Archive for February 1st, 2010
We want you to start running for your local school boards
Increasingly, we’re convinced we’re in a decades-long task of eliminating Liberal influence on the education system in this country. It’s terrifying whenever the current White House tries getting children to sing songs in adoration of Dr. Utopia. Scarier, still, when his political arm, Organizing for America, attempts to co-opt high school students, turning them into his own brown shirt brigades. Nothing like this has ever been done on American soil, and Utopia gets away with it because school systems nationwide are firmly in the hands of Liberals.
But, Liberals are less than 20% of the population. So, why do they control the school system?
It’s because moderates, conservatives, and independents don’t run for election on the school boards. If they did, they could, in time, replace all the Liberal board members, and start taking back the curriculum from these Alinsky-Zinn-Obama radicals.
We’d love to see as many of you out there as possible run for your school boards. We’ll help you in every way that we can. It’s going to take years and years to remove the Liberal influence in the education system, and will take decades before all the damage the politically correct, Liberal indoctrinationists have done can be repaired.
But, we have to start somewhere.
And we think that somewhere is to start getting rational, good, decent people onto the school boards to rein in whatever indoctrination attempts this White House is planning.
How many of you out there are willing to look into running in your home districts?
You don’t have to make a commitment today…just think about something you probably never thought about doing before.
And, if you DID decide to run, just think about the ready-made campaign organization you’d have at your disposal through us.
Think about it.
Research of the Day: How much did Louis and Marie Antoinette spend at Versailles in a year?
Do the Obamas burn through more taxpayer money than Louis and Marie did?
The Globe’s latest issue has a story about the current president and his “fashion icon wife” blowing through $10 million in 2009, hosting a party in the White House every three days, as if they were living in Versailles.
We wonder, adjusted for inflation, how much Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette spent entertaining at the actual Versailles, before the people of France had enough of that excess.
Can anyone research what Versailles spent in the last few years before the revolution? Then adjust that for inflation into 2010 dollars.
Would it be more or less than $10 million a year on parties?
It would be interesting to see, historically, just how far a field the Utopias are with their entertaining. Who knows, $10 million could be a modest sum compared to the budget at Versailles.
Can we also research how much previous US administrations spent on lavish parties?
It’s hard to get a full picture of what Dr. and Mrs. Utopia are up to if we can’t look at their expenditures in terms of past administrations, or historical case studies of disastrous excess.
QUESTION: At what point does someone overexposed receive a massive blowback?
Last night, watching the Grammy Awards with some friends, at various points in the night just about everyone in the room said the same thing: “That Taylor Swift is going to get a backlash soon. It’s just been Taylor Swift this, and Taylor Swift that for too long. I’m sick of it”.
It felt like last night was the high point for this young woman, who seems genuinely nice, but ever since the episode where Kanye West disrespected her on stage at the MTV Awards, Swift has been a media and public darling.
But, last night, all the affection and attention just seemed too, too much.
We think there’s something deeply un-American about this sort of fawning that people react adversely to, without even realizing it.
Clearly, there are serious implications for the current administration in Washington, as well, because it’s completely built upon fawning adoration of Dr. Utopia’s supporters.
Has the backlash already begun against him?
Is it just building?
Or, like with Taylor Swift, are we still at the top of the roller coaster hill with this, and haven’t begun to go downwards yet?
PHOTOSHOP CHALLENGE: Obama's bowing
Something about this screams for one of those wind-up keys in his back, like he's run out of energy and needs to be wound up again.
You’ve all seen this latest bow the current president took — this time, weirdly bowing to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida.
Previously, when he’s bowed to people, it’s been to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor of Japan, and the President of China.
He did not bow to the Queen of England, when he met Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace last year. Instead, he and our current first lady gave the Queen an iPod (with Dr. Utopia’s own speeches on it), treated her essentially like any other senior citizen, and politely moved her around by the shoulders, positioning her for the best photo ops for themselves.
It’s very strange whom the current president and first lady decide to make great shows of reverence and prostration for.
The King of Saudi Arabia, but NOT the Queen of England.
The Emperor of Japan, but NOT the American people.
The President of China, but NOT the US Constitution.
The Mayor of Tampa, Florida, but not American protocol and tradition.
What’s fascinating to us are all the bizarre explanations the Utopias’ supporters continue to dream up for their behavior.
* He didn’t bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, he tripped.
* He didn’t bow to the Emperor of Japan, he just dropped something.
* He didn’t bow to the President of China, he was bending down to tie his shoe.
* He didn’t bow to the Mayor of Tampa, he was trying to figure out if she was wearing Manolas or not, and if so, if they were last years.
Who knew Dr. Utopia was such a label queen?
Who do you think he will bow to next, and what will be the reason provided for THAT?
There has to be a great way to summarize and lampoon all of this using Photoshops that could combine all the images of Dr. Utopia bowing to these various people.
Any takers?
We believe combining all these bows this man is collecting into one image will make Americans at large wonder exactly why he’s behaving this way.
************
H/t Chrissy the Hyphenated
H/t seapea
H/t Angela
We should have gotten involved in the Illinois races and backed Adam Adrzejewski and David Hoffman.
We deeply regret not getting involved in the Illinois primaries for Governor and Senate candidates, respectively, Adam Andrzejewski (R) and David Hoffman (D).
These two men are whom Illinois should send to Springfield and Washington.
We’ve met Andrzejewski numerous times here in Chicago at various events for the last year and a half, and found him to be, sincerely, the nicest man we have ever known who is involved in politics. He is kind, smart, articulate, well-read, and has a sincere PASSION inside him for tearing open the books in Illinois and auditing the waste and corruption in this state, for every man, woman, and child to see. He wants no stone unturned, no one protected, and has said repeatedly that if elected he would, at last, reveal to the people just how bad things are in Springfield…and, by extension, Chicago.
We don’t know how to put into words the WHY, regarding what kept us from getting involved in an Andrzejewski campaign. In retrospect, he is exactly the sort of person we want in government. If he wins the GOP primary on Tuesday, we plan on campaigning for him, every day, for Governor. We will go all-in for Andrzejewski…to make up for not doing anything for him in the primaries.
It’s just that we never thought Illinois would elect another Governor with a hard to spell and pronounce last name, after just booting Rod Blagojevich. So, we dismissed Andrzejewski outright, when we shouldn’t have. We also, to be honest, thought the guy was JUST TOO DAMN NICE to ever win. With a lot on our plates, we didn’t feel like sinking our hearts into the campaign of someone we like very much, who was not going to win. On a personal level, it’s hard to weather disappointments like that repeatedly. The Clinton campaign, then Palin’s bid for VP, took a lot out of us.
We also didn’t want to commit to any races in Illinois for the simple fact that living here, and getting involved in any of the races, means putting ourselves even more on the line than we already do, because local races stir local passions, and we didn’t want to make all sorts of new enemies so close to home. It was our intention to observe the goings-on here in Illinois, but not be an active participant in them, the way we chose to do with the Massachusetts Senate race.
That was a good decision for us at the time, but we’ve changed our minds about things in the last few days.
For starters, we can’t state enough how much the support we’ve received from all of you has encouraged us, and in some ways even altered the courses of our lives. In doing the Breitbart and Andrea Shae King interviews last week, so many calls and emails told us our strategic insights and focus on elections mattered a great deal to them…and they let us know they wanted us to work harder, put out more action items, and directly involve ourselves in more campaigns where we side with a good, patriotic, fiscally responsible American running against someone we don’t trust in office.
That person, our candidate, can be from either party…and maybe in the future, that person will be from no party at all.
Something is happening to us that we didn’t expect, and it’s happening faster than we could have ever believed.
We are really and truly starting to look at the candidates themselves, for the first time ever, and not the letter that falls after their names or the red or blue bunting their campaigns are decorated in. We can like, support, and work our hearts for good Democrats when we see them. If we ever see them again. We can, also, work hard for good Republicans…like Sarah Palin…Michelle Bachmann…Scott Brown…and Adam Adrzejewski (have to check how to spell that every time we try to type it, but Adam’s worth it).
We should have been rooting for, and revving people up to get behind, Adrzejewski a year ago. We should have, after meeting him for the first time, come straight back to Buzzquarters and told all of you to get off your butts and do whatever you could to build buzz for this guy…because he is not only a kind, polite, and wonderful man, but he’s also gutsy enough to take on the institutionalized corruption in this state…making him the only candidate running who’d ever do anything like that.
Adrzejewski is the real deal. If he does not win the primary tomorrow, it will be a great loss for this state. We will very much regret not doing anything for him in the primaries…but swear that the next time he runs, for anything, we will be there for him in spades, because we have come to see clearly that he’s just who we need in office. To be honest, we need a whole slew of future candidates like him. Even if we’ll never be able to spell his name without having to check back if we came anywhere even close to being correct.
We have the same regret that we didn’t back David Hoffman for the Democrat primary. Hoffman, like Adrzejewski is a very good man. He, too, is polite, smart, engaging, respectful, and wicked smart. We know people working for his campaign, and they’ve always reported back that, as a candidate, he treats his staff well, listens to voters, and “is the real deal”.
We regret not giving Hoffman our time. We were convinced Giannoulias and the Chicago machine had everything all sewn up. If Hoffman scores an upset and beats Giannoulias, we’ll think about campaigning for him for the Senate, depending on whom the Republicans end up with. If it’s Mark Kirk on the GOP side, versus Hoffman, we’re going to back Hoffman. Kirk’s Cap & Tax vote, in our mind, makes him ineligible for serving in the Senate, permanently. It was such a poor decision, such proof of bad judgment, it’s as if we saw Kirk drunk driving down the highway right before coming to us asking to be hired to drive a school bus. We just don’t trust this man with a vote in the Senate, not after the decision he made on Cap & Tax.
If it’s indeed Giannoulias versus Kirk, as seems likely tomorrow, then Kirk is the better choice. It will indeed be hold-your-nose to vote time on this one. As poor of a Senator as Kirk will be, he is still not scion of the mob banking Giannoulias family.
Case closed, there.
We can’t ever campaign FOR Kirk, but we believe we’ll feel compelled to rally people AGAINST Giannoulias. If Kirk wins, we hope against hope he does not end up in the Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter niche of the Republican party, the way we feel he’s destined. Perhaps all the anger directed against him for his Cap & Tax vote sank in, and he’s changed his tune. Possibly to something from ABBA. We wish Republicans picked better people to run in Illinois, because the voters deserve better than Kirk.
In the future, we feel the need to make sure we do everything possible for good people like Adam Adrzejewski and David Hoffman early in the process, so that voters DO get to have better candidates than Kirk, Giannoulias, or other terrible choices like Rosanna Pulido (whom the GOP ran for Rahm Emanuel’s vacated Congressional seat last year).
We need to stop letting “he or she can’t win” keep us from generating that buzz for people we believe in. We need to use our time, energy, and passion for people we want to see in office, regardless of party, and without factoring in hypothetical odds of their success.
The best candidate, in every race, period should get our attention.
And, logically, we really should involve ourselves more here in Illinois, since we have access to so much more information, and the candidates themselves, here in Chicago. From there, we should center our focus always on the Midwest, and then nationally on races where we have personal connections through HillBuzz.
This way, we are making the absolute most of all resources, and getting as much inside scoop as possible to strategize, organize, and write about these races for maximum impact.
We hope you chime in on good candidates you see on the horizon more often, so if someone’s not on our radar, we can take a good look at that person, regardless of party, and see if he or she is worth putting energy into.
If we keep mobilizing people to get behind good candidates who want to take down the corruption and radicalism in our system, and if we can encourage others out there to do that too, together we believe we can really start to make a difference.
We dropped the ball with Adrzejewski and Hoffman, but don’t intend to do that again in the future.
We can’t change the last few months, but we can learn from them and direct our energies better in the years ahead.
Question of the Day: What is Iran planning for February 11th?
Here’s a real headscratcher: what is Iran planning regarding February 11th?
Someone told us today he believes Hillary Clinton will resign as Secretary of State this year, relating to a policy point involving Iran. It feels like she will come out at some point and say this current administration is not handling Iran properly, and that she cannot abide by this president’s decisions there. Terrifyingly, the consensus amongst us is that this policy point will be the simple fact that Dr. Utopia does not believe it’s a bad thing for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Some believe Iran will, in fact, test a nuke on February 11th.
Does anyone know if this date has any special significance in Persian history, Iran itself, or in Islam? Is this date chosen for symbolism or is it just the earliest available date Ahmadinejad could place on the military’s calendar?
Would Clinton resign from State before the 2010 elections? If so, she’d seemingly have to campaign for losing Democrat candidates across the country — so why would she subject herself to being caught up in what’s going to be an absolute disaster for incumbents.
Will she wait until December 2010 to resign? If Iran really does test a nuke in ten days, would Clinton stay in office ten months after that and still be able to use Iran as her reason for leaving this Hindenburg of an administration?
What think you?
Class vs. Crass: A History of the First Ladies
H/t Chrissy the Hyphenated
First Lady Mamie Eisenhower spent her years before living in the White House setting up hospitals so sick people could get treatment, regardless of how much money they had, or how politically connected they were.
Current First Lady Michelle Obama spent her years working at the University of Chicago Hospital shunting the poor and indigent away from the University’s hospital, and into inferior “neighborhood clinics” where patients did not receive the care or attention they deserved.
Class, versus crass.
************
H/t Chrissy the Hyphenated
H/t Chrissy the Hyphenated
