Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
In last week's Romney/Obama debate, President Obama proudly referred to AARP* as supportive to his ObamaCare plan. After the debate, AARP promptly said, 'don't mention us again': "“While we respect the rights of each campaign to make its case to voters, AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign,” the group posted in a statement. “AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party.”"
Now that statement is pretty remarkable, since AARP sold out its members by supporting ObamaCare in the first place! But now that the bloom is clearly off the ObamaCare rose and Obama presidency, AARP is requesting Obama not to refer to them again. Thanks a lot, AARP. You pushed for the legislation, got the equivalent of a waiver for yourself, and now you don't want to be associated with Obama and ObamaCare?
In that same debate, when talking about how to deal with Obama's unbridled spending, adding a trillion+ dollars to the debt a year, Romney gave the example of cutting unnecessary spending. Since PBS's Jim Lehrer was the moderator, Mitt Romney mentioned discontinuing taxpayer subsidies to PBS, as one example of wasteful spending.
Romney said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to — I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one."
Well, after that debate, President Obama jumped on Romney's nixing Big Bird as a campaign issue. He talked about it on the stump. His campaign quickly cooked up an absurd campaign ad featuring Big Bird! Trouble is, like AARP, "Big Bird, it seems, isn't thrilled about his cameo in the presidential race."
In fact, "The folks at Sesame Street are asking the Obama campaign to pull down a TV ad released Tuesday that mocks Mitt Romney for vowing to yank the subsidy to PBS." the "Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit educational organization that produces and owns the show, issued a statement Tuesday saying [like AARP], “we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.”
The CEO of Sesame Workshop, Sherrie Westin, stated on CNN that "the Sesame Workshop receives very little funding from PBS". Apparently, they are able to fund their programing through selling licensed products, donors, and corporate underwriting/sponsorship. Westin does not like Big Bird being the poster
child bird for public funding.
The bigger picture here is why is President Obama and his campaign fixating on Big Bird and not the real issues crippling our economy and threatening our nation?
Romney summed it up nicely yesterday, ""You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird," he said. "I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs.""
Maybe Obama is hoping you will be thinking about Big Bird instead of why the White House's Benghazi narrative differs so from the under oath State Department testimony. (You mean the attack wasn't a spontaneous response to that anti-Muslim video?)
*Many people, in the past, joined AARP so they could enjoy the travel-related discounts, however, today, there are many other organizations that provide the same benefits. I am a AAA member; others have joined organizations such as AMAC, a conservative alternative to AARP
1st Debate Transcript
1st Debate: Romney Presidential, capable, Obama? ...clearly 'a drag'
AARP to Obama: Don't mention us again
How AARP's support for ObamaCare was bought and paid for
After AARP gets 'waiver' from Obamacare, conservative groups fight for information, answers "“It’s payoff time to the AARP (some call it bribery) for selling out seniors and endorsing Obamacare, an awful proposal which makes no sense to seniors who know it’s bad medicine for them,” Martin said in a statement."
On Sept. 11th, a statement on Obama's State Department website agreed with the U.S.Embassy in Cairo's 9/11 apology for "hurt Muslim feelings". Then violent protests sprang up at the embassies in Egypt and Libya, resulting in Ambassador Stevens' death (along with 3 others) in Libya.
A very Presidential Mitt Romney, rightly condemned the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Libya. He said, "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Before dashing off to Las Vegas, at 10:43am, on Sept. 12th, the President made a statement, that was about as dynamic as a bowl of cold oatmeal. He included this curious statement: "Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died."
In another story, it would seem it was the same Libyan security personnel who told the protesters where the officials were taken!
And where did Obama get that information that Libyans helped carry Stevens to the hospital? Because if you look at, Muslims Execute US Ambassador Christ Stevens, the pictures (graphic) depict a battered man being dragged, not an injured man being carried. The post also includes a very positive YouTube introducing us to Ambassador Stevens when he took his post. What a tragedy.
Now keep in mind there has been controversy swirling over whether or not Obama has been attending his 'Presidential Daily Brief' intelligence meetings. In that article, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor didn't dispute the Govt. Accountability Institute's numbers that tabulated Obama's attendance record in the last 2 years at just 38%. For contrast, President George W. Bush "almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting".
The White House denies this accusation and says that if Obama doesn't attend the PDB, he at least reads the briefing book (crib sheet) every day. I think it is clear that with this latest Middle East unrest, Obama needs to stop just reading the Cliff Notes on intelligence briefings and meet face to face with those involved.
And speaking of face to face meetings, as our world moves closer to Armageddon, why is it our President Obama has no time to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, our only true ally in the Middle East? He has time to do a radio interview with a hip-hopper in Florida, fly off to Las Vegas for a big fundraiser (what ever happened to avoiding Las Vegas?), or make plans to do the David Letterman show?
The Middle East is a volatile region, made even more volatile by Obama administration policies: "The Obama administration has played a central role in overthrowing U.S.-aligned regimes and replacing them with regimes that are hostile to the U.S. and its strategic interests".
You might say some of Obama's policies' chickens are coming home to roost.
Remember Hillary Clinton giddily proclaiming that in Libya, We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died? And in Egypt, Obama supported the Arab Spring revolt. Then in August, after the new regime got rid of Hosni Mubarak, opponents (some Christian), who were against the U.S. supported Morsi, were crucified by the Arab Spring 'Brotherhood'.
Morsi has also refused to condemn Tuesday's 9/11 Cairo Embassy attack.
And let's not make the mistake of thinking this violence is all about a movie. Some of the protesters yelled, “'Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!' went one chant, referring to Osama bin Laden, the late head of Al Qaeda" That ire was addressed directly to Obama. Why? Possibly because killing Osama was touted 20+ times at the DNC convention?
Anti-American violence is now spreading to other counties in the Middle East, and our President is too busy being the Campaigner in Chief, hip-hopping around the country, to be Commander in Chief.
At least there is one candidate in the 2012 election acting Presidential: Mitt Romney.
Fatal Arab Spring
Romney campaign links embassy attacks to Obama's failed Middle East policies
Michelle Malkin: Obama, Clinton, Romney deliver Egypt, Libya remarks &
Egyptian faux-rage, deadly American dhimmitude...US Ambassador & Marines dead
Arab Spring Run Amok: 'Brotherhood' Starts Crucificxions "The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, ...radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi."
Eleven years have passed since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and in those 11 years, our world has become a much more dangerous place: Iran is working on becoming a nuclear power, the Arab Spring is now controlling once tourist friendly Egypt, the entire middle east is in upheaval. Yet despite this increased unrest, our nation has been kept safe from additional terrorist attacks.
Today, Gov. Walker, Mayor Tom Barrett and other area officials gathered at the War Memorial to honor the Sept. 11 victims, which is appropriate. Similar gatherings all across our nation will occur today.
A September 11th radio ad this year samples Americans and what they plan to do to in remembrance of this day. One says they will say thanks to a firefighter, another a policeman, etc. Volunteering is another option. These are all well and good, but for me there is one glaring omission: thanking God for His blessing of protection.
As I wrote in 2008, reflecting on our Sept. 11th experience out in South Dakota, "Our nation held its collective breath, waiting for something else to happen after those first 4 plane crashes. Thank God, it didn't.
The Left has really been trying to paint the Tea Party movement members as violent. Remember the accusations that rocks were thrown through a Congressman's home office window in Cincinnati on ObamaCare weekend? (The weekend ObamaCare passed back in March.) Trouble was the office was on the 30th floor! I bet the Cincinnati Reds and Bengals' scouts are still looking for that rock thrower. After all, anyone who can toss one that far would make a heck of a pitcher or quarterback! ;-)
The other hard to swallow accusation from ObamaCare weekend was that Tea Partiers hurled verbal assaults at Democrats. Pretty unusual that no one had their cell phone there to capture those epitaphs on video. Andrew Breitbart even offered a $10,000 reward to anyone providing incriminating video, but thus far, I don't think anyone collected it. (Video is of protesters shouting, Kill the bill!)
But last weekend's Times Square bomber incident escalates the accusations regarding disgruntlement over ObamaCare to a new level. This time there was a real event that involved a potentially life threatening explosion, and Mayor Bloomberg guesses "twenty-five cents" it is "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something"?
Children born in the 1950s grew up during the height of the cold war. I was one of them. We were issued stainless steel I.D. bracelets--complete with religious preference...just in case? Besides fire drills, we had numerous duck and cover drills at our grade school, practice runs for evacuating the school, and once were told to go home during the school day and rehearse going into our basements or wherever we planned to hide out if we were nuked.
All of this weighed heavy on my young psyche. But at least we knew if we were attacked, we had President Kennedy who had the will and the means to retaliate. His will and means gave an enemy pause before pushing the button.
President Kennedy had the Minuteman Missile, the Ace in the Hole, technology that was begun under President Eisenhower in 1958 and completed just 8 days after the Cuban Missile Crisis began in 1962, as a deterrent. President Kennedy embraced the space race and developing weapon technology.
Nearly 50 years after those troubling years, is the United States still on top of their nuclear and counter anti-missile technology? Are we still developing more defensive Star Wars type anti missile shields and weaponry?
No. Instead we have a President who seems bent on destroying any lead we had in the space race by de-funding NASA's new Constellation moon project in favor of researching and monitoring climate change for now, and a "heavy-lift" rocket--10 years or more away. Unlike President Kennedy, Obama spurns our position of superiority and technical strength.
President Obama recently announced a US and Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty, which will limit both sides to 1,550 warheads, as if Russia is our only opponent that has nukes. (Countries with nuclear weapons, going from friendly to hostile to suspected, include the UK, France, India, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and Syria.) Remember that Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power plant, a partnership that makes the "United States uncomfortable", and is also cozying up to Venezuela by selling $5B in other weapons.
Just last month an aide said "the administration [has] rejected proposals that the United States declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons."
But Obama announced yesterday that he "was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self-defense... ...For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack." (My emphasis)
I always thought the best strategy in warding off conflict was to speak from a position of power, not outline specifically what you would or wouldn't do. You know, Speak softly and carry a BIG stick.
Considering Obama's new direction of "...developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration", we have a very weak president who likes to Speak softly, and carry NO stick. That position can only be called, "naïve and dangerous."
More Reading: The Cuban Missile Crisis
Heritage Foundation: The Road to a New Nuclear Arms Race, "Unfortunately for Americans, President Obama’s new strategy will have the exact opposite result of its intended effect. Instead of incentivizing countries to give up nuclear ambitions, it creates new incentives for them to maintain or develop their own nuclear programs. First look at the Russians, who clearly still see their nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of their defense, no matter how much President Obama wishes it were otherwise. Moscow has no interest in diminishing its own nuclear arsenal, but it is perfectly happy to allow the Obama administration to weaken the U.S. deterrent until it is on equal footing with Russia’s currently mediocre might. ...A country like Iran is equally unimpressed with President Obama’s unilateral disarmament strategy." (My emphasis)
Past Posts: Obama, JFK, technology, & the Cuban Missile Crisis...chilling
Dangerous month, dangerous world, dangerous ideas
While many in the world remember the Holocaust on this day, The Day of Remembrance, Iran's President Ahmadinejad spoke before the UN anti-racism conference, spewing his usual Holocaust denial sentiments. Those comments prompted "Dozens of diplomats" from Britain and Europe to walk out. The United States, Israel, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland did not opt to attend at all, because of concerns that the forum "would be used as a platform for attacks on Israel."