knew</title>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This week has been so exhausting, I don&#8217;t even know where to start. I feel like I am watching the nation I love morph into something unrecognizable and it breaks my heart.</p>
<p>This is not the America I knew.</p>
<p>In the America I grew up in, no one was &#8220;too big to fail.&#8221; <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html">Tax cheats</a> were not <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9646DBG0&#38;show_article=1">awarded with lucrative</a> <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/more-daschle-ta.html">cabinet jobs</a>. Presidents didn&#8217;t dishonor service men and women who gave their lives for this country by stopping the trial and <a href="http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/06/obama-drops-charges-against-uss-cole-bomber/">dropping charges</a> against known &#8211; admitted &#8211; terrorists. Presidents didn&#8217;t &#8220;<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081216215816.8g97981o&#38;show_article=1">abandon free market principles to save the free market</a>&#8221; (what the #$%&#38; does that even mean?).</p>
<p><span id="more-3"></span><br />
In the America I grew up in, the media actually did its job, which was to inform the public of important issues in an objective manner. Their role (and I&#8217;m talking about journalists here, not opinion commentators) was to be the watchdogs of both parties in government on behalf of the people. Now they have by and large become the cheering section for the liberal agenda (and yes, if they were cheerleaders for conservatives I would still be disturbed, they fail the public when they let bias skew their reporting in either direction).</p>
<p>In the America I grew up in, <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/01/universal-healthcare-family-planning.html">contraception was not considered economic stimulus</a> (because less people means less cost). Trillion-dollar stimulus packages were not thrown together behind closed doors under cover of darkness and voted in a rush under the pretext of impending doom. Trillion-dollar bills that would enslave generations to debt were not even in the realm of consideration. Stealth socialized healthcare provisions were not slipped into stimulus bills to avoid open debate on the issue.</p>
<p>Presidents were respected and conducted themselves in a manner worthy of that respect. They were not treated as messianic figures and didn&#8217;t seek to be. America believed in freedom, liberty, and capitalism, and wasn&#8217;t afraid to stand for its principles.</p>
<p>Maybe my memory is wrong. I&#8217;m not trying to sugar-coat history, and admittedly I&#8217;m only in my 30&#8242;s so there is much of this country&#8217;s history that I don&#8217;t remember. But at the end of the day I grew up in a free America, and that is the America I want to leave my children.</p>
<p>What scares me the most is how quickly we are moving (falling?) down the slippery slope toward socialism. This country has fought against socialism and it&#8217;s cousin, communism, for so long because it goes against everything we believe in. And yet, here we find ourselves apparently welcoming socialism with open arms because we are afraid. Our leaders in Washington have chosen not to lead. Rather than reassure Americans that even though times may be tough we will get through it because that is who we are, they play chicken-little, cry that the sky is falling, and promote fear and panic because it serves their agenda.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t the first time we have been down this road. The events surrounding the Great Depression of the 1930&#8242;s are similar in some ways to today, and eerily enough, both the Bush and Obama administrations seem bent on repeating the mistakes of Hoover and FDR. Spend, spend, and spend some more, expand government and restrict freedoms. Normally we the people would resist such attempts, but we are less likely to do so when reduced to a panic by our leadership and the MSM.</p>
<p>It is time to stop being afraid. We need to take a hard look in the mirror and be willing to stand up and say NO.</p>
<p>No, I will not give up my freedoms in exchange for a promise of security. Benjamin Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both. I believe that is true, and I say NO. The price is just too high.</p>
<p>We owe it to our children to stand firm and fight for our principles. We owe it to them to find a way to appeal to the common sense of Americans, to <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/what-do-you-believe-in.html">let them know they are not alone</a>, to stand together and make sure America remains the land of the free, home of the brave.</p>
<p>Obama and his supporters in Congress tell us that without the <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/porkulus-passes.html">spendulus bill</a> right-now! we would inevitably face an economic &#8220;catastrophe.&#8221;  I don&#8217;t believe that is true, but if it is, then so be it.  I would rather risk facing a depression and emerge with our freedoms intact, than give up the heart and soul of this great nation and be forced into socialism.</p>
<p>This country isn&#8217;t perfect, but it is great. It is, and has been, a beacon of freedom and hope to the world, and I want to keep it that way. That is the country I want my children to inherit.</p>
<p>Cross-posted at <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/not-america-i-knew.html">Eternal Vigilance</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/lonestar818/2009/02/15/not-the-america-i-knew/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

