The Federal government released the Gross Domestic Product(GDP) data for last year and it showed that the U. S. economy grew at an annual rate of 2.2 percent. There were parades in every city of the country, employers gave their workers the day off with pay, the unemployed wept with joy and businesses everywhere planned for massive expansion of their companies.You say that you missed the celebratory clamour, don't feel bad, everybody did because there was none. In fact even the administration was doing everything it could to move past the report as quickly as possible.
Truth be told (which is not an activity engaged in by the current administration) the growth rate of 2.2 percent for an economy, which up until the Obama presidency was the engine for world economic growth, is pathetic. The average annual GDP growth rate since the end of World War II is 3.2 percent, far above the average Obama rate which is far less than two percent. This rate is even worse when one considers that GDP should grow at a rate closer to 5 percent in an economic recovery. During the Reagan recovery of the 1980s, the economy saw growth in some quarters as high as 7 percent. By the way, the average GDP growth rate for all eight years of the George W. Bush presidency was just over three percent, and that included the beginning of the current economic downturn.
The government report also showed a contraction of the economy in the fourth quarter of 2012 by one tenth of one percent. This means that when the inflation rate is factored into the low growth rate, for all intents and purposes, the U. S. economy has slipped back into recession. This is certainly bad news for an economy that has not yet experienced a robust recovery from the recession that began almost 5 years ago. But then, President Obama outlined the slow growth approach to economic recovery just after he was elected in 2008. He specifically said that his desire was to even out the economy so there are no busts or boons. Well he has done just that, he has created an economy that is anemic and treads water in a sea of mediocrity.
Some on the Left will point to the rise in the stock market as a measure of President Obama's economic success. But the market has not yet reached the level it achieved in October of 2007, even after 6 trillion dollars in new Obama debt. The stock market has only done as well as it has because the Federal Reserve has been printing money and buying U. S. bonds in order to keep interest rates at historically low levels so that money is driven into the equities market. This has hurt the economy more than it has helped because the low rates along with the government's zeal for suing banks has kept them from lending. The low bond rates have also devastated many retirees' incomes that are dependent on higher interest rates in the bond market.
We are currently in the midst of earnings season for corporate America, and by the reporting you'd think that we are living through the most prosperous times in history. But a fair amount of companies are missing their earnings estimates, estimates that have been lowered to almost nothing on very dismal expectations for growth. Anyone whose memory has not been completely destroyed by the Obama opiate, should remember what a good economy looks and feels like. For the rest of you, just sing another stanza of "Happy days are here again" and maybe you can convince yourselves it is true even as the country falls to pieces around you.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Why Democrats Are Not Interested In Securing The Border
Yesterday in Las Vegas, Nevada President Obama laid out a general overview for his immigration reform. Why the President had to fly a total of nine hours round trip and spend millions of taxpayer dollars for security while in Vegas, is beyond comprehension. The President spoke about the nation having the resolve to finally fix the immigration problem and put it behind us. Where has the President been for the last 10 years that Republicants have been proposing just that?
The immigration debate is not really about immigration, but about people who break our laws and breach our unsecured borders. President Obama and his party have turned a simple matter of securing the border into some sort of civil rights issue. I just wonder if the President and the Democrats would be so reluctant to secure the border and so eager to give illegals the precious rights of citizenship if most of them voted Republicant? Therein lies the real motivation for the President's plan of converting illegal aliens into full-fledged citizens, it is so they can elect Democrats to public office.
The President and his party don't want to secure the border because they see a porous border as an endless source of new voters. They would rather secure political power for themselves than execute their oath to protect this country. In order to understand the Democrats' position on immigration, one only needs to understand the source of the Democrats political existence. Having a growing underclass of people dependent on the Federal government, is the only way in which Democrats can win elections and hold political sway over the country. That's why the President made it clear that he has no interest in securing the border, but only creating a way to transform law-breaking illegals into Democrat-voting citizens.
If Republicants were politically savvy, they would expose the Democrats' true intentions on border security by proposing something similar to the Limbaugh plan. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh proposed that our side agree to the amnesty plan the Democrats are pursuing but with one caveat, the newly formed citizens could not vote for 25 years. The great alacrity with which Democrats would lose interest in a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens would be spellbinding to watch.
Like every other issue that takes common sense to resolve, border security and dealing with illegal aliens already in this country, is made overly complicated by the politics of Washington. Prior to Democrats figuring out that they could convert illegal aliens into legal voters, our country protected our borders and deported those who broke our laws to take up residence here. But this common sense approach to border security, which almost every other country in the world employs, seems to be beyond the American political system.
The immigration debate is not really about immigration, but about people who break our laws and breach our unsecured borders. President Obama and his party have turned a simple matter of securing the border into some sort of civil rights issue. I just wonder if the President and the Democrats would be so reluctant to secure the border and so eager to give illegals the precious rights of citizenship if most of them voted Republicant? Therein lies the real motivation for the President's plan of converting illegal aliens into full-fledged citizens, it is so they can elect Democrats to public office.
The President and his party don't want to secure the border because they see a porous border as an endless source of new voters. They would rather secure political power for themselves than execute their oath to protect this country. In order to understand the Democrats' position on immigration, one only needs to understand the source of the Democrats political existence. Having a growing underclass of people dependent on the Federal government, is the only way in which Democrats can win elections and hold political sway over the country. That's why the President made it clear that he has no interest in securing the border, but only creating a way to transform law-breaking illegals into Democrat-voting citizens.
If Republicants were politically savvy, they would expose the Democrats' true intentions on border security by proposing something similar to the Limbaugh plan. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh proposed that our side agree to the amnesty plan the Democrats are pursuing but with one caveat, the newly formed citizens could not vote for 25 years. The great alacrity with which Democrats would lose interest in a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens would be spellbinding to watch.
Like every other issue that takes common sense to resolve, border security and dealing with illegal aliens already in this country, is made overly complicated by the politics of Washington. Prior to Democrats figuring out that they could convert illegal aliens into legal voters, our country protected our borders and deported those who broke our laws to take up residence here. But this common sense approach to border security, which almost every other country in the world employs, seems to be beyond the American political system.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Barack And The Beanstalk
This weekend as I was reading my four year old granddaughter Jack And The Beanstalk for the sixth time in as many hours, I realized that the tale was custom made for our current President. Barack Obama would of course play the protagonist role of Jack. The giant represents corporate America and the wealthy. The magic beans are the empty promises of socialism and the cow Jack traded away for them is Capitalism.
The story would have us believe that the giant's nefarious nature is a result of his rather large size. But the reader is never shown any evidence that the giant actually did anything particularly wrong or evil. By contrast, Jack and his mother are suppose to be considered virtuous by the sheer fact that they are poor. One day the giant is minding his own business and Jack comes into his neighborhood and steals from him. First two sacks of gold, then his hen that lays golden eggs and finally a golden harp that sings. When the giant pursues Jack, he attempts to murder the giant by chopping down the beanstalk while he is descending it.
As an alternative to supporting themselves with criminal activity executed at the giant's expense, Jack and his mother could have kept their cow and used it to plow their land and plant crops. Or Jack could have used the beanstalk as a pathway to a more prosperous neighborhood where he might secure employment. Jack's mother could have taken in laundry or darned socks between milking the cow and selling the milk to their neighbors. But Jack and his mother decided not to help themselves and depended on redistributing the giants wealth to survive and live happily ever after.
Barack Obama believes that capitalism is an old cow that he intends on trading for the magic beans of socialism. He has partially succeeded in convincing many Americans that the giants in our country are bad because they are big. He uses the hatred from class warfare to grow his beanstalk of federal regulations high enough to reach all the wealth of this nation's giants. But what is not understood by people who think as Jack and his mother, is that once the giants' wealth has been depleted, leaders like Barack Obama will come after the little bit that they have. Then there will be no beanstalk to climb, and no giant to support them or even an old cow to produce them milk or pull a plow. This is the pure folly of people like Barack Obama who would trade the dependable cow of the morally superior system of capitalism, for the magic beans of the corrupt and immoral system of socialism.
The story would have us believe that the giant's nefarious nature is a result of his rather large size. But the reader is never shown any evidence that the giant actually did anything particularly wrong or evil. By contrast, Jack and his mother are suppose to be considered virtuous by the sheer fact that they are poor. One day the giant is minding his own business and Jack comes into his neighborhood and steals from him. First two sacks of gold, then his hen that lays golden eggs and finally a golden harp that sings. When the giant pursues Jack, he attempts to murder the giant by chopping down the beanstalk while he is descending it.
As an alternative to supporting themselves with criminal activity executed at the giant's expense, Jack and his mother could have kept their cow and used it to plow their land and plant crops. Or Jack could have used the beanstalk as a pathway to a more prosperous neighborhood where he might secure employment. Jack's mother could have taken in laundry or darned socks between milking the cow and selling the milk to their neighbors. But Jack and his mother decided not to help themselves and depended on redistributing the giants wealth to survive and live happily ever after.
Barack Obama believes that capitalism is an old cow that he intends on trading for the magic beans of socialism. He has partially succeeded in convincing many Americans that the giants in our country are bad because they are big. He uses the hatred from class warfare to grow his beanstalk of federal regulations high enough to reach all the wealth of this nation's giants. But what is not understood by people who think as Jack and his mother, is that once the giants' wealth has been depleted, leaders like Barack Obama will come after the little bit that they have. Then there will be no beanstalk to climb, and no giant to support them or even an old cow to produce them milk or pull a plow. This is the pure folly of people like Barack Obama who would trade the dependable cow of the morally superior system of capitalism, for the magic beans of the corrupt and immoral system of socialism.
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Devastation Of Low Expectations
The destructive force of low expectations not only results in the bad behavior of those who are the target of the low expectations, but it also inculcates in them the sense that since nothing is expected of them, they are exempt from delivering anything in return. And thus an entire generation of people has been instructed in dependency by Leftist policies, which require no quid pro quo as payment for their dependence. President George W. Bush framed the problem succinctly when he talked about the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
The safety net, which is just another name for charity, has become for many a hammock. Support is given and there are no requirements placed upon the recipients of that support. Most traditional sources of charity always required some action from those being helped, whether it was a few hours of volunteerism or enrollment in a self-help training program. When charity was localized, the recipient felt more of a responsibility to their fellow citizens to work towards supporting themselves. The local charity system is morally superior to the welfare state created by a Leftist central government because it is funded voluntarily. If a man sees another man who is hungry and gives him a sandwich, the benefactor feels good about helping out a fellow human being and the beneficiary feels grateful for being helped. This necessarily creates a moral act out of charity. But when government confiscates the sandwich from the man who has it and gives it to the man who doesn't, the benefactor feels bitter for having his sandwich taken from him and the beneficiary feels entitled to the sandwich because he sees it as coming from government, not the man who is actually providing the support.
I have always felt that if we can't eliminate the government involvement in buying food, housing, clothing, air conditioners and cell phones for the poor, then at the very least we should expect their children to graduate high school and stay out jail. It seems that the overwhelming majority of parents who work and/or are involved in other productive pursuits, have children who are educated and felony-free. Why is it that parents who are completely supported by taxpayer money can't assure that their kids go to school daily, do their homework and stay out of trouble? My suggestion would be to take away benefits from anyone whose children don't meet a minimum academic requirement and can't stay on the right side of the law.
As a compassionate society, we should require anyone receiving assistance to work as a volunteer in addition to raising children who become productive members of society. Studies have shown that people feel worse about themselves and are much less happy when they feel that they haven't worked for what they receive. And this is the real tragedy of Leftist policies, they destroy the human spirit and create a soulless culture.
The safety net, which is just another name for charity, has become for many a hammock. Support is given and there are no requirements placed upon the recipients of that support. Most traditional sources of charity always required some action from those being helped, whether it was a few hours of volunteerism or enrollment in a self-help training program. When charity was localized, the recipient felt more of a responsibility to their fellow citizens to work towards supporting themselves. The local charity system is morally superior to the welfare state created by a Leftist central government because it is funded voluntarily. If a man sees another man who is hungry and gives him a sandwich, the benefactor feels good about helping out a fellow human being and the beneficiary feels grateful for being helped. This necessarily creates a moral act out of charity. But when government confiscates the sandwich from the man who has it and gives it to the man who doesn't, the benefactor feels bitter for having his sandwich taken from him and the beneficiary feels entitled to the sandwich because he sees it as coming from government, not the man who is actually providing the support.
I have always felt that if we can't eliminate the government involvement in buying food, housing, clothing, air conditioners and cell phones for the poor, then at the very least we should expect their children to graduate high school and stay out jail. It seems that the overwhelming majority of parents who work and/or are involved in other productive pursuits, have children who are educated and felony-free. Why is it that parents who are completely supported by taxpayer money can't assure that their kids go to school daily, do their homework and stay out of trouble? My suggestion would be to take away benefits from anyone whose children don't meet a minimum academic requirement and can't stay on the right side of the law.
As a compassionate society, we should require anyone receiving assistance to work as a volunteer in addition to raising children who become productive members of society. Studies have shown that people feel worse about themselves and are much less happy when they feel that they haven't worked for what they receive. And this is the real tragedy of Leftist policies, they destroy the human spirit and create a soulless culture.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Destruction Of Community
The most successful and civilized cultures are those which have the most intact and strongest base units, i. e. families and communities. It is the essential ingredient for raising productive and contributory members of the society and for producing an orderly and prosperous people. It is a virtuous people that become prosperous, and it requires eternal vigilance to that virtue to assure that prosperity doesn't destroy it. This concept was best illuminated by the 18th century Puritan and author, Cotton Mather, when he wrote, "Virtue begot prosperity and then the daughter ate the mother."
For most of U.S. history, the concept of strong communities and families was the linchpin of our culture. In fact, the Founding Fathers believed in it so much, they based our Constitution on the concept. The idea of a limited central government necessarily meant that space was made available for families and communities to become stronger. When assistance was required, the request traveled from the bottom upward, beginning at the family and progressing to the local church and then the local community at large. Laying claim to taxpayer money from a different area of the country through a request to the Federal government was not even considered an option for previous generations of Americans. They instinctively knew that the path to prosperity and individual liberty was laid with the paving stones of limited government.
Policies that are borne of a Leftist ideology do not encourage investment in one's own community. The more dependence on a large and distant government is inculcated in individuals, the less they see the need to involve themselves in their own community. And Leftist policy does not only aim to consolidate power in a central government, but consolidate compassion and charity as well. This is the reason that the Left tries to destroy the impact of community organizations like churches and synagogues through regulations like the recent ObamaCare mandate for these organizations to provide birth control and abortions against their religious conscience. The goal of Leftism is to make an all-powerful Federal government the only source of charity as well as the provider of as many of the people's daily needs as possible.
To fulfill the goal of creating more dependence and thereby consolidating their power, the Left has purposely destroyed the family, the very basic unit of a civilized culture. By encouraging women to be single-parents, and thereby depending on the Federal government for support, the Left has created offspring that will also depend on the government in some way. Whether it is through drug addiction programs, incarceration expense or direct financial aid due to an ability to support oneself, the children of single-parent homes are many more times likely to need government assistance than those from two-parent homes. Another way in which the Left has destroyed the family is by expanding its definition until the concept loses all relevance to the building of a civilized culture. If a family is any set of two or more people, which is the Leftist definition, all virtue, morality and expectations are removed from the concept of family which has existed for thousands of years and has been instrumental in building great cultures throughout history.
The Left has figured out that the best way to destroy a culture of independence is by removing as much local support as possible and replacing it with a thriving and powerful central government. If they are allowed to continue their march towards their ultimate goal in this country as they have in so much of the world, the last best hope of man on earth will be destroyed and the engine of liberty will silenced forever.
For most of U.S. history, the concept of strong communities and families was the linchpin of our culture. In fact, the Founding Fathers believed in it so much, they based our Constitution on the concept. The idea of a limited central government necessarily meant that space was made available for families and communities to become stronger. When assistance was required, the request traveled from the bottom upward, beginning at the family and progressing to the local church and then the local community at large. Laying claim to taxpayer money from a different area of the country through a request to the Federal government was not even considered an option for previous generations of Americans. They instinctively knew that the path to prosperity and individual liberty was laid with the paving stones of limited government.
Policies that are borne of a Leftist ideology do not encourage investment in one's own community. The more dependence on a large and distant government is inculcated in individuals, the less they see the need to involve themselves in their own community. And Leftist policy does not only aim to consolidate power in a central government, but consolidate compassion and charity as well. This is the reason that the Left tries to destroy the impact of community organizations like churches and synagogues through regulations like the recent ObamaCare mandate for these organizations to provide birth control and abortions against their religious conscience. The goal of Leftism is to make an all-powerful Federal government the only source of charity as well as the provider of as many of the people's daily needs as possible.
To fulfill the goal of creating more dependence and thereby consolidating their power, the Left has purposely destroyed the family, the very basic unit of a civilized culture. By encouraging women to be single-parents, and thereby depending on the Federal government for support, the Left has created offspring that will also depend on the government in some way. Whether it is through drug addiction programs, incarceration expense or direct financial aid due to an ability to support oneself, the children of single-parent homes are many more times likely to need government assistance than those from two-parent homes. Another way in which the Left has destroyed the family is by expanding its definition until the concept loses all relevance to the building of a civilized culture. If a family is any set of two or more people, which is the Leftist definition, all virtue, morality and expectations are removed from the concept of family which has existed for thousands of years and has been instrumental in building great cultures throughout history.
The Left has figured out that the best way to destroy a culture of independence is by removing as much local support as possible and replacing it with a thriving and powerful central government. If they are allowed to continue their march towards their ultimate goal in this country as they have in so much of the world, the last best hope of man on earth will be destroyed and the engine of liberty will silenced forever.
Friday, January 25, 2013
A Socially Engineered Military
After Major Nadil Hasan executed 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood in the second most bloodiest terrorist attack on U. S. soil ever, General Casey stated that as horrible as the loss of life was, it would be even more horrible if we lost our diversity in the military as a result of the attack. I didn't realize that we had become so diverse that we now allow the enemy to serve right along side our brave men and women who are charged with protecting this country. But that is the danger and the folly of the Lefts drive towards diversity. This week, the Pentagon lifted its ban on women fighting in combat positions, and in so doing has sacrificed the security of this country.
It's not that I am opposed to women serving in war zones, this is something they have done for a long time in roles as diverse as helicopter pilots to medics. But it is a mistake to place women at the tip of the spear in the actual engagement of the enemy in close quarter fighting. First there is the obvious physical limitations of the female sex. As much as the Left would have us believe otherwise, men and women are built differently. And men with their superior upper body strength are more suited to the rigors of combat. In fact the U. S. Army recently asked for 90 female volunteers to run their grueling physical course used in training combat troops. They only got 2 women who wanted to run the course and neither could successfully complete it. The administration is forcing diversity on the military in a system of metrics which charges the military to reach what is called critical mass of women in combat roles. To further this goal, the military will have to lower their standards for what constitutes a combat-ready soldier, and in so doing sacrifice the success of future missions. I wonder if the much less dangerous NFL will have to allow women to play professional football in an attempt to diversify the game?
An additional problem with placing women in combat roles is the question of unit cohesion among combat battalions, and how that cohesion might be negatively affected. For the combat soldiers who are not busy being openly gay, the presence of women can be an obvious distraction and in some cases may expose the women to sexual harassment. There is also the natural male imperative to protect the female of the species, which can place troops in more danger and put their mission at risk. But the administration has said that the strategic imperative of the military is diversity. Odd, I thought the strategic imperative of the military was to maintain the most effective fighting force possible for the purpose of protecting this great nation, not to engage in social engineering projects created by people who have no appreciation for or knowledge of the greatest military the world has ever seen. But then what do I know? I'm just a guy with a blog.
It's not that I am opposed to women serving in war zones, this is something they have done for a long time in roles as diverse as helicopter pilots to medics. But it is a mistake to place women at the tip of the spear in the actual engagement of the enemy in close quarter fighting. First there is the obvious physical limitations of the female sex. As much as the Left would have us believe otherwise, men and women are built differently. And men with their superior upper body strength are more suited to the rigors of combat. In fact the U. S. Army recently asked for 90 female volunteers to run their grueling physical course used in training combat troops. They only got 2 women who wanted to run the course and neither could successfully complete it. The administration is forcing diversity on the military in a system of metrics which charges the military to reach what is called critical mass of women in combat roles. To further this goal, the military will have to lower their standards for what constitutes a combat-ready soldier, and in so doing sacrifice the success of future missions. I wonder if the much less dangerous NFL will have to allow women to play professional football in an attempt to diversify the game?
An additional problem with placing women in combat roles is the question of unit cohesion among combat battalions, and how that cohesion might be negatively affected. For the combat soldiers who are not busy being openly gay, the presence of women can be an obvious distraction and in some cases may expose the women to sexual harassment. There is also the natural male imperative to protect the female of the species, which can place troops in more danger and put their mission at risk. But the administration has said that the strategic imperative of the military is diversity. Odd, I thought the strategic imperative of the military was to maintain the most effective fighting force possible for the purpose of protecting this great nation, not to engage in social engineering projects created by people who have no appreciation for or knowledge of the greatest military the world has ever seen. But then what do I know? I'm just a guy with a blog.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Difference It Makes
The Hillary Clinton love-fest, disguised as a Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, was illustrative of the unwillingness of politicians on either side of the isle to hold one of their own accountable. For a majority of the hearing, we heard from various senators how courageous Hillary Clinton was and how well she had served her country. This, of course, is how every politician wishes to be seen, as a selfless public servant who sacrifices for the benefit of the little people in the country. In Hillary Clinton's case, nothing could be further from the truth.
During her remarks, Hillary recounted the story about how she met the flag-draped coffins returning from Benghazi and comforted grieving family members. It was such a moving experience that Mrs. Clinton started to cry during her retelling of it. The only problem is that it never happened the way Secretary Clinton said it did. Family members in attendance say that Mrs. Clinton was cold and aloof, and one of the parents of a murdered American said Hillary wouldn't even make eye contact. This is not the first time that Mrs. Clinton stretched the truth and revised history in order to make herself look better than she is. Remember the story she told during the 2008 campaign about having to duck gunfire when she visited a war zone as first lady? That never happened either, but truth and facts don't stop her from trying to bestow upon herself the honor, dignity and courage that she doesn't otherwise warrant from her actions.
Secretary of State Clinton did receive a few tough questions, most notably one from Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. Senator Johnson asked Secretary Clinton the sixty four thousand dollar question about the attack not being characterized as an Al Queda operation until much later, when it was known all along that it wasn't the result of a protest. Mrs. Clinton mustered her best manufactured outrage and almost screamed, "What difference does it make now?" She even went so far as to boldly and blatantly lie when she stated that she never claimed the attack was executed by anyone other than militant extremists. There is at least two weeks of video and audio evidence of Hillary Clinton blaming the attack on a protest inspired by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. In fact, the Secretary of State and President Obama made a TV commercial that ran in Pakistan which blamed the video for the attack. And one more factoid of interest on this subject, Hillary told one of the fathers whose son was murdered in Benghazi that they would bring to justice the film maker responsible for this tragedy.
But for a few exceptions, the Senators questioning Secretary Clinton gave her a pass on her culpability for the terrorist attack in Benghazi this past September 11. She herself said that a a review board put the blame squarely on lower level State Department employees. It is ironic how Democrats have screamed since the 2008 financial crisis about holding accountable the CEOs of these large banks and financial institutions, but when they are at the helm of a large organization, it's always the underlings that are at fault for any mistakes. Make no error in analysis, Hillary Clinton knew of the dangers in Benghazi as illuminated by Ambassador Steven's cables, and in her Leftist arrogance decided not to provide adequate security for U.S. personnel serving in a war zone. Then she lied for several weeks about the impetus for the attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton, it does make a difference and the fact that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that difference shows how utterly unqualified and untrustworthy you are to be anywhere near the sacred trust of government. The difference it makes is the difference between responsible and culpable government and the incompetent and unaccountable government you have been a part of the last four years.
During her remarks, Hillary recounted the story about how she met the flag-draped coffins returning from Benghazi and comforted grieving family members. It was such a moving experience that Mrs. Clinton started to cry during her retelling of it. The only problem is that it never happened the way Secretary Clinton said it did. Family members in attendance say that Mrs. Clinton was cold and aloof, and one of the parents of a murdered American said Hillary wouldn't even make eye contact. This is not the first time that Mrs. Clinton stretched the truth and revised history in order to make herself look better than she is. Remember the story she told during the 2008 campaign about having to duck gunfire when she visited a war zone as first lady? That never happened either, but truth and facts don't stop her from trying to bestow upon herself the honor, dignity and courage that she doesn't otherwise warrant from her actions.
Secretary of State Clinton did receive a few tough questions, most notably one from Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. Senator Johnson asked Secretary Clinton the sixty four thousand dollar question about the attack not being characterized as an Al Queda operation until much later, when it was known all along that it wasn't the result of a protest. Mrs. Clinton mustered her best manufactured outrage and almost screamed, "What difference does it make now?" She even went so far as to boldly and blatantly lie when she stated that she never claimed the attack was executed by anyone other than militant extremists. There is at least two weeks of video and audio evidence of Hillary Clinton blaming the attack on a protest inspired by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. In fact, the Secretary of State and President Obama made a TV commercial that ran in Pakistan which blamed the video for the attack. And one more factoid of interest on this subject, Hillary told one of the fathers whose son was murdered in Benghazi that they would bring to justice the film maker responsible for this tragedy.
But for a few exceptions, the Senators questioning Secretary Clinton gave her a pass on her culpability for the terrorist attack in Benghazi this past September 11. She herself said that a a review board put the blame squarely on lower level State Department employees. It is ironic how Democrats have screamed since the 2008 financial crisis about holding accountable the CEOs of these large banks and financial institutions, but when they are at the helm of a large organization, it's always the underlings that are at fault for any mistakes. Make no error in analysis, Hillary Clinton knew of the dangers in Benghazi as illuminated by Ambassador Steven's cables, and in her Leftist arrogance decided not to provide adequate security for U.S. personnel serving in a war zone. Then she lied for several weeks about the impetus for the attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton, it does make a difference and the fact that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that difference shows how utterly unqualified and untrustworthy you are to be anywhere near the sacred trust of government. The difference it makes is the difference between responsible and culpable government and the incompetent and unaccountable government you have been a part of the last four years.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The Lefts War On Distinction
In the battle for cultural and political influence in America, the saying, "All is fair in love and war", could not be more applicable. Especially as it applies to those on the Left. They are entirely invested in the war part, and will stop at no deception or dishonesty in order to impose their agenda on the American people. The devices employed by the Left to achieve their goals include class warfare, race baiting and demonizing their opposition rather than debating them, even if they have to lie. One of the favorite vehicles of the Left for imposing their will is the removal of distinction.
Distinction is one of the main ingredients of truth, which is an enemy to the religion of Leftism. The most blatant distinction that the Left has tried to obliterate over the last couple of decades, is the distinction between men and women. Their efforts include convincing parents that they shouldn't provide their children with sex-specific toys, i. e. boys should play with dolls and girls with trucks. This misguided belief that there is no difference between men and women except the obvious physical ones, has lead to a weakening of the family structure and a break down of our culture. The weakening of the family comes as a result of little or no importance being placed on the superior child-raising environment that is provided by a father and a mother living together with the child in the same house. The result of less and less importance being placed on the traditional family is more single-parent homes. Studies have shown that single-parenting leads to more drug abuse, an increased high school drop-out rate, a much greater likelihood of involvement in crime and a higher rate of incarceration for the children raised in single-parent homes. But the Left isn't concerned with what's best for society, but what is best for a government-centric society. And creating more dependence and the opportunity to implement bureaucracy is what is best for their idea of Utopia.
Another distinction that is a favorite target of the Left is the one between God and man. To those on the Left there is no higher authority than government, so the idea that the values upon which a free society should operate come from God and not man, is an idea that must be destroyed so that big government can thrive. The Left, through their media and entertainment dominance, have gone a long way to criminalizing faith, especially Christianity. And recently with the implementation of Obamacare, religious freedom as defined by the Constitution, is being threatened through legislation. If the Left can succeed in removing the distinction between God and man, promoting the idea that each man is his own moral authority, then they can elevate the central government to the level of God. And once morality and rights come from government and not God, the path is made easy for the advancement of tyranny.
There are many other distinctions that the Left tries to erase in an effort to consolidate power in the federal government which they control. But the one distinction which is at the heart of all others is the one between truth and lie. The truth is very inconvenient to the promotion of Leftism and so they convince people that there are no solids, only fluids that ebb and flow based on specific situations and not on any natural truths or laws . And in the opinion of those on the Left, the most fluid of truths that must be neutered is the Constitution.
Distinction is one of the main ingredients of truth, which is an enemy to the religion of Leftism. The most blatant distinction that the Left has tried to obliterate over the last couple of decades, is the distinction between men and women. Their efforts include convincing parents that they shouldn't provide their children with sex-specific toys, i. e. boys should play with dolls and girls with trucks. This misguided belief that there is no difference between men and women except the obvious physical ones, has lead to a weakening of the family structure and a break down of our culture. The weakening of the family comes as a result of little or no importance being placed on the superior child-raising environment that is provided by a father and a mother living together with the child in the same house. The result of less and less importance being placed on the traditional family is more single-parent homes. Studies have shown that single-parenting leads to more drug abuse, an increased high school drop-out rate, a much greater likelihood of involvement in crime and a higher rate of incarceration for the children raised in single-parent homes. But the Left isn't concerned with what's best for society, but what is best for a government-centric society. And creating more dependence and the opportunity to implement bureaucracy is what is best for their idea of Utopia.
Another distinction that is a favorite target of the Left is the one between God and man. To those on the Left there is no higher authority than government, so the idea that the values upon which a free society should operate come from God and not man, is an idea that must be destroyed so that big government can thrive. The Left, through their media and entertainment dominance, have gone a long way to criminalizing faith, especially Christianity. And recently with the implementation of Obamacare, religious freedom as defined by the Constitution, is being threatened through legislation. If the Left can succeed in removing the distinction between God and man, promoting the idea that each man is his own moral authority, then they can elevate the central government to the level of God. And once morality and rights come from government and not God, the path is made easy for the advancement of tyranny.
There are many other distinctions that the Left tries to erase in an effort to consolidate power in the federal government which they control. But the one distinction which is at the heart of all others is the one between truth and lie. The truth is very inconvenient to the promotion of Leftism and so they convince people that there are no solids, only fluids that ebb and flow based on specific situations and not on any natural truths or laws . And in the opinion of those on the Left, the most fluid of truths that must be neutered is the Constitution.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Obama Gives Seminar On Creating Straw Men
The first inauguration of Barack Obama was a shock following his election resulting from the 2008 campaign. Today, his inauguration is an insult of the highest magnitude to the Founding Fathers and the principles for which they fought and died. The President's speech swerved between mis-characterizing Reverend Martin Luther King's words and mission, to misstating the founding principles of this great nation. President Obama gave a seminar on how a community organizer creates straw men.
One straw man manufactured by the President is that women aren't paid fairly for their work. He called it a matter of justice. I have to wonder in which century Mr. Obama lives? It's a myth that women are paid less for the same work as men when the number of hours worked is used in the calculation. Women take off more time from work to have children and are most likely to be caregivers to elderly parents. When everything else is equal and the number of hours is used to calculate pay, in many instances women make more than men. But the facts didn't stop the President from pretending this was 1913 instead of 2013.
Another straw man that President Obama created right before the eyes of the nation was the notion that gays and lesbians are discriminated against. The fact that homosexuals have been able to marry each other for decades, but just don't have government recognition of their relationship as a marriage, escapes this fact-deprived President. He talked about gay love being as valuable as straight love. I have to wonder where the President gets the idea that it is suddenly within the purview of the federal government to value love.
When the President wasn't creating straw men during his second inaugural, he was attacking Republicants. And why shouldn't he? He has been able to launch attacks with impunity for the last four years without an effective response from Conservatives. President Obama transformed the inaugural address from an opportunity to unite the country into an extension of his presidential campaign, which had a central goal of dividing people into groups and pitting them against each other. He used the word "collective", or some form of it, several times throughout the address, and employed all the major vehicles used by the Left to limit individual freedom and grow the power and scope of the federal government. The President once again furthered the ignorant position that science has agreed that man-made climate change is a threat worthy of draconian central government edicts that aim to limit wealth and freedom. President Obama used the plight of the elderly and the young to support even further expansion of an overly burdensome government.
In the final analysis President Obama's second inaugural address can be summed up with one word, "redistribution." The thrust of this historically insignificant speech was the expansion of the federal government's ability to redistribute wealth. The words of Barack Obama should concern any American who values the Constitution and the power of the citizens to limit central government involvement in their affairs. In the hands of the Obamaites, government has transformed from protector to problem solver. And the more problems the federal government attempts to solve, the more it creates and the more it extends its power and control over the populace. Eventually it is liberty and freedom that become the real straw men.
One straw man manufactured by the President is that women aren't paid fairly for their work. He called it a matter of justice. I have to wonder in which century Mr. Obama lives? It's a myth that women are paid less for the same work as men when the number of hours worked is used in the calculation. Women take off more time from work to have children and are most likely to be caregivers to elderly parents. When everything else is equal and the number of hours is used to calculate pay, in many instances women make more than men. But the facts didn't stop the President from pretending this was 1913 instead of 2013.
Another straw man that President Obama created right before the eyes of the nation was the notion that gays and lesbians are discriminated against. The fact that homosexuals have been able to marry each other for decades, but just don't have government recognition of their relationship as a marriage, escapes this fact-deprived President. He talked about gay love being as valuable as straight love. I have to wonder where the President gets the idea that it is suddenly within the purview of the federal government to value love.
When the President wasn't creating straw men during his second inaugural, he was attacking Republicants. And why shouldn't he? He has been able to launch attacks with impunity for the last four years without an effective response from Conservatives. President Obama transformed the inaugural address from an opportunity to unite the country into an extension of his presidential campaign, which had a central goal of dividing people into groups and pitting them against each other. He used the word "collective", or some form of it, several times throughout the address, and employed all the major vehicles used by the Left to limit individual freedom and grow the power and scope of the federal government. The President once again furthered the ignorant position that science has agreed that man-made climate change is a threat worthy of draconian central government edicts that aim to limit wealth and freedom. President Obama used the plight of the elderly and the young to support even further expansion of an overly burdensome government.
In the final analysis President Obama's second inaugural address can be summed up with one word, "redistribution." The thrust of this historically insignificant speech was the expansion of the federal government's ability to redistribute wealth. The words of Barack Obama should concern any American who values the Constitution and the power of the citizens to limit central government involvement in their affairs. In the hands of the Obamaites, government has transformed from protector to problem solver. And the more problems the federal government attempts to solve, the more it creates and the more it extends its power and control over the populace. Eventually it is liberty and freedom that become the real straw men.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Barack Obama: The Anti-King
Today is inauguration day, although Barack Obama and Joe Biden officially took the oaths of their respective offices yesterday on January 20, as required by the Constitution. Today is the more public spectacle that will begin with the swearing in and end with multiple gala events known as inaugural balls. One of the highlights of any presidential inauguration is of course the inaugural address by the President. Usually it is a time for the President to outline in general terms his goals and aspirations for the country he serves. In the case of Barack Obama, it will no doubt be an opportunity to extol the virtues of his leftist ideology and engage in subtle hyperbole against anyone who would oppose him.
Today is also Martin Luther King Jr. day, which is ironic given that Barack Obama is the antithesis of the great man who we honor with this holiday. Both in party affiliation (most Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Reverend King was a Republican) and in political and social values, there couldn't be two men further apart than Barack Obama and Martin Luther King Jr. The Reverend King believed in the American values of hard work, individualism and personal liberty as a means of operating the most just society. Barack Obama sees a large and confiscatory central government as the way forward to social salvation. Reverend King believed that each man should be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. Barack Obama has spent almost his entire life promoting the proposition that special compensation and opportunity should be awarded to him based solely on his skin color. And he aims to make this favorable judgement a matter of government policy, not only based on skin color, but now on sexual preference and immigration status as well.
The Reverend King loved America and the values and principles upon which it was founded. Barack Obama seeks to tear down those values and replace them with ones that he deems to be more fair and socially just. This is not simply speculation on my part, the President has stated from the beginning that he wanted to fundamentally transform America. The Reverend King wanted to embrace American values and convince this country to realize its full potential, not by transforming into something else, but by reaching back and pulling forward the principles of its founding. He sought to emblazon on each American heart the words enshrined in our founding documents and bring to fruition the dream of his and all of our founding fathers.
As you experience snippets of inaugural hoopla today you will invariably hear references, vague or overtly, to Barack Obama being the realization of Reverend King's dream. Just consider that the source of these references originates from a political ideology which has sought to reshape, re-manufacture and re-package the man we honor with today's holiday. It is an ideology populated with people who in recent years have found Martin Luther King's spirituality so objectionable that they have dropped the word reverend from his title. It is also an ideology currently lead by the other man that some will honor today, Barack Obama, the anti-King.
Today is also Martin Luther King Jr. day, which is ironic given that Barack Obama is the antithesis of the great man who we honor with this holiday. Both in party affiliation (most Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Reverend King was a Republican) and in political and social values, there couldn't be two men further apart than Barack Obama and Martin Luther King Jr. The Reverend King believed in the American values of hard work, individualism and personal liberty as a means of operating the most just society. Barack Obama sees a large and confiscatory central government as the way forward to social salvation. Reverend King believed that each man should be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. Barack Obama has spent almost his entire life promoting the proposition that special compensation and opportunity should be awarded to him based solely on his skin color. And he aims to make this favorable judgement a matter of government policy, not only based on skin color, but now on sexual preference and immigration status as well.
The Reverend King loved America and the values and principles upon which it was founded. Barack Obama seeks to tear down those values and replace them with ones that he deems to be more fair and socially just. This is not simply speculation on my part, the President has stated from the beginning that he wanted to fundamentally transform America. The Reverend King wanted to embrace American values and convince this country to realize its full potential, not by transforming into something else, but by reaching back and pulling forward the principles of its founding. He sought to emblazon on each American heart the words enshrined in our founding documents and bring to fruition the dream of his and all of our founding fathers.
As you experience snippets of inaugural hoopla today you will invariably hear references, vague or overtly, to Barack Obama being the realization of Reverend King's dream. Just consider that the source of these references originates from a political ideology which has sought to reshape, re-manufacture and re-package the man we honor with today's holiday. It is an ideology populated with people who in recent years have found Martin Luther King's spirituality so objectionable that they have dropped the word reverend from his title. It is also an ideology currently lead by the other man that some will honor today, Barack Obama, the anti-King.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
The New "Crisis"
One of the fundamental characteristics of Liberals is the manufacturing of crisis and the use of that crisis to advance their anti-liberty agenda. This crisis creation by the Left goes back to the 1960s with the banning of the wonder chemical DDT, and the resulting pain and suffering this action caused in this country and around the world. In the 1970s, it was Global cooling and the coming of a new ice age that was going to wipe humans off the face of the earth if we kept driving automobiles and allowing industrialization (sound familiar?). In the 1980s it was AIDS that was going to kill us all in the following 20 years, and in the 1990s and 2000s it was Global Warming. The new "crisis" is lead.
A friend of mine owns rental property in the inner-city, and in some neighborhoods the only tennants he can attract are the government subsidized section 8 recipients. During a recent inspection in one of his houses he was failed because of three scratches on the back of a basement door. He was told that as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency's new lead rules, he could not simply paint the door himself. He was given the option of having a lead abatement specialist perform the work, which would have cost him thousands of dollars, or become certified to perform the work himself. He chose the less expensive route of paying what turned out to be around a thousand dollars and made the repair himself. He still had to get the work certified by an "independent" inspector, who turned out to be an EPA emloyee who operated his own lead insepction business on the side. Talk about an incestuous relationship.
To make matters worse, my friend found out that in areas that had been or are currently industrialized, one can pass the inspection only to fail again days later. This is due to amounts of trace lead in the ground that gets blown into the house by the wind or carried in on the soles of peoples shoes. This creates a never-ending process of lead abatement and inspections that can cost thousands of dollars a year. At present, this affects commercial properties, but will eventually expand to all residential property.
The lead scare by the Left, like every other "crisis" created by the Left, uses the most vulnerable in society (in this case the health of children), to expand the power of government over private property owners. Any legitimate chemist will tell you that enormous amounts of lead paint would have to be ingested to have any real detrimental effects to a human being. But like other manufactured crisis by Liberals, the truth or legitimate science doesn't hold sway over their desire to destroy property rights and limit an individual's ability to accumulate wealth.
A friend of mine owns rental property in the inner-city, and in some neighborhoods the only tennants he can attract are the government subsidized section 8 recipients. During a recent inspection in one of his houses he was failed because of three scratches on the back of a basement door. He was told that as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency's new lead rules, he could not simply paint the door himself. He was given the option of having a lead abatement specialist perform the work, which would have cost him thousands of dollars, or become certified to perform the work himself. He chose the less expensive route of paying what turned out to be around a thousand dollars and made the repair himself. He still had to get the work certified by an "independent" inspector, who turned out to be an EPA emloyee who operated his own lead insepction business on the side. Talk about an incestuous relationship.
To make matters worse, my friend found out that in areas that had been or are currently industrialized, one can pass the inspection only to fail again days later. This is due to amounts of trace lead in the ground that gets blown into the house by the wind or carried in on the soles of peoples shoes. This creates a never-ending process of lead abatement and inspections that can cost thousands of dollars a year. At present, this affects commercial properties, but will eventually expand to all residential property.
The lead scare by the Left, like every other "crisis" created by the Left, uses the most vulnerable in society (in this case the health of children), to expand the power of government over private property owners. Any legitimate chemist will tell you that enormous amounts of lead paint would have to be ingested to have any real detrimental effects to a human being. But like other manufactured crisis by Liberals, the truth or legitimate science doesn't hold sway over their desire to destroy property rights and limit an individual's ability to accumulate wealth.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Whistling Past The Graveyard Of Failed Obama Policies
Recently while listening to a moderate Republicant radio talk show host degrade the National Rifle Association for their ad pointing out President Obama's hypocrisy on the armed guards in the schools issue, I was reminded of the old saying about whistling past a graveyard. One would whistle past a graveyard in an attempt to distract him from the unease he might otherwise feel in the situation. It seems that some on the right (and in the case of radio talk show host Michael Medved, just barely on the right) wish to whistle past the graveyard of President Obama's failed policies instead of confront them in the manner in which they should be confronted. And therin lies the problem with the Republicant party.
There is no attempt made by the Republicant party on a national level, or by these go along to get along Republicants like Mr. Medved, to engage the enemy on the battlefield of politics. I suppose that some would even have difficulty with my use of the term enemy to describe the Democrat Left, but make no mistake that is exactly how they view Conservatives. And in a real sense there is a war, not only for political control, but for influence over the culture. Every day that the Right refuses to vehemently defend the homeland of our founding principles from the invaders of Leftism, is one day closer we move towards tyranny. This may sound overly dramatic to some, but think about how far we have already strayed from the values of freedom outlined by a limited government.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "When the government fears the people there is liberty, and when the people fear the government there is tyranny." You tell me if we haven't already achieved the latter of Jefferson's statement. Banks are afraid to make loans or conduct their normal business operations for fear of being sued by an over zealous Justice Department. Private property owners can not do with their land that which they want for fear of an ever more powerful Environmental Protection Agency literally ruining there lives with fines and lawsuits. Under the auspices of "affordable" health care, for the first time in our history individuals will be forced by the power of government to buy a product, i. e. health insurance. And religious institutions will be forced by that same government to violate their religious principles or close up shop. The tyranny of political correctness, with the full force of government behind it, has made it a crime to publicly oppose certain sacraments of the Left such as gay marriage and abortion. You decide for yourself if you think the government fears you or you fear the government.
As long as Republicants and Conservatives simply whistle past the graveyard of the Lefts failed statist policies, tyranny will grow and become stronger. Every generation must seize for itself the blessings of liberty and pledge its fortune, its life and its sacred honor to the cause of defeating those who would steal the people's birth rite to that liberty.
There is no attempt made by the Republicant party on a national level, or by these go along to get along Republicants like Mr. Medved, to engage the enemy on the battlefield of politics. I suppose that some would even have difficulty with my use of the term enemy to describe the Democrat Left, but make no mistake that is exactly how they view Conservatives. And in a real sense there is a war, not only for political control, but for influence over the culture. Every day that the Right refuses to vehemently defend the homeland of our founding principles from the invaders of Leftism, is one day closer we move towards tyranny. This may sound overly dramatic to some, but think about how far we have already strayed from the values of freedom outlined by a limited government.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "When the government fears the people there is liberty, and when the people fear the government there is tyranny." You tell me if we haven't already achieved the latter of Jefferson's statement. Banks are afraid to make loans or conduct their normal business operations for fear of being sued by an over zealous Justice Department. Private property owners can not do with their land that which they want for fear of an ever more powerful Environmental Protection Agency literally ruining there lives with fines and lawsuits. Under the auspices of "affordable" health care, for the first time in our history individuals will be forced by the power of government to buy a product, i. e. health insurance. And religious institutions will be forced by that same government to violate their religious principles or close up shop. The tyranny of political correctness, with the full force of government behind it, has made it a crime to publicly oppose certain sacraments of the Left such as gay marriage and abortion. You decide for yourself if you think the government fears you or you fear the government.
As long as Republicants and Conservatives simply whistle past the graveyard of the Lefts failed statist policies, tyranny will grow and become stronger. Every generation must seize for itself the blessings of liberty and pledge its fortune, its life and its sacred honor to the cause of defeating those who would steal the people's birth rite to that liberty.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What Is The Crisis?
Yesterday, at the very same time the President was displaying his dog and pony show using children as political props, his administration was criticizing the National Rifle Association for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the President's children being protected by armed guards while he opposes the same for the common people's children. It was truly a spectacular display of the dishonesty by the Left, who have created a crisis out of the Sandy Hook massacre for the purpose of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. The facts don't support massive new Federal gun regulations. Gun violence has actually decreased dramatically in the U.S. over the last two decades, but the Left never lets the truth stand in the way of imposing their will on a free people.
It seems more than a little bit ironic that the President and his party are more concerned with taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens, than they are with Lybian terrorists transporting arms over the border to Mali. This west African nation was a democratic Muslim country, but is now being turned into a training facility for Al Queda and other terrorist groups. Some experts say that this formerly peaceful nation could become a launching site for terrorist strikes on par with the one that killed 3000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001. But this administration has a history of arming bad guys, as they did with the Fast and Furious program which lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Mexicans and two U.S. border agents. The President's gang is also responsible for the arming of the Lybian terrorists who killed Ambassador Stevens and three other brave Americans in Benghazi.
Besides the obvious indecency the President showed using children as props who supposedly wrote him letters begging for gun control after the Sandy Hook massacre, there was a real hypocrisy in his statements. In particular, I found the President's statement about how we are judged as a society by how well we protect our children, especially distasteful. This statement is ironic coming from a man who supported infanticide when he was in the Illinois legislature and even now has no problem with the murder of 3000 children a day in this country by means of abortion. But let one evil man kill 20 children in a school, and the President is all the sudden concerned with the safety of our children and is willing to restrict the God-given right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. If the President was really concerned about our children, he wouldn't be mortgaging their future to pay for his out-of-control spending.
So I ask. What is the crisis? Is it a gun violence problem that has no substantive facts to support it. Or is the real crisis the looming debt bomb created by the unsustainable spending by this administration? Or is it a nuclear-armed Iran that the President has all but ignored? Or is the longest sustained period of high unemployment in our nation's history the real crisis? Or is the crisis the rising cost and lower availability of health care caused by the President's massive boondoggle health care plan? Or could the real crisis be the record number of people living in poverty as a result of this President's policies? The real crisis is that we have a President who sees no political benefit to solving the aforementioned real problems and sees the Constitution of this great country as the only crisis.
It seems more than a little bit ironic that the President and his party are more concerned with taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens, than they are with Lybian terrorists transporting arms over the border to Mali. This west African nation was a democratic Muslim country, but is now being turned into a training facility for Al Queda and other terrorist groups. Some experts say that this formerly peaceful nation could become a launching site for terrorist strikes on par with the one that killed 3000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001. But this administration has a history of arming bad guys, as they did with the Fast and Furious program which lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Mexicans and two U.S. border agents. The President's gang is also responsible for the arming of the Lybian terrorists who killed Ambassador Stevens and three other brave Americans in Benghazi.
Besides the obvious indecency the President showed using children as props who supposedly wrote him letters begging for gun control after the Sandy Hook massacre, there was a real hypocrisy in his statements. In particular, I found the President's statement about how we are judged as a society by how well we protect our children, especially distasteful. This statement is ironic coming from a man who supported infanticide when he was in the Illinois legislature and even now has no problem with the murder of 3000 children a day in this country by means of abortion. But let one evil man kill 20 children in a school, and the President is all the sudden concerned with the safety of our children and is willing to restrict the God-given right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. If the President was really concerned about our children, he wouldn't be mortgaging their future to pay for his out-of-control spending.
So I ask. What is the crisis? Is it a gun violence problem that has no substantive facts to support it. Or is the real crisis the looming debt bomb created by the unsustainable spending by this administration? Or is it a nuclear-armed Iran that the President has all but ignored? Or is the longest sustained period of high unemployment in our nation's history the real crisis? Or is the crisis the rising cost and lower availability of health care caused by the President's massive boondoggle health care plan? Or could the real crisis be the record number of people living in poverty as a result of this President's policies? The real crisis is that we have a President who sees no political benefit to solving the aforementioned real problems and sees the Constitution of this great country as the only crisis.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Welfare Industrial Complex
During this time of our nation's fiscal malaise, when responsible parties want to cut spending in an effort to save us from bankruptcy and an irresponsible President and his party in Congress want to spend even more, stories like the one I heard the other day boil my blood. It is the kind of information that argues against the President's claim that we can't cut domestic spending because those programs are essential to the day-to-day survival of the individuals who depend upon them.
One of the "essential" programs, i.e. food stamps, has increased by 60% in the first four years of the Obama Presidency. There are now over 47 million Americans receiving taxpayer funded assistance, ostensibly to buy food, and the program now consumes over 80 billion dollars a year. I am all in favor of feeding the hungry, after all I am a Christian and try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But religious organizations and local communities do a much more efficient job of feeding the poor than does the Federal government. Besides, as James Madison said, "There is no charity in the Constitution." Nor should there be, otherwise corruption abounds and no one is really helped except greedy politicians.
Back to my blood-boiling story. A friend of mine owns inner-city rental properties, so he is in the neighborhoods practically every day. He also has occasion to frequent the convenience stores in the inner-city and has made me aware of a new practice among food stamp recipients. The stores sell crack pipes with a piece of candy in them so that they qualify under the food stamp program. So in essence, President Obama thinks it is essential to supply addicts with taxpayer funded crack pipes, even if it means helping to bankrupt the country.
The taxpayer funding of crack pipes is only half the story about the food stamp program. I recently spoke with a Federal employee who investigates food stamp fraud and his frustration was palpable. When I questioned him further he said they arrest individuals committing fraud and sometimes weeks later they are arresting the same individuals. The system rarely punishes people for food stamp fraud and as unbelievable as it may sound, they can get right back on the program and continue receiving taxpayer assistance. When you combine this with the participant's ability to replace up to 6 lost food stamp cards a year, with no questions asked, it's no wonder the program is riddled with fraud and abuse. Many recipients sell their cards, which has been made easier by the Federal government
providing the buyer with the ability to check the card balance using their cell phones. The seller can then report the card lost and receive a fully charged new one at taxpayer expense. This has become a common practice in the inner-city, a practice that hard working Americans are subsidising with their tax dollars.
The food stamp program is just one small part of an almost 4 trillion dollar Federal budget, but there are literally thousands of similar programs with a similar amount of fraud that goes on without much political will to stop it. In fact, the bureaucrats who run the programs and the politicians who authorize the funding for such programs, are bought and paid for by the Welfare Industrial Complex. It is a system that encourages dependence on the part of the participants and corruption on the part of the politicians who administer it, which makes me appreciate even more the brilliance of James Madison who saw the pitfalls of the Federal government feeding the hungry, more than two hundred years ago.
One of the "essential" programs, i.e. food stamps, has increased by 60% in the first four years of the Obama Presidency. There are now over 47 million Americans receiving taxpayer funded assistance, ostensibly to buy food, and the program now consumes over 80 billion dollars a year. I am all in favor of feeding the hungry, after all I am a Christian and try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. But religious organizations and local communities do a much more efficient job of feeding the poor than does the Federal government. Besides, as James Madison said, "There is no charity in the Constitution." Nor should there be, otherwise corruption abounds and no one is really helped except greedy politicians.
Back to my blood-boiling story. A friend of mine owns inner-city rental properties, so he is in the neighborhoods practically every day. He also has occasion to frequent the convenience stores in the inner-city and has made me aware of a new practice among food stamp recipients. The stores sell crack pipes with a piece of candy in them so that they qualify under the food stamp program. So in essence, President Obama thinks it is essential to supply addicts with taxpayer funded crack pipes, even if it means helping to bankrupt the country.
The taxpayer funding of crack pipes is only half the story about the food stamp program. I recently spoke with a Federal employee who investigates food stamp fraud and his frustration was palpable. When I questioned him further he said they arrest individuals committing fraud and sometimes weeks later they are arresting the same individuals. The system rarely punishes people for food stamp fraud and as unbelievable as it may sound, they can get right back on the program and continue receiving taxpayer assistance. When you combine this with the participant's ability to replace up to 6 lost food stamp cards a year, with no questions asked, it's no wonder the program is riddled with fraud and abuse. Many recipients sell their cards, which has been made easier by the Federal government
providing the buyer with the ability to check the card balance using their cell phones. The seller can then report the card lost and receive a fully charged new one at taxpayer expense. This has become a common practice in the inner-city, a practice that hard working Americans are subsidising with their tax dollars.
The food stamp program is just one small part of an almost 4 trillion dollar Federal budget, but there are literally thousands of similar programs with a similar amount of fraud that goes on without much political will to stop it. In fact, the bureaucrats who run the programs and the politicians who authorize the funding for such programs, are bought and paid for by the Welfare Industrial Complex. It is a system that encourages dependence on the part of the participants and corruption on the part of the politicians who administer it, which makes me appreciate even more the brilliance of James Madison who saw the pitfalls of the Federal government feeding the hungry, more than two hundred years ago.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
President One Trick Pony
Love him or hate him, the one thing that can not be denied about our newly re-elected President is that he is a very one dimensional person. In fact he is so singularly shallow that one can predict with pinpoint accuracy what he is going to say before he even opens his mouth to speak. This was the case at President Obama's press briefing yesterday, although it was less of a briefing and more like a continuation of the recent Presidential campaign, which was a continuation of the rhetoric from his first term, which was a continuation of the 2008 Presidential campaign and on and on and on ad infinitum.
But I digress. President Obama's press conference yesterday can be summed up in one succinct statement, "I won, the Republicants lost and I will continue to expand the Federal government in order to take from the evil producers and give to the down trodden non-producers." There was no mention of solving this nations fiscal problems that he and his party have created over the last four years. In fact, he had the audacity to suggest that Republicants should increase the limit on the nation's credit card and expect nothing in return with respect to meaningful cuts to an egregiously bloated Federal budget. At one point in the press conference, President Obama compared the Federal debt to a restaurant bill for food that the Republicants ate but now don't want to pay for. But a better analogy would be that the Republicants ordered burgers and fries and the President ordered fillet mignon, lobster, smoked salmon, oysters, caviar, strawberries Arnuad and a $168,000.00 bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon by Penfold to top off the meal, and the President now says he left his wallet in his other pants.
President Obama thinks that his narrow re-election with less support than he received in 2008, means that the whole country is supportive of his economically destructive policies. He forgets that the same electorate that returned him to the Oval Office also returned control of the House of Representatives to the Republicant majority. I'm sure that John Boehner and the other Republicants in Congress were peeing their pants with fear at the prospect of having to negotiate the debt ceiling with Mr. Obama. But they should use their powerful position to impose the will of sanity on this One Trick Pony President, before his one trick precipitates him vanishing from office and leaving future generations stuck with the bill for his expensive tastes.
But I digress. President Obama's press conference yesterday can be summed up in one succinct statement, "I won, the Republicants lost and I will continue to expand the Federal government in order to take from the evil producers and give to the down trodden non-producers." There was no mention of solving this nations fiscal problems that he and his party have created over the last four years. In fact, he had the audacity to suggest that Republicants should increase the limit on the nation's credit card and expect nothing in return with respect to meaningful cuts to an egregiously bloated Federal budget. At one point in the press conference, President Obama compared the Federal debt to a restaurant bill for food that the Republicants ate but now don't want to pay for. But a better analogy would be that the Republicants ordered burgers and fries and the President ordered fillet mignon, lobster, smoked salmon, oysters, caviar, strawberries Arnuad and a $168,000.00 bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon by Penfold to top off the meal, and the President now says he left his wallet in his other pants.
President Obama thinks that his narrow re-election with less support than he received in 2008, means that the whole country is supportive of his economically destructive policies. He forgets that the same electorate that returned him to the Oval Office also returned control of the House of Representatives to the Republicant majority. I'm sure that John Boehner and the other Republicants in Congress were peeing their pants with fear at the prospect of having to negotiate the debt ceiling with Mr. Obama. But they should use their powerful position to impose the will of sanity on this One Trick Pony President, before his one trick precipitates him vanishing from office and leaving future generations stuck with the bill for his expensive tastes.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Barack Obama: Friend Of The Big Guy
Barack Obama specifically, and Liberals in general, like to convince the public that they are defenders of the little guy to the exclusion of the evil big guy. But this thesis by the American Left is 180 degrees out of phase with the truth. Whether it is the Dodd/Frank financial reform law which favors large banks and financial institutions over smaller ones, or it is the recent so-called fiscal cliff tax policy created by the President and Congressional Democrats which favors the ultra wealthy over small business, the Democrats have a horrible record of defending the "little guy."
There are two main aspects of Dodd/Frank, also known as financial regulation reform, that cause it to favor the larger financial institutions to the detriment of smaller ones. The first is that the legislation makes bailouts for larger institutions a matter of law. Dodd/Frank actually names more than half a dozen big banks that the Federal government is promising to save in the event of a financial catastrophe like the meltdown of 2008. This means that smaller institutions will necessarily be hung out to dry as a result of events that they most probably had no hand in shaping. The second aspect of Dodd/Frank which favors the survival of larger institutions over smaller ones is its cost. This single tome of legislation requires all financial institutions to spend millions on compliance, millions that smaller community banks and credit unions may not have. One of the best kept secrets by the main stream media during the Obama regime is the hundreds of small community banks and credit unions that have been shuttered. Their demise came not as a result of bad business practices, but simply because they were unable to afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant with Dodd/Frank. In fact, financial institutions spend 1.2 man hours on compliance for every 1 man hour they spend on the rest of their business functions. This alone favors the larger institutions that have more resources.
The recent Democrat debacle known as the fiscal cliff deal, is another recent example of how Liberal policy favors the very rich at the expense of ordinary people. The bill raised tax rates on singles making over 400 thousand a year and couples making over 450 thousand a year. Many of these taxpayers run and/or invest in small businesses that employ 2/3 of all workers in this nation. Paying a higher tax rate will prevent them from expanding and hiring new workers, some may even layoff workers in an effort to survive. But the ultra-rich like Warren Buffet will still be paying a lower rate than their secretaries. This is because people like Warren Buffet live off carried interest which is taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate. The higher tax rate on small businesses in combination with the implementation of ObamaCare, which is another Liberal disaster which will harm the little guy, are going to make it harder for average people to get and stay employed.
Conservative policies favor everyone because they create opportunity for everyone while keeping government intervention to a minimum. When the private sector is allowed to grow unhindered by unnecessary and economically destructive government policy, it creates wealth for the largest number of people. If Barack Obama and the Democrats were truly concerned with the average citizen, they would not implement policies that favor their ultra-wealthy campaign donors and too-big-to-fail financial institutions. They would favor everyone by limiting government involvement in the affairs of private individuals and businesses, thus fostering an environment of wealth creation which helps more people than any government program or philosophy could ever hope to help.
There are two main aspects of Dodd/Frank, also known as financial regulation reform, that cause it to favor the larger financial institutions to the detriment of smaller ones. The first is that the legislation makes bailouts for larger institutions a matter of law. Dodd/Frank actually names more than half a dozen big banks that the Federal government is promising to save in the event of a financial catastrophe like the meltdown of 2008. This means that smaller institutions will necessarily be hung out to dry as a result of events that they most probably had no hand in shaping. The second aspect of Dodd/Frank which favors the survival of larger institutions over smaller ones is its cost. This single tome of legislation requires all financial institutions to spend millions on compliance, millions that smaller community banks and credit unions may not have. One of the best kept secrets by the main stream media during the Obama regime is the hundreds of small community banks and credit unions that have been shuttered. Their demise came not as a result of bad business practices, but simply because they were unable to afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant with Dodd/Frank. In fact, financial institutions spend 1.2 man hours on compliance for every 1 man hour they spend on the rest of their business functions. This alone favors the larger institutions that have more resources.
The recent Democrat debacle known as the fiscal cliff deal, is another recent example of how Liberal policy favors the very rich at the expense of ordinary people. The bill raised tax rates on singles making over 400 thousand a year and couples making over 450 thousand a year. Many of these taxpayers run and/or invest in small businesses that employ 2/3 of all workers in this nation. Paying a higher tax rate will prevent them from expanding and hiring new workers, some may even layoff workers in an effort to survive. But the ultra-rich like Warren Buffet will still be paying a lower rate than their secretaries. This is because people like Warren Buffet live off carried interest which is taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate. The higher tax rate on small businesses in combination with the implementation of ObamaCare, which is another Liberal disaster which will harm the little guy, are going to make it harder for average people to get and stay employed.
Conservative policies favor everyone because they create opportunity for everyone while keeping government intervention to a minimum. When the private sector is allowed to grow unhindered by unnecessary and economically destructive government policy, it creates wealth for the largest number of people. If Barack Obama and the Democrats were truly concerned with the average citizen, they would not implement policies that favor their ultra-wealthy campaign donors and too-big-to-fail financial institutions. They would favor everyone by limiting government involvement in the affairs of private individuals and businesses, thus fostering an environment of wealth creation which helps more people than any government program or philosophy could ever hope to help.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
What's So Great About Texas?
Texas is one of those states, which after a significant period of Republicant control, has thrived and prospered during the Obama recession. It has always flummoxed me how people can be convinced that Conservative principles are bad and Liberal ones are good, especially in light of over-whelming evidence to the contrary. Those who have intellectual courage will acknowledge the budget surpluses in Conservative-run states like Indiana and Texas, and the dire economic circumstances in Liberal-run states like California and Michigan. Although Republicant Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan is slowly recovering his state from the financial Armageddon of the last 50 years of Democrat control.
What is so great about Texas is that with no state income tax, more dollars stay in the private sector where they can be invested in businesses that create jobs. With more people working, there is less strain on public sector programs. This results in less need for public sector employees whose salaries and benefits have nearly bankrupted other states and cities. Because Texas has no corporate tax, they attract more businesses into the state, which is good for everyone. California-based companies such as Facebook, Apple and eBay have all made plans to move more of their operations to the state of Texas. This, of course, is bad news for California which seems hell-bent on chasing business out of their state by adding 130 thousand dollars a year just in state regulatory compliance costs. Another business-friendly practice of Texas is its shortened permitting process. The necessary permits to start construction on a strip mall in Texas averages four to five months, by comparison in California, it takes four to five years.
As the nation begins its odyssey towards health care rationing and out-of-control costs with the implementation of ObamaCare, Texas is a shining example of what legitimate and beneficial health care reform should emulate. The tort reforms that Governor Rick Perry and the state legislature implemented, have caused an influx of doctors and other health care providers into Texas and an exodus of lawyers. No critical thinker can argue that health care is somehow better with more lawyers than doctors. Tort reform, along with other free market reforms, has caused a decrease in Texas health care costs and a symbiotic rise in the quality of care.
The biggest Liberal knock on Texas is that it is good for the rich, but the poor suffer more than in the compassionate land of California. This argument is as empty of facts as any other Liberal position. The fact is that while California houses 1/8 of the country's population, they dole out 1/3 of all the welfare benefits. Liberals also point to a higher minimum wage in California than in Texas, eight dollars an hour compared to seven and a quarter respectively. But when cost of living is factored in, the Texas minimum wage shoots up to eight and quarter dollars an hour and California's drops to six. So even lower income earners do better in Texas.
When the above mentioned benefits are added to an environment of less government control in everything from gun control to private property rights, Texas is much closer to the kind of society that the founders advocated for and outlined in our founding documents. One more little tidbit, call it a parenthetical aside, Texas has an eight billion dollar surplus. But they better keep that a secret or President Obama may sneak into Texas under the cover of darkness and break into and empty their piggy bank.
What is so great about Texas is that with no state income tax, more dollars stay in the private sector where they can be invested in businesses that create jobs. With more people working, there is less strain on public sector programs. This results in less need for public sector employees whose salaries and benefits have nearly bankrupted other states and cities. Because Texas has no corporate tax, they attract more businesses into the state, which is good for everyone. California-based companies such as Facebook, Apple and eBay have all made plans to move more of their operations to the state of Texas. This, of course, is bad news for California which seems hell-bent on chasing business out of their state by adding 130 thousand dollars a year just in state regulatory compliance costs. Another business-friendly practice of Texas is its shortened permitting process. The necessary permits to start construction on a strip mall in Texas averages four to five months, by comparison in California, it takes four to five years.
As the nation begins its odyssey towards health care rationing and out-of-control costs with the implementation of ObamaCare, Texas is a shining example of what legitimate and beneficial health care reform should emulate. The tort reforms that Governor Rick Perry and the state legislature implemented, have caused an influx of doctors and other health care providers into Texas and an exodus of lawyers. No critical thinker can argue that health care is somehow better with more lawyers than doctors. Tort reform, along with other free market reforms, has caused a decrease in Texas health care costs and a symbiotic rise in the quality of care.
The biggest Liberal knock on Texas is that it is good for the rich, but the poor suffer more than in the compassionate land of California. This argument is as empty of facts as any other Liberal position. The fact is that while California houses 1/8 of the country's population, they dole out 1/3 of all the welfare benefits. Liberals also point to a higher minimum wage in California than in Texas, eight dollars an hour compared to seven and a quarter respectively. But when cost of living is factored in, the Texas minimum wage shoots up to eight and quarter dollars an hour and California's drops to six. So even lower income earners do better in Texas.
When the above mentioned benefits are added to an environment of less government control in everything from gun control to private property rights, Texas is much closer to the kind of society that the founders advocated for and outlined in our founding documents. One more little tidbit, call it a parenthetical aside, Texas has an eight billion dollar surplus. But they better keep that a secret or President Obama may sneak into Texas under the cover of darkness and break into and empty their piggy bank.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
My Name Is Barack, And I'm A Spendaholic
The biggest surprise to come out of the recent fiscal cliff debate was the revelation that President Obama told Speaker Boehner that there was no spending problem in Washington. The statement was illustrative of all the alcoholics I've ever known who deny they have a problem and blame everyone else who keep suggesting that they do. Barack Obama needs to admit that he has a problem with spending and get himself to a meeting. Sadly there is no evidence that Mr. Obama is now or will ever be ready to admit that he has such problem.
But if the President were to admit that he is powerless over spending and that the budget he oversees has become unmanageable, it would be a first step on the road to recovery. But to start the healing process, Barack would have to turn over his will and his life to God as he understood Him in an effort to restore himself and the nation to sanity. To successfully complete this step, the President would have to admit that there is a higher power than government. He would also be required to make a searching and fearless inventory of himself, which he does not have the courage to perform.
Of course even if Barack Obama completed the steps above, he would have to admit to another person the exact nature of his wrongs and humbly ask God to remove these character flaws. The President does not know the meaning of humility, let alone how to practice it. He would also need to make a list of all those he harmed in an effort to make amends. This list would fill volumes because it would have to include the entire nation sans union thugs, green energy campaign donors and Mexican drug cartels. After making amends to an entire nation, the President would have to embark on a journey of continual self inventory and promptly admit when he was wrong. This step would be near impossible for a perfect man like our President.
The most important step in the President's recovery from spending would be for him to improve his contact with God through prayer in an effort to know His will for Barack. He would also have to use his spiritual awakening as a means to preach the benefits of spending recovery to the other spendaholics in Washington. The real tragedy of any addict is not the damage he does to himself through his behavior, but all the people in his life that are negatively affected. And in the case of Barack Obama, spendaholic, the list of victims includes over three hundred million people. But miracles can happen, and some day we may see the President rise and say, "My name is Barack, and I'm a spendaholic."
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
But if the President were to admit that he is powerless over spending and that the budget he oversees has become unmanageable, it would be a first step on the road to recovery. But to start the healing process, Barack would have to turn over his will and his life to God as he understood Him in an effort to restore himself and the nation to sanity. To successfully complete this step, the President would have to admit that there is a higher power than government. He would also be required to make a searching and fearless inventory of himself, which he does not have the courage to perform.
Of course even if Barack Obama completed the steps above, he would have to admit to another person the exact nature of his wrongs and humbly ask God to remove these character flaws. The President does not know the meaning of humility, let alone how to practice it. He would also need to make a list of all those he harmed in an effort to make amends. This list would fill volumes because it would have to include the entire nation sans union thugs, green energy campaign donors and Mexican drug cartels. After making amends to an entire nation, the President would have to embark on a journey of continual self inventory and promptly admit when he was wrong. This step would be near impossible for a perfect man like our President.
The most important step in the President's recovery from spending would be for him to improve his contact with God through prayer in an effort to know His will for Barack. He would also have to use his spiritual awakening as a means to preach the benefits of spending recovery to the other spendaholics in Washington. The real tragedy of any addict is not the damage he does to himself through his behavior, but all the people in his life that are negatively affected. And in the case of Barack Obama, spendaholic, the list of victims includes over three hundred million people. But miracles can happen, and some day we may see the President rise and say, "My name is Barack, and I'm a spendaholic."
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Friday, January 11, 2013
With Half His Race Tied Behind His Back
Recently I was thinking how it was that Barack Obama has been able to win the Presidency twice and seemingly move the country further to the left than we have ever been. Beyond the soaring rhetoric and the promise of an ever-expanding list of goodies from the Federal government, there is but one explanation that has brought this country and Barack Obama to this very point in history.
Barack Obama has built a successful political career with half his race tied behind his back. He stresses his black half to the exclusion of his white half. This is because his blackness allows him certain political advantages that his white half does not. He can, for instance, play on white quilt in order to convince whites not to challenge his positions for fear of being called racists. There is no such thing as black quilt, and therefore no political advantage to stressing his whiteness. Barack Obama's blackness is a huge advantage, especially after the Left has spent the last couple of decades softening the target with political correctness and revisionist history. Anyone who is intellectually honest realizes that with a white mother and a black father, Barack Obama is as much white as he is black. But listening to him since he burst onto the national political scene in 2004, one would think he had no white blood at all. Throughout his two biographies he laments the challenges and deficits of being a black man in America, but oddly enough never embraces his white half.
Author, Sheldon Steele, made the observation that Barack Obama realized at a young age that the best way to enlist whites in his cause was not to appear radical or angry, but to be a bargainer. He convinces whites that supporting him will absolve them of sins committed against the black man by their ancestors. In exchange for this support, he presents a portrait of a moderate and reasonable man who is in no way radical or angry. He in essence becomes a salve that soothes the racially troubled soul of a guilty white nation. But he could never achieve this grand bargain if his white half were allowed to carry the same currency as his black half. This is why during the 2008 Presidential campaign he had to throw his white grandmother under the bus by calling her a "typical white person." This allowed him to distance himself from his white heritage and become fully black in the eyes of the electorate. He used this same strategy to distance himself from the radical black community when he threw Reverend Wright overboard.
From that moment eight years ago when Barack Obama gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democrat convention, he has been cleansing himself of his whiteness until there are no traces remaining. It is partially the reason he makes statements like the one he made about Treyvon Martin, saying that if he had a son he'd look like Treyvon. Looking over the last four years, one can find many similar statements that are designed to reinforce Barack Obama's blackness while mitigating his whiteness until it disappears all together, at least in the minds of many. Much credit must be given to Barack Obama, he has been able to rise to the highest levels of power with no experience or accomplishments to speak of and with half his race tied behind his back.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Barack Obama has built a successful political career with half his race tied behind his back. He stresses his black half to the exclusion of his white half. This is because his blackness allows him certain political advantages that his white half does not. He can, for instance, play on white quilt in order to convince whites not to challenge his positions for fear of being called racists. There is no such thing as black quilt, and therefore no political advantage to stressing his whiteness. Barack Obama's blackness is a huge advantage, especially after the Left has spent the last couple of decades softening the target with political correctness and revisionist history. Anyone who is intellectually honest realizes that with a white mother and a black father, Barack Obama is as much white as he is black. But listening to him since he burst onto the national political scene in 2004, one would think he had no white blood at all. Throughout his two biographies he laments the challenges and deficits of being a black man in America, but oddly enough never embraces his white half.
Author, Sheldon Steele, made the observation that Barack Obama realized at a young age that the best way to enlist whites in his cause was not to appear radical or angry, but to be a bargainer. He convinces whites that supporting him will absolve them of sins committed against the black man by their ancestors. In exchange for this support, he presents a portrait of a moderate and reasonable man who is in no way radical or angry. He in essence becomes a salve that soothes the racially troubled soul of a guilty white nation. But he could never achieve this grand bargain if his white half were allowed to carry the same currency as his black half. This is why during the 2008 Presidential campaign he had to throw his white grandmother under the bus by calling her a "typical white person." This allowed him to distance himself from his white heritage and become fully black in the eyes of the electorate. He used this same strategy to distance himself from the radical black community when he threw Reverend Wright overboard.
From that moment eight years ago when Barack Obama gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democrat convention, he has been cleansing himself of his whiteness until there are no traces remaining. It is partially the reason he makes statements like the one he made about Treyvon Martin, saying that if he had a son he'd look like Treyvon. Looking over the last four years, one can find many similar statements that are designed to reinforce Barack Obama's blackness while mitigating his whiteness until it disappears all together, at least in the minds of many. Much credit must be given to Barack Obama, he has been able to rise to the highest levels of power with no experience or accomplishments to speak of and with half his race tied behind his back.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
ObamaCare: The System Designed To Fail
This year is going to be a very important one, in which ObamaCare will be fully implemented to forever change the health care industry in this country. Or it will struggle on life support under the weight of its own bureaucracy. If the former comes to fruition and it is fully implemented, ObamaCare will not only destroy the best health care industry in the world, but it will fundamentally change the Constitutional relationship between the Federal government and the citizen.
The object of the Obamacare exercise is to legislate profit out of the health care industry. This will reduce the number of doctors and other health care providers and the number of commercial insurers. There will be fewer and fewer insurance companies that will be willing to provide health insurance at no profit. It will necessarily make the Federal government not only the insurer of last resort, but the only insurer. This, of course, is consistent with what Barack Obama told a group of union supporters a few years ago, i. e. his end goal was for a single-payer health care system. ObamaCare is legislation that is designed to fail so that the government can rush in and "solve" a problem they themselves created. No rational person can think that the quality of health care can be maintained in a system where there are fewer health care providers and less incentive for qualified people to even enter the field. And with the profit motive removed, there will be less innovation in the future, not more.
The reason that socialized, single-payer health care has failed everywhere it has been tried is that it violates the immutable economic law of supply and demand. When government controls health care expenditures, not only do those costs necessarily rise, but the lower supply of medical care always leads to rationing. This result is a predictable outcome where a good or service is paid for by a third party and not by the individual. To illustrate my point, think about health care like hot dogs. If you sold the best all-beef, skin-on-the-wiener frankfurters in town, your price would be controlled by market forces such as your costs for the product and the amount the customer was willing to pay. The profit you made would allow you to invest in your business and grow it so you could serve more frankfurters to more people. If the government suddenly decided to take over the frankfurter business in an effort to supply everyone with free hot dogs, demand would outpace supply because with no profit motive you would not expand your business. You would also be forced to use inferior wieners. Eventually the customer would have fewer options available as they relate to how many and the quality of hot dogs they could secure.
Liberals have convinced many in this country that making a profit on health care is somehow unseemly or immoral, as if health care professionals should provide their expertise and goods as a public service. But it is odd that Liberals have no problem with teachers, firemen, policemen and librarians making a profit performing public service jobs. And for that matter, why should politicians make a profit? Aren't they, after all, public servants? With the moral decay in Washington and the entrenchment of corruption, politicians no longer serve the public but themselves. And the new health care system is illustrative of not only legislation designed to fail but a failure in the political system that created it.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
The object of the Obamacare exercise is to legislate profit out of the health care industry. This will reduce the number of doctors and other health care providers and the number of commercial insurers. There will be fewer and fewer insurance companies that will be willing to provide health insurance at no profit. It will necessarily make the Federal government not only the insurer of last resort, but the only insurer. This, of course, is consistent with what Barack Obama told a group of union supporters a few years ago, i. e. his end goal was for a single-payer health care system. ObamaCare is legislation that is designed to fail so that the government can rush in and "solve" a problem they themselves created. No rational person can think that the quality of health care can be maintained in a system where there are fewer health care providers and less incentive for qualified people to even enter the field. And with the profit motive removed, there will be less innovation in the future, not more.
The reason that socialized, single-payer health care has failed everywhere it has been tried is that it violates the immutable economic law of supply and demand. When government controls health care expenditures, not only do those costs necessarily rise, but the lower supply of medical care always leads to rationing. This result is a predictable outcome where a good or service is paid for by a third party and not by the individual. To illustrate my point, think about health care like hot dogs. If you sold the best all-beef, skin-on-the-wiener frankfurters in town, your price would be controlled by market forces such as your costs for the product and the amount the customer was willing to pay. The profit you made would allow you to invest in your business and grow it so you could serve more frankfurters to more people. If the government suddenly decided to take over the frankfurter business in an effort to supply everyone with free hot dogs, demand would outpace supply because with no profit motive you would not expand your business. You would also be forced to use inferior wieners. Eventually the customer would have fewer options available as they relate to how many and the quality of hot dogs they could secure.
Liberals have convinced many in this country that making a profit on health care is somehow unseemly or immoral, as if health care professionals should provide their expertise and goods as a public service. But it is odd that Liberals have no problem with teachers, firemen, policemen and librarians making a profit performing public service jobs. And for that matter, why should politicians make a profit? Aren't they, after all, public servants? With the moral decay in Washington and the entrenchment of corruption, politicians no longer serve the public but themselves. And the new health care system is illustrative of not only legislation designed to fail but a failure in the political system that created it.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Don Obama And The Democrats
President Obama and the Democrats have made whipping the "rich" the core of their political ideology. Convincing the public that the so-called rich are not paying their fair share has been the single note played in the modern Liberal orchestra. It is the hammer they used against Mitt Romney to win re-election to an office that Mr. Obama had proven he could not successfully execute. This constant drumbeat against the rich in a war meant to divide the classes is also how the President and Congressional Democrats were recently able to raise taxes on the very people this faltering economy needs to create jobs.
Conservative radio and print, as well as this very blog, have repeated the statistics from the IRS that show the top 10% of wage earners in this country shouldering 70% of the total Federal tax burden. The top 1% pay a whopping 40%. Do President Obama and the Democrats think that ultimately a fair tax system would have 100% of the taxes paid by the top earners, leaving them nothing with which to invest and create jobs? Do they not understand that high taxes drive away the wealth that is needed to create prosperity for all? Sadly they don't understand or more on point, they deliberately want to limit wealth creation in order to expand the welfare state.
For decades now the people who benefit most from government pay the least into it. Conversely, those who pay the most in Federal income tax use the least amount of government services. The rich receive the same amount of military protection as the poor, drive on the same roads and have their trash picked up weekly, just as the poor do. But the poor, who pay nothing into the system, receive more direct financial support than the rich. I point this fact out, not to denigrate the poor, but to illustrate the fallacy of the Liberal argument that the rich somehow do not pay their fair share in taxes. Thirty years ago, before Ronald Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate from over 70% to 28%, the top 1% were paying 20% of the total Federal tax burden. As previously stated, the top 1% now pay 40% of the total. This means that the base from which the Federal government receives taxes has shrunk over the last three to four decades. In more direct terms, there are now more people riding in the cart and fewer pulling it. At some point the cart will no longer be moving forward. This future has been abundantly illustrated for us by modern-day Europe.
It's time that this country has a truly fair tax system where the burden is spread among the majority of citizens. A flat tax, where everyone paid the same percentage of their income, would be a step in the right direction. But eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax would be the most fair. In this fairest of systems, people would be taxed when they spend their money, not when they earn it. This eliminates the Federal government being slave master over a man's labor. The current system is a bit like the mob, we ask, "How much do you want?" and they respond by asking, "How much yous got?". It seems Don Obama and his henchmen want to confiscate more from those who have more and use the Federal government as an enforcer in some demented protection racket.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Conservative radio and print, as well as this very blog, have repeated the statistics from the IRS that show the top 10% of wage earners in this country shouldering 70% of the total Federal tax burden. The top 1% pay a whopping 40%. Do President Obama and the Democrats think that ultimately a fair tax system would have 100% of the taxes paid by the top earners, leaving them nothing with which to invest and create jobs? Do they not understand that high taxes drive away the wealth that is needed to create prosperity for all? Sadly they don't understand or more on point, they deliberately want to limit wealth creation in order to expand the welfare state.
For decades now the people who benefit most from government pay the least into it. Conversely, those who pay the most in Federal income tax use the least amount of government services. The rich receive the same amount of military protection as the poor, drive on the same roads and have their trash picked up weekly, just as the poor do. But the poor, who pay nothing into the system, receive more direct financial support than the rich. I point this fact out, not to denigrate the poor, but to illustrate the fallacy of the Liberal argument that the rich somehow do not pay their fair share in taxes. Thirty years ago, before Ronald Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate from over 70% to 28%, the top 1% were paying 20% of the total Federal tax burden. As previously stated, the top 1% now pay 40% of the total. This means that the base from which the Federal government receives taxes has shrunk over the last three to four decades. In more direct terms, there are now more people riding in the cart and fewer pulling it. At some point the cart will no longer be moving forward. This future has been abundantly illustrated for us by modern-day Europe.
It's time that this country has a truly fair tax system where the burden is spread among the majority of citizens. A flat tax, where everyone paid the same percentage of their income, would be a step in the right direction. But eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax would be the most fair. In this fairest of systems, people would be taxed when they spend their money, not when they earn it. This eliminates the Federal government being slave master over a man's labor. The current system is a bit like the mob, we ask, "How much do you want?" and they respond by asking, "How much yous got?". It seems Don Obama and his henchmen want to confiscate more from those who have more and use the Federal government as an enforcer in some demented protection racket.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Fact-Deprived Left
When in the course of advancing their agenda, the Left in this country refuse to let facts get in the way of passing evermore restrictive legislation. It is confounding to Conservatives and is probably the reason we have had such a difficult time winning the PR war against the modern-day Liberal advance. And it goes to the very core of the difference between Conservatives and Liberals, i. e. Conservatives are guided by the founding principles of this nation along with experience and Liberals are guided almost entirely by the emotion of the moment. Allowing emotions to be the primary ingredient for decisions is a recipe for disaster, whether for an individual or a nation.
Health care is a glaring example of my thesis. When the emotion of the issue is removed, any reasonable person would have looked at the U.S. health care industry and determined that it was the most advanced in the world. It is an industry which has driven medical advancements for the last 50 years, and brought life to those who would have formerly died. These advancements that have propelled the human condition to heights never before seen, were driven mostly by a thriving private sector operating under the auspices of the free market. The problems that existed in the health care industry were mostly confined not to its delivery and quality of care, but to insurance coverage. And these insurance problems were mostly the result of government involvement that increased exponentially over the last 40 years. In every poll taken on health care in the last 20 years, the results showed that over 85% of people were completely satisfied with their health care. I think any business with a satisfaction rate that high is healthy and not, as Liberals would have you believe, on the brink of coming apart at the seems. But Liberals trotted out isolated individuals who they say were abandon by an unfeeling, profit-motivated system in an effort to convince the public at large to allow them to run health care in a more compassionate way. Even using this blatantly emotional subterfuge, Liberals were not able to convince a majority of the public to agree with them. So they did what Liberals do when their policies govern against the will of the people, they ram them through Congress using bribes and kick backs and have a compliant court back them up.
A further example of my thesis is the way in which Liberals used the Sandy Hook murder spree to advance their anti-second amendment agenda. They used slaughtered children as a prop to convince the people of this great nation to abandon their God-given right to defend themselves as they see fit. It is a purely emotional argument when one considers the actual facts. Two thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and when added to suicides committed using other methods, they account for five times the number of homicides committed with guns. There are also more crimes prevented by law-abiding citizens using fire arms than there are crimes committed by criminals using them. And while the number of guns per-capita has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, the number of violent crimes has actually decreased. All these facts don't enter into the Liberal sphere because they contradict their contention that stricter gun laws are needed to protect the public.
It is a difficult challenge to argue against emotion, anyone who has tried to reason with an emotional child knows this to be true. But it is a challenge that Conservatives must become more apt at meeting if we wish save this great Republic that the founders bequeathed us. It is not only essential to the survival of our great nation, but to the survival of freedom and liberty everywhere, of which we are the last standard bearers.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Health care is a glaring example of my thesis. When the emotion of the issue is removed, any reasonable person would have looked at the U.S. health care industry and determined that it was the most advanced in the world. It is an industry which has driven medical advancements for the last 50 years, and brought life to those who would have formerly died. These advancements that have propelled the human condition to heights never before seen, were driven mostly by a thriving private sector operating under the auspices of the free market. The problems that existed in the health care industry were mostly confined not to its delivery and quality of care, but to insurance coverage. And these insurance problems were mostly the result of government involvement that increased exponentially over the last 40 years. In every poll taken on health care in the last 20 years, the results showed that over 85% of people were completely satisfied with their health care. I think any business with a satisfaction rate that high is healthy and not, as Liberals would have you believe, on the brink of coming apart at the seems. But Liberals trotted out isolated individuals who they say were abandon by an unfeeling, profit-motivated system in an effort to convince the public at large to allow them to run health care in a more compassionate way. Even using this blatantly emotional subterfuge, Liberals were not able to convince a majority of the public to agree with them. So they did what Liberals do when their policies govern against the will of the people, they ram them through Congress using bribes and kick backs and have a compliant court back them up.
A further example of my thesis is the way in which Liberals used the Sandy Hook murder spree to advance their anti-second amendment agenda. They used slaughtered children as a prop to convince the people of this great nation to abandon their God-given right to defend themselves as they see fit. It is a purely emotional argument when one considers the actual facts. Two thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and when added to suicides committed using other methods, they account for five times the number of homicides committed with guns. There are also more crimes prevented by law-abiding citizens using fire arms than there are crimes committed by criminals using them. And while the number of guns per-capita has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, the number of violent crimes has actually decreased. All these facts don't enter into the Liberal sphere because they contradict their contention that stricter gun laws are needed to protect the public.
It is a difficult challenge to argue against emotion, anyone who has tried to reason with an emotional child knows this to be true. But it is a challenge that Conservatives must become more apt at meeting if we wish save this great Republic that the founders bequeathed us. It is not only essential to the survival of our great nation, but to the survival of freedom and liberty everywhere, of which we are the last standard bearers.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Chris Christie And Disaster Relief
Last week when Governor Chris Christie threw a hissy fit because Congress wasn't dolling out taxpayer dollars fast enough for Super Storm Sandy relief, I was reminded how recently it was that some in the Conservative movement endorsed him to be our nominee in this past election. No less than Conservative maven, Ann Coulter, was giddy as a school girl with the prospect that Mr. Christie would enter the race and save us all from the likes of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorium. I think it was a sign of some Republicants dissatisfaction with the group of prospective Presidential candidates that they were fielding, but it was also evidence of the blinders that were in no short supply when it came to Governor Christie.
It was shockingly apparent that Chris Christie leaned a little left on the social issues, while he used his fiscal Conservatism to spellbound Conservatives like Ms. Coulter. I was never a member of the Chris Christie fan club, for reasons that have become painfully obvious since just before the election. First there was his embarrassing slobbering over President Obama in the wake of Super Storm Sandy. His reaction to the President simply showing up for a photo opportunity days before an election, was completely unwarranted. And last week Governor Christie once again showed not only his leftist leanings on social issues, but his abandonment of his fiscal Conservatism by demanding taxpayer dollars for his state from an almost bankrupt Federal government.
I have never understood how so-called Conservative governors and politicians can simply choose to ignore their Conservative principles to stroke their constituents by syphoning Federal tax dollars to their states. Disaster relief should be managed and paid for on the local and state level. If taxpayers from other parts of the country wish to contribute, they should have the choice to do so without being compelled by the Federal government. Federal monies should be used for those things that affect the entire country, like national defense, not local and states issues. This was the original intent of the founders and it makes fiscal sense. As we have seen with the Sandy relief bill in Congress, when you allow the Federal government to provide disaster relief, you also get payoffs to special interests. At the very time that our country delayed a fiscal cliff and are heading for another, Congress appropriates billions of dollars in pork disguised as disaster relief.
The damage from Super Storm Sandy was tremendous and devastating for those who lost so much. That being said, wasn't most of the damaged property insured, either by commercial insurers or government flood insurance? If the damage was insured by the government program, why does the Federal government have to raid taxpayer dollars to pay out claims made against an insurance program into which people paid premiums? Why are the taxpayers insuring property that lies in areas so risky that commercial insurers refuse to cover them? What happened to the premiums that the government received from their policy-holders? Is the Federal government not bound by the same rules as the rest of the insurance industry that they regulate when they get into the insurance business themselves?
These are the questions that Conservatives must ask and must educate the voting public to ask of their leaders. Conservatism is based on Constitutional principles and not simply a campaigning ploy to get votes from that segment of the population that still believes in those principles. Sadly, Mr. Christie's Conservatism is only something he wishes to exhibit when the skies are sunny and life is easy.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
It was shockingly apparent that Chris Christie leaned a little left on the social issues, while he used his fiscal Conservatism to spellbound Conservatives like Ms. Coulter. I was never a member of the Chris Christie fan club, for reasons that have become painfully obvious since just before the election. First there was his embarrassing slobbering over President Obama in the wake of Super Storm Sandy. His reaction to the President simply showing up for a photo opportunity days before an election, was completely unwarranted. And last week Governor Christie once again showed not only his leftist leanings on social issues, but his abandonment of his fiscal Conservatism by demanding taxpayer dollars for his state from an almost bankrupt Federal government.
I have never understood how so-called Conservative governors and politicians can simply choose to ignore their Conservative principles to stroke their constituents by syphoning Federal tax dollars to their states. Disaster relief should be managed and paid for on the local and state level. If taxpayers from other parts of the country wish to contribute, they should have the choice to do so without being compelled by the Federal government. Federal monies should be used for those things that affect the entire country, like national defense, not local and states issues. This was the original intent of the founders and it makes fiscal sense. As we have seen with the Sandy relief bill in Congress, when you allow the Federal government to provide disaster relief, you also get payoffs to special interests. At the very time that our country delayed a fiscal cliff and are heading for another, Congress appropriates billions of dollars in pork disguised as disaster relief.
The damage from Super Storm Sandy was tremendous and devastating for those who lost so much. That being said, wasn't most of the damaged property insured, either by commercial insurers or government flood insurance? If the damage was insured by the government program, why does the Federal government have to raid taxpayer dollars to pay out claims made against an insurance program into which people paid premiums? Why are the taxpayers insuring property that lies in areas so risky that commercial insurers refuse to cover them? What happened to the premiums that the government received from their policy-holders? Is the Federal government not bound by the same rules as the rest of the insurance industry that they regulate when they get into the insurance business themselves?
These are the questions that Conservatives must ask and must educate the voting public to ask of their leaders. Conservatism is based on Constitutional principles and not simply a campaigning ploy to get votes from that segment of the population that still believes in those principles. Sadly, Mr. Christie's Conservatism is only something he wishes to exhibit when the skies are sunny and life is easy.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Constitutional Rights Vs. Leftist Rights
The modern day Left uses, and misuses, language as a vehicle to impose their authoritarian policies on an unwitting populace. The primary form that this language manipulation takes is by turning the sows ear of oppression into the silk purse of "rights". It is the bread and butter of every authoritarian regime throughout history to convince those they oppress that the tyranny of their policies somehow expands the peoples rights.
The reason that the United States of America is an exceptional nation is because our founding documents marked the first and only time in history that a nation was founded on the principle that rights come from God not man. This is an important concept that is missed by the Left, either through ignorance or design, and is the reason they can convince so many to abandon their liberty in favor of the vacuous promise of security. But to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserves and will posses neither. The Left has convinced a generation of Americans that rights are the province of government to dole out as they see fit, a concept that is completely antithetical to this great nations core principles enshrined in our founding documents. The founders knew that if rights were created by government, they could also be taken away by that very same government. Abraham Lincoln expressed this very concept by pointing out that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.
The Lefts ability to cloak the wolf of oppression in the sheep's clothing of rights is made possible by the deliberate mis-education of a public that believes that material things and commodities are rights to be guaranteed by government. These "rights" include everything from housing and food to jobs and health care. Nothing could be further from the core principles of this nation. None of the rights outlined in the Constitution are material in nature. Everyone of our Constitutional rights are conceptual laws which are firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition of the rights of free people existing, not in the realm of man, but of God. And as such, these rights can not be taken away by man, except by temporary governments that may rule against the will of God's laws and the will of liberty that exists in every human being.
The Left in this country has expanded their control by using the concept that the different branches of government exist to expand the rights of select groups of the population. They have convinced a sizable segment of the governed that government is their own personal legal council that is going to achieve for them an award of material goods and services from their fellow citizens . This, of course, is contrary to the founding principle that government exists to protect rights that pre-date the Constitution and come from God.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
The reason that the United States of America is an exceptional nation is because our founding documents marked the first and only time in history that a nation was founded on the principle that rights come from God not man. This is an important concept that is missed by the Left, either through ignorance or design, and is the reason they can convince so many to abandon their liberty in favor of the vacuous promise of security. But to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserves and will posses neither. The Left has convinced a generation of Americans that rights are the province of government to dole out as they see fit, a concept that is completely antithetical to this great nations core principles enshrined in our founding documents. The founders knew that if rights were created by government, they could also be taken away by that very same government. Abraham Lincoln expressed this very concept by pointing out that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.
The Lefts ability to cloak the wolf of oppression in the sheep's clothing of rights is made possible by the deliberate mis-education of a public that believes that material things and commodities are rights to be guaranteed by government. These "rights" include everything from housing and food to jobs and health care. Nothing could be further from the core principles of this nation. None of the rights outlined in the Constitution are material in nature. Everyone of our Constitutional rights are conceptual laws which are firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition of the rights of free people existing, not in the realm of man, but of God. And as such, these rights can not be taken away by man, except by temporary governments that may rule against the will of God's laws and the will of liberty that exists in every human being.
The Left in this country has expanded their control by using the concept that the different branches of government exist to expand the rights of select groups of the population. They have convinced a sizable segment of the governed that government is their own personal legal council that is going to achieve for them an award of material goods and services from their fellow citizens . This, of course, is contrary to the founding principle that government exists to protect rights that pre-date the Constitution and come from God.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
The Joe Biden Effect
The Vice-President's inappropriate and sexist remark to a female Senator being sworn in this past Thursday is illustrative not only of this man's complete disrespect for his office, but the rampant hypocrisy of the Left. During the swearing in ceremony, our ever classless VP told a female senator to spread her legs because she was going to be frisked. One could not imagine Dick Cheney, Dan Qualye or George H. W. Bush saying something so inappropriate and rude. But had they, the Left would have not only run them out of office, but would have tarred and feathered them and expelled them from Washington on a rail. As of yet there has been no condemnation from the feminists or any of the other hypocrites on the Left.
Joe Biden, like every other Liberal, is excused from the standards of sexism and racism that the Left applies with abandon to everyone on the Right. Which leads one to believe that they really don't believe the pap they preach, but like everything else in their world, it is to be used for political gain when possible. There is no political gain to calling out one of their own as a result of inappropriate behavior. Joe Biden's remark this past Thursday is only the latest glimpse into his complete lack of character and that of the establishment Left. While running for President in 2008, Joe Biden said that finally the Democrats had a clean, articulate black man in Barack Obama. I listened very closely but heard no criticism of this remark from anyone on the Left at the time or since.
This sense of hypocrisy has filtered down from the leadership on the Left to the rank and file. I know, for instance, woman who claim to support the advancement of females into positions of power and authority, except in cases where a woman exhibits Conservative principles. Then they are demonized, as is the case with black Conservatives. Those on the Left don't really support the advancement of women or blacks, but only Liberal women and blacks. The non-response from the Left in the wake of the Vice-President's remark proves this point beyond any doubt. In other words, there is no such thing on the Left as a deeply held conviction or principle, there are only the fluid positions that are guided by the winds of daily politics.
On issue after issue over the last few decades, one can outline a pattern by the Left of shifting loyalties based purely on a political outcome. There is a gaggle of Democrat politicians that claim to have worked with President Reagan on a whole host of issues from the economy to national defense, but actually fought him every step of the way. But now that history has rightly seen him as one of the greatest Presidents in modern times, Democrat politicians fall all over themselves to hitch their wagon to his star. This is the hypocrisy of politicians whose ideology has only wrought failure because it is not anchored by principle and conviction. And actually, in a real sense, Joe Biden is an appropriate standard bearer for the Left, their silent defense of his behavior is what I call the Joe Biden Effect.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Joe Biden, like every other Liberal, is excused from the standards of sexism and racism that the Left applies with abandon to everyone on the Right. Which leads one to believe that they really don't believe the pap they preach, but like everything else in their world, it is to be used for political gain when possible. There is no political gain to calling out one of their own as a result of inappropriate behavior. Joe Biden's remark this past Thursday is only the latest glimpse into his complete lack of character and that of the establishment Left. While running for President in 2008, Joe Biden said that finally the Democrats had a clean, articulate black man in Barack Obama. I listened very closely but heard no criticism of this remark from anyone on the Left at the time or since.
This sense of hypocrisy has filtered down from the leadership on the Left to the rank and file. I know, for instance, woman who claim to support the advancement of females into positions of power and authority, except in cases where a woman exhibits Conservative principles. Then they are demonized, as is the case with black Conservatives. Those on the Left don't really support the advancement of women or blacks, but only Liberal women and blacks. The non-response from the Left in the wake of the Vice-President's remark proves this point beyond any doubt. In other words, there is no such thing on the Left as a deeply held conviction or principle, there are only the fluid positions that are guided by the winds of daily politics.
On issue after issue over the last few decades, one can outline a pattern by the Left of shifting loyalties based purely on a political outcome. There is a gaggle of Democrat politicians that claim to have worked with President Reagan on a whole host of issues from the economy to national defense, but actually fought him every step of the way. But now that history has rightly seen him as one of the greatest Presidents in modern times, Democrat politicians fall all over themselves to hitch their wagon to his star. This is the hypocrisy of politicians whose ideology has only wrought failure because it is not anchored by principle and conviction. And actually, in a real sense, Joe Biden is an appropriate standard bearer for the Left, their silent defense of his behavior is what I call the Joe Biden Effect.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Friday, January 4, 2013
The Seriously Deluded Right
I remember a Seinfeld episode in which the character George Costanza tells off his boss and quits his job, only to regret his rash act later. He decides to report for work Monday morning as if nothing happened. He thought if he bought the lie that his boss and co-workers would as well. I recently thought about this episode while listening to some on the right, especially radio talk show host Michael Medved, as they tried to pretend that the Republicants bested the President and Congressional Democrats in the recent fiscal cliff deal.
The seriously deluded Mr. Medved theorized that since the current tax rates were going to remain the same for 98% of taxpayers, somehow that meant that George W. Bush, and by extension the feckless Republicants in Congress, were the big winners. He further suggested that separating the tax issue from the spending issue somehow magically gave the Republicants the upper hand in the upcoming sequestration/debt ceiling debate. I am disheartened to see my fellow Conservatives be so deluded that they refuse to accept reality. Their desire to live in a fantasy world they wished existed, instead of the real one that does exist, further contributes to the Republicant party and the country being destroyed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
The Republicants lost the fiscal cliff debate because the President and Congressional Democrats were able to divert the debate from dealing with the real problem of spending and shift the focus to the manufactured problem of taxes. Raising the tax rates on individuals making over 400k a year and couples making over 450k a year is going to raise 60 billion dollars a year in revenue. When the Federal government is spending 1 trillion dollars more than it brings in every year, 60 billion dollars is only about 6% of that deficit. The Republicants bought into the false assumption that any tax increase would actually be used to reduce the deficit, even that measly amount. The President already has plans to spend that increase and more. In fact President Obama and Congressional Democrats are already talking about raising taxes even more.
As for Mr. Medved's assertion that somehow John Boehner's latest cave-in forces the President and Congressional Democrats to deal with their over-spending, it's a complete fantasy created by people who want to believe that you win by losing. In the real world, the President and Congressional Democrats are the ones who have won the public relations battle and by virtue of having done so, have the upper hand in any upcoming debates. I can tell you with one hypenated word what is going to happen in the sequestration/debt ceiling debate, cave-in. The Republicants are going to give the President exactly what he wants, just as they did in the fiscal cliff debate and every other debate that has taken place over the last two years. The President's real goal for the fiscal cliff was to get the Republicants to break their tax pledge, which they did with abandon.
The larger issue in this debate is that those on my side of the aisle like Mr. Medved continue to buy the manufactured crisis of the Left and then are soothed by a "solution" that puts the country in a worse position. Some on the Right are mollified by the fact that tax rates on 98% of taxpayers will not change, that will only last up until the point that they do change. Meanwhile the Medheads are celebrating some bizarre victory that they have twisted themselves into pretzels to create. By the way, pretending that reality doesn't exist didn't work out for George Costanza either, in the end he was left without his job.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
The seriously deluded Mr. Medved theorized that since the current tax rates were going to remain the same for 98% of taxpayers, somehow that meant that George W. Bush, and by extension the feckless Republicants in Congress, were the big winners. He further suggested that separating the tax issue from the spending issue somehow magically gave the Republicants the upper hand in the upcoming sequestration/debt ceiling debate. I am disheartened to see my fellow Conservatives be so deluded that they refuse to accept reality. Their desire to live in a fantasy world they wished existed, instead of the real one that does exist, further contributes to the Republicant party and the country being destroyed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
The Republicants lost the fiscal cliff debate because the President and Congressional Democrats were able to divert the debate from dealing with the real problem of spending and shift the focus to the manufactured problem of taxes. Raising the tax rates on individuals making over 400k a year and couples making over 450k a year is going to raise 60 billion dollars a year in revenue. When the Federal government is spending 1 trillion dollars more than it brings in every year, 60 billion dollars is only about 6% of that deficit. The Republicants bought into the false assumption that any tax increase would actually be used to reduce the deficit, even that measly amount. The President already has plans to spend that increase and more. In fact President Obama and Congressional Democrats are already talking about raising taxes even more.
As for Mr. Medved's assertion that somehow John Boehner's latest cave-in forces the President and Congressional Democrats to deal with their over-spending, it's a complete fantasy created by people who want to believe that you win by losing. In the real world, the President and Congressional Democrats are the ones who have won the public relations battle and by virtue of having done so, have the upper hand in any upcoming debates. I can tell you with one hypenated word what is going to happen in the sequestration/debt ceiling debate, cave-in. The Republicants are going to give the President exactly what he wants, just as they did in the fiscal cliff debate and every other debate that has taken place over the last two years. The President's real goal for the fiscal cliff was to get the Republicants to break their tax pledge, which they did with abandon.
The larger issue in this debate is that those on my side of the aisle like Mr. Medved continue to buy the manufactured crisis of the Left and then are soothed by a "solution" that puts the country in a worse position. Some on the Right are mollified by the fact that tax rates on 98% of taxpayers will not change, that will only last up until the point that they do change. Meanwhile the Medheads are celebrating some bizarre victory that they have twisted themselves into pretzels to create. By the way, pretending that reality doesn't exist didn't work out for George Costanza either, in the end he was left without his job.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Crisis Whores
"You never want to waste a crisis, it gives you the opportunity to do things you wouldn't normally be able to do." - Rohm Emanuel, President Obama's first Chief Of Staff, after the President won the 2008 presidential election. This statement by the ballerina thug could not have been a more accurate prediction of President Obama's first term. He and his administration have not missed an opportunity to use crisis to advance a leftist agenda and augment their power. Whether the crisis was real, like the financial meltdown that started his first term in office, or manufactured, as was the case of the BP Gulf oil spill. Every step of his first term was advanced by a sense of crisis that paved the road forward to a larger government and a smaller citizen.
There have been quite a few coaches in the NFL that have lost their jobs recently due to a lack of adequate job performance. If Barack Obama was an NFL head coach, he would be one of those currently looking for work. He inherited a 5-11 team and turned it into a 1-15 team, all while losing fan support and plunging the club into an historic amount of debt. But he has been able to keep his job and gain more authority by keeping the country in a constant state of crisis. He uses crisis to increase his authority over a free people and expand an ever-powerful central government, just as a prostitute uses sex to get money. Every new crisis, whether real or manufactured, the President sees as an opportunity to expand the Federal government and redistribute earned wealth.
The financial crisis he used to great effect to get a tax cheat confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury, pass a trillion dollar stimulus that only stimulated his union buddies and green industry campaign donors and impose thousands of new onerous Federal regulations on businesses, which has made a real economic recovery a quaint notion of a by-gone era. Not to mention confiscating an automobile manufacturer from its rightful owners and giving it to his union buddies. The President and his minions of street walkers constructed a phony health care crisis in order to pass a massive government take over of the health care industry. They used the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to cripple the drilling industry and force BP to pay billions of dollars into an Obama slush fund. And now the crisis whores seek to use the murderous rampage by one evil man to impose stricter regulations on law-abiding citizens in an effort to extinguish the flame of their God-given right to bear arms, which the Constitution reaffirms.
If the activities of the crisis whores weren't bad enough, there are some misguided people on the right who actually are taken in by the crisis-mongering of the Obama administration. I've spent the last four years listening to so-called Conservatives like radio talk show host Michael Medved, be turned into chicken littles. Every time the crisis whores create a new hysteria like the debt ceiling or the fiscal cliff, the scared little rabbits on the right like Mr. Medved are ready to accept the crisis whores' premise that the world will end unless their "solutions" are enacted. And therein lies the real problem in the Republicant party, they accept the premises of the left and therefore they are allowed to stand. This gives the crisis whores fuel to create a virtually unlimited amount of crisis with which they can expand government and contract freedom.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
There have been quite a few coaches in the NFL that have lost their jobs recently due to a lack of adequate job performance. If Barack Obama was an NFL head coach, he would be one of those currently looking for work. He inherited a 5-11 team and turned it into a 1-15 team, all while losing fan support and plunging the club into an historic amount of debt. But he has been able to keep his job and gain more authority by keeping the country in a constant state of crisis. He uses crisis to increase his authority over a free people and expand an ever-powerful central government, just as a prostitute uses sex to get money. Every new crisis, whether real or manufactured, the President sees as an opportunity to expand the Federal government and redistribute earned wealth.
The financial crisis he used to great effect to get a tax cheat confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury, pass a trillion dollar stimulus that only stimulated his union buddies and green industry campaign donors and impose thousands of new onerous Federal regulations on businesses, which has made a real economic recovery a quaint notion of a by-gone era. Not to mention confiscating an automobile manufacturer from its rightful owners and giving it to his union buddies. The President and his minions of street walkers constructed a phony health care crisis in order to pass a massive government take over of the health care industry. They used the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to cripple the drilling industry and force BP to pay billions of dollars into an Obama slush fund. And now the crisis whores seek to use the murderous rampage by one evil man to impose stricter regulations on law-abiding citizens in an effort to extinguish the flame of their God-given right to bear arms, which the Constitution reaffirms.
If the activities of the crisis whores weren't bad enough, there are some misguided people on the right who actually are taken in by the crisis-mongering of the Obama administration. I've spent the last four years listening to so-called Conservatives like radio talk show host Michael Medved, be turned into chicken littles. Every time the crisis whores create a new hysteria like the debt ceiling or the fiscal cliff, the scared little rabbits on the right like Mr. Medved are ready to accept the crisis whores' premise that the world will end unless their "solutions" are enacted. And therein lies the real problem in the Republicant party, they accept the premises of the left and therefore they are allowed to stand. This gives the crisis whores fuel to create a virtually unlimited amount of crisis with which they can expand government and contract freedom.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The Mis-Adventures Of The Republicants
Now that both the House and Senate have passed the so-called fiscal cliff bill, which actually doesn't even begin to address the fiscal problems of this nation, I am wondering where the people's representation has gone. The bill adds 4 trillion dollars to the debt over the next ten years and raises $42 in taxes for every $1 dollar of so-called cuts. The supposed cuts are only a reduction in the rate of growth, not meaningful cuts to an overly-bloated Federal budget. The bill also extends unemployment for another year, which guarantees that the unemployed will have no incentive to go back to work and lower the overall unemployment rate. The most egregious part of this bill is what is not in it, i. e. a resolution to the automatic spending cuts called the sequestration.
Our elected deadbeats in Congress have decided not to do their jobs once again, and have delayed any action on the sequestration. I can almost expect this kind of behavior from the Democrats, who have refused to fulfil even their basic Constitutional responsibility of passing a budget for the last four years, but I am really disillusioned with Republicans. I am so upset at the seemingly impotent way in which the Republicans have conducted themselves in the last 2 years, from now on I am calling them the Republicants. They seem unable to stop this President from destroying the greatest engine of economic growth in the world.
It was the fecklessness of the Republicants that lead the nation to the fiscal cliff because they were unwilling to stand on principles. First, during the lame-duck session of Congress after the 2010 mid-term elections when they agreed to only extend the Bush-era tax rates for another two years, instead of making them permanent. And secondly, during the debt ceiling debate in August of 2011, when they abdicated their responsibility to the nation and allowed Democrats and the President to borrow trillions more and put in place the ticking time bomb of sequestration. In every struggle for the health of the nation, the Republicants have been bamboozled, bested and befuddled by an incompetent President and petulant Democrats in the Senate.
I had high hopes during the first part of the President's first term, when Republicants stood unified in voting against Obamacare and the first stimulus bill. But it seems as though they became weaker after winning the House in 2010, which gave them tremendous power, if they only weren't afraid to use it. And losing this past election to a President that is probably the most demonstrable failure in presidential history, further reinforced the Republicants can't do attitude. I understand the arguments against a third party, but with Republicants unwilling to take up the mantle of Conservatism and fight for what is right, I feel there may be no other way. I don't expect my representatives to win every battle, but for the sake of this great nation they must at least show up on the battle field armed with their best.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Our elected deadbeats in Congress have decided not to do their jobs once again, and have delayed any action on the sequestration. I can almost expect this kind of behavior from the Democrats, who have refused to fulfil even their basic Constitutional responsibility of passing a budget for the last four years, but I am really disillusioned with Republicans. I am so upset at the seemingly impotent way in which the Republicans have conducted themselves in the last 2 years, from now on I am calling them the Republicants. They seem unable to stop this President from destroying the greatest engine of economic growth in the world.
It was the fecklessness of the Republicants that lead the nation to the fiscal cliff because they were unwilling to stand on principles. First, during the lame-duck session of Congress after the 2010 mid-term elections when they agreed to only extend the Bush-era tax rates for another two years, instead of making them permanent. And secondly, during the debt ceiling debate in August of 2011, when they abdicated their responsibility to the nation and allowed Democrats and the President to borrow trillions more and put in place the ticking time bomb of sequestration. In every struggle for the health of the nation, the Republicants have been bamboozled, bested and befuddled by an incompetent President and petulant Democrats in the Senate.
I had high hopes during the first part of the President's first term, when Republicants stood unified in voting against Obamacare and the first stimulus bill. But it seems as though they became weaker after winning the House in 2010, which gave them tremendous power, if they only weren't afraid to use it. And losing this past election to a President that is probably the most demonstrable failure in presidential history, further reinforced the Republicants can't do attitude. I understand the arguments against a third party, but with Republicants unwilling to take up the mantle of Conservatism and fight for what is right, I feel there may be no other way. I don't expect my representatives to win every battle, but for the sake of this great nation they must at least show up on the battle field armed with their best.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
The Sound Of Us Going Over The Leadership Cliff
The President, Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans have reached a deal to ostensibly avert the fiscal cliff, sort of. The legislation, which is expected to pass the Senate today or tomorrow, keeps the Bush-era tax rates steady for most taxpayers. Rates would rise to 39.6% from the current 35% on families earning over 450 thousand dollars a year. Federal estate taxes will be instituted at a whopping 40% for estates over 5 million dollars, and capital gains and dividend taxes will rise to 20% from their current level of 15%. The automatic spending cuts, called the sequestration, will be delayed for two months until, are you ready for this, Congress has more time to debate the issue.
It is hard to say whether this legislation will have trouble passing in the Republican-controlled House, but it certainly should. Once again our spineless leaders on both sides of the aisle have refused to deal with the main issue that comprises 95% of the fiscal problems in this country, i.e. spending. The Congress should have had the intestinal fortitude to deal with out of control spending during the debt ceiling negotiations in August of 2011. But they chose instead to kick the can down the road with the creation of the idiotic sequestration. Now, over a year later, they say more time is needed and have once again chose to abdicate the very responsibilities they were elected to execute. If this latest deal to abdicate their responsibilities passes the House, the President and Congressional "leaders" on both sides will bloviate in front of every available camera and microphone about how they "saved" the country from the horrors of the fiscal cliff.
Absolutely nothing has changed vis-a-vis this grand legislation that would lead any thinking person to conclude that our financial health has suddenly gone from grave to skipping out of the fiscal intensive care unit in which we currently find ourselves. After racking up more debt in one term than the first 42 presidents combined, this President shows no signs of being fiscally responsible with our money. Furthermore, there seems to be no one in the Congress who has the will or ability to stop this drunkin' sailor from spending our hard earned dollars on frivolous tattoo payoffs to constituents and the intoxicating whiskey of an ever-expanding Federal government.
So as you awaken on this New Years morning and look forward to a fresh set of months in which to improve your life's circumstance in some way, you may hear the faint sound of a thud emanating from the direction of the nations capital. It is not, as we have been lead to believe for months, the sound of the country falling off a fiscal cliff, but rather this great republic being pushed off the leadership cliff by ineffectual politicians.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
It is hard to say whether this legislation will have trouble passing in the Republican-controlled House, but it certainly should. Once again our spineless leaders on both sides of the aisle have refused to deal with the main issue that comprises 95% of the fiscal problems in this country, i.e. spending. The Congress should have had the intestinal fortitude to deal with out of control spending during the debt ceiling negotiations in August of 2011. But they chose instead to kick the can down the road with the creation of the idiotic sequestration. Now, over a year later, they say more time is needed and have once again chose to abdicate the very responsibilities they were elected to execute. If this latest deal to abdicate their responsibilities passes the House, the President and Congressional "leaders" on both sides will bloviate in front of every available camera and microphone about how they "saved" the country from the horrors of the fiscal cliff.
Absolutely nothing has changed vis-a-vis this grand legislation that would lead any thinking person to conclude that our financial health has suddenly gone from grave to skipping out of the fiscal intensive care unit in which we currently find ourselves. After racking up more debt in one term than the first 42 presidents combined, this President shows no signs of being fiscally responsible with our money. Furthermore, there seems to be no one in the Congress who has the will or ability to stop this drunkin' sailor from spending our hard earned dollars on frivolous tattoo payoffs to constituents and the intoxicating whiskey of an ever-expanding Federal government.
So as you awaken on this New Years morning and look forward to a fresh set of months in which to improve your life's circumstance in some way, you may hear the faint sound of a thud emanating from the direction of the nations capital. It is not, as we have been lead to believe for months, the sound of the country falling off a fiscal cliff, but rather this great republic being pushed off the leadership cliff by ineffectual politicians.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)