Political Vindication

Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Saturday, February 6th, 2010

It is on days like today that it occurs to me how precious wisdom is. Looking back on the life of Ronald Reagan one can see a life spent communicating those things that make life vibrant – not only the macro themes such as freedom and courage, but the humor and wonder that makes life precious and worth defending. So many that have been given the opportunity to experience life leave it having made their mark only among those surrounding them – and there’s nothing wrong with that. But there are a few who have spent their time on earth dedicated to making life for millions better – for those gifted with rare talent comes great expectation. Fewer still blossom into full flower, so that the world is never the same. Ronald Reagan was one of those treasured souls.

Today Ronald Reagan would have been 99 years old. I’m sure that next year, on his one hundredth birthday they’ll be great celebration and a push to introduce his passion and dedication to a new generation of Americans looking for a reason to be proud of their country. I say we not wait until then to introduce the Gipper – today is as good a day as any to praise the potential of the heart and the rewards of courage. Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Following is a video of some of Ronald Reagan’s finest moments and some images that, in themselves, offer a poignant thought about who he was, why he succeeded, and how precious the legacy is that he left to us.

WPvideo 1.10

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Ronald Reagan | No Comments »

Arm The Black Community

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Monday, February 1st, 2010

From Pajamas Media comes this report from The Violence Policy Center:

Blacks in the United States are disproportionately affected by homicide. For the year 2007, blacks represented 13 percent of the nation’s population, yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims.

As noted at the beginning of this study, the devastation homicide inflicts on black teens and adults is a national crisis, yet it is all too often ignored outside of affected communities.

For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns — usually handguns — are far and away the number one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.

It amazes me that a community that continues to insist that the legacy of slavery still influences its access to opportunity would ever agree to being disarmed. There are few groups in America that can claim such a recent memory to a condition of vile subservience. In these communities there is an epidemic of crime committed by blacks on blacks, where hoodlums are armed and killing innocents with regularity. We’ve tried the policies of the left, ask Washington DC or New Orleans how that worked. It didn’t, in fact many argue that strict gun laws preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves led directly to their deaths.

The second amendment is a liberty that more than any other signifies the difference between the slave and the free citizen. It’s an adult responsibility, and our government ought to treat its citizens as adults, otherwise we are nothing more than children in the care of a paternalistic overlord. There’s nothing free about that…

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Gun Control | No Comments »

Cato Critiques Obama’s State Of The Union

Posted by: Uncle Seth The Noble on Thursday, January 28th, 2010

WPvideo 1.10

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Politics | No Comments »

Frank Luntz Focus Group After State Of The Union

Posted by: Uncle Seth The Noble on Thursday, January 28th, 2010

WPvideo 1.10

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Politics | No Comments »

PV Radio Special Event: The People’s State of The Union… Starting At 6pm PST!

Posted by: Uncle Seth The Noble on Monday, January 25th, 2010

Tomorrow night President Barack Obama will be giving his State Of The Union speech.

Tonight, you’re invited to a very special evening with Blog Talk Radio’s finest conservative hosts as they give their own State Of The Union address. Seven speakers on seven topics that explore the condition of the nation in far deeper detail than should be expected from the current resident of the White House. It is time that Americans stood up and told the truth. It is time our president listened.

Join us at Political Vindication Radio as we host two hours of prose and passion. The show airs from 6 – 8pm Pacific, and the chat room will be open 15 minutes prior to show time. Come and meet fellow patriots who feel the way you do about this great nation – it’s time we came to her rescue!

The Peoples State of The Union lineup and schedule for Tuesday evening:

First Hour

Pastor Ed of Do The Right Thing present ‘The Invocation’
Wyatt of Patriot Action presents ‘government’s role in freedom and prosperity’
Fausta of Fausta’s Blog presents ‘America’s greatness saves lives in Haiti’
Willie of The Willie Lawson Show presents ‘The power of grass roots movement’

Second Hour

Howie of Chandler’s Watch presents ‘Honoring our military’
Richard of Radio Active Online presents ‘Education and our future’
Frank of Political Vindication presents ‘Freedom as a policy for prosperity’
Shane of Political Vindication presents ‘The State of the Citizen’

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE!

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Politics | 2 Comments »

The American Trinity

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

This has been out a while but it’s worth listening to. This is an episode of Prager University, where talk show host Dennis Prager offer short lectures on those issues concerning citizenship, life and legacy. Enjoy!

WPvideo 1.10

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: America | No Comments »

Campaign Finance Reform: Travesty Overturned

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Here at Political Vindication we have been vociferous in our disgust at the passage of McCain/Feingold campaign regulation into law, and then again at the dereliction of duty of our Supreme Court in upholding it. It was clearly unAmerican in every way – there’s no way one can read the first amendment and come to a conclusion that restricting political speech within 60 days of an election is constitutional. Is the appearance of corruption so nefarious that we must pre-emptively limit the political expression of those most affected by punitive legislation? No, that’s only a coy way of silencing Americans who have a God given right to chastise our self-anointed overlords.

Here are some opinions about the ruling released today:

Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion overturning McCain/ Feingold:

When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. Under Austin, though, officials could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.

Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits onYoutube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.

Richard Garnett of National Review Online:

Now, seen from the critics’ perspective, Citizens United probably does the same thing, in that it tells those who (mistakenly) think that discomfort with the tone of election-related speech provides a justification for regulating or silencing that speech that the First Amendment does not permit them to write their squeamishness into law. The case is better understood, though, as a vindication of political freedom: In a free society, politics is messy. Roe was an attempt, but a dramatic failure, to tidy up politics by telling the pro-life side, in the name of the Constitution, to be quiet and go home. Citizens United, by contrast, tells those whose lives are made easier by laws that censor their critics, “listen!”, and tells the rest of us, “speak up!”

Ralph Nader’s activist corporation Public Citizen:

“Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.

“We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment.”

President Barack Obama:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Ben Ginsberg – Republican election attorney:

Here’s a quick analysis of what the decision means for key players in the political process:

Candidates: The limits placed on the size of contributions to candidates places them at a significant disadvantage compared to corporations and unions that will now be able to spend unlimited amounts on express advocacy right through Election Day. Controlling the issues they want to run on will become a real challenge, as will having sufficient funds to portray their positions and images.

Political Parties: Unless the laws change, the political party as we know it is threatened with extinction. The parties do several things for their candidates and supporters – raise money and conduct independent expenditures, conduct voter contact programs and describe the party’s position on issues, often through issue advocacy. With the limits on the amounts and sources of funds they can accept, the parties will be bit players compared to outside groups that can now conduct those core functions with unlimited funds from any source.

Corporations and Unions: Freed from their First Amendment shackles, corporations and unions can now engage fully in the political process. The reality of what this means is sure to be hotly debated depending on the speaker’s outlook. Republicans see a coordinated and extremely well-funded union effort that gives over 98 percent of its funds to Democrats, while corporations’ political giving tends to incumbent heavy and more evenly divided. Democrats see the size of corporate treasuries compared to unions and believe they are about to get swamped.

One wonders if our president expected that he could attack Wall Street relentlessly without ever feeling the full effect of their displeasure. This ruling today gives business the opening they need to confront him and the politicians that profit from bashing capitalists (see Schumer and Frank). Will the overturning of McCain/Feingold restrictions result in a swamping of the voice of our politicians? One can only hope.

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Campaign Finance | No Comments »

Scott Brown Wins! But Why?

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

There are many opinions on why Scott Brown won the special election to replace Ted Kennedy’s senate seat last night. They all have something in common – Obama’s agenda strikes out with a majority of voters. But we expect Republicans to oppose it, and even some independents, but why did Democrats turn against Martha Coakley and the administration she represents? Frank Luntz over at FOX news gathers some Massachusett Democrats and asks them why they voted the way the did:

WPvideo 1.10

The election victory has to be recognized for what it is – a Rocky Balboa moment where he floors Apollo Creed. For all the flashy arrogance of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrats, the brawler came in and revealed them for what they are: glass jawed, weighted glove, spiked waterbottle media creations who concocted a mandate and found it repudiated by even their own.

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Barack Obama, Democratic Party | No Comments »

Reteaching Resistance

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Watch this and ponder:

WPvideo 1.10

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Anti-Semitism, Class Warfare, Communism, Liberal Lies | No Comments »

Who Wants Haiti?

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Monday, January 18th, 2010

The delirious Hugo Chavez is honking his clown horn once again. He’s watching hundreds of millions of dollars stream into Haiti when it’s his country that has been mired in a perpetual crisis since he took office. You might even say that Venezuela is the ‘Haiti’ of the Americas with its deep corruption and dysfunctional government. But for Chavez, jealousy is an all you can eat buffet that leaves him a laughingstock and his people groveling for dignity. So, naturally he and those likewise pathetic reach for a microphone and declare that the outpouring of American aid for Haiti has nothing to do with the big beating heart of Americans – it’s really a sinister plot to take over the country:

“What is happening in Haiti seriously concerns me as U.S. troops have already taken control of the airport,” Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said late Friday.

The Nicaraguan newspaper El Nuevo Diario said Ortega accused the U.S. of manipulating the tragedy to install troops in Haiti. It said the comments were made during a meeting with a Syrian government minister.

“Haiti seeks humanitarian aid, not troops,” he said. “I hope they will withdraw troops occupying Haiti.”

Ortega also expressed satisfaction that members of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) – a left-wing regional grouping led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – were involved in the humanitarian effort. Nicaragua earlier sent 31 military doctors and Venezuela has sent doctors, medicines and food.

On Sunday Chavez weighed in, using his weekly television and radio show to question U.S. motives in Haiti, and accusing it of “occupying Haiti undercover.”

“[President] Obama, stop sending troops to Haiti, send doctors,” the official Venezuelan ABN news agency quoted him as saying. “Haiti does not need troops.”

Here’s the obvious question – who in the hell would want Haiti? This is a nation that has had thousands of NGOs and hundreds of billions of dollars in World Bank loans and foreign aid and still is no better than a death camp reeling from one disaster to another. Its citizens are uneducated and starving, its political system can’t handle providing even the most basic of needs like clean drinking water and security. There’s no resources worth stealing, no trade worth arranging, and no hope of things improving in the near future after decades of charity and support have only resulted in endemic poverty and ignorance. About all that half of the island is good for is a landing strip, but even that has proven to be impossible. So again – who in the hell wants Haiti?

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Foreign Policy | 2 Comments »

Who’s Tougher: Margaret Thatcher or Barack Obama?

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Every time I watch the British parliament in action it makes we wish we had that kind of political confrontation between our president and congress televised on C-Span regularly. I was cruising through You Tube this afternoon and came upon this final performance of prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Her tenacity makes for great television, but what’s most impressive is the passionate yet civil debate the political opponents have in the chamber.

WPvideo 1.10

She’s one tough lady, and a lot of that is born of a political system that forces the nation’s leader to face tough questions in real time from representatives of the people. It’s just not the same to face a room full of adoring journalists.

And speaking of press conferences, President Obama hasn’t had one since July of 2009. The way this administration and its allies in congress have avoided the relatively soft glare of the press says a lot about them. President Obama has no good reason to fear the press, in fact, it’s a plausible argument that the press had a lot to do with electing him – so why is he hiding? They tell us time and again that he’s a brilliant intellectual. They tell us that he’s the most charismatic president we’ve ever had. It would seem then that he would feel right at home in the spotlight, but his actions say otherwise.

So here’s the obvious question – could President Barack Obama endure the grilling Prime Minister Thatcher did standing in front of a hostile opposition free to challenge her record? Compare this tame attempt to get Obama to face up to his promises – promises that he hasn’t kept…

WPvideo 1.10

President Obama a tough guy?

Not so much.

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Barack Obama, England | 3 Comments »

Is It Racist To Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

Posted by: Evrviglnt on Sunday, January 17th, 2010

In West Virginia a Republican house delegate has called for those receiving welfare to pass drug tests in order to continue getting their checks. The idea has wide support, and considering that it only seems fair that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize drug users, a Democrat wasted no time in calling the idea “racist”.

In a speech to the House of Delegates, Berkeley County Republican Craig Blair said he first was angry when he discovered that Delegate Sally Susman, D-Raleigh, had issued a news release Thursday slamming his idea.

“I’m to the point now of just being embarrassed, not for myself, but for probably each member of this chamber,” he said.
“When we cannot even provide enough money to maintain proper levels of school nurses, why would we want to further burden the state budget with this type of racially profiled testing of people who are on the lower levels of the economic scale,” she said in the release.

Last year, Blair unsuccessfully pushed legislation that would have made the state drug-test people who receive food stamps, cash assistance and unemployment benefits.

In the news release, Susman said drug-testing welfare recipients could cost $9.7 million. She said that was “not only totally unjustified in this tough budget period, but also is racist.”

Why would one assume drug testing welfare recipients is racist? Such twisted logic has to begin with a belief that the pool of recipients are all minority, so insisting that they pick up their government charity check sober is tantamount to “racially profiling”. But regardless of race, why should anyone receiving tax payer money be allowed to render themselves ineligible for employment, or in the least, mentally hobble themselves so that they’re unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives? There are plenty of cases where responsible people have just hit a patch of bad luck, but why force taxpayers to subsidize a lifestyle that only promises more dependence? For those that need the temporary help, it’s an insult to them and those paying taxes to knowingly contribute to a person who uses the money to get high.

And the charge that it will cost more to drug test than the money saved from dropping from the rolls those who are drug users can not be proven until we actually know what percentage are actually stoned and on the dole. How about a pilot program to find out? In this tough budget period, every check saved is a check earned.

What’s most outrageous is that Sally Susman thinks she’s doing minority welfare recipients a favor. In fact, she’s killing them. The deep and dysfunctional effect that generational welfare has had on Americans of all races and all three genders is tragic – it’s a dungeon dug deep within the statist leviathan that cripples the communities it purports to help.

So who is the racist here? And who in this scenario actually wants what’s best for those down on their luck?

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Social Issues, State Politics, War on Drugs | No Comments »

No Differences Between The Parties?

Posted by: Uncle Seth The Noble on Saturday, January 16th, 2010

Michael Medved halls off on caller who argues that there are no differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

WPvideo 1.10

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Democratic Party, Republican Party, Talk Radio | No Comments »

Insurance Companies To Cut Costs By Offering Abortions Services

Posted by: Uncle Seth The Noble on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Life Site News has the details…

A local Planned Parenthood official has bluntly admitted why health insurance companies are increasingly comfortable with covering abortions: because the choice to kill an unborn child is cheaper than giving birth.

“A first trimester abortion is $300 to $450,” Baltimore Planned Parenthood CEO John Nugent told the national business magazine Forbes Thursday. “But if the gestational age is higher you’re paying for a surgical suite. That’s why the insurance companies think they should be offering it. It’s cheaper to terminate an unwanted pregnancy rather than taking it to term.”

The Forbes article points out the cost estimates offered by the Health Care Blue Book: it lists a typical abortion in a physician’s office costing $397, while a vaginal delivery costs $5,992, and a caeserean section is $8,558.

The issue of private abortion coverage has been spotlighted by the abortion-funding debate swirling around President Obama’s health care overhaul, which was originally structured to begin quietly funding abortion with government funds by default. Abortion advocates are lobbying full-force against an amendment in the House version of the bill that applies Hyde-amendment restrictions for federal abortion funding. Because the Hyde language restricts taxpayer dollars from funding any private plan covering abortion, customers would have to purchase the abortion coverage in a separate, supplemental plan.

This is an example of corporations throwing basic human decency down the drain for cost savings purposes. This will filtrate through out the medical industry, thus putting more pressure on women who have had non-intended pregnancies to abort their children, and once this taboo is broken within the medical industry, do not be surprised if insurance companies would offer women added incentives to opt for an abortion more often than not. This is not only despicable, but it will eventually corrupt medicine as a field that in American tradition has always stood for the value of life and gives greater incentive to move this industry to one that cherishes death.

Possibly Related Posts:

Topics: Health and Science, Healthcare, Pro-Life/Abortion | No Comments »

England To Push Back Retirement Age

Posted by: Uncle Seth The Noble on Monday, January 11th, 2010

Times Online has the details…

Workers should no longer be forced to retire at 65 and could carry on in their jobs into their eighties, Harriet Harman said before a reform of employment rights.

The Equalities Minister said that a change in the retirement law was vital to challenge the idea that people were “past it” when they reached 65.

Ms Harman will announce today a “fast-track” government review of the retirement age. Under her propsals, workers would not have to work beyond 65, but would have the option to do so. Employees would secure a legal right to a request to work part-time or from home.

The change would apply retrospectively, covering staff who have signed contracts that say they will retire at the normal age. There are a record 1.4 million workers who have reached state pension age, currently 60 for women and 65 for men.

Hows that liberal utopia working out for you in Europe? No secret here, the British have way too many social welfare programs, so if you extend retirement age out to where people are dying before they collect a pension that will cover some of the budget shortfalls. Don’t you love Liberal compassion?

Possibly Related Posts: