While I was driving to work yesterday morning, I was listening to my favorite moderate on the radio, Bill Bennett. I like Bill, but he suffers the same affliction as every Republican who converted from the Democrat party, they never quite take the final vows. The only former Democrat, I can think of, who avoided this condition is Ronald Reagan. The incomplete conversion consists of the annoying habit of accepting the premise of the left on a certain topic, even if it is incorrect. Man-made global warming is the most obvious example of this in the modern era.
This morning, Mr. Bennett proffered the question to his listeners as to whether or not they would agree to a Fiscal Cliff deal that would have meaningful budget cuts, but would also raise the tax rates on anyone earning over a million dollars. His point was that if you allow the Democrats to inflict a little pain on the rich, they would be satisfied and go away. But what he fails to understand is that the beast will need to feed again, and it will feed on progressively lower wage earners until it arrives at the middle-class. Not only that, but the higher rate is not going to hurt rich people, only their ability to provide the jobs needed for those who aren't rich to become more wealthy. Mr. Bennett also assumes that the Democrats aim is to hurt the rich in some classic David and Goliath struggle, where the giant represents the rich and Democrats are David, slewing the giant for the sake of the people. I have news for Bill Bennett and anyone else who entertains the same theory, the Democrats aim is not to hurt the rich, but make it harder for the middle-class to support themselves, therefore becoming dependent on an ever-expanding Federal government.
The Democrats know that the fastest way to create jobs is to make it easier on job-creators, and inversely, the best way to kill job growth is to take money away from the private sector. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the less money government takes out of the hands of the rich, the more they can invest in business, which spurs economic activity and thus creates jobs. Most Democrats understand this concept, it's not some well guarded government secret. What they also understand is the more people move from poverty to wealth, the less need there is for Democrats and their big government programs. And this creates an environment where it is harder to justify higher taxes and subsequently mitigates the power and control over the governed that Democrats crave with every fiber of their being.
Republicans, like Bill Bennett, make the mistake of assuming that Democrats share with Republicans the motivation to do what is best for the country. Democrats are motivated by statist ideals and holding onto as much control over as many people as possible. We as Republicans ignore this fact at our own electoral peril, and more importantly, at the peril of a free nation.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
The Lefts Objectification Of Women
I first became aware of the lefts hypocrisy and phony outrage over womens' rights during the Clinton administration. I was stunned at how quickly and stridently the National Organization for Woman, as well as other groups that claimed to represent women, defended Bill Clinton during his many scandals involving his utter disrespectful and disgraceful treatment of women. But then Democrats are immune from criticism for their sexist behavior, a case in point is Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd. These two fine upstanding public servants use to regularly hit on waitresses and barmaids, suggesting the three of them make a "waitress sandwich." I'll let the more mature reader draw their own conclusions. But the defense of Bill Clinton, probably the only president ever accused of rape, by groups claiming to represent the best interests of women, was beyond the pale of normal hypocritical behavior by the left.
For those who are not convinced that the left demeans and objectifies women, you must have not been conscious during the recent Presidential campaign. The Obama re-election effort, as it related to women, consisted of reducing them to their reproductive organs. This objectification of women by Democrats reached its absurd pinnacle with a slogan on the official Obama campaign website. The slogan told women, "Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend On It." Isn't this the very definition of objectifying women? Refusing to acknowledge that women are concerned with more important issues besides birth control and abortion, is not only objectifying them, but insulting their intelligence. It's the very male behavior and attitudes that women have fought to overcome for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Democrats treat women as they do all their various constituency groups, keep them in a well-defined box and never let them stray outside of it. The boundaries which construct the box are created and decided upon mostly by Liberal white males. They are the ones who tell the members of the various groups what they must think in order to be considered a member of that group. If you doubt what I say, just consider how Liberals treat black, women, Hispanic or gay Conservatives. They are regularly called traitors to their groups and are demonized in some of the most despicable ways imaginable. The reason is clear, Democrats inculcate victimization in the members of their various groups, which then require government intervention as a salve to soothe the effects of the perceived injustice. Members of those groups who are self-reliant are an enemy to the Liberal goal of an ever expanding Federal government. This expansion of the State at the expense of the individual is the real goal of Democrats. It destroys individual initiative and creates a bland and soulless society where everyone is just a cog in the wheel of the State.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
For those who are not convinced that the left demeans and objectifies women, you must have not been conscious during the recent Presidential campaign. The Obama re-election effort, as it related to women, consisted of reducing them to their reproductive organs. This objectification of women by Democrats reached its absurd pinnacle with a slogan on the official Obama campaign website. The slogan told women, "Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend On It." Isn't this the very definition of objectifying women? Refusing to acknowledge that women are concerned with more important issues besides birth control and abortion, is not only objectifying them, but insulting their intelligence. It's the very male behavior and attitudes that women have fought to overcome for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Democrats treat women as they do all their various constituency groups, keep them in a well-defined box and never let them stray outside of it. The boundaries which construct the box are created and decided upon mostly by Liberal white males. They are the ones who tell the members of the various groups what they must think in order to be considered a member of that group. If you doubt what I say, just consider how Liberals treat black, women, Hispanic or gay Conservatives. They are regularly called traitors to their groups and are demonized in some of the most despicable ways imaginable. The reason is clear, Democrats inculcate victimization in the members of their various groups, which then require government intervention as a salve to soothe the effects of the perceived injustice. Members of those groups who are self-reliant are an enemy to the Liberal goal of an ever expanding Federal government. This expansion of the State at the expense of the individual is the real goal of Democrats. It destroys individual initiative and creates a bland and soulless society where everyone is just a cog in the wheel of the State.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
The Man Who Wasn't There
I saw a Coen Brothers movie a few years ago about a barber who gets involved in blackmail and murder, but instead of being an active participant in his life, he is a passive observer. At the movie's conclusion, we as the audience know as little about the barber as we did at the beginning. I have recently thought of our President, Barrack Obama, as the barber. He floats through the ether of reality without ever touching the solid ground of participation.
One of the Universities that Barrack Obama attended was Columbia, although 300 of his would be classmates, have no recollection of the future President. In fact, there is no public proof that he ever attended class. He was made President of the Harvard Law review, but inexplicably never published anything in that prestigious journal. He sat in a pew in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, having the good reverend marry him and his wife and baptize his children, but had no idea the man was a rampant anti-American racist. As a representative in the Illinois legislature, he voted present more than any other person in the history of that esteemed body. He claims that unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was just a guy in the neighborhood, but began his political career in the terrorist's living room.
The Man Who Wasn't There persona persisted once Barrack Obama became President. He didn't know how bad the economy was, even though he spent the entire 2008 campaign claiming it was the worse economy since the Great Depression. He claimed no knowledge of the Fast and Furious gun -running scheme created and put into action by his administration. The program killed hundreds of Mexicans and two U. S. border agents. The President then claimed Executive Privilege to keep classified what he didn't know. He also said he didn't know about the increased security requested by the ambassador of Libya, or that the attack was anything but a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. And Now the President says he knew nothing about the affair in which his Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus, engaged. Even though the President's own Justice Department and FBI knew of the affair for months, they apparently didn't think a possible security problem with the Director of the CIA was worthy of a Presidential briefing on the matter.
The exit polls from this past election would suggest that a majority of the voters still blame President Bush for the worst economy in 70 years, four years after he left office. But then who can the voters blame? Certainly not Barrack Obama, after all he is The Man Who Wasn't There.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
One of the Universities that Barrack Obama attended was Columbia, although 300 of his would be classmates, have no recollection of the future President. In fact, there is no public proof that he ever attended class. He was made President of the Harvard Law review, but inexplicably never published anything in that prestigious journal. He sat in a pew in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, having the good reverend marry him and his wife and baptize his children, but had no idea the man was a rampant anti-American racist. As a representative in the Illinois legislature, he voted present more than any other person in the history of that esteemed body. He claims that unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was just a guy in the neighborhood, but began his political career in the terrorist's living room.
The Man Who Wasn't There persona persisted once Barrack Obama became President. He didn't know how bad the economy was, even though he spent the entire 2008 campaign claiming it was the worse economy since the Great Depression. He claimed no knowledge of the Fast and Furious gun -running scheme created and put into action by his administration. The program killed hundreds of Mexicans and two U. S. border agents. The President then claimed Executive Privilege to keep classified what he didn't know. He also said he didn't know about the increased security requested by the ambassador of Libya, or that the attack was anything but a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. And Now the President says he knew nothing about the affair in which his Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus, engaged. Even though the President's own Justice Department and FBI knew of the affair for months, they apparently didn't think a possible security problem with the Director of the CIA was worthy of a Presidential briefing on the matter.
The exit polls from this past election would suggest that a majority of the voters still blame President Bush for the worst economy in 70 years, four years after he left office. But then who can the voters blame? Certainly not Barrack Obama, after all he is The Man Who Wasn't There.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Fiscal Cliff Negotiations-Day One
Friday was the first day of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations between President Obama and Congressional leaders in the House and Senate. The two sides came into the meeting with Republican leadership in the House and Senate wanting to cut spending and raise revenues without hurting small business. The President and Democrat leadership from the House and Senate wanted to continue the class warfare they have been waging for the last four years. The President and Congressional leadership from his party understand that raising rates on the top wage earners will snag over a million small businesses that file as individuals. This will cause more unemployment and add more pain to an economy that is already on life support. It also will not catch the millionaires who are not paying taxes now, the only way to do this is through the Republican plan of reforming the tax code. But raising rates on the top earners is the most transparent way for the President and his party to show the faithful that they are punishing the rich for, well, being rich.
Both sides exited the meeting on Friday afternoon saying that it was constructive and that a "framework" for a deal was reached, whatever that means. The President, as he always does in public, seemed cooperative and willing to compromise. But with negotiations of this kind, it's more important what is said behind closed doors, which is why I think the Fiscal Cliff show should have been public. There is no national security issues or classified information being discussed, it's all about the math. I assume that the President didn't want a repeat of the health care meeting held early in his first term, when Paul Ryan made him look unprepared and foolish.
I expect a deal that will include no real cuts in spending, but reductions in the rate of growth. The Federal budget hasn't been cut, in any meaningful way, since President Reagan. Any "cuts" since then have simply been smaller increases in the growth of the budget than previously planned, and this reduction is then characterized as a cut. This is why the Federal budget increases every year without fail. As for the tax side of the deal, I would expect that the Republicans will cave on higher rates, even if it is in the form of allowing the Alternative Minimum Tax to snag more taxpayers, which in essence will harm the middle class. Any increase in tax revenue that doesn't come from tax reform, will hurt the struggling economy and lead to more unemployment. I heard someone say recently that higher taxes don't keep the rich from being rich, they prevent the non-rich from becoming rich. This concept is the basis for Democrat power, because the last thing they want or need politically is a nation of self-reliant rich people.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Both sides exited the meeting on Friday afternoon saying that it was constructive and that a "framework" for a deal was reached, whatever that means. The President, as he always does in public, seemed cooperative and willing to compromise. But with negotiations of this kind, it's more important what is said behind closed doors, which is why I think the Fiscal Cliff show should have been public. There is no national security issues or classified information being discussed, it's all about the math. I assume that the President didn't want a repeat of the health care meeting held early in his first term, when Paul Ryan made him look unprepared and foolish.
I expect a deal that will include no real cuts in spending, but reductions in the rate of growth. The Federal budget hasn't been cut, in any meaningful way, since President Reagan. Any "cuts" since then have simply been smaller increases in the growth of the budget than previously planned, and this reduction is then characterized as a cut. This is why the Federal budget increases every year without fail. As for the tax side of the deal, I would expect that the Republicans will cave on higher rates, even if it is in the form of allowing the Alternative Minimum Tax to snag more taxpayers, which in essence will harm the middle class. Any increase in tax revenue that doesn't come from tax reform, will hurt the struggling economy and lead to more unemployment. I heard someone say recently that higher taxes don't keep the rich from being rich, they prevent the non-rich from becoming rich. This concept is the basis for Democrat power, because the last thing they want or need politically is a nation of self-reliant rich people.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Don't Expect Much From Petraeus Testimony
Today is the day that the now disgraced former Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus, will testify about the Benghazi affair. It has been made clear that there will be no talk of the other more salacious affair that has come to light in recent days. The testimony will proceed behind closed doors, for reasons that aren't exactly clear. Many on the right are hoping for a bombshell testimony from Mr. Petraeus, that at most will lead to the removal of Barrack Obama as President, and at the least will neuter the President's second term.
I hate to put a crimp in any one's optimism, but I highly doubt either of the two aforementioned scenarios will come to fruition. Acting Director of Central Intelligence, John McLaughlin, has already held the administration's line on Benghazi, and I don't expect the former director to do any different. Many on the right think General Petraeus will recant his previous statements, made shortly after the attacks, that they were a spontaneous riot in reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. It seems that the administration's story now is that when they said the attacks were in response to the video, they were telling the truth based on the intelligence they had at the time. I would be very surprised if the former CIA Director made any testimony to dispute this story. Especially in light of the fact that it would have been his agency that provided the bulk of the "faulty" intelligence.
Another reason I don't think David Petraeus will stray to far off the administrations plantation, is he doesn't want his personal life to be thrown into anymore turmoil. He knows, I would venture to say better than most, the power that the administration has to instruct the FBI to conduct searches of his and his family's homes. The image of the FBI carrying boxes and computers out of the former Director's house would destroy any shreds of a reputation that he has left. The administration also has both the ability and the inclination to alter or eliminate completely the former General's pension. He knows that as bad as things may be for him and his family at this time, the administration can easily make his current problems seem like a few ants at a picnic in comparison.
With the administration controlling most of the levers of power, I wouldn't expect the Benghazi affair to result in anything more than a few resignations and some hand-wringing about changing procedures to avoid a repeat of such an event in the future. This may sound cynical, but I've learned not to expect much truth and justice in the new American way that exists in the age of Obama.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
I hate to put a crimp in any one's optimism, but I highly doubt either of the two aforementioned scenarios will come to fruition. Acting Director of Central Intelligence, John McLaughlin, has already held the administration's line on Benghazi, and I don't expect the former director to do any different. Many on the right think General Petraeus will recant his previous statements, made shortly after the attacks, that they were a spontaneous riot in reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. It seems that the administration's story now is that when they said the attacks were in response to the video, they were telling the truth based on the intelligence they had at the time. I would be very surprised if the former CIA Director made any testimony to dispute this story. Especially in light of the fact that it would have been his agency that provided the bulk of the "faulty" intelligence.
Another reason I don't think David Petraeus will stray to far off the administrations plantation, is he doesn't want his personal life to be thrown into anymore turmoil. He knows, I would venture to say better than most, the power that the administration has to instruct the FBI to conduct searches of his and his family's homes. The image of the FBI carrying boxes and computers out of the former Director's house would destroy any shreds of a reputation that he has left. The administration also has both the ability and the inclination to alter or eliminate completely the former General's pension. He knows that as bad as things may be for him and his family at this time, the administration can easily make his current problems seem like a few ants at a picnic in comparison.
With the administration controlling most of the levers of power, I wouldn't expect the Benghazi affair to result in anything more than a few resignations and some hand-wringing about changing procedures to avoid a repeat of such an event in the future. This may sound cynical, but I've learned not to expect much truth and justice in the new American way that exists in the age of Obama.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Shame On The Catholics
Let me begin by saying that I was baptized a Catholic when I was a baby, and spent 12 years matriculated in Catholic schools. Until the age of eighteen, or there about, I attended mass weekly. I still believe in some of the Catholic teachings and values, the problem is that the Church has abandoned those very same values they claim to hold dear.
This most recent Presidential election is a prime example of the Catholic abandonment of core values. Fifty percent of Catholic congregates, as well as some clergy and others in the Catholic religious life, voted for Barrack Obama. This support of a man who, while in the Illinois legislature, supported a law which legalized infanticide, is in direct contradiction to Catholic teachings, not to mention all codes of decency. Further abandonment of Catholic values is illustrated by Catholic support for Barrack Obama, even after he announced his unwillingness to enforce the Defense of Marriage act, and his subsequent position of lending Presidential approval to gay marriage. One of the most serious sins committed by the Catholic church is its support of Obamacare which, once passed into law, was used as a sledge hammer to shatter religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
I have always wondered how people who say they are against abortion, contraception, gay marriage and a host of other issues which construct the modern-day Democrat party, can vote for that very same party. I even know a nun who voted for Barrack Obama, which is antithetical to the vows she took when she entered religious life. She said she voted for him to ensure the continued support of the poor. But even if one believes that government should be engaging in charity, contrary to the Constitution, the roles of the poverty-stricken have grown by 20% and food stamp participation by 70%, during President Obama's first term. Furthermore, minorities and woman have higher unemployment and are streaming into poverty at a much higher rate than the general population. So if you claim to have concern for minorities and the poor, why would you support politicians whose policies cause more suffering among these communities. The outcomes of more poverty and higher unemployment are predictable results of policies that have a long history of failure, in this country and throughout the world. Europe should be an obvious and spectacular example of the folly of the kinds of policies that the President has and wants to implement.
What my nun friend and other Catholics who vote Democrat don't seem to understand is that there is no biblical mandate for government to confiscate wealth from one segment of the population that has earned it, and give it to another segment that hasn't. The call to charity in the bible is a personal one, which implores individuals, not governments, to help the less fortunate. It is the wealth created by free market capitalism, not the wealth confiscation of government that feeds political greed, that allows for a more compassionate society.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
This most recent Presidential election is a prime example of the Catholic abandonment of core values. Fifty percent of Catholic congregates, as well as some clergy and others in the Catholic religious life, voted for Barrack Obama. This support of a man who, while in the Illinois legislature, supported a law which legalized infanticide, is in direct contradiction to Catholic teachings, not to mention all codes of decency. Further abandonment of Catholic values is illustrated by Catholic support for Barrack Obama, even after he announced his unwillingness to enforce the Defense of Marriage act, and his subsequent position of lending Presidential approval to gay marriage. One of the most serious sins committed by the Catholic church is its support of Obamacare which, once passed into law, was used as a sledge hammer to shatter religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
I have always wondered how people who say they are against abortion, contraception, gay marriage and a host of other issues which construct the modern-day Democrat party, can vote for that very same party. I even know a nun who voted for Barrack Obama, which is antithetical to the vows she took when she entered religious life. She said she voted for him to ensure the continued support of the poor. But even if one believes that government should be engaging in charity, contrary to the Constitution, the roles of the poverty-stricken have grown by 20% and food stamp participation by 70%, during President Obama's first term. Furthermore, minorities and woman have higher unemployment and are streaming into poverty at a much higher rate than the general population. So if you claim to have concern for minorities and the poor, why would you support politicians whose policies cause more suffering among these communities. The outcomes of more poverty and higher unemployment are predictable results of policies that have a long history of failure, in this country and throughout the world. Europe should be an obvious and spectacular example of the folly of the kinds of policies that the President has and wants to implement.
What my nun friend and other Catholics who vote Democrat don't seem to understand is that there is no biblical mandate for government to confiscate wealth from one segment of the population that has earned it, and give it to another segment that hasn't. The call to charity in the bible is a personal one, which implores individuals, not governments, to help the less fortunate. It is the wealth created by free market capitalism, not the wealth confiscation of government that feeds political greed, that allows for a more compassionate society.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Democrat-Sanctioned Discrimination
Yesterday the President met with union leaders and Bono on the fiscal cliff crisis. The sage advice on economic matters from Bono and union thugs was so important to the President, he had to meet with them prior to his meeting with Speaker Boehner this Friday. I believe President Obama is sending a clear message that, to his way of thinking, any fiscal cliff deal has to include more spending, not less. Expect the deal to provide the President's union supporters with a fresh supply of billions of taxpayer dollars, while expanding the federal government in the form of some new social program for the "poor". The question is whether or not Speaker Boehner and House Republicans will allow such a deal to come to fruition.
The idea that the Democrats want to raise the tax rates on the very segment of taxpayers that already shoulder the lion's share of the total tax burden, is discriminatory. According to the latest IRS data, the top 10% of wage earners pay a whopping 70% of the total Federal taxes collected in this country. And still the Democrats say the "rich" aren't paying their fair share, which is true, they are paying more than their fair share. Raising tax rates on only certain taxpayers, i.e. "the rich", in my opinion, is the poster child for discrimination. Discrimination is the treatment of an individual or group of individuals based solely on their membership in that group. Someone has attained, through their own hard work and meritorious behavior, an income that government determines to be too high. This individual is then singled out to have their tax rate increased, while the rest of the population sees no change in their rates. This is the very essence of discrimination, but it is Democrat-sanctioned discrimination, so it is entirely acceptable. You see, Democrats aren't opposed to discrimination, only the perceived discrimination that they think will garner them votes on election day and a reason to confiscate more taxpayer money for their pet projects.
It is ridiculous for the President and the rest of the Democrats to talk about raising revenue through higher tax rates on the rich. Even the most optimistic predictions from the administration itself, shows that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate will only generate 40 billion dollars a year in additional revenue. This amount is about 1% of the total budget, which illuminates the need for less spending, not more revenue. According to the government's own data, Federal tax revenue has recovered to pre-recession levels, but spending has expanded far beyond its former unsustainable highs. Which is illustrative of what Conservatives have been saying for years, that sending more money to Washington is like providing a crack addict with more crack.
John Boehner and the House Republicans need to stand firm on raising no one's tax rates, but rather reform the tax code to generate more revenue and cut spending in order to balance the budget. Both Republicans and Democrats know the economically sound course to take in order to achieve the stated goals. The road block to fiscal probity is the Democrats unstated agenda of union payoffs, expanding government and continuing the class warfare tactics that won Barrack Obama a second term.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
The idea that the Democrats want to raise the tax rates on the very segment of taxpayers that already shoulder the lion's share of the total tax burden, is discriminatory. According to the latest IRS data, the top 10% of wage earners pay a whopping 70% of the total Federal taxes collected in this country. And still the Democrats say the "rich" aren't paying their fair share, which is true, they are paying more than their fair share. Raising tax rates on only certain taxpayers, i.e. "the rich", in my opinion, is the poster child for discrimination. Discrimination is the treatment of an individual or group of individuals based solely on their membership in that group. Someone has attained, through their own hard work and meritorious behavior, an income that government determines to be too high. This individual is then singled out to have their tax rate increased, while the rest of the population sees no change in their rates. This is the very essence of discrimination, but it is Democrat-sanctioned discrimination, so it is entirely acceptable. You see, Democrats aren't opposed to discrimination, only the perceived discrimination that they think will garner them votes on election day and a reason to confiscate more taxpayer money for their pet projects.
It is ridiculous for the President and the rest of the Democrats to talk about raising revenue through higher tax rates on the rich. Even the most optimistic predictions from the administration itself, shows that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate will only generate 40 billion dollars a year in additional revenue. This amount is about 1% of the total budget, which illuminates the need for less spending, not more revenue. According to the government's own data, Federal tax revenue has recovered to pre-recession levels, but spending has expanded far beyond its former unsustainable highs. Which is illustrative of what Conservatives have been saying for years, that sending more money to Washington is like providing a crack addict with more crack.
John Boehner and the House Republicans need to stand firm on raising no one's tax rates, but rather reform the tax code to generate more revenue and cut spending in order to balance the budget. Both Republicans and Democrats know the economically sound course to take in order to achieve the stated goals. The road block to fiscal probity is the Democrats unstated agenda of union payoffs, expanding government and continuing the class warfare tactics that won Barrack Obama a second term.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)