Thank You, America

(This post is written primarily with the goodie-receiving, hook-line-and-sinker, Obama voter. With that being said, I hope the people who didn’t vote for him think differently after reading too.)

Uncle Sam has work to do…

Thank you, America. You have made it abundantly clear to this blogger, that the America we read about in books, the “Shining City on a Hill”, is no more. What happened? Well, with last night’s doubling down on the most unprepared, ill-mannered, and financially irresponsible president ever, we as a country, continue to move into uncharted territory. You have sought to receive something for nothing, America, and many of us realize that those positions and beliefs are completely untenable. Everything we receive from government is paid for – usually at an astronomical mark-up. And you would like more.

You simply cannot continuously bleed a source, and government’s been a very sick patient for a while now. You might remember not too long ago, the government needed another debt-ceiling raise. The debt ceiling was raised again, as the Republicans in Congress signed off, rather than risk a government shut down. (The media told us it is for the best) We cannot have the government shut down - soldiers and old people would be placed in bad situations. Is this why you actually believe the right is irresponsible? Is that why you think they politic too much – that they sought to slow or stop the unsustainable growth of government, rather than just keep spending like the left?

In your drive to keep up with the Joneses’ (who live next door, and receive the same goodies and Obama-phones as you do), did you really think that the president gave a damn about you? Didn’t it seem awfully convenient of him to turn the charm on again – after four years of non-stop whining and golf? I know, I know, “he seems like the kind of guy you might have a beer with,” right? I wonder if he also struck you as a guy who would pick your pocket and steal gas from your car?

You have your phones, you have your EBT cards, and now, with the election wins last night, you seem to have it all. I wish you the best of luck with it all. The government is perilously close to a financial cliff, and when the benefits (shiny trinkets) you prize so much stop arriving in the mail – who will you blame? The government of Barack Obama, who promised you the moon? Or, because you are his supporter, and that it could not possibly be him (and you) that made such poor decisions – will you move onto another boogeyman?

The refrain from voters, such as yourselves, is that we will just soak the rich – just tax the hell out of them, and they will happily sit there and take it, right? It’s not like they have the money to pick up and move, right? Your problems are many and your solutions are absent. The solutions that you think you have come up with, will not have much effect at all of keeping your goodie-train rolling. Last evening, you sought fit to abandon the best chance we had at seriously reforming the spending mentality of this government, only to continue with more of the back-breaking regulations and taxing-and-spending of the Obama administration. Basing your vote on your stomach (EBTs), your ears (Obama-phones), or lady-parts (the bogus contraceptives debate), in casting the votes you did last night, you probably did more to end those programs than Mitt Romney ever could have, and you have probably greatly sped it up too. Basing the Obama “goodies-math” on false numbers and projections that are not even close to where actual numbers are right now, will have results that become apparent soon enough.

I cannot say I am really that shocked, that such shallow and self-centered folks would vote this way – after all, who cares about the neighbors, so long as your checks keep coming, right? The easy amused sort do not shock me either – their lack of foresight is no as well. So, go back to your couches (or graves) whichever the case may be, and live in the moment, from goodie to goodie. You have cast the die…

Fight Harder

Bailey’s ready to rock – are you?
“Come on, did you think America was going to turn itself around in just one election? Get real.”
Fight Harder.

Tuesday’s Gone (or Why the Left Will Lose)

Tuesday the nation goes to their polling places, and makes the most important decision they have ever made. If that sounds hyperbolic, it should not. The current president has shown himself more than willing to accrue bills and pass them on to future generations than any other president. This president has shown more wanton disregard for American life and liberty than any other as well. Obama, more than any other president, has sought to insert differences were there are none, incite hatred where there was none, and prevent the normal activities of Americans from occurring.

Obama campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter

The left wasted any chances that they had winning a presidential re-election a few years ago. The people represented by Democrats, took a backseat to the left’s dream of massive healthcare overhaul, and the passing of Obamacare, with numerous legislative tricks, near-bribes, and threats. After the Democrat-controlled Congress forced Obamacare through, they held “town hall” meetings that scared them, as many of the taxpayers slowly began to learn of the implications of Obamacare: new, massive government oversight, huge new tax bills, mandatory compliance, just to name a few.

As if ignoring some of their most loyal voters was not enough, Democrats seemed to find all new special interests to kowtow to, with the Obama inauguration. The country saw massive amounts of money given to unstable businesses under the guise of support of “green energy”. Later the country learned of the owners’ and CEOs’ ties to the Obama administration. Big campaign bundlers saw money thrown at their businesses, even after it was known that the business models were completely unfeasible.

Seeing the old supporters’ devotion die away, Obama seems to have decided to build new coalitions – all with their own price tags, of course, but none  paid by Obama, himself. Why would he spend his own capital when he has a massive taxpayer base to draw from? The green lobby, the illegal immigrant communities, and the newly built (and reliant) throngs of welfare and food stamp recipients. Threaten them with the loss of their goodies, and you have a reliant, reliable, voting base. If you can create more of them, than supporters that you have lost as a result of the welfare costs, it works out – it is a wonderful, government, pyramid scheme.

The left’s standard-bearers are often surly, abrasive, and falsely aggrieved. Harry Reid is happy to share rumors from nameless sources to smear Mitt Romney. Nancy Pelosi sponsors and supports legislation with unknown contents. Asked tough questions, both Stephanie Cutter and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz keep straight faces while spewing lies and feigning ignorance. Jay Carney parrots the same talking points he is given, usually not even attempting to answer the questions asked of him.

The president formerly campaigned on the transparency he would usher in – the most transparent administration ever, he promised. Asked questions about the most recent scandals, Obama tells us frequently, “It’s being investigated, and I cannot speak on it…” Then he sends proxies, like Jay Carney, out to the podium to say nothing to the press pool. The president has repeatedly balked at providing details on scandals, like Fast & Furious and the Benghazi slaughter. Instead of telling the American people any details, everything is an ongoing investigation, or that the records are “sensitive.”

If the country had a true, fourth estate, instead of a complicit puppet of the administration, we might expect some forced answers. Instead, many reporters seem perfectly happy to tow a party line for Obama, asking the lightest and most worthless of questions. The reporters want to retain their access to the White House, so it is best not to ask any tough questions that may endanger that (worthless) access.

Finally, the left plays a dangerous game with Americans when it comes to disaster relief. Obama visited Joplin, Missouri, but it was after a trip to Europe, six days later. When the BP oil disaster occurred, it showed the administration’s true colors. We saw the Obama response, finally, after 14 days of nothing. Just in the last week, we have seen the president’s response to hurricane Sandy. FEMA runs out of water, citizens are using hallways and stairwells as latrines, others in New York are rummaging through garbage for food, and Obama campaigns. For a president that espouses and so willfully uses the power of the federal government, to NOT do so in this situation is inexcusable.

Senior Adviser to the President, David Axelrod

If it is still unclear, my point is this: the American left is morally, and monetarily bankrupt. In their hurry to jump over each another to make their sound-bytes, and to score points against their “enemies” on the right, the left either sold or lost their souls. To gain the support of their new, special-interest friends, they abandoned their old supporters, the people who made up their fathers’ Democratic Party. The new, more progressive left, clashes with a pragmatic America, that would rather have jobs and income than welfare and hand-outs. The new left abandoned their old ideals, and seemed to become a fully Keynesian, tax-and-spend monster, whose appetite for “goodies” could never be sated. The left is now more excuse, than execution.

After Tuesday’s landslide, the left will face two choices: continue with their big government planning and spending (which they have attempted and seen wholly rejected by Americans, since 2010), or reject the past few years, and once again embrace some sort of pragmatic and realistic reforms that help the country as a whole, not just their friends and sycophants. Given THIS sort of rhetoric, I fear the left still has not learned its lesson.

The Nonsense Nobel Winner

Paul Krugman

I found Friday’s Op-Ed column in the New York Times, by Nobel Prize winner in economics, Paul Krugman, both misleading and trite. While I do not know how much he might be paid for this column, he makes the case this week that he is overpaid, no matter the amount. He has used his personal soap box in this column, repeatedly to attack what he believes are Mitt Romney’s beliefs, impugns the GOP’s belief in small business creators and owners, and repeats the progressives’ favorite lie, that the GOP just does not care about the common-man, the middle class in America.

Krugman mentions the newly released video of Mitt Romney, where Romney says that 47 percent of the country is now “unreachable”. Romney says he is not interested even trying to reach 47 percent of voters, not because they are middle-class working stiffs, as Krugman would have you believe, but because that 47 percent have already decided who they are voting for. There are 47 percent of people who buy into the Obama message of dependence and victim-hood. To Romney, it would be a matter of wasting time and resources, going after a demographic that simply is not interested in Romney’s philosophy. Perhaps that is a novel concept – getting a good return on an investment – for progressives, having seen the past three years of waste after waste perpetrated on the American people by Democrats, while they swear that any time now the economy will sputter to life once again.

Krugman goes on to say the GOP should think better of the 47 percent, setting up a false dichotomy – that either the GOP should love them, as the left does, or that the GOP hates them. To Krugman, there are no other options. I find it funny, though, that the left’s love for them means giving them healthcare bill that saddles them with a crippling new tax, and that will necessarily raise their insurance premiums by allowing their children to remain on the parents’ policies until age 26. The left are also the ones that think a lifetime dependent on the government is a wonderful thing. That is a warped type of love…

Krugman goes on to bemoan a tweet by House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, on Labor Day. Krugman’s issue is that Cantor praised people who took chances to build their own businesses, and did not quite give organized labor the due deference Krugman thought it should receive on “its day”. The horrendous tweet Krugman named?

“Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.”

— Eric Cantor (@GOPLeader) September 3, 2012

That is pretty terrible. Eric Cantor had the gall to compliment people who have worked hard, and built their own businesses — and he did it on Labor Day, too! Doing far more damage was Krugman’s pointing it out, and then warping what Cantor meant, to fit into Krugman’s own purpose. Krugman found fault with Romney’s RNC speech too – the mortal sin? Romney never once said the word, “worker”! Obama, in contrast, said “worker” many times, Krugman tells us – and apparently that, and not the actual effects of policy mean something to Krugman.

Krugman also took Romney to task for his opinion about immigrants. Romney said in his remarks that immigrants have come to America “…in pursuit of ‘freedom to build a business’.” Krugman criticizes Romney for not mentioning the workers again. So, according to Krugman, unless Romney mentions them, he cannot stand them – again, another false dichotomy.

Eventually, Krugman stumbles onto a decent point, but then he becomes guilty of drawing a false conclusion from it. He blames big money for the Republican’s “disdain for workers”. He claims that the big money has “bought” the entire right-wing, and are now running it as they please. Krugman goes on to blame also Ayn Rand and adherents to her philosophy. It is the owners and operators of businesses, Krugman tells us, who are all responsible for economic activity.

While Krugman spews forth many points, and many things that he considers self-evident “facts”, he is off base most of the time, and even when he approaches what might be considered a cogent point, he seems to swerve suddenly back into the left-wing weeds. He does little more than attack Mitt Romney with false issues (citing Romney’s lack of mentioning a group as some sort of failing or sign that he hates the unsaid group). At other times, Krugman projects the actions of the left onto the right (big money buying sway? I wonder if Krugman’s ever heard of George Soros?) Finally, Krugman tries to tie the whole column together with the hackneyed point that the entire right-wing has become a party of wealthy, non-thinking, idiotic, drones – if that is not projection, I do not know what is.

The inane Op-ed column can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/opinion/krugman-disdain-for-workers.html

The Administration Of Death

Barack Obama

While I recognize that the title seems hyperbolic, I aim to make the case that the Obama administration runs the most anti-life, and pro-death, government that the United States has ever had. I think the government’s last three-plus years, have given rise to the most lackadaisical support of life, we have ever seen. Many times, over and over again, we have seen the president and his sycophants either endorse death, or attempt to excuse away the death of others, both innocents and people who have lost their lives as a direct result of the administration’s policies.

One of the most flagrant disregards for the ultimate sacrifice of others, was the slap in the face delivered to some fallen soldiers’ families. As Commander-in-Chief, and the person who has the ultimate say on military matters, one might think that having a soldier under your command lose their life, one of the very least things you could do would be sign a condolence letter to the soldiers’ families. Not Obama. He has repeatedly been shown to use an auto-pen for form letters of condolence to soldiers’ families.

Obama has also authorized, and carried out, the assassination of an American citizen by drone. Granted, the assassinated had aided and abetted terrorists, but he was still an American citizen, with the supposed rights of a trial by his peers, and due process. Whether or not Obama actually felt bound by these rights, seemed not to matter – he sent the drones anyway, and gave the go ahead to kill, without trial. A step, with which even Salon, taken aback, actually said was a “…step beyond where even George Bush would go”.

Should I bring up the “Fast & Furious” scandal, which the administration is still hoping will somehow, just, go away? Giving his testimony before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder, bluntly refused to apologize to or to even acknowledge, slain border agent, Brian Terry’s family. As he sat before the House Judiciary Committee, wriggling and struggling for words that would somehow allow him to tell the truth, and avoid any blame, Holder was given an opportunity to provide documents and evidence to the Committee, which it had requested for months, and he repeatedly offered nothing. Even though memos and other documents implicated Holder and his lieutenants in the scandal, instead of finally taking responsibility for the thousands of Mexican deaths and the death of  Brian Terry – Holder merely offered excuses.
Sidenote: Holder’s testimony was in the late Spring of 2012, and as of late Summer 2012, there still has not been an apology or acknowledgment of responsibility over the failed gun running operation.

We were witness to one of the most recent, and telling examples of this seeming pre-occupation with death,  at the Democratic National Convention. A party platform that relished the thought and promise of widespread, and easy, on-demand abortion was center-stage. While some pundits tried to defend this with the thought that, “Well, the democrats have no record to run on, and the economy is atrocious - let the Democrats turn to social issues…” And so, from all the social issues that the Democrats could have turned to, and supported – from the poor, the homeless, bettering care for returning veterans – the Democrats turned to the snuffing out of lives to build their platform. A spokeswoman from NARAL (Nancy Keenan), Planned Parenthood, and the infamous Sandra Fluke, were only a few of the participants at the DNC, proud to trot out the “right to” abortion, masquerading as a human-right. Maybe we should have expected this when a president who supported infanticide won the last election?

Finally, in the newest flirtation in the left’s macabre and twisted relationship with death, awareness was given to the administration of a threat against embassies and consulates in the Middle East. Approaching the anniversary of September 11th, and with warning of Muslim backlash against a movie about their Prophet – despite as long as a 48-hour window of warning – the Obama Administration did nothing. Rumors of unarmed and massively under-gunned security at the American facilities fell on deaf ears, and  led to the deaths of an ambassador (and his body’s subsequent desecration) and deaths of numerous other personnel. Despite the raising of an Arabic-language flag, espousing the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood, over an American embassy in Egypt, and the taking down, ripping apart, and burning of the Stars and Stripes, the administration still insists on continued billions of dollars in aid to the Egyptian government. Obama has issued an apology to anyone upset by Americans exercising their right to free speech, and the American media, still in love with the Obama administration, sought to excoriate Mitt Romney for issuing a presidential statement that Obama would not, or could not, bring himself to issue. A muted response has been the administration’s reaction to spreading violence and breeches at other embassies and consulates. In Libya, the post where murdered ambassador Chris Stevens lost his life, Obama has dispatched the Marines – 50 of them…This, as news sources report an angry crowd of hundreds threatening the American embassy in Yemen, and as warnings go out to other embassies to remain on guard.

So, what should we make of all this? Ordering an executive “hit” on an American citizen, an attempt to excuse away a federal agent’s death without taking any responsibility, a platform leaning heavily on abortion for support, and a very weak response to deaths of State Department personnel – it all points, to this author, to an administration that simply does not value life. This administration seems to use, squelch, or squander lives for whatever purpose, then toss them aside with their roles fulfilled. Life is nothing more than a means to achieve any number of ends. Use it for political gain, use it for votes, use it to send a message to our friends (or our enemies) – it does not really matter what the aim is, because there will always be more life to continuously throw at the problems. It is all so macabre and counter to everything we as Americans value, isn’t it? History books and our teachers tell us American men and women fought noble wars, and freed people from oppressive regimes, so that they could follow their own destinies and achieve what they could. Freed people from oppressive regimes, would no longer would have to worry that their lives would be used up or wasted by regimes who wanted the oppressed people’s’ blood and sweat for their own greedy and destructive purposes. Risking American lives, and losing so many, was ultimately worth it, so that others might enjoy the sanctity of life and personal freedoms that we Americans held in such high esteem. Now, it seems like such a sad day to see so much blood and destruction being wastefully used, for so little to show for it.

Third Time’s A Charm

In a stunning, and perhaps, ultimately fatal decision, for the Democratic party, a vote was held at the Democratic National Convention. The vote was simple, only consisting of two amendments to the party platform.

Amendment 1

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

Amendment 2

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Amazingly, after calling for the first voice-vote, the chair, a stunned Antonio Villaraigosa, heard the amount of “no’s”, and sensing the fallout from a negative vote, actually uttered the words, “Let me do that again…” After the second vote, on the same issues, with the same negative vote, he began to look around anxiously, as though he was looking for another Democratic politician to coming running onstage to save him. The sponsor of the amendments, former Ohio governor, Ted Strickland, began to look around anxiously as well. Amazingly, a third vote was then held. An overwhelming amount of “no’s” were once again heard from the Democratic delegates. In the attached video, angry delegates, having voiced their disapproval three times, and finding themselves ignored, were left to shake their heads and boo, as Villaraigosa, claimed the motion passed by its required 2/3 majority.

Antonio Villaraigosa, and the infamous third vote

While politicians and pundits on the right, frequently mention the administration’s lack of support for Israel, to have seen such a flagrant display as we did this afternoon, was shocking – and I suspect not only to those of us on the right, but judging by his response, to Villaraigosa as well. The lack of support, or even a willingness to acknowledge God, was shocking as well. With so many speakers and guests at the DNC, seemingly supportive of a pro-abortion stance, should this really surprise anyone?

Perhaps, the overwhelming takeaway from these three votes, was the fact that the Democrats were so willing to blatantly called the vote as they wanted it to go – not as it did. After the claims of fraud and Black Panther voter-intimidation in the last presidential election, and even more recent events of the finding of 30,000 dead “voters” in North Carolina, and the Obama administration/Justice Department fighting Florida’s attempt to clean voter rolls, you might think that Democrats would be willing to try to rebuild their image, into something that is more respectable, and into something that resembles what the party was in its glory days. Or, do Democrats just not care about playing by any rules anymore? Are they content to just throw away even a semblance of fairness and the notion of considering any ideas differing with their own? With such flagrant and wanton disregard for rules of order and bulldozer-like tactics, will other Democrats seek to attach themselves to such a machine, that is bound to quickly burnout, or will they see the errors, and cut themselves loose, seeking ideals closer to their own, elsewhere?

(the video of the Democratic delegates’ votes can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs via ABCNews and YouTube)

Why Ann Romney Works…

Ann Romney

Ann Romney gave, in my opinion, one of the finest, and most wide-reaching speeches of the Republican National Convention on Tuesday night. In it, she dodged any partisanship, and gracefully told the nation why Mitt was the perfect person to begin turning back the current administration’s destructive and disruptive policies. Ann reached out to any number of groups and people, and connected with each one, by sharing a few short stories or personal beliefs of her own.

For the poor: Any number of hardships Ann faced are relatable. She shared her own modest upbringing in Michigan. She told of how she and Mitt used an old door as their “desk” to read and study on, and how their dining room table was an ironing board, as they lived in a cramped basement apartment. She mentioned the working fathers, putting in extra time for their kids. She mentioned the working mothers who struggle to pay for the clothes for children going back to school. She showed us that there is proof that despite hardships, it is possible to rise above any financial hardships.

For the mothers: Ann talked about the late nights, helping with kids’ book reports. She talked about the sick kids and the late-night calls to doctors. She spoke about how much harder the already tough job of motherhood is becoming. She mentions the duties and responsibilities that a mother will come to expect, from their own aging parents’ needs, to the needs of the mother’s own children. Especially important, was her mention of the expectations and tough jobs of motherhood that needn’t be made any harder still, as this current administration has done.

For immigrants: Ann talked about how her father came from Wales to the United States, at only 15 years old. How he then built a business, and even became the mayor of his town. She shared how she was only two generations removed from Welsh coal mines, and the types of jobs which had some of the lowest life expectancies in the world, where the miners would expect to die of things like black-lung and silicosis. Her father left his country as a young adult, and achieved the American dream, and now his daughter could be the country’s First Lady.

For survivors: It’s a well-known story that Ann is a survivor of both breast cancer, and multiple sclerosis. While she only touched on her battles with the two diseases, to see anyone who has battled with either of them, so alive and boisterous, should give other survivors a model to admire. She had a glint in her eye as she spoke, especially whenever she spoke about her husband or her kids.

For children and young adults: She seemed – motherly. She reminded me of my own mom, telling stories about when she was younger and met my dad, and sharing the things that we, as kids, did, that drive parents a little crazy. She brought up the “…rainy winter afternoons, in a house with five boys screaming at once.” She was honest, and she was forthright, and she struck me as the type of women, we would all love to have live next-door to us. She came across as the lady who would always “accidentally” make an extra dozen or so cookies and bring them over.

To me, her speech was the quintessential strength of a woman – no simple thing as a disease would do anything more than merely slow them down. When she spoke and told that crowd, and us, that no one else would work as hard as Mitt Romney, so that we can work a little less hard, and made a promise that he “would not fail” – more than any other commentator or politician - I believed her. Why? Because even if Mitt were to, for some reason, falter, I would know she would have his back.

The American Quislings?

Vidkun Quisling, Norwegian Leader, Nazi-collaborator (1887-1945)

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “Quisling”, no, this is not an article on some rare flora or fauna (or whatever else you may think a Quisling is). Read on, and take the term to heart – we are sure to see plenty more pseudo-Quislings as election time draws nearer…

A “Quisling” came about in the Second World War, and draws its name from a Norwegian politician, named Vidkun Quisling. Even before the Germans considered invading Norway, Quisling traveled to Berlin and sought to convince Hitler how valuable a country like Norway would be under the German swastika. Vidkun lost his name to the term, invented by the British press, after it learned of Mr. Quisling’s actions when Norway faced an imminent German Nazi invasion. Perhaps the closest American parallel that I can offer, would be a cross among:  a band-wagon rider, crossed with Benedict Arnold, crossed with Nero. You might be thinking, surely no one’s that disgusting a character – but Mr. Quisling fit the bill. Facing a German invasion, Quisling, who had already been a member of a fascist party in Norway, and received support from Germany, simultaneously declared himself leader of the country, and ordered Norwegians to throw down their weapons and not attack the now “friendly” occupiers, the Nazis.

For a position of power in the new occupied government, Quisling sold his soul, and attempted to sell his country’s as well. His collaboration with evil, his disregard for the safety and well-being of others, especially his own countrymen, has made him infamous in Europe – he is the European equivalent of our own aforementioned, Benedict Arnold. So, how have I arrived at a column about a new American version of the infamous Quisling? I have simply taken a look at the past three plus years of American government and “leadership” – that is how. And while the crisis of leadership we now have in America is of the voters‘ (and non-voters’) creation, whereas Quisling’s own actions lead him to a short stint in charge, I see more than a few parallels in the behaviors and attitudes of our leaders and the Norwegian.

1. A sense of entitlement: “We belong here.” Democrats read far too much into their capturing of Congress in the first two years of Obama’s term, and they gave Americans, Obamacare (but yet no budgets). What they saw as some sort of mandate, we now see was voter weariness at republican swagger and spending. Voters may have thought, “well, the republicans are spending like democrats – wonder if the democrats are really any worse?” And of course, we see that they are much, much worse. The Senate continues to languish, with no budgets in three plus years, and the stonewalled House, seeking documents from a law-breaking attorney-general, who seeks to cover his own tracks on an illegal and botched operation in the southwest, passes legislation that is constantly tabled in said Senate.
   And do not forget Obama’s infamous quips: “We won.” and “You would think they’d be saying ‘thank you!’“
2. Belief that their way is the best or only way: Of course, the American people needed Obamacare, right? Through various tricks and legislative maneuvers (including near-bribes for supportive votes in Congress), the democrats went against the prevailing public opinion that Americans did not want the healthcare over haul. All that work to shove the faulty, expensive, and ultimately destructive measure down the gullets of Americans, and now the bill itself looks sick, and could be buried in the next session of Congress, under Congressional authority to regulate taxes…
3. Using their position for themselves, rather than for their countrymen: Numerous very expensive vacations, bringing large entourages of yes-men and security ring a bell? So many holes of golf in only three years of a presidency. While we are in the most serious economic miasma since the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940s, and the president finds all this time to play golf and sight see? How about bridges to nowhere and Big Digs? Earmarks and pork barrel projects for everybody – what better way to ensure your re-election, than to give the voters a few crumbs every couple of years?
   How about various congressmen and women, allegedly using their inside knowledge of upcoming votes on legislation to enrich themselves from stock trades, or using their power to gain entry into “closed” (nearly impossible to join) IPOs? There are numerous other examples of the American people struggling to make their ways and pay their bills while fat cats in D.C. fill their pockets – and yet much of the vitriol those same folks in the government spew is against the so-called rich…

There is no imminent invasion, there is no impending army on the American doorstep – but make no mistake, we are on the edge of a precipice. Changes are necessary, or the dire possibilities will become events that cannot be avoided. Whether it is a fundamental change in America – a moral and cultural shift toward the selfish – or “just” economic ruin, the current state of politics and leadership in America is an unhealthy, untenable one. Are the politicians willfully selling the country out? Maybe, I think that there are far more that are merely ignorant of the results of their actions, and (thankfully) do not fit the tightest definition of a Quisling.

There are many examples of power-hungry politicians, and those who would do anything to get their required face-time on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, but to me, it seems like there are so many more these days. I cannot remember anything resembling this media circus when I was growing up – perhaps it’s just the increase in outlets that has allowed so many more politicians to interview? Perhaps it is the symbiotic relationship between the networks and politicians, knowing that one line or one claim, could instantly create a personality that might be repeatedly asked to return?
Regardless, this notion that everyone is in it for themselves, is wearing very thin. The idea that, “this is America, and you can become anything”, used to come with the understanding that you did not walk on people or act like a cut throat to do it. Whatever happened to that notion?

Wisconsin Wins – What Can We Glean From Them?

Celebrating, Gov. Scott Walker and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch

Yesterday’s monumental wins by Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch are still being celebrated today by the right, and bitterly bemoaned by the left. As the left put their faith in exit polls shared by media sources MSNBC and others, the races looked like they would be fairly close. Despite the president’s reluctance to show his support for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (until an 11th hour tweet), maybe it was somehow possible Barrett still had a good chance to keep the race close.  As it turns out, the race was not really that close at all, and for all their spending, democrats were left with a big bag of nothing, going 0-2 in the recall races.

As an analytical guy, I think that there are some very strong, very significant, takeaways from this special recall election.

• The Wisconsin voters did not buy the rhetoric that having public employees pay a fraction of their own insurance costs would somehow put them into the poor house. The voters, who typically pay more for their own insurance, and had to then pay a lion’s share of public sector employees’ costs had enough. After the past few years of burgeoning governments, and massive spending by both state and federal governments, voters let their votes speak for them: enough is enough. The left would be careful not to neglect the message that progressive policies, and its empty rhetoric, is now at an all-time nadir.
• Despite media sources’ best efforts to sell the president as a friendly every man, and someone who’s infinitely more capable than his administration and his track record shows, he has still only has lukewarm support among some big names, even on the left. The biggest story of this election is the revelation that Bill Clinton, patron saint of democrats, still has a distaste for Obama. In the last presidential election, against Hilary, a shocked Bill Clinton revealed that the Obama campaign “played the race card on me…and they planned to do it all along.” Is it the result of two massive cults of personality, butting heads? The result of the greatest contemporary democratic president (Clinton) and the man who’s billed as the greatest democratic president (Obama)?
• We also learned that state democrats and other Barrett supporters were angry at the Democratic National Committee for not spending any funds against Walker and Kleefisch, but that the DNC helped in other ways. I wonder if the “extensive resources” mentioned in the Kos article is in any way tied to the out-of-state buses taking people to polling places? Could this be a result of the national DNC attempting to save and pool money for the lackluster Obama campaign throughout this summer and fall? Might the national elections this fall mirror these attempts to unfairly sway elections, but on a much, much larger scale?
• Lastly, the distinct lack of enthusiasm on the left may continue to spread as college graduates struggle to find jobs where there are none, and high school students, who will generally do odds jobs or other minimum wage work, see those jobs evaporate as over-qualified adults take the positions. The distinct lack of job creation, coupled with an influx of new workers, added to a stagnant economy overall, does not bode well for Obama’s re-election hopes. As he admitted himself, if he could not turn around the economy, he would be a one-term president.

The Left: Vetting For Thee, Not For Me

In a total surprise of yet more media slant, early this week, a Politico blogger by the name Maggie Haberman (@maggiepolitico on Twitter), decided to run background checks on a gentleman featured in a Mitt Romney campaign ad! That is correct – the man was not a money donor or bundler, he merely appeared in an ad. That is the only tie he seems to have to Romney. While some people may think, so what, the guy agreed to appear in the ad, so he gets the fame with the fallout, right? The issue I have is that now instead of trying to show the candidates’ ethics and morality guided by  their long-term associations with unrepentant domestic terrorists, that they actually cultivated into close friendships (think Bill Ayers and Barack Obama), the left now the left sees a new tactic to use against candidates.

The left has never seemed to have any ethical hangups about jumping into the business of personal destruction, and the past few years have shown us a couple of good examples. With the aforementioned case with Politico, the “journalist” seemed to relish in the fact the man had a criminal history. The man paid his debt to society and had been a good, law-abiding citizen since the events, but the left saw him tied to Mitt Romney, and so, the man was a fair target for the snarling left’s destruction machine.

This all comes after revelation that the White House’s “Truth Team” shared information on eight donators to the Romney campaign. The men all seemed to have little else in common than donating to the campaign. But, as mentioned before, they showed themselves  allied with Romney, and rather than tackle Romney’s message or even dispute their own shortcomings, the left tries to intimidate those who would participate in the democratic process. Is this just another sign that the Obama campaign is in an un-savable nose-dive? The left cannot see the revulsion people feel, seeing under-handed acts like this?

Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher

This type of targeting is not the first time the left combed through a private citizen’s past, either. In 2008, Joe Wurzelbacher asked then candidate, Barack Obama, if he believed people were entitled to the fruits of their labor. One embarrassing reply from the candidate later, and the Head of Ohio’s Department of Jobs and Family Services authorized an improper search of Wurzelbacher’s history of unemployment records and child support records. Helen E. Jones-Kelley earned a suspension as a result of the inappropriate inquiries.  She was also later reprimanded for using her state email address to solicit donations for the Obama presidential campaign. A Toledo Police Department computer account had also been used to complete a search of Wurzelbacher’s driving history – an action which triggered another investigation.

The governor of the state of Ohio at the time was a Democrat – Ted Strickland, and Toledo is a liberal bastion, presently in Democrat Marcy Kaptur’s Congressional district. I am not saying that the left is the sole monopolizer of this type of destructive dredging up of past misdeeds, presently paid for, but – if the right had done this – the likes of MSNBC and Politico would be going apoplectic trying to “report’ on it. Perhaps instead of running background checks on political opponents and their supporters, Democrats could put those skills to better use vetting their own candidates – then perhaps the nation would not be able to laugh at their choices, like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gary Hart, and Eliot Spitzer.

No Plans, No Problem!

So, our dear leader warns us that once again, those crazy Republicans want to drive this country into the ground – by stealing money from everyone of us, who are struggling to break even, and then generously give it to people that hardly need it (their filthy rich buddies – the 1%). He neglects to mention that the fact so many of us are struggling to break even may have something to do with his still-failing economic policies – but that is ok, since, as he has promised us for three years now, happy days are just ahead (thanks to him). The GOP just wants to cut and cut, like a mad lumberjack in a forest, not caring what they strike, so long as the ax connects, the president would have us believe. Obama even went so far as to claim Republicans’ mentality as being “…driven by our ideological vision about how government should be” and he went even further, claiming the Republicans were sticking with the same types of economic decisions that drove the country into the Great Depression.

The Senate, having not given the country a budget in the past three years, has not deterred Republicans from trying their hands at writing one in the House, but Paul Ryan’s most recent effort was met with the usual scatterbrained excuses and rhetoric. Obama tells us children will starve and Medicare patients will be without their medicines (never mind his own cutting of $528 billion from the Medicare roles, via Obamacare), and finally, that he is not the extreme progressive that he is painted. Indeed, he even went so far as to invoke the names of two outstanding Republicans to compare himself to – Abraham Lincoln (yes, again) and Ronald Reagan. By talking of the Reagan-era, Obama attempted to point out how far right the GOP has moved, and claims Reagan could not win a primary now. For their parts, Republican leaders took the most natural response: they snickered and asked what Obama’s policies would do to help the country. After stumbling, and realizing how much his words were parsed these days, he sauntered off.

I find it odd, that the man who thought it would be brilliant to sign into law, legislation that no one had read, and who continues to defend his administration’s $535 million boondoggle loan to a solar company that “needed” talking robots, would be criticizing anybody’s plans. The president who has created more debt and higher deficits than any other president in history – wants to criticize others’ efforts to try to fix the mess? On the administration’s face, it has been do-little as a matter of course. When it has actually done anything, it seems to be with negative outcomes, or so completely, horribly wrong, one has to wonder if anyone is awake at the wheel. In Iran, with the promising “Green Revolution”, he did nothing as people were beaten in the streets – now he wants to punish some of the same people with crippling sanctions. The president wanted to help Libyan rebels – but violated the War Powers Act to do so. He wanted to help and support the Egyptian uprising – but he stalled for so long, now it appears the Muslim Brotherhood is licking its lips at a presidential election run. In Syria now, where civilians are being fired on, and bombed by the military? The president decides it is better to let the region solve that problem on its own. Our ally in the region, Israel recently had intelligence on their own allies leaked as well. Former Ambassador John Bolton points his finger at the administration…

Obama’s record is so anemic and is full of massive failures. He cannot kowtow to his base of environmentalists, without having the rest of America howling about oil prices. He cannot stretch the military much further than he already has. And he cannot do anything but tear down others, to even make it seem as though he has accomplished anything (I call that “maximizing by minimizing”). At this point, I would rather have a coin in the Oval Office – after all, you can count on it to make a right decision 1/2 of the time.

"...you can only hide it for so long..."

The Man Of a Million Double Standards (part 1)

The Obamas

This week, the news brought us the usual reports of violence, danger, and other assorted evils beyond our southern border. To hear the number of times news anchors frighten American listeners with the tales of Mexican citizens and government officials’ beheadings and murders, you could be forgiven for wondering if the anchors are mixing up stories of the Middle East violence with that of Mexican drug cartels. Violence may never have been as elevated as it is in northern Mexico at this moment, partially thanks due to lackadaisical administration starting with Janet Napolitano and stretching to Eric Holder’s Department of Justice. From officials like these, we are told the border with Mexico has never been safer — the same border through which thousands of guns were: purchased in the United States, given to Mexican drug traffickers, transported haphazardly, and promptly lost in Mexico. Of course, the repercussions of that entire fiasco are still being felt – thousands of Mexican citizens are being threatened and killed, and travel advisories are issued for Americans to steer clear of entire Mexican towns. They simply aren’t safe, we are told. Unless, you are a 13 year old member of the Obama family, with  dozens of Secret Service agents on a spring break jaunt. Then, you might be ok. Showing what can only be described as a “Rosie O’Donnell-esque” double standard when it comes to firearms (they’re fine if they are protecting someone near and dear to them, but you dumb Americans really are not to be trusted with such things…)

Now, I have no issue with the First Daughter having a vacation, and even taking friends along (and I certainly do not wish them to travel without adequate safety precautions) – what I do take issue with, is a president who tells the American people, with a straight face, that we need to engage in “shared sacrifice”, and get this country back to work. A president who, after ordering that, sends his family on an international trip for fun.

So this is not just a Democratic understanding; this is an understanding that I think the American people hold that we should not be asking sacrifices from middle-class folks who are working hard every day, from the most vulnerable in our society — we should not be asking them to make sacrifices if we’re not asking the most fortunate in our society to make some sacrifices as well.
(via democrats.org)

Is there a dearth of culture here domestically, Mr. President? Is spending dollars here at home (and stimulating the American economy) not needed any longer? There are plenty of Americans still feeling the sting of your inability to reinvigorate the economy, and Harry Reid’s continuous Senatorial budget failings. You could have actually followed your own advice, and even earned some kudos from some Americans, but instead, you have apparently decided, like so many other Americans, that your onerous advice and rules should not apply to you and your family. The average American cannot afford to send their junior high school family member on international spring break trip, and they surely could not pay for the required security detail necessary (I doubt you could either – am I wrong to assume it is taxpayer-funded?)

More Reservations About Rick…

I had not intended to write another post, surely not another so soon, about Rick Santorum, and I felt as though I covered my concerns about him in a previous post. It turns out, over the span of the last week or so, he has done things that again made my ears perk up, and forced me to do research, confirming that I had heard the things I had actually heard. Again, my worries seem to have been proven true, and the things I thought (and hoped) had to be media stretching the truth, were confirmed…

Rick Santorum rejects church and state separation? Say it ain't so...

Most Recent Missteps

On a recent Sunday morning media shows, gearing up for a double primary today, in Michigan and Arizona, Rick Santorum knew he had to try to rebound from his poor performance in the last debate in Arizona. If I were him, I think I would have stressed the reasons I was the fitter candidate, and why my decision-making skills were  the best among the candidates. However, Santorum seems to have given his opponents on the right and the left plenty to think about. In a time when people balked at the notion that the President has given an order to American religious groups, that they must provide contraceptives to employees, Rick Santorum said President Kennedy’s remarks about the separation of church and state made him “want to throw-up”. My main concern is that if a leader can give a directive from a secular stance, to religious groups (and we all think that is an overreach), then why would it be better that a religious-oriented leader give a directive to secular groups? This seems to be what Santorum is endorsing when he rejects Kennedy’s assurances to Baptist leaders in the 1960 election. While I would not go as far as Chris Matthews, and call Santorum a “theocrat,” I do worry that either playing to more religious voters, or dragging this election to a more social-issue oriented election, is tantamount to throwing away the biggest electoral-weapon the GOP has – the ECONOMY! They should be taking the economy, and how Obama has thrown away money, time after time, and ride that horse to death. Rely on winning back the Senate, and making it more conservative, to then legislate more socially conservative issues to send to the Republican president.

The second concern that I have with recent Santorum remarks, is that he was against the open-primary system. While he was in Minnesota, he criticized permitting Democrats to vote in open, Republican, primaries. The CNN article below, mentions that there was a good chance his criticism was a result of Mitt Romney’s winning the New Hampshire primary. Santorum went so far as to suggest that anyone voting against their party affiliation, should just go ahead and switch parties.

“We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don’t even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee,” Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. “I don’t like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.” (via CNN)

Once he began to show some life in a close Michigan race, and various liberal sources began to throw around the idea of a leftwing version of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos,” he suddenly changed his attitude. He then began to support robo-calls to try to get all the support from whatever places that he could – even those Democrats that he crititized in Minnesota. This is unfortunate, and it puts me in mind of the “Father of Flip-Flopping,” John Kerry. (Now do not send me comments – I am NOT calling Rick Santorum, John Kerry – but Kerry is so inextricably bound to the “flip-flop,” whenever I see it, I think of him, so sue me…) What I am suggesting is that it is possible that other voters make the same connection, and it turns them completely off.

I fear that losing Arizona and Michigan on the 28th may force Santorum into a more desperate position, and I wonder what different issues he may begin to adopt and endorse, to try to salvage his campaign. While I do hope he stays active in the race (no matter the outcome), and afterward keeps conservative social issues in the news, I do not think that now is the time for doing so.

My Reservations About Rick…

GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum

So, according to the talking heads, Rick Santorum is the newest GOP front runner, and is therefore unstoppable (like the others were in their turns at the top). If he is going to successfully run against Mitt Romney, and displace the projected GOP nominee, and then go on to face Obama in the general election, people need to give him a closer look, instead of just making him their “Not-Mitt” pick. Now, I get a strange feeling from the guy, especially when he claims to be the only conservative candidate left with a shot in the primary (Newt claimed the same thing at one time). I would never vote for (or not vote for) a candidate because of a feeling, and I would not ask anyone else to do so either. So, I did a little research, and from what I have read, Santorum’s claimed conservancy is shaky at best.

My first concern is that Santorum was a legislator. Now, I realize this sounds this minor, but I think the mindset of a man with a legislative background is different from a man with an executive background. The legislator wants to build consensus, and reach compromise. I would rather have a candidate who has lead something, via governorship or as a business executive. Rick Perry would have perfectly fulfilled my idea of a candidate with leadership skills and was someone who understands that building a consensus takes time you may not have. I offer the current president, as example of a person who looks to build a coalition of yes-men and enablers (his cabinet/czars/advisers), and seems to be awkward and stiff when pushed to make a decision, which frequently turns out to be problematic.

Another concern I have is the things Rick supported while he was in the United States Congress. Bills and programs that do not seem too “conservative” to me. For example, legislation like “No Child Left Behind”, which not only grew educational and federal government bureaucracies, but mandated testing and tracking of school children, was something supported by Santorum. Just within the last month, it was given a waiver in ten states. While in the Senate, Santorum sponsored the “GAS Act”, which would have created a new, Federal Trade Commission-run “Competitive Pricing Task Force” to study energy pricing, and levy fines if the seller was determined to be fixing their prices after a release of strategic petroleum reserves by the president. Thankfully, the bill went nowhere, and the chance for bureaucratic growth was stymied.  In my mind, all this legislative double-talk would have done nothing more than increase the size of government bureaucracy for (ultimately) arbitrary reasons.

Santorum has also shown a few lapses in judgment. He supported George W. Bush’s failed judicial nominee, Harriet Miers, saying that the fact she had never been a judge before did not matter. A closer, more critical review of her (and increasing criticism by democrats and others), led him to retract his support. He voted for a Chuck Schumer-sponsored bill that restricted abortion protesters from blocking or impeding access to abortion clinics. While I do not think those choices are in and of themselves bad, for a politician like Santorum, that has espoused so many conservative beliefs and voted so conservatively for so long – it really makes his rare, occasional departure from those conservative  ideals unexpected and seem radical to me. Despite all this, I would still see myself as able to hold my nose and vote for him.

Arlen Specter (D), now unemployed

Unfortunately, I still have not mentioned what I consider to be the worst of his transgressions. He has bragged about working with Barbra Boxer, and he even bragged about the number of earmarks he has supported.  In the worst behavior Santorum exhibited, he supported Arlen Specter in the 2004 Senate race against conservative Republican, Pat Toomey. Ironically, some of the same supporters who donated to Santorum, found themselves at odds with his support (of Specter), because the donators supported the more conservative Toomey instead. Again, that may not seem too bad when considered only on that fact. However, as we know, Arlen Specter continued to veer increasingly-leftward in his politics after winning a narrow race against Toomey, and Specter ended up switching party allegiances, becoming a Democrat, and then losing his election following that switch. The worst part of the whole mess, was that it was Specter who cast the crucial 60th vote for Obamacare. Here is Specter, bragging about both his switch and vote. As we have found this last week, now the Obamacare fiasco has been used to try to force religious agencies/employers to cover things completely contrary to the tenets of their faith. While it may be unfair to blame Santorum for all the fallout from his support for Specter, he certainly does not have clean hands in the ongoing messes either.

Romney Is Done! Really?

Mitt Romney was swept in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri

So, unless you have completely been away from media since Monday, you have heard about Mitt Romney’s colossal failures in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado. His entire campaign has collapsed, and he may as well just pack it in, and return to one of his palatial estates in the northeast. Right? That is the narrative his competition would have us believe is going to occur. He is down, and he is out. I, on the other hand, am not so sure.

So, what does the miraculous-sweep of the three states mean for Romney’s seeming inevitability? For me, not much. Other candidates may see it as a sign that there will surely be a brokered convention, or that there is serious rejection of Romney among Republicans. I, however, see a few silver linings to the “rejection” of Romney.

First, these losses are seen as huge and unexpected – he should play to this fact. As the campaign wears on, he can show himself as a candidate who is not the stuff-shirt, boring, businessman that he has been painted as, but he is a candidate who is flexible. He now has a situation, if he sells it right, that allows him to break out of his silver-spoon, always-been-a-winner, never-had-any-struggles story. He needs to make more people aware of any struggles or tragedies he may have faced. A candidate who can bounce back from unexpected setbacks, who can roll with unexpected punches and is dynamic, that kind of guy is seen as a better president – the type who can lead an ever-changing country. He has now been bested in five states, and if he acts humbled (as he should be), people may see a more relate-able guy (especially in a country facing so many problems, that have touched everyone). He should create a contrast to the effete, aloof Obama.

Secondly, the sheer appeal of candidates like Santorum and Gingrich, who are “conservative alternatives,” shows him what many people are seeking. Romney sure does not do himself any favors by having candidates who have already been losers to Obama (read: John McCain) appear with him. If that is somehow supposed to help him, why not invite Alan Keyes and Jack Ryan to events too? He should maximize any appearances he can make with prospective GOP Congressmen, especially those who are seen as farther right than any others. Meet with current GOP leaders (like Jim DeMint) that holds sway with conservatives, and adopt and advocate for views he shares. He does not need to be seen as any farther left or moderate when his record and talking heads already make him appear that way. He should play up the angle as much as possible, that capitalism did not put us in the economic quagmire we find ourselves in, but capitalism will lead us out.

The economic angle being stressed, will help at events too – feature the people who kept their jobs because of Bain’s investments and actions, and contrast them against the president’s claims of saved jobs. “This is what a real, legitimately saved job looks like America!” Use full advantage of any opportunities like this to differentiate and take shots at failed Obama policies. The more these regulations and economy-killing policies are brought up to voters, the more firmly Obama can be painted as a complete economic blunderer and failure, and the more people will see you as a person who understands the dire situation, and is competent and able to turn a stumbling country around.

Shoring up his support in a few ways, should ensure Super Tuesday isn't like the sweep.

He should look to build consensus wherever he can – against the do-nothing Senate, and the any Democratic Senators for continually neglecting their duties. This could help ensure that he would  have a more “friendly”, GOP-led Senate. Because of the recent political fallout and anger at the “contraceptive mandate” of Obamacare, Romney could point out the struggles and religious persecution  he has faced as a Mormon, and stress how he would never support anything resembling that mandate. Take a stand with Catholics and others, promising to strip out or veto any legislation sent to you with any religious questionability.

Finally, he should take concrete, permanent stands on issues and stick with them. He should draw guidelines and NOT deviate – there is so much concern that Romney is “wishy-washy” and flip-flops. When elected, he should make sure he does everything he can to see those issues’ passing and enforcement occur. America is tired of suave leaders, who are so self-assured that they have convinced themselves that they can do no wrong. He should be humble and willing to listen, and admit as much. He needs to take full advantage of events like CPAC to talk to people, and speak without the safety of prepared material. He needs to show people the person, they seem to have seen nearly enough of the candidate.