The Political Lizard Annex

The Do Nothing Democrats

2012-01-29T06:24:00.001-08:00

The President has decided to run against a do nothing Congress. A look at he legislative accomplish seem to bear out the President's premise, this Congress has indeed passed very little legislation. The Presidential blame of course falls at the feet of the House and the House Republicans. Yet this isn't right, it is the democrats in the Senate that allows legislation go there to die. It is not even debated and voted for or against. The House legislation is not filibustered, it just lies there waiting for some type of action.

According to ABC this morning Congressman Lynn Westmoreland urged Speaker Boehner to stop writing, passing, and voting for legislation without ensuring there are 60 votes in the Senate. This is the wrong attitude. This would play right into the President's campaign and allows Harry Reid off the hook for blocking legislation from even having a debate. The Republicans in the House could negotiate in good faith and have the 60 votes in the Senate and Harry Reid could still sit on the legislation. In fact that is what he is doing. Reid knows debating this legislation may get to 60 votes or at least make for some difficult votes for the Democrats in the Senate. So even if there was 13 Senate Democrats willing to allow an up or down vote, Harry Reid won't even think about the legislation unless Obama pushed the idea in the first place.

The House has passed 30 jobs bills. President Obama's own job commission recommended many proposals that are similar to those already passed in the House according to Boehner. Yet because passing this type of bill, it languishes in the Senate to die because it would make the President's campaign memes of a do nothing Congress and uncompromising Republicans mute points. The bottom line is it is the democrats that are uncompromising and the Democrats that are not doing anything. Our country deserves better people in our government then a political party bent on power rather than on what is good for the American people.

Careful Mitt

2012-01-28T16:19:00.000-08:00

Mitt had best tread very carefully. Right now Mitt has gone all in and is attacking Newt falsely and otherwise. Having a campaign run attack ad and not knowing it is airing , let alone knowing if the attack is even true shows the lengths that you will use to purchase the nomination. Worse than not knowing the attacks a candidate is running is the fact that Mitt is very misleading in his attacks on Newt's ethics charges. As explained already in the debates, the ethics charges were trumped up by a political party out of power. Newt was exonerated of all charges and what we all should understand is the minority party trumped up charges just to make the Republican Speaker and the Republican party look unethical as the minority party attempted to gain favor with the American electorate just so they could again come into power.

These atatcks may be working to win the Florida primary. The attacks may or may not be enough to bury Newt. However, Newt is receiving over 30% of the vote. Newt will have significant numbers in Florida and should Santorum drop out before or even after Florida, Newt will still be formidable. Mitt, should you go on to win the nomination, you are going to have to rally all Republicans including the Newt supporters. Without the support of the conservatives, Mitt has no chance. Everyone knows Mitt is a moderate. A moderate is sometimes good for the country, but a Republican candidate that is moderate that can not energize the conservative vote has no chance in November. Mitt this is a political campaign and you have made it personal. By making it personal, you are making this campaign for the nomination emotional. While I highly doubt Conservatives could stomach voting for Obama, certainly they would consider staying home. You can't win without the conservatives. Be careful Mitt because when even the liberal media believes you attacks are out of bounds, you are on the verge of alienating the very voters you need to win the general election. Bottom line you can not win by resorting to the tactics of the left. While this tactic seemed to work in 2008 with Obama ultimately winning the nomination and the general election, the times were very different. A democrat was going to win the 2008 election there was never any doubt. In 2012, there is an incumbent President and there is no certainty that the Republican will or even can win, Alienate Newt's supporters at your own peril. Be careful Mitt, the backlash could very well vanquish you to the dust bin of history. Should you win the nomination and lose the general, you will come to feel the wrath of the grass roots Republicans.

Fairness or Envy?

2012-01-27T16:00:00.000-08:00

social justice and economic fairness are the platform of the Food Stamp President. Of course Obama want to blame Bush but the fact is under Obama the food stamp program has over 46 million participants and is going. This represent an increase of 45% from where it was under Bush. Is the trickle up economics what we really want?

The last quarter saw our GDP grow at an initial estimate of 2.8%. For the year, that is increases the GDP to a whopping 1.7%. The 4th quarter GDP is being pushed as good news for the President. Yet, the increase this quarter seems to be due largely to increased inventory and not demand. This is not a good economic indicator, rather the slight gain this quarter barely is over what is needed to keep up with a growing populous. In 2010, we had a GDP of 3.0%. The second year out of a recession should be booming, yet in 2011 the GDP growth slipped by almost half. Yet Obama is pursuing goodies for his strongest 2008 supporters and more of the same gimmicks that provided the stagnant economy.

So now Obama wants everyone to be treated fair. Obama's policies will only make everyone poorer. My daughter last night for her part relayed this story to me that perfectly represents the socialist model that Obama is pushing as economic fairness. Here is the story:

A professor decided to try out Obama's model. The professor that decided that everyone would receive the same grade out of fairness. All of the points earned by students would be tallied and divided equally for all the students. The results of the first test came out and the students seemed satisfied as they all received a "B". everything seemed to be going well, sure those that studied harder had a beef in that there grade was lowered to "B" after earning an "A" but most were satisfied. Yet the results of the second test were even more revealing. After grading the second exam and dividing equally every student earned a lowly "D" for their efforts.

See what happened there? In the second test the higher performing students decided it wasn't worth studying if their grades were going to be a shade lower to bring up the poorly performing students. Yet it wasn't only the higher performing students that performed less it was almost the whole class. The middle also had to stop performing to lower from a "B" to a "D". We can see that happening in the economy now. Obama's tax the rich mantra has investors and businesses sitting on an estimated $2 trillion dollars. See the people with money are investing less because they fear that Obama will shave there hard earned profits to give away to those precious people Obama needs to win election. Instead of making everyone richer Obama is making everyone poorer.

The state of decline for the poor will be slower than the rich but everyone will be in a state decline. Of course after a few cycles of taxing the rich and making the rich fall precipitously to a more "fair" share will only reduce the government coffers to provide for the poor even further so the poor will fall by the wayside. The trickle up economics model from Obama will only result in a declining America. See it is not fairness but envy that is the driving class warfare going on. It is not fair to take from the hard working and risk takers to payoff the weak performers and moochers. Just like the "A" students decided it wasn't fair that there hard work resulted in lower grades. What happened the "A" became "C" students and "C" Students became failing students. Envy is the root of many evils. Envying the rich in the name of fairness will only result in everyone being poorer. Americans want equal opportunity not economic fairness. Americans want everyone to be prosperous not everyone to become poor. Stop the politics of envy it can't possibly result in a liberal utopia.

Collusion

2012-01-27T15:08:00.000-08:00

The pundits from all sides seem to agree that Romney is again the front runner and appears to have sealed up the nomination after last night debate. The media pundits also agree that Santorum was the winner of last nights debate. SO how is it that Romney wins by losing? The answer is collusion my friends. The establishment has decided they do not want Newt Gingrich to be President. The elitists have decided that Romney has to be the nominee in order to have an appealing Presidential election between Obama and Romney. The elitists have decided that they the 1% among us have decided Romney is the choice whether we like it or not.

Now if we look at last night's debate, Santorum won hands down. There was no other way to look at, Santorum made both Gingrich and Romney look petty and small. Santorum stole Gingrich's thunder by slamming the media before Gingrich had the opportunity. Santorum criticized not only the media for allowing the debate to get out of hand but also the candidates for bickering back and forth about peripheral concerns that have little if any bearing on how to fix a Nation that is on the wrong track. Santorum cleaned everyone's clock with one smart line that changed the direction and tone of the debate.

Gingrich did not have a great night, but he did manage to salvage some respect by agreeing with Santorum. Gingrich made a pledge that all candidates including himself stop with the petty attacks on each other and move onto the issues. Gingrich was able to defend his proposals well including his space exploration initiative. I'm not sure we can afford his proposal or even if the use of gimmicks (prizes) is worth even pursuing. Yet, Gingrich at least has an idea about space that goes beyond having NASA charged with glorifying the input to science from the Arab culture. Bottom line with the space proposals is Newt caught his opponents off guard with it and also proves Newt thinks outside the box. I believe the only way out of the doldrums and get us off the destructive path we are on is to change the paradigm within the Washington Group think.

Mitt Romney couldn't help himself. He was only prepared last night to attack Newt at every turn. It was obvious that his lesson learned from SC was to go on the attack against Newt. Romney didn't learn to tap into the despise the Republicans have for the media instead focused his venom and anger on Gingrich. Romney did come across as angry and let's face it unlike Newt when he is angry, Romney his emotion on his sleeve. The angry and attacking candidate is what Romney wanted to portray. When the debate changed direction Romney had to get in his last jab and then could only attack Newt rather than debate the issues. Additionally, Romney looked very out of touch when he didn't know what his own campaign ads were saying. When checked by CNN and informed that the ad was indeed an attack ad from his campaign, Romney had to even ask the context of the comments as he couldn't even stand behind what the ads said because he didn't even know the reference. Romney took third place last night and it wasn't even a close third.

Ron Paul debated good last night in that he was able to campaign for his base of support. He didn't say or do anything that would bring in more supporters. I liked some of Paul's witty comments. Paul has some good ideas and I hope he has enough delegates at the convention to at least get some of his economic solutions into the discussion.

Now with Romney coming in a distant third and looking angry and petty last night why is it he is all of a sudden in great shape to win. Again the answer is collusion. The meme of the day is Newt didn't do enough to win the debate last night to knock Romney out. Santorum for his part doesn't have the money to compete. The media refuses to even broach the idea that Romney looked wounded, scared, petty, and worst of all angry. This is unlike when Newt went on the offensive after Iowa. See all Newt had to say is that he was going to take the fight to Romney and all of sudden Newt was an angry candidate. Romney refuses to back off his attack lines even after a call for civility and somehow he is the big winner by losing last night? This is an elitist attack on the process, we no longer really have choices or even votes. The elitists will pump as much money into Florida as possible just to ensure the 1% get the nominee they choose.

Santorum Impressive Debate Performance

2012-01-26T18:20:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum is quite impressive tonight. He changed the whole tone of the debate by scolding Gingrich, Romney, and Blitzer for stooping into gutter politics where the candidates were making personal attacks rather than focus on the problems facing our Nation. From that point on Santorum was able to make his points and for the first time I believe connected with the electorate. I don't know if this will translate to a serious enough rise in Florida to win but he was impressive and proved he belongs in the discussion. I am a Gingrich supporter right now because he has shown to be a great debater with big ideas. Santorum just made me start to rethink who may just be the best candidate. America could do worse than Rick Santorum as President. In my mind Santorum is having the best night as a debater. Santorum is a social conservative in an election about the economy and social issues will play a minimal role. Yet tonight it seems Santorum has better command of economic issues than I have seen him in the past. Santorum is having a good night on stage and has always been a conservative. Great Debate for Santorum, America needs leadership and what i found tonight is this: While the left and the media is claiming a weak and flawed field, I don't see this Republican field as flawed, the Obama administration is flawed and America will win no matter which of the four on stage tonight ultimately wins the nomination.

Media Pawns

2012-01-26T15:46:00.001-08:00

John King and CNN are really pathetic. Instead of waking up to what really happened during the South Carolina debate, the moderator and network are still trying to save some face over the confrontation. Now the Network is all giddy that Newt was a little misleading when he said he had offered up witnesses that would dispel his ex-wife’s comments. True enough Newt, said it was his daughters and not other witnesses. The problem though is that Newt didn’t win the point because he said he offered witnesses to ABC. Newt won the point when the question was posed by John King.

It was the opening question of the debate. The question was made as an attempt to make Newt look bad and get him on the defensive immediately. In other words it was a “gotcha” question that was an attack on Newt’s character. As I said in earlier posts, this question would have been valid had it come from the audience. It would have been valid at an appropriate time from a voter. It was inappropriate to ask the question as the first one out of the gate.

John King, you lost because the timing of your question was misplaced. People like you and others in the left wing media may think controversy and attacking (in the name of vetting) is appropriate. The issue is people believe the media is biased and slanted. Over 60% percent of America believes the media is biased and a plurality with a split of 47% - 13% believe it slants left. John King is not going to win his point by trying to justify the confrontation as Newt was misleading or ABC started it. That misses the point entirely. John King should just lick his wounds and move on.

The reason Newt won the point and made King look bad is the same reason Juan Williams looked pathetic a few nights in his attempt to push a racism meme. The media seems to have forgotten or lost sight of fact that elections are about the American people and not the media personalities. The debates are not about the media, we don’t care about their opinions or philosophy or ideology. We don’t care if the pathetic pawns believe in liberalism or left wing principles or for that matter if they believe in conservatism or right wing principles, bottom line it is not about the pawns in the media. John King was busted out for trying to sensationalize a non issue. Our economy is in the tank, we have 8.5 % unemployment at a time when the labor participation rate has fallen precipitously. We have an economy that has increased the food stamp program to record levels. We still have obscenely high foreclosure rates. With all of these facts concerning an economy on the brink of collapse and John King believes the first issue should be Newt’s marital problems? I think our country has much more to worry about than unfaithful husbands 15 years ago.

John no matter how you try to save face, you were wrong for asking that first question and no matter how misleading or not Newt may have been concerning his witnesses statements, you were wrong, you were busted for it, and you looked pathetic. Get over it, your ego doesn’t matter to your audience, we didn’t tune in for you, we tuned in to the candidates on stage so we can make appropriate election decisions and your question didn’t help that process one iota.

The Establishment Fallacy

2012-01-24T18:12:00.000-08:00

Obama is calling this a choice election and some of the political pundits are claiming if Obama is able to frame the election as choice election rather than a referendum on his performance, he stands a better chance at being reelected. Some political pundits believe that Newt is the candidate that best fits into the Presidents model and thus making him the candidate easiest for Obama to beat in November. The thought is if Obama can make the campaign about Gingrich and his baggage rather than about a dismal performance, Obama is the logical choice. I have to agree that Newt is the candidate that will run on the choices we have and he laid out those choices concerning differing visions for America in his victory speech after the South Carolina primary win. What I disagree with is that Obama can make the case that the election is about Newt and his baggage.

As the nomination process sits right now, the nomination process is about to turn very negative and get very nasty. We saw a taste of that last night when Brian Williams dedicated the first 30 minutes of the 90 minute debate to attacks between Mitt and Newt, rather than go straight to the ideas on the issues that matter most. Mitt was on the offensive with nasty half truths concerning Newt. For Newt, I think the debate concerning his ethics charges, resignation from the House speakership, and Freddie Mac, this early in the process is good for Newt should he win the nomination. Newt will largely be vetted, and the lapdogs in the media will only be bringing up old news the people will be tired of hearing about and those lines of attack will no longer be effective come the general election. Newt effectively parried Mitt’s assault last night. Neither really inspired the electorate with their performance last night and I am not sure it will change much in the landscape. I think the biggest take away from last night is that the media and the establishment politicos from both sides are very scared of what Newt is tapping into.

Brian Williams and the other debate moderators set the debate up for Mitt. First they muted the crowd, telling them from the outset that applause and standing ovations would be frowned upon. Brian Williams of course framed this as taking time away from the candidates to respond questions. Then the moderators began asking question from the left, acting as if they were the Obama stand in rather than acting from a typical voter perspective. The moderators muting the crowd, allowing Newt and Mitt to attack each other, and then spinning questions from the far left perspective took the emotion out of the debate. The debate lacked direction and became boring. This of course helped Mitt as it fit into his campaign style. If anyone believes the media and the left fear Romney as the nominee, I think they should readjust their thinking. In 1976 Carter was the outsider candidate and he won. The media despised Reagan in 1980, and did everything they could to get the establishment choice Bush elected, claiming the right was afraid of the conservative principles of Reagan; Reagan won the nomination and trounced Carter in the General. The media didn’t like Bush in 1988, but there was no meaningful resistance from the right and Bush won, more on the sentimental vote for Reagan than anything else. In 1992, Bush was the establishment candidate and the press attacked the conservative movement. In doing this the propelled Buchanan to lofty enough levels to make Bush appear weak, thus taking down the establishment candidate. Bush lost the 1992 election to an outsider candidate from the Democrats in Bill Clinton. In 1996, Dole was the establishment candidate again the Republican’s lost that election. In 2000, Bush was the outsider candidate in the primaries and won the election. In 2008 the establishment candidate McCain did not fare well at all, Obama beat the establishment candidate in Hillary and then vanquished McCain in the general. For the most part both parties and specifically the Republicans have done better with the grass roots “outsider” candidate than we ever did with the establishment candidate in the general election. Reagan and George W were the outsiders and won the Oval Office, George HW Bush, Dole, and McCain were the establishment choices and we lost those elections. From the left Carter, Clinton, and Obama were the outsider candidates and won, while Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Hillary were strongly backed by the establishment and either lost the nomination or the general election. The establishment candidates are pushed by both parties and the media. I believe the reason is the left wants the candidate they know how to beat or feel is safe. The media wants the choice to be between what they consider the lesser of two evils. The Right is afraid of true conservative candidates and prefers a more moderate candidate than the base prefers.

Newt is tapping into the angry electorate. I believe Obama is right in that this is an election about choice. I believe Newt laid out those choices effectively in his SC victory speech. I don’t believe Obama will be able to hide from his poor performance. The choice is effectively between an incumbent’s poorly performing policies that has weaken America both foreign and domestic, or a vision of strong American exceptionalism respected around the world. There will be a choice and right now Newt is articulating that choice perfectly. When the political establishment is scared of a candidate, that candidate wins in November, and that has been good for the country.

Religious Bigotry

2012-01-24T18:09:00.000-08:00

Like Sodom and Gomorrah, a country devoid of morals will fall. Whether one believes in a religion or not, a supreme being or not, we must live under a basic set of beliefs and values. A nation, will not survive as a Nation devoid of a strong sense of what is right or wrong. Moral decay and religious bigotry will be the downfall of even the strongest and most powerful of Nations. We must, therefore ensure, we are a Nation of Laws following a moral code of conduct. There must be something that guides us down the path of building a solid foundation of values.

In this Nation, we have the right to express religious faith. We also have the right to refrain from religious faith. There is a separation of Church and State. The left uses the constitution as the means to express their religious bigotry. We have radical judges threatening to throw people in jail just for saying terms like benediction, prayer, invocation, or moment of silence. This is a disgusting over reach of judicial activism. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit religious faith. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit taking the time to reflect from within. Whether one is religious or not, prayer, benediction, invocation, and even moments of silence don’t have to be considered religious actions. To some yes, it is a time to thank whomever one believes is the creator, for those that don’t believe it is an opportunity to reflect inward towards oneself. This is a private moment and doesn’t have to be considered religious whatsoever.

Many on the left criticize the Christian faiths whether it be the Catholics or evangelicals or one of the many other Christian based faiths. They criticize them for their beliefs and values. The left believes in abortion, so the attack the churches that disagree with them. The left believes homosexuality is fine, so they attack the religious faiths that disagree. What the left doesn’t say it that there must be guiding principles and just because some of the guiding principles may have been written in a religious environment doesn’t make them any less valuable.

Take the Ten Commandments for instance. The left doesn’t want them displayed in public/governmental buildings. My question is why? Just because they are the basis of a religious faith doesn’t make them any less valuable for a society. Shouldn’t we as a society honor our parents? Shouldn’t we always remember from where it is we came from. We must always remember our roots it is a part of who we are and what we have become. The first commandment doesn’t seem to be so religious in tone as to keep it from being posted anywhere in public. How about the second Commandment: Thou shalt not kill? Isn’t that a moral code everyone can live with? Does an atheist believe that murder should somehow be legal? Next is thou shalt not commit adultery. Certainly this seems appropriate; especially in light of the left making it such a big deal that CNN moderator John King made reference to adultery in his first question to Newt Gingrich in a Presidential debate. So even to the left, who despise religious faith, it certainly seems they believe adultery is an important question. How about thou shalt not steal? Again we are a Nation of Laws, stealing is considered wrong and doesn’t seem we need to equate that with some sort of religious belief. We can go on and on with the Ten Commandments. The bottom line is they are more a moral code than they are religious beliefs. One doesn’t have to be religious to believe in these tenets.

There are some that need to have a religious belief system in order to follow some basic right and wrong issues. Others may not need to have a religious background to have a strong commitment to what is right and what is wrong. What is important is that every society or civilization that ever rose to power and later fell the most common theme of failure is a moral decay from within. There those who believe in Sodom and Gomorrah in the literal sense. From the religious perspective they believe that their God destroyed these two cities for the moral decadence. However, just because many believe the story in the religious sense, does that make the story any less relevant to the decay of society? I would think that the guiding principles of religion concerning right and wrong are relevant to any society and relevant to all individuals; religious or not.

Every society needs to have laws based upon their values and belief system. The value system does not need to be based in a specific religion but it does need to be based on a moral code of right and wrong. I find it ironic that the left bashes religion; yet develop their societal agenda through the lens of anecdotal evidence. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had health insurance, wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had the same amount of money, wouldn’t be nice if every was treated equal regardless of capabilities? Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone respected the environment? See these are Utopian ideals that follow the basic tenets of the religion so many on the left love to hate. Stop the religious bigotry, and start living a moral code or watch as a Nation crumbles and falls.

Mitt's Deception

2012-01-23T18:35:00.000-08:00

Wow, that is all I can say. In the debate tonight it amazed me when Mitt stood on stage claiming that after his South Carolina debacle, he decided he wasn't going to stand around being attacked. His claim that "they started it" is absolutely false. Mitt attacked Newt very hard in Iowa. Mitt's Iowa attacks are largely responsible for Newt's decline in the polls in December. It was Mitt that attacked and attempted to vanquish his competition in Iowa. It was Mitt that gave a victory speech in New Hampshire that sounded like he has the nomination all wrapped up. It was Mitt that became arrogant when he thought he would sail through South Carolina. Mitt is being deceptive tonight and from what McCain and Huckabee said in 2007 we know Mitt ha issues with the truth.

And by the way Mitt, I wouldn't care if you voluntarily paid a dollar more in taxes than you legally owed. I don't hold it against if you don't pay extra either but don't think its crazy to vote for someone that would pay more than legally obligated.

Attack Dogs

2012-01-23T16:58:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich must have struck a nerve with the political elites with his win in South Carolina. Newt was declared dead and gone last spring when his entire staff up and left, eventually joining Perry's campaign. Newt overcame the odds and became the odds on favorite for Iowa in November. Under heavy attacks from Mitt, the Newt campaign withered. Newt fell not only in Iowa but nationally as well as the attacks went mostly unanswered as Newt attempted to take the high road and didn't stoop to meet the negative campaign tactic employed by Mitt. So Newt went on the offensive and all of a sudden the left wing media propagandist started pushing the angry Newt meme. Alas with the fall of Newt again the political establishment on both the left and right declared Newt dead in the water. Yet with two tremendous debate performances in South Carolina, Newt was able to resurrect himself yet again. By going on the offensive against the liberal lapdogs posing as moderators, Newt was able to cast himself as a political outsider. If there was ever a year for being a political outsider this is the year. Americans want someone that is not tied at the hip to Washington. Americans want someone to turn Washington on its head. Americans by almost 3-1 believe America is on the wrong track. We have a Congress with a 13% approval rating. We have a President with an approval rating of 46%, well under the 50% he needs for reelection. No one in Washington is popular and there is not only disgust with the politicians but also distrust in our governmental institutions. Americans want the change Obama once promised. Americans want hope that Obama has failed to deliver. Americans want change and Newt has been able to attack the very system that has made him who he is.

Maybe Newt is the candidate that can rally Republicans and beat Obama. Newt has been able to ignite excitement, garnering more applause lines and standing ovations from the debate audiences than any other candidate. Newt has been able to turn the media on its head as he dresses the liberal lapdogs down for their disdain towards Republican philosophies. Newt has become the outsider Americans seek. Through all the attacks from the media and other Republicans, Newt has become an underdog of sorts and Americans do so love their underdogs.

There is no doubt Newt has tapped into something that the establishment politicos fear. Newt has managed to strike fear into the elitists around the country. Newt through his feigned anger towards the media propagandists, has pitted the establishment against himself and that is the position every candidate should be aiming for in a year when it will be the establishment on trial. When MSNBC goes forward with outright lies to claim that Newt's "food stamp President" are thinly veiled racial comments we know it is Newt they fear and not Romney. When every political pundit from Fox, to ABC, to NBC, to CBS, push the Newt is unelectable meme you know he struck a nerve. When the media elite set out to destroy a candidate by making false claims and sensationalize Newt's marital issues, you know he has become a Republican winning the populist mantel that Obama so desperately needs to win in November.

Ever since Newt was handed a resounding win in South Carolina, he has been attacked from the left and the right. Newt has been attacked from the establishment and the elitists. Newt is striking the right chords, the American institutions are in rebellion at the thought of Newt making sweeping changes in the way government works. It must be said that if everyone in Washington is anger, something must be being done right. The elitists are saying Newt can't win; Newt doesn't have the discipline; Newt doesn't have the organization; Newt doesn't have money to win. Yet Newt has won South Carolina and by the polls of today leading in Florida. Newt currently is doing what Santorum couldn't out Iowa and that is push his momentum. I am not sure if Newt can maintain for another 8 days or not but one thing is for certain, Newt has become the anti establishment candidate. Unless Romney can recapture the imagination of the voting public he is in trouble. Mitt's stealth campaign that is of the mindset that its "his turn" isn't working. Americans aren't looking for the establshment to tell us "Who's turn" it is, but rather want an anti establishment candidate that will change how Washington works.

GOP establishment Scared

2012-01-22T08:39:00.000-08:00

After Newt won the South Carolina primary last night, I heard Brit Hume state that the establishment Republicans would be on the warpath against Newt because his negatives were high and this scares the Congress critters. Today I see that perhaps the tactics the establishment plans to use are coming to light. According to RED State's Erick Erickson, the establishment is going to seek donations for Santorum so he may be enabled to go on the attack against Gingrich.

The establishment does not want Santorum to win though. The establishment is backing Mitt Romney. But the establishment needs an attack dog other than Romney. The establishment doesn't want Romney to get his hands dirty with negative campaigning but would rather have Santorum do the dirty work to ensure Romney wins the nomination. Certainly, I hope Santorum sees this for what it is and doesn't fall for the dirty establishment trick. I wonder what besides propping up Santorums campaign with money the establishment plans for Santorums future? Besides making Santorum the lapdog that ends up keeping the conservative split between himself and Newt, what does the establishment plan to promise Santorum for him to become the Huckabee of 2008? Santorm needs to drop out and not keep the conservatives split. Santorum may have won Iowa but he lived there for months on end. Santorum may have won Iowa but the momentum has worn off and Santorum is running third or fourth out of four. Newt has the momentum for the conservatives and the only way for Santorum to rise is negative campaigning against Newt. In the end there is no path for Santorum to win. All Santorum can do by staying in the race is hand the nomination to Romney.

We need a change in Washington. The Republican establishment and Congress critters deserve to be scared. There is a reason why their approval rating is around 13% and it has nothing to do with Newt. The Congress is at 13% because they have forgotten who they work for. To most of the career politicians the voters are nothing but an inconvenience. The voters get in the way of siphoning taxpayer dollars and providing those dollars to their cronies. Romney is a Northeast Republican meaning he is far more like Scott Brown than he is Rick Santorum. We do not stand a chance of getting our fiscal house in order with a Fiscal moderate or liberal in the White House. Get over it establishment GOP and stay out of the Primary selection process. We don't need you bribing the third place finisher to become the attack dog on the winner of SC. Romney is still the front runner in delegate count not Newt. Rallying behind the conservative front runner is better to unite the party than allowing Santorum to attack his fellow conservative allowing a Northeast moderate to walk away with the prize.

Why SC Matters

2012-01-21T19:47:00.000-08:00

South Carolina matters this year more than most Presidential primary cycles. This cycle Americans are angrier than in most years. This is the angriest electorate I have ever seen. Searching the past every election has a generalized theme. In 1976 Jimmy Carter faced an electorate that wanted to rid itself of the remnants of a corrupt government. In 1980, the theme was malaise and in 1984 happy time are here again. In 1988, we had the more of the same status quo election, followed by the out of touch campaign by Bush. We followed that with the strike against an overreaching Congress in 1996. In 2000, we were searching for something different than another four drama filled years. In 2004, we had the election of scandal. The last election was one of change and ending wars. This will be the year the voting public is angry.

The electorate is angry that Obama focused on his liberal agenda rather than the economy. The electorate is angry that the media failed to vet Obama but now demands a full accounting by every Republican. The electorate is angry that there are no jobs. The electorate is angry that Obama would rather extend unemployment benefits than build an American infrastructure project. The electorate is angry that America no longer has a AAA credit rating. The electorate is angry that with the elitists that would rather tell the people what to do rather than allow people to do what they do best. The American people want off government dependency and back on to innovation and creation.

Tonight Newt Gingrich won in SC and that means the Republican nominee process will continue on at least into March and maybe even longer. Far from being at risk of splintering the Republican Party is united and the Republicans are vetting their own candidates rather than allow the media to select their favored candidate to serve up as a sacrificial lamb for Obama. SC means the Republicans kept their process and didn't allow the media to meddle in the middle and select our candidate for us. SC means the angry public now has an opportunity to unite around the candidate they choose.

I think the anger is part of why Newt won tonight. Newt is portrayed as the angry candidate and as long as he can play into the anger of the American people he will do well. in the end Newt may not play well with the general electorate. For now though, Newt is tapping into every American that is angry over the dismissal of the power of the people by the politicians. Newt may be an angry candidate but the electorate is also angry. The primary today will allow the Republicans to continue tapping into an anger that will only change when Obama is voted out of office. SC matters because it extended the game. Last week the media was pushing the meme that when Romney won in SC it would be over. The media wanted that result. The media tried to undermine the candidates other than Romney because they want Romney as the nominee.

Romney may well end up the nominee as I know believe the eventual nominee will be either Newt or Romney, unless there is a brokered convention, in which case all bets are off. Romney will be a stronger general election candidate if he survives the process. Newt is already tapping into an anger that may well make up for his dismal favorable ratings. As the process goes forward the angry electorate will unite behind the nominee to defeat the marxist we currently have acting as the petulent child President.

It's Time For Santorum To Drop

2012-01-21T16:42:00.000-08:00

After tonight it is time for Rick Santorum to drop out and endorse another candidate. We have had three different States and three different winners. Santorum may be thinking that he won one State, the same as Romney and now Newt. However, Snatorum is not doing well tonight and his Iowa win should have propelled him to a win in SC or at least a second place finish similar to Huckabee in 2008. That didn't happen, Newt destroyed Santorum tonight. The race now appears to be between Gingrich and Romney. Santorum dropping out will help solidify the social conservative base of the Republican party. I believe Santorum staying in any longer only makes him a spoiler for Newt and will hand Romney the nomination.

I believe if Santorum were to drop out the nomination will ultimately go to Newt. I also believe that Perry would become the VP nominee under Newt. I also believe a Newt/Perry ticket would be formidable in November. Perry would help keep the Conservative base and help with Newt's marital issues. I believe Newt is electable and can beat Obama. I don't want to have to vote for Obama lite but that is the choice we will have in November if Romney is the nominee.

As I said earlier maybe the best thing that could happen for Republicans is a brokered convention. For that to happen I believe Santorum needs to drop out. The only chnace of not having the choice of Obama or Obama lite, Rick Santorum has to drop out. If not tonight at least by early next week. Newt's momentum from tonight should translate into a tightening of the polls in Florida. Remember the first time Newt surged in the polls he was leading in Florida. If Santorum needs to get a feel for the landscape in Florida before making a decision so be it, but if after assessing his Florida chances he needs to bow out so we can see who wins what will basically be a two person race. While Ron Paul is a factor, he probably draws from Romney and a singular conservative "not Romney" candidate. Santorum and Newt are the last two "Not Romney" left. After tonight it should be clear that Santorum will not win the fight to be the "not Romney", Santorum can only ensure Romney wins the nomiation.

Gingrich Wins SC

2012-01-21T16:11:00.000-08:00

The SC primary was called immediately as the polls closed in SC. Gingrich wins and it must have been a fairly comfortable win. From Fox News it appears that Gingrich won among conservatives, evangelicals, independents, and late deciders. In a race that has proven volatile with many candidates moving up and down in the polls it appears that Newt is catching a bit of momentum with a second look from the voters.

My thoughts are that it would have been better had the Republicans selected their heir apparant sooner rather than later. From the look of it now that is now a mute point as with three States in there have been three different winners. Having a longer primary does help in organization. As long ass the candidates are chasing each other the State level party officials are able to get their ground game up and running. Selecting early would have left little interest in voters and the ground game would have been in shambles come convention time. I still think perhaps a brokered convention may be the best thing that could happen for the Republican party.

A brokered convention is able to select any candidate they so chose. It doesn't even have to be someone that is already running. There may yet be time to run another candidate, especially if Newt's marital infidelity begins to again bring him down in the polls. Let there be no doubt Mitt Romney is preparing to go very negative on Newt. I know the Republican establishment is behind Mitt. In a normal election it may indeed be Mitt's turn. However, I believe this election is much bigger than we could ever imagine. Obama bury us in the ditch he so effectively slammed us into. While Mitt may have economical designs far superior to Obama , I don't think he is the Social conservative he makes himself out to be.

I like Newt and have been pushing for him for awhile now. I think he is a better conservative and far more electable than is Santorum. Gingrich can and beat Obama in any debate. Gingrich isfully capable of winning but is damaged because of his marital problems that will keep cropping up every time the left wing pathetic pawns thinks it will help their messiah. I'd like Newt for President but for that to happen Mitt needs to lay off and win on substantive issues and not dwell on the issues that wil divide Republicans. The Bain attacks may have been over the top but than again so were Romney's ads in Iowa. Republicans need to stay away from personal attacks and campaign in a positive manner. However, if in the end Republicans can't choose and the candidates bloody each other to badly maybe a brokered convention will be able to heal the party and find the electable candidate that will beat Obama in November. Just remember the only thing that is a must win is the contest between a strong and prosperous America and the socialist America Obama is trying to establish.

Fast and Loose With Facts

2012-01-21T10:44:00.000-08:00

On Friday it seems that Nina Totenberg of NPR was very fast and loose with her facts. Totenberg claimed there were more people on food stamps under the Bush administration than currently under Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth. To top off her little falsehood (really she was lying through her teeth for her liberal audience), she claimed that it is Newt Gingrich who is playing fast and loose with the facts. So let me lay out a few facts for the liberal left that is eating up the pathetic pawn sycophant Totenberg.

First there were under 35 million participants in the SNAP program at the end of the recession ( a Full 6 months under Obama that I will use as the worst Bush year). Today there are in the neighborhood of 45.8 million participants in the program. This is a record all time high and means that fully 15% of the country is collecting food stamps. Sorry Nina it is not racist to point out that President Obama is the food stamp President, just look at the facts.

Second, Newt calling Obama the food stamp President is reality. No spin in the world is going to change the fact that more people are on food stamps today than ever before. Nothing is going to change the fact that trickle up economics is ever going to work. So where is the racism? It wasn't Newt that said African Americans that are a higher percentage than whites on food stamps. That is the left trying to put words in Newt's mouth to undermine facts. The problem is that the real racists sit there on the left. The left wing elitists like Totenberg are the ones that believe minorities are disproportionately the ones utilizing the food stamp program. It is the left like Bill Moyer that believe that African Americans are the ones that are predominately poor in this country. It is people like Andrea Mitchell that push the racism meme and put words in Republicans mouths for supporting school work programs for the youth of America. Sorry I don't think it is racism to provide opportunity.

In my heart of hearts I have to believe that the poor want jobs to earn a living. They don't chose to be poor and when given a choice between receiving government handouts or a job to earn a living, most Americans would chose to earn a living. The whole "Unemployment checks create more jobs than anything else the government could do" meme is hurting America. It will make Americans less likely to be ambitious and less likely to take risks. The food stamp president needs these people to always remain poor to keep them voting for the handouts.

The Food Stamp president is making this country worse off than she should be. The right answer is not to make everyone poor but to make an economic environment that where everyone has opportunity. For see if everyone has opportunity and more people are rising up the socio-economic ladder than less people will vote for the liberals. The pathetic pawns that make up their own facts (Totenberg) only desire to make everyone poorer so to keep the utopian, government knows elitists in power. So please Nina get your facts straight and stop with your bias towards the elitists. You are a reporter that should be impartial and report facts. Stop sensationalizing everything as being racist. Wake up and take a look around; Obama is the food stamp President and his trickle up economics are a dismal failure.

Marketplace Fairness Act

2012-01-21T08:21:00.000-08:00

Indiana has become the 4th state to negotiate with online retailer Amazon to collect state sales tax on internet purchases. Rather than change policy based on the technological advances our society enjoys and changing, politicians can't seem to think outside the box to come up with new solutions to the consequences of technological leaps.

The complaint is that brick and mortar businesses have to collect taxes. Politicians want "fairness" by forcing online retailers to do the same thing. Instead of coming up with other sources of tax dollars the States like their sales taxes and want someone else to collect the taxes for them. To me this is what the unions do when they force employers to take out union dues for the union. Rather than have the Union employees pay their dues directly to the union, the union would rather have someone else be the bad guy in the equation. States want the same thing, merchants collect the taxes due for the State. This line of thought needs to change.

Internet sales should not be taxed. To make it fair to the brick and mortar businesses why not change the way taxes are collected on goods and services from the business collecting and paying to the state collecting? Why not increase income taxes? States know how much they require and statistically how much people currently spend out of their paychecks on taxable goods and services. Why not just set an amount of income taxes that would fill this gap? There is a reason why people will go to great lengths to avoid the tax liability in various states. People living close to the Delaware border will travel the short distance and purchase goods and services because Delaware charges no sales taxes. Get rid of the sales taxes all together and find an appropriate place to increase taxes to get the revenue back into State cofers. The answer is not to bring the future backwards into the way it has always been dome. The answer is to keep up with the times and move towards a one tax or two tax system where people can really see how much of their income really goes to keep the tax man happy.

States and the Federal government need to get rid of the hidden taxes and the taxes that are collected by outside sources and go directly to the payee and let them know exactly how much really goes to pay for the government leviathan.

Mitt's Taxes

2012-01-21T06:28:00.000-08:00

The 2012 election campaign is not going to be a substantive debate on economical policies if the left has their way. See the left can not defend the Keynesian policies that have not been able to turn around the economy. The so called "great recession" officially ended in the summer of 2009. Yet two and half years later we have a stagnant economy where the unemployment rate is still well over 8%, the lowest participation rate since records have been kept, annualized GDP at 2% or less, a spiraling debt that is now over 100% of GDP, and a divided Government that is unable to get anything done. So the left can not talk about the stagnant economy and how we are going to get out of the Keynesian ditch we are in so instead the left wing pathetic pawns are allowing Obama to run a class warfare campaign and fueling the fires with a dose of racism.

The economy is exactly what makes Mitt Romney appealing. Mitt is a "technocrat" that has been in business for a very long time and has a good background concerning economical issues. As long as the economy is in the tank Romney is going to be relevant in the nomination process and election. Yet the media lapdogs want to shift the focus to Romney's tax records. The Washington Post was one of the first to push the meme about Romney's taxes trying to portray him as one of the evil rich 1% yet have ignored that their chosen candidate's failure to release of relevant records. America has not seen anything from Obama concerning his college transcripts. America hasn't seen where Obama registered for the draft and when did he do it. We haven't seen Obama's "citizenship" records proving he is a natural born citizen. The left knows full well that being born in America does not necessarily make one a citizen let alone a natural born citizen. The left wing pathetic pawns just take Obama at his word that everything is kosher in his past. When it comes to Obama the pathetic pawns are following the "move along, nothing to see here" mantra.

ROmney should say sure I'll release any relevant documentation desired, want my tax returns, fine then demand Obama's transcripts that show whether or not Obama attended his colleges as a foreign student. We have a constitutional requirement for our Presidents. Obama is obviously hiding something as we know nothing about him prior to his Harvard Law review days. Even his Harvard Law Review days are cloudy as we have not seen his dissertation (which for most people is a public record as colleges use dissertations as examples), we haven't seen how Harvard was financed, we haven't seen if Obama got into Harvard because of potential or if it was a race based decision.

It is funny how the pathetic pawns will only fight this campaign on Obama's terms. The people are saying the most important issues to them this cycle is the economy and jobs. Yet the media wants to focus the Republican debates on Romney's taxes, Newt's marital issues, Santorum's religion, and Paul's kookiness. None of these so called vetting processes have any weight on the economy and won't create jobs. Furthermore, these so called media vetting processes have never been used to vet their favored candidate. All the media wants to do is fight Obama's war along the lines of class warfare and racism, all just to prop up a failed Obama Presidency.

Debates

2012-01-20T07:02:00.000-08:00

There is a buzz in conservative circles concerning the inadequacies concerning debate questions and moderators from the democrat lap dogs in the media. Over the course of 16 debates the most glaring problem with the debates is the media bias. For the most part the moderators don't ask substantive policy type questions but rather as attack type questions meant to make Republicans appear extreme. Stephanopoulos' hypothetical contraception question in New Hampshire is one such example. The question was a "gotcha" question attempting to make christian conservatives appear out of the mainstream. Last night, the first question asked was a question towards an attack on the morales of Newt Gingrich aimed at alienating christian conservatives.

Does Newt need to be asked to explain the he said she said marital infidelities that Newt is famous for? Absolutely, but it doesn't need to be asked by a media type that is more interested in undermining any republican candidate. Had this question been asked by someone in the audience or sent in as a question by viewers than it would have become the right forum and place. However to come out of the gate trying to take a candidate down is flat out wrong.

I think Newt handled the question appropriately by dressing down the moderator. Yet John King kept going at each of the candidates from the left. King even added a liberal spin to one of the audience questions turning it from a fairly innocent conservative question into how does this help the left type question. Someone should tell the media lapdogs that being a moderator in Republican debates does not mean a democratic standin point of view.

This liberal spin in Republican debates has been atrocious. Rather than bring out Republican ideas and solutions, all the liberal moderators seem to do is spin the questions that is aimed at improving Obama's chances rather than aimed at nominating a Republican. The debate question should be largely aimed towards the Republican base and aimed at the differences between Republican candidate ideas and Democrat ideas. The moderator should be appealing to the audience which is the base of the Republican party and not the typical CNN liberal viewer. I hope all of the Republican candidates follow Newt's lead and go on the offensive against biased moderators who want to go about selecting the Republican nominee that they believe will be the easiest for Obama to beat.

Gingrich/Perry

2012-01-19T16:00:00.000-08:00

Today was a good day for Newt Gingrich. With Perry dropping out and endorsing Gingrich will only help solidify the "not Romney" voters. From the polls today it appears the race is tightening in South Carolina with 4 polls (PPP, Augusta Chronicle, Rasmussen, and ARG) showing Gingrich with a lead. The Perry endorsement has to help Gingrich as I believe it will strengthen the resolve of Gingrich supporters to drive on. I believe the Gingrich support will be strong and unwavering while Romney is looking less electable everyday.

I believe Perry dropping out is the right decision. Perry had his supporters but after a disastrous entry into the race with a few misstatements and poor debate performances seemed to doom his campaign. While Perry looked stronger lately I think it was too late. Had it been Perry who got the second look rather than what appears to be a second look towards Gingrich I would have switched my support from Newt to Perry.

In the end I think the country could do far worse than a Newt/Perry ticket. Yes, I do believe that Perry has been promised the VP slot on the ticket. For Republicans wavering on Gingrich support I say this, Newt can and will debate Obama and win those debates. Newt as House speaker debated a sitting President to a draw. This is somewhat unheard of. The bully pulpit is a powerful tool all President have at their disposal and Newt was able to sit on a stage with Bill Clinton and debate the Contract for America.

I am not sure who Romney would select as VP but rest assured it won't be Rick Perry. It probably wouldn't be Marco Rubio and it probably wouldn't be Bob McDonnell. Romney is a moderate, a northeastern Rockefeller type Republican. Romney is going to have a difficult time winning over conservatives and would need a strong conservative on the ticket to have a chance in the general. I have no doubt Romney would be better than Obama, but I also believe Republicans can win with a more conservative ticket. By Sunday I expect Santorum will drop out and follow Perry with a Newt endorsement. Gingrich/Perry is a winning ticket that is capable bringing all three legs of the Republican stool together in unified support. Newt has proven he can take a punch. Under withering attacks by Romney in Iowa, Newt is still in position to win the nomination. After Iowa the media and political pundits called Newt angry and was wondering what he was doing with his attacks on Romney and his Bain days. Now it certainly looks like Newt wasn't angry and while the Bain attacks may have been an attack on Capitalism they also showed that Romney isn't as electable as the media would lead us to believe. Thank You Rick Perry, I think you made the right decision for your country.

Jobs Versus Public Dole

2012-01-18T17:26:00.000-08:00

Obama today killed the Keystone pipeline and with it an estimated 20,000 jobs. These 20,000 jobs were not just some low paying service industry but rather good paying union jobs. Obama speaks about investing in infrastructure yet killed a project that would help rebuild a portion of American infrastructure. America would have been investing in in energy production in this country. Yet Obama believes miraculously that having people receiving Unemployment benefits produce more jobs than this project would have.

Here we are a nation with a debt greater than our GDP and Obama has the audacity to believe that yet again extending unemployment benefits is better than actually producing jobs. See the government could have saved some money on unemployment benefits for 20,000 people and allowed them to work for good wages that would have produced even more jobs. These jobs don't require the government to spend a dime as the project was going to be privately funded.Obama sold our country out to the Chinese in favor of a couple of votes from environmentalists. Obama in his infinite wisdom chose his failed trickle up economics rather than go with a project that would have had an immediate impact on the unemployment rate and perhaps allowed the non temporary temporary extension of unemployment benefits. See the smart one in the room doesn't believe in private industry, he only believes in Government knows best. Only government spending will get us out of the hole we are in.

This is a decision that will lead America down its current path of self destruction. Anyone that believes it is better to have people on the public dole rather than have a real job that earns real money, needs to be in an asylum for the criminally insane rather than the Oval Office. Every American should be very afraid of a President that is unwilling to do what is right for America for fear that they may not be reelected. All I know is we need jobs Mr. President and not the indirect low paying and service industry jobs that are maintained through Unemployment benefits.

That's right, an extension of unemployment benefits will not create one new job. Any of the indirect jobs that are created by extended unemployment benefits were created under the first law that extended the benefits. Any extension only maintains those jobs. All that happens with the Presidents logic is America will go further in debt and maintain the exact same jobs position we are currently in. The 20,000 new jobs would have also created even more indirect jobs as the newly employed had even more money to spend than they would have with unemployment benefits.

Having a job brings pride of having earned an income. The public dole creates shame in those receiving the benefits and does nothing for the person except make them even more dependent on Government handouts. There is a reason why Newt calls the President the "food stamp" President and its not because of racism; it decisions like these and the thought process that unemployment benefits are better than actually working.

The Knights of Labor

2012-01-18T08:58:00.000-08:00

I have come to despise labor unions. Unions in America are no longer organized labor but rather organized corporations. Unions short sightedness towards labor and long term political hacks have changed my opinion of what a union strated out as and what it has become. Sure labor unions are responsible for establishing a 40 hour work week. Sure they are responsible for reducing sweatshops and the institutionalization of child labor laws but what have they done lately? We are having a crisis in our country and instead of working together with employers; Unions run million dollar recall election campaigns when they don't get their way. Rather than admit they have taken things too far and having ruined American manufacturing; Unions carry on a campaign against those that having the requirement to hire more labor. Unions are responsible for the bailout of the auto industry. Unions are responsible for the outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs. Unions are rsponsible for the ever growing and unsustainable compensation packages. I must wonder if Terence Powderly had a better long term Union solution than did Smauel Gompers.

We all hear that corporations have a social responsibility. We all hear Obama decry the disparity between the rich and the poor. We all hear about the social contract corporations should adhere to when employing resources. Yet Unions followed the Gompers method of extractingevery concession a union could from management. Violence was part of the strategy. Strikes were instituted to extract even more. In Gompers methodology everything came down to the here and now; the future be damned. By playing up the sympathy card and exploiting the individual laborers to garner empathy, many concessions were forced without any foresight into the unforseen consequences. We are suffering through those unforseen consequences today. Our jobs are traveling out of country. Our labor rates don't allow us to compete effectively. Detroit is a dying and decaying city with little hope in sight. The Gompes strategy was all about today, using tactics to extract political wins for labor that would have a negative impact far into the future. Whenever we here about the goodness of unions, the supporters have to go back 75 years or longer to pick out what good a union has done. They have done nothing lately ecept to continue squeezing blood from the employers. It is the Gompers philosophy that made adversaries of management and labor.

Powderly on the other hand didn't believe it was an adversarial relationship between management and labor. Powderly in fact was inclusive of management in his Knights of Labor Union. Powderly had a vision of shared commonalities between management and labor. The Powderly vision of inclusiveness between stakeholders was before his time. We want Companies to have a sense of social responsibility. We want our companies to beliee in the unwritten social contract. Yet Powderly lost his union because the results were longer term and didn't immediately satisfy labor. Now here we set in a country where a corporation (Boeing)can no longer decide where there build plants and products. We have millionaires and billionaires (read Basketball) pitted against one another over a couple of percentage points in profit sharing. We have an auto industry bailout that really didn't bailout the corporations but rahter protected the Unions. Isn't this why Powderly felt there were shared interests between management and labor? Wouldn't it be better for unions to spend their money on training their workforce rather spending frivilously on recall elections? The concept proposed by Powderly was before its time. In the end the Knights of Labor fell apart because of not being able to enforce dues. The KOL fell apart because Gompers beleived short term gains were better than long term goals. Unions do not have solutions to America's problem, they are a part of the problems we face. Tell something Unions have done for labor over the past half century. Tell me why Unions would rather spend laborers hard earned union dues on getting job killing politicans elected. What is good for today's unions is not good for America. If we really want socially responsible companies that adhere to social contracts, Unions have to stay out of politics and get involved more with management. Management and labor must work together to develop tomorrow's solutions. As long as Gompers philosophy of management and laborers being adversaries America is doomed to failure with a declining industrial base.

Democrat Temper Tantrum

2012-01-18T04:58:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Wisconsin Democrats turned in what they claim is a million signatures for the Scott Walker recall effort. In light of the claims of fraudulent signatures the Democrats may need all 1 million just to have enough signatures to move forward. However, my issue is notthe fraud and money spent by unions and democrats to oust Walker, its that they are going the recall route at all.

Think about it, Scott Walker did exactly what he said he would do if electd. Scott Walker saved the Wisconsin taxpayer money and brought an out of control Democratic spending machine into some kind of order and balance. Yet because the get rich quick union schemes were called out and unions now have to collect thir owns dues, the Democrats are attempting to ignore the results of the last election and have a new one in hopes that Wisconsin turns Walker away.

Having come from Wisconsin, I hope a majority believe as I do, that the democrats and unions are just throwing a temper tantrum. The democrats already shirked their responsibility by running away rather than debate. The democrats can't stand being out of power and don't know how to act when in the minority. Hopefully the average Wisconsin voter knows this is nothing more than the democratic machine attempting to buy an election and buy a majority in the Wisconsin legislature. Unions across the nation have poured millions into this recall effort of Republicans. The 6 recall election last year plus this one are costing Wiscoonsin taxpayers 10's of millions of dollars. Maybe instead of costing the Wisconsin taxpayers for recall elections, democrats and unions could have better improved their image by spending the money more wisely on debate. If the democrats do indeed have enough signatures to move towards an election process, I hope Wisconsin sends a resounding get lost vote to the Democrats who are not in politics for the people but only for their corrupt cronies. Don't stand for the temper tantrum Wisconsin, send the whiney children back to their room; their Illinois hotel room that is.

Matthews: A Deceitful Liar

2012-01-12T18:32:00.000-08:00

Chris Matthews is a deceitful liar. No wonder I call the media lapdogs "the pathetic pawns" of the Donkey party. How else can one explain the lies Matthews obviously told when
he claimed there was a mere increase of 13 federal public employees added to the payroll from 2009 to 2010? I mean Matthews shamelessly lies asking rhetorical questions and mocking the Republicans with talk of a leviathan government that merely increased by 13 people. The problem is Matthews knew it was really 13,000. Matthews knows full well that government spending increased over 23% under Obama. Matthews knew and rather than admit his mistake, just changed his his words for the re-airing of his show.

That is the deceitful part. See Matthews got his lies out there. No doubt the brainless left will eat up the idea that only 13 people were added to the federal payroll. By just editing the re-air of his show without admitting there was a mistake is just more propaganda and lies from the pathetic pawns that will do or say anything to get their false messiah elected to a second term.

There was a time that Mr. Tingles thought about running for an open Senate seat in PA. Hopefully, PA will never allow a pathetic pawn, a shameless liar, and deceitful blowhard win an election. Where is the rest of the pathetic pawns? If they wanted to retain what little credibility they have left (if any) they should be all over the air in their news and analysis shows pointing out how Matthews is a deceitful liar. Matthews is tarnishing every pathetic pawn in the media. Unless the other pathetic pawns point out this grievous lie they are no better than Matthews. MSNBC should not be allowed to air bogus lies and cover them up without a retraction or correction. Matthews is nothing more than a deceitful liar that will do nothing but further the propaganda of his left wing pathetic organization.

Omens

2012-01-09T17:15:00.000-08:00

There was a great football game yesterday between the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburgh Steelers. The game went down to the wire and eventually Tim Tebow, the quarterback that shouldn't be, pulled off an upset of epic proportions. True Denver was at home but Pittsburgh was widely regarded as the better team. Yet in the end, Denver pulled out another improbable victory.

What was really interesting was the Omens that appeared to have presented themselves. First, as the Broncos kicked off, the ball clanked off the upright for a touchback. The ball finally stopped on the twenty yard line exactly where the ball is placed upon a touchback. Then there are all the references to 316. Tebow entered overtime with 236 yards, a seemingly inconsequential number, yet one pass latter there it was, an 80 pass play resulting in a touchdown. The Broncos won and Tebow had 316 yards passing. Next we learn that Tebow completed 10 passes for an average of 31.6 yards per completion. There is that 316 number again. Yet, I was always told that news good or bad comes in three. Could there possibly yet another reference to 316? Why yes there is, we find out that the playoff game had a viewership share of 31.6.

I don't know what this all protends. John 3:16 says:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

we all know that Tebow is a devout Christian. The left has gone bonkers over Tebow's prayers after good plays and wins. His almost iconic pose is what movies are made of. Yet these omens happened during a football game and bring to mind the "David versus Goliath" battle of biblical times. Denver had no business winning that game, yet there was Tebow throwing an 80 yard touchdown pass for a game total of 316 yards. This happened in the year 2012, the year in which the current Mayan calendar ends. Yes, it is true that in theory a new era should begin but there are some who believe that this year will have chaotic events that may lead to the end of the world as we know it. Now, I am not a big "end of days" believer but it certainly seems time to perhaps at least consider what the bible may have been telling us all this time. Maybe now is the time for those non believers to give Christianity another look. Perhaps it is high time we all got along with our neighbor. We will never know what yesterday meant beyond Denver winning a football game and perhaps that was all it was. Yet the omens presented certainly seem to be saying something.

Simply Wrong

2012-01-09T15:06:00.000-08:00

In 2009, Obama told America that everyone needed to sacrifice and have some skin in the game. We were and still are in many aspects in the midst of the largest recession of our time. Obama knew we were in dire straights and even had the fortitude to tell America we were in for some hard times. Yet Obama, decided to have a lavish Halloween party, complete with Johnny Depp and punch filled blood vials.

Now Obama the transparent knew this was the wrong picture to send to the American people. So do you think the smartest man in the room decided to call off his party? Nope, rather than call off his lavish party Mr. Smarty decided to have the party and keep it secret. It's not so bad that Obama had a party in the White House. every President does that and after all he was elected to live there. What burns me and should burn every American is that Obama knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

That' right folks, Obama told the press they could report on the less lavish events of the day but no way should they ever report on the "Alice in Wonderland" themed lavish Halloween party. Obama knew the optics would look poorly upon him so instead of coming to grips with the reality of the optics and cancelling the event, Obama just decided to hide the event from public view. Here I thought Obama was supposed to be so transparent. I thought Obama was supposed to be smart. I thought Obama was supposed to be our savior and not our petulant child.

Brokered Convention

2012-01-09T11:24:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the Republican Party is to have a brokered convention. Perhaps in the end, nominating "none of the above" is the best course of action. Right now, we know the presumed front runner is having difficulty consolidating gains and garnering a clear mandate from the Republican electorate. Romney is not the choice of many outside the party establishment. There is concern about his authenticity. We have MSNBC saying Romney is the candidate that most feared by Obama. We have a clear majority of Republicans that want someone other than Romney to win.

Romney barely gets above 30% in most states if at all. From the latest polls it appears Romney will not even gather 40% in New Hampsire tomorrow. This is problematic. New Hampshire should be a bedrock of support for Romney. New Hampshire while having a history of voting Republican is still a North Eastern State that is more moderate and independent than the general Republican electorate. This is exactly the type of voters Romney should appeal to if he has any chance to become Presidnet of the United States. Romney is a Rockafeller Republican and not a Reagan Conservative. yet even in New Hampshire Romney is having problems being the clear cut choice for the nominee.

The problem is that Romney gained momentum out of Iowa. So did Santorum, but by the looks of the environment that was a short lived bounce and as Santorum is more closely scrutinized seems to be falling in the polls again. Yet Santorum's loss of momentum is not necessarily going to Romney. It is clear Republicnas want someone other than Romney.

Another problem with Romney that Republicans should take note of is that the pathetic pawns in the media prefer Mitt over any other candidate. The media has been pushing Mitt since 2008, always calling him the presumptive front runner. Now we have MSNBC saying Mitt is the one candidate that scares Obama. The pathetic pawns and especially MSNBC are not going to lay out a path to victory for the Republican party. Let's be honest, does anyone really believe MSNBC would come out honestly and tell us what the juvenile Obama adminstration fears? I have to agree with Sarah Palin, Romney is the clear choice of the pathetic pawns of media. The pathetic pawns want Romney to win as they believe he is the easiset to attack. Romney is the establishment candidate. Romney and his $10,000 wager show how out of touch he is with mainstream America. Romney plays right into the class warfare rhetoric that Obama plans to use in the election. Let there be no doubt that Romney will be a wounded candidate if he should win the nomination outright. Bain capital with the layoffs will be fodder for Obama. The $10,000 bet will be fodder for Obama. Romney's Wall Street connections will be fodder for Obama. Romney's life of privilege will be fodder for Obama. Romney may be able to overcome these circumstances but should he be the nominee, Republicans will be playing right into Obama's hand. We will play right into the Oama campaign theme and motto. The life of privilege, the out of touch mentality, and the cruelty of layoffs will be the class warfare Democrats have been waiting for.

By the looks of things the overwhelming majority of Republicnas have yet to decide for Mitt. Mitt hasn't solidified his front runner status. The "not Romney" has not solidified around a single candidate. There may not be enough time for the conservative base to solidify around a single "not Romney" unless that happens by the end of the month when Florida votes. I don't believe Romney is a good choice right now and we need an alternative. If the alternative can't win enough delegates to be the clear cut nominee going into the convention, I think we need to ensure Mitt does not have that either. Perhaps having a dark horse candidate, maybe one that is not currently in the race is what is needed. Obama will start spending his mney this spring and he wants an identifiable candidate to begin attacking.

Obama wants to be able to attack all spring leaving the Republican candidate for dead long before the convention starts. Obama has huge sums of dollars to spend and if we have a wounded candidate short on cash, Obama will be able to bury his opponent before we even begin. Having a brokered convention for the first time since 1952 or having the first winner of the presidential election after a brokered convention may be the best thing that could happen for the Republican party.

In the unlikely event there is a brokered convention, I would hope that none of the above (meaning current cnadidates) wins the brokered convention. A dark horse that isn't even running yet. Why not a fresh face like Mike Pence. How about Chris Christie that many donors have clamored for? There are candidates that are out there. It may be difficult to set up the ground game to win such an election. Yet the last time our country had just this sort of financial and economic crisis that is exactly what happened. FDR won a brokered convention in 1932 and beat a wounded incumbent. I believe again this is one such historic moment that requires something out of the ordinary. America needs a change of direction. I don't believe Romney will change the direction and we already know Obama is incapable of changing an has no new ideas. I don't know but something tells me a brokered convention maybe the best thing that could happen for the GOP this year.

The Juvenile Administration

2012-01-09T10:20:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration issues more excuses than any I have ever seen. Exactly like adolescent children, this administration never accepts responsibility and always passes the blame onto someone else. See it is never their fault when things go wrong and again like the juvenile adolescent they will always take credit for when things go right.

Take for example the DNC chair saying the bankruptcy of Solyndra is not Obama's fault. After all he is not the CEO and it is the CEO responsibity for making the decisions that either lead to viability or bankruptcy. Yet when Obama heralded Solyndra as a shining example of his green energy policies we only heard how awesome it was for Obama to be considering alternative energy sources and investing our monbey inbto them. Yet when it fails Obama is the first to blame someone else. It is kind of like when Obama said "the Republicnas didn't do anything and won't work with him on the economy back in early 2010. When it looked like maybe the economy was going to turn around (job creation through temporary census jobs) Obama was more than willing to take credit for the economic turn around and blame the previous administration for the mess. When the economy didn't turn around, Obama, rather than take responsibility for his failed stimulus package, Obama was back to blaming the Republicans.

This administration is very juvenile. Obama is planning on running the most negative presidential campaign for an incumbent in years. See Obama has no successes in his repretoire. His record is one of dismal failure. he is left to surrogates like the DNC chair to find the strawmen and blame lines for his failures. Obama has never and will never take any responsibility. His is a juvenile attitude that if only everyone else understood how smart he was then all would be right in the world. Obama can't run on his record, he can only run on the politics of fear and destruction. Obama will be the first one to claim racism. Obama will be the first to play class warfare, Obama will be the first to divide a Nation, and Obama will be the first to blame everyone else. If the partisans on the left would just take a step back and look for Obama's accomplishments instead of believing in his words they would see a juvenile, that believes nothing is his fault, that takes credit for the work of others, and believes that he alone is the smartest in any room. Obama is not a healer, Obama is not transparent, Obama is not the messiah the pathetic pawns in the media would have all of us believe. Just take a look at his actions rather than his words. Obama through his actions has shown that his words are as empty as his suit. Let there be no doubt Obama has a juvenile administration.

Standard Bearer

2012-01-09T06:13:00.000-08:00

There has been much talk concerning who should be the Republican standard bearer for this Presidential election. Many comparisons are being made towards the John McCain and Bob Dole style of Senatorial candidates. Both were and are seen as compromising Senator's that had a history of sacrificing Republican ideals to get laws passed in Congress. Both are seen as moderates and the Conservative base is more about ideology than they are the politics of compromise (commonly called governing). Every losing Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater has been called a moderate. In other words the losing candidate wasn't a victim of circumstances but rahter was too moderate and not ideological enough.

Nothing could be further from reality. The Republican standard bearers that have lost since Goldwater lost in 1964 were not to moderate to win. The issues were deeper than simply not being conservative enough to energize the base. In 1976, Gerald Ford didn't lose because he was a moderate. He lost because the country was in a sour mood after Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. The Republicans were going to be punished for Watergate and the Nixon resignation no matter who the nominee was on the Republican side. In fact, even if the great conservative icon, Ronald Reagan was the nominee in 1976, he would have lost to Jimmy Carter. In 1992, the economy was in the tank. The country was in the doldrums and Bush lost, not because he went to moderate, not because he went against his no new taxes pledge, but because the economy was in the tank. The country was tired of 12 years of Republican Presidents and felt a change was in order. I believe if the election was held 3 months later Bush may have had a chance as the economy was beginning to turn around just before the election but not enough to turn the election. Also let's not forget that Ross Perot garnered enough independents and moderates that the 1992 election was skewed anyway. In 1996 Bob Dole didn't lose because he was too moderate. Bob Dole lost because the economy was booming. Additionally, Republicans overstepped their mandate of 1994. Impeaching Clinton was a mistake. Shutting down the Government was a mistake. The American voter saw the Republicans as taking revenge for Nixon and uncompromising for shutting the Government down. The Republicans blamed Dole for not being conservative enough or for not running an inspired campaign, but the reality was the economy was booming and Republicans seemed mean and vengeful. Finally, McCain was the only choice for 2008. Republicans were going to lose in 2008 no matter who the Democrats placed forward. I thin my dog could have been on the Democratic ticket and beat the second coming of Ronald Reagan in 2008. The economy was in the tank. Bush endured 8 years of left leaning hate and a media that destroyed anything and everything associated with Bush. The Republican brand as the media likes to call it was tarnished. The implosion of the financial markets and skyrocketing gasoline prices sealed our fate long before either party had their conventions.

The point being that, everytime a candidate loses we blame the candidate as not being conservative enough or not running an inspired campaign. However, in the end circumstances dictate who wins and who loses more than charismatic and inspired campaigns. When the economy is in the dumps or the country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis the party in power doesn't stand much of a chance. What this means to me is that no matter who the Republicna nominee is, they will be electable. Mitt Romney is electable and so is Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I don't think Ron Paul will win the nomination so I haven't included him, although he is electable. Bottom line is if the election were held today, the Republican, no matter who it is, would beat Obama. Never mind polls that show Romney is the only candidate that can beat Obama. Polls will solidify around the standard bearer once our nominee is selected and the gneral begins. If the economy remains in the doldrums into this summer, Obama loses, unless something major breaks. We need to vote our principles in the primary and vote our conscience in the General. We need to rid the country of the cancer that inflicts us. Democrats need to be on the outside. Unlike the Republican party, the Democrats will fold under adversity. The pundits have all said the Republican party is on the verge of splitting, nothing could be further from the truth. It is the democrats that are on the verge of collapse and splintering. Our standard bearer no matter who it is needs to focus on the economy and take some heat off the Republican House. There is a reason House members don't win a Pary nomination, they are not in the best position to lead the country. They are elected to represent a district. Just remember, we need to solidify around the stnadard bearer, and allow the standard bearer to run a campaign of prosperity against Obama. We need moderates and independents to win. Never mind what the media does, thwt are in the tank for Obama and will set out to destroy our candidate no matter who it is. "Its the economy stupid", the standard bearer won't make a difference.

Reevaluating the Field

2012-01-05T18:25:00.001-08:00

As I owa went to the caucuses on Tuesday, I believed that the fifth and sixth place participants should drop out and endorse the fourth place finisher. I have since reevaluated my own position especially after McCain endorsed Romney and implored everyone to get out of the race. For quite awhile now, I believed the Republicans needed to quickly select their candidate so the nominee could move on to the general election challenge. I have change my position slightly and now believe that maybe prolonging the process into April or May would be better for the party.

In no way to I want to give Obama and his pathetic pawns in the media getting an extra long period in which to tear apart the Republican nominee. Romney won the other night by 8 votes and 25% of the electorate. Yet the next day every pathetic pawn somehow framed the night as good for Santorum but Romney now was going to be the clear choice for the Republican nomination. McCain came out and about said the same thing. I think this may now be the wrong tack to take. Obama is going to have plenty of money in which to crucify our nominee. Obama has already been busy bashing the Republicans at taxpayer expense. I want Obama to have to begin spending money without really knowing who the nominee is going to be. There is no need for Republicans to make this any easier on Obama.

The media wants the fight over. They want a candidate chosen and if anything the results of the other night disheartened them. The media understands that there is no clear singular choice. The Republican party essentially knows the establishment insider Republicans want romney. We also know the grassroot Republicans want someone else, they are just not decided on who that singular outside the establishment they want it to be. That will come. I make no bones about it, my choice is Gingrich, although, I could Perry is also a good choice that is more than acceptable. When MD has its primary, I will vote for one or the other if they are still in the race. If neither ids left standing by April, than I will sit the primary out. That will be my protest vote. I will vote for whoever the nominee is in the General election, yes even Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, or Perry or Gingrich.

SO back to why I like the fact Perry is staying in the race. First I think he may be the better candidate to take Mitt out rather than Gingrich (that's not to say I think Perry is better than Newt as a general election candidate.) At any rate, Gingrich, Perry, or Santorum needs to win SC and the same candidate needs to win Florida. After Florida, I think either Newt or Perry needs to bow out and maybe both if Santorum wins both. I think we need to get this down to a two person race and let the chips then fall. Right now I think the "not Romney camp" is still undecided between Newt, Perry and Santorum. One of the three will catch momentum as long as they can win SC and Florida. Money will come to the winner of SC and the winner in SC will be able to compete in Florida.

I have never seen Romney with anything more than 1/3 of the likely Republicans. That leaves 2/3 of Republicans that want someone else. There is still plenty of time as I believe Florida took a reduction in delegates but will be a winner take all vote. SC is proportional allocation so in the delegate count if one of the "Not Romney" can win both SC and Florida than we have us a race that will keep going on for a very long time. This will keep Obama and his media lapdogs guessing and keep Obama from coalescing a campaign against a particular candidate. This is going to be a negative campaign waged by Obama. Obama has no other choice as his record is abysmal. Republicans need to ensure that Obama has to play against the Republican Congress and his base until closer to the Conventions.

Republicans can afford to vote their conscience in SC and Florida. Hopefully then there will be a clear "not Romney" choice and the race becomes a two person race. Republicans have just begun this race towards delegates, let's not allow Iowa and New Hampshire make that choice for us. I don't think the Republicans can afford to have Obama sharpshooting a named candidate in March. We need to make him wait and guess until at least April or May. That will keep the party in the news to contrast Obama who will always be in front of the camera's for his pathetic pawns.

The Case Against Obama

2012-01-05T04:41:00.000-08:00

The President yesterday violated the constitution by parsing words and making a recess appointment even though technically the Senate is still in session. My advice to Republicans is to not play into Obama's hand. The Republicans should cry foul and during every interview and every speaking engagement make sure it is pointed out that Obama violated the constitution and illegally made a recess appointment. In the end, however, don't play too much into Obama's hands and let the Republican nominee's point out how Obama is more interested in playing politics, getting re-elected, and establishing a socialist state than he is in governing.

The Republicans should remember that in 10 short months we will be having an election. The prospects are good for keeping the house and winning the Senate. At a minimum, I believe America will keep government divided. To me it seems likely that Americans will turn the keys over to the Republican's in full but even if Obama retains his office, Obama will be a lame duck with a hostile Congress. In a year from know Republicnas's can play the same games the Democrats have over the last 4 years.

Republicans will have the opportunity to change the filibuster rules just like the democrats and liberals begged for in 2010. Republican's can defund Obama's Czar's and ensure people like Corday do not have enough money to receive a salary let alone fund their bureau's. Republicnas will be in position to jam everything down Obam's throat just like the democrats did to the republicans. Republicna's can filibuster all of Obama's court appointments. Republicans will be in position to shut down the most marxist president we have ever been unfortunate enough to elect.

The Republican nominees have their talking points. Build the case that Obama doesn't care about the voters but rahter just his own political hide and his political party. The case to make is easy. Obama just violated the constitution. Obama is for individual mandates to purchase a product for no other reason than we are born. Obama is making regualtions to bypass the rule of law. Obama is using the EPA to overrule common sense. Remember it was Obama that bypassed Congress and fought a war in Libya that has left a secular Nation in peril. Sure Libya was liberated from a dictator, but is it going to any better off with Muslim fundamentalists ruling it. Obama wants a fight against Congress, don't give him the fight. Take Obama's actions in stride.

Republicans in Congress need to just allow Obama to parade around like a dictator. Obama is not above the law but don't chase the carrot, look out for the big picture, let the nominees contrast their policies with Obama's. Congress should not take the fight on. Obama can not run on his record, he needs a fight with Congress to have any prayer of winning in November. All the Republican's should do is point out that Obama is running amok and bypassing Congress with everything. Point out he violates the rule of law. Point out that Obama believes he doesn't have to abide by the voters intent. Point out that it is Obama that is uncompromising. Point out that it is Obama that is out of ideas. Just don't fall into the trap of allowing Obama to make this a election against Congress. This election has to be about the Presidency and the direction of the country.

Perry Out?

2012-01-03T20:58:00.000-08:00

Is Rick Perry going to suspend his campaign? Certainly after listening to his speech tonight it would appear so. Perry just stated that through prayer and reflection, he will be searching for a path forward. Perry is returning to Texas tonight to sleep on what he may do. I don't think that bodes well for the Texas Governor. Perry is a true champion of conservative ideals. Certainly he would be a better candidate than Romney. Hopefully, if Perry ultimately decides to suspend, my hope is he endorses Gingrich. Gingrich is a better candidate to take on Romney than is Santorum. Gingrich could really use the support from the Texas Governor. I really think in the next day or two it will be a 4 person field. Huntsman has to win New Hampshire (which without a miracle isn't happening) to be viable past next Tuesday. Bachmann probably drops out in a day or two, so that leaves the field Santorum, Romney, Paul, and Gingrich. Paul's support is what it is and that won't be changing. SO in the end the Republicans need to get this down to two viable candidates. With Perry finishing 5th, I pray that Perry endorses Gingrich.

The Story In Iowa?

2012-01-03T19:42:00.000-08:00

What will be the story coming out of Iowa tonight? Will it be Rick Santorum? Will it be the divided Republican vote? I think the story in Iowa maybe the low turnout amongst Republicans. From Fox news accounts there will be approximately 120,000 votes cast tonight. In 2008 there were approximately 119,000 votes cast. An increase but not by much, more importantly it appears that less Republicans actually voted this year. The increase appears to have come from independents and Democrats the registered tonight or recently as Republicans so they could caucus. This should be scaring the heck out of the Republican party. As big of a disaster the Obama administration has been for the Republican ideals, if Republicans are not energized to select the Republican nominee, how in the world to they intend on getting voters energized enough to beat Obama in November?

If the Republican turnout in Iowa is less than 2008, when there was very little to be joyous about, the Republicans are doomed in November. Republicans are going to have to attack each other much less and go full on frontal assault on the Obama administration. There are ways of differentiating candidacies than negative attacks on fellow Republican candidates. The Republicans need to heed this warning from Iowa and start listening to what the voting public is telling them.

Republican voters are telling their candidates that they are not feeling good about their fortunes. Republicans are saying they want specifics and they want to know how the economy is going to be fixed. The electorate as whole is feeling left out of the process. The electorate is being left behind with no hope of any change. I think Iowa is telling both parties that Americans are very turned off on their political institutions and on election day in November many incumbents may need to search for new employment. The electorate is restless and isn't really supporting anyone. So while the Democrats may seem lethargic with their choice in Obama, if the Republicans are not energized to alleviate the Democrats of their albatross than America will be stuck with 4 more years of a lame duck, do-nothing, President. The story of the night may just be the lack of participation amongst Republicans.

What if Santorum Wins?

2012-01-03T19:17:00.000-08:00

We will know soon enough who win have garnered the most votes in Iowa. The winner will be among Santorum, Paul, and Romney. So what if Santorum wins? Will Santorum be the Mike Huckabee of 2012? Will Santorum, who seemingly does not have the organization to really win the outright nomination against Romney stay in and siphon off enough votes in future caucuses from one of tonight's second tier candidates to ensure Romney wins the nomination?

Mike Huckabee was a surprise winner of Iowa in 2008. This gave him enough confidence and cash to continue his campaign. Instead of the "not McCain" vote coalescing around one candidate and forging a close battle, Huckabee refused to leave the race even after the last "not McCain" candidate dropped out. Huckabee ensured a flawed "Maverick" was resurrected and won the nomination. An unenthusiastic McCain then went on to lose in convincing style. My Question is, will Santorum stay in the race even if there is no real chance to win the nomination?

I fully expect at least 4 candidates to leave Iowa and perhaps 5. I expect Bachmann to drop out tomorrow or Thursday and endorse one of the other candidates. From Perry's interview on Fox, I fully expect if he finishes 5th to drop out no later than after the New Hampshire primary. Even though Perry is not really going to New Hampshire, I think that race will have lead to too much momentum for Romney and whoever finishes higher between Gingrich and Santorum. This leads me to believe that Gingrich will be the "not Romney" last man standing. Santorum or Gingrich need to drop out after Florida. Whichever is higher in delegates after Florida need to drop out so the "not Romney" is able to coalesce around a singular candidate. Romney is stuck around 25% of support. Sure he will garner support from some of the other candidates but I don't think it will get him much more than 40% of support. The Republican party now needs more than ever to get this down to a two man race. I do not believe Romney can win in a two man race. Ron Paul is staying in the race but will not win. Ron Paul will not help or hurt Romney or the "Not Romney" candidate.

Santorum regardless of his finish in Iowa, needs to drop out as soon as he realizes he can't win. Santorum is going to bear a tremendous amount of scrutiny in the next couple of weeks and I fully expect that he will drop in the polls rather quickly. Remember he, like Huckabee in 2008, almost moved and lived in Iowa for the last year. Santorum is now in position to play spoiler to a candidate that will be able to match Romney and perhaps beat Romney in the race.

Media Selection

2012-01-03T16:36:00.000-08:00

Are the Republicans really going to allow the media to select their candidate for President for them? I ask this because the media has been pushing Romney as the default leader of the Republican nomination process since 2008. Even as we progressed through this year the media has been pushing for Romney as the nominee. Romney started this year off as the front runner as he was one of the first to enter into the ring. Yet by April, Romney was no longer the front runner and really never again maintained anything that could even be marginally called front runner status as almost every other Republican has taken a stand as the presumptive front runner. From Trump to Bachmann, Perry to Cain, Cain to Gingrich, Gingrich to Paul, and now Paul to Santorum each has taken a lead in Iowa and bounced up Nationally. Romney has not held a National lead in many months. Yet as the Politico reported yesterday, Iowa doesn't matter, Romney will win the nomination. So there you have it the Politico and the liberal media are pronouncing Romney as the nominee without the first vote even being cast. Are we really going to allow the media to selct our nominee for us?

Let there be no doubt that every one of the Republican candidates has flaws. Perry is a poor debater and may not be the most intellectual candidate in the field. Gingrich was unfaithful to his wives, lobbied for Freddie MAC, and sometimes compromised Republican ideals to get important legislation through Congress and signed by a Democratic President. Paul is even more to the left on foreign isolationism than Obama. Bachmann is kind of a firebrand that will say anything to help her cause regardless of the facts. Santorum lost his last election by 18% to a charisma challenged opponent, and backed turncoat Snarlin Arlen for Senate. Romney has Bain capital to worry about and Huntsman is probably the truest moderate and may even be running for the nomination for the wrong party. What all that means is that all of our candidates have flaws. These flaws will be what the media focuses on to defeat the Republican nominee.

The media will help Obama spell out the weaknesses of each of our candidates. It won't matter who is "the most electable" because the media will set out to destroy whoever the Republicans nominate. So if the media is going to trample on the dignity of whoever we nominate, why would we allow them to actually select our candidate for us? See in my opinion, the media sees Romney as the easiest to attack in the general election. They will portray him as a conservative that acts and talks moderate. Romney is a Northeast Republican or a Democrat in almost every other area of the country with the exception of the left coast. The media wants to portray Romney as Obama light. In the case of the media, even if they don't have the power to pull Obama across the finish line, the media will have at least got the most acceptable Republican for liberal ideals elected as President.

No matter what happens in Iowa, Bachmann needs to drop out afterward and endorse either Gingrich or Perry whichever one finishes ahead of the other in Iowa. Than Perry or Gingrich, whichever finishes behind the other must drop out and endorse the other. Santorum regardless of his showing in Iowa will be unable to keep it up through South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. The only hope of getting a true conservative elected as President Newt of Perry has to be the nominee. Don't worry about the media attacks, the attacks will come no matter who the nominee is. Republicans have never been the favored son of the media. Popular President Reagan never was and still isn't spoken highly of by the media. No matter what the Republican nominee will be attacked by the Obama loving lap dogs in the media, so why allow them to select their favorite candidate to attack for us? There are too many conservatives in the field. After tonight most of them need to drop out so the conservatives can unite behind the "not Romney vote" and move on to the nomination. I will support whoever the nominee is and hope that by my primary in April that the nominee is already well on his or her way. I want the Republicans to unite early and stop trying to win the 2008 election. Funny thing about history, we can't change it, no matter what happens from here on out Obama will have always won the 2008 election. Don't fight that election but rather lets move on with this election. Let's vote for a conservative that can win. In my opinion that is either Gingrich or Perry. These are the only two that can take down Romney. For the sake of the Republican party please rally behind one or the other. One final plea for Gingrich and Perry, whoever is behind the other coming out of Iowa, no matter how close, please drop and endorse the other.

Voter ID

2012-01-01T18:42:00.000-08:00

The Department of Justice i going on an outright offensive against States implementing laws that require an identification when voting. I do not see what the issue is whatsoever. We require ID for the purchase of alcohol. We require valid license for driving. Some places require photo ID in order to get into work. So why when it is so important to get out and vote would it be such an onerous requirement to have a Voter ID in order to vote?

The States are offering free photo ID's in the States that require photo ID in order to vote. Get that, that ID's are free all that one has to do is go out and get an ID. Voting is our civic duty and yet going to obtain a free ID is way too much to ask. This is unbelievable and indefensible. The only reason the administration has is because it could disenfranchise a voter. I don't see the logic in that response. How does requiring a voter to obtain a free ID a hardship when it is the voters duty to vote.

I believe there are more pressing issues facing the Department of Justice. Instead of fighting in court ID laws why not start producing the documents and emails pertaining to the illegal operation called Fast and Furious? Why not back the rule of law rather than search for ways to have more dead people vote? Why not root out the drug infested Occupy movement rather than focus on voters doing their civic duty and obtaining the proper documentation to vote? We require voter registration but yet we don't make people show an ID of who they are? Voter ID's should be mandatory. In fact even those getting absentee ballots or mail in ballots or even if we go to an internet voting system we should have to provide validation of who we are. To not require voter ID is to disenfranchise the entire legal voter population. So we now have a Department of Justice that would rather disenfranchise the legal voter just so the left can continue getting a few thousand extra votes from dead people and illegal voters.

Pay to Play

2011-12-26T16:52:00.000-08:00

Have the democrats no shame? On the heels of Rod Blagojevich attempting to sell Obama's vacated senate seat, we are informed that Obama takes care of his friends in a quid pro qou effort. Harry Reid shamelessly lies about who exactly is making over $1 million dollars, and Senator Charles Schumer gets his brother in law a US district Judgeship in New Jersey. All of these examples are nothing more than shameless paying off political donors and friends or in Schumer's case relatives of friends.

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration was rife with politics in providing guaranteed loans to Solyndra. In fact, Obama wasn't satisfied with providing his political ally and big bundler with just a half billion dollars in loans but wanted to give another half billion loan. We all know that Solyndra has filed for Bankruptcy. We all know that even before the first guaranteed loan went out the door, the administration knew full well that Solyndra was not going to remain solvent no matter how much we gave then. This is politics at its finest. Pay off political allies and donors and forget about what is right for the American people. Obama is not the President of the United States, he is the President for the 52% that voted for him. Obama could care less about the other 48%. In fact he is willing to forsake another 2% as long as he is able to garner his 50% plus 1 vote.

Another story out today has the brother in law of Democrat Charles Schumer getting a Judgeship in New Jersey. Quite pohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifssibly this is nothing more than Obama giving a job to the Schumer family to get him to continue being the vocal Obama cheerleader and assisting in NJ Senator Lautenberg keeping his seat in his next election with the full support of Schumer. Again this is nothing more than paying off friends for their support. Again this administration and the Democrats in general are not interested in what is in the best interest of the country but rather what is in the best interest of the Democratic party.

Finally, Harry Reid shamelessly lied about who exactly is making over $1 million dollars. In fact the Democrats, Obama, Reid, and the pathetic pawns in the media are busy fueling a class warfare campaign to get Obama reelected. Reid's little surtax on the "rich" will only generate $11 billion in revenue. While this $11 billion would be helpful if it went towards paying down the debt, it will only go to fund more government giveaways. In fact confiscating all the income of those making over $1 million would bring the deficit to 0. This is the great lie the democrats tell in order to keep power.

Power is what this is all about. It is pay to play politics. It is taking care of those that have the means to keep the Democrats in power. The Obama campaign rhetoric is not about helping America. Obama is worried because his policies have failed America and his failed policies are the reason he is under water in approval rating. I said back in 2008 that Obama did not represent a change of anything more that which corrupt elitist were going to reap the benefits of governmental largesse. I would have thought the Democrats would have learned the pay to play is not helping America. Obviously it is all Obama and the Democrats know.

Republicans Self Destructing

2011-12-24T06:34:00.000-08:00

The Republican party is self destructing right before our eyes. Instead of carrying the message and placing the President and the Democrats on the the defensive, the republicans are giving the message away and acting irresponsible. There is currently a lack of leadership within the republican party. America needs leadership right now and yet the elitist ranks seem devoid of the leadership qualities necessary to run our country.

Obama is a behind the scenes take credit for successes and shift blame for failures kind of leader. In other words not a leader at all but rather an opportunistic follower. Obama has not lead on any issue. Obama's foreign policy is a disaster whether it is alienating our allies or not having the experience to recognize that Mubarak was far better for American National Security than the Muslim Brotherhood or the salafists. Obama decided to follow the french and British lead and take out Gadaffi in Libya and yet allow Bashar Assad stand in Syria. The Russians took Hillary and Obama's "reset" button and test fired nuclear missiles. Finally, Obama, Holder, Napolitano, Hillary, and the rest all claim they didn't know about the ATF gun running program named "Fast and furious". Domestically, Obama watched from the sidelines as the Democrats pushed a failed $787 billion dollar stimulus program. Obama stood the sidelines and watched the democrats takeover American health care with a bill that no one knows what is in it. Our economy is in the tank and all Obama can come up with is another mini stimulus just like his first big failure.

Yet with all of these issues Obama is rising in the approval polls. The Democrats were able to gain the popular support for starving the Social Security trust fund of revenue's. Instead of strengthening social security Democrats have weakened the fund. Rather than secure the safety net, Obama has managed to run it into the ground. Class warfare is currently working in the Democrats favor as the Republicans dropped the ball and look like they are unwilling to raise taxes on the rich yet allow tax increases on the middle class. I'm not sure how that happened but it is ridiculous. The Democrats are winning today but will scalp the middle class tomorrow when even larger tax increases are required to keep America bobbing along the economic bottom. Boehner and McConnell looked incompetent in December turning what should have been a victory into defeat.

Now we find that those with Presidential aspirations couldn't even run a campaign properly. Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum didn't even get on the ballot in Virginia. The absence of these candidates from the ballot in as important of State as Virginia leaves me shaking my head. Virginia is going to be a must win State for the Republican nominee and yet the only Republicans gaining access to the ballot were Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. If the field can't run a campaign right, how do we trust them to run the Presidency. The Republicans are devoid of leadership at a time when our country needs leadership the most. I certainly hope the nominee is fairly well selected by the end of January so the Republican party is able to show its candidate from a leadership perspective because if the Republicans can't show they are better than this Obama will be able to finish running America into the ground.

Thirteen Days

2011-12-21T07:33:00.000-08:00

The Iowa caucuses will be held in thirteen days. Two weeks from today the candidates will be either rushing to New Hampshire to capture the momentum from the night before or considering dropping their campaign and endorsing one of the other candidates. After Iowa I fully expect one or two of the candidates to bow out to consider their options. The remaining candidates will rush to New Hampshire in hopes of building even more momentum. My hope is that the Republicans can come to the realization they need to rally behind one candidate and do it sooner rather than later. Romney has said he expects the nomination process to be drawn out. I for one thing that is a bad mistake. While a drawn out nomination process seemed to work for the democrats in 2008, we must remember that was another time and the conditions on the ground today are not what they were in 2008.

In 2008, Hillary and Obama could afford a long drawn out nomination process. The republicans did not stand a chance of winning without a major mistake by whomever they selected. They could afford to debate on who they liked the best because they were going to win hands down. All the Republicans could hope for is to keep the margins close enough to have something to build on. The problem with a long drawn out process this year is that the election is not a foregone conclusion and in fact the republican will probably start the general election off behind.

Another difference is the Democrats in Congress controlled agenda. The democrats were focused on nothing but winning the next election. The Republicans this year are only in control of the house and they are not setting the agenda. The Republicans are allowing themselves to be outmaneuvered by the President and the Democrats in the Senate. The Republican establishment is not unified with the party faithful. The Republicans are not playing politics in a way that will win them the hearts and minds of the American electorate. In short the Republicans are not disciplined.

The republicans are in dire need of selecting their candidate early, no later than super Tuesday. The establishment republicans need some leadership and the candidate can help set their agenda. Maybe then, the Republicans can set their agenda and make the side line President actually start having to come up with an actual agenda instead of more of the same failed policies of the past three years. Remember we have 13 days until Iowa, we need to start selecting the right candidate and giving him or her all of our backing and support. The only focus of the Republican party should be on beating President Obama in 2012. Stop the infighting and stop playing politics. Any of the Republicans can beat Obama. We just need to figure the one that will keep Obama on the defensive and make him run on his first term and his vision against the Republican vision. We just need the standard bearer to project the vision and sooner is better than later.

Party Before Representation

2011-12-19T07:45:00.000-08:00

The problem with our career politicians is that the party leadership will strong arm the party members to place the Party before the representation of the people they are to represent. For the most part this is a Demcorat party philosophy; for they know a majority of America does not follow their ideology. This becomes apparant in the Demcoratic leadership where it is always politics before the people; party before the electorate.

We can go back to Nancy Pelosi who risked her Speakership and the Democratic majoprity in the House for an ill conceived Health Care plan. We can just listen to Obama as he placed the party before the people in his line pertaining to health care was condescending towards the electorate. Obama spoke of voting for the the health care bill and taking the issue up in Congress and then let the elections play out as they will. We can listent o Senator Schumer who says "“In a nutshell, this is what is responsible for the dysfunction in Congress. If Speaker Boehner were fully in charge, we wouldn’t constantly see this kind of brinksmanship, but he doesn’t have control of his troops in the House.”“In a nutshell, this is what is responsible for the dysfunction in Congress. If Speaker Boehner were fully in charge, we wouldn’t constantly see this kind of brinksmanship, but he doesn’t have control of his troops in the House.”in a nutshell, this is what is responsible for for the dysfunction in Congress. If Speaker Boehnerwere fully in charge, we wouldn't constantly see this kind of brinksmanship, but he doesn't have control of his troopsin the House."

Schumer and the Democratic party are responsible for the brinksmanship. It is the Democrats who always place the party before the people. Obama delayed 20,000 jobs simply because he doesn't want to make the party faithful upset by allowing the keystone pipeline to get off the ground. Obama famously said if the bill passing an extension of payroll tax cuts contained keystone language, he would veto the bill. Obama's comment was politics and party over what is right and popular with the American people. It is the Senate Democrats that will not pass a budget, the senate democrats who refuse to take up any House passed bill pertaining to job creation. It is the Democrats that are constantly taking America to the brink of disaster while offering no new ideas; just the same old tax and spend screed for failed generations in the past. It is the Democrats that are constantly speaking of control rather than speaking of their constituents. It is the Democrats that constantly place their ideals, their politics, their party before the American people. Right now as it is election year, Obama and the Democrats are scheming of another messsage to sell the AMerican people. It is the Democrats turning negative and turning to class warfare. It is the Democrats who have done nothing but spend frivilously over the past 6 years. It is the Democrats that demonize the American electorate as stupid and uninformed for not following their failed policies. It is the Demcrats placing their party before the people. We can no longer have a Representative form of Government when the Democrats insist on control rather than insisting on the will of the people.

Too Big To Fail

2011-12-18T09:26:00.000-08:00

There are corporations and financial institutions that have become so large that if they were to fail the ruinous effect on the American economy will lead to the fall of the world sole super power. Banks are not the only corporations that are too big to fail but so to are the Big three Auto makers and the Nations utility companies. Yet as we all have become too aware the Obama industry has done nothing to stop the too big to fail phenomenon. Rather than break up the big banks, Obama decided to regulate them more. Once the lawyers and accountants figure out how to get around the regulation (and believe me they will), then our institutions that are too big to fail will again run wild knowing that even if they risk everything the government will bail them out because of the drain a failure will cause on the economy. This leads me to believe that our government has become to big to fix what ails America.

This recession is not cyclical in nature but rather structural in nature. We have bled jobs from our industrial base for years. We are more efficient at providing services than we are at producing goods. The disparity between the rich and the poor is not due to less taxes being paid by the rich but rather because the only place to make that kind of money requires high tech services. Financial, Health, accounting, and the law. Building products is far cheaper overseas. The masses in the middle have been squeezed out. Unions have made it impossible to compete. In this light we can see that only the educated and elite will be enabled to make a living. The unskilled labor force will continue providing service industry products that the top of the pyramid will refuse to use. See the rich are not going to the fast food industry, therefore the money will never be made in those companies. Until we break up the monopolies and allow the free market forces control who makes it and who fails we are doomed to follow a decline in America. Our entire system will continue to decline until there is more competition and less government interference.

Our government is too big to be of any assistance. Everything our government is focused on right now is meant to keep the poor poor. Providing handouts is not the answer. Sure it appears that the American left has a heart, has compassion, but that is only for so long as the poor stay poor and keep there head just above water. Government handouts make lazy people lazier. Make unemployed people even more unemployable. Make the governed even more dependent on government. So while it is true that some of our corporations are too big to fail our government has become too big to fix the structural problems we face which will make our government too big to save.

A Great Day for Republicans

2011-12-15T20:38:00.000-08:00

today was a great day for Republicans. First they got their Defense budget through. Second Paul Ryan announced his bi partisan medicare plan and finally the Republican candidates for President all looked very strong and electable. Republicans shined in ever facet of politics today.

What makes the the day better is the Republicans are able to turn Obama's message around on him. It is Obama that is threatening a veto and the Democrats in the Senate that are refusing to vote on a tax cut for the middle class. Obama who is raiding the Social Security trust fund by forcing payments that we are not collecting in FICA taxes. Yet the Republicans have been able to put together a Jobs bill that will keep in place the middle class tax cut and create jobs at the same time. This exposes Obama for what we already knew he was; an empty suit. Obama has been campaigning on creating jobs and the evil republicans who won't let him. It is Obama that has created the class warfare. All these anti American activities by Obama are part of his political campaign. Yet he threatens to veto a tax cut for the middle class and a jobs bill that is minimally going to create 20,000 jobs and bring $6.5 billion of economic activity.

Next Paul Ryan has been able to refine a medicare plan that will bring real reform to the failing program in coordination with Senator Wyden. A bi partisan bill that of course the uncompromising President has already came out against, even without knowing the details of what it is proposed to do. Obama has to be able to keep his "Republicans want to kill grandma" meme going or he risks losing Seniors in large droves just like he is already losing losing the millenials.

Finally, the Republican debate tonight showed that the Republicans can not really do anything wrong no matter which candidate they chose to represent them. From Newt to Santorum, from Romney to Bachmann, from Perry to Paul, and even Huntsman they all looked strong and capable. Every candidate stayed within the issues and attacked Obama more than the Republicans on stage. Sure there were a few attacks but mainly over political or policy belief differences. We all knew the candidates were not exactly alike and agree on everything. I would have to say Newt did no damage and Romney probaly won the night. Perry did a great job and Bachmann solidify her voting block. Paul is out of the mainstream Republican party with Iran but he has economics down pat. I am unsure right now of whom to support in the primary. If the election were held today I would lean towards Newt. The good thing for me is that after tonight I think all the Republicans looked strong and I will definitely and enthusiastically vote for any of these candidates. It may well yet turn into a banner year for Republicans with a mandate to boot.

Tax and Spend; Tax and Spend Some More

2011-12-11T11:22:00.000-08:00

The Democrats are absolutely ridiculous with their tax and spend philosophy. All we have heard is how the evil Republicans just won't relent. Propose a Social Security killing payroll tax cut off set by even larger tax increases on the so called rich. Want more education spending raise more taxes on the so called rich. Want more spending on green energy tax the so called rich. That is all this President and the democrats know; tax and spend.

In July the President and his enablers in the US Senate brought our country to the brink of default by demanding an unlimited debt ceiling. The only proposal for decreasing the deficit forwarded by the Democrats was a tax the rich proposal. The Presidnet of course frames this as fairness. Of course the President has never seen a non defense related program he disliked. Every government program that is not related to defense has some value to someone, cutting it would be like taking food from a baby. The democrats have gutted social security on this President's watch and are doing nothing but claim everything would be all right if only the evil republicans would increase taxes on the rich.

I say no more tax increases, no more payroll tax gimmicks, no more revenue for the federal government until the Democrats are serious about cutting governmnet spending. Government spending should be limited to between 15 and 20% of GDP. Start off as a target of 17.5% and when the next recession comes increase spending to no more than 20% and when and if the next boom comes reduce that spending to 15%. Right now our government is opeerating at almost 24% of GDP. That is too mch governmnet and not enough private spending. The governmnet does not add to demand. Government spending is a drain on the economy. The bureaucrats continue getting in the way and taking money from others to foolishly spend on companies that are doomed to bankruptcy. Get out of the way of entreprenuers and the economy will boom. Stay with the government knows best philosophy of the Democrast and we are doomed to the dust heap of history.

We have to get serious about our budget deficits. We can't expect to continue promising benefits today on money borrowed from the future. This wimpy syndrome of taking a burger today for payment tomorrow has to stop. Tomorrow never comes for even as the bills come due all we do is borrow more or print more. The US dollar is in the tank because of our monetary policy and democratic policy of buying friends. The elitist always want to give other peoples money away all the way sheltering and hiding their own. Is it any wonder why the best people to ask for charity are conservatives? We need to get real and vote out evry democrat possible. The tax and spend philosophy is ruining my grandchildren's future.

How Did they Do?

2011-12-11T09:30:00.000-08:00

Last night ABC and Yahoo moderated a debate between Republican nominee hopefuls. As usual Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos didn't disappoint the liberal establishment. Seems every question was designed to get the Republican hopefuls to attack the GOP front runner. At any rate below is how I feel each candidate did and what it did to their chances in Iowa and the Primary season in order of best to worst night.

Newt Gingrich did a great job in the debate. Many of the questions opened Gingrich up to attacks. I thought Newt did a good job of parrying their attacks and even counter punched well. Gingrich was able to get in a memorable line when he stated the Mitt Romney would have been a career politician had it not been for losing to Ted Kennedy in 1994. I also thought he got in a good line of attack on Michele Bachmann when he told her she needed to have details and facts. Overall Newt did a good job defending his ideas and came across as in command of the facts. There is no doubt Newt is the best debater in the Republican field.

Michele Bachman did a good job last night. She went on the attack and landed a few jabs on Newt and Romney. Her Newt Romney line was a good line as it made the point that they both are similar and will be more pragmatic than an ideologue. I also think this point reduced Mitt to second tier behind Newt. I think Michele helped herself in Iowa and may get a bit of a bounce. She needs to take top three in Iowa in order to leverage an administration job and it appeared she was saying if not her than Newt would be the next best pick. I think she did a good job and shows sh is the attack dog in the pack.

Rick Perry did pretty good in the debate. I thought he could have done a better job with the question regarding when the last time he had to make sacrifices. The question was a plea to understand how an elitist could understand or feel the pain of the country if they never been in the same shoes as middle America is under currently. I thought he got a jab in on Mitt Romney and seemed to get under Mitt's skin. I didn't think he was able to take the stage as he wasn't asked that many questions and didn't have that many opportunities to go on the attack.

Ron Paul did his usual lines. I don't think he helped his campaign at all. My thoughts on Ron Paul is that he is too hands off. Less government is not the same as no government. Also Ron Paul as usual comes across as too isolationist. Isolationism is not the right foreign policy for the worlds only super power. I like his thoughts on the Federal Reserve but he needs to move beyond that. I don't think he hurt his campaign last night but I don't think he helped it either.

Mitt Romney did not have a god night. His on stage wager of $10,000 shows his elitism. An average American wouldn't dream of such nonsense. This in line with his answer to the "when was the last time you sacrificed" question shows just how elitist Romney is. I understand he created jobs in the private sector and understand he has command of economics, but does he understand the plight of the American middle Class? I also thought that Newt was able to attack Romney and Romney did a poor job counter punching. When Mitt to take a jab both Perry and Gingrich parried and counterpunched well. Mitt did not do anything to raise his position and may have lost ground to Gingrich. Romney needs to take a solid second in Iowa or risk losing New Hampshire. Romney needs to win and win comfortably in New Hampshire to have any chance at the nomination.

Rick Santorum did not have a good night either. He tried to take the stage a couple of times piping in when general rhetorical questions were asked. However, it seems he is fighting mainly with Bachmann rather than fighting for the nomination. Maybe Santorum knows his campaign is sunk and he is applying for an administration job. Rick didn't come across as Presidential.

Rebuild America

2011-12-10T15:32:00.000-08:00

The news has been grim lately regarding the health of the American economy. Our government is at a standstill. The left won't compromise and won't allow any measure pass that would take away the only message Obama has to run on; a do nothing Congress. The right for its part has been inept allowing the tax and spend liberals to claim they are for tax reductions on the middle class. America is run by the elitists from both sides of the isle and we the people have no recourse but to accept whatever the latest elitist view is claimed. This needs to change and change soon or there will be no America. The heart land of the country is not heard. Take the tea party and the occupiers and hear what they are really saying. While these a two very different groups in both what they believe and how they protest their government it doesn't change the fact that their message is similar. Middle America has to fend for themselves or the elitists will leave us nothing but the crumbs.

The is little doubt left that America needs to get the money out of politics. Instead of allowing Obama to raise somewhere near $1 billion dollars to run for elected office we should force him to do the job he was elected to do. Insted of allowing wall street and K street to continue pumping millions of dollars into their prefferred candidates lets rid our country of the special interest and corporate money in our political elections. With as much money as is currently required to run for office all we get are rich politicians that are beholden to their special interest groups rather than the American people. Lets not allow the elitists to provide the money that allows our great country to be ruled rather than led. Make all campaigns publicly funded. Force network stations provide fair and equal time to all candidates. There has to be a vialble way to get the money out of the campaigns.

Once the money is out of the elections, Americans need to believe in candidates that are of main street and not wall street. Believe me, Warren Buffet, Geoff Immelt, and Jon Corzine do not know what middle class Americans are feeling. Donald Trump and Mitt Romney haven't felt what the middle class feels. They don't understand that when middle America goes bankrupt the banks don't feel sorry for them and turn around and provide more money for them to try to make it in another endeavor. Who is more likely to feel the pain of the working poor and middle class, your neighbor or Nancy Pelosi? Why do we continue to insist that we need a candidate with elitist credentials? Why do we insist that our candidates a intelligent as based upon an Ivy league education? We do we complain about the rich 1% and then turn around and keep electing them into our government to lead us?

Never before have I believed that the vast middle of America was capable of being Presdiential. However, over the last couple of decades, I have changed my mind. Our career politicians only have elitist ideas that never work. I haven't seen a president with principles and conviction since Ronald Reagan. I have sen Presidents cheat on their spouses, lie to the American people, start wars, ignore the economy, make enemies of our allies and bring political correctness to the level of a third grader not being able to tell a teacher they are cute without being removed from school for sexual harrassment. The elitists have made a mockery of our country. A common middle class citizen from the middle class could do no worse. Our politicians are leaving our country in ruins. Unless we the people take our government back from the elitists we are doomed to follow the great powers of the past into the dust bin of history. The elitists have failed us. We need a President and politicians that come from the grand middle of America. We have a government of the people why wouldn't our leaders be peers just like our jury panels? Want to rebuild America? Get rid of the elitists that are our career politicians. Follow through and vote out the incumbent politicans. Clean house and place middle America back in charge.

The Democrats are Out of Ideas

2011-12-10T13:25:00.000-08:00

The President decided that rather than except that he is nothing more then a second Jimmy Carter administration desperately sun that the Republicans are the party of no. The problem is that it is the President and Democrats that are the party of no. The Democrats are out of ideas and nearly out of time. The President has been pushing more of the same failed stimulus ideas he pressed in 2009. America has rejected his ideas for stimulus, yet he offers more of the same. Obama claims his riding of the Social Security lock box is a tax cut, yet there is no way for us to be able to gain those dollars back into the government coffers even though the Democrats have made promises to keep the pyramid scheme going indefinitely. Obama, like Pelosi believe extending unemployment benefits create jobs. Obama and the democrats believe the so called rich are a bottomless pit of money to be confiscated.

SO the reality is that the economy is in dire straights. While Obama claims the economy is improving and he has been busy cleaning up Bush's mess, the truth is the last three Quarters of GDP are .7%, 1.1 % and 2.0 % growth. This year will come in at less than 2% growth for the year and Obama claims this as an improvement? Our economy hasn't grown enough to come close to keeping up with Obama's spending increases. Obama points to the 8.6% unemployment rate as an improvement without mentioning that the decline in unemployed is more because 315,000 people left the workforce. Obama's job created numbers of 120,000 last month didn't even keep up with population increases of work age people. Obama's stimulus ideas have failed.

Now the President likes to talk about fairness, balance, and compromise. Yet who is saying NO? Who is threatening to make the veto? Who is stomping around like a child who didn't get their way. Who is throwing the temper tantrum? Obama won't compromise. Obama is all about Obama. Any idea he has is supposedly balanced and fair. The reality is his ideas are far left failures. The Republicans passed a bill that would give Obama his precious reduction in social security taxes but would also create jobs in construction. The bill would be paid for by extending Obama's freeze on pay for federal employees. Yet Obama threatens a veto. We must ask why Obama is so uncompromising. The reason is Obama couldn't possibly have a Congress that gets something done. Obama couldn't stand it if the Congress wasn't stalled. Obama wouldn't have anything to run on if the Senate actually brought bills forward and forced the President to use his veto. See it is the Democrats that are uncompromising. The Democrast in the Senate that won't come up with new ideas but also won't allow votes on Republican ideas. The party of no, the party of no ideas, the party of no compromise is the Democrats led by Obama.

National Popular Vote a Bad Idea

2011-12-08T08:30:00.000-08:00

The initiative to allocate State electoral votes based on the National vote is a bad idea. The National popular vote initiatives will reduce the power of the States. It will take the election totally away from the citizens and place elections squarely in the hands of the special interests. Rather than have Presidential candidates visit individual states where the individual voters are located, candidates will be enabled to visit only the highly populated States like California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Instead of there being at least some battleground States where the candidates have to present themselves we would only see the candidates on TV as they visited the most populus States.

National Popular vote is a dream of the liberal left to reduce the impact of the smaller less populated States. The liberal elite will always attempt to find ways to keep power int he hands of the elitists. These initiatives will further erode the power of the individiual states which in turn will reduce the power of the individual. The National Popular vote is a bad idea fromt he party known for Governmental power grabs. Don't fall for the twisted logic; vote against any National Popular vote initiative. Any alternative should allocate by congressional district with the two electors voting by State popular vote. Similar to Nebraska and Maine. Please remember these initiatives spawned out of the left losing the 2000 election to Bush, even after the pathetic pawns in the media attempted to give Al Gore the election victory by calling Florida incorrectly even as the polls remianed open in Florida.

The Clip Board President

2011-12-07T17:56:00.000-08:00

President Obama is beginning to remind me of the clip board carrying second string Quarterback. You know the one that sits on the sidelines all year in a baseball cap that receives the same super bowl ring that the rest of the team receives. You know the player that rarely if ever gets his game day jersey dirty. The Obama presidency has been much the same. Obama has done very little except sit on the sidelines, come in at the end of the game during mop up time and taking credit for the work of others.

This is exactly what happened when the Democrats jammed health care down our throats. He sat by as the democrats twisted arms and bought off Democratic Congressmen and Senators, then once all the votes were cast and a democratic victory assured Obama comes in and taunts the Republicans. This is what happened with his economy. Except this time the mop duty is not out of victory but out of defeat. Obama is only in the game because the Democrats are out of ideas and out of time. Here comes Obama blaming others but trying to put points on the board to make the final score look respectable.

Many of the pathetic pawns in the MSM say this is leadership. They claim that Obama is super smart and has a behind the scenes leadership style. The republicans have called this what it is; "President Present". Obama is never around when ideas are needed. Obama is either on vacation, on the court, or on the links. As America was facing a downgrade in our credit rating Obama decided it was best to go on vacation and dream up talking points to be able to push his failures on to others, in others words making points at the end of the game trying to make it a much closer game then the score otherwise indicates. Sorry liberal establishment but sitting the sidelines and carrying a clipboard containing the plays that a true leader is calling in the huddle, is not leadership. No way, don't fall for a second rate quarterback that would rather keep his uniform clean then come to the game and lead to victory. Obama was out of ideas in his first 90 days. Once he signed his stimulus plan and moved on to health care, Obama was out of ideas.

Rather than understanding the defense or in this case the the structural economic issues, Obama took his eye off the economy and focused on his receiver. In Obama's case his receiver was his Union constituents waiting to catch more government money. Obama claims its the evil Republicans that haven't lifted a finger, yet the democrats controlled the house by overwhelming numbers and a filibuster proof Senate that refused to pass a budget. Obama claims a do nothing Congress yet Obama's only signed laws amount to an unsuccessful stimulus and an unpopular health care bill. The economy is stagnate and Obama still sits on the sidelines.

Why Is Colin Powell Speaking About Republican Politics?

2011-11-27T18:02:00.000-08:00

In 2008, Colin Powell decided that for no other reason than race he would endorse Obama for President. Powell once well respected in Bush circles sold out to a left wing ideologue when he endorsed Obama and in the process lost any voice to those moderates and conservative voters. His voice on Republican politics is ridiculous and today's example is pathetic. Why on earth would he think his left wing talking points masked as coming from a so called moderate republican matter to anyone other than the media lap dogs.

Powell is not in the know any longer when it comes to Republican politics. Powell is not connected enough to understand the state of the American electorate. So today's appearance on ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour" has no meaning except that it validates that the pathetic pawns in the media will do anything to get their man reelected. See saying that the tea party is unwilling to compromise and that the American public will not go for the no compromise candidate will fall on deaf ears. This is Obama's talking point no matter how false and untrue it is. See Pat Toomey, a tea party candidate did compromise and provided Obama and the Democrats a way out of their "just do nothing and blame Republicans" mantra by providing the tax revenue increase the left needed to make a compromise. By revamping the tax code and making it fairer, tax revenues would have increased. This is what Obama and the Democrats claim all they want. Tax revenue increases for spending reductions. The problem is that had the Democrats compromised they would no longer be able to lay blame on the Republicans. The democrats would no longer just be able to do absolutely nothing.

See Obama and his three word chants like "we can't wait" has to wait until the election. There is no way the economy is going to improve enough to give him a chance to run on his own record so he has to be able to blame someone. Of course blaming someone else is all Obama has ever done. For all of his talk Obama has never taken ownership of anything including his own failed policies. Instead we get the likes of Colin Powell who sold out for race a long time ago. Maybe if Powell had been honest and informed the public that the Senate Democrats are sitting on 22 house passed jobs bills, or that the Democrat led Senate hasn't passed a budget in over two years, perhaps then he could have spoken of his great compromising philosophy. We all know Powell will compromise his principles for his race. Now his words ring hollow. They are more empty Obama rhetoric and talking points.

Hey Mr. Powell wasn't it Obama who wouldn't compromise on health care? Wasn't it Obama who told the Republicans "I won" and "elections have consequences". Wasn't it Obama who wouldn't even listen to his own commission? Isn't the Democrats who turned down every offer the Republicans made? Isn't it the Democrats who sit on every house bill without bringing them to the floor for a vote? Isn't it the Democrats who are always saying no while offering no ideas of their own? The Demcorats in the Senate act like they are in the minority. Let me tell you the Democrats will again be the minority party in all of Congress. I know Obama must go if we are to save our country but with the pathetic pawns in media fawning over their failed President, I'm not sure how close they can make the election. At any rate the worst case scenario is going to be that Obama will be a lame duck President that will either veto a lot of bills or will have to compromise with Republicans. Additionally, the Republicans will be in no compromising mood after Obama runs the most negative campaign ever. Sorry Mr. Powell, you are not a spokesman for Republicans, we don't need you entering into our primary race. Just sit on the sidelines and vote your race, the republicans neither want nor need you and your vote.

Paul Krugman is no Intellectual

2011-11-27T15:42:00.000-08:00

Please Mr. Krugman, I thought you were an economist and not a liar. You are making the wrong argument and then using numbers to lie in order to make your argument. Here is the truth on the surge in spending by Obama. In 2008, the last full Bush year as President we spent $2.9 trillion dollars. In 2001, the just completed fiscal year under Obama we spent $3.83 trillion. That Mr. Krugman is in fact a 24% expansion of government in three years.

A 24 % expansion of government in a time when inflation has been almost non-existent is a surge. In fact, Krugman and his ilk were imploring Obama to spend more to ward off deflation. In a time when we don’t give cost of living increases to our senior citizens because there was not an increase in costs (inflation) we expand government 24%. How does the intellectual left like Krugman not call this an expansion. There is no doubt the cost of government increased. It is plainly laid out in bottom line figures. Now Mr. Krugman wants to get all intellectual and use government spending as a percentage of GDP to plead his case that Obama didn’t have a surge in spending. Why not use straight forward bottom line figures? Let me tell you Krugman can’t use simple numbers, simply because it doesn’t allow him to lie for the far left administration. It took a far left liberal to break the bank on trillion dollar deficits. It takes a liar to try to make it seem insignificant. Mr. Krugman until you have a rational explanation of how a 24% increase in spending over three years is not an expansion of government, please sit on the sidelines and keep your lying mouth shut. Numbers don’t lie, people do and that is what you are doing Mr. Krugman.

A Sign of the Times

2011-11-23T17:01:00.000-08:00

Here is a sign that says it all. A sign that shows what is wrong with the Ocuppiers and the liberal establishment. See Occupiers you are not entitled to a job. See liberals you are not entitled to your tax and spend philosophies. See what happens when you kill the job producers you have no jobs.

Now here is what is wrong with the American left and the ocupiers screaming to receive something for absolutely nothing. See no one is entitled to a job. No one is entitled to make a living wage. No one is entitled to make any money whatsoever and no one is entitled to receive something simply because they attended a college or university. See when all a liberal can do is tax the job producers more they simply just stop creating jobs. When a business can no longer afford to keep hiring they simply stop. When a business can not afford to keep those already employed they simply layoff people or fire them. See the job creators need a reason to continue producing and creating jobs. This comes at a cost. Owners, CEOs, and investors have to be able to make a return on their investments. When a normal profit is unable to be obtained businesses stop hiring people.

Now I wish I had thought of this type of campaign. This is what more businesses should be displaying. Get the facts out there. Under the liberal entitlement programs businesses like this are unable to expand. The taxes are choking off investment in the future. Those that feel entitled to a high paying job rather earning that high paying job are the reason businesses like this are refusing to jire until the direction of the country changes. Let there be no doubt, the problem with the labor market is the liberal establishment and entitlement generation.

I have some advice for the entitlement genration. This advice was given to me during a leadership class by an inspirational speaker. The advice is this: Always remember that all any employer owes a worker is the previously worked hours. The employer does not owe you a job tomorrow. Work tomorrow is earned by working hard today. See in order to have meaningful employment we must give everything we have to produce for the business. Once we are no longer productive the company doesn't owe us anymore than the hours we previously worked. Sorry liberals but no one is entitled to a job and this is a sign of the times. Liberal elitists and entitlement freeloaders are choking off American productivity. Get over it, take a bath, and get a job.

Immigration Reform

2011-11-23T14:18:00.000-08:00

We need immigration reform, without it we are doomed to paying even more in taxes to provide for those that are here illegally. Now the left doesn't like it when we address illegal aliens as being illegal. Sorry liberals but Republicans are not anti immigrant but rather anti illegal immigrant. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. We need to address the problem because it is a National Security issue. The question is what do we do about it.

The Republicans for the most part want to round up the illegals and have them all deported. The republicans want to build a fence and keep the illegals out. The republicans do not want to relent and it makes them appear to be uncompromising and anti immigrant. This hard line stance will not work either. However, there is a compromise.

We need to seal off our southern border. This may cost some dollars up front but it will protect not only from the illegal. This will have those that have no real ties to America to leave. Then and only then do we deal with those that have ties in this country. I want to be compassionate and show that yes even a lawful society can have a heart. I am sure there are some that have been here for a number of years and have integrated into American life. I don't want to be punishing those that did nothing wrong. Now should we institute the DREAM Act? I'm not sure that is entirely appropriate as written. If we are going to allow the children of illegals to stay here we should provide them with an opportunity to atone for the mistakes of their parents. We should allow them to serve in the military and then and only then should we allow a chance at citizenship. For the parents who came here illegally, they should never be allowed to obtain citizenship. Maybe we can allow them to stay here on a special visa. If they commit a crime then they should be automatically deported. It has to be a special visa and not a permanent visa. There has to be a way to get rid of those that are unwilling to abide by ours laws.

We can not just expect to deport 12 million people. We have to compromise and fix the illegal immigration problem. Both the left and right have legitimate concerns. We must secure our borders. The we must address those that are here illegally rationally and fairly. We need to adress this issue and both sides need to compromise and stop politicizing the issue. This is about national security and not about politics.

Obama: America's Biggest Failure

2011-11-23T13:51:00.000-08:00

Let's face it America, Obama is our biggest failure. In 2008, Obama was elected on a promise of hope and change. Obama was the anti Bush. We were tired of wars and our economy was a complete mess. Obama made many lofty promises and many bought into his snake oil. America didn't know the man they were electing. The media in their rush to fix their mistakes in both the 2000 and 2004 election engaged in journalistic oversight and refused to vet their candidate of choice. America had a fawning press push their chosen one and many took the press at their word and voted for an unknown.

Americagot what she deserved. America voted for an unvetted candidate. America allowed the media to commit journalistic heresy. America never demanded a hard look at Obama and what we received is far different than a intellectural Presdient we were promised. Obama constantly blames everyone else for his problems. He blamed Bush for the economy. He blamed racism for the health care debacle. He blamed Isreal for the Middle East mess. He blames Republicans for the massive spending spree. He has called Americans soft and lazy. He has stated that we just don't understand what it is he is doing for America. It was all him doing the heavy lifting while everyone else stood on the sidelines sucking up the slurpees. Little did we know that it was Obama's lack of intellect, lack of lack of leadership, lack of pride and patriotism, lack of communication, lack of empathy that would ruin this country. Obama lacks every skill and attribute that is necesary to govern.

Now Obama is busy blaming the economy on the Republican House. Never does Obama mention that it is the Democrats that have refused to compromise. It is the Democrats that refused to accept revenue increases in exchange for needed entitlement reforms. It is Obama who punted on the Keystone project costing America 200,000 jobs. It was Obama that led America to its first ever credit downgrade. it was Obama that introduced America to trillion dollar deficits. It was Obama that introduced America to 2% GDP growth recoveries. It was Obama that created the Student loan bubble. It was Obama that led to increased insurance premiums. It was Obama that lead to collapse of Solydra. It was Obama that is responsible for the jobless recovery. Yet as the President has shown himself to be a failure, we find ourselves listening to a President blame everybody else. Maybe the President should look into the mirror and reassess his position. If Obama had any common decency he would immediately state that he is declining to run for a second term for the sake of the nation.

Occupiers: America's Freeloaders

2011-11-21T11:52:00.000-08:00

Finally, we are beginning to figure out what the Occupy Wall Street protests were all about and it isn't pretty. The movement that has captured the left is nothing more than a movement of freeloaders. It is the entitlement generation believing they are entitled to other peoples money. They protest wall street for making profits but in all likelihood if their own liberal arts degrees could land them a lucrative wall street job they would take it and run all the way to the banks they rebel against.

The moment has come for rallying behind a demand. What we find is a demand to forgive student debt. Debt that was voluntarily agreed upon. There was a time in this country when one's word was a bond. A sacred trust between two people. Now it seems that word is only good until the one side gets what it wants. The young liberal educated demand debt forgiveness. See they were promised by the liberal elite that once they received a degree they would be set for life. The problem is that these students didn't obtain a degree with tangible skills. Instead they fell into the liberal arts programs that don't qualify them for much more than becoming the local librarian.

Newt was right in telling these freeloaders to take a bath and get a job. Mika is wrong with her hateful screed this morning. These occupiers feel they should again receive something for nothing. Debt forgiveness because they borrowed more than their degrees are worth. The occupiers made the mistakes and now they and their cheerleaders in the oval office and the liberal elitist media want a do-over. Forgive these miscreants their debt so they suck the government teat some more. Forgive the entitlement generation of responsibility so they can continue living off someone else. No more hard work just moan and groan and occupy a public park. Face it America, this is the culture cultivated by the liberal left. A culture steeped in irresponsibility. Just give the freeloaders more chances. In Obama's words "don't punish them for their mistakes". Just give the freeloaders everything they want. Take the money from the successful so the liberal elite may bring more entitlement generation votes to the table.

The occupiers need to be protesting the liberal elite. This includes the university chancellors, professors, counselors, and politicians. It was the American liberal establishment that made the promises. It is the occupiers who made the promises. It was the entitlement generation that made promises. Get over it, take a bath, cut your hair, take the ear rings out of your lips and noses, then go interview for a job. Pay off your debts. You know the debts you agreed to pay for when you signed your name. Quit occupying the parks. Stop being a freeloader and start becoming productive members of society.

Crony Corruption

2011-11-11T10:12:00.000-08:00

I find it ironic that the very organizations and people that are supportive of the Occupy Wall Street protests are also the biggest perpetrators in scalping those they claim to support. Here is an example of a labor organization taking advantage of the poor in need. SEIU claims the parents of two children triken with cerebal palsy are public employees so they can skim off the top of state paid medicare benefits.

I find this tactic to be perverse and nothing more than a Democratic payoff to the unions for their financial support. See it was the Democrat led state wide government that authorizes the union to claim that parents are considered caregivers and thus state employees just so they can deduct union dues from needed medicare payments. It doesn't matter that the family could use the extra money in their pockets while under duress in very trying times. Nope, to the union all that matters is that they receive their cut. It doesn't matter that the parents do not wish to be part of the union, nope, the state automatically deducts union dues from the payment that is due to the parents. Now these parents have no real other benefits to belonging to this union. All they get out of the deal is lower medicare payments. In fact the union is taking away fees for absolutely no value added.

This is nothing more than crony corruption. It is a union payoff for campaign support. This taxpayer funded payoff hides this under the guise of union membership but alas it is nothing more than a bribe. Is it any wonder why the state of Michigan is in a steady state of decline? Is there any wonder why businesses do not want to relocate to such a decided corrupt state? This is just another example of the left paying off their buddies for support.

I find it difficult to see what is more corrupt the evil Corporations and bankers or the unions and professional left. At least the corporations and banks acknowledge they are in the business of turning profits and making money and not in the business of creating jobs. The Corporations and banks are at least honest in their goals. On the other hand, Unions and the political left claim to be for the little man. They claim to be for the poor. Yet in case after case it is proven they are exploiting the poor for a greater share of political power. They claim to be populists yet do nothing for the poor and needy except to rob them blind. Bureaucratic programs are designed to give just enough to keep the poor in line for future minimal payouts. They left preys on the poor by offering minimal value for free while never lifting a hand to actually move them up in class level. The programs are designed to keep the Unions and professional left content in their elitist minds that they are doing something good. Yet the same programs hide the fact that the unions and professional left are a bunch of hypocrites. Even Michael Moore has a hard time admitting he is part of the top 1% that is really unwilling to give up his fortune made by creating class warfare.

Dems Incapable Of Governing

2011-11-10T12:36:00.000-08:00

The Dems on the deficit reduction committee walked away yesterday. That's right they just walked away. The Republicans had just backed away from their pledge of no new taxes and offered up $300 billion in tax increases. Instead of considering the offer the Dems dismissed it out of hand and didn't even bother with a counter offer. All Americans have to understand that the DEMs never had any intention of bargaining in good faith. The DEMs never intended on making a bi partisan deal. The Dems are only focused on keeping their power.

The economy has been in the tank for almost 4 years, what follows are the facts concerning our government during this entire economic nightmare. The Democrats held the Congress from JAN 2007 through JAN 2011. The DEMs immediately come into power and begin campaigning for the 2008 Presidential election. The dems did nothing except bash Bush for running the country in the ground. After 7 years of the Media bashing Bush the DEMs took another 11 months to tank the economy. The economy officially went into recesiion DEC 2007. This led to an orator becoming President. The Orator had no substance behind his words. The orator was an ideologue masked behind eloquent words and a fawning media. In JAN 2009, the great orator came into office promising that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8% if only we followed the democrat lead and spent almost $1 trillion dollars. The DEMS then forgot about the economy and moved on to health care. They jammed a bill down our throats without even reading what was in it because in the words of Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it". After health care the President went on to Cap and trade and Immigration reform. Two additional agenda items that had nothing to do with the economy. Then because they were worried about losing power the DEMS decided they wouldn't even do their job and pass a budget for 2010. To this day the Senate has not passed a budget. That is the Democrat led Senate that is unable to do its job. The Democrats lost the House any way and the economy has been bobbing along a false bottom. In SEP of this year over two and a half years into his Presdiency Obama decided to introduce yet another dose of his previously failed stimulus package. More spending on many of the same programs that haven;t worked. Much of the spending was simply extending government payments to the unemployed and under employed. While this is hailed as stimulus spending all that spending does is keep the status qou because we were already spending that money. Now the DEMs walk away from a deficit committee. Why? In my opinion its because the DEMs are afraid.

The Republicans outsmarted the brainy left. Instead of sticking to their pledge not to raise taxes the Republicans compromised knowing the DEMs would never compromise. The whole Bi-partisan and balanced approach speech the President made were false just like all of his words. The Presidnet wants to win election based on a do nothing Congress. Yet it was him and his party that did nothing. Even now with a compromise on the table the DEMS walk away. It is the Republicans in the house that have passed a budget, passed 15 bills to get the economy moving, and compromised on raising taxes. It is the dEms that haven't the intestinal fortitude to pass a budget, the DEMS who won't pass a jobs bill, the DEMS who are unwilling to compromise. The bottom line is the DEMs are incapable of governing.

Buying Votes

2011-10-26T22:06:00.000-07:00

Really? Obama is busy running around the country in an attempt to purchase votes. I think we have found exactly what the President is good at. Obama sems to be pretty good with three word slogans. "Yes we can", Winning the future", Pass this bill, we can't wait, and one other thing; spend other peoples money buying the votes of jkey constituencies.

Remember the woman that said she was happy to vote for Obama because he would pay her mortgage? Well he certainly has attempted to force banks to allow deadbeats stay in houses they can not afford. Now here is another example of how Obama tries to spend on a key constituency; he wants to forgive student loans. One thing we as a country should not do is allow people to go back on their word. No one forced these students to take out the loans. The students are fully aware that these are loans that must be repaid. Maybe instead of making me pay for other people's education the President should unilaterally force the schools to reduce their fees? Instead fees for schools has risen at an alarming rate under Obama. Pay more and debt forgiveness are a recipe for disaster.

This is how Obama buys votes. The universities love being able to raise rates on students. Now the students just have to wink an nod to get the loans paid off. The liberal universities get to keep more of the tax payer monies and the students get an indoctrination to the socialist lifestyle. Obama is teaching life lessons like "don't worry about your word, we will forgive" or how about "its not your fault" or the evil wall street can pay for everything the deadbeats want and desire.

I must wonder who is being greedy? Is it really wall street? You know the ones that bet their own money on the future? You know the investors that keep the economoy running. Or is it the liberal's that are greedy. Envious of the wall street money, feeling entitled to the same stuff as those that take risks. This is not about fairness but rather a jealous rage of the greedy deadbeats who always want something for nothing. Come on luiberals get some skin in the game. Stop being envious of others. The grass is not usually greener on the other side and your policies will necessarily lead to the destruction of wealth and the fall of a nation. All Obama is doing is buying votes. Lets face it Newtons classical laws fit the bill here: trickle up economics can't possibly ever work. Can't go against gravity you know, just ask Newton.

Occupy Washington

2011-10-26T12:24:00.000-07:00

There are protests going on around the country. America's frustration with high unemployment, an anemic economy, and endless bailouts are boiling over. Now some of the protestors are undoubtedly Marxist and come from the give me something for nothing crowd, but the message is clear; America is off its rails. I don't know when we started to derail, it has been a long slog to get to where we currently sit. The American left would have you believe this is all the fault of Republicans and blame the entire fiasco on Bush. The American right would have one believe Obama stepped on the gas and drove us further into the ditch. I would venture a guess that the current problems started much earlier. Our country is well overdue for a divisive struggle.

Our country is more divided know than it has been since the civil war. Our Governmnet has failed to work for the people. The government now works for the special interests and feels beholden only to the party. Race relations have been set back 150 years. The constitution has been discarded and trampled upon. The economy is in tatters and the government can't bridge the disparate views. We have the pro growth pro business right versus the Pro public pro government left. No more moderates whatsoever they have been gerrymandered out of existence. The census map redrawing has ensured that the districts save the parties. Sure they lines sometimes back fire but people like Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner have almost zero chance of ever being removed without major scandals. They can both be as polarizing as they want because they almost can't lose their seats. Neither has to worry about really representing their constituents or doing what is right for the country. Both can be uncompromising and neither has to budge.

We need a government that works and I can assure everyone that our government is broken. I would feel more comfortable with a total unknown for President than any of the politicians or celebrities. The personalities in charge of our country are not from the people. They have power and influence. Many are rich and don't really understand what we are going through on mainstreet. Sure both parties will use anecdotal evidence to support their myoptic view but they just don't get it. They can talk to the people all they want but unless the politicians are forced to walk in our shoes they will never know.

The OWS crowd is busy blaming wall street for their woes. The OWS people want wall street to give them something for doing absolutely nothing. I say they are frustrated and know something is wrong. We all need to come together and take our country back. Obama is a clueless bafoon from the other side of the tracks. The Republican candidates are all from the other side of the tracks. Why not forget about the career politicians that have become household nmaes. Instead of protesting Wall Street lets protest those that empowered wall street. We need to be protesting Washington.

America Needs Newt

2011-10-25T13:37:00.000-07:00

America is facing dire circumstances and we need a President that understands how to get things done in Washington and understands what is meant by "We the People". In my opinion the best candidate is Newt. Newt is the only candidate that has avoided outright attacks on other potential nominees. Newt is the one that is constantly pointing out the liberal bent displayed by the insulting media at the debates. It is Newt that has the potential to destroy Obama in eloquence, substance and style in the Presidential debates. It is Newt that is the true conservative.

We all know Mitt Romney. He represents the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. He is the establishment pick because "its his turn". He is a northeast republican that may have good business sense but lousy conservative ideals. Romney reminds me of the used car salesman that will tell me anything to close the deal. He instituted healthcare for all in MA and it is a miserable failure. Rather than admit his mistake, Romney believes in it. Romney is a wall street insider that will be exploited in the general. There is enough angst in the country regarding the economy without placing a wall street professional in charge of the economy. The wall street occupiers would have a field day. The media is busy all but annoiting Mitt as the nominee. They are salivating at the opportunity to destroy him in the general by allowing Obama to become a populist by exploiting Mitt's wall street insider status.

Cain is an unknown. I'm not sure he is ready to be president. 9-9-9 sounds great as a slogan but it doesn't resonate as a strong path the economic freedom. The plan consist of a National Sales tax that the American left will continually exploit. It is the left that can't tighten their belts and always want to increase taxes. The Dems will always use the "just a .5% increase in the sales tax will allow another child to live the dream of having a free education" line or some other save grandma or the poor line. We will never reduce the deficit in this manner. We need to balance the budget in the first term of the next President. I am tired of candidates always going out into the next election before they can balance a budget. It used to be a five year plan no it is becoming a ten year plan. Cain does have an intriguing story; one of rags to riches. The issue I have is he seems a little over his head and that is one of my main complaints against Obama. Cain may be a good candidate for the VP slot or at least a cabinet post like treasury.

Perry seems like another slick willy. I don't trust him. He comes across as a cowboy with the "aw shucks" charm. Texas is a large state and Perry has done a great job running it. I'm sure Perry is conservative but I am turned off by the birth certificate issue. I'm tired of that controversy. Sure, I believe Obama is hiding something, I don't know what but at this point it doesn't matter. Obama has a record of failure over the last 3 years. Exploit the failures we know instead of the skeletons we don't. I don't care about his Harvard grades; his failures in leadership, his failures in policy, and his failures in the economy tell me all I need to know. Obama is a failure that just isn't too smart. Sure he may be able to fool people with big ambiguous words but there is no substance behind the words. So once Perry went along those lines, I lost a lot of faith. I like his new tax policy but frankly it appears he took a page from Newt, who is proposing something similar.

Paul is just to much out of mainstream America. I agree with him on some views but his isolationist policies will ruin America. We are the worlds super power. If we pull back, some one new will take up that mantle. I have pride in my country, why would I want some other country to lead?

Newt is a conservative. Newt engineered the Congressional takeover in 1994. Newt understnads what it takes to win a debate and get things through a hostile foe. Obama is busy dismantling the contract with America. Newt can bring that back and balance the budget yet again. It was Newt's budget that brought us near solvency. While the Republicans took a major hit on shutting the government down under Newt's watch but it did lead to welfare reform and balanced budgets.

Our country is at the precipice. We need a leader that bring us back to prosperity. Newt's tax reform plan will bring money into the government cofers. I believe the reason Newt is receiving better or more press is because he truly is the candidate in this race the Democrats fear the most.

Choose Carefully

2011-10-14T06:45:00.000-07:00

It's primary season and the one thing everyone must remember is to chose their candidate carefully. The Republican party has many candidates and the media would like to make the choice for the voters. The media is busy pushing the meme that Romney is in the lead or the presumptive nominee. Be very careful of who the media pushes for the nomination. Republicans need to make their own choice.

I'm not saying Romney shouldn't be the nomination. Maybe he is the best choice. Romney has the business experience and executive experience the current President lacks. Romney does have an economic plan that is specific and detailed. Romney may not be the choice of social conservatives but he does have appeal to the fiscal conservatives. Romney is not my first choice and I do not plan on voting for him in the primary but if he is the nominee chosen by the Republicans and not the media than will support.

I would like to see the candidates stop attacking each other. The country is a mess. The liberal left is busy supporting those that would love to see our country go down the path to socialism. Attack the President and attack the left but don't forget to put forth your plans to fix the economy and our standing around the world. I will amke my choices based upon what the candidates place forward as a plan. I don't want finger pointing. I don't want to make a choice as the lesser of evils. I don't want to support the candidate that the media props up only to be destroyed in the general.

Lets make a choice based upon the best ideas, not the best attacks. I don't want the perfect candidate I want a leader and a visionary. I want a plan and I want to make my choice not have the media make it for me. Watch the media for whom they are portraying as the leader at any given time right now is the candidate they think stands the best chance to lose against Obama. The media is not the Republicans friend. The media is the enemy of this country as much as the liberal left. It is the media stoking the flames of revolution with their sickening talk. It is the likes of Jesse Jackson Jr and Chris Matthews fueling the hatred for our country. The something for nothing crowd is supported by the left wing of our country. The same left wing that supports class warfare. The same left wing that supports the communist party and the communist labor union leaders.

Let there be no doubt that I will support the Republican nominee no matter who it becomes. I will do it gleefully because I want this country to be great again. The left is busy destroying everything America stands for while we attack each other. It is time to stop sniping at each and rise above the fray. The candidate with the best plan that avoids attacking a fellow Republican prospect will receive my vote regardless of who the media tells me to vote for. In the end the entire nase must turn out regardless. We must vote the left down so that our country may prosper again, our children are depending on us.

Class Warfare: Risk Takers versus Freeloaders

2011-10-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

I am sickened that the President of the United States has decided to start a class war with the only aim of getting reelcted. Obama started a war between those that take risk to further themselves and those that want to freeload off the hard work of others. Here is a video example of what the Occupy Wall Street protestors really want:

Now think about that. The freeloader wants the rich to throw him a bone and pay for his tuition. One might ask themselves why? Well only because that is what he wants. Now on to some fascinating facts on what is fair

The Top 1% Owns 40% of the Nation's Wealth:

But did you also know the top 1% pays over 38% of the income tax burden in this country. That seems almost fair to me. In fact the top 1% were over 40% of the tax burden in 2007. 2007 also represented a record amount of revenue in the federal cofers. Since then the Democrats drove us into a recession (Depression?) and businesses are sitting on cash rather than invest. Maybe if the democrats provided incentive to invest the rich would again pay their fair share. Additionally the bottom 50% only pay 2.7 % of the tax burden. Yet idiots like the kid in the video think they are entitled to more even though he represents the bottom 50% and their 2.7% share of fairness.

The Top 1% Take Home 24% of National Income:

Yet again the top 1% pays 40% of the income tax burden on only a 24% share of the National Income. I wonder who is paying their fair share? This liberal argument, that the rich are not paying their fair share seems to be falling apart on their own facts.

The Top 1% of Americans Have Only 5% of the Nation's Personal Debt:

Well that makes sense. The top 1% has 40% of the tax burden and stays out of debt. Maybe if the bottom 99% didn't try to keep up with the top 1% they wouldn't have leveraged out everything they own. It is the bottom 99% that used their homes as ATM machines and ran on debt. The top 1% ran risks and worked hard and didn't borrow money to buy things they could not afford.

The class warfare argument that Obama started doesn't hold water when placed under the microscope, the rich do pay their fair share. The bottom 50% don't pay their fair share. The top is sitting on cash waiting for a reason to invest in America again. Incentivize the rich to invest and maybe the 99% will be enabled to pay their own way. Stop the freeloading, take responsibility, and realize the American dream. For once 50% plus 1 have no skin in the game this country is sunk.

Put Your Money Up Libs!

2011-10-11T12:36:00.000-07:00

I challenge the liberals in this country to put their money where their mouths are. Tell us how much you think is fair for the 1.7 million households that make over $250,000 annually. Tell us how much of the deficit should be on their backs. DO you think they can make a one time payment to the US government for debt reduction only. Could Warren Buffet afford $20 or $30 million? How about George Clooney? How about the professional athletes? How about the Obama's and Gore's? All that needs to happen is for the liberals to come off some money. There are 1.7 million households that make over $250,000. If they would make a one time donation to the government for an average of $6.8 million each, the rest of us could pay the rest of the debt off this year. Tell us how much the liberals are ready to donate and then so everyone has skin in the game, those of us earning less than $250,000 split the remaining balance of our National debt and we would save instantly $450 billion in interest payments.

I'm willing to pay my share, I'd be willing to donate twice my household income to pay off the national debt. All I ask in return is that we balance our budget year after year from here on out. We cut the programs that do not work. We reform programs that are unsustainable. We stop giving away other people's money for votes. We start being responsible. How about the LIBs are you in?

Typical Obama: More Taxes; More Spending

2011-09-12T14:29:00.000-07:00

Obama is nothing but a used car salesman. His story never changes, all we get is more of the same. Obama started with a simple jobs bill with bipartisan goodies that would appeal to both sides. Then just before he submits a plan for jobs he poisons it by saying it is paid for. Really? Then Obama has the audacity to take the low hanging fruit by raising the taxes he has harped on since 2007. Now Obama knows full well that the super comittee almost certainly would have discussed this low hanging fruit during their talks for raising the debt ceiling. Obama rather than wait for that commission decides to play political games by taking those "revenue enhancements" not to pay for reducing debt, nope instead Obama uses the low hanging fruit to pay for even more spending.

This is very typical of Democrats in general and Obama specifically. Instead of placing the jobless in front of the line, Obama places his party and politics in the front. If this is Obama's plan to pay for this jobs bill then Republicans must go their own way and pass their own jobs bills and send it to the Senate. Obama just made sure that his bill couldn't pass, so now is the time to make the Senate Democrats pay for Obama's partisan gamesmanship. Take Obama's bill and strip it of everything that won't make a dent in unemployment (like extending unemployment benefits that only keeps unemployment where it currently stands as it is already in place) and union friendly additional training funds for the union unemployed (Maybe union leaders should have already negotiated this or used their millions upon millions of campaign contributions on training) and send it to the Senate. The DEMs in the senate will reject or ignore the house bill and Obama will then have no one to blame but himself and his fellow Democrats in the Senate. I told everyone in earlier posts that raising taxes would only be spent rather than used to pay down the deficit. More of the same, Tax more, spend more.

DEM Strategy: Fear Mongering

2011-05-25T02:22:00.000-07:00

The democrat won the race for NY 26 last night. This is a district that the republicans had no business losing. The next couple of days will be interesting as the Democrats claim the victory is a rejection of the Republicans and their plans to balance our bloated federal budget. The Republicans will be busy licking their wounds wondering how the Democrat won and why their message is seemingly being rejected. Of course the truth is not going to be as clear cut as both parties may end up concluding.

First of all, there was a false tea party candidate involved that siphoned votes from the Republican. Jack Davis was a Republican turned Democrat turned will run on any line possible in order to run candidate. He is by no means a Tea party fiscal conservative. He run a poor campaign and seemed only in the race to ensure the Democrat won. His entry in the race seemed to put the pressure on Corwin who ultimately lost the race.

The Democrats then spent large sums of money on a race that in the grand scheme of things is meaningless. The Republican majority in the house was not in jeopardy. Yet the democrats threw the kitchen sink in to the race to obtain what in all likelihood is an about to be eliminated district as New York will lose districts when it redistricts. The Democrats and liberals run scare grandma about medicare ads that were outrageous and very misleading. Instead of telling the American people the truth that the three big entitlement programs are broke, the left will always lie and tell you the system is fine all that is needed is more taxes.

Coming into the 2012 election cycle it is quickly becoming obvious what tactics the Democrats will be using to stay in power. They are going to scare grandma, flash Osama all over the place and promise more spending if the evil Republicans are vanquished. The DEMs have no record to run on. Obamacare is unpopular and in the courts. Activist judges are trying to save Obamacare but in the end, it is my belief that the law is unconstitutional. The Dems didn't have a budget for this year and grumbled when the Republicans demanded miniscule cuts. The Democrats knew their majority was in jeopardy before the last election and refused to raise the debt limit beyond 2011. They knew the Republicans would have to do that unpopular act. Now when the Republicans say more cuts are needed in order to raise the debt limit the DEMS are screaming that a clean bill should be forth coming.

As I look around at the declared candidates for President in 2012, I have come to believe that the only candidate that has a message of truth and honesty with the American public is Tim Pawlenty. For right now he espousing that entitlement programs must be reformed. He even campaigned in Florida yesterday and told his audience that the fact is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will have to be reformed in order to save the programs for the future. The DEMS have yet to get real or serious about the financial crisis our country is facing. They keep believing in unicorns. Their Utopian philosophy gets in the way of reality. Tax the rich the DEMS plead. They now full well this will not fix what ails our country but the masses of poor that follow politics very little will fall for it every time. The DEMs lie to their own constituents to keep them believing in the unicorns. The DEMs are dreaming that all will be well. The problem is soon there will be more people drawing from Social Security then will be paying in. Everything would have been all right had the DEMs left the money in the Social Security lock box. The problem is that the politicians from both parties spent the money in the lock box and replaced it with interest bearing IOU's.

The program is broke and is just beginning to deplete the IOU's. That means even less in compounded interest received for the IOU's, which in turn means it will be even less then predicted. The Baby Boomers are just starting to retire, the first of which are just now turning 65. When the large influx starts the depletion of the IOU's will accelerate. There will be even less money in the general fund and even higher debt spending. We deserve politicians that are honest with the American people. Not the fear mongering scare tactics the DEMs are intent on using. The Dems are leading us of a cliff and accelerating.

The Bail Out Worked? Come EJ Get Real

2011-05-09T14:57:00.000-07:00

I was in shock when I read the latest OP-ED penned by EJ Dionne. I always knew him and his ilk were sycophants for the President but this mind less drivel penned by Mr. Dionne is just more proof that the media is nothing more than a pathetic pawn of the liberal left. Mr. Dionne uses the bailout of GM as his one shining example of how the government bailouts worked. Of course he whines that this economy busting president isn't getting any credit but if the propaganda machine would just take a step back and do a reality check they would understand why the America public was against and still are against the government bailouts.

No where in the piece does Mr. Dionne mention Chrysler. I wonder why? All he does is heap praise on GM for turning a $3.2 billion profit as Americans go about searching for more energy efficient vehicles. No where does Mr. Dionne mention that this administrations policies have forced gasoline prices to almost double since Obama took office. No wonder Americans are buying fuel efficient cars there aren't many Americans that can afford $4.00 for a gallon of gas. No where does Mr. Dione mention that Americans are turning to GM because Japanese automakers were crippled by a Tsunami followed by a nuclear crisis. Nope all Mr. Dionne does is heap praise on the government bailouts. Do you think Mr. Dionne would dare mention that unemployment is still at 9.0%? How about the year over year decline of 8% in the value of our homes? How about the 28% of mortgages that are underwater? How about the 1.8% GDP last quarter? How about Fannie Mae requesting another $8 billion in bailout dollars ust to remain solvent? Nope nothing of this news in Mr. Dionne's report. Just picks one example that on the surface appears to be a bailout that worked. But even if Mr. Dionne had peeled the onion back just a little he would be able to see that GM is the beneficiary of natural disasters striking their main competitors and the economy destroying policies of the administration he is trying to heap praise upon. Come on EJ get real the bailouts failed and for the most part so has this administration.

Tax More Spend More

2011-05-01T07:19:00.001-07:00

Gov Martin O'Malley from Maryland is pushttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhing an increase of another .12 cents to price of a gallon of gasoline. The push is because the transportation fund is depleted and the roads are in a state of disrepair. O'Malley says businesses like this tax but the people hate it.

Now I would agree a tax increase may be necessary to keep the transportation infrastructure operating smoothly. We need roads and we need them to be in a constant state of good repair. The problem though is that the liberals spent the transportation fund on other programs. Programs that have nothing to do with transportation but rather liberal programs designed to buy the votes of the poor. So the Governor and other Democrats depleted the fund for their pet projects and now they need to raise taxes on gasoline to pay for the repair of the roads.

This is the liberal point of view on taxes. Taxes can continually be raised. Run out of tax dollars, then raise them. This tax increase proposal in Maryland is ridiculous. Listen to what the governor is saying, look we depleted the transportation fund to pay for social welfare, now our roads are falling apart, so we need more fuel taxes to pay for the road.

This is the same thing that always happens with our tax dollars. The democrats and liberals constantly clamor that we need to raise taxes to pay for something specific like education or transportation or even deficit reduction, then after the taxes are increased even more money is spent on other social programs and we still don't get the specific spending that was sold to us as the reason for the increased taxes.

The politicians understand what we want out of our government. The politicians than starve that program knowing they will be enabled to come back to the well for more. Take in $100 dollars specifically for transportation and the politicians will siphon of .60 cents for other vote getting projects and come back later and claim they need more money to pay for the roads. The tax payer that uses the roads knows they are falling apart and will clamor for them to be fixed. Miraculously the taxes get increased and the roads still don't get fixed. This is the liberal trap. There will never be enough taxes going to our government. The more money they take in the more money the politicians will waste on keeping their power over the people.

The American people must stand up and demand our overfed government gets the deficits in order by reducing spending period. We can not give into any type of tax increase. Tax increases will only get wasted on social welfare and soon the government will be back telling us they need more.

Racism: Obama's 2012 Campaign Theme

2011-04-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

The pathetic pawns in the media have decided on the theme to push during the 2012 Presidenttial campaign. One would like to believe that the media would be pushing an incumbents record. However, the media has chosen to push the theme of rcism instead.

WHoopi Goldberg and Tavis Smiley are busy pushing the idea that the 2012 Presidential race will be all about racism. Goldberg decided yesterday that she was going to be playing the race card. Instead of pushing the stagnant economy, high gasoline prices, Mideast turbulence, unpopular Obamacare, and a loss of world wide prestige, these race mongerers have decided that Obama's record won't be able to keep him in office another term. These two have decided that no matter how unpopular Obama's policies that it couldn't possibly be his incompetence but rather it must be race. It doesn't matter to them that America elected overcame racism and voted Obama in office once, no if he doesn't get elected again then race must be the reason.

The rest of the media is jumping on the birth certificate controversy as being motivated by race also. To the media why would anyone be asking for Obama's birth certificate if it was anything other than because of his race? It couldn't be that Obama felt he was above the law and didn't have to provide proof of meeting constitutional requirements. It couldn't have been motivated by the lack of transparancy on Obama's part. It couldn't possibly be due to the media not properly vetting their candidate of choice. It couldn't possibly be Obama's disdain for the American public. No it has to be because of racism. Of course little does the media offer the other side of the story, e=which is that John McCain had to go to court to receive a ruling on his constitutional eligibility. No the media uses phrases like "vaguely written natural born citizen" clause.

The bottom line here is the media understands that Obama does not have a record to run on. The economy is expected to grow very little this year into next. The unemployment rate is likely to remain high. Obama's signature piece of legislation is as unpopular as it has ever been. The tea party is a true grassroots American effort to clean up government while the left can only astroturf and send in professional activists to fake being grassroots efforts. The left is in decline and progressive (read liberal left)ideas are being tossed to the curb in favor of reducing the size of government. America is in debt over her head and the economy is sputtering along. Anemic growth is the key word surrounding the economy and Obama couldn't possibly keep blaming Bush for what ails the country. Obama can't run on foreign policy as his incoherent policy has led to civil unrest across the Middleeast. Obama has a bad record so the pathetic pawns have to use the race card in order to attempt to shame America into voting an incompetent President into another term.

Reich is Wrong; Debt is the problem not Wages

2011-04-27T08:54:00.000-07:00

Today Robert Reich penned a piece for the Huffington Post bemoaning a recession rather than inflation being the biggest challenge facing America. Personally, they are not mutually independent of each other as Mr. Reich would have his readers believe. Telling readers that Wall Street doesn’t understand economics is ridiculous. It is like saying Einstein didn’t understand physics. To Mr. Reich I would say that inflation is the underlying cause of the current recessionary pressures rather than being a separate concern.

Mr. Reich like his progressive liberal readers believe in the “government can fix all that ails America” mantra. In order to keep the economy moving all that is needed is to have the Government spend more money in useless efforts to prop up the economy. Rather than say declining wages are the problem, I would venture a guess that problem is debt. The American government is in debt over $14 trillion or almost 100% of GDP. This by all accounts is unsustainable and places America on the brink of collapse. The Federal Government than leveraged the States by enacting unfunded mandates. States with Liberal governments (California, Michigan, Illinois) are completely leveraged out and have tapped all they can from the taxpayers. The tax payers are tapped out also. Homeowners leveraged their homes by taking the equity and turning it into adult toys to keep up with the neighbors. Now that home prices have fallen there is no place for consumers to turn. No longer are homeowners enabled to spend use their homes as ATM’s, the homes simply are not worth as much as they used to be.

Mr Reich is correct in assessing that consumers are not enabled to spend our way out of the recession. The problem in his analysis is that he blames it on falling incomes. The problem is not the falling incomes, the problem is that Americans were spoiled and were destined to failure because of their spendthrift ways. Americans saved very little and their spendthrift ways borrowed money they simply could not afford to repay without inflation. Americans needed inflated incomes just to keep their heads above water. Now that wages are stagnant and not keeping up with inflation the liberal left, represented by the likes of Mr. Reich, would have you believe that inflation is a good thing and the key to rescue our fledgling economy. If only prices of goods and services rise enough to force employers to increase wages will America be enabled to recover, is a wrong headed approach.

The recession is not the same as the other recessions since the Great Depression. For the most part the other recessions were cyclical in nature. The business cycle will always have its peaks and valleys. The key is to keep the overall trend rising, so the peaks are higher and the valleys shallower. The problem is that this recession was caused due to structural problems. The root cause in my opinion is American debt. The cumulative effect of leveraging every piece of property in the US to the max created bubbles that are now bursting. The problem is now there is no property left in the system to leverage. The last remaining available pool is to further tax incomes which will further erode the buying power of the American consumer.

There is an easy solution to the problem of debt. The American government as well as the States and individuals must again become frugal and clean up their debt problems. We as a country are not going to spend our way to prosperity, there is nothing left to spend, it has all been leveraged away. This is what happens under a system that promotes perpetual debt with ever increasing balances. It is our debt that is causing inflation and stagnating wages. It is our debt that is causing the recession to linger as the economy limps along. It is our debts that are unsustainable and inflation is no way to combat debt.

The American left would have everyone believe that government deficit spending is necessary. The American left believes inflation is good because it makes future payments of present debt less painful. The problem is our indebtedness has created the problem we see today. Fuel prices are rising for multiple reasons. Middle East unrest is part of the problem but so is the liberal lefts viewpoint to allow our own resources to go untapped. However the main reason for the current rise in oil prices is because the dollar is weak. The dollar is weak because the Federal Reserve has artificially kept interest rates low by printing dollars. In other words, inflation is making the value of the dollar much less than it was just yesterday. Along with the increase in the cost of oil, we also have an increase in the cost of food. Food prices are increasing because it cost more money to reap the harvest and also transport the goods from the fields to the processing plants and then to the grocery stores. Finally, wages are stagnating. Wages are stagnant because the American labor force has priced themselves out of the manufacturing competition. Companies are employing more people out of country because the labor costs are less. To me this makes sense, business are in the business to turn profits. However, the left believe businesses should be in the business to create jobs not profits. That philosophy my friends is why the left believes Government is the answer to everything. See if businesses were there to create jobs and could take losses then all would be right in the world.

Again the problem is debt. The debt is the cause of inflationary pressures. Inflation is the problem, we need a strong dollar not a weak dollar. Stagnant wages are a symptom of the debt problem and are not isolated from the effects of inflation. The two are integral problems that are feeding the structural problems we face. America needs to get its fiscal house in order. We must balance our budgets and stop taking on more and more debt. The left is living recessions from the past. The left does not understand ever increasing debt has consumed the ability of the consumer to spend our way out of this recession. Increasing taxes on an already fully leveraged citizenry will only prolong the agony. We must reduce spending now and it must be done in 4 areas. We must reduce Defense spending. NATO has shown to be inept and incapable without US leadership (Libya). Pull out of NATO and reduce the defense budget by the NATO savings ( a significant portion of the defense budget on the order of 25% of the total defense spending). Then tackle Social Security which is out of money. Don’t believe the lies about the money filled lock box. The lock box has no money but is rather filled with more liberal empty promises. Reform medicare and medicade. We need to reduce spending on these programs and we must do it now. The only way to fully recover from this recession and see the day America prospers again is to reduce the debt and keep inflation in check. Hyper inflation is not the right way to go.

Effectiveness Not Popularity Should Be The Driver

2011-04-26T06:34:00.000-07:00

A government program has to be measured by its effectiveness and not its popularity. America is facing a slow and agonizing death spiral due to out of control spending and a government bent on power rather than service. A politician measures government programs by popularity. A politiican requires votes in order to stay in office and therein lies the problem. Politicians will refuse to cut entitlement spending out of fear of losing their office.

The liberalsand democrats along with their willing propagandists in the media are busy scaring the nations seniors and conjuring up images starvation amongst the children. To the left every government program is necessary and couldn't possibly be on the hook for budget cuts. Instead the American left pushes tax increases on the so called rich. Tax increases the left knows full well can't possibly cover the deficits even if they taxed the rich at 100%. The left pushes the increased taxation because they say the programs like Social Security, medicare, and medicade are "popular" with the American public. Well Dah! Anytime something is given to people it is popular.

Imagine the outrage that would be caused if as an individual I "gave" a friend $100 every year, that I didn't really have so I had to take a loan out. I knew I couldn't afford to give away the $100 but it was necessary to keep the friendship going. Now as the loan interest and principal became due, I needed to borrow even more money just to pay the interest. I had to borrow the $100 every year adding to my principal and thereby increasing my interest payments. After a few years I realize that I can't afford to continue paying so I approach my friend. I explain that I can't possible afford to be so generous any longer. What do you think is going to happen? Of course it is popular with my friend when I give him $100. Of course it is going to be tough on our friendship. See my friend will have become dependent on the payoff and it will have become an additional form of necessary income. To my friend I am now causing a hardship. To me this was always a hardship. It didn't matter that it was inefficient to my friend. My firend wouldn't care that it took $150 from me in order to give him $100. To my friend it is an entitlement, something that was taken for granted. This is the same thing that has been going on with our entitlement programs for years within our government.

The mantra is that these programs are popular. The mantra is that someone will get hurt if they don't keep receiving the entitlement. This was the same way Obama and the media pawns sold the cash for clunkers program. Of course it was wildly popular. Imagine receiving 4,5, or 10 times the money a car is worth just getting rid of it. Wouldn't anyone considering a new car be all for turning in a near worthless vehicle for many times its actual worth just for buying something newer? Of course the program was popular with those that participated. That of course does not make the program efficient or even worth while. In the long run this program did more harm to the market forces than it did good. Now we have a shortage of used vehicles which of course increases prices because demand outpaces supply.

Until America elects a political class that is only in politics to serve the public rather than themselves will we be saved. We need politiicans that will make the tough decisions at the risk of losing their public offices. For while the political class takes public service as a career rather than a service we are doomed to a future of high det, high interest, and high inflation. We need to reform our entitlement programs not enact new entitlement programs. We need government programs that are efficient rather than bureaucratic. A government program should be measured by its effectiveness and not its popularity.

I am not adverse to cutting defense budgets. I am not against increasing taxes on the more affluent. What I am against is inaction by the politiicans. I am against a career politician fear mongering so as to make politics a career. I am against increasing taxes simply because it is popular. I am against lying elitists that claim "if only we raised taxes on the wealthy all will be OK."

Obama The Unserious

2011-04-16T09:39:00.001-07:00

America is a the path of self destruction. Our entitlement programs will break this country and send it into insolvency. Social security is running yearly deficits and the Democrats have the nerve to say Social Security is not adding to the debt. Medicare and medicade costs are rising and we have no way to stop the increasing costs. The Baby boomers are retiring and will be for the next 20 years. The deficits we are running are unsustainable and can not be eliminated by raising taxes and cutting fluff from the budget.

The President clims the Republican plan will hurt America, yet he has no plan accept to disguise a tax increase as a IRS spending reduction. Obama bashes the rich and intends on raising their taxes. We as Americans know Obama intends on raising taxes that is nothing knew. Obama wants to rid the IRS of those nasty tax deductions that the middle class uses to reduce their tax bill. Obama calls this a IRS spending reduction as if all the American dollars are the government's to dole out. No wonder the fringe right wants to go back to a gold standard or a bartering system. At least then what merchants received for products and services would be something tangible rather than a piece of paper that government believes is rightfully theirs and theirs alone.

Obama asked a rhetorical question the other day "do they think we're stupid". This was in response the the Republicans and their budget maneuvering. I must ask the same question but aimed at Obama "Does he think the American people are stupid?" The answer of course is yes. Obama as all liberal elite believe they are smarter than Americans and believe that only they know what is best. The left always talks about fairness but they do not believe in fairness just wealth redistribution. They always point out that the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. But they only look at from the perspective of their base. They never ask if it is fair to take from hard working Americans to give to the lazy Americans. The liberals believe they create fairness by taking from one and giving to the other. What they should be looking at is leveling the playing field and providing opportunity. Weed out the undeserving and let them flounder and give only to those the need a helping hand.

That is what welfare reform in the 1990's was all about. Instead of rewarding irresponsible and lazy behavior the Republicans demanded accountability. It was the Republicans that limited the number of years people were eligible and forced people to help themselves. The liberals just wanted endless gifts going to the welfare queens because they could always point to someone that was unfortunate and needed some assistance. The intent of course is not really to help the needy but rather to make the poor dependent on government. Liberal programs are designed to keep the poor people dependent on government so that they will continue to vote for them. There is not one example of a liberal program that was meant to level the playing field and making people less dependent on government. Every liberal program is designed to make people more dependent on them for existence.

The problem is that liberal governments eventually run out of other people's money to spend. It happened in Communist Russia, it happened in Greece, it happened in Ireland, it happened in Portugal, and it looks like it will happen to Spain in the very near future. None of these big government, government knows best, liberal government feel good economies ever thrived. They all failed and all will always fail.

Obama and the Democrats need to get serious with the budget. We can't balance our budget with taxes on the rich. We can't balance our budget on entitlement programs alone, we can't balance our budget on discretionary spending. We have to balance out spending reductions with responsible taxes. The Republicans have a plan that reduces spending by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The spending reductions must come before any tax increases. The Democrats have always proved to be irresponsible. Just look at the Social Security lock box. Social Security was fixed with tax increases for the program. The problem is that the Democrats just increased their spending and replaced the money in the lock box with government IOU's. As long as money flows into the IRS cofers the left will spend it. Obama and the left need to get serious and actually make cuts in spending. Funny how the economy has been going in reverse since 2007 and even Social Security recipients are not receiving cost of living adjustments yet the budget spending just keeps increasing. Seems to me if inflation is low and there is no increase in the cost of living that government spending would not have to increase to keep up. So Mr. President, Why can't America stay at 2008 style budgets without the stimulus? Why can't we have a 2 trillion budget instead of a 3.6 trillion budget? Why can't the budget be balanced and balanced by the end of FY 2012. Unlike CNN I don't believe budget cuts are draconian, I think they are necessary and prudent.

Americans Won The Budget Battle

2011-04-12T06:07:00.001-07:00

Last Friday the House, Senate, and the President came together and tentatively approved a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through FY 2011. Now the Republicnas won this battle and obtained around $38 billion in cuts. The Republicans are claiming victory. I believe the American people are the victors in this first battle. The Democrats and the media propaganda machine are claiming these miniscule cuts to be draconian in nature.

I read an OP-Ed by Eugene Robinson today that really irked me. From his perspective cutting 38 billion dollars from a 1.37 trillion bidget hinders the government from providing for the general welfare of the Republic. Think about it in smpler terms. This is the equivalent of cutting 38 dollars from a 1,370 dollar butget. It is hardly noticeable. This $38 billion dollar cut doesn't even cover our debt spending for one month. Media pawns like Robinson believe this is an impossible cut. They write OP-Ed claiming the government has no room whatsoever to reduce spending.

Please explain how deficit spending is good for the general welfare of the country? The general welfare of the country to me means that a majority of the country is able to produce and be successful participants in the community as a whole. To me the general welfare is not the same as everyone's welfare. That is the problem with the liberal logic. To them general welfare means that everyone is provided for by the government. To liberals the government exists to take all of the spoils and dish out to their voters. Take from the rich, that is the rallying cry from liberals. Funny how the liberals look to an inefficient government rather than more efficient charitable organizations. The liberals give very little to charity and see government as the only vehicle to provide. The return on government spending is miniscule. Sure the Government social programs are popular. Who doesn't like to receive free gifts?

I do believe there needs to be safety nets. Govenrment should be enabled to provide a helping hand. However, enabling our government to take over our lives goes against everything America was founded upon. We are the land of freedoms and are the envy of the world because of it. We do provide a safety net for the less fortunate but the government should not be in the business of promoting social welfare for all. Let there be no doubt Americans won this first budget battle. Americasn need to continue fighting the liberal establishment. We need a government that is looking out for the general welfare of the country and not the general welfare of the few.

Government Shutdown? Good can we stop paying Federal Taxes

2011-04-07T13:02:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow the Continuing Resolution to fund our government for fiscal year 2011 runs out. The government is set to shut down at midnight, Friday 08 APR 2011. The president has vowed to veto any bill that defunds the pro death and pro illegal activity (read prostitution) organization Planned Parenthood. The President tells the Republicans to stop playing politics but who is playing ideological games? The President is intent on shutting the government down. This is a government shutdown of his choosing. My question is why would Americans continue to pay Federal taxes if the government is not providing the services in which we are paying taxes for?

I am thinking the Federal government should not be allowed to collect taxes on people if they are not in business. After all if the government is shut down shouldn’t the tax collectors be at home? If the unemployment checks stop because the unemployment offices are closed should we still have to pay taxes? How about gasoline taxes? If the government can’t offer any services then how can they demand that anyone pays taxes?

Really the question is this “how can a non existent entity collect income?”. That is what the question is because if the government is shut down then there really isn’t a government is there. The politicians can’t claim to be shut down and yet still be vital to the American public. Our politicians on both sides have run this country into the ground and yet they will still be there to collect taxes and not provide the services they promised.

Now for the most part I blame this shutdown on a disengaged President and the Democrats in Congress who refused to complete their work when it was due. This would not even be a topic of discussion this year if the Democrats lead by Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate had done their mandated duties last year. The problem is the Democrats knew they were in for a rude awakening in November and knew a bad budget would make their margin of defeat even larger. Bottom line here is the Democrats decided to punt. Now the Republicans for their part have passed two Continuing Resolutions that incrementally funded the government for a total of 5 weeks. The Republicans also passed a long term Continuing Resolution that funded the government through the end of the fiscal year. That is three plans the Republicans passed. The Democrats in the Senate for their part have not passed a single Continuing Resolution. The Democrats have no plan, not when they were supposed and not when they should have been negotiating a deal.

Charles Shumer can talk all he wants about how the Republicans are extreme and how the republicans are beholden to the tea party. The problem is the republicans have passed a plan. Where’s your Charles? Let there be no doubt both parties have gotten us into this mess. The problem right now is the Democrats who didn’t govern when they held both the legislative and executive branches want to blame the republicans in the House. Yet I don’t see a President that is engaged with anything other than campaigning for 2012 and golfing. I don’t see Democrats in the Senate developing an alternative. All the Senate is doing is parroting the Democratic leadership talking points because they can’t think for themselves.

Just answer one question. If our government shuts down why would we as Americans continue to pay taxes for an organization that is dysfunctional and has threaten to shut off the services it promised to provide?

Why Are We At War With Libya?

2011-03-27T17:20:00.001-07:00

With every passing day since Obama opened another war front by unilaterally attacking a sovereign State in the Islamic world it becomes more and more obvious that his war of choice was nothing more than an attack to get the minds of the American public off the ineptness surrounding the Japan Earthquake and our budget worries. Obama has yet to explain to the American people why he felt it necessary for America to go to war. It has been 7 days and Obama still hasn't sought out Congressional approval. Obama has some explaining to do especially after his SecDef and SecState both interviewed poorly today. In fact it wasn't that they interviewed poorly its the fact that neither knows why we are at war with Libya in the first place. After the interviews with Clinton and Gates, I came away understanding that Obama decided our military lives are political pawns for him to push around the board. To Obama our military members are not real, nope to Obama the military are pieces on some board game for him to push around.

Need proof that Obama disrespects our military? How about SEC Gates saying we have no vital interest in Libya. That's right according to Obama's Secretary of Defense we have no National Security reason to have attacked Libya. This was followed up by Hillary Clinton chiming in with a snippet declaring that while it may not have been in the US best interest it was a national security issue for France, Great Britain, and Italy. Clinton went as far as to say that because NATO helped us after we were attacked for some reason we should be honor bound to pay back NATO countries whenever they decide they want to attack a country that attacked no other country.

Obama must be held accountable for taking this country to war when there was no vital National Security issue at stake. We as Americans have to demand that Obama stop using our military as political pawns for the rest of the world to abuse. Where is the anti war zealots? Why are they not protesting this war? This war is a war of choice that serves no vital interest for the United States. No NATO member was attacked so we owe NATO nothing as far as Libya goes. Obama allowed the French (who want the oil contracts)take the lead and forge a National Security resolution. Obama happily donated our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to the UN. Our soldiers are in harms way because Obama abdicated his Commandeer in Chief duties to the United Nations. Obama's senior leaders admit we had no real reason to go to war. Obama has failed to make his case to the American people. Obama needs to answer the Question as to why we are at war with Libya. Obama needs to quite trying to find the right phrasing that will make Americans feel better about his feeble and non existent leadership. Bottom Line is Obama took this country to war for no apparent reason.

Obama Abdicates The Presidency

2011-03-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

Last week Obama abdicated the Presidency. Rather than lead and make decisions Obama allowed the United Nations to force the United States into a war of choice. Many propagandists from the media have again come to the defense of our feeble and inept President. Reuters claimed falsely that Obama built a coalition unlike his predecessor. Andrea Mitchell claimed Obama did a remarkable job placing the coalition together. The pathetic pawns are calling Obama a multilateralist. Some of the pathetic pawns are claiming Obama has a slow steady leadership style and that is why it took so long to go to war with Libya. The problem is that Obama didn't create the coalition, Obama didn't lead, and Obama took America to war without even consulting the America people.

Obama calls this a humanitarian action. Yet it is a civil war between Qaddafi and a rebel force. The President has made the claim that he is backing the people of Libya against a tyrant. Supposedly we are aiding the civilian populous. However, it seems that we are backing Al-Qaeda. The rebels are backed by the very same terrorist organization that attacked America less than a decade ago. We are not protecting the populous. We are protecting a rebel fighting force. Enforcing a no fly zone is not the same as not allowing Libya to control its borders. We are not allowing the Libyan government to defend itself. Now Obama the weak is desperately attempting to get some other country of organization to take the lead. That is typical of this President. Let someone else take the lead. If the war goes well Obama will come back and take the credit. If the war fails then Obama will say it was someone else that failed. Are there reasons for us to be at war? I would think that yes, Qaddafi using planes and tanks against unarmed people may be a reason. The problem is that when the riots first started Obama sat on the sidelines so long that now the uprising is no longer a popular uprising but rather a armed conflict between gaddafi loyalist and Al-qaeda backed rebels. The bottom line here is that no matter what happens this an not turn out well for the United States.

About that infamous coalition the media says Obama created, let me be straight and say Obama didn't create this coalition. That's right, Obama was disengaged and allowed the French to put together the coalition. The current coalition is much smaller than the one President Bush put together for Iraq. President Bush took a leadership role. President Bush made decisions. Obama allowed the French and Great Britain put together a much smaller coalition. Obama allowed the United Nations to make decisions. Obama allowed Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Samantha Power to negotiate the war plan. Obama took our country to war without a plan. The commanders in the field have said they are confused about what the objectives are. Obama provided no direction whatsoever. So please Andrea explain how this is so remarkable? I think it is remarkable in one way and that is Obama took us to war at the behest of the United Nations. I think it is remarkable that Obama is unwilling to even call this a war when in fact he ordered our planes to attack the Governmental Fores of Libya. I find it remarkable that Obama has abdicated the Presidency to the united Nations. Finally Reuters please get real. This coalition is smaller than Bush's for Iraq and your outright lies that Obama took so long because he searched for a coalition unlike Bush tell a story about your propaganda machine.

It sounds like the President is finally getting around to talking to the American people. Supposedly on Monday the American President will offer his wisdom on why we are at war. I presume he had to have time to write a flowery speech so he sounds "pragmatic" in his indecisive decision making. Nine days after he started a war of choice, Obama is throwing out a morsel to the poor folk. Please Obama save us the platitudes and just tell us why in the world you abdicated American leadership to the most useless organization on Earth? America is a leader and we should never be subjected to the United Nations.

Is It Because He's Black?

2011-03-25T08:29:00.001-07:00

Is it because he's black? That's the question Whoopi Goldberg snapped off when Donald Trump questioned Barack Obama's birth cetificate on "The View". Well that is really my question for her as well as every other race baiter that defends Obama through race baiting, Is it because he's black? Is because he's black that we as the American public dare not ever question the President? Is it because he's black that it has become "Unpatriotic" to dissent? Is it because he's black that the media attacks everyone that disagrees with him as a racist?

As far as the birth certificate goes, I tend to agree with Trump. Obama is obvouisly hiding something he doesn't want people to see. I have no idea what it is but there has to be something or he would have just released the darn thing. I tend to believe that the long form birth certificate will not squash the birth rights questions, but that is beside the point. The point is that the left questioned John McCain legitimacy because he was not born in the US. In fact John McCain was born in a foreign territory. The left went to court where a court ruled that because he was affiliated with the military when born that indeed McCain was a natural born citizen. Now if the left was willing to go to court to have John McCain's legitimacy why not require Obama to release his long form birth certificate for authentication? Why would we want to lower the bar for one person because of race but not the other?

In America we are a land of laws. Unlike Eric Holder that believes laws like the civil rights were enacted for a particular race, I believe they were designed for all people. See racism is not unilateral or one way. There are people of all races that have racists views towards others. What the black panthers did as far as voter intimidation in Philadelphia is unacceptable in our society. When Holder said that he would only enforce the bullying laws when it was a black person involved because he would only enforce the law based upon what the civil rights laws were established to protect is wrong headed. The civil rights laws may have been enacted based on race but they were enacted to protect all races and not just one. In other words the protection says we can't make decisions based upon race period, rather than the myoptic view of a particular race.

Of course the answer to Whoopi's question "Is it because he's balck? is yes. Yes the American left does expect we treat Obama with kid gloves because he's black. Yes as Americans we are supposed to lower the bar for Obama because he's black. Yes the left doesn't want to answer any tough questions concerning Obama because he's black. I wonder who is worse those that are openly racist or those that hide behind race to lower the bar and become the race baiters? The race baiters are racist in their own ways but they are not open about it. Discrimination or denying things based on race isn't right, but neither is giving something based on race. Yes Whoopi, I do believe you are a racist. Yes Whoopi, I do believe you want to lower the bar for Obama. And Yes Whoopi, I do believe you do this because he's black.

Democrats Just Don't Get It

2011-03-18T09:22:00.000-07:00

The Democrats just don't get it. The problem is that every so called government program helps somebody but doesn't necessarily help the country as a whole. The Democrats are found of straw man arguments and and anecdotal evidence. The democrats are great at arguing "wouldn't it be nice if Mr. and Mrs. Smith received some government asisstance to improve their lives? The answer of course is yes it would be nice, then the Democrats move towards the let the government provide it then. The government has never been the "be all, end all". The governnment should not be in the business of funding frivilous activities just because one individual would be helped. No, Government should be there to provide a helping hand and not a handout.

Reid's argument that the would be no cowboy poet festival in Northern Nevada is a prime example of the Democrats not realizing how ridiculous they are. Sure some local community is helped by the government funding cowboy poets, but that is not the question. The question is "How does that help American society?", and the answer to that is that it does not. Why does the government pour millions down the drain on the National Endowment of the Arts? Sure it helps some no name artist have a chance but should the government be funding the dreams of the individuals at the expense of everyone else? Why do we fund National Public Radio and National Public Stations? Both organizations are admittedly one sided in the bias approach to newscasting yet all of America must fund their biased trash. Shy should America be funding Planned Parenthood? Sure it helps out some of the poor but wouldn't it be more prudent to fund education efforts that would avoid the need for abortion in the first place?

You see the Democrats have no intention of ever cutting spending or reducing the deficits. The democrats would rather see America fail than admit that their elitist GAIA utopian beliefs are unrealistic and an absolute failure. Rather than believe that helping someone is good, the democrats believe that giving to the needy is better. Why one might ask, especillay in light of the liberal axiom "it is better to teach someone to fish, than to give that person a fish". Why, well the answer is simple, the Democrats are only in this for the power; they don't even really belive in the trash they spin. The democrats want a society dependent upon them, the power brokers, the government elite. When a majority of the people are dependent on government handouts, the Demcorats will then become a permannent majority and America will fall into the dust bin of history. Americans understand that we can not continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility. We understand that the Demcorats are bankrupting our nation. We understand that government is not supposed to be the "be all, end all rather it is supposed to provide a safety net for those that may have fallen and need a helping hand. Americans are most generous in our charitable ways, but Americans despise freeloaders. Americasn want to help those in need that are willing to also help themselves. The Democrats need to be honest with the American people and admit their utopian ideals are not based in reality and will be the downfall of the greatest Nation on Earth.

Wisconsin: Vote Early and Often

2011-03-18T09:12:00.000-07:00

LAst week Wisconsin passed by a vote of 18-1 legislation that would curb some of the bankrupting power the Wisconsin public unions currently have. The vote was done in the abscence of Democrats solely because rather than debate the Democrats were cowards and ran away. When the propaganda failed and the Republicans stripped the budget restrainst from the bill so it could be passed without a qourum the Democrats took the law to the courts. The fake Democratic senators than returned home. So now the Democrats are in Wisconsin. So why not pass the original bill now?

Yes my friends the Wisconsin legislation should pass the entire law now including the budget items. Why one might ask? Well because whent the democrats lost they took it to the courts and a judge has placed a temporary restrianing order in effect that will delay the implementation of the law. Walker should immediately call the state troopers and detain the Democrats from the senate. In the mean time, place the original bill back up for a vote. A qourum would then be present, the republicans could again pass the legislation, and the restraining order would be null and void. Make the Democrats vote early and often. Who cares if the democrats whine. They failed to stop the bill once, now they are powerless to stop it again. Put it on the table and make them vote. It is time that the people are heard. The unions lost this fight, they should move along. Someone please tell me why the Democrats keep getting away with running away from their responsibilities.

We Must Cut Spending First

2011-03-16T17:42:00.000-07:00

Today over at the Washington Post, Greg Sargent, (Plum Line)peened a piece claiming the Post poll internals show they agree with the Democrats more than the Republicans on the budget deficit, but then says we as Americans are too stupid to realize it. The first internal number Sargent uses is:

A big majority, 64 percent, thinks the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit is through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes, while only 31 percent think the best way is through only spending cuts. The former position is the one held by most Dems, while the latter is the one held by many Republicans.

.

The problem is that he is wrong. Most Democrats believe in raising taxes first and most Republicans believe in cutting spending first. The poll clearly shows that Americans understand better than the elitist journalists that it will require a combination of both raising taxes and cutting spending. The question is what to do first. Do we raise taxes first or do we cut spending first? One thing is clear; our national budget is full of wasteful spending. The fat from the budget must be cut first. I'm sorry but the public should not be borrowing money so that we can fund "Cowboy Poet" festivals. We should not be borrowing money so that we can fund NPR and PBS, especially when both only push one side of the ideological chasm. When NPR and PBS made the conscious decision to go all in with the Democratic party they should have been cut off from public spending. We shouldn't be funding planned parenthood with borrowed dollars either. Sure abortions are legal in this country, but just because they are legal doesn't mean that the public at large should be paying for them, especially on borrowed dollars. There is no doubt that between the National Security team there are duplicitous efforts. Just a couple of weeks ago the OPM said the government spent $200 billion on duplicate efforts across the government agencies. The is spending that could be saved from the defense budget, there is spending cuts that could in the Departments of Education and Energy. We could reform medicare, medicade, and social security. There are many areas in which spending could be reduced without sacrificing government programs for the elderly and the underprivileged.

We need to cut the fat from the budget. Prove to Americans that the government in sincere in its efforts to balance the budget and reduce the National deficits. Once the fat is trimmed and Americans understand that what is left is spending that should take place in order for the government to provide necessary programs for the American people. Once the spending is cut and the government is leaned then maybe raising taxes to finish the job of balancing the budget would become palatable. This is what most people would want. This is how Americans balance their own books. Once an American get into financial trouble the first thing is to cut spending, the last resort is find another job.

If democrats get their way taxes would be increased and spending would never be cut. Just look at widening highways. The thought is if we widen the highway traffic will be reduced. The problem is that all that happens in the long run is traffic becomes worse as more people are drawn to the new wide road. Traffic will fill the empty void produced by the wider highway. The same thing with the budget. Once revenue is increased through taxes and the deficit doesn't seem so bad the cuts will never come. Additional spending will come to take up the slack of the additional revenue. Raising taxes does nothing accept allow our government to have a bigger appetite. We can see this everyday. As people take new jobs making more money what happens? These people find new ways to spend the extra income. Their appetite for bigger things consumes their additional income in a very short time.

Yes I am sure the American people understand that we will not be able to cut enough spending to balance the budget. Raising taxes is an almost certainty but we have to cut the fat first or we will the deficits will forever increase until America succumbs to the weight of the debt burden we are passing on to the next generation. Sorry, Greg but Democrats are not for a combination of reducing spending and tax cuts. The Democrats are only for raising taxes. Just remember the Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year. Just remember the Democrats in the senate don't even have a plan to pass a budget. Just remember the President has been to busy on the links to be worried about the budget. The Democrats have to get serious about the deficit. The democrats must come to grips with reality and find the wasteful spending first.

Gun Control? Where'd this come from?

2011-03-14T17:09:00.001-07:00

Yesterday Obama penned an Op-Ed that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star. The Op-Ed was a push for gun control, common sense gun control according to Obama. Really, is this the most pressing issue facing this President? Nothing else could warrant the attention of the President than gun control? This untimely piece would have better served the President 45 days ago following the events of the tragic Tucson shootings. Instead Obama floats his anti-gun rhetoric pushing for further government intervention in the daily lives of freedom loving Americans. It really must have been a slow day in the oval office.

The Op-Ed piece was not much more than a bunch of lies surrounded by an urging for decent people to give up some of the liberties for the sake of safety. Obama's claim that judgment was withheld and no one pointed fingers at anyone else in the aftermath of the shootings is a bold faced lie. Sheriff Dupnik almost immediately began blaming Sarah Palin. This was followed by the media pushing the meme that right wing rhetoric caused the tragic shootings. What we needed was more civility in our politics according to the left. Of course the left blaming the right of being uncivil and the cause of the incident was not pointing fingers.

Yet as heart felt as Obama writes about the need for common sense gun laws, was that late response to the shooting incident in Tucson really the most important issue of the day? Yesterday Japan was fighting a losing battle to keep a Nuclear reactor from going into a meltdown. Japan was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake, followed by a ruinous tsunami. I guess Gdaffi using air power to strike down a rebellion is a back burner issue? The budget crisis and impending shutdown of the federal government can't garner a moment of this Presidents time, even if Obama wants to remain "above the fray"? Really? Mr. President, Gun control?

This is the pattern of our disengaged President. His remarks are usually late and untimely. Remember it took 3 days and three cracks to get tough on the Russians when they invaded Georgia. Remember it was Obama that deferred to Pelosi and Reid the Stimulus. As important as the stimulus was according to Obama he sat the sidelines until it was ready to be signed and even then it had to wait until he was finished with his first vacation. Remember it was Obama that deferred leadership on healthcare to The democrats in Congress. Even as it became apparent that the public was against the bill, Obama sat on the sidelines the summer of 2009 and only joined the fray once the unconstitutional healthcare bill had to be passed through budget reconciliation. It was Obama who stayed far away from the economy hoping to change the economy through a false sense of "the market almost always goes up".

No it is not all that surprising that in the wake of world changing events that this President would turn to an issue that is far from Americans minds. This untimely Op-Ed is simply going to be ineffective as anyone with a heart in America was tuned into the news surrounding the tragic events in Japan. Obama is making himself and by default America irrelevant in the world today.

Obama's Leadership Void

2011-03-13T08:15:00.000-07:00

President Obama has no ability to lead what so ever. Obama flip flopped daily on the Egyptian anti government rallies, came in too late to be effective in the Libyan revolution, entered the Wisconsin fray only to retreat and claim he wasn't involved, and has nothing to say when it comes to reducing the budget. The AP would like everyone to believe that is because Obama is "Above the Fray", the real deal is Obama is in over his head.

All Obama knows is how to throw money at a problem. Early in 2009, Obama signed a stimulus bill that came in at almost $1 trillion dollars. Later Obama attempted to tackle Health care. Instead we now have a law that almost 60% of the country is against. The health care bill enacted came in at almost another $1 trillion dollars. The Obama moved on to providing over 1000 waivers to his friends. The unconstitutional health care bill certainly costs us money the US doesn't have and can't produce even close to the results predicted by Obama. We still have 8.9% unemployment and that is after the Bureau of labor statistics fudged the numbers to make it appear the rate was really decreasing, when in fat the jobs picture is bleak at best, with more people having left the job market under Obama than obtained a job. So what do have to show for our free spending President?

Of course the pathetic pawns in the media will continue carrying Obama's water. See they have to, because if Obama fails the media will be exposed as the liberal propagandists and liars they have become. The fact of the matter is Obama did enter Wisconsin and helped organize the protests through his campaign fund "Organizing for America" in coordination with the DNC. Obama did enter into the Egypt affair only to flip flop and go back and forth. There never really was any true leadership, only fence sitting hoping to jump on which ever side the chips fell. Obama is also sitting the sidelines in the Libyan nightmare. Obama couldn't even condemn Ghaddafy without going to the UN first. Obama says he met the Republicans half way in budget cuts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans came up with$61 billion in cuts. Obama offered the status qou. The compromise comes in around $6 billion. Let me tell you when I went to school half of 61 was not 6.

The bottom line here is Obama is not a leader. He is a political campaigner. That is all he does. Obama deferred leadership on the stimulus and health care to Pelosi and Reid. Obama deferred leadership on Libya to the UN. Obama deferred leadership on Wisconsin to OFA, the DNC, and the AFL-CIO. Obama deferred leadership on the new "civility" to the media. Obama deferred leadership on the budget to Reid yet again. Obama doesn't want to lead because leading is tough. Obama may be on the wrong side of history were he actually try to lead. The problem is Obama is a coward that would rather lead China then lead the US. Obama is a narcissist that couldn't handle actual failure. His administration has been a failure as evidenced by the need to hire a cabinet czar. Yet all Obama can do is blame others for his failures or complain he isn't getting enough credit for what little is going right. Sorry AP but Obama is not above the fray, he is in over his head.

Will Obama Shut The Government Down?

2011-02-20T14:05:00.000-08:00

Obama and the Democrats seem intent on shutting the government down. From Obama's increased spending in his budget submission to Nancy Pelosi and her statement saying a government shutdown seems inevitable. Now the media seems to be playing right along with the Democrat led shutdown by claiming it is the GOP that is intent on shutting the government down. The real issue is that elections have consequences and the Democrats are intent on ignoring the election just like they ignored the public when passing Obamacare.

The Democrats do not want to cut any spending. Sure Obama proposed freezing government spending and somehow claims that as a cut. A spending freeze at historic levels of spending is not cutting the budget. Ignoring the fact that interest on debt is an obligation and will further increase the deficits run by the spendthrifts. The bottom line is we have had trillion dollar deficits for the past two years and will have trillion dollar deficits for at least the next year or two. This is unsustainable but the cowards in the Democratic party don't want to be serious about cutting spending. In fact, Obama and his campaign arm in coordination with the DNC are backing illegal wildcat strikes by the teachers union in Wisconsin even though Gov Walker is cutting spending and balancing a budget. Now let there be no doubt the media will bak Obama and the democrats and claim everything is the GOP's fault. Don't let them fool you.

The democrats and the media are trying to replay the 1996 election. They are getting out in front of the shutdown in an effort to keep Obama in office. Obama and the democrats are so desperate to stay in power they are willing to risk the future of America. It is the democrats that have run the ship aground. The democrats have been playing the blame game for years. The democrats are more than willing to shut the government down in the name of politics. Don't let them fool anyone. The GOP must stick to their guns and force the administration to cut something. If the administration is going to play politics then let them. Speak through the people and let the democrats know that we the people understand that it is the democrats that are intent on shutting the government down. It is the GOP that is at least willing to admit that spending cuts are necessary in order to save this country. We are on the brink of bankruptcy. The democrats have leveraged the country into ruins. All Americans must understand that there is nothing left to mortgage. It is not just the Federal government that is broke, but also States like California, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, and Texas that are bankrupt. All of the aforementioned states with the exception of Texas have the same things in common: Democrats run the States for years and democrats mortgaged our future. I say call Obama's bluff. Obama is a coward and doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to shut the government down.

Fire Them All

2011-02-20T10:28:00.000-08:00

The teachers union in Wisconsin has taken the future of the State and the country hostage. The teachers need to be fired. The actions the teachers have taken is not the example that parents should want for their children. The teachers have shown that getting fake doctor notes is fine. The teachers have shown our children that it is OK to lie. The teachers have taken the uncivilized approach to protests. This is not what I want my children to be learning.

Think about it. The teachers called in sick with fake illnesses to get out of work. The teachers invited the students to protest with them on the capitol steps. The teachers were carrying hateful signs equating Scott Walker with Hitler.

Is this the civility the left talked about after the Gifford shooting? Or how about the fake doctor notes?

Our teachers have failed in the most basic of tenets. The Nations test scores in reading, writing, and arithmetic have stagnated. What was the response from teachers? They decided to change their tenets and start teaching social skills. They taught political correctness. They taught sex education. Is this what we want our teachers teaching? Are the teachers the ones that should be teaching our children morality? After the latest actions by teachers I say hell no. I don't want these morally corrupt anywhere near my children. These teachers have lied, cheated, and stole. They lied about be sick. They cheated by obtaining bogus doctor notes. Finally, they have stolen the students education by being fraudulently absent for the past week.

These same teachers that can't teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, are now clamoring for developing social skills and political expenses. Yet their actions show that they should be no where near our children. I surely can't support a teacher or an organization that would demonstrate to our children that it is ok to lie, cheat by getting bogus doctor notes, and steal from those they are supposed to be teaching. These teachers have no values and should all be fired.

$100 Billion: A Good Start...No Where Near Enough

2011-02-13T07:35:00.001-08:00

The Republicans in the house have come through with their $100 billion in promised cuts from the budget. That is a good start, especially in light that the Republicans having just taken the reins of appropriations and have but 7 months of appropriations in which to find the cuts. What has become more than obvious is that the President's scalpel approach will not work. Obviously, the Republicans have a long way to go but the time is now and massive budget cuts are in order.

The CBO has estimated the US will run a $1.5 trillion deficit in Fiscal Year 2011 alone. The $100 billion in cuts represents less than 3% of the total budget. Now the left in our country is going around claiming how "draconian" the Republican cuts are, but $100 billion is a drop in the bucket. More will be needed to bring America's fiscal house into balance. Without eliminating the budget deficits the government will spend the country into oblivion.

Unlike Paul Krugman, I do not believe perpetual deficit spending is going to make the economy stronger. Perpetual deficit spending is the casue of the economic chaos we are experiencing. Not only has the government been spending money they don't have but the States also spent money they didn't have to spend. The local governments not wanting to be outdone by the feds or the State also introduced deficit spending. Then when that was not enough money in the system the federal government mandated more individual borrowing. The Federal government encouraged individual deficit spending whether it was by lowering interest rates to ridiculously low rates so the irresponsible could borrow money, or also so responsible borrowers would use their homes as ATM's through equity loans. All American assets were leveraged to the hilt.

There are no more assets to leverage. Until the individual assets are brought back to normal the country will remain in dire straights. Homeowners are underwater, with 27% owing more than their homes are worth. Home prices are in steep decline. The individual consumer is no longer able to spend money to rescue the economy. This all started right after the great depression and we are on a collision course with another depression if it isn't already upon us.

The great depression of the 1930's was stubborn and wouldn't abate. Nothing in Roosevelt's "New Deal" got America back on her feet. While many Americans felt better about themselves and their country, the depression would not end. That is until America was dragged into World War II. The American economy swung into full gear in an effort to support the war effort. While many men wnet off to fight on foreign ground to protect and defend our honor, American industries hired women to fill the vacated positions. Women performed quite well in manufacturing plants and earned the jobs they intended to keep. The economy boomed.

When the American soldiers came home, many women enjoyed the work and did not want return to the homefront. Jobs were scarce for the vets unemployment was high. Then in the 1950's with various infrastructure projects (interstate highways) employment picked up significantly. There were more jobs which created more demand for products which kept the economy moving. However by the end of the 1970's inflation had taken hold and American households were beginning to be required to have two incomes in order to rasie a family. The prices of big ticket items such as cars and houses increased accordingly. By the mid 1980's, the dual incomes went as far as what one income would take a family thirty years prior. The federal government also began running extremely high annual deficits.

In order to keep the economy moving forward the federal government began approving legislation placing unfunded mandates on the States. This required the States to juggle theirs budgets and move their money around. In effect the Federal government, unable to raise enough revenue through the existing tax base, instead began leveraging the State's. While the State's complained they never the less provided the funding with the help of the federal government. This kept the economy humming along through the 1990's.

By the end of the 1990's, the States had begun to run out of money to pass around. They began to leverage the local governments. In many States the property taxes went through the roof (New Jersey for one). It didn't take long for the local economies to leverage what they had without looking for somewhere else for assets to plunder. With legislation passed and signed into law by President Clinton, the American government began to leverage the last assets they had available; the American consumer. America was sold a bill of goods based on providing everyone the American Dream. The American dream of home ownership would become a reality. It all sounded good. Banks were mandated to lower lending standards and provide loans to almost anyone that walked in the door searching for money. This worked out well as the economy was roaring and money was flowing between businesses and governments alike.

Then 9/11 struck. We were already in the midst of a mini recession. A recession that should have brought to light structural issues that undermined the American economy. The fact that the federal government was unable raise taxes to obtain more in revenues, the fact that the States no longer could afford anymore unfunded mandates, the fact that property tax increases were unsustainable, the fact that businesses could no longer afford to conduct business in the US, the fact that individuals could no longer afford to live off a single income and almost every family had to be a dual income family should have set off alarm bells. America was leveraged to the hilt.

The events of 9/11 brought us together. Americans started to spend their way out of the recession. Interest rates were lowered to almost nothing. More borrowers were encouraged to borrow even more. Americans were encouraged to leverage their future to live for today. Americans that bought a house for $50,000 in the early 1990's now took the equity out and owed 3-4 times more than the house was bought for. The housing bubble was created. Housing prices kept climbing, people kept leveraging their biggest asset, and Americans were enjoying the ride. However, the structural problems in the economy went by relatively unnoticed.

The recession bottomed out in 2001 and began its expansion. The main problem was jobs. In fact during the 2004 Presidential Primary season, the biggest complaint the Demcoratic challengers had economically was that the Bush administration had a jobless receovery. Now the jobs did eventually come back and Bush won reelection. However, no one really considered the fact that it took almost three years for the jobs to recover from a relatively shallow recession of 2000. This should have set off alarm bells throughout the economic community. Jobs are the engine of our economy. The consumers always lead the way out from the recessions and that is because they begin spending. Spending comes from those that have jobs and money. Without jobs there is no money to pass around.

The American consumer did pull us out of the last recession for perhaps the last time. See the American people leveraged their largest asset and were enabled to spend because their homes were falsely increasing in value at an unsustainable rate. Now that the government has leveraged everything in America it will take something more than spending more money.

The bottom line is America has nothing left ot leverage. The Federl Reserve is busy printing money in an effort to keep interest artificially low. That is not exactly working as intended as interest are higher today than they were before the Fed began priming the pump by printing money. There are increased calls for another market based currency as the FED is making the American dollar worth less every day.

Bottom line is the federal government needs to stop printing money and begin to roll back the government burdens placed on the citizens. If Obama wants to win the future it will take more than talk; it will take action. We need entitlement reform. The big four programs that have been untouchable have to be brought under control. Military spending needs to be cut and cut sharply. I would think a 20% cut in military spending is in order. That is only $130 billion. However, there is enough in the budget that could be considered low hanging fruit to reduce the budget that much. I am sure there is enough waste in defense to cut that much without hurting the troops. DoD doesn't even know how many contractors they have. Now we also need to cut medicare, medicaid, and social security. These are facts and are required to get our fiscal house in order. I don't want pie in the sky. I don't want words. I don't want the can kicked down the road. Ever notice how every President promises the budget will balance after they are out of office. Balance it now, lower the burdens placed on idividuals. Stop leveraging away the future and get real with spending. Start reductions now, $100 billion is a good start.....but it is no where near enough.

The Leftist Dream Is In Flames

2011-02-01T12:29:00.000-08:00

The day after a federal judge ruled Obama Care unconstitutional, the American left is screaming the decision was political. The left is claiming judicial activism. The White House went as far as to say the comparison to the government forcing the public to purchase broccoli ridiculous. The goal of course is the use of Private Insurance to provide universal coverage. The problem is the Government should not mandate the purchase of private products or services. That is what is unconstitutional. The left believes that forcing individuals to purchase private insurance provides health care to all. That simply is not the case.

Insurance is a gamble for the companies that provide it to consumers. The gamble is that the premiums taken in will provide reimbursement for any claims and yet still allow the company to earn a normal profit. High risk behavior will either have one deemed uninsurable at worse or charged at higher rates at a minimum. Recently I purchased a home and to have the mortgage company underwrite the loan “home owners” insurance was necessary. While shopping around for the insurance, the first question asked by every potential insurer was “have you made a claim recently”? To some companies recently meant in the last 5 years, while in others it was in the last 10 years. Now why might you think they asked this question? Of course it was to set the premiums at the appropriate risk level or deny me coverage. Insurance is taken out by consumers to hedge their bets in life. I want to drive a car and don’t want to have to foot the bill to pay for damages I might have caused in an accident out of my pocket. I take out insurance so that I am covered in the event of an accident. This is the same as any insurance. A concert pianist may take out insurance on their fingers, so that if something were to happen the pianist’s fingers the claimant would have something to fall back on and not everything would be lost. Insurance does not provide anything more than a guarantee that covered items would be reimbursed. Same is true with health insurance. Health insurance does not provide health care. It is a reimbursable mechanism.

So if I am 18 years old, in good health, and in shape, I may not feel it necessary to insure myself. I may find it better to spend my money on other necessities of life. I may know that I can afford to go to a doctor once or twice a year and pay out of pocket my doctor’s fees. Why should I be punished by being mandated to buy insurance so others can be subsidized? Isn’t that why Ma Bell was broken up? Other long distance carriers couldn’t compete because Ma Bell had a monopoly and subsidized long distance rates through higher local call process. This is the same logic the left is using to sell health insurance as health care for all. They must have healthy young people with low risk in the pool (paying higher rates than they should) to subsidize other who will be paying less than they should.

Now I am all for fixing what is wrong with health care in America. Being allowed to sell insurance across states lines thereby increasing competition is a start. Instituting tort reform that will reduce the cost of providing health care is another good start. Cracking down on those that abuse the current medicare and medicade programs and reducing waste and fraud is another good start. Instituting high risk pools and perhaps funding some of the costs associated with these pools may also be a good start. However, mandating everyone purchase a private product to subsidize others is wrong, and not only wrong but apparently unconstitutional. Obama lied to us when he said if we like our current insurance we could keep it. In the case of employer provided insurance it is up to the employer and not the individual. In the case of private insurance the wealthy will have to pay an even larger share due to the taxes on the so called “Cadillac plans”. So the government mandates that everyone is insured and then mandates what is essentially a cap on the insurance on the high end. Then the left has the nerve to comment that the health care bill was not a governmental takeover of our health care. Obama’s signature piece of legislation is going up in flames.

Lost and Found: One NY Idiot (Schumer)

2011-01-31T17:34:00.000-08:00

America must help out the state of New York. Their villiage idiot has been found.

Can you get a load of this clown? This is a disgrace to everyone that resides in America. Sorry Senator Schumer but the three branches of government are not the House, the Senate, and the President. The three branches of our Government are the Legislative (House and Senate), the Executive (President), and the Judiciary (Supremes). Any third grader could tell you that, as well as any legal immigrant seeking to become an American citizen. So this is representative of our government? This is representative of Democratic party leadership? No wonder the Democrats jammed through their unconstitutional version of healthcare. They don't even know the most basic part of our form of government let alone the nuances.

Call Obama's Bluff

2011-01-27T11:31:00.000-08:00

The republicans need to call Obama's bluff. During the State of the Union address Obama spoke of spending the country even further into oblivion with the same old initiatives he campaigned on in 2008, infrastructure, clean energy, transportation, and education. We have all seen where that got us, another $3 trillion in debt with very little tangible evidenced it moved us further. Obama also brought out his scalpel, promising to cut programs that are not working and reduce spending. Again this is just recycled rhetoric and empty promises. Call the bluff, make Obama submit a budget that produces real cuts and reduces the deficit without gimmicks and increased taxes.

When republicans took over the house in 1994, they allowed Bill Clinton to triangulate. Instead of forcing Clinton to do something, the republicans started down the path of instituting there vision of change and tried to jam everything down the President's throat. The people did not like the unilateral changes and rebuked the republicans by voting Clinton in for a second term. The republicnas can not sit around and float ideas that the Democrats will demogogue. The republicans can't allow Obama to sit back and offer nothing and then follow the polls. Instead of floating the road map being developed by Paul Ryan force the President to get off the sidelines and make his own reccomendations. Force the debate and take the debate to Obama. Make Obama make the first move by making him submit his budget and going through the budget. Point out the increased taxes, point out the increased expenditures, and point out the unacceptably small cuts in programs he will propose. Point out that Obama is not into getting our country back on track but rather in promoting his liberal base ideology. Use Obama's own words against him, allow Harry Reid an earmark or two and then see if this Presidnet really means what he says or is he full of hot air. Prove to the American people with facts rather than rhetoric that Obama will never reduce expenditures but only increase the tax burden.

The republicans started off on the right track. They started in the house by voting for a repeal of Obamacare. They passed a house bill stating the constitution must be cited for future bills. Now is the time to move forward, move from words and empty promises towards real reform of our government. The republicans should not be leading the way towards austerity. The republicans are not the ones that should be initiating the nations dialog, that is for the Presdient to do. Make the President forward initiatives, point out the inherent flaws and then have a vigorous debate.

Obama is a master at sitting the sidelines and taking credit for the good and passing blame on the bad. The democrats paid the price of carrying Obama's water. Obama mainly sat the sidelines and the democrats in Congress took the blame for the failed stimulus. Democrats in Congress took the blame for the health care fiasco. Democrats in Congress took the blame for the failed economy. Democrats in Congress took the blame for our exploding debt. Obama is enjoying a bounce in the polls because he blamed the process, blamed Bush, blamed the right, and blamed the American people for his failures and only took credit for the initiatives that are popular.

That is what Obama intends to do over the next two years. Obama will delegate painful austerity cuts on the republicans. Obama will then campaign against them pointing out the flaws. Obama will never do anything more than talk in lofty rhetoric and continue to blame the republicans. I say call the bluff. Wait for Obama to make a move. Make Obama submit a budget. When that budget doesn't offer anything more than an explosion of debt take it to the American people. Make Obama defend his position and then offer your alternatives. Remember Bill Clinton took credit for the so called budget surplus and Bill CLinton took credit for welfare reform. Both of these initiatives were republicans ideas that were forced down Clinton's throat and he was able to capitalize on republican ideas. Don't let Obama do the same thing.

From the best I can tell the pathetic pawns in the media are claiming the meme that Obama is moving to the middle with moderate proposals. The pathetic pawns are allowing Obama to speak in generalities rahter than specific proposals. The pathetic pawns are waiting for the republicnas to make the firt move so they can hand Obama his moderate victories. Make Obama do the heavy lifting for the first time in his life. Make Obama do something rather than vote present and ride the pine. Call his bluff and when he can't come up with the goods castigate his empty promises and then push ahead with the republicnas ideals.

Odd Lack Of Documentation

2011-01-24T19:19:00.000-08:00

The year started off good with the new Governor of New Mexico once and for all pledging to dispel all rumors of Obama's birth. As the search began Governor Abercrombie started in good faith to find the long form birth certificate. Abercrombie than stated that he had seen the documents in the archives but never was able to state he had in fact seen the long form birth certificate. In the end Abercrombie came out and said he was barred by state law from releasing Obama's long form birth certificate.

From the beginning circa 2008 of this search for Obama's birth records we the people learned that Obama's birth certifcate could not be released without Obama's permission. Yet in 2011, Abercrombie promises to find and produce a birth certificate only to find out he can't really produce the certificate for public consumption. It seems very fishy that Abercrombie would announce to the world that he was going to once and for all close the book on the Obama natural born citizen question by producing the birth records, and after exhaustive search simple says that by Hawaii law he can't produce the document. This bears a couple of questions "Why won't Obama himself dispel the rumors?" and What is Obaam hiding that he refuses to put this behind him?"

First of all, don't buy into the twisted logic of Obama's ardent supporters. The Obamabots will always say it is ridiculous to believe Obama wasn't born in America because his mother would have had to of known he would one day be President. That logic by itself is ridiculous. Does the left really believe that the only reason to have a birth certificate stating a child was born in the US is to become President? We all know by the immigration debate and the debate over the anchor babies having natural born status that there are many reasons for being an American citizen at birth besides being president. Being a citizen of the US brings benefits to the citizen. The birth certificate provides documentation required to obtain work, attend schools, enter the military, and receive social benfits. Remember it was the 1960's. It was more important to be a citizen than an immigrant. There are many reasons why Stanley Dunham may have desired her first born son to have an American birth certificate and none of her reasons even coming close to her son being eligible for the Presidency.

Now I am not sure whether or not Obama was born in the US. If I had to guess, I would probably side with yes he was born in Hawaii. However, there is some evidence that Obama may not have been born in the US. Stanley Dunhams travels around the time of Obama's birth seem to be questionable. There is rumor that she may have been in Kenya just prior to the birth. Lets assume there is a long form birth certificate in the archives. What does it say? Does it say Obama wasn't really born in a hospital? Obama has claimed to be born in a hospital. Maybe the document says Obaam was born at home under the care of a mid wife. Home child bearing in the presence of a mid wife was more prevalent in the 1960's than it is today. If the long form doesn't show ahospital but rather he was born at home might there not be further questions? Yes, there would be more questions if the document said Obama was born at home in the presence of a mid wife. See Obama claimed to have been born in a hospital. He claimed to have seen his birth certificate and stated the Hospital he was born in. If this is found to be false, what will that tell the American people?

But lets assume Obama could produce the birth certificate and it also stated Obama was born in a hospital. Why else might Obama be withholding the document? Could it be that Obama scammed the government for some kind of scholarship as a foreign citizen? Did Obama claim something for college that required he be a foreigner? Did Obama use his credentials as being an Indonesian for something? Why, why, why, is the question of the day? Why is Obama hiding all of his past documents? Why is Obama hiding his birth certificate? Why is Abercrombie hiding behind the state law? This especially in light of promising to put this issue to bed.

I don't know why Obama is hiding his citizenship documentation. I showed minew at every request. I needed it to enter the military. I needed it to apply for passports. I need it to now obtain a drivers license. I have no problem whipping out the document and providing proof of who I am. Yet our President refuses to show his? Bottom line is Obama is hiding something. Abercrombie instead of helping Obama, just opened a can worms that simply should not be allowed to close. Here is a video of an interview from a hollywood reporter that claims Abercrombie has stated that there is no long form birth certificate. Now I don't source the accuracy of the video and am only using it to prove my point. Why in the world won't Obama just place this issue to rest?

Where Is the Mandate For Car Insurance?

2011-01-22T16:50:00.000-08:00

The left loves to use car insurance as there example of why the government can force people to buy an insurance product. Please someone tell where the individual mandate to buy car insurance has been enacted. As far as I know it is only mandatory to have car insurance if one has a car. Car insurance isn't needed to get a drivers license. Nope car insurance is only needed to register a car. So there is no individual mandate to have car insurance. There is however a car mandate. Every car in order to be registered must be insured.

So how is this the same as having health insurance mandatory? Being born no constitutes a liability to purchase a specific product. Instead of having the freedom to make individual and family decisions the idiot left will decide how we can spend our hard earned dollars. Is this what the unemployed left doe all day? Do they sit back and think of ways of redistributing more productive members of society's wealth? Bill Maher believes it is mandatory to have car insurance but not mandatory to by a car. Many left leaning idiots are buying into the analogy to product the individual mandate. Sorry but car insurance is a mandate on cars while the health insurance mandate is a mandate on individuals. Try again Bill but your analogy is comparing apples to oranges and only left leaning loons will believe you.

Too Lazy to Check, Too Stupid to Care

2011-01-14T16:16:00.000-08:00

Little Green Footballs is factually incorrect. LGF decided to use the polifact website to smear Michelle Malkin. Too bad Charles was to lazy to check and too stupid to care. Why one might ask? Well because what Michelle said is factually correct while Polifact was wrong. Charles in his zest to impeach the right didn't bother himself to do anything other than push the left wing meme. Here are some facts.

First of all Michelle Malkin thought and opined that she believed the Obama administration had something to do with the T-Shirts provided at the Tucson memorial service. The Obama administration denied the allegation of politicizing the event and Polifact took the administration at its word. However, it seems the slogan on the shirt was taken directly from Obama's 2008 campaign arm Organizing for Obama. Just a little checking and miraculously there seems to be a connection. Of course the zealots on LGF will ask where the proof is that the administration was involved. The left will refuse to admit that Obama politicized the event and made it more of a pep rally than a memorial service. The left did the same thing at the Paul Wellstone memorial service just a short eight years ago. The left can't help themselves, they politicize everything and then blame everyone else for the woes.

The slogan coming from Obama's campaign arm shows a direct connection between the administration and the tacky and inappropriate T-shirt campaign style memorial service, at least by a preponderance of the evidence. Now I tried to let Charles know that his storyline was incorrect but of course he blocked my account just because I disagreed with him and some of the zealots on his site the other day. Really though it doesn't matter, the left wing zealots are out for blood and will outright lie to save their meme that a left wing lunatic was really lead to atrocities by the right. Too bad youi didn't bother to check Charles because many others have.

True Colors

2011-01-13T15:29:00.000-08:00

The pathetic pawns of the left wing rags have really shown their true colors. Since Saturday the pathetic pawns set out to do two things: (1) demonize Sarah Palin for sighting in on Congressional districts that were takeover targets including Giffoeds district and (2) make this into a Oklahoma City moment for Obama. Both had to respond to the media. Palin had to defend herself against the baseless attacks, while Obama just had to act Presidential. Today the media said Obama won. I would say the pundits and liberal media missed the point of both responses.

First, Obama just had to act Presidential. The media had already provided him with a perch. There glorified Obama and wrote praising words for the President. The media all but wrote what Obama had to say in order to soothe a Nations feelings. Obama did a good job of not politicizing his remarks at the memorial service. Obama did act Presidential and had a perch to deliver a speech that denounced hate rhetoric. Not hard for anyone really. It is Obama's job to bring the country together after a National tragedy. While the press is raising Obama to lofty levels for his excellent prose at the memorial service, they also compare that to the defense Palin made of herself.

Palin had a much different task to complete. Obama's was to provide healing words while being praised by the media. Palin had to defend herself against baseless attacks by the media. Palin did a good job of defending herself and told the media to stop the blood libel. Yes the media used the blood of the victims to fraudulently attack Palin and other conservative personalities. Palin was placed in a no win situation. Had she come out wioth healing words, the media would have portrayed that as an admission of at least some guilt. Palin came out defensively and called the media on there baseless and fear filled fraudulent and libelous claims. Palin did an excellent job of defending herself and turning the blame onto the pathetic pawns.

The pathetic pawns then attacked her for injecting herself into the storylines. I am sorry but it was the media that injected Palin into the storyline. The media attacked Palin for her sight picture map but remained mum to the targets the Moulitsas had 2 years earlier. The media attacked the right and Rush Limbaugh for raising the rhetoric level but forget it was the President himself that said if they bring a knife we bring a gun.

The bottom line is both the President and Palin accomplished what they were forced to do. Obama spoke as the President of a singular Nation. Palin defended herself admirably while under constant attack by the pathetic pawns. Both Obama and Palin have shown that they are better then the pathetic pawns will ever be.

If there ever was a question of which political side the pathetic pawns were on there should be none now. The pathetic pawns have shown their true colors. The pathetic pawns have shown that they are nothing more than left wing cheerleaders. The pathetic pawns just don't have enough inteligence to understand what the American people have been saying. They missed the point of both Palin and Obama in this instance, this missed the message of the 2010 elections, they missed the message of the 2006 and 2008 elections, and they missed the point of the 2000 and 2004 elections. It is high time to shoot the messenger because the pathetic pawns haven't been getting the message out.

Blood Sport

2011-01-10T16:07:00.000-08:00

The American left is in hysterics due to one of their own being gunned down by a lone leftist thug. Led by the hypocrite Markos Moulitsas who tweeted "Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin", effectively declaring the Gifford shooting was her fault because she targeted Giffords district as ripe for taking over in 2010. This tweet even in light of the fact that he himself placed a bullseye on her district in the 2008 primary season begging for a primary challenge against her. Congressman Grijalva is qouted as saying "Whenyou stoke these flames, and you go to public meetings and you scream at the elected officials, you threaten them-you make us expendable you make us part of the cannon fodder.

What an elitist load Grijalva is trying to sell the American people. I have news for Congressman Grijalva; you are expendable. Elected officials are only as good as the next election. Americans do not like elitist representatives like Grijalva talking down to us. Congressman like Grijalva forgot long ago that they are paid servants to the districts. They are not elitists to be idolized. We have the right to peacefully petition our government and its representatives. The American people screamed at public meetings only because left wing radical representatives forgot to listen to their employer. We the people are not in the service of the representatives, no it is the representatives that hold themselves to be better than the people they represent. Representatives like Grijalva have an insatiable ego and they have a desire to be revered. This is disgusting behavior.

Senator Frank Lautenberg says "America must not tolerate . . . inflammatory rhetoric that incites political violence." Yet wasn't America founded on political discord? Doesn't our First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Wasn't it the left that vehemently defended those that would burn the American flag as being a part of free speech. Burning the American flag is a violent act. Yet our left leaning politicians believe that burning the American flag doesn't create violence. The Ameircan left defends the flag burning but now says that inflammatory rhetoric is unacceptable? This is unbelieveable. This is also very hypocritical. The AMerican left prides itself in being political activists. The American left claims the mantle of being for the grassroots. Yet when the silent majority in this country rally around the tea party movement, the American left claim it is out of bounds and attempt to pass laws banning inflammatory language. So the left only agrees with political violence when it is what they believe in?

This is nothing but political blood sport. The left feels they can assail the tea party movement and Palin and the media backs them up. It is a shame that Congresswoman Gifford was shot. This is an act of violence that should not have happened. There is plenty of blame to go around, including the Sheriff who told claimants that they should not file any more criminal complaints against the shooter because it would complicate matters and the shooter was being taken care of by the psych ward. I'm sorry for the loss of life at the hands of a deranged leftiist, but that is no reason to throw the first amanedment out the window or blame Palin for targeting Giffords district, or blame the tea party. The left needs to start listening to the public they serve, stop holding themselves higher than those they serve, begin to take care of those they serve. This is not a political crisis that should be used for poloitical gain. This is not a bloodsport.

America's Soul

2010-09-08T07:16:00.000-07:00

The President whined in Milwaukee on Monday that he “was being talked about like a dog” by his political opponents. The narcissistic President and is sycophantic pathetic pawns in the media are bewildered that the President and the Democrats are being cast aside. Neither the Democrats nor the pathetic pawns understand why the President and his minions are not receiving more credit for his legislative victories. Both lament that the economy is not their fault; that it was the Bush administration and the republicans that “drove the car in the ditch”. The Obama administration and democrats mid-term election themes seem to be entirely based on anti Bush rhetoric, the economy is growing albeit slowly, and the democrats will return the country to fiscal responsibility.

Bottom line is that the Democrats have nothing positive to run on. The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007. The legislative agenda pushed by Obama and passed by the democrats is largely unpopular with the American public. The democrats blew a perfect opportunity to relegate the Republicans to permanent minority status; out in the wilderness with very little to offer. However instead of focusing on the economy that was in the ditch since late 2007, the democrats set out on a path take care of their special interests; namely their union buddies. Obama and the democrats threw away $787 billion dollars for so-called shovel ready jobs. Instead of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs due to the shovel ready jobs, Obama sent the money to conduct research on such things as the effects of cocaine on monkeys and to sign makers to promote the propaganda that was his stimulus plan. After throwing money away in the name of stimulus and ignoring the economy, Obama set out on a liberal agenda; ignoring the will of the people. Obama’s mandate was not the liberal agenda. Obama’s mandate was to change the way Washington operated. Many Americans voted for what they believed to be a post partisan President; a moderate that would work across party lines in order to accomplish the people’s business. The promise of hope in moving Americans past the racial discord of the past and into a new post racial America where Americans looked beyond race is what the people believed they were voting for; that was the mandate. Had Obama focused his attention on the economy in his first year and got us moving in the right direction, instead of expecting the economy to fix itself, the legislative victories would had made him the folk hero everyone expected.

Instead we are about to have our third election cycle in row that becomes a wave election. The Republicans are poised to make inroads in the Democrats majority in both the House and the Senate if not take the outright majority. The wave elections will continue until one of the parties wins the soul of America. The silent majority has been attempting to send the legislative branch and executive branch a message since 2006. It seems that message is not being heard and the voting public will continue with the wave elections until one party or the other wins over the soul of America. Whichever party listens and hears the people first will be the ultimate winner and win the right to govern this great country. We don’t want to hear Obama whining about the way he is talked about or hear Obama blame Bush when it is him that is behind the wheel. Americans understand Bush was President when the economy tanked, the 2008 election changed leadership in Washington. What Americans want is way path forward; a plan to get us out of the mess both parties had a hand in creating. The huge deficits facing America are the fault of Obama and the Democrats and not the Republicans or Bush.

We all can agree that the power of the purse belongs with Congress. Whoever controls Congress sets the appropriations and establishes how our tax payer dollars are spent. So I conducted a little research to find out who exactly is responsible for our massive and growing debt. The question is was is the Republicans that created the large deficits or the Democrats. What I found was astounding. The President is lying through his teeth blaming Republicans. It is the Democrats in Congress that included Obama that have created the large deficits, not the Republicans or Bush. Looking at the numbers I went back through the 12 years of a Republican led Congress. In 12 years or Republican majorities in the House and Senate (I will even give the Democrats 2001 through 2003 when the Democrats under Tom Dashle controlled the Senate) and found that between 1995 and 2006 the Republicans ran a total of $1.248 trillion dollars of deficit spending or on average $104 billion dollars per year. This all changed in 2007. Once the Democrats took control over the purse strings, the deficits have totaled $3.719 trillion dollars in 4 years or on average $930 billion dollars per year. Please let this all sink in; the Democrats managed to run three times the deficits in a third of the time and Obama has the audacity to blame the Republicans?

So let me get this straight. Obama is against the Bush tax cuts from 2001. A look back at the deficits recorded did see an increase immediately following the Bush tax cuts as expected in 2002 through 2004. However, once the tax cuts filtered through the economy the deficits were again declining from 2005 through 2007, with 2007 bringing record revenue from the taxpayers. Yet in one short year after the Democrats took over Congress the deficits shot through the roof. So it is not the wars our Nation is fighting, it is not the Bush tax cuts, it is not the Republicans in Congress, nope it is the Democrats that just can’t get enough of our hard earned dollars. It is no wonder then that democrats are having such a hard time this election cycle. The democrats are really the ones that have driven us in the ditch and don’t know how to get us out. It was the Obama administration dropping the ball on the economy, hoping it just fixed itself, while pushing his liberal agenda that has kept us in the ditch. Bottom line is the democrats are in trouble because they do not have a positive message to run on. Americans have tired of Obama’s whining and blaming Bush. Americans are tired of mortgaging our children’s future while receiving nothing in return except for more government intrusion in their lives. Americans are tired of trickle up economics. Americans are tired of a government that refuses to listen to the wisdom of the people. Americans want someone, anyone that will capture the American soul and return America to the prosperous nation it has the potential to be. America wants a leader that will capture her soul.

When Science Becomes Religion

2010-09-03T07:34:00.000-07:00

No two things could be more polar opposite in their foundations than science and religion. Science requires empirical data to support the hypothesis and theories. On the other hand religion requires a blind faith. Science searches for answers and promotes ideas based in fact. The facts in science can be backed up with data. Religion uses anecdotal evidence as its proof. Nothing is actually proof in religion and in fact science often goes about attempting to use science to prove or more likely disprove long held religious beliefs and blind faiths. But what happens when science becomes a religion?

All we need to do is look James Lee. Lee became consumed by his environmental beliefs. Lee took maters into his own hands and became an ECO-Terrorist after viewing "An Inconvenient Truth" and reading "My Ishmael". Lee made the environment and Global Warming his religion. I know the media only believes Lee may have taken this too far, but I believe as I believe most Americans believe that he not only took the false religion too far but that he also terroized the community. This is not just a small isolated incident of a madman but rather a cult like feeding frenzy created by the liberals and their new found religion. Any time empirical data is manipulated and changed to meet the hypothesis rather than allow the data to speak for itself is nothing more than having blind faith in ones beliefs.

When science becomes religion like it has to the ECO terrorists then science losses its credibility. Religion and Science can co-exist but we can not allow empirical science be relegated to blind faith. Scientists know this and should be speaking out against those that would manipulate the data to fit their beliefs. Just like Hurricane Earl moving up the Eastern Seaboard. Yesterday another global warming fanatic said this was caused by global warming. This even though Earl lost steam just as would have been expected. In fact it is only a category 1 storm now as it moves north over cooloer water. Yet yesterday the global warming fanatic claimed it would strengthen and as global warming took greeater effect the hurricanes would become more fierce and more common up the Eastern Seaboard. What happened to empirical data? Why try to shoe horn events to make the case even when the empirical data says otherwise? Our science will not be worth anything as long as it attempts to become a religion expecting the people to blindly follow.

Americans Awaken; Hear Them Roar

2010-09-03T05:26:00.000-07:00

Americans are just beginning to stir from a long slumber and they don't like what they are seeing. As more and more Americans open their eyes and rub the sleep away they are seeing an out of control government being fueled by the pathetic pawns of the media complex. The pathetic pawns in the media and the ruling elites are bewildered with some even calling the American people "spoiled Brats". While the pathetic pawns may believe we are throwing a temper tantrum, it is the pathetic pawns and the liberal left that is whining and not the American people. The American people are the ones taking the role of the stern parent and it is the left in American that is whining that our demands are too high. Perhaps Eugene Robinson should have renamed his article "The spoiled sibling lashes out at the responsible parents".

Political analysts, pollsters, and election handicappers, are all providing grim news for the liberal elites. Americans taking on the role of the responsible parent is about to take the keys to the family car away from the Demcorats and force the Presidnet back to the training wheels. The President, Democrats, liberals, and the pathetic pawns have consistently ignored the lectures from the American electorate. The establishment failed to listen or even consider following the rules and restrictions that we the people placed upon them. We instructed the liberal elites to focus on the economy. We told the liberal elites we did not like their health care plan. We told the liberals we liked the Arizona law on enforcing immigration laws. We told the liberals not to allow the Mosque at ground zero. The liberals did not listen. Like any adolescent, the liberals mouthed the words the parents wanted to hear, but then did what they wanted anyway.

Going into the last 90 days of the 2008 Presidential election cycle Obama and McCain were in a dead heat. When the economy tanked later in the fall, Obama was able to strike a populisdt message that resonated with the people. Obama was able to win by a 7 point margin. Instead of reading that mandate as a verdict oin the economy, Obama and trhe liberals read that as a verdict on their agenda. They didn't listen to the American people but rather went about their merry way to socializing America.

America wanted a focus on the economy. What they got was a bailout of the unions and liberal special interests. Instead of a $787 billion stimulus of the economy, we got spending on an auto bailout that protected the unions and money spent on studying the effects of cocaine on monkeys. Obama and the liberals believing that the economy would fix itself, then fixated on taking over America's health care system. For over nine months, in the face of fierce opposition, Obama pushed the liberal dream. Obama did not listen to the American people. Democrats did not seek bi partisan support. Instead they forced a plan that we had to pass in order to find out what was in it.

The health care act is as unpopular today as it was when it passed. Amercians are now just beginning to feel the effects of the overreaching liberal dream. Our health insurance premiums are on the rise and medical facilities are beginning to close their doors. Americans for the first time are realizing rationed health care. Instead of realizing promised stabilization of costs (bending the cost curve) we are experiencing a rise in premiums. The Democrats didn't reads their bill. To paraphrase Senator Conrad who quipped "do you think people want me to waste my time reading a bill filled with legislative language? Thats what we pay staffers for". Sorry Sneator but yes we do expect our legislators to read legislation. Maybe we pay to much for your staff. Having staffers does not relieve you of your responsibility. Immediately following the health care debacle, Obama began a run on immigration reform.

Instead of focusing on the economy as he promised during his first State of the Union Address, Obama fixated on destroying the State of Arizona. Arizona passed a law enforcing what is already Federal law and Obama decided it was a good idea to sue the State. Instead of unifying the country Obama decided it was a good idea to single out one of the United States. Obama and his State Department (led by Hillary Clinton) singled out Arizona for Human Rights abuses to the United Nations. Obama ignores real human rights abuses like the stoning of women in the middle east but castigates one of our States for simply enforcing laws that are already on the books.

So Obama the Muslim Appeaser decides that it is not good enough to simply apologize tot he world for America he also decides to weigh in on the Mosque at Ground Zero. Americans again overwhelmingly are against the Moque being built in the shadows of Ground Zero. Instead of following Gov Patterson's lead, Obama decided he would go against the people and use a false argument to support the mosque. Gov Patterson appealed to the developer and attempted to persuade the developer to relocate the mosque to a more suitable area. The developer outright refused. Obama attempted to create a false constitutional crisis in order to get his way. However, their is nothing unconstitutional about zoning laws. This is not about freedom of religion. This is all about the liberal left apologizing to those that attacked America.

So Mr. Robinson, it is not the American people who are throwing the temper tantrum. It is not the American people that are spoiled brats. No, it is the liberal elites and the liberal establishment that are throwing the temper tantrum. See the snobbish liberals just don't understands that Americans govern themselves. We don't like our wisdom and judgement to be questioned. We are a representative form of government. It was Obama himself that brought this on. Remember this gem?

See Obama took the elitist attitude that the will of the people doesn't matter accept for election day (2:55-3:05 see the shrug of the shoulders? See the relegsation of the people to only making a difference on election day?). Well elections do matter. The American people will keep voting until their voices are heard. We will keep taking the keys away and give themn to someone else until our representatives in Government start representing the people again. How ironic that the liberals see no issue with placing a tax cheat in charge of the Internal Revenue Service (read Tim Geithner). How about having the tax evader and low income rent abuser Charles Rangel writing our tax bills. Sorry, Eugene but it is the liberal left who are the sibling throwing the temper tantrum. Americans are awakening and taking responsibility for their government. The people are the parents. Please take your snobbish attitude, your whining rhetoric, and yoiur pathetic opinion somewhere else. Americans have awakened; Hear them roar.

A Man Shrouded In Mystery

2010-08-30T16:11:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama is the ultimate mystery man. There doesn't seem to be any definitive record of who he is or where he came from. There has not been one person from Harvard, not one roommate from his college days, and not one childhood friend that has stood up and claimed he knew Obama. Yet, Obama has the audacity to complain that a large minority of Americans don't believe he was born in American and many believe Obama to be a Muslim.

Barack Obama has it in his power to place these rumors to rest. The way to put a rumor to rest is to show proof to the contrary and not allowing the rumor to fester. Instead of producing statements and documents proving the rumors false, Obama never comes out and denounces his Muslim faith nor does he produce the documents of his live birth. Notice yesterday in his interview with Brian Williams:

Notice the bait and switch. The context of the question revolved around Obama's religion and Obama answers it by saying he couldn't walk around with his birth certificate. Obama could have taken the opportunity to say hey look I'm a Christian. Sure many would have scoffed at the idea but at least Obama would have been definitive. Instead of meeting the rumor head on Obama changed the subject. To my knowledge no one has ever heard Obama denounce his Muslim faith. However, we have heard Obama claim his Muslim faith:

Obama always talks around the subject. Never claiming to be an outright Muslim, yet never claiming to be a Christian either. Obama always allows those around him to put words in his mouth in order to be able to parse the words later. I for one could care less what faith Obama follows. What concerns me is that Obama is not being true to himself or whatever if any faith he follows. Tough to be honest with the AMerican people when he can't even be honest with himself.

Now the birth certificate is even easier. All Obama has to do is produce his long form original birth certificate. Why that is so hard for him to do is beyond me. Obama doesn't want to walk around with it taped to his forehead but he won't even produce it so that the rumor can die a quick and painful death. Most of the so-called birthers would leave it alone if everything on the long form was redacted except for Barack's name and the hospital's name. Instead Obama shows a short form that proves nothing and produces a newspaper clipping. Obama has gone to great lengths to perpetuate the rumor and conspiracy theories regarding his citizenship. My guess is Obama's long form would show he was not born in a hospital but rather at home in the presence of a mid-wife. Nothing wrong with that except that it would fuel the fire that perhaps he was not born in Hawaii and was registered late.

Know the pathetic pawns would have one believe it was ridiculous that Obama's mother would have forseen the future President and therefore had no reason to document an American birth. However, the motive did not have to be so complicated and ridiculous. Illegal Aliens today seek documents allowing them to stay in this country. American citizenship opens many doors in this country. Seems to me if Obama wasn't born here that there was motive to hide an illegal immigrant and plant paperwork to make him a citizen. Why won't Obama just produce the documents? The answer may be because he is hiding something on the long form that he does not want anyone to know about. It may be something as simple as being born in the presence of a mid wife, it may be something embarrassing, who knows, all we know is Obama won't produce any documents that would show definitive proof.

While we are at it, why doesn't Obama produce any documents? We have never seen anything written by Obama other than his carefully scripted autobiographies. We have seen not one document authored by Obama in the Harvard Law review. We have not seen one opinion written by Obama concerning the constitution even though he was a Constitutional scholar. We have not seen his dissertation. We have not seen how his education was financed. In fact we have not really seen anything concerning Obama prior to his Community Organizer days.

Perhaps if the pathetic pawns had done their job and vetted Obama, Americans would not be questioning Obama's faith, place of birth, or political leanings. Instead of portraying Obama as the messiah, if the pathetic pawns had just done a little homework, then these rumors would just die down. Instead the pathetic pawns keep asking Obama the questions, Obama keeps dancing around the issues with his answers, and Americans are left in the dark to formulate their rumors. A man shrouded in mystery is subject to the rumors inspired by secrecy. For a man that preached transparency on the campaign trail, he certainly doesn't open up anything in his past.

To Go Forward or Backup

2010-08-25T06:51:00.001-07:00

Most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. According to averages at Real Clear Politics, 61.3% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Yet, Obama believes he has struck the right chord by using his "the Republicans drove us into this ditch, are we willing to hand the Republicans the keys back?" The lines Obama uses around this theme are catchy and make his rich liberal donors laugh, but is it a winning line. In order to assess the predicament and make the appropriate decisions to get us out of the ditch an analysis of how a car gets out of the ditch is necessary.

One can argue that it was the Democrats that drove us into the ditch in the first place. First of all, the economy was on the rise in 2005 and 2006 leading up to the wave election cycle of 2006. Democrats didn't win that wave election on domestic policy. Democrats won that election on foreign policy. The Democrats, aided by the pathetic pawns in the media, hammered Bush on the foreign wars and especially Iraq. Both Iraq and and the largely forgotten war in Afghanistan were going badly and popular support for the wars declined precipitously. Bush made his bed with the foreign wars and was unwilling to move back and reassess. The Democrats took over Congress in the fall of 2006 and the rest is history. Finally, realizing that the public would not support an endless war, Bush backed up and changed policies. Bush relented and finally followed the advice of military leaders and provided the troop surge that changed the direction of Iraq. While, Bush was busy with foreign policy the democrats began dismantling the American economy. The enactment of pet projects, like increasing minimum wage requirements, began eroding the American economy. While Bush was attempting to gain traction in foreign policy the Democrats sat at home and enacted job killing legislation. It was the democrats that screamed at the top of their lungs that the economy wasn't nearly as good as the numbers showed. Liberals went as far as to even claim that an increase in GDP showed the economy was actually contracting. But alas, Bush was President and has to take the blame for the economy that failed.

So the economy did eventually collapse under Bush watch. Obama, can and does say that it was Bush that drove the car in the ditch. However, in the 19 months since Obama was inaugurated, the economy has yet to recover. In fact, the economy is moving sideways at best and backwards into a double dip recession at worst. When America turned the keys to the car over to the Obama administration what did Obama do? I can tell you he stepped on the gas pedal; full speed ahead with the liberal agenda being pushed forward since 2006. The problem is that pushing forward is not he way to get the car out of the ditch.

Anyone that has ever driven into a ditch can tell you that stepping on the gas and pushing forward only makes things worse. Stepping on the gas moves one further into the ditch. One must use a series of steps, including backing up, in order to get back onto the main road. So while Obama is right when he says the car was already in the ditch when he became President, he is wrong when he equates it to going backwards and saying why would you give the keys back to the people who put us in the ditch in the first place. Any General will tell you that sometimes retreat is preferable tot he frontal assault that is going badly. Sometimes you have to take a step back and reassess in order to change the outcome. It is the Democrats that had the keys to the economy when it derailed and Obama never took the keys away. Instead Obama declared full speed ahead with the government takeover of our individual liberties and responsibilities. I would much rather have the economy of 2005 and 2006 then the economy of today. Prior to the liberal takeover of our country jobs were being produced, housing sales and prices were on the rise, and incomes were increasing. To me that is far preferable to the conditions of today, where the housing market is in collapse, labor hours and incomes are decreasing, unemployment is on the rise, and potential workers are so discouraged as to leave the market entirely.

If the elections of 2009, and the early and more recent primary elections are indications, Americans understand how to get the car out of the ditch. The status quo is no longer acceptable. Newcomers to the political arena are winning elections and the elitist politicians are being voted out in droves. A new crop of politicians that listen to their constituents is required to get us out of the ditch. We need to backup, reassess, and return to being the prosperous country that we once were. Our voices are being heard but the elitists are not listening. The citizens of this great country are on the verge of taking the keys away from all of the politicians that drove us in the ditch.

Has Obama Jumped the Shark???

2010-08-20T10:39:00.001-07:00

The Presidents poll numbers are tanking and as the mid-terms approach many Democrats are running away from the President. Sitting at around a 45% approval rating has the President and many political pundits wondering what went wrong. The President and the pathetic pawns in the media are questioning what might be happening. The media is dumbfounded that such an ambitious and intelligent President could be so unpopular with the American public. Many pundits are touting the Presidents so-called legislative victories and wonder how with all of the victories in the legislative process the President could be held in such low esteem in the eyes of the public. The questions surrounding the approval of the Presidnet lead on to ask Has Obama Jumped the Shark?

The answer of course is not yet known. If the election were held today it would be a Republican Presidnet saying "Elections have consequences" and not Obama. Luckily for Obama his election is two and a half years down the road. The one thing that is certain is that in order for Obama to regain his popularity and to have a chance in a future election he must change his ways. Obama is viewed as being out of touch and running an incoherent administration. The blame Bush mantra is falling on deaf ears as the American public has already placed the blame on Bush and provided Obama with a golden opportunity. Obama rather than seizing the moment and taking advantage of the opportunity failed in recognizing the most important general rule of politics; "It's the economy stupid". In Obama's haste to reshape America into his Socialistic dreams Obama ignored the economy and fattened the pockets of his special interests. Instead of focusing on jobs, Obama focused on a costly health care bill for almost an entire year.

The mid-terms are fast approaching and this election will have its consequences. November is shaping up to be the third wave election in a row. The American people are speaking but the President and the Democrats are not listening. Over 60% of the people are against the Health Care reform and want it repealed. The American people realize the stimulus package was an utter failure. The American people are against the Ground Zero Mosque being built on hallowed ground. The American people are against the Arizona lawsuit. The American people are against amnesty for illegal immigrants that have broken our Nations laws. Obama and the Democrats are on the wrong side of every major issue facing the country.

While it is true that if the economy would turn around the Presidents approval rating will improve. However, an improving economy may not be enough to save this administration. Unless Obama and the Democrats change their ways and come in line to the American lines of thought then Obama is doomed. Had Obama focused on the economy and then worked on his initiatives after the economy rebounded his accomplishments would not be quite so unpopular. However, Obama rammed his special interest agenda through Congress and ignored the will of the people. Obama is always quick with the sacastic metaphors, but he is very shallow and disconnected with real Americans.

As long as Obama constantly relegates the people to the sidelines except for election day his numbers will continue to decline and yes he will have indeed jumped the shark. The Presidency is not about Obama. The Presidency is about America and her people. The Presidency is bigger than Obama and overshadows him. Until Obama understands these facts his popularity will continue to decline. Obama must come to the realization that the Presidency is not a ceremonious post that allows him to be a celebrity. The presidnecy is about leadership. America is on the wrong path. We are headed down the path of destroying ourselves. I believe in America and believe America will be prosperous again. Unfortunately, it appears the sun is setting on a once great nation. In order to make the sun rise again on the worlds greatest democracy we need a leader that focuses on the immediate needs of the nation. Today those needs are economic needs. Americans need jobs. It is Obama the is obstructing the will of the people and not the Republicans that are attempting to make the President realize that thus far he is an utter failure, looking at a historic defeat in the mid terms. Time will tell if the President has jumped the shark. One thing is for certain, Americans are hurting and Obama is jet setting. Do the pundits really have to wonder why Americans are not worshipping the messiah of the pathetic pawns?

The Constitution and the NYC Mosque

2010-08-18T16:29:00.000-07:00

The controversy over the building of a mosque near ground zero has nothing to do with the 1st Constitutional amendment. Here is what the 1st amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No one is making any law towards the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. No where in the first amendment does it say anything about zoning regulations or building requirements. No one is saying Islam can't be practiced in NYC. In fact no one is saying a mosque can't be built in lower Manhattan. All that is being said is that there is a compelling reason not to allow the building of a mosque overlooking Ground Zero. Governor Patterson is on the right track. The Governor is willing to negotiate a new site for the mosque rather than two blocks from ground zero. The President is wrong there is no right to build a mosque just anywhere. This is not a constitutional issue at all and it is morally wrong.

There is an easy way to avert an impending disaster. In the name of public good the Governor should use his power of eminent domain. The Governor is doing the right thing in negotiating. Patterson now just needs to follow through and go the route of eminent domain as long as the developers are unwilling to negotiate.

Under eminent domain the property may be taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development.

This particular building should taken from the developer and be turned into something of public use. The is a public safety issue for both the followers of Islam who would attend daily prayer in the mosque and also the residents of the city. The president is on the wrong side of this. The Presidents words and actions are inciting violence. There is no doubt that if the developer moves forward and begins building the mosque there will be violence. We wouldn't allow James Earl Ray to be buried next to Martin Luther King Jr. so why should we allow a mosque to be built in the shadow of Ground Zero? Obama is wrong and for a Constitutional Scholar he isn't too smart.

Rangel Must Resign

2010-08-08T11:05:00.000-07:00

The only deal involving Charles Rangel must include an immediate resignation. Rangel is about to go on trial in the house for ethics violations. Rangel never denies he is ethically challenged. His only excuse is that everyone does the same things. This my friends is no excuse.

The excuse that everyone else does is not an appropriate excuse. The left has come to Rangel's defense and insist the ethics charges are not as bad as they seem. The left and the pathetic pawns in media sugest there is racial motivations involved. The pathetic pawns keep bringing up all the "good things" Rangel has done. In the minds of the liberal elite ethics violations are fine as long as it comes from a loyal servant of the people. Never mind that while Rangel was writing higher taxes for Americans he himself was neglecting to pay his due share. Don't worry that while there are homeless people in the city of New York that Rangel rented not 1 but 4 low income housing units in the city. Never mind that Rangel didn't disclose lobbyist paid for junkets. No turn a blind eye because Rangel has a history of looking out for the little guy. Just because Rangel evaded taxes is no reason to call him ethically challenged.

Last month when the charges were announced, Rangel and the Democrats on the ethics panel entered into negotiations to resolve the issue before a trial could be brought forth. Don't worry that Rangel was only talking to the Democrats on the committee. It is certainly not unethical for a charged Congressman trying to cut a deal with his own party rather than the board as a whole. The media is portraying this as rae related. After all it is only Rangel and Waters (both African Americans) that have been referred to trial. It has to be all about race.

Now it seems Rangel wants to blame Republicans for his trial. Seems he signed a plea deal before the charges were referred. It was only those darned Republicans that caused this to go to a trial. Rangel could have easily cut a deal with the American people. All he had to do is admit his ethics problems and resign not just his chairmanship but also his seat in the House. Instead he would rather take a slap on the wrist and continue bilking Americans out of their hard earned money. The trial is no one's fault but Charlie Rangel's. The only person that didn't pay Rangel's taxes was Rangel. The only person renting 4 housing units designed for low income people for Rangel was Rangel himself. The only person that didn't disclose Rangel's financial dealing were Rangel. See this is all about Rangel and the ethics violations he committed. It is not about what others have done. It is not about the Republicans. It is only about Rangel.

The excuses from the pathetic pawns in the media and Rangel sound like a teenager excusing themselves for missing curfew. After all everyone else misses curfew why shouldn't they themselves. Pelosi is right when she says the swamp needs to be drained. Pelosi needs to start by cleaning her own house. Rangel must go and the only deal that should be cut is for Rangel to admit his wrongdoing and resign his seat in the House. No more adolescent excuses all Rangel has to do is resign. Reprimand should not be an option, Rangel wrote tax policy and then evaded his own taxes anything short of immediate resignation just opens emboldens the ethically challenged politicians.

When The People No Longer Matter

2010-08-08T07:07:00.000-07:00

The founding documents of America are rich in their thoughtfulness and wisdom. Our government was developed with the belief of freedom and liberty for all. Read the words of Thomas Jefferson. He said all men are equal and have inalienable rights. The constitution begins with the simple and effective phrase:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our country was founded on the principle of "the people" not only participating in their government but becoming the government. The wisdom of our founding fathers lies in the fact that the developed the constitution based upon self governance. However, career politicians have become elitists that rule rather than govern. career politicians have come to believe that it is they that know what is best for the country and not the people. The career politicians have taken our country away from the people and decided to give the country to themselves.

The main issue is the two party system in America. The career politicians place their party ahead of the people. Instead of the politicians representing the people, they represent their party. Is there any wonder nothing beneficial ever gets accomplished. Is there any wonder that America has become a country for the extremes rather than the middle? Obama once said "thats what elections are for". This one statement by the President shows the disdain that career politicians like Obama have for the people of this country. Obama himself relegated he people to the sidelines. Instead of governing Obama wants to rule. Instead of promoting the general welfare of the people, Obama promotes himself. We have many issues in our country but the career politicians are not listening to the people.

Last summer, the pathetic pawns of the media were aghast that "we the people" showed up at our representatives townhalls and called them out. The pathetic pawns pushed the meme that "we the people" should respect the politicians. I have news for the pathetic pawns, the politicians are employed by us, "we the people". It is the politicians that should respect us not the other way around. The politicians serve at the convenience of the people. "We the people" should be held in reverence not the other way around. "We the People" should not be dismissed except for election day. Our government should be responsive to our needs and not just responsive to the needs of the politicians. Our career politicians have become elitists that are attempting to fulfill a higher level personal need. Our politicians believe they are above us and should be dictating what we need and desire. Our career politicians are pathetic clowns searching for inner salvation at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve.

All we have to do is look around us. The American people were adamantly against the health care proposal, yet the career politicians rammed it through against our will. We attended townhalls but were dismissed as angry mobs. We protested on capitol but were lied about and called racists. We begged and pleaded with our government, but we were ignored. Our politicians were even bribed to accept a government takeover we did not want. In Missouri last week, Proposition C passed and the state outlawed the individual mandate. Senator Claire McCaskill said in one breath the people have been heard. Yet in the next breath she said the vote didn't really matter.

In California, the people spoke and passed proposition 8. The people of California wanted marriage defined as between a man and a woman. An activist judge struck it down as being unconstitutional. I have a problem with that. It can't be unconstitutional when voted on by the people. This was not a law passed by the legislature that must pass constitutional muster. No this was passed by the people, the owner of the document. The people make the rules and can change the constitution as written. It is the will of the people, not the will of the courts. The courts in California provided the right for homosexuals to marry, when the people took that right away, an activist judge cried foul and said once given a right can not be taken away without due process. Unfortunately their was due process. That due process was in the form of a constitutional amendment to the California constitution defining marriage.

In Arizona, the people have spoken. Arizonians want the law of the land enforced. Instead of yielding to the will of the people, Obama had his justice department sue Arizona. Another activist judge decided to strike down the meat of the law. Arizona did not change federal law, they just voted in a law that would enforce our immigration laws. Obama says it is an anti immigration law. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a law to uphold the law of the land. In a lawful society we must obey and enforce the laws. The Arizona law is a pro immigration law meant to protect legal immigrants and residents against those that are in the country illegally. The people of this country want our borders protected.

We the people want the government to promote domestic tranquility. Is it promoting domestic tranquility by allowing a mosque to be built in the shadows of round zero? The people of New York City are against the mosque being built. Yet the city government is going against the will of the people and allowing the mosque to be built. Many activist supporters are claiming the right to religious freedom as why we should allow the mosque to be built. This is a weak argument. No one is stopping the practice of religion. There are plenty of Mosque's in the city in which to practice their religion. Claiming first amendment freedom of religion here is like claiming freedom of speech when someone wants to place a KKK museum next to Martin Luther King Jr.s gravesite.

We are a Nation today that has seen it better days. Our career politicians have become elitists that have taken our government away from us and made it their own. We have become a country that is ruled by the elitists rather governed by the people. We are on a path of unsustainable debts. We are on the path of moral decline. We are on a path towards destruction. Our government is not providing for a common defense of the people as evidenced by the invasion along our southern border. Our government is not promoting domestic tranquility as evidenced by our career politicians lying about racial epithets being tossed around. Our prosperity and strength rely on the will of the people and the individual freedom and liberty afforded us in our constitution. As we can plainly see, we will begin to fall like all other great civilizations when the people no longer matter.

Paul Krugman An Economist?

2010-08-06T07:49:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman claims to be an economists, in reality Krugman knows nothing about economics not even economics 101. In Today's Keynesian screed Krugman seems to be saying that all tax cuts reduce revenue.

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

However, any economist will be able to explain how tax increases reduce the amount of revenue taken in by the government over time while lowering taxes will increase revenue taken in over time. The reason is really basic in the principles of economics. All one has to do is read any economics book about how businesses set the prices of their goods. Set the price to high and sales will decrease and the company loses revenue. The same is true of taxes. When the rates of taxes are too high revenue decreases. We can see this with our government.

Take California for example. California boasts some of the highest taxes in the land and yet they are on the verge of bankruptcy. The same can be said of New York and New Jersey. Does anyone see the trend? The states with the highest rates of taxation are also the sates with the largest budget deficits. In 2007, our country took in more revenue than ever before. Our deficits as a nation were on the decline yet Krugman along with the lunatic left push the meme that higher taxes will solve what ails America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama and the left have pushed their Keynesian policies for the last 4 years. In the last 18 Months Obama took a almost $500 billion deficit and turned it in to $1.5 trillion dollar deficits. The problem is not that we tax to little. Our government spends to much. For example why in the world would the government spend stimulus dollars on a study of the effects of cocaine on monkeys? How many jobs did that save or create? Today's unemployment numbers show not only a decline in jobs, but also a steady stream of prospective job seekers leaving the workforce. The 9.5% unemployment rate may have been static this month but only because the job losses last month, under the Obama and Krugman economic strategies, was outnumbered by the hard working Americans leaving the workforce.

Mr. Krugman has written in the past that deficits are good. Government spending raises output. The basic premise may or may not be true. What is true is that perpetual debt increases are bad for the economy. Running annual deficits at 10% of GDP is unsustainable. We need to get our fiscal house in order and raising taxes on "The rich" is not going to create or save any jobs. There is a reason businesses are sitting on $1.8 trillion dollars. The reason is uncertainty and taxes. When the government increases taxes on the job producers what we get is less jobs, higher unemployment, lower tax revenues, and a shrinking economy. Mr. Krugman you are no economist. Mr. Krugman, you are an idiot that wouldn't know a Keynesian crisis if it hit you in the nose.