About Me

Name: Laura L. Hollis,...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Obama is not Carter

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:42:10 PM
Other than the possibility of being a one-termer, I see very little similarity between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.  Jimmy Carter was Christian to the point of being evangelical; Barack Obama's religion seems to be redistribution.  Jimmy Carter was hopelessly idealistic about conflict and warfare, and his ability to be a peacemaker; Obama is simply bored with foreign policy, except to the extent that it offers the opportunity to apologize for America.  Above all, Carter was one of the most boring presidents ever.  Barack Obama is a lot of things, but "boring" is not one of them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When procedure is done, we're done

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:34:41 PM
Yet another example of presidential disregard of the constitutional protections.  This article raises excellent points.  The Senate cannot simply refuse to hold up-or-down votes on presidential nominees, dragging them out forever, and the President must not repose legislative power - particularly plenary legislative power - in the hands of completely unaccountable executive appointees.

If the Republicans take control of the House and/or Senate, and if they want to show that they are serious about playing by the rules, then they must act to preserve the proper allocation of power between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wow, has Bill Clinton been drinking the Kool-Aid?

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:04:55 AM
I'm pondering what he's trying to do with this particular interview: set Obama up for re-election?  Set Hillary up for the Democratic nomination in 2012?  Prevent Hillary from getting the 2012 nomination?  Just sound statesmanlike? 

There's a lot of goofy stuff in his interview.  But this one is a real howler:
"I could deal with all the shenanigans they pull," Clinton said, "but I hate to see the people who are more likely to generate manufacturing and small business opportunities and more likely to train the American people to do the jobs that are open and more likely to deal with the remainder of the mortgage crisis thrown out of office."

"More likely to generate manufacturing and small business opportunities"????  "More likely to deal with the mortgage crisis"?  Who is he kidding?  So, all the taxes and the health care costs will help small business?  And the same Dems who covered up the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle are now going to handle the mortgage meltdown they help create?

Oh, and I love that Clinton claims that Democrat congressmen and senators are going to "train the American people" to do jobs.

That's rich.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poverty?

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Monday, September 20, 2010 10:23:02 PM
The new poverty statistics have been released.  But what's the real deal?

There's this...

And then there's this take on it:


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

Back!

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Monday, September 20, 2010 9:44:28 PM
After a move to Indiana, and a change to a new job, I am finally able to blog again.  I tend to post a lot on my Facebook page, but I'll be posting comments and columns again here.

So, what's with this story about Obama's deletion of the reference to "their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence?  Speechwriter screw-up?  Teleprompter trouble? 

What IS it with this guy, anyway?  First, he won't put his hand over his heart when the national anthem is sung.  Then, he proclaims, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation."  [Earth to President Obama: We were never "just" a Christian nation, whatever that means.]  Not to mention taken-out-of-context brouhahas like his appearance at Georgetown last year.  Add to that Obama's unfortunate (and perceived derogatory) reference to people who "cling to religion" during the 2008 campaign, and his (tepid and vacillating) support for the mosque and Islamic cultural center at Ground Zero, and anyone in his administration wonders why Americans aren't sure what the President's religious beliefs are?

It may be that the President is simply bending over backwards to try not to show favoritism to the dominant belief system in the United States.  But if that is his motivation, then someone needs to tell him, enough already.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where are the cries of "racism"???

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:36:38 PM
Let's see - a black man cannot win a Democrat primary unless ...

it's hacked

it's been done illegally

it's a violation of federal election laws

it's a Republican conspiracy!

So where is our ever-vigilant and hypersensitive media?  Where is Rachel Maddow when we need her?  If a bunch of Republicans were saying this after a black guy won a surprise victory in a Republican primary, the mediasphere would be all agog, shocked, and appalled at the inherent racism that was evident - if coded - in questioning the legitimacy of this guy's win.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Could conservative candidates peel off some "progressive" voters? Part II

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:47:30 PM
This column by Salena Zito is another good example of the kinds of Democratic voters that can swing to "tea party" or Reaganite conservative candidates.  The condescension of the Obamaniac elite toward the "average" middle-class American is about as subtle as the smell emanating from a septic tank.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More doctors in Congress!

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Sunday, June 13, 2010 10:45:12 AM

I propose we elect more doctors to Congress, and fewer lawyers.  (In fact, more of anything else, and fewer lawyers would probably be a good thing.)

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

Could conservative candidates peel off some "progressive" voters?

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:22:55 AM
Maybe, if some of the voters "progressives" are going after are concerned about fiscal accountability.

Here's one view from the regressive's side.

I am fascinated with the constant drumbeat of the "faux populism" accusation that is constantly being levelled at the tea partiers. It could only be from people who are too entrenched in their own elitist viewpoint (carefully crafted at the very "best" schools and lefty think tanks, and dutifully repeated ad nauseum by the Pravda press in this country).

There are two things that interest me about this:

1) How incredibly unsuccessful a strategy this is for the Left. It inflames and invigorates the grandparents, plumbers, stay-at-home moms, small businessmen and -women, and other grass-roots-level voters who are flocking to tea parties and "outsider" candidates in both the (R) and (D) camps. It is PRECISELY this kind of tin-eared condescension and disdain that conservative voters of all socioeconomic classes and all races/ethnic backgrounds are fed up with.

and

2) Borosage says this: "[progressives need to go after] corporate dominance of the legislative process and corruption of government that we have seen in every area, from finance to the catastrophe in the Gulf, to health care reform, and [we] need to take that out to the country where the real populous voice is as opposed to the faux populous voice of the tea parties..."

It is true that voters hate this. But it is the increasing involvement of government in business that creates the culture of "corporate dominance" in the legislative process. The more control government has over business, the more business focuses on pleasing its legislative overlords, as opposed to its customers and the general public. Increasing government control over business will make that WORSE, not better.

BUT! It is important in this vein to note that scholars like Harold Laski - the granddaddy of American progressivism - acknowledged that government regulation of business was only a watered-down alternative to what "progressives" REALLY want - which is complete government control of all of the means of production. (So there are your Marxist roots.) In other words, under the "progressives'" real agenda, the more businesses that collapse and have to be taken over by the government, the better.  And Laski was also blunt about the fact that this aspiration has to be hidden from the American public, who would oppose it.  So it has to appear to have happened because of corporate blundering, and the government has to look as if it is (oh so reluctantly) only riding in on the white horse to save the business from itself.  (For the sake of the people, of course.)

Increasingly, I think Americans are seeing through this charade.  My take is that this is an opportunity for legitimately conservative candidates to peel off many of the "progressives"' most faithful constituencies, most notably working-class Americans. Anyone who has ever had to balance their checkbook or live on a budget understands that profligate government spending is destroying this country, and that the Obama administration's "boot-on-the-neck" attitude toward business will ultimately deprive them of any source of a livelihood, except for maybe being a census-taker.

So, bring it on, Borosage.  You guys are the best friends conservative candidates could ask for.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nancy Pelosi is preaching Catholic doctrine as a basis for public policy???

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:54:02 PM


Hey, Nancy! Can we count on you to ask the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests to preach opposition to abortion from the pulpit? Isn't that "living the Gospel"? Oh, yeah - that's right. You get to pick and choose which aspects of Catholic theology you want everyone to live by.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So, get rid of the benefits

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Monday, May 10, 2010 12:08:29 PM
and maybe people will take the jobs they are offered.
 
(H/T:  my friend Richard Burr at the Detroit News)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And if Republicans win in Hawaii AND Illinois...?

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:37:12 PM
Well, wouldn't that be sweet?
 
It's a start.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Babies are "medical waste"?

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:58:26 AM
This is what happens when human life is viewed as callously as the Chinese view it.  (And they have plenty of company).  Instead of being handled properly as deceased human beings, these tiny people are called "medical waste" and tossed in a river.
 
Why should we be surprised?  Read this article from The Economist about the worldwide war on girls.  And weep.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Of course Obamacare will be like Romneycare

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:11:03 AM
From Tim Cahill, Massachusetts' state treasurer:
The universal insurance coverage we adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion. The cost of Massachusetts’ plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth’s budget. Just last Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick’s office announced a $294 million shortfall related to health-care costs.

If not for federal Medicaid reimbursements and commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government. But that raises the question: Who will bail America out if we implement a similar program?

OK, think about that.  That is a staggering difference.  Instead of $88 million a year, the costs of Romneycare have been one billion dollars a year???  Those original estimates were off by a factor of eleven (give or take).

Cahill's last question is what those of us who oppose Obamacare have been shouting from the rooftops: You were wrong about Medicare!  You were wrong abut Medicaid!  Social Security is broke!  And now you want us to believe that you can make a health care system for 300 million people and not go broke?

The question that our government will not ask - and will not answer when asked - is, "What will happen if you're wrong?  If you're wrong about the projections?  About the cost savings?  What happens when Obamacare costs 10 or 20 times what you told us it would?"

What happens when the United States is broke?  Greece just has protests.  America will have war in the streets.


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

Gay soldier served his country honorably!

Posted by Laura L. Hollis, JD on Monday, March 29, 2010 11:38:08 PM
And his bereaved family deserves peace and comfort.  This is an outrage.  These people should never have been allowed to protest at this man's funeral - or any funeral.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…2627Next »