Vast Write Wing - January 2009

[lwoolley]

Reagan didn't win the cold war. People just say he did. The cold war isn't over, for one thing, and for another, it was Gorbachev who broke down the walls of totalitarianism in the Soviet empire, and Yeltsin who stood before the tanks in Red Square and broke the back of the coup. Reagan merely raised the military budget - without a CLUE about whether the USSR could match us weapon for weapon. It's a fantasy that Reagan deserves credit for events that were only slightly caused by actions he took. I think his "evil empire" and "tear down this wall" statements did far more to influence events inside the Communist bloc than spending money on SDI.

And supply-side economics was barely tried - remember that Congress kept killing it? It was an idea that was ridiculed even inside the Reagan administration, and budget after budget was pronounced "dead on arrival" by the Democrats in Congress.

It was Volcker who ended the runaway inflation, after a tough recession caused by his changed policies for the fed. I'm baffled at the way that things that were clear at the time are now buried under myths like "supply-side economics saved the economy" and "Reagan won the cold war." Oh well - you're hardly alone in believing them and propounding them. But it really is a marker of the Right, kind of like belief in global warming is a marker of the Left ... <grin>

OSC

[Thane]

Lynn Woolley wrote:

"...You left out the fact that your Buddy Carter was directly responsible for the Iranian revolution, leading to the Islamic mess we have now.
Lynn"

There he goes again! Lynn blasting his favorite scapegoat that bumpkin stumblebum Jimmy Carter.

1. Carter was NOT directly responsible for the Iranian revolution. THE IRANIANS WERE!!! The Iranian people overwhelmingly backed a revolt against a brutal and dictatorial Shah who was forcibly put on the throne by a CIA instigated coup during the Eisenhower administration and sustained by JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford. Last time I checked Ike was a Republican president.

2. If Carter had been foolish enough to send U.S. troops into Iran to attempt to keep the Shah on the throne, then Lynn Woolley would be blasting him for doing that.
3. Perhaps the "Islamic mess we have now" as Lynn puts it, is more related to the unwavering support of the U.S. Government to the state of Israel since 1948; an unwavering support that encompasses every president, Democrat or Republican since Truman. Strangely, that support seems to annoy muslims.

4. Perhaps it is more related to our unwavering support of several British installed monarchs of the oil rich states. Perhaps it is more related to our cynical support of Saddam Hussein when we needed him and our throwing him to the dogs when we were through with him. Perhaps it has to do with a faltering George H.W. Bush who was afraid to knock off Saddam when we had the best and easiest chance in 1991 and furthermore abandoned those Iraqis and Kurds who rose up in rebellion to be crushed by Saddam. Perhaps it is related to our supporting Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan when it suited our purposes under the Reagan administration and then washing our hands of the matter as soon as the bear crawled home.

Furthermore:

1. Reagan did not govern under conservative principles. He did not shrink the size of government. He left behind enormous deficits. He did not change the nature of Washington one bit. He failed to get spending cuts and eventually gave up on it. He did not reform welfare, healthcare, or social security. Our economy may have been temporarily prosperous but America was becoming less and less competitive in the dawning globilization of which Reagan was blissfully ignorant.

2. His second administration was beset by a huge scandal (which Lynn Woolley finds expedient to marginalize) and was clearly out of steam as far as any domestic policy initiatives or legislative accomplishments. The crux of that scandal has always been telling. Either Reagan knew what was going on and therefore was more guilty than Nixon of blatantly breaking the law; or if he didn't know, then he was negligently ignorant of the goings-on of his own White House which smacks of incompetence. Does Lynn Woolley care to go on record with an assesement of which? How about the same scrutiny to the Iran-Contra scandal as he gives to any Democrat equivalent?

3. Reagan sent American Marines into Beruit Lebanon on a foolish mission and allowed hundreds of them to be murdered in their beds without a chance. Reagan then retreated as fast as possible. Lynn Woolley gives a free pass to Reagan for this abysssmal incident but will jump to decry the death of some of the Army Rangers who shot their way out of an ambush in Somalia during the Clinton years.

I believe that Jimmy Carter was a failed president and Ronald Reagan was a successful one, but for very different reasons than the spurious notions purveyed by Lynn Woolley. Lynn Woolley needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both men, as well as the true domestic and international contexts.

Quit being a blatant propagandist. Read some history.
SIncerely,
Thane

[lwoolley]

Thank you, America's new hero!
By Peyton Wolcott
Friday, January 15, 2009 / 12:02 a.m.
When Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, III safely crash-landed his US Airways Airbus in the Hudson River yesterday afternoon after taking off from La Guardia and gliding over the George Washington Bridge with the result that all 155 on board survived despite icy, snowy conditions, he displayed the smarts, spirit, grit and common sense that have made America great.

While so often statements on resumes are clearly spin, the ones on Sullenberger's have overnight suddenly taken on whole new meanings and relevance:
Solid sense of integrity. . . . . In-flight security coordinator. . . . Final authority

on all issues relating to safety of flight . . . . . Expert in applying safety and

reliability methods in a variety of fields. . . . . History of achievement in safety.

According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sullenberger "walked the plane twice after everyone else got off. A passenger said he was the last one up the aisle and that there was no one behind him." That's courage, friends, to walk a plane twice when it's sinking rapidly in freezing waters -- and you're the last one standing inside.

Others deserving their share of credit include N.Y. Waterways, Circle Line, the Coast Guard including volunteer divers and various city agencies, according to New York Governor David Paterson.

CBS has a graphic showing the flight's takeoff and flyover of Manhattan before landing in the Hudson.

While Sullenberger's safe and historic water landing is remarkable enough on its own, you understand that he also managed to fly over Manhattan in a crippled plane, missing the office and apartment towers [including the one my kids live in]. God bless him.

Peyton Wolcott
P.O. Box 9068
Horseshoe Bay, Texas 78657
www.peytonwolcott.com

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

You should check out Che-mart.com .
http://www.che-mart.com/
It is the anti-Che T-shirt web site.

Enjoy your show.

Thanks.

[lwoolley]

Mr. Woolley,
I have had the pleasure to call into your show before and I am a very big fan and listen everyday. I have everytime given my opinion that people have themselves to blame for their financial woes more than a tax increase. I often wonder why you do not preach a message of personal financial responsibility. I realize government will not do this, however the individual can. I am 27, earn more than the average household income, have no debt, and am able to use my income to begin my own business now. Sure, it's just a lawn care service and very seasonal. And I will not be making millions of dollars. But it's mine, and I used my head not to over leverage my finances so that now I can embrace my entreprenureal spirit. I realize it is impossible to fool proof anything since fools are often so ingenious. I just think if you could tell people that personal responsibility should always be priority one instead of worrying about what Obama is planning to increase, your message would have !
a lot more power. If you watch the pennies the dollars take care of themselves.
Thank you,
Jimmy

[lwoolley]

Lynn-
That is tough when one of your pets is at the end of his life. They have become part of your family and it is very sad. Dogs have to be in heaven or it wouldn’t be heaven. Prayers for you and your family.
Round Rock Ron

[lwoolley]

Tell me AGAIN the name and author of the novel you aluded to on Jan. 16m 2009. Many thanks. I did not have paper & Pencel at the time to write it down.

Anna Holt


Anna,

The novel is "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It's long, but extremely important to read. And it's entertaining as well.

Lynn

[lwoolley]

Reagonomics has stood the test of time...because a walking disaster
like Milton Friedman declared it a boon?

Ronnie was so brilliant that he contradicted his own inaugural address
in abut two seconds -- "You and I...can..live beyond our means but only for a limited period.
Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation?"

Why indeed, he apparently mumbled to himself...and then proceeded to increase
the national debt by more than the amount run up by all previous adminstrations combined.

Some kind of hero you got there.

Bill Halstead

[lwoolley]

http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=620

Message from Don Herold:

Lynn,
You may already have access to these publications, but here, any
way. In a nutshell, it's an article regarding the strong likelyhod of
deception, obfucation, "side stepping" and otherwise being the
proverbial, Wolf-in-sheeps-clothing. If I fly my flag, (it seems to
be the only one ot there in my neighborhood, it'll probably be
inverted, the signal of distress, danger, aaannnnnd violation. I have
the fllag out today, Saturday 01-17-09 for Ben Franklin's birthday as
well as my mother's birthday. I'm of good cheer and positive in my
outlook, just wary. Regards, Don Killeen.

[lwoolley]

The 2/3rds Rule: What Wednesday’s Senate Vote Means for Texas


By Luke Baker - Texas Insider
Published: 01-16-09

An Interview with Senator Dan Patrick

Two days ago, in what some are calling a historic day for the Texas Senate, Republican legislators passed a measure exempting the contentious Voter ID bill from the Senate’s ‘two-thirds rule‘. The rule change was sponsored by Sen. Tommy Williams (R), who took the lead on advancing the Voter ID Bill.

Traditionally, a bill must have two-thirds support before it can be brought up for debate in front of the Senate. On Tuesday night, 18 Senators voted in favor of an exemption that would allow Voter ID to be brought to the floor with only a majority vote.

Texas Insider sat down with Senator Patrick yesterday for a one-on-one interview with the Senator, asking his thoughts on the Senate events, the three-fifths proposal, and the tone that has been set this session in the Senate.

Sen. Dan Patrick quietly supported his Republican colleagues on Tuesday. In the past, Patrick has campaigned to replace the two-thirds rule with a three-fifths rule, but until now, the idea has gained little traction.

Senator Patrick:

On Wednesday’s session:
“[Wednesday] was an historic day because the Republicans made the decision that while the two-thirds rule may have had a purpose once upon a time and may still have a purpose, if the party who blocks refuses to negotiate, refuses to compromise, then they are abusing the spirit of the two-thirds rule.”

On Republican resolve:
“Up until now, the Republicans have taken the position: we take a loss. We have now taken the position, that if you refuse to compromise, to the point where you bring a hospital bed to the lobby, to the point where you are ready to go another state; when you refuse to compromise, then we have changed the rules. We have set the precedent that we can create a special order, and in essence, the two thirds rule is no longer an issue.”

On the two-thirds rule:
“It was a very, for me personally, a satisfying moment yesterday because obviously two years ago I spoke about the blocker bill and lost 30 to 1. And most people said there’s no way we are ever going to change this. I think a majority of Republicans came back this time knowing that we cannot continue to go home to the voters as the majority and say ‘I’m sorry, based on a tradition, we can’t pass the bills that are really important to you.’”

More on Wednesday’s Session:
“I thought Tommy did a masterful job. We made the point, that we’re not trying to run over you, we continue to try and compromise, but some people view bipartisanship as them winning. And so, we truly do work all together, as you know 85% of the bills we pass are bipartisanship. Block coalitions are not always Republicans and Democrats, its rural, urban, there are lots of coalitions.

“The bottom line is the majority of Texas has elected Republicans. In state wide offices, and still the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate. They didn’t elect us to give away our majority right. So yesterday I was proud that in two years we had moved from ‘we’re not ever doing to anything about the two thirds rule,’ to ‘we are going to stand up for the issues that our people are concerned about.’

“If I’m in the minority party, I’m going to fight hard to protect my interest. I don’t blame the Democrats for drawing a line in the sand on the issues important to them. That’s their job. But at some point if you go too far: to leaving the state or bringing in a hospital bed; if you go so far that you force the majority into a position of ‘well we’re just going to go home and tell our voters that I’m sorry we couldn’t do anything because we have to abide by this tradition that’s being abused.’ We’re not going to do that anymore. ”

For the People of Texas:
“I think it was a great day for the people of Texas. The average voter doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the rules. They just want us to do the job as the majority. They don’t understand if we come home and say ‘we couldn’t pass voter ID, we couldn’t lower your property taxes, we couldn’t repeal the business tax, we couldn’t deal with illegal immigration, we couldn’t properly fund education, we couldn’t reduce the top 10% rule, we couldn’t fund healthcare because of a tradition.’ That’s not good enough. I believe in tradition, but what’s more important? The tradition of the “body”? The “rights of the club”? Or representing 23 million people in Texas, especially the majority, who we represent.

“Anyone who runs for office, Democrat or Republican, and if the Democrats are in power one day, they don’t’ believe me when I say this, they should have the same right. If there are 19 Democrats one day and they are the majority, I would not expect any Democrat, John Whitmire, Judith Zaffirini, ever, if they had 19 votes, to come in and say ‘you know what, this is really important to my district but because of this tradition I’ll just go home and tell them I couldn’t pass it.’”

On the Three-Fifths Rule
“For me, obviously, I believe in the total three-fifths rule. I think we should go to 19 on everything. And there are many Democrats I think who believe that yesterday was the beginning of the end of the two-thirds rule. It was the beginning of the end. And will it be one more session, or two more sessions, three more sessions? I don’t know. Yesterday the Democrats got up with amendment after amendment. Republicans care about healthcare, Republicans care about college tuition, Republicans sure care about our military and our vets that are coming home to Texas. I was very tempted at that point to stand up and say if you just want to pass all this lets go to three-fifths. Let’s just go to three-fifths.

“In fact, I offered numerous Democrats the opportunity to say, why don’t you join me and go to three-fifths. I made the decision yesterday just to sit quietly, it was Tommy’s deal, but it represented the issue that several of us have been pushing, and I passionately feel strongly about. The Republicans have lost seats in Washington, lost seats in Texas. Moving to the middle is not the answer, grid lock is not the answer, and mean spirited infighting is not the answer.

“The one thing the people don’t want, they don’t want us to come up here, and walk out and fight with each other, they want us to come in here and be statesman like, and come to reasonable compromise on issues, but they don’t want us to sell them out. . If you look at the two-thirds rule in the spirit that it was written, which is to prevent one party from running over the other. But it wasn’t meant to have tyranny of the minority.”

More on Wednesday’s Session:
“[I thought it was a proud day for the Senate. I thought the Democrats, as passionate as they were, I thought they were very respectful. I thought it was civilized, we really did deliberate yesterday, which we seldom do because of the blocker bill. We really deliberated, that’s what the Senate should be about.

“That’s why I was so excited and felt so satisfied, that’s what I’d like to see on every bill. And we don’t get a chance to do that because of the twenty-one votes, because if you’ve got twenty-one you’ve got sixteen. And you’re not going to change five minds, as Whitmire said yesterday, its hard to change one. So the twenty-one vote rule takes away what we had yesterday. And wouldn’t it be great to have that same kind of debate yesterday on healthcare and education, and college education, and illegal immigration? That would be powerful.”

On Senator Zaffirini’s Comment: “Senator Patrick, you are a winner today and I congratulate you”

“In fact I was stunned by what Zaffirini said. It wasn’t a win for me, it was a win on principle, that I believe in. And when Sen. Whitmire said ‘Dan you’ve driven this, this is you’re doing, you’re pushing this agenda and you’re going to be sorry.’ I’m not sorry. That’s what I believe in, why should I be sorry?

“We haven’t destroyed the integrity of the Senate, we haven’t destroyed tradition. I think that the other positive that this does, this allows us to move forward with all the other legislation that’s important to Texas, without this hanging over our head.

“Because it was a battle that was sure to come, and it impacts everything else. ”

=============================================================
Excerpts from e-mail alert sent by Cathie Adams (president of Texas Eagle Forum), 1.16.09:

Friends,

I know that YOU agree with me about the need for improved voter integrity. We are too familiar with the horror stories of dead people voting, individuals voting numerous times, dozens of people registered to vote who supposedly live in a one bedroom apartment, etc.

To partly remedy this tragedy, it is imperative that Texas Legislators pass a law requiring voters to present a Photo ID in order to vote. A Photo ID is required to board a plane or to cash a check. It surely is just as important to verify identification to vote!

...The Texas Senate's rules include a "rose bush" rule that requires 2/3 of the Senators to suspend the rules in order to consider a bill; 21 Senators must vote to bring up a bill on the Senate floor. This week during debate of the Senate rules, a majority of them voted to KEEP the 2/3 rule, but to EXEMPT ONE BILL from that rule: the requirement for voter Photo ID. This is NOT a partisan rule; instead, it is a clear move to improve voter integrity for both parties. The fact is that 77% of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Anglos, African-Americans and Hispanics SUPPORT the "rose bush" rule exemption.

Please THANK the 18 of 19 Republican Senators who voted for this rule exemption in an effort to improve voter integrity:

Kevin Eltife Republican District 1 512-463-0101
Kevin.Eltife@senate.state.tx.us
Robert Deuell Republican District 2 512-463-0102
Robert.Deuell@senate.state.tx.us
Robert Nichols Republican District 3 512-463-0103
Robert.Nichols@senate.state.tx.us
Tommy Williams Republican District 4 512-463-0104
Tommy.Williams@senate.state.tx.us
Steve Ogden Republican District 5 512-463-0105
Steve.Ogden@senate.state.tx.us
Dan Patrick Republican District 7 512-463-0107
Dan.Patrick@senate.state.tx.us
Florence Shapiro Republican District 8 512-463-0108
Florence.Shapiro@senate.state.tx.us
Chris Harris Republican District 9 512-463-0109
Chris.Harris@senate.state.tx.us
Mike Jackson Republican District 11 512-463-0111
Mike.Jackson@senate.state.tx.us
Jane Nelson Republican District 12 512-463-0112
Jane.Nelson@senate.state.tx.us
Joan Huffman Republican District 17 512-463-0117
Joan.Huffman@senate.state.tx.us
Glen Hegar Republican District 18 512-463-0118
Glen.Hegar@senate.state.tx.us
Kip Averitt Republican District 22 512-463-0122
Kip.Averitt@senate.state.tx.us
Troy Fraser Republican District 24 512-463-0124
Troy.Fraser@senate.state.tx.us
Jeff Wentworth Republican District 25 512-463-0125
Jeff.Wentworth@senate.state.tx.us
Robert Duncan Republican District 28 512-463-0128
Robert.Duncan@senate.state.tx.us
Craig Estes Republican District 30 512-463-0130
Craig.Estes@senate.state.tx.us
Kel Seliger Republican District 31 512-463-0131
Kel.Seliger@senate.state.tx.us

Regretfully, Senator John Carona, District 16, 512-463-0116, opposed the rule exemption. John.Carona@senate.state.tx.us




Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com

[lwoolley]

Dear Lynn,

Isn't it true that President Ford came to the Presidency through a series of evnts starting with then Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew having to leave office because of TAX EVASION!!!

Russell A. Krumnow
Temple, TX

[lwoolley]

Hi Lynn, I'm very sad today and I won't be watching any of the Obama activities. I certainly hope I am wrong about this guy, but if I'm not it is going to be a very rough ride. I imagine George Bush is very glad to be coming back to Texas.
Stephanie

[lwoolley]

To: Senator John Cornyn
Re: Confirmation of Senator Clinton for Secretary of State
Date: January 19, 2009


Senator Cornyn, thank you for taking your responsibilities very seriously regarding the confirmation of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

President Bill Clinton definitely should refuse to accept any and all pledges and donations from foreign sources during his wife's tenure as the Secretary of State. Transparency protocols must be adopted, and definite commitments to put these protocols into place need to be addressed before allowing Hillary to be confirmed.

We appreciate your professionalism and courage in carrying out due diligence in this confirmation process. It is because of your hard work and ethical values that we elected you Senator, and we as Texans are encouraged to see you carry out your duties so conscientiously.

Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Senator Cornyn may hold up the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

We should all call Senator Cornyn's office and express our appreciation and ask him to hold up her nomination permanently. That's what I did just now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 22&sp=true
Foundation concerns could delay Clinton confirmation

Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:18pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Sen. John Cornyn may hold up the nomination of Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state if his concerns about foreign donations to her husband's foundation are not resolved, a spokesman for the Texas senator said on Monday.
"Senator Cornyn is a strong proponent of complete transparency and has fought for as much throughout his time in office. He is keeping all of his options on the table," said his spokesman Kevin McLaughlin in an email reply to Reuters, when asked if Cornyn could block Clinton's nomination.

Democratic lawmakers had hoped to approve President-elect Barack Obama's proposed Cabinet of top advisers within hours or days of his inauguration at noon (1700 GMT) on Tuesday, but Cornyn's objections could stall approval of Clinton for the top U.S. diplomatic job by one or two days.

Cornyn sent Clinton a letter on Friday congratulating her on her nomination, but reiterating his belief that the foundation headed by former President Bill Clinton, should refuse all pledges and donations from foreign sources during his wife's tenure as secretary of state.

"Like many others, I remain deeply troubled that America's foreign policy and your diplomatic mission will be encumbered by the sweeping global activities of the Clinton Foundation unless tighter foreign fundraising restrictions and transparency protocols are adopted," he said.

Cornyn said he was willing to consider other options that would reduce "the likelihood of real or perceived conflicts of interest that will result from foreign donations," but gave no details.

He said he supported many of the disclosure requirements proposed by Sen. Richard Lugar, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and would "go further in several instances."

The Foreign Relations Committee last week sent Clinton's nomination to the full Senate by a 16-1 vote, and many expected the New York senator to be the first Cabinet member to be confirmed.

Any senator can put a hold on a nomination or piece of legislation, although given Democratic control of the 100-member Senate means that Clinton still remains certain to win approval eventually.

However, her confirmation may be stalled by several days if Cornyn decides to put a hold on her nomination.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by David Wiessler)

[lwoolley]

In Monday's show you read the account of a meeting that stated global warming was a media generate myth. Could you direct me to the place online I could read and print out that documentation.

Thanks for the logical thinking.
Allen



Here is the link:
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/inde ... al_wa.html

[lwoolley]

This morning I was greatly offended by the cheap shots at George Bush taken by someone on KTEM just prior to your show today. It seems that some people have such excessive hate for George Bush that they can't seem to quit Bush Bashing even on the very day a new president is inaugurated.
They seem to have a pathalogical blind hatred based on nothing of any real importance or significance. I suspect these people will now change to pathological blind reverence and love for anything and everything Mr. Obama does.
God Help Our Country !!

Thomas