<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>The Redhunter</title>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/</link>
<description>
&quot;It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.&quot; - 
Theodore Roosevelt</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:09:48 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=4.25</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 


<item>
<title>Reverend Obama and the Gospel of Taxes</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>It's apparently ok to mix religion and politics if you're a liberal trying to jack up taxes for your favorite social programs.  From the Powerline Blog:</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/render-unto-barry.php">Render Unto Barry</a></strong><br>
by Scott Johnson<br>
February 3, 2012<br>

<p>President Obama advertised some big endorsements for his tax-the-rich more policies and class warfare reelection strategy yesterday. In a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast -- text here, video below -- Obama made the case that Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and Plato (?!) are all on board with him, although that may be understating the matter:</p>

<blockquote>    [W]hen I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.</blockquote></blockquote>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/02/reverend_obama_and_the_gospel_of_taxes.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/02/reverend_obama_and_the_gospel_of_taxes.php</guid>
<category>Obama</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:09:48 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Celebrate Conformity - Or Else! </title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Mark Steyn is one of the most insightful writers of our time.   His last book, <em>America Alone: the End of the World as We Know It </em>(reviewed by me here), is a classic, if a thoroughly depressing one.   I'm currently reading his latest, <em>After America: Get Ready for Armageddon</em>, and will have a review up on it next month.  Liberals are famously intolerant of alternative opinions and thuggish in their enforcement, as the  Susan G. Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood imbroglio demonstrates.  Having been a victim of liberal intolerance in Canada (see <a href="http://theredhunter.com/2008/06/the_legal_jihad_in_canada.php">here</a> and <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/06/28/mark-steyn-cleared-human-rights-panel">here</a>), he knows what it's all about.  From his column in <em>National Review</em>:</p>

<blockquote><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290134/liberal-enforcers-mark-steyn">The Liberal Enforcers</a><br>
<em>Komen couldn't be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion.</em><br>
February 4, 2012<br>
By Mark Steyn

<p>As Senator Obama said during the 2008 campaign, words matter. Modern "liberalism" is strikingly illiberal; the high priests of "tolerance" are increasingly intolerant of even the mildest dissent; and those who profess to "celebrate diversity" coerce ever more ruthlessly a narrow homogeneity. Thus, the Obama administration's insistence that Catholic institutions must be compelled to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. This has less to do with any utilitarian benefit a condomless janitor at a Catholic school might derive from Obamacare, and more to do with the liberal muscle of Big Tolerance enforcing one-size-fits-all diversity.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/02/celebrate_conformity_-_or_else_.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/02/celebrate_conformity_-_or_else_.php</guid>
<category>Social Issues</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:53:38 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Iran Cannot Be Allowed To Go Nuclear</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>One more from Powerline:</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/on-israel-and-a-nuclear-iran.php">On Israel and a Nuclear Iran</a></strong><br>
by Scott Johnson<br>
January 31, 2012<br>

<p>Finding the video of Douglas Murray at the Cambridge Union debating the question of a nuclear Iran, apparently last year, I looked around for some background on the debate. I haven't found the background, but I have found a handy summary at Seraphic Secret:</p>

<p>    <blockquote>This is an incredibly powerful video of the brilliant and erudite British Conservative Douglas Murray speaking at Cambridge about a nuclear Iran. It's eleven minutes long and builds to an incredible pitch of logic and emotion. Stay with it.</blockquote></blockquote></p>

<p><embed src='http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/jw-player-plugin-for-wordpress/player/player.swf' height='326' width='580' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' flashvars="&dock=false&file=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F3dBzslDdQ_g&gapro.accountid=UA-78703-2&gapro.height=297&gapro.trackpercentage=true&gapro.trackstarts=true&gapro.tracktime=true&gapro.visible=true&gapro.width=580&gapro.x=0&gapro.y=0&image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F3dBzslDdQ_g%2F0.jpg&logo=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fvideobug.png&plugins=viral-2%2Cgapro-1&skin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fjw-player-plugin-for-wordpress%2Fskins%2Fglow.zip&viral.allowmenu=true&viral.bgcolor=0x333333&viral.fgcolor=0xffffff&viral.functions=embed&viral.matchplayercolors=true&viral.oncomplete=true&viral.onpause=true&logo.link=http://www.powerlineblog.com&logo.file=http://www.powerlineblog.com/videobug.png"/></p>

<blockquote>Allow me to underline several of Murray's most important points:</blockquote>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/iran_cannot_be_allowed_to_go_nuclear.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/iran_cannot_be_allowed_to_go_nuclear.php</guid>
<category>Iran</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:21:50 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Do Wind and Solar Work?  No</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>No time to write a proper post, but this piece over at Powerline caught my eye:</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/do-wind-and-solar-work.php">Do Wind and Solar Work? </a></strong><br>
by John Hinderacker<br>
January 30, 2012<br>

<p>Everyone knows that wind and solar energy are inefficient sources of energy compared to fossil fuels. But, as the Science and Environmental Policy Project points out in the current The Week That Was, the extent to which "green" energy actually works is surprisingly opaque:</p>

<blockquote>Someone experienced in analyzing potential investments in innovative industries may be surprised by the lack of hard data on the performance of solar and wind in generating electricity. Certainly, it is understandable that solar and wind companies may wish to keep certain trade secrets from the public, such as manufacturing design and techniques. But if the results are as solid as the promoters claim, than one would expect the promoters would give the hard data on performance. Yet these are being withheld on the claims that such data is proprietary - confidential.</blockquote></blockquote>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/do_wind_and_solar_work_no.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/do_wind_and_solar_work_no.php</guid>
<category>Energy / Environment</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:17:01 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Obama:  Economic Failure by the Numbers</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>President Obama has been out of ideas for some time now, which is one reason why the State of the Union speech was such a yawner, full of the same old cliches and tired liberal nostrums.    His economic "plan" consisted of spending like crazy, hoping that a Keynesian demand-side "stimulus" would boost the economy.   </p>

<p>It didn't work as this chart clearly shows:</p>

<p><img width=400 src="http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/obama-economic-record-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>

<p>Yup, the failure of Obamanomics is on full display for all to see.   </p>

<p>I found the above chart at one of my favorite blogs; <a href="http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/numbers-dont-lie-obama-turning-citizens.html">Mike's America</a>.   Mike is a staunch conservative with a no-holds-barred approach that drives liberals nuts.   Bookmark it today.   </p>

<p>And what has the result of all of Obama's spending been if it hasn't improved the economy?   To drive the federal debt to sky-high levels, as this  chart from <a href="http://www.mrconservative.com/">Mr Conservative</a> shows:</p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_economic_failure_by_the_numbers.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_economic_failure_by_the_numbers.php</guid>
<category>Federal Budget</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Obama&apos;s Wrongheaded Concept of American Greatness </title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>If President Obama's ideas are so bad, perhaps it is because his concept of American  history is so flawed.    But what do you expect from someone who went to Trinity United and listened to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years?  </p>

<p>Andrew Cline explains:</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289196/obama-and-american-greatness-andrew-cline">Obama and American Greatness</a></strong>
<em>The Corner at National Review</em>
By Andrew Cline
January 25, 2012

<p>If you want a good distillation of this president's wrongheaded view of the United States of America, look no further than this rhetorical bit from the end of tonight's State of the Union address: "No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other's backs."</p>

<p>Unity is central to American identity, but not the way Obama envisions it. <em>E pluribus unum</em> is not Latin for, "Hey, bro, let's invest in some infrastructure together." The notion that this nation is one big team that acts collectively toward shared goals set by the state would be completely foreign to the men who founded it. But that is Obama's concept of America.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obamas_wrongheaded_concept_of_american_greatness_.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obamas_wrongheaded_concept_of_american_greatness_.php</guid>
<category>History</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Obama Can Dish It Out But He Can&apos;t Take It</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Despite that in this photo Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is pointing her finger at the President, it is Obama who tried to lecture her when he landed in Phoenix earlier this week:</p>

<p><img width=300 src="http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Brewer_Obama.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/thou-shalt-not-write-bad-things-about-obama_618603.html">Thou Shalt Not Write Bad Things About Obama</a></strong><br>
<em>The Weekly Standard</em><br>
by Jonathan V. Last<br>
Jan 25, 2012<br>

<p>Drudge has a story about Obama getting off of Air Force One in Arizona, greeting Republican governor Jan Brewer, and immediately giving her a piece of his mind. Evidently <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm">our president did not appreciate</a> something Brewer wrote about him. According to the pool report, they had a testy exchange from which the president walked away as Brewer was still speaking.</p>

<p>Sound familiar? Bobby Jindal got the same treatment when Obama came to visit Louisiana and the governor met him on the tarmac. Jindal would later recount in his book:</p>

<blockquote>I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP's slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.</blockquote></blockquote>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_can_dish_it_out_but_he_cant_take_it.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_can_dish_it_out_but_he_cant_take_it.php</guid>
<category>Obama</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Obama was for Subsidies to Corporations Before He was Against Them</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Jonah Goldberg at <em><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289181/uh-jonah-goldberg">National Review</a></em> points out an obvious contradiction in Obama's State of the Union <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-obama-speech-excerpts/2012/01/24/gIQA9D3QOQ_print.html">speech</a>:</p>

<blockquote>This is from the same speech:

<blockquote>    On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.</blockquote>

<p>    We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.</p>

<p>And:</p>

<p>    <blockquote>It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.</blockquote></blockquote></p>

<p>For all his fancy talk in the first paragraph, Obama is admitting to giving big business a bug fat bailout.  And we know why he did it; all those Democrat voting UAW members.  Got to keep the unions happy.  </p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_was_for_subsidies_to_corporations_before_he_was_against_them.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_was_for_subsidies_to_corporations_before_he_was_against_them.php</guid>
<category>Obama</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:22:46 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>State of the Union 2012:  What is Tax Fairness?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>   Consider this from <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-obama-speech-excerpts/2012/01/24/gIQA9D3QOQ_print.html">Obama's State of the Union</a> address Tuesday night:</p>

<blockquote>We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit or somebody else has to make up the difference, like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet.

<p>That's not right. Americans know that's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last. </blockquote></p>

<p>What is "fair share?"  What does that even mean?    Obama seems to assume that we all share his vision of a steeply "progressive" tax whereby those who have money over a certain amount are obligated to pay whatever amount he deems necessary to fund the government programs that he thinks necessary.   </p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/state_of_the_union_2012_what_is_tax_fairness.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/state_of_the_union_2012_what_is_tax_fairness.php</guid>
<category>The Left</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>William Jefferson Gingrich</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>R. Emmett Tyrell nails Newt perfectly.</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.nysun.com/opinion/william-jefferson-gingrich/87674/">William Jefferson Gingrich</a></strong><br>
By R. Emmett Tyrrrell, Jr.,<br>
<em>Special to the Sun </em><br>
January 25, 2012<br>

<p>How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism's Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire.</p>

<p>Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping. It is not as egregious as Bill's, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/william_jefferson_gingrich.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/william_jefferson_gingrich.php</guid>
<category>Election 2012</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:44:21 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Newt Gingrich and the Question of Morality in Candidates</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Sadly, the stalwarts in my party seem intent on nominating candidates of dubious moral character.   First the favorite was Herman Cain, now it's Newt Gingrich.   They supported Cain, and are supporting Gingrich, because they are the more conservative candidates and because they are somewhat exciting.   Rick Santorum is equally conservative but is not exciting.  But Santorum is not polling well enough to be a serious threat for the nomination, so we'll leave him out of this.  </p>

<p>Mitt Romney is derided as the "Massachusetts moderate," and for good reason.     Yet compared to Cain and Gingrich he's a model of moral character.   He's a good family man, has only had one wife with no allegations of fooling around or even a wandering eye, and no scandal to his name(other than whatever nonsense the leftists will invent).     </p>

<p>At this point I should mention that I do think that at least some of the charges against Cain were true, and my guess is that given Newt's tawdry past, Marianne Gingrich was telling the truth about that "open marriage" proposal as well.     Which brings us to today's editorial from conservative stalwart Wesley Pruden.</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/24/pruden-newt-gingrich-and-the-moral-thing/">Newt Gingrich and the 'moral thing'</a></strong><br>
By Wesley Pruden<br>
<em>The Washington Times</em><br>
Tuesday, January 24, 2012<br>

<p>Politicians can't any longer talk about "moral character" without sounding like a stuffy Baptist deacon or a stiff Presbyterian elder. "Moral character" is no longer important in a presidential campaign, even to many conservatives and evangelicals. If it is important anymore, it is only as a talking point.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/newt_gingrich_and_the_question_of_morality_in_candidates.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/newt_gingrich_and_the_question_of_morality_in_candidates.php</guid>
<category>Election 2012</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>At the March for Life 2012</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I went to the 39th annual March for Life today with the good people of St John's church of Leesburg VA.  <a href="http://theredhunter.com/2009/01/march_for_life_2009.php">I went three years ago</a> and have been looking forward to returning since.    The date marks 39 years since the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade which legalized abortion in the United States.  From the website of <a href="http://www.marchforlife.org/">March for Life</a>:</p>

<p><br />
<img width=600 src="http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/March%20for%20Life%202012/dsc_0195-copy.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>

<blockquote>On January 22, 1974, the first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol. An estimated 20,000 committed prolife Americans rallied that day on behalf of our preborn brothers and sisters.

<p>In 1974, the March for Life was incorporated as a non-profit, non-partisan, non-sectarian organization. </blockquote></p>

<p>News reports have only mentioned figures of "tens of thousands," understandably reluctant to try and nail down a precise figure.  The March for Life site says approximately have 200,000 attended each march since 2002.  Whatever the figure, I can tell you that an awful lot of people were there today.    From my vantage it was impossible to really get a picture that conveyed the size of the crowd.    </p>

<p><img width=600 src="http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/March%20for%20Life%202012/IMG_0330.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> </p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/at_the_march_for_life_2012.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/at_the_march_for_life_2012.php</guid>
<category>Rallies and Protests III</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Newt&apos;s Negatives:  &quot;America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt&quot;</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Via the <em><a href="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/america-hates-newt-gingrich/326161">Washington Examiner</a></em>, this is a chart showing the combined Favorable/Unfavorable ratings of President Obama with the two major Republican contenders, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.   The chart shows the favorable number minus the unfavorable number.  If the result is a positive number, the bar goes upward. If negative, downward.   </p>

<p><img width=500 src="http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Favorables_Candidates.jpg" border="0" alt="Favorables Candidates"></a></p>

<p>Here are the three surveys that went into the composite figures in the chart:</p>

<blockquote><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/01/15/fox-news-poll-raw-data-romney-hits-record-high-but-still-tied-with-obama/">Fox News, 1/12-1/14:</a><br>
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5<br>
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7<br>
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/19/us/politics/19poll-documents.html"><br />
CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:</a><br />
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7<br />
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14<br />
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32</p>

<p><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/obama-up-5-on-romney-nationally.html">PPP, 1/13-1/17:</a><br />
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3<br />
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18<br />
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34</blockquote></p>

<p>As the author comments, "America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt."</p>

<p>No kidding.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/newts_negatives_america_does_not_love_romney_but_boy_do_they_hate_newt.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/newts_negatives_america_does_not_love_romney_but_boy_do_they_hate_newt.php</guid>
<category>Election 2012</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:45:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Book Review - In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p></p>

<p><img width=200 src="http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Book%20Covers/InMyTime_DickCheney.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>

<p>Few people have been involved in as many administrations and important world events as Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney.   Born in Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1941, he came to Washington in 1969 as an intern for a congressman, and from there was hired by Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity.   When Ford became president Cheney went to the White House, eventually becoming Chief of Staff.  In 1978 he was elected to the House of Representatives from Wisconsin, where he served for 12 years, eventually became House Minority Whip.   President George H.W. Bush appointed him Secretary of Defense, an office held throughout Bush's term.    During President Clinton's time in office Cheney worked at the American Enterprise Institute and Council on Foreign Relations (1993 to 1995).  In 1995 he was made Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton.  He was chosen to be George W Bush's running mate in 2000, and served as Vice President from 2001 - 2009.    </p>

<p>All this is told in his memoir, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/My-Time-Personal-Political-Memoir/dp/1439176191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326588789&sr=8-1">In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir</a></em>.  His oldest daughter, Liz Cheney, is listed as a contributor.  </p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/book_review_-_in_my_time_a_personal_and_political_memoir.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/book_review_-_in_my_time_a_personal_and_political_memoir.php</guid>
<category>Book Reviews</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Obama Kills the Keystone PipelinePanders to the EnviroCrazy Left</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>When the <em>Washington Post</em> tells Obama he blew it, you know he's really gone off the deep end.</p>

<blockquote><strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-keystone-pipeline-rejection-is-hard-to-accept/2012/01/18/gIQAf9UG9P_story.html">Obama's Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept</a></strong><br>
By Editorial Board<br>
Published: January 18<br>

<p>ON TUESDAY, President Obama's Jobs Council reminded the nation that it is still hooked on fossil fuels, and will be for a long time. "Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy," the council reported, "is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel."</p>

<p>It added that regulatory "and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed."</p>

<p>Mr. Obama's Jobs Council could start by calling out . . . the Obama administration.</blockquote></p>]]></description>
<link>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_kills_the_keystone_pipelinepanders_to_the_envirocrazy_left.php</link>
<guid>http://theredhunter.com/2012/01/obama_kills_the_keystone_pipelinepanders_to_the_envirocrazy_left.php</guid>
<category>Energy / Environment</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>
