OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED (OR WENT TO JAIL)

Well, it seems our President has been lying to us.  Surprise, surprise.  Apparently an al Qaeda splinter group called Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack early on and this information was on secured diplomatic wires within two hours of the start of the raid.  Including, according to Reuters, the White House Situation Room.

The most common argument coming from the left right now on the issue of whether or not President Obama knew the attack on our mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack relies heavily on the reasoning that Obama didn't want to "shoot first and aim later", as he (incorrectly) accused Romney of doing regarding his critique of the US Embassy's statement on free speech and the Egyptian protests. The problem with that argument is that, while it is commendable to want to get all of the facts first, the reality is, he didn't.   Apparently when he made that statement about the video on Sept. 12th, he didn't know that the White House also released a statement distancing themselves from the embassy's statement, mirroring Romney's 10pm release, at 11pm on Sept. 11th.

Perhaps he was concerned with not wanting to damage whatever progress he has made with the members of the Muslim Brotherhood that have been visiting the White House recently, so instead he made the executive decision to introduce a whipping boy to keep the heat off the real perpetrators.  How else to explain his blaming events on a Coptic christian in California who made a stupid, obscure video instead of the very real terrorist threat ever rising in North Africa?

The excuse of "He didn't want to jump to conclusions" is specious, because he did, in reality, 'jump to conclusions'.  Unfortunately, the conclusion he jumped to was that, as per usual with Mr. Obama, America is somehow to blame for everything.  And this time, instead of a straw man for the usual speech denouncing whatever it is he wants to distance himself from, he had a real man on whom to pin the blame.  The problem isn't the terrorists, you see, it's our pesky right to free speech.

By the way, why is it award-winning 'art' to fantasize about Jesus' sex life, but a crime to do the same with Mohammad?

That real man languishes even now - weeks after his arrest, and in solitary confinement - in prison on a parole violation.

Where is the outrage over this?

Yes, the fact that the President lied about the events in Libya are concerning, but no more so than the fact that he is okay with a US resident being thrown in jail and labeled a murderer by society so that he doesn't take a political hit on his campaign stump claim that al Qaeda is on the run.  What is really mind-boggling is the fact that the media - the fourth estate, our vital watchdogs - are trying their best to sweep it all under the rug.  Who would have thought that the American media wouldn't question a Nobel Peace Prize winner thinking it's okay to jail people for speaking their minds when his political life is on the line?  Rush Limbaugh likened it to Woodward and Bernstein covering up Watergate for Nixon. 

This isn't the only example of Obama's refusal to cop to terrorism being a major issue.  Let's not forget the Ft. Hood shooting that claimed thirteen service members and injured dozens of others.  The Obama administration to this day refuses to call it an act of terror, preferring instead to label it 'workplace violence'.   Even though Hasan was mentored by Anwar al-Awlaki.   Even though he shouted 'Allahu akbar!' as he murdered members of our military on home soil.  Even though he had a history of support for jihad.  Even though he continues to follow the al Qaeda playbook on working the judicial/military tribunal systems in the event of capture - right down to suddenly growing a beard and then refusing to shave it for religious reasons (in reality it is about flaunting army hygiene rules and quite effectively putting the brakes of postponement on his impending trial). 

It's interesting how our president is so concerned about not wanting to have a knee-jerk response to terrorists, but is quite comfortable throwing American citizens and military personnel under the bus.  Doesn't this speak to character?  Is this really the best man to be in charge of our country and our military?

Isn't this just as important as who knew what, and when, in Benghazi?

It isn't just that the White House knew within two hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack - although finding out our president has been baldly lying to us is never 'optimal' and deserves a high level of scrutiny to determine just how big the lie might be.  It's that we now know that the White House, for more than two weeks (and in front of an international audience), blamed and demonized a private citizen for exercising his right to free speech when they knew damn well that, at best, that video was just a convenient excuse for al Qaeda to gin up cover for their actions.

Can you imagine the hue and cry if it had been a republican president who had sat quietly by as Nakoula was taken escorted from his house at midnight and placed in custody for a parole violation and some friendly "quizzing" after spending weeks demonizing him in every forum available?  It's not hard to envision the protesters now, camped out near both the prison where he awaits his fate and in front of the White House, signs in hand calling for impeachment or arrest for war crimes and maybe even a burning effigy or two.  There would be a whole cottage industry of 'Free Nakoula!' t-shirts and bumper stickers, quite possibly with a picture of him pensively staring off into the distance, towel draped at a jaunty angle on his head.  Celebrities would speak out against the dictatorship that had incarcerated this innocent man....oh, I'm sorry, the celebrities come out for homicidal maniacs and cop killers, not free speech.  Silly me.  You get the picture, though.

Have we really reached the point where, a mere eleven years out from 9/11, we are okay with assuming the terrorists are innocent and Americans guilty? 

If the American president doesn't have the backs of American citizens and our most basic Constitutional rights, who does?

Read more...

OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED (OR WENT TO JAIL)

SHOCKWAVES

I'm a big fan of action movies.  The bigger the explosion, the better.  Action movies are one of the few genres that I am willing to plunk down the money to see in the theater because they are just so much better on the big screen.  My personal favorite is what I like to call the 'super explosion', where the detonation is so enormous that a visible shock wave rolls out from the center.  The best ones have the earth rising and sinking back down like ripples on a pond - preferably in slo-mo.

I honestly wish I could have watched the presidential debate and the ensuing reportage in a movie theater because that was the biggest super explosion I have ever seen on screen.  The shock waves are still resonating, nearly a week later. 

The first ripple was the moderator himself.  While Jim Lehrer did a decent job, it seemed like he was in a state of complete shock at the dismal, lackluster, information-free performance of the Most Gifted Orator of Our Generation™.  What was most shocking was that this wasn't an issue of a few gaffes or an annoying tick, it was a 90-minute long fail of epic proportions on several levels - the long pauses, the blame game, the endless distortions regurgitated even in the face of Romney denials (and, later, media refutation), the constant downward gaze (did he have the answers written on his shoes or something?  Maybe he hoped the podium would sprout a teleprompter).  Expect the President to get more help from the moderators in future debates.  Can't have another debacle like that messing up the narrative!

The second ripple fanned out to encompass the Twitterverse - which had it's biggest night in it's short history - and the FaceBook community where the fight over Big Bird really hit it's stride.  Because after all, the most important thing going on right now isn't events in Libya and the Middle East; it isn't the failing economy; it isn't even about the importance and impact of Obamacare.  No, the most important thing on social media - even almost a week later - is whether Big Bird, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, should stay on the government dole.  Good to know the Twitterati are focused on the important issues!

Ripple number three was the media response, which seemed to be a combination of bewilderment and disbelief, with a dash of sarcasm and unfocused rage for flavor.  The disappointment was palpable, like a thick, heavy wave creeping down the spines of the One's most fervent followers, finally nestling deep in the pit of their gut, cold and unrelenting. Six days later it lays there still, even though they have desperately tried to distract from it - even going so far as to use Big Bird for their political ends.  Talk about desperate!  Even worse, the folks at Sesame Workshop are not amused by the new Obama attack ad featuring their big, yellow money maker and are demanding it be taken down. 

It seems like it finally broke through the media hive mind that their magic man might just have more in common with the bumbling guy behind the curtain after all.  The epicenter of the blast seems to have been the MSNBC post-debate panel (even the Canadians were making fun of them).  Shell shocked would be a good descriptor for the panelists.  Chris Matthews had an on-camera nervous breakdown, Ed Schultz looked like he needed a scotch, a teddy bear, and a good cry (and not necessarily in that order), and Rachel Maddow was in deep, deep denial and grasping at any straw she could find.  The disappointment wasn't just restricted to MSNBC - not even close.  Most notably, Al Gore over at Current TV apparently suffered a little temporary insanity in his vain quest for the answer to the burning question in every progressive heart that night: Why?!?

The fourth, deepest, and most important ripple was the one that shook the electorate.  As the great Dr. Charles Krauthammer said of Romney's performance:

"I think what he did last night is he dissolved $150 million of negative ads and turned them to dust."

Suddenly, the carefully crafted veil that Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) had been weaving for months was yanked away.  Suddenly, an almost "bizzaro world" reality was revealed, where the world's most evil corporate raider was revealed as a compassionate, credible potential president, and the infallible, godlike creature so revered for deigning to step down to earth and grace us all with his omnipotence was exposed as a man whose soaring oratory that so swept them off their feet was apparently really almost entirely due to a TelePrompTer and lots of eye contact and prep time.  Suddenly, people remembered how incredibly boring their college professors were - even the "cool" ones.  Suddenly people realized Mitt Romney didn't have horns - but did have answers.  Suddenly the post-modern Romney construct was replaced with reality for all to see.

The mystique has been ripped away.  In it's place is a man whose inevitable reelection is now not quite as inevitable as it once was and another whose unsuitability is being thoroughly reconsidered.  And I do mean thoroughly.

To say that President Obama was the only epicenter of the blast would do Governor Romney a great disservice.  Most good explosions have several points of impact, and this was no exception. The man performed like a virtuoso.  It really was a phenomenal performance for him.  He was relaxed, assured, got his points across clearly and concisely, refused to allow lies to remain unchallenged and did what a true leader does - took command of the situation and ran the show with an ease, amiability and competence that was worthy of respect.   In short, he looked - and acted - far more presidential than the actual president.

It wasn't just that Obama was a dismal (grim?) failure, it was that Romney was wildly successful.  As he is with just about every other thing he has set his mind to.

The full effects of the debate have yet to be seen.  The ripples are still resonating as the president and his surrogates desperately scramble for excuses and scapegoats.  The president has been saying that the Mitt Romney at the debate wasn't the "real" Romney.  What else would he say?  That in reality he knows he looked like a frat boy who hasn't been showing up for classes what with all the partying, and had to cram hard to try to (unsuccessfully) pass finals?  He seemed annoyed that he had to be there, and it was obvious he didn't have the nerve to brazenly trumpet the low, false attacks he so robustly parrots on the campaign trail when the object of his lies and distortions stands six feet away with a pleasant smile and direct gaze.  The high pitch and hesitation in his voice the first time he trotted out the $5 trillion lie gave him away.  Not so easy to sling that mud when you're looking the victim of your smears in the eye, huh?

Unfortunately for the president, the entire night seems to have been the highest rated, most followed political event in a very long time.  Needless to say, not a good time to choke.  No doubt Gov. Rick Perry feels his pain (and a great deal of relief for no longer being the poster boy for choking in a debate).  As for the exposure Mitt Romney got from the debate, that has translated into cold, hard cash - more than $12 million in the first forty-eight hours after the debate - and a potent combination of increased enthusiasm and voter conversion (that sometimes stirs up controversy). The bump in the polls has far exceeded expectations, with the most stunning turn around coming from Pew Research's poll of likely voters, which had Obama up 51-43% pre-debate and Romney taking the lead, 49-45%, in the three days post-debate. 

All in all, the debate was an explosion of epic proportions, complete with all of the shock and awe such a happening generates.  The challenger strode forth from the blast crater with celebratory fireworks exploding behind him while the president staggered, burned and bloody, from the smoking ruin of his negative campaign. 

Truly a debate for the ages.

On a side note, does it bother anyone else that the man who has been running the show (almost singlehandedly, if you believe the press) for the past three-plus years was so woefully devoid of facts?  This goes beyond the debate, too.  On Letterman, he couldn't seem to remember the current national debt of $16 trillion - after all, he's not worried about it.  He was apparently also unaware of intelligence on the bloodbath in Libya, continuing to peddle the laughable line that some stupid video caused the "spontaneous" mob action more than ten days after the administration knew it was a planned terror attack.  At what point do words like "incompetent", "negligent" or, perhaps more aptly, "cheap politicization sheerly for the retention of power" start to percolate up - and not to describe the republican in the race?  Even fellow administration officials were uneasy about the plan to scapegoat the video in order to cover up the egregeous policy failures that resulted in the death of a US ambassador and three others.  Hopefully Romney will mention all of this and more at the next debate, possibly setting off a second super explosion. 

One other thing: Does this frighten anyone else?  Do people really not know what a debate is anymore?  God help us:

Read more...

SHOCKWAVES

THE PLAN IS WORKING

President Obama recently stated that:

"We tried our plan - and it worked"

Needless to say, right-wing blogs ran with this and the left pretty much ignored it. But it is an important quote, and something to keep in mind as we inch ever closer to November. Today I'm going to do something that I try very hard to avoid. I'm going to take a step into the realm of conspiracy theory (hey, if it's good enough for a former cabinet-level advisor, it's good enough for me!) I generally try to stay away from those rabbit holes of circular logic and half-truths. I guess I just don't have that much paranoia in me. But there are a few - a very few - theories that have some weight to them, some merit. Sometimes it is possible to prove or disprove these theories over time. One such theory which is in the process of being proved and which I became acquainted with during the 2008 presidential election, involved something called the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Chaos".

This strategy, cooked up in the 1960's by Columbia University professors Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, is a plan to bring down our capitalist system by overwhelming it and causing it's collapse. What would they replace the capitalist system with? Why, a European-style cradle-to-grave nanny state, of course. A collapse would be the excuse needed to throw out the constitution and, as Obama himself said just days before his election, "fundamentally transform America".

Transition to socialism is usually achieved through revolution or war. We have neither on our shores, and the wars we fight half a world away don't cause the deprivations that triggered the socialization of Europe after the two world wars decimated that region. In the absence of those things, then, how is change brought about? By overwhelming our system in other ways.

Why is it important to talk about this theory now? Because, as President Obama says, he has implemented his plan, and it is working, right before our eyes:

• The payroll tax he instituted and demanded stay in place means taxpayers are contributing 2% less to the Social Security trust fund each week. Which is already overwhelmed and expected to collapse by 2035. Surely this "tax holiday" the president put in place has something to do with the fact that we are now looking at running out of cash in 2016.
• The senate has not done its constitutional duty in more than three years by refusing to pass - or even seriously consider - a budget. As a result, deficit spending has increased from a high under Bush of $410 billion to an average of $1.4 trillion under Obama. For the record, that's $1 trillion more per year than Bush the Profligate at his worst.
• There is a determined push to get people on government assistance and entitlements, resulting in an unprecedented - and unsustainable - increase in participation. In addition, the absolute refusal by this administration to consider the effects their policies are having on job creation means unemployment has not gone below 8% in 41 months. Keeping people reliant on government instead of themselves has a twofold benefit for the president. First, the more dependents, the more indebted voters. Second, increased dependent participation and reduced taxpayer income create an unsustainable burden, hastening collapse.
• The housing crisis was never really dealt with, aside from a few confusing, unpopular government programs that helped few and harmed many. But that isn't the problem with this issue. The real problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice is actually forcing banks to do the very same things that helped cause the crisis in the first place by bringing down the power of the DoJ against any banks that refuse to lend to unqualified buyers.
• One of the first things Pelosi and Obama did upon his rise to power was to revoke the main part of the Clinton-era welfare reform. The key to the reform - aside from the job training - was removing the incentive for states to add to their rolls. States are now being seduced by much-needed federal dollars to encourage citizens to jump on the dole.
• A month later, Obama's HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, dealt the final death blow to the wildly successful welfare reforms of the 1990's, wiping out the other key to the reform - the work requirements that had effectively ended generational welfare. This now adds potential welfare collapse to the toxic entitlement brew threatening to bubble over.
• The requirements for entitlements have been reduced so that more options are available to more people. In addition, active recruiting for candidates is going on, from the increased number and visibility of ads to parents being called by their children's schools to encourage them to apply for the lunch program. Selling foodstamps to seniors as if it was a great way to lose weight ("Margie looks amazing! What's her secret?") instead of a humiliating state of dependence in their golden years is particularly loathsome.
• Entitlement requirement reduction has resulted in an historic 45 million Americans receiving food stamps (aka SNAP). This has not resulted in hand-wringing and promises to get people off the program and into jobs. If fact, the president hasn't really addressed the issue at all.
• For two years, the democrats spent taxpayer money like it was their own private stash, doling out favors and riches to cronies and donors with very little check from republicans, who were so much in the minority that their input was neither requested nor desired.
• Through executive fiat, regulation, and legislation, this administration has managed to make government a direct "partner" with the energy, health care, automotive and banking industries. Other sectors of the country are so crippled by the excessive regulation and looming taxation that they are unable to make forward progress. The result has been a "recovery" that is worse than the original recession.
• At a time when we have been experiencing long-term unemployment and our workforce participation rate is at the lowest it's been in decades, the president just granted amnesty and offered our job market to upwards of a million new workers aged 18-35. Can't wait to see the impact that has on the job market.
• Obama's amnesty is a double whammy. Not only will it increase our stubbornly high unemployment with the added competition for jobs, it also allows those former illegals access to our social safety nets - most notably unemployment benefits.
• More people signed up for disability last month than got jobs, and the administration seems to be just fine with that, if their absolute radio silence on the issue indicates anything.
• Obamacare was designed to increase the cost health insurance for companies while simultaniously offering a cheap "penalty" to not offer insurance at all. This is what will make Obamacare what Pelosi and company promised it wouldn't be - single payer. And just who is that single payer? Why, government, of course. When businesses start dropping coverage in favor of the cheaper penalty, their employees will be shunted into health insurance "exchanges" that will basically put people into Medicare or Medicaid instead of private insurance. After all, these two fine agencies are well in the black and can easily accommodate more citizens on their rolls. One-sixth of the economy will be under complete control of the federal government if we go to single payer. And, considering how well all of our other entitlements are doing, it's just a matter of time until Obamacare is teetering on the brink of collapse, too.
• More than 20 million Americans out of work, and all we get from the administration is promises to "pivot" to the jobs issue. Eventually. Maybe in his second term?
• 46 million Americans living in poverty. Yet another historic first. Where's the outrage?

It's not possible to look at all of these things and not start to wonder about what exactly the "plan" is. The result of these policies and actions has been the dismal "recovery" we have been treated to, massive deficits and mind-boggling debt. They are combining to create an unsustainable welfare state that that is doomed to collapse. What Obama is offering Americans is welfare writ large. Everyone is on the dole. Remember, Barack Obama is a genius. He knows what he's doing. That's what they keep telling us. He's ivy-league educated. He's brilliant.

So what did he study at those ivy-league colleges? Who did he hang out with? What ideas did he pursue? By his own admission, he espoused radicalism, even taking Piven's classes in his time at Columbia. He was immersed in it as a child, and even taught it later in life. He admitted in Dreams of My Father to not just hanging out with radicals and communists, but actively seeking them out - they are the ones he identified with most. As for the ideas he pursued, his career after college has been a tribute to Cloward-Piven, from his time as a community organizer to his church of twenty years to his membership in the socialist New Party to the people he has chosen as his administrative inner circle and the policy decisions they have made.

When President Obama said the jobs numbers were "a step in the right direction", he wasn't misspeaking. When he claimed his plan was working, that wasn't a gaffe. In order for Cloward-Piven to work, this three-year sustained crisis is exactly the right direction and the plan is unfolding exactly as envisioned. An expansive welfare state funded by a shackled economy and scapegoat one-percenters And if it isn't, it means the president and everyone in his administration, as well as former Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, are utterly incompetent.

Either way, they need to go.

Cross-Posted at The Ripley Report

Read more...

THE PLAN IS WORKING

AMERICAN PIES

In Sarah McLachlan's wonderful, double-platinum 2003 album Afterglow, she has a song called "World on Fire".  It is a paean to left wing ideology, with one really standout line:

"The fortunes of one man means less for some"

This is the melodious summation of the democratic argument for reelection in 2012.  It is most often illustrated with the pie analogy the left uses ad nauseum about eeevil rich guys taking huge pieces of the economic pie and only leaving thin little slivers for the rest of the proletariat to squabble over. (by the way, how much is Ms. McLachlan worth again?  More than her sound tech, I bet)

When most world history has dictated that those in power allocate resources, it tends to be an acceptable world view.  In order to to rationalize the deprivation and need that system imposes due to its participants' inevitable gluttonous greed, the theory develops that there just aren't enough resources to give to everyone.  It makes a certain amount of sense.

But here in America, we have a different mentality.  Or at least, we used to.  In America, each and every one of us has the freedom to go out there and...well, make pies of our own.  It's not for us to wait for government to hand out the piddling little slice they deem worthy.  All government can do here is try to limit the size of your pie by, say, demanding the addition of an ingredient that doesn't exist yet or by burdening  you with so many taxes that it's just not worth it to try to make a big pie.  Instead you make a smaller one or use cheaper ingredients or, maybe, have fewer assistants in the shop.

The problem is, the Baker-in-Chief loves pie, and simply cannot resist dipping his fingers into as many as he can, effectively cornering the pastry market by forcing bakers to give more than half of their wares to him.  The cronies and donors get first crack at the best ingredients now and when they burn their pies, he's always there with a fresh one for them, courtesy of the neighborhood housewives.

I find it quite fitting that a symbol of America is apple pie.  Here in America, we don't squabble over crumbs, we make our own damn pie, thankyouverymuch.

Or at least, we used to.  At one time, Susie Jones cooling a prize-winning deep dish caramel apple streusel on her windowsill would have inspired Betsy Smith to make her own mouth-watering creation.  Nowadays, Betsy would call the town council and have Susie's pie removed, citing scent allergies, an aversion to the overt oppression of the patriotic reference to which apple pies allude and a feeling of social injustice and victimization because her oven did not  spontaneously produce a pie when she demanded one.  After rigorous investigation on the local, state and federal levels, Susie and her family are finally left alone to enjoy the forty-seven percent of the pie they are generously allowed to keep (the other fifty-three percent being redistributed to Betsy and other, hopefully more worthy, recipients) and the oven industry has strict new standards for mandatory spontaneous pie manifestation technology within the next decade.  Naturally, a stiff penalty will be incurred if said technology is not implemented within the allotted time.

The biggest problem seems to be that it's not just a matter of fighting over crumbs anymore. More than half of us are telling our government that it's okay to go ahead and help themselves an enormous chunk of someone else's pie so we don't have to be bothered taking the risk of jumping the flaming hoops required for making our own.  We've gone from "I want what you have so I'm going to go out and get it for myself" to "I want what you have so I'm going to take yours".  It's a violation along the lines of what happened to that poor, innocent apple pie in the 1999 movie "American Pie".  It is a defiling of our system, and the inevitable outcome will be stagnation and riots a la Paris and Athens.  When only one pie is allowed, deprivation is sure to follow.

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. He understands that every man is his own baker, and should be able to make whatever size - and flavor - pie he (lawfully) chooses.  He knows that there should be a few rules about baking, such as banning endangered animal meat pies, or using quality ingredients in a clean, safe environment so the consumer and the baker aren't injured.  Such common sense rules and regulations are part and parcel of a well-run workplace.  But government intrusion into every aspect of the baking process is not. 

We really need to get Chef Obama and his inexperienced sous staff out of the kitchen and let the real drivers of the economy - the neighborhood bakers like you and me - get to work.  Here's a hint, Chef - the ingredients you were left with aren't the problem, it's the recipe you insist on following.  That particular souffle will fall every time, as it has in countless state-run kitchens across the globe.

It's time for government to get out of the kitchen and let the bakers bake again.

Read more...

AMERICAN PIES

TAKING A GAMBLE

President Obama's campaign has rolled out yet another new campaign slogan on his new bus tour across the swing states of America.  Nice touch, by the way, doing a tour to illustrate Obama's focus on American jobs (as opposed to Romney's illusory outsourcing) with a tour bus made in Canada.  One can only imagine how hilarious that would be, if only it was George W. Bush at the wheel.  Anyhoo, once again the President's brain stormers fall a bit short with the new campaign slogan:

"Betting on America".

Hmmmm....Is it really a good idea to encourage a mental link between the president, his agenda and gambling?


It is, of course, meant to give a sense of optimism; a feeling that ultimately America will live up to the president's vision  The problem is, the American people are somewhat less than optimistic these days, and aren't necessarily interested in the America that is being envisioned for them. 

The most glaring problem is that references to betting tend to bring to mind things like, say, the money gambled on Solyndra, Abound Solar, and many other "green" companies the Speculator-in-Chief bet taxpayer money on and lost.  Instead of seeing the obvious - that the technology is not fully developed and (or should I say, because) the market isn't ready yet - he instead presses for further "investment" in green companies.  After all, it's not like he's gambling with his own money, right? (and when he runs out of taxpayer chips, surely pit boss Hu will be happy to loan him another stack)

On a side note, that popular talking point about oil companies getting subsidies, so it's only "fair" (how I've come to hate that word) that green companies should too is complete bull.  Oil companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies.  They receive tax deductions, and that is a different animal entirely.  The former requires the government to pay large (sometimes downright enormous) sums of taxpayer money to companies in order to fuel research and development.  The latter allows companies to write off some of their costs, such as R&D, so they can retain more of their earnings to reinvest in the company and it's workforce, forking over less to Uncle Sam.  Big difference.

References to placing bets may also make one think of the doubling down that has been done over the past few years by the gamblin' man with the keynesian plan.  From the contraception "compromise" that is merely a one-year extension before the church must put aside their fundamental principles and join the collective to the repeated demands for more stimulus, it's been all about ignoring the critics, ignoring the people, ignoring the constitution, even ignoring common sense and sticking with his favorite theories.   Freedom OF religion has become freedom FROM religion, so any infringement upon the church is now perversely perceived as a win for individual liberty. Granting a one-year waiver is not a compromise, it's a demand for compliance - just at a later date.  As for the new calls for stimulus, he can call it a jobs bill all he wants, but it sure as heck sounds like a smaller version of Porkulus - the original "jobs" bill that has resulted in 8.2% unemployment two years after it was passed.  And here we are again, with Mr. Bigstuff looking to buy friends and peddle influence with another hand-out to help profligate states pay for teachers, police and firefighters.  But hey, we'll win next time, honest - our luck's just got to change!  The problem isn't the policy, we just didn't bet enough! 

That word, "Betting", might even bring to mind the shady numbers racket the media has been trying to swindle the American public with - from bogus polls to deceptive editing - in order to make the case for another term for the First Bookie.  Speaking of working the numbers, did the president really think that the American public would buy that ridiculous, obscure left-wing blog post about Obama being the most frugal president since Eisenhower?  Yeah, right.  The largest deficit under Bush was $458 billion, the smallest under Obama has been $1.2 trillion.  But he's frugal, whereas Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic.  Uh-huh.

It seems the overarching plea of the Obama campaign is for people to take a chance on him, once again.  Let it ride, America, our luck will turn!

Perhaps on some deeper level, even Team Obama knows their failed and yet unaltered agenda is, at best, a crap shoot.

Read more...

TAKING A GAMBLE

FUN WITH CHEESEHEADS

Big fun today!  The chaotic disarray of the democratic machine is quite a sight to see, isn't it?  In case you've been living under a rock, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker won his recall election last night.  Handily.  I'm not quite sure what's sweeter - the fact that he won, or that he won by a larger margin that when he was initially elected governor in 2010.  Mmmm, sweet like candy!

It looks like the taxpayers finally have a seat at the bargaining table in Wisconsin.  It's about time.

My favorite quote of the night comes courtesy of Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch:

"This is what democracy looks like!"

Running a close second is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal with this little gem:

“A lot of people thought it would be a late night in Wisconsin. I think it’s going to be a late night in Chicago.”

To quote the vernacular: Tru'dat!

How disconcerted are democrats?  Well, David Axelrod had a rather puzzling tweet on the subject:

"Bad night in Boston....WI raises big questions for Mitt"

In case you're confused, he isn't talking about Walkers reelection, he's talking about exit polling that shows President Obama over Mitt Romney, 51-45%.  A six-point lead is nice, right?  Perhaps Mr. Axelrod missed this from the Chicago Tribune article he referenced in his tweet (emphasis mine):

Wisconsin voters in Tuesday’s recall election seem ideologically fairly similar to those in 2010 – more heavily conservative than in the 2008 presidential election, but inclined to reelect President Obama nonetheless, according to early, partial exit poll results.

It's that "more heavily conservative" bit that is the sticking point.  Heavily, huh?  Ouch.  While a six-point lead sure is nifty, it isn't nearly as nice as the extra-spiffy fourteen point spread he enjoyed against McCain in 2008.  An eight point drop isn't anything to brag about, Dave.  Especially in ultra-blue Wisconsin.  He might have missed that bit about 'more heavily conservative', though. It was waaaay down in the...first sentence of the article.  I'd hazard a guess that the Romney camp was pretty happy with last night's outcome, and that his perfectly coiffed head slept soundly on its luxury 1000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets, most likely dreaming up ways to make Wisconsin even more competitive in the future.

The defeat has hit union supporters hard, to say the least.  Last night Mayor Barrett was meeting and greeting supporters after he had called Gov. Walker to concede and found out just how hard - literally - when he was soundly slapped by a distraught...er, supporter (via Mediaite):



Well, at least she asked first, right?

President Obama has piped in as well.  He's sincerely hoping that Gov. Walker got the strong message the unions sent with the recall. 

Oy.

Hopefully President Obama will eventually get the strong messages the American taxpayers have been sending him for the past three years, starting with Scott Brown.  The attempt at getting the message received really hit its stride with the historic 2010 democratic defeats - not to mention loss after democratic loss in Wisconsin alone over the past year of recall mania.  And all of it (at least for now) culminating with Scott Walker's enthusiastic reconfirmation.  I'm not going to hold my breath on a presidential epiphany.  In fact, I'm rather hoping he won't have one until he receives one more message on Nov. 6th.

There will be a lot of moaning - crying, even - over the "stealing" of the election by the eeeevil corporations and their dirty, nasty millions.  Perhaps the unions would have had more in their war chest if the DNC had had more faith in their cause and candidate and had actually given money instead of moral support to help the election as the RNC did.  

On a side note, funny how blockbuster campaign  contributions - including out of state money - are a sign of universal support when its for Obama and democrats, but a sign of the coming zombie apocalypse for anyone with an 'R' after their name.

The big question now is whether the bitterness can be shed and relationships repaired.  As a parent, whenever I have to strongly rebuke one of my children, I know that sometimes there will be a certain amount of anger, resentment, and maybe even a temper tantrum or two.  But I also know that eventually they will get over it and life returns to a well-behaved, amiable normal.  Unfortunately some children are either not that bright, self destructive, or a combination of the two and fight on far longer than is wise, not caring that they are damaging themselves and others along the way. Let's hope the union hierarchy, whose fifteen month tantrum has cost the state of Wisconsin somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 million, will wise up soon.  Continuing the bad behavior of the past year will only damage the image of the unions further.  Considering they have already lost in excess of half their dues-paying membership since the reforms were put in place, they certainly can't afford to alienate anyone else.

It's time to concede and move on.  I would counsel conservatives to not spike the ball on this too much (never mind that I've written a whole post that is pure ball spiking!), as we don't want to give cause to extend the epic pout we are in for over the next few days.  But considering some of these people are fine with slapping their own candidates, I see no reason why we can't slap each other on the back a bit for a job well done (happy dances optional)!

Read more...

FUN WITH CHEESEHEADS

A LITTLE RETURN FIRE

The so-called Republican War on Women™ that the press and various liberals have been ginning up was starting to die down a bit (although Sen. Chuck Schumer is determined to milk every drop out of it first).  Expect it to heat up again, though - provided the neo-pravda media decide to run this latest wrinkle.

Bristol Palin is now stepping up to the plate with an open letter to President Obama on the issue.  And boy, does she knock it out of the park:

"If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But…

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."

Over to you, Mr, President!
PS - it seems to be getting a lot of attention, because in the time it took me to read her blog and post my own about it, her site has shut down.  Be sure to check back and read the whole thing!

Read more...

A LITTLE RETURN FIRE

THE COLLISION OF CHURCH AND STATE Updated

A firestorm has erupted over the Obama administration's enforcement of yet another of those little goodies Nancy Pelosi promised we'd find out about eventually.  In one more in a laundry list of examples of the contempt in which they hold the Constitution, the administration is subjugating the first amendment to birth control.  Pelosi has dismissed claims of unprecedented violations of constitutionally protected religious liberty as merely an "excuse". The way they talk, you'd think women who worked for Catholic institutions were physically restrained from purchasing birth control.  Well, except for the 98% of catholic women who use birth control, of course.  

That's right, they are attempting to use opposing straw men (straw women?) to support their attack.  On the one hand, the women are being victimized, unable to be truly healthy because they don't have employer-paid access to IUDs and the abortion pill.  The way they talk, birth control pills are a cross between super vitamin and miracle cure.  On the other, all catholic women are on birth control and owe their lives and fortunes to their ability to be parasite baby free.  But ultimately, if you oppose this measure, you are a troglodyte who wants to take women back to the stone age just because you are a mean old meany head.  And paranoid.

Push back to these bogus arguments has been quick and vehement, and completely dismissed or misunderstood.  What is being forgotten is that trying to explain the impact it will have on people of faith is a wasted argument, because it would require politicians and media ideologues to understand morals, principles and answering to a higher power.  Please note the high level of derision on the left in regards to the issue of the violation of our religious freedoms.  Attempting to make people feel silly for believing something might work in politics, but it is much less effective in matters of faith. 

They can muddy the waters all they want, but it's pretty evident that this is all about placing the diktats of the state over the church's fundamental tenets.  Under this administration, the much-vaunted separation of church and state is apparently a one-way street. 

I could spend time arguing about the war on Christianity in this country, but this is far more cut and dried, and it is something every American, regardless of religion, should think deeply about.  This is a full frontal assault on our religious freedom, no matter what that religion is.  Demanding that the catholic church ignore a fundamental article of faith - the sanctity of life - in order to comply with the requirements of the state is exactly why our founders created the first amendment.  It wasn't to protect the State from the Church as we have been led to believe over the past few decades as much as it was to protect the Church from the State.  According to Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in an effort to clarify the issue (emphasis mine):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The phrases I emphasized, "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are key to this argument because the Obama administration is demanding that the Church change its long-held belief and opinion that contraception and especially abortion are against the will of God.  This has been a teaching of the church for centuries; it is a matter of conscience, not convenience, to be tossed aside on a whim - or mandate.  By forcing religious entities to fund such things, they are unable to freely exercise their religious conscience.  It is a clear violation of our founding document.

The Constitution is being tested as never before under this regime (yes, regime). While most of the other power grabs under this president have been swept under the carpet, this is an affront on an epic scale.  The attempts by the media and various administration personnel to argue that this is about "right-wing radicals" trying to take away women's right to birth control or don't want them "healthy" has done nothing to blur the issue.  People don't buy the argument that women can't get birth control if they want it.  We all know it can be gotten at any pharmacy in this country.  As for the poor, well, isn't that what left-wing darling Planned Parenthood is all about?  The argument that the Pill saves women from ovarian cancer is an interesting argument, if you want to totally disregard the fact that the pill also increases your chances of getting breast, cervical and liver cancer.  Please note, too, that those who are championing this abomination studiously avoid the topic of abortifacients such as the 'morning after' pill.  Making the topic only about contraception is a deceptive little ploy to cloud the issue and attempt to get concessions.  Oh, its just contraception we're talking about, what's the big deal about that?

We the People may be a little lethargic, a little pre-occupied, maybe even a little numbed by all that has happened to us in the past decade, but we're not blithering idiots.

If there's one thing We the People know, it's our rights, and we don't like having them taken away.  Spin it however you want, we know when our rights are being stripped from us. 

No doubt there will be a rash of polls from such unbiased bastions of propaganda information as the Washington Post (who no longer publishes poll data) and the New York Times in the next few days that will support the administration's actions in an attempt to legitimize this assault on our liberty.  There usually is these days.  But the thing is, on the subject of faith, people are going to believe their lying hearts before they allow a political poll to dictate their conscience.

The argument I'm hearing most often is whether the administration's many missteps, over-reaches,  and overall disregard for the rights and freedoms of the American people is a product of incompetence or design.  The refusal of the President to back down on this points to design, particularly when combined with his protestations of dissatisfaction over the years with the "negative" structure of the Constitution.  But even still, the best-case scenario - the argument for incompetence-  is being used far too frequently in this administration and brings up a plethora of other issues in it's wake, most rightly involving suitability for reelection.

In an attempt at "compromise", the administration offered to grant a one-year waiver to come into compliance.  How generous of them, to offer an extra twelve months to come to terms with betraying a belief system that has stood for thousands of years.

On a side note, am I the only one who has noticed that "compromise" under this administration has meant bowing fully to their demands?  These people need not only a copy of the Constitution, but a dictionary.

And now the administration has come out with a new "compromise".  Apparently the insurance companies are expected to pony up the funds to offer free contraception and abortifacients to all religious organizations without passing on the cost to the employer.  Riiiiiight.  There's no chance in the world that they will pad their premiums to offset the cost, ultimately passing the cost on to the protesting employer anyway, is there?  Things like that just never happen.  Obama's compromise is his ironclad bond, right Bart Stupak?  And, in typical fashion, this 'compromise' is not negotiable.   Take what they give us and be happy, right?

He seems to have grossly underestimated the intelligence of the American catholic with this one, 'cause they're not buying it. 

Americans across the board should be outraged by this trampling of our first amendment rights.  And everyone, regardless of party, should consider this action when they are considering Obama's reelection.  If he is willing to hold the line on a blatantly unconstitutional action like this in an election year, what will he be willing to do over the next four years, when reelection is no longer an issue?

UPDATE:  An interesting development in the question of the legality of the mandate.  Ed Whelan and David Rivkin of the Wall Street Journal argue that the mandate is in violation of existing law, namely the Clinton-era Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The ways in which the new mandate violates the RFRA are far too numerous to cover in an update, so get the whole story here. 

Read more...

THE COLLISION OF CHURCH AND STATE Updated

8.3-ISH

The latest unemployment numbers are out today, and the unemployment rate has dropped to a heartening 8.3%.  No doubt there are lots of happy dances in the White House today.  But, as with most things in this administration, things are not as they appear.  While the administration touts the more than two hundred and fifty thousand jobs created in January, a deeper look at the numbers tells a different story.

Here are some other numbers to consider before breaking out into a happy dance of your own:

1.2 million is our first number.  That is the number of people who dropped out of the work force entirely last month.  That's a record, by the way.

63.7% is the rate of participation in the job sector - also a record.  And not in a good way - which brings us to....

30, which represents the thirty-year low we have reached in work force participation.  We haven't had this few people in the work force since 1982, when the US population was a hundred million people fewer. 
In reality, counting all the people who have dropped out of the work force, unemployment is at about eleven percent.  Add in all the people who are working part-time jobs because they can't find anything else, and you're looking at an unemployment/underemployment rate north of fifteen percent.  But hey, Mr. President, happy dance it up!

Just for fun, let's see where those people who dropped out of the workforce have gone over the past three years.  Well, it seems a lot of them have managed to make their way to the food stamp line, where we have a record 46.3 million Americans.  That's up significantly from the 28.2 million Americans who were on food stamps when President Obama took office.  One in seven Americans are now enrolled in the program.

How about Welfare?  Well, since Obama repealed the major welfare reforms of the 1990's, it's on the rise.  This isn't going to change anytime soon, either, as states are once again being paid to add recipients to the welfare rolls. 

Oh, and almost half of the jobs gained were "low wage" jobs.  Which is better than nothing, to be sure, but when we're losing high-paying jobs and replacing them with low wage jobs, that doesn't bode well for the economy.

False numbers, false hope, false change.  That's all we have here.  Still in the mood for a happy dance?

Read more...

8.3-ISH

1,000 DAYS

Tomorrow night, President Obama will be giving his State of the Union address.  In it, he will doubtless take the opportunity to throw some barbs at the Do Nothing Congress™ he has become so fond of demonizing.  He will push his "We Can't Wait™" schtick, trying to sell the idea that Congress or that pesky Constitution are holding him back from the fundamental change he so desperately wants, in a vain attempt to justify his unconstitutional power grab.

Interestingly enough, tomorrow is also another major milestone for America.  It marks the one thousandth day since the democrat-led Senate last passed a budget.

So who is more do-nothing - the House republicans who have passed nearly thirty jobs bills since they took power a year ago, or the Senate democrats who refuse to bring a single one of them to the floor for a vote in an effort to carry water for President Obama's Do Nothing Congress™ campaign push?

When the president talks about the obstructionist Congress, he's not just whistling Dixie.  But in true democratic fashion, he is projecting the inactivity for which his own party is responsible onto House Republicans, while his lapdog press happily echo it for all it's worth.  He has to run against a Do Nothing Congress™, because the other option is to run on his record, and we all know that's a non-starter.  And if you don't have a Do Nothing Congress™, why, good ol' Harry Reid is there to make sure you do!

It will be interesting to see how his 'free markets are evil' meme goes over, considering polls like this.  According to that, it certainly doesn't seem like pushing a top-down, government managed economy is going to be a big seller in November.  But when you live in a bubble and refuse to give credence to such polls, the most unexpected things happen.

There's another benefit to Senate dems refusing to pass a budget.  One can't help but come to the conclusion that passing a budget that calls for, say, $1.6 trillion in deficit spending would raise a hue and cry and put the excessive federal spending of this administration in the spotlight, as happened with President Obama's (I use the term loosely) "budget".  Passing contentious continuing resolutions instead keeps the spending blurred and harder to keep track of - and offers the additional bonus of a handy bludgeon to go after republicans to make them seem stingy and mean for saying no to the out-of-control spending.  Think about it.  When are you more responsible with your money - when you are trying to keep to a budget or when you just spend as the need (or desire) arises?  It's a no brainer.  Well, except in Washington.

Delusional lefties whine that republicans have kept them from passing a budget with filibusters and other dirty tricks since Obama took office.  Well, as far as the past year goes, that's a stretch considering the House actually passed a budget, the Ryan Plan, which the Senate refused to even acknowledge and a second, President Obama's, that the Senate voted down unanimously - but at least it got a vote.  But what about the other two years of the Obama administration - one of which featured a democratic House majority and Senate super majority, and the other with just  plain old democratic majorities in both houses?  How is it that they were able to pass Obamacare - arguably the most unpopular piece of legislation to be signed into law in recent memory - but they couldn't pass a budget? 

One thousand days of irresponsibility at the hands of Democrats in Washington.  Here's hoping we only have 287 more to go before REAL change comes to town.

Read more...

1,000 DAYS

FOUR REASONS Updated

There has been a lot of talk in both the media and the republican establishment about Mitt Romney being the only truly electable GOP candidate.  It is common opinion amongst the pundits that Romney is the best person to go up against President Obama and win and polling seems to support this theory.  The problem is, many conservative voters just aren't buying what they are selling.  His inability to garner more than twenty-five percent support, spun in the press as consistent front-runner status, was more about the other seventy-five percent looking for someone else.  He ran in 2008; we know who he is and what he's done and we see some major problems with his candidacy.  The pundits are happy to write it off as tea partiers being too stupid to know what's good for them, but when you look at the facts, their spin just doesn't add up.

As a little reminder, these are the same group of people who sold us Sen. John McCain as the only reasonable, electable, moderate candidate, blah, blah, blah.  The problem isn't that the Tea Party is too conservative.  The problem is that the country has been dragged so far to the left by the rise of Obama, Pelosi and their radical progressive ilk that anything not progressive or borderline socialist seems excessively conservative by comparison.  Let's not forget, too, that Romney's electability is a bit of a myth in that the man has run for senate, governor and president in the past with only one resulting win, his single term of office as Governor of Massachusetts.  If being 1-3 is a winning record, then my Eagles aren't doing nearly as bad as I thought!
That aside, there are four main reasons why Tea Party conservatives tend to want anyone but Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee:

1) Romneycare.  This is a no brainer, and the biggest hurdle he faces.  Romneycare knocks out one of the biggest political bones of contention - Obamacare - thus neutralizing that line of attack.  Mitt can talk about the difference between state mandates and federal mandates until he's blue in the face, but for many in the electorate, a mandate is a mandate.  If he felt able to mandate once before, who's to say he won't mandate again?  After all, even Obama himself on the campaign trail in 2008 reassured Americans that he would not sign any bill that had an individual mandate.

2) Job Growth.  I won't call it 'job creation' because, as we all know, government doesn't create private sector jobs, it only creates the environment for job creation.  Anyhoo.  Romney's record on job growth in his years as Governor of Massachussetts is pretty dismal.  Forty-seventh out of fifty isn't very good, no matter how you slice it.  In addition, the state's unemployment ranking went from twenty-ninth to seventeenth after three years of Romney's stewardship.  Considering jobs are second only to the economy at large for voters, this record can hardly be seen as a recommendation.

3) Bain Capital.  Obama and his DNC operatives have been working overtime on ginning up some good old-fashioned class warfare, and a Romney candidacy  might be at the heart of it.  This picture sure doesn't help.  It will be easy for Obama and democrats to tie Romney in with the Wall Street crowd.  Plus, Bain was all about buying failing companies and dismantling them - thus putting lots of people out of work.  Bain + Romney = Rethuglican Meaniehead.

4) The Cool Factor.  President Obama and Mitt Romney have something other than Obamneycare in common - their cool quotient.  And I don't mean 'cool' like James Dean Cool (sorry, Obots).  I mean cool like cold fish, unapproachable, chilly.  The reason conservatives haven't warmed up to Romney is because he's just not, well...warm.  Herman Cain made it to the top tier, even with his abysmal foreign policy chops, because he's a genuine, likeable guy.  He is also someone who sees life the way a majority of Americans do; not from a lifetime of privilege and politics, but as someone who worked his way to prosperity against the odds.  His enthusiasm for and love of country was also a winning combination for patriotic Americans tired of being told to be ashamed of their country.

The American people have been through a lot over the past ten years or so.  When Barack Obama was elected into office, we thought we were getting a charismatic, empathetic young dreamer who wanted to unite this country and move it forward into the new century.  Instead we got an arrogant man whose ideology is a throwback to 1933; someone who has spent most of his term of office attempting to gin up disagreements between various and sundry factions in America. 

Right now, most of us just want someone to tell us it's going to be okay, that the future will bring a return to the heights we once enjoyed; that we will some day be the shining city on the hill once more.  Instead we get an absentee president who is too busy vacationing, fundraising or trash talking us to spend any time on the myriad crises we face here at home - one of which is a crisis of confidence.  It is this crisis that many Americans have a hard time seeing Mitt Romney ease.  His aloofness and untouchable, Candidate Ken™-like quality is off-putting.   He will be easily depicted as an elite, upper crust persona, reinforcing the idea of a ruling class and an inability to empathize with average Americans.   Obama, on the other hand, the beneficent redistributer of all things welfare, will be painted as the saint of the working class in contrast by his lapdog press.

The complicit media is certainly doing their part to steer the masses towards Romney, and it's not hard to see why.  Ultimately, people aren't warming up to Mitt and probably won't. It will once again be an election where people hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil. The saving grace in the general election is the enormous enthusiasm gap between conservatives and liberals, but having to rely heavily on the electorate's dislike of Obama instead of enthusiasm for their candidate to turn out voters is a risky chance against an opponent who is as well funded and organized as the president. 

The 2012 election isn't going to be just about getting rid of Obama (although that alone would do an awful lot to restore confidence), it's also about what his successor will do when he/she take office.  If we have learned anything from the election of Barack Obama it is that a) we need to thoroughly vet candidates and b) we need more than 'hope and change' as a platform.  For many independents, there won't a lot of daylight between Obama and Romney.  Quite often, when you put people in a position where they must choose either the devil they know or the devil they don't, they will either vote for the status quo or abstain altogether.

There's a good chance that whoever the republicans nominate will win over President Obama.  After all, the man has ushered in an age of food stamps, persistently high unemployment, over-regulation and out-of-control spending.  Even the worst RINO would be hard pressed to match his record.  But the American people are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.  We want someone who will give us a different choice, and Romney just doesn't seem to be the guy for that.  

Let's face it.  If Romney wins the nomination, tea partiers will vote for him.  To stay home would be to give their vote to Obama, and that is something no self-respecting tea partier will  do.  But nominating Romney will keep the GOP on the ropes in the general election by taking away all the major points of attack. It's bad strategy, pure and simple.  Independents who haven't been paying attention are an unknown quantity and the target of persuasion in a general election, so a strong case based on the issues must be made against Obama to combat the mud, smoke and mirrors sure to be on the offing from the DNC. 

There is far too much riding on the outcome of the 2012 elections to allow a Romney nomination to take such vital weapons out of the quiver.

UPDATE:  ABC's Jake Tapper has three reasons why Mitt Romney shouldn't be the conservative frontrunner.

Read more...

FOUR REASONS Updated

PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER

My last post poked a little fun at the Occupy movement.  What can I say?  I just can't resist such low hanging fruit!  Seriously though, aside from hygiene and a disturbing number of anarchists, anti-semites and commies, at the heart of it, it could be argued that Occupy is sort of following in the Tea Party's footsteps.  Both want to end the FED, both are vehemently against bank bailouts, and both see crony capitalism as the disease that is crippling this great nation.  Unfortunately, the most glaring difference between the two groups is that the Tea Party holds government responsible, and Occupiers think government is the solution.

At least, until now.

In an interesting series of events, it came to light that the Mayor of Richmond, apparently an Occupy sympathizer, has been passing on the costs of the occupation to the taxpayer, instead of requiring the Occupiers to foot the bill as the Tea Party was.  Over the past three years, the local Tea Party chapter has held Tax Day rallies and were required to pay for permits and other fees, to the tune of about $8,500.  When the Tea Party realized the Occupiers were getting a free ride, they submitted an invoice to City Hall for reimbursement of the fees they have paid, citing fair treatment under the law.

The city's response?  Why, an audit, of course.

The Tea Party isn't going down fighting, and is preparing a lawsuit.  What is really surprising is the group that is standing with the Tea Party against the democrat-led City Hall.  This weekend Occupy Richmond voiced their solidarity (via Fox News):

“Occupy Richmond believes in absolute free speech, including the right to criticize the government without fear of retribution," Occupy Richmond said in a statement posted Thursday on its website. "Given the duplicitous and violent manner in which the city government chose to raid our peaceful occupation, it would not surprise us if the recently announced city audit of the Richmond Tea Party were retaliation for their criticism of the mayor.”

The statement also called audits "bureaucratic harassment" and "one weapon oppressive regimes use to silence dissent."

"Not only do we call on the city to drop the audit, but we also demand the immediate refund of any money paid specifically to secure the Tea Party's free speech and assembly privileges,” the Occupiers said.

 
Okay, so there's still a little room for improvement.  Apparently the Occupy spokesperson doesn't understand that the charges don't just disappear.  Those fees cover the cost of cleanup or damage to facilities incurred during the exercise of free speech.  The magical creatures who pick up the tab for the mess are not social justice fairies flitting from camp to camp, happy to spend their stardust for the cause.  In reality, the people who pay are fellow Americans who have been busy working, not camping, and will see their taxes go up as a result of the shenanigans in cities across the land.  Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens was happy to have the moral support, but commented that they don't  want the taxpayer to foot the bill - that isn't the point of the suit:
 

“But this has never been about the money. It was about the principal," Owens said. "A public official should not be able to pick and choose which groups are charged."

It is a refreshing change to see the Occupiers starting to identify the government - and not just republicans, but majority party democrats, too - as a major player in the ills of the day.  It was almost heartwarming to see them actually protesting President Obama on one of his many, many, many trips to Wall Street for fundraising cash.  They grow up so fast, don't they?  Gee, perhaps if the Occupiers went home and sat down and talked to their Tea Party parents, maybe common ground could be established.  And maybe, after that, common sense. 

Two things to remember about these angry, disillusioned kids:  First, as Churchill said, show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.  Second, sometimes a conservative is just a liberal who was mugged by reality.  There has been a mass mugging (sometimes literally) in parks and plazas across the country over the past few months as those who were once embraced and celebrated became those who were being either co-opted or ignored (Tea Partiers can definitely empathize with that).  Some poor souls have even been traumatized by it all.

All we can hope is that the rest open their ears (and minds) and start thinking.  Many of our centers for higher education, where we send our children to learn how to think, have become indoctrination centers where they are taught what to think.  Perhaps the disillusionment of their failed experiment in commune-ism will get them thinking.  If Richmond is any indication, the worm may be turning. 

Could it be that the spring might bring a new crop of protests featuring not just Occupiers, but Tea Partiers, too, standing together as one against the banks and politicians?  Now there's a thought.

And if that doesn't work?  Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!  (or become a competitor!)

Read more...

PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER

MY OBAMAVILLE

MY OBAMAVILLE
(sung to Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville)

Nibblin' on soy cake
Man, I am so baked
All of those hippies covered with paint
Bangin' my drum kit
I bet you hate it
The smell might make you want to faint

(Chorus)

Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
All I know is it's not government's fault

I don't know the reason
Private property seizing
Nothin' to show but some lice and some fleas
But I got of easy
I'm not that sleazy
So at least I don't have STD's

(Chorus)

Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I think
It might be government's fault

Government fat cats
Gettin' their kickbacks
I'll wash yours if you wash mine
How can this not be
Laundering money
Robbin' the taxpayers blind

(Chorus)

Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I know it's crony government's fault
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
But I know it's crony government's fault

Cross Posted at The Ripley Report

Read more...

MY OBAMAVILLE

A BUFFETT OF MONEY

Billionaire hedge fund guru Warren Buffett was the latest progressive recently calling for higher taxes on the rich* with an op-ed in the New York Times (somebody please send him this link).   He claims he only paid seventeen percent in taxes last year; far less than others in his own company:

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Why do they feel so compelled?  Are these "blessings" being showered upon them done out of the kindness of legislative hearts, or could there be other, more base reasons?  Could it possibly be the millions of dollars people like Buffett shower on political campaigns?  Perhaps the one-on-one exposure with certain members of government - exposure of which their own constituents (and the ones who ultimately pay the price for these dealings) can only dream?  Or maybe the odd coincidence of so many former federal employees finding themselves jobs on Wall Street or K Street with the help of crony connections?  A spotted owl is made endangered through no fault of it's own.  The same cannot be said about the 'coddled rich'.  It's called corruption, Mr. Buffett, and you are complicit.

In his op-ed, he raises good points about capital gains and other loopholes but ultimately, he isn't looking for tax reform, he's calling for tax increases. 

Big difference.

What we need is tax reform - removing loopholes and carve-outs and widening the tax base.  So why would he call for tax increases instead?  Well, it seems there is a little piece of information that Mr. Buffett and the NY Times forgot to mention (full disclosure is for suckers).   Apparently Mr. Buffett's company offers certain investment plans that, if taxes were to go up, would see a marked increase in business due to their sheltering natures, and thus a tidy profit for Mr. Buffett.  Who will then instruct his small army of tax attorneys and accountants - who surely couldn't be part of the reason he only paid seventeen percent - to find every loophole possible (conveniently provided by his pals in Congress after some vigorous lobbying) to keep from paying as little of the new taxes as possible. 

What a racket.

Lets not forget, too, that he gets to play the patriotic hero, swooping in to the rescue as well as giving his good buddy Obama a nice little talking point for the campaign trail.  Everybody wins!  Well, except the middle class, whose 'millionaires and billionaires' in the $200,000 tax bracket take one on the chin.

But wait, there's more!

Not only will Buffett profit quite tidily by the increase in business, but it turns out Omaha's favorite son's business has had a bit of a problem paying it's taxes.  It seems that Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's influential investment firm, hasn't paid it's taxes in almost a decade - since 2002, to be exact. 

Which begs the question: Why, exactly, he is demanding taxes be raised because of 'shared sacrifice', when he isn't even paying what he owes now?

But wait, there's more!

Last week, President Obama made a little phone call to his dear friend Buffett, giving him a heads up on the situation with the floundering  Bank of America.  Buffett had a bathtub epiphany and decided to invest $5 billion (the article is really wonky but highly enlightening)  in the company. Except he really didn't.  Technically, the warrants BofA offered him equals about half the amount he invested - $2.45 billion:

So Buffett is really only injecting $2.55 billion of new capital into Bank of America and receiving $300 million per year in interest (6% * $5 billion). If you divide $300 million by $2.55 billion, you get an effective interest rate on Buffett’s investment of 11.8%. That’s pretty expensive for a bank that claims it doesn’t need any new capital!

Guess what else he got out of the deal?  A nifty little tax break.  It doesn't take an oracle to see why he jumped all over this deal.  Did I mention Buffett is throwing a big fundraiser for Obama at the end of September?  Apparently the party favors will be back scratchers.

The only problem for Buffett is that it is beginning to seem like he is using his reputation of having a nose for deals to promote the Obama agenda and people are starting to question whether his famous instincts haven't been dulled by ideology.  The cash infusion into BofA was supposed to foster confidence.  Instead, there are grumbles about how much trouble the bank is really in. 

With our paychecks shrinking and the cost of goods rising, it's getting harder and harder to pay the bills and put dinner on the table.  Getting lectured by the billionaire buddy of the Spender-in-Chief about "shared sacrifice" as his political connections help him make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits while simultaneously evading taxes is rather hard to swallow.   


*  "Rich"  being 'millionaires' and 'billionaires' making a staggering $200,000 and up.  Also known as making enough to be taxed but not enough to be able to afford the accountants and lawyers to get out of the taxes, like real millionaires and billionaires.  Bye-bye small business and middle class!

Read more...

A BUFFETT OF MONEY