About Me

Name: GrandView
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Plouffe -- Not Plouffe Daddy

The following is my response to David Plouffe's 3/4/09 opinion piece:  Minority Leader Limbaugh 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t say as I blame Plouffe for this childish rant. But his anger, I believe, is directed not so much at Rush at it is, passive-aggressive style, at Obama, Rahm, and rising stars like Favreau.
This sad column is probably Plouffe’s attempt to flex his skinny arms in front of the White House: “Look what I can do Dad! Now can I come in?”
But as one can see by the 6th grade title (no offense 6th graders) and quality of Plouffe’s editorial, Plouffe lacks the articulate style of Favreau. He’s Robin to Favreau’s Batman. He’s Robin to Rahm’s Joker.
Plouffe was supposedly Boy Wonder (the “unsung hero”) during Obama’s campaign. He was, after all, the one who created The List: The List of Obama supporter email addresses/cell phone numbers which, when activated, is to result, at a moment’s notice, in mass hysterical support for Our Dear Leader.
The funny and unfortunate thing about Plouffe’s brilliant liquid asset – its liquidity; its leakability. While Plouffe may have The List under lock and key, so does by now every member of Obama’s inner circle (not to mention hackers, spies, global terrorists, etc).
Once The List went global, so to speak, Plouffe, who did not graduate from college, and for one reason or another lacked what Rahm was looking for in White House talent and/or “closer” skills, was no longer needed.
Sure he gets glamorous assignments like traveling to Azerbaijan and is given free hats – like the one handed to him by the national press for his recent poor showing at the National Press Club.
But he has no reserved parking spot at the White House. And he should get used to that, because material like the above opinion piece won’t earn him a pair of painted white lines with respective nameplate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Response to Washington Post Article on Latham and Watkins Layoffs

Latham & Watkins Cuts 190 Lawyers

In a vivid illustration of how the global recession is battering the legal profession, Latham & Watkins, one of the largest law firms in the nation, announced yesterday that it will let go 190 lawyers and 250 paralegal and support staff.
By V. Dion Haynes
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grandview's Response:
 
Looking to 2010 and 2012 elections, Latham and Watkins (L&W) lay-offs are bad news for Obama and the Democrats. L&W contributed $461,511 to the Obama campaign in the 2008 election cycle via the firm’s PAC and/or individual employees, associates, etc.

While L&W is highlighted as the 19th highest contributor to Obama’s 2008 campaign, the firm’s name appears nowhere on McCain’s top 20 donor list. If it did, and with same dollar amount as invested in Obama, the firm would top the chart – outpacing current number one slot, Merrill-Lynch, by $92,416.

Campaign contributions source: www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Public Admonition USOP6589RD022509

Public Admonition USOP6589RD022509 from Our Benevolent and Wise Big Daddy: On Wasteful Unhealthy Expenditures

If you are employed by Private/Quasi-Private Federally-Rescued Corporation (PQPFRC), or employed by Private/Quasi-Private Corporation (PQPC) which functions as business partner with PQPFRC, I best not find you or your employees:

·        Spaying or Neutering: Dog: $200 / Cat: $145

·        Initial Medical Exam: Dog: $70 / Cat: $130

·        Collar or Leash: Dog: $30 / Cat: $10

·        Litter Box: Cat: $25

·        Scratching Post: Cat: $15

·        Crate: Dog: $95

·        Carrying Crate: Dog: $60 / Cat: $40

·        Training: Dog: $110

·        Total One Time Costs: Dog: $565 / Cat: $365

§         Annual Expenses

·        Food: Dog: $120/ Cat: $145

·        Annual Medical Exams: Dog: $235 / Cat: $130

·        Litter: Cat: $200

·        Toys and Treats: Dog: $55 / Cat: $25

·        License: Dog: $15

·        Health Insurance: Dog: $225 / Cat: $175

·        Miscellaneous: Dog: $45 / Cat: $30

§         Total Annual Costs: Dog: $695 / Cat: $705

§         Total First Year Pet Ownership Costs: Dog: $1,260 / Cat: $1,070      (Note: This does not even touch on lavish luxuries typically bestowed upon pets by higher-income households)

  • With more than one child
  • Owning more than one automobile
  • Owning any foreign-manufactured automobile
  • Overweight
  • Eating out
  • Not volunteering with a secular community organization minimum of 14 hours per week
  • Speaking against the government in public, in church, in private
  • Voting against Democrat leadership
  • Criticizing the NEA or any other Liberal Fascist organization
  • Listening to conservative talk radio
  • Visiting extra-corporation and/or government-forbidden Internet sites during business hours
  • Visiting government-forbidden Internet sites beyond business hours
  • Missing three hours of liberal media Truth each day
  • Missing a tax payment
  • Extending the legal allowable carbon footprint limit
  • Smoking a cigarette
  • Drinking alcohol beyond legal allowable per diem limit
  • Being, or acting in manners categorized as, intolerant
The Beautiful and Dynamic First Lady’s Fortune for You this Day: 
 
“My children: There is a Third Way: Working honestly in peace together, shoulder to shoulder, with guidance from Benevolent Big Daddy, this is what will set us free from times of crisis. Walking in the light of the Third Way will make us stronger and build our character as a people”.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Theatre of the Oprama

     “The scenes of his oratory were designed and set with enviable professional skill; the attention to detail was fanatical. [He] was the first to appreciate the power of amplification….
     “…He said…his object was to use ‘calm understanding’ to ‘whip up and incite the instinctive’. He always studied the acoustics in the halls where he spoke. He committed his speeches to an excellent memory (though he had very full notes too)…. He timed himself to arrive late, but not too late. In the early days he dealt brilliantly with hecklers [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnefSkKRzZQ] and used a lot of mordant humor. Later he aimed at the inspired prophet image, and severely reduced the specific political content in his speeches [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UhXaE_XL_8&feature=related] …. But his style was not that of a theologian so much as a revivalist….  One observer wrote…‘[He] never really makes a political speech, only philosophical ones.’   In fact he did not so much outline a program and make promises as demand a commitment. He saw politics as the mobilizing of wills. The listener surrendered his will to the leader, who restored it to him reinforced. As he put it: ‘The will, the longing and also the power of thousands are accumulated in every individual. The man who enters such a meeting doubting and wavering leaves it inwardly reinforced: he has become a link in the community’.”
                                                             --------------------------------
You may assume the above “He” refers to Barack Obama. Actually it refers to Adolph Hitler and his theatrical style, courtesy of Paul Johnson, Modern Times (1991, revised edit.).  

YouTube clips inserted courtesy of, but not produced by, grandview45

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Message: Spread the Wealth -- Not the Truth

Just heard Obama kicked three McCain-endorsing newspapers (Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and one other) off his "camplane".  Wow, what a shock.  The man with so much to hide kicks truth to power off his plane.  Now when exactly was the last time Obama gave a press conference?  When was his last speech without teleprompters?  When was his last townhall meeting with no pre-approved questions?  So much time until election day.  So many people from whom Obama must withhold the truth.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Speak Some Truth to Some in Power

The above title could serve as the summation of Joe Biden's interview with WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West.  The libs do a great job of talking up "speak truth to power", but the fact is they can't handle the truth.
Here's a link to the interview, courtesy of videographer "dovvtovvn" and YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjX8wQPMADk
 
Not so strangely enough:  After this interview the Obama campaign canceled WFTV's scheduled follow-up interview with Biden's wife Jill; and issued a terse memo basically stating it would be a cold day in hell before WFTV would be granted access again to the Dynamic Duo who promise a future of hope, change, peace, love.  For details, see Orlando-Sentinel article:  http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html
 
Please forward the above links to others who are concerned about the future of Democracy in the USA -- and in the world.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blame NEA!

Obama owes much of his success to support from the NEA. Leftist propagandists and burned-out chair fillers dressed as teachers do not teach analytical reading. They do not teach history. They do not teach rhetoric. They do not teach math. They teach "My Two Dads", Self-Esteem, Diversity, and a lot of fluff that prepares no child for adulthood in the real world.
According to a recent Howard Stern-sponsored interview conducted in
Harlem, well-meaning, intelligent black citizens honestly believe they are going to vote for a pro-life Obama-Palin ticket on 11/4.
I don't blame the folks interviewed for their lack of information. I blame the NEA and its co-conspirator, mainstream media.
I blame the NEA for allowing black workers of ACORN to throw honest, hard-working black citizens of the inner city under the proverbial bus. I blame the NEA for failure to compare Obamatists and Fascists of the 1930s/1940s. I blame the NEA for failure to educate children on how to be successful in a free enterprise system. I blame the NEA for failure to salute individuals like Clarence Thomas for being the heroes and examples they are. If McCain is elected and hearings are held on the failure and disservice of our education system, and its contribution to the current economic crisis, I hope the NEA leaders are rounded up first, and are the first to be thrown in jail.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain-Palin as McKinley and Roosevelt (Response to Washington Post Reader's Comment)

Response to Washington Post Reader's Comment (noted below) on the following article:  "GOP Officials Assail Community Group" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302724.html; Holmes and Flaherty):
 
Martinedwinandersen,
I swear, I thought you were leading up to a comparison of Evita's inexperience in leadership, with that of Obama's. How funny.

If you're going to accurately compare McCain/Palin to past leaders I'd go with President and Veep McKinley and T. Roosevelt respectively.

On McKinley (from Wikipedia):
William McKinley, Jr. (January 29, 1843 – September 14, 1901) was the twenty-fifth President of the United States, and the last veteran of the American Civil War to be elected.
By the 1880s, this Ohio native was a nationally known Republican leader; his signature issue was high tariffs on imports as a formula for prosperity, as typified by his McKinley Tariff of 1890. As the Republican candidate in the 1896 presidential election, he upheld the gold standard, and promoted pluralism among ethnic groups. His campaign, designed by Mark Hanna, introduced new advertising-style campaign techniques that revolutionized campaign practices and beat back the crusading of his arch-rival, William Jennings Bryan. The 1896 election is often considered a realigning election that marked the beginning of the Progressive Era.
McKinley presided over a return to prosperity after the Panic of 1893 and was reelected in 1900 after another intense campaign against Bryan, this one focused on foreign policy.

Teddy Roosevelt (from Wikipedia):
Theodore Roosevelt...October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919, also known as T.R., and to the public...as Teddy, was the twenty-sixth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Party, he was a Governor of New York and a professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier. He is most famous for his personality: his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" personality... .
...Returning to New York as a war hero, he was elected governor. An avid writer, his 35 books include works on outdoor life, natural history, the American frontier, political history, naval history, and his autobiography.
In 1901, as Vice President, the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley after McKinley's assassination by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. He is the youngest person to become President.
He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources.
 
Reader's Comment:
In 1973, the ailing, aging Latin American maverick Juan Peron returned to Buenos Aires from exile, and assumed the presidency of a country convulsed with political, social and economic problems.

Peron, a retired general, picked as his vice president his third wife, Isabel Peron, a former cabaret dancer who surrounded herself with fringe types from the ultra-right.

A year later, Juan Peron died.

"Isabelita" Peron--glitzy and calculating, but unprepared, unprincipled and unschooled in matters of state--took over the presidency.

Within two years, the nation that prided itself on being the most developed in Latin America had sunk into a state that would have been unimaginable just a few years earlier.

McCain-Palin '08?

I think not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The View from the Sanctuary

In light of the current economic crisis in America, I thought today's (10/4) devotional from Ray Stedman's The Power of His Presence was particulary appropriate (Stedman, p. 309).  The following is an excerpt:
 
     "The trouble with so-called 'natural' thinking is that it is aways centered on self, and natural-thinking people react to their circumstances according to their feelings, mood, and emotions.  When that happens to you, your range of vision is narrowed down to only those factors that are  troubling you.  You cannot think beyond them.  When your feelings govern you, they always limit you.  That is what was troubling this man [author of Psalms 73:15-28].
     "He begins to see it when he comes into the santuary, into the presence of God, because there he begins thinking spiritually,.  Spiritual thinking is centered on God, and the mind is in control and not the feelings.  Then you are not being governed by emotions but by thought relating to facts.  Thus, your vision is broadened, and you can see other things besides the one thing that is disturbing your emotions.  It is made possible only when you 'enter the sanctuary'.
     "How do we enter the sanctuary today?  According to the New Testament, we ourselves are the sanctuary.  God lives in us.  To draw near to Him is to enter the sanctuary.  We enter the santuary in various ways:  by exposing ourselves to His truth in the Scripture; or by facing truth we have forgotten as we fellowship with other [Believers]; or by directly praying to God and changing our thinking from natural to spiritual."
 
"[Prayer for 4 October]:  Father, teach me this same truth.  Keep me from being envious of the ungodly, but help me to enter Your sanctuary and have my mind renewed by Your truth."
 
Now is not the time for Believers to worry about finances or the future.  It is not a time to seek solace in media conduits that offer not the Hope we have in Christ.  Now is the time for Believers to enter His sanctuary.  We are to be a light to those in darkness.  As you enter the Sanctuary, bring a road-weary searcher along.
 
Reference:
Stedman, R. (2006).  The Power of His presence:  a year of devotions from the writings of Ray Stedman (Mitchell, M. comp).  Grand Rapids, MI:  Discovery House Publishers.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Doesn't Lie or Flip-Flop...


...He's just nuanced

"That kind of nuance is hard to understand sometimes -- it's unclear, complicated. Obama's world can be scarier. It's multicultural. It's realistic (yes, there is evil on the streets of this country as well as in other places, and a lot of evil has been perpetrated in the name of good). It's honest. When does life begin? Only the antiabortionists are clear on that. For the majority of Americans (who are pro-choice), it is 'above my pay grade,' in Obama's words, where there is no hard and fast line to draw on what's worth dying for, and where people of all faiths have to be respected." -- Sally Quinn, The Washington Post, 8/18/08 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702080.html
Note Sally's nuance:  "anti-abortionists" instead of pro-Life.  Poor Sally.  It's so difficult to decide whether murder is wrong or right.  And we in the 21st century still don't know when life begins.  These are really gray areas. 

"Obama's record shows caution, nuance on Iraq" (Title)
"But a review of Obama's record during his 26 months in Congress reveals that he has taken a more nuanced and cautious position on the war than the full-bore opposition." -- Rick Kein, Boston Globe, 3/20/07(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/)
Note:  "26 months" -- Proof that you can balance little-to-no experience with barrel-loads of horse "nuance".
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To Senator McCain: Yours to Lose

Dear Senator McCain:

I write you this note with utmost urgency.
 
I believe you to be a good man -- just and honorable. However, your pride in honor will be your undoing, the undoing of the Republican Party, and the undoing of the United States.
 
Because you wish to see yourself as above the fray, a friend to Democrats and Republicans alike, and are not listening to the outcry of mainstream Americans and their call for justice -- the naming of names of those responsible for the Freddie/Fannie collapse and ensuing economic crisis -- you will likely be defeated by a one-term senator.
 
You take great pride in your reputation -- your honor -- rightfully so. You are an honorable man. But you will have no honor if you are remembered as the Neville Chamberlain of the United States of America; the man who could have saved his country, but remained blind to the gathering storm. Your quest for honor is leading you in the wrong direction.
 
I recommend you get out and talk to the common man.  Listen to mainstream (yes, conservative) folks, wives/husbands who are barely getting by, and ask them what they want you to do about Fannie/Freddie.
 
You only have a few days left.  What do you owe those who have contributed millions to your campaign? What do you owe to those who stand up for you in grocery store lines, civic halls, colleges? What do you owe Republican congressmen and senators fighting the greatest political fight of their lives? What do you owe to the millions who want relief from big government? What do you owe the Palin family?
 
You have paid a great sacrifice as soldier and statesman, and for that I humbly thank you. But in this time of crisis and on the eve of election, what do you now owe the American people?  You can be proud and stay above the fray and lose -- or you can give the Democrats hell and win.  It's up to you.
 
God be with you and the United States of America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Can -- and Should -- Dish it Out

I hope the left maintains its silly personal attacks on Republican VP nominee Gov. Sarah Palin.  The more the liberals continue to assault, the more they buttress Palin's and the Republicans' contention that Palin is up to the job of VP and President. 
 
Why?  Because I'd say at least 50% of U.S. voters (probably many more) subconsciously and/or consciously associate liberal leaders with terrorist organizations.  So, when those voters see Palin standing up to and throwing it right back at persons perceived to be the mouthpiece for national and international rogue organizations, they see someone who is capable of acting strongly on the world stage; someone who has integrity, fortified with backbone.
 
Keep it up leftists:  Palin can take it, and win, because of your tactless tactics.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Biden Obama's Trojan Horse?

I am not convinced Biden is Obama's final vice presidential pick.  Won't be surprised if information is "leaked", or staged intra-party conflict arises in the next few days, which will serve four purposes: 
  1. Appear to force Biden to gracefully bow out of the running
  2. Generate publicity for Obama campaign
  3. Throw McCain strategist's off trail of actual Obama pick
  4. Usher in real VP pick:  Hillary Clinton 
And bounce, bounce, bounce all the way to the White House.
 
Don't count the Clintons out yet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Your Attorney May Be Blue

You live in a red county in a red state.  You are intellectually secure in your conservative values.  You are all races.  You are intelligent, open-minded, and investigate the facts -- even to the point of closely inspecting your church’s financial statement before you joined.  But have you checked out where your hard-earned legal fees are going?

Take a look at the stats below (courtesy of OpenSecrets.org, a product of Center for Responsive Politics).  Odds are if your friendly neighborhood law firm is politically active, or such is the case with your firm’s parent organization, your legal fees are supporting the Democratic Party and the message of special interest groups like MoveOn.org.

Lawyers/Law Firms:
Long-Term Contribution Trends 
 

Election Cycle

Rank†

Total Contributions

Contributions from Individuals

Contributions from PACs

Soft Money Contributions

Donations to Democrats

Donations to Republicans

% to Dems

% to Repubs

2006*

1

$121,298,780

$106,303,569

$14,995,211

N/A

$85,457,563

$34,447,101

70%

28%

2004*

2

$183,988,149

$172,049,701

$11,938,448

N/A

$137,072,634

$46,103,492

75%

25%

2002

1

$95,553,742

$63,884,114

$9,999,358

$21,670,270

$70,821,467

$24,518,041

74%

26%

2000

1

$113,553,374

$82,720,862

$9,566,331

$21,266,181

$78,426,011

$34,434,633

69%

30%

1998

1

$60,462,250

$44,853,479

$7,886,660

$7,722,111

$43,726,359

$16,501,894

72%

27%

1996

1

$77,390,903

$59,279,869

$7,836,941

$10,274,093

$53,961,138

$23,170,715

70%

30%

1994

1

$49,389,515

$39,326,845

$6,787,904

$3,274,766

$36,658,397

$12,651,540

74%

26%

1992

1

$57,151,188

$47,428,859

$6,805,394

$2,916,935

$41,134,595

$15,881,857

72%

28%

1990

1

$24,986,617

$20,099,649

$4,886,968

N/A

$17,201,310

$7,780,182

69%

31%

Total

1

$783,774,518

$635,946,947

$80,703,215

$67,124,356

$564,459,474

$215,489,455

72%

27%

What can you do?

Before hiring an attorney, research his/her firm's political fundraising activities on sites like www.opensecrets.org and www.campaignmoney.com.  Research campaign contributors according to the firm in which you desire to contract, according to your prospective firm's parent company, or enter relevant attorney names.  Review results, voice concerns, and forward findings to others.

You make every effort possible to not support liberal causes.  Don't allow your legal fees to be the exception to the rule. 

†[The above] numbers show how the industry ranks in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries. Rankings are shown only for industries (such as the Automotive industry) -- not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car dealers).

*These figures do not include donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.  Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, June 04, 2007.

NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections.
Source:  www.OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics, 09.28.07)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »