Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

“Occupy” Movement: A Short Scorecard

November 15, 2011

Since I’m just getting back to blogging again, I figured I’d let this “Occupy” thing go a little while before commenting on it.  The time has come.

I’ve heard a lot of interviews with these numbskulls on the radio and on TV.  When asked what kind of economy they want, they describe communism, but rarely actually say they want communism.  They have made demands that everyone should get college paid for by the government, that they are entitled to a worry free life of leisure, that they are entitled to the money of others until we are all equal.  Sounds like communism to me. 

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi praise the occupiers.  Nancy Pelosi even said “God bless them,” which is ironic since she is a government employee, and any mention of God by a government employee is an infringement on the civil rights of 0.2% of the American population.  Al Qaeda loves the occupiers.  So does Mahmoud Ahmedenijad.  The Black Panthers, Communist Cubans, and other upstanding groups who believe in the American way of life also support these airheads. 

At the same time, Obama and Pelosi call the Tea Party movement members dangerous radicals who are racist and unpatriotic. 
Let’s sum up the Occupy movement’s score card, then compare that to the Tea Party’s score card. 

Deaths at Occupy protests:  3.  Tea party rallies:  0

Arrests at Occupy protests:  Over 3,000.  Tea Party rallies:  None that I know of.

Sexual assaults at Occupy protests:  Two dozen or so.  Tea Party rallies:  None.

Poop on cop cars at Occupy protests:  One giant poop.  Tea Party rallies:  None.

Poop on the American flag at Occupy protests:  At least one.  Tea Party rallies:  None. 

Cost of Occupy protests:  $350,000 in Atlanta alone.  Tea Party rallies:  No politician has complained about this.  Must be close to nothing, or they’d be complaining.

Yup.  I can see why Obama and Pelosi love these folks. 

The Occupy crowd has every right to march and beat drums and stink up whatever city block they happen to be hanging out on.  It’s American.  They do NOT have the right to endanger the citizens of that locale by blocking traffic and tying up the cops to the  point they can’t respond to a residence call.  They do not have the right to assault a motorcycle cop.  They do not have the right to destroy public or private property.  They’ve done all of the above. 

It is ironic, though, that these people seem to dislike Jews.  And it is even more ironic that they don’t want the homeless horning in on their action to get a little food.  They protest corporations, then whine that the laptop, built and sold by a corporation or two gets stolen at the wholesome Wall St. Protest.  Seems like they want to get you and I to share our stuff with them, but they aren’t interested in sharing their stuff with ANYBODY.  Ironic?  You bet.  Dishonest?  Yes, I believe so.

These people are clowns, but they are dangerous clowns.  Think of them like Chucky from Child’s Play.  It’s a little doll.  How could it be evil?  Ow!  My liver!

These people want to destroy America.  They want to recreate it in their own vision.  And every jerk with peace beads and a tom-tom has some beef with somebody, and they want that somebody punished.  Maybe it’s Wall Street fat cats who dared to be competent at their jobs and made money for their share holders.  Maybe it’s some corporation who used to employ thousands of Americans but now employ thousands of Indians (in India) because of the ridiculous regulations forced on them by an overreaching government.  Perhaps it’s a military that is fighting against a bloodthirsty enemy who will hide behind women and children, and must fight this enemy with one hand tied behind their backs. 

I wonder if these protesters would be interested to know that Nancy Pelosi used insider information to invest in Wall Street products, and that this action, which is illegal for you and me, is perfectly legal for people in congress. 

I’ve got an idea for these jokers.  Give up every product made by a corporation.  From your BVD’s to your IPhone.  From your toothpaste (like any of these people even know what that is) to your Crocs.  From your Prius to your Timex.  After that, you have some credibility.  Then, you can preach to me about corporate corruption.  Next, march on the real villain in the US.  1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Policies enacted by our illustrious leader have allowed a lot of this stuff to happen and have encouraged American companies to go overseas, hire overseas, and spend their money overseas. 

Finally, write down, in crayon or whatever you have handy, exactly what it is that you want.  This would eliminate the guess work of trying to figure out exaclty where you are coming from. 

Then, buy a ticket to North Korea.  You can find all that stuff there.  Maybe we should have a special sales tax to buy one way tickets for these people.   I’d pay an extra penny when I buy milk to open the eyes of these sixties radicals and their grandbabies.  Maybe after a year or two under Kim il Jong, they’d figure out that some rich people living in your country isn’t so bad. 

I can clearly see why the President likes these people.  They are doing what he’d like to be doing.  Taking down the country. 

Oh, wait.  He’s doing it, too.


Vacation? Who Cares?

August 11, 2011

I have had enough of the breathless reports on Fox News about President Obama’s “vacation” to Martha’s Vineyard.  Just because the economy is in the tank, people are out of work, and we owe more than three generations of Americans will ever be able to pay back, why should the Campaigner in Cheif stick around?  After all, everything he’s done up until now hasn’t helped any of the above situations, so why would staying around now help?

I’m of the opposite opinion.  He should go on vacation, and stay on vacation.  Yes, that would leave the country to be run by the walking gaffe Joe Biden, but, honestly, could it be any worse?  Would Biden call American citizens names for standing on principle in the debt deal?  Wait.  He did.  So, yes, he would.  Would he request another stimulus like what is being bantered around DC right now?  Probably.  Would he leave the debt ceiling issue on the table and attend birthday parties and fundraising events for his reelection?  Probably also. 

On second thought, it might be better if Obama and Biden went on vacation together and got lost in the woods.  Obama would insist on leading from behind, which would put Biden in front, and, honestly, do you think that guy could navigate the woods?  The only thing they’d agree on would be to constantly turn left. 

Now, don’t mistake this post as some kind of threat or my wishing ill for the president or vice president.  I do not wish them harm.  I just wish they’d go away for awhile and let some adults run things.

Which is not to say that the people in Washington in their absence could be considered adults.  John Kerry, John Lewis, and the rest of the Democrats portraying the US credit downgrade as the “Tea Party Downgrade” simply shows how low these loons will stoop.  They know that most people don’t follow what they are doing, and that most people wouldn’t know a lie if it slapped them in the face. 

Here’s my question:  If the downgrade is a result of the Tea Party putting pressure on Republicans to not negotiate, how come they didn’t get really any cuts of any consequence?  Why are we spending more next year than we are spending this year?  Why are tax increases still on the table (don’t kid yourself.  With this crowd, they are DEFINITELY still on the table)?  And why, if this is the Tea Party downgrade, did S&P say that if the Tea Party’s proposal had been accepted, there would have been no downgrade? Lastly, why did Obama get to put off another debate until after his election?  This downgrade is all about our leaders’ unwillingness to truly address the problem of debt. 

There’s plenty of blame to go around.  But, as usual, the talking heads only hear one side of the story.  Calling this downgrade the Tea Party Downgrade is like Mohamar Qadaffi blaming the rebels for his policies that caused the rebellion in the first place.  If Kerry and his cohorts hadn’t spent us to oblivion since 2006 (with President Bush going along with it), maybe it wouldn’t have come to this.  Maybe if the Clinton and Carter administrations didn’t try to make banks give home loans to McDonald’s part-time employees, the economy wouldn’t have crashed in the first place, and maybe my house would be worth more than a used Buick.  Maybe if President Obama hadn’t spent almost a trillion dollars to “stimulate” the economy by giving money to labor unions, the debt ceiling wouldn’t have needed raising. 

I think it’s a good thing that the President is taking some well deserved R & R.  I only wish he could get far enough away to not cause more damage.

Oil Reserve Release Short Term Solution

June 23, 2011

Gas prices are ridiculous.  There is plenty of blame to go around for that.  President Obama is trying his best to deflect the blame from his unbending moratorium on drilling and his unwillingness to explore for our own sources of energy to the greed of the private sector.  So, it should come as a surprise to no one that he is now using a national defense oil reserve to manipulate world oil prices. 

In a purely political move, the president is trying to force speculators out of the oil business by introducing more supply into the market. 

I’m curious, though.  If the speculators are the problem, why would a miniscule amount of oil introduced onto the market affect prices?  The sixty million barrels to be released from US and other countries’ reserves equals less than one day’s worth of demand.  The MSN article above blames speculators for an additional $20 a barrel of trading price.  Why would speculators freak out over such a small amount of oil?  Certainly they are smart enough to know that this is a temporary soulution.  The strategic reserve is limited and cannot be used forever.  Speculators will know that this can’t last. 

Now, how do we know this is a temporary solution?  The idea of a limited reserve is proof enough, but candidate Obama said so in 2008.  In a speech in Lansing, he approved the sale of US strategic oil reserve to reduce gas prices, and called it a temporary solution to a long term problem.  Of course he disapproved of the idea when President Bush wanted to do it. 

Obama’s dedication to green techology is admirable, if misplaced.  This is a guy who doesn’t understand the limitations of technology.  Our best scientists will find alternative energy sources that don’t require us to live in huts and bicycle to work.  But it will take time.  Every advancement a piece of a puzzle.  When all the pieces come together, we will be able to power our homes using the sun, drive a safe car that gets 75 miles to a gallon of helium, and have our factories leave no “carbon footprint.”  Until that time comes, we will use petroleum.  It gives us the most bang for our energy buck.  Sure, you can power a car on batteries.  For about forty miles.  Then what?  Telework from the side of the road? 

Until the United States can secure its own supply of oil, no amount of trickery by the Obama administration will set us free from foreign oil producers.  Once the oil reserve release is over, gas prices will go back up. 

Maybe by that time, we’ll have a president who actually beleives in free market solutions to problems like this one.  Our current president doesn’t. And he never will.

Weiner Did It. You Surprised?

June 7, 2011

After a week of claiming his Twitter account was hacked and giving the press the run around, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) finally came clean.  Yesterday, he admitted to sending pictures of himself to a woman in Seattle, as well as having inappropriate conversations with several other women. 

I can’t stand Weiner.  Every time I see him giving a speech or being interviewed, his smugness makes me want to slap him.  Maybe this incident will tone some of that down.  At least temporarily. 

During his presser yesterday, he said he made a mistake, and that he was sorry.  He even had to apologize to Andrew Breitbart.  I’m pretty sure that was a sour pill to swallow.  But he said he won’t resign. 

I don’t think he should resign.  Yes he made a false claim and perpetuated it for a week.  That’s not a crime.  It doesn’t make him a criminal.  It does make him a liar, and untrustworthy.  The sending of the pictures makes him a pig.  That ain’t illegal either.  But let’s flip this around. 

When a Republican sent shirtless pics of himself to a woman he wasn’t married to, the Democrats screamed for his scalp.  Some Republicans have said they want Weiner to resign, but there hasn’t been nearly the uproar that there was in the previous case.  Not from Republicans, and not from the media.  I’d ask why, but we all know why.  The media is biased toward liberal Democrats.  I’ve complained about that before.  Nothing new here.

And there’s nothing new in an elected official showing off for the ladies, and expecting to be able to lie about it and keep his job.  These guys are really above the law.  They know the law and carefully stay inside the boundaries of it, but often go way outside the bounds of decency.  It’s not a surprise to me that Weiner is the kind of guy to send dirty pics to strange women, then lie about it.  I suspect that there are more like him in Washington. 

I hope the voters remember this incident when they go to the polls.  The talking heads, mostly on the left, seem to beleive that they are the only people who matter in all this. 

Maybe Weiner’s wife of less than a year would disagree with them.

Why Libya?

March 30, 2011

Mohamar Qadaffi is a nut.  Let’s get that out of the way right now.  This guy has killed a lot of people, a lot of Americans no less.  Yet he has managed to survive the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, and Obama administrations and remain in power.  Even now, with bombs and cruise missiles falling on his country, he vows to never give up.  Apparently, he has forgotten the lesson he learned during the Reagan years.  Remain quiet and all will be okay. 

President Obama gave a speech on Monday to explain the Libyan situation to the American people.  In my humble opinion, he failed to do this.  Sure, he said we can’t stand by and watch massacres take place, and we can’t.  America needs to be a force for good in the world.  He said, as he has done many times before, that the price of doing nothing would be too high.  If we do nothing, Qadaffi mass murders his people.  Wow, man, that’s some crystal ball you have there.  I hope the intelligence briefings Obama is getting explain what’s going on in Libya better than his speech did the other night.  Obama used this same argument for the stimulus bill.  If we do nothing, there will be children eating Alpo.  We gotta spend.  Now, this. 

Of course, it took him a month to decide what to do, and he only decided when other countries took the lead, along with  NATO, the UN, and the Arab League.  He waited until the rebels in Libya were no longer in a position to actually win the battle, until Qadaffi’s forces had pushed them to the brink of defeat.  Even today, the rebels face defeat, due in large part to the wishy washiness of our Commander in Chief.  We’re not at war.  Regime change isn’t our goal.  Humanitarian aid is what we are trying to do. 

Humanitarian aid is delivering food and water to people.  Protecting them from belligerent soldiers raping and shooting the citizens of a country.  Not lobbing cruise missiles from a safe distance.  That’s Clintonian. 

Let me say that I believe that we should be taking care of Qadaffi.  This guy has been a friend to terrorists and enemy of the West ever since he stole power in Libya.  Our goal should be pretty clear.  Kill Qadaffi.  That’s it.  Let the Libyans decide for themselves who will lead them.  Of course, this can backfire, too.  The Muslim Brotherhood can easily take over Libya. 

I wonder why we MUST help the Libyans who want regime change, but we ignored the Iranians who wanted regime change.  Or the Syrians.  Or the Bahranians.  I’ve heard a lot of talking heads give reasons for this.  I wonder why the international community was so hot to trot to go into Libya to protect the Libyans from Qadaffi, but they weren’t so quick to go into Iraq to protect Iraqis from Saddam Hussein.  By international community I mean NATO, France and the Arab league.  There was a significantly larger coalition of nations who went into Iraq with us than the one assembled for the Libyan operation.  But, hey, let’s not let fact get in the way of opinion. 

Why did we jump on the train to Libya?  Oil.  The Europeans will have a problem with oil supplies if the unrest in Libya continues too long.  That’s why the Europeans wanted to go in to Libya, but not into Iraq. 

And why not Iran or Syria?  Those nuts are going to be tougher to crack.  Libya looks like an easier target.  Syria’s leader has been praised as a reformer by Hillary Clinton.  If she means that he brutalizes his people and routinely maims women, then she would be right.  Syria makes Libya look like San Francisco when it comes to human rights.  Yet, no interest from our illustrious leader in the problems of the Syrians.  Iran had an uprising recently that was put down by the government of that country with bloodshed.  Protesters were killed.  Once again, Obama showed no interest in stopping those human rights violations.  Why? 

Maybe the administration is afraid of the repercussions of such actions.  Al Qaeda may attack us if we use military force on Iran.  We have tried economic sanctions and other diplomatic sleights of hand to get Mahmoud Ahmedinijad to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and killing his people.  All to no avail.  He continues to stand on his soapbox and screech about how the Jews are bad and America is the great Satan. 

I think is may be even more sinister than that.  I think that our president agrees with Ahmedinijad about a lot of things.  He believes that America deserves the evil we have been subjected to at the hands of Islamic terrorists.  After all, we have a very high standard of living.  People in the middle east poop in holes and live in huts.  How is that right?  Our president promised a “fundamental transformation” of America if he was elected.  Transform to what?    A socialist utopia where everybody has the same stuff?  Where we are all equally poor?  And the “green movement” is a way to redistribute American wealth throughout the world, so that all of the world’s people are equally poor.  We have seen and heard Obama’s devotion to the green movement.  Instead of drilling for oil to become less dependent on foreign oil, he wants to make us all use batteries to heat our hot water, vegetable oil to drive to work, and have control of the electricity coming into our homes by use of  “smart grid” technology.  It’s okay to loan money to Brazil so they can drill for oil, but we can’t develop and drill for it here.  Can you make sense of this? 

Maybe the Europeans can see Libya as a threat because of the impact on their oil supplies, but couldn’t see Iraq as the same.  The Europeans don’t care nearly as much about Libyan death as they do about keeping oil flowing into their countries.  And they sure don’t care about terrorist attacks as much as we do.  Maybe they won’t until kook Islamofascists fly a plane into Big Ben or the Eiffel tower.  Maybe not even then.  European pacifism gave us Hitler and Stalin.  They clearly aren’t learning. 

If, as President Obama says, Qadaffi needs to go, then we need to remove him.  And the international coalition needs to be led by the US.  If we will be providing most of the hardware and weaponry, we need to lead this force.  We need to plan the operation and carry it out, with other nations under our direction.  I mean, the French couldn’t stop Hitler.  Do we really want them leading the operation against Qadaffi?  Victory is clearly a foreign idea to these guys. 

The president needs to understand that he should be consistent in his actions, if not his words.  If we are going to act as the world’s police force, we have to be consistent.  If the Libyan thing is really about humanitarian aid, we have to be ready to act elsewhere in the world. 

Maybe we can start with China.  They seem to have issues with humane treatment of their people.

Middle East Chaos Dispersing Through World

February 23, 2011

So, here we are.  First Tunisia, then Egypt.  Now Libya and other countries in the Middle East.  Protesters have finally become weary of autocratic regimes and fake elections, and have taken to the streets.  Their demands are that dictator-like presidents resign.  And the presidents are complying. 

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak stepped down after thirty years of rule over the Egyptian people.  Egypt is a poor country, with average income levels among the lowest in the world.  The Egyptian people decided that the person most directly responsible was Mubarak and that he had to go.  Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood can’t wait for the transition of power.  More on that later. 

Libyan leader Mohamar Qadaffi isn’t going as quietly.  He has promised to die in Libya.  And he has sicced his police and military on the Libyan people.  People are being shot in the streets, but they still come to protest.  Maybe these people are ready for self-determination. 

All this is happening now.  At a time when our president has taken the side of the bad guys more often than he hasn’t.  He didn’t say anything when Iranians were killed in the street for protesting a Muslim theocracy.  Sure, Obama says that there shouldn’t be violence, that peaceful protest should be the way to go.  But he ditches Mubarak after thirty years of being an American ally.  He doesn’t stand for the Iranian people when they decide they are tired of Muslim clerics lopping off body parts to punish petty crime.  And he is pulling out of Iraq and trying to figure out a way to pull out of Afghanistan.  Our budget crisis will almost certainly end in military cuts, because that is what Democrats do.  They cut costs on the backs of the military.  This will result in a weaker America militarily.  We are already weakened economically, and with the people of the country demanding less spending, this weakening will result in higher taxes, further weakening us. 

Why would these countries be doing this now?  Because we are weak.  And if you think that the stuff going on in the Middle East doesn’t matter, think again.  If this unrest continues throughout the Middle East, you will see gas prices rise everywhere in the world.  It always comes back to money, doesn’t it? 

Now, our states are trying to figure out a way to help balance the budgets by getting labor unions to pay what the rest of us pay for our healthcare and retirement.  The Federal Government says we should raise the Social Security benefit age, meaning that most people will have to work longer before they get the money they paid into the system back.  Why not raise the age to 90?  100?  Then the benefits will almost never be paid.  Seems fair.  Right? 

The chaos in the Middle East has been enabled by a pantywaste president who can’t seem to understand that a weak America emboldens bad guys all over the world.  Egyptians have said on camera that they want what the Iraqis now have, thanks to us.  They are trying to get it for themselves. Our president’s response?  “Our allies will be cut loose when they become too burdensome and turn Facebook back on.”  We could not have liberated Iraq with Obama at the wheel.  And by not pulling out all the stops in Afghanistan, we are almost ensuring Taliban resurgence once we leave.  The Taliban buys security for the Afghan people, they sacrifice their freedom for it. 

If the unrest continues to spread and Saudi Arabia falls, we can all look forward to ten dollar a gallon gas.  Unless we drill for our own.  Which also won’t happen with Obama at the wheel. 

One place that the unrest won’t spread is China.  The Chinese seem to be able to convince their people that security is worth their liberty. 

We need to pay attention to all this.  The Middle East has always been volatile.  Now, they may be politically motivated to destroy us, since we aren’t their biggest customers anymore, and with a green president trying to make our consumption smaller, they have less to lose than they did in the past.  But in the short term, they will hold even more power over us than they did then.  And we’ll pay anything for fuel.  But with oil being the energy source that makes economies go, worldwide economies will grind to a halt, and all increased costs will be passed to the customer.  Our president has played into their hands. 

And we are caught in the middle.

Wisconsin Teachers Protest Bill

February 18, 2011

I’ve linked to the Huffington Post.  The apocalypse is upon us. 

The reason is because this article has the facts of the bill on the floor of the Wisconsin legislature listed, and they are correct. 

Public worker’s unions in Wisconsin are upset because the bill removes collective bargaining rights and makes them (gasp) pay more for their pensions and health insurance.  This is something that private sector employees have had to do for decades.  Teacher’s unions responded to the bill by not working.  Democrats responded to the bill by not working.  I’m noticing a trend here. 

Now, the collective bargaining thing is actually fair.  It removes the union’s power to bargain for higher wages than inflation indexes, but allows pay increases above the inflation index with a vote by the people.  So, if the teachers are doing a good job, it should be no problem to get higher wages.  And what is wrong with employees paying twelve percent of their own pensions?  It would save the state a ton of money, and Wisconsin is in deep trouble financially. 

The teacher’s unions have played a card that is pretty cowardly.  They got students to carry signs for them.  These kids have no idea what’s going on.  They are getting the teachers’ point of view, which is skewed to their agenda.  So, these students, who have been damaged educationally by these same teachers are carrying their water for them. 

Public unions cost us a ton of money.  And the value we get for that money?  Bad teachers can’t be fired.  They aren’t held to any standards other than the ones the union get for them.  Kids can’t read.  They can’t solve problems.  They don’t understand money or finance.  They can’t balance their checkbook.  They don’t know American history, not true American history anyway.  None of these problems are addressed by Wisconsin’s bill. 

I’ve said it before.  Labor unions aren’t necessary any more.  They have out lived their useful life.  They do more damage than good.  And our kids are being taught by these guys. 

Maybe it’s time for schools to be owned by private people.  If my property taxes went down, maybe we could afford to send our kids to private schools.  Maybe if we got vouchers or some other form of monetary assistance, we could choose where to send them. 

That would be nice.  But in this time of out of control government spending, that isn’t happening.  Not when our president makes promises to spend money on education.  He just won’t say how, how much, or where it will come from.  Maybe he can close some military bases to pay off teachers’ unions.  That’s what he means by “investing in education.”  That’s my gut feeling. 

A kind of funny side bar here is that the state police have been sent out to find the Democrats who didn’t show up for the vote.  Wisconsin state law says you can’t have a vote unless all political parties are represented, so the Democrats just didn’t show up for work.  I hope the cops find them.  I hope they are dragged into the state house and vote.  This could be the domino that starts the falling of other states. 

I hope so, anyway.

Obama to Chamber: You Exist to Give People Jobs

February 10, 2011

During his speech to the US Chamber of Commerce on Monday, President Obama told the Chamber members that they exist to provide jobs and benefits to people.  Not to make money.  Not to earn money for their stockholders.  To provide jobs. 

He said in the speech that the government is looking at ways to make America a better place to do business.  One of his proposals is to eliminate the tax credit to businesses for interest payments on debt.  Sounds like a good way to encourage businesses in America.  If you borrow money for your business, the interest you pay will no longer be tax deductible.  Greaaaat. 

Never has it been more clear to me that this guy doesn’t understand the first thing about how businesses operate.  He doesn’t get that if a business is profitable and growing, it will hire more people to meet increased demand.  He doesn’t understand that corporations are accountable to their shareholders, and that if the leadership in a corporation doesn’t make money for them, the stockholders can fire them.  That’s pretty good incentive to perform.  Do your job well or look for another job. 

I even have an example of how the president doesn’t get it.  General Motors had pretty good profits and growth last year.  They still owe the government around $40 billion dollars, but they are being required by the government to pay each employee a bonus of $3,000.  Since the government owns GM right now, they dictate how money is procured and spent, and that money is our money essentially.  At a time when people are still losing their jobs or their homes, the UAW friendly Obama administration is requiring a private company to pay its employees bonuses. 

The Chamber of Commerce’s reception of the Commander in Chief was tepid at best.  A small smattering of applause here and there was all the crowd could muster.  They don’t trust President Obama.  They know that he doesn’t see business as a partner in job creation.  He sees them as the “enemy,” as he said in one of his books.  Obama worked in the private sector for about six months, and recounted this time as being “behind enemy lines.”  Does this sound like a man who wants businesses to be successful?

I cannot believe we have elected a control freak like Obama to the highest office in the land.  This guy wants to punish the producers in our country to the max.  He wants to make sure that government has the final say in who wins and who loses in our economy.  And he’s not on the side of the American people.  If you work for a small business, a large corporation, a company that makes stuff, an oil company, or a pharmaceutical company, you are in his sights.  At least your company is, and that means that by proxy, so are you. 

ONE TERM PRESIDENT.  That’s all I have to say about that. 

PS.  In a recent blog, I covered the tax cut that Obama delivered to us.  I have to amend that post somewhat.  Obama said he did not raise taxes once in two years, that he in fact had cut taxes for 95% of working families.  Unless those working families smoke or go to a tanning bed.  He didn’t raise taxes once.  He raised them twelve times.  So he technically did not lie.  But he did not technically tell the truth either.

Obama Interview Exposes Arrogance

February 8, 2011

Before Sunday night’s Super Bowl, Bill O’Reilly sat down with the President of the United Stats for an interview.  O’Reilly is the only Fox News personality who has interviewed the president, either as president or as candidate (O’Reilly has done both.)  O’Reilly gave the president more than a fair shake in the twenty minutes or so he spoke with President Obama, but asked some questions that many Americans want answers to. 

Just because he was asked questions didn’t mean he had to answer them, however. 

Obama appeared aloof in his mannerisms, head turned at an angle and nose slightly elevated.  He chuckled when O’Reilly asked how he handles people who hate him.  His response?  “People who see you through the fun-house mirror” of public criticism “don’t know me.”  And whose fault, precisely, is that?  We elected a man president whom we did not know.  At least most of us, approximately 57% of us, didn’t know him, and pulled the voter’s handle for Obama (or touched the screen, dimpled the chads or whatever.) This was no accident.  If the American people knew that Obama attended a black liberation theology church for twenty years, or if they knew about his associations with Weather Undergrounders Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn, or if they knew he wanted to see a single payer healthcare system, most independent voters would not have voted for him.  Sure there are hard core liberal progressives who would have voted for him if he was Hitler reincarnated (I’m not saying he is.  It’s a joke).  But most Americans would have seen him for what he is:  a tax and spend liberal whose thirst for power won’t be impeded by the Constitution or anything else. 

During the interview, Obama stuck to the talking points.  Win the future.  Back from the brink.  Let me be clear.  I cut taxes for 95% of working families.  It’s this last item I want to discuss briefly. 

What tax cut?  Apparently, it was figured into the stimulus bill adopted in 2009.  According to the NYT, most people didn’t even know their tax rates had been cut.  My paycheck didn’t go up.  My wife’s paycheck didn’t go up.  So I guess we’re in the five percent of working families whose taxes weren’t cut.  But the cut was so small that most people didn’t notice with their health insurance going up and their income going down due to the recession.  To read the article, follow the link below:

This is typical of Democrats.  They technically give you a tax cut, but it’s so small you don’t notice or the cut is offset by local or state taxes or health care premiums.  Then, when campaign time rolls around, they say “We gave you a tax cut.  Vote for us.”  And most people, like me, would say “Why would they lie about something so easily verified?  Certainly they did give me a tax cut.”  And again, technically, they did.  But what benefit did we get from it?  The tax cut, according to the article, should result in over a billion dollars of extra spending by North Carolina residents.  This, in theory, will jump start the economy.  That was two years ago.  The economy is still not growing, at least not very fast.  Unemployment remains high.  People are losing their homes to foreclosure.  So, where’s the benefit from this “tax cut?” 

The only benefit is a political one.  But, if the November elections are any indication, it’s not even a very strong political benefit.  But the Democrats will say that they gave a tax cut to working Americans, begging for votes.  Votes that they think $65 a month should be enough to buy. 

If the president wanted to truly stimulate the economy and spend $787 billion, why not just give the American people a break for six months from paying any income taxes?   You still spend the money, technically, and the American people now have thousands of dollars to spend during the tax holiday.  The answer is simple.  You aren’t smart enough to know how to spend your own money.  The government, who spends a thousand bucks on a toilet seat, knows better.  So, fork it over.  It’s ours, not yours, you ignorant citizens.  We’ll take care of you. 

I don’t want the government taking care of me.  I don’t want to be an ally of the US federal government.  They cut loose allies at the first sign of trouble, as they did with the Shah of Iran and with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  Yes, I think the Egyptian people should choose their government, and that Mubarak had to go.  For once, Obama appeared to stand on the side of freedom.  Then he fumbled the ball.  Instead of offering the Egyptian people and Mubarak our support during a transition period to a cleanly elected Egyptian government, he instead demanded that Mubarak step down now.  Yes, he should step down.  But if the Egyptian constitution doesn’t have a provision for this kind of thing, what will the government in Egypt do?  Who will fill the void?  All these questions have yet to be answered, but since Obama is omnipotent, he made a bad demand, treating an ally of the US like a “No Pinheads” doormat.  That happened in Iran, too.  How’s that working for the US now?  Muslim theocracy, closed society, sponsor of terrorists trying to build a nuclear weapon. 

By the way, in a recent post, I wrote that the Muslim Brotherhood maybe aren’t so bad.  I was wrong.  It would be terrible for the rest of the world and the US in particular if they end up in power.  I still think the Egyptians will not allow these guys to make Egypt like Iran.  But that risk does exist.  It’s still their choice, and I hope and pray they will make a good choice in their new government. 

Back to the interview.  Obama seemed to dismiss ideas that people think he’s a socialist.  O’Reilly asked him if he’s moving to the center.  He said no.  He hasn’t moved anywhere.  He’s always been a centrist. 

Right.   And my teenage sons never play with their pee-pees. 

Everything this guy does appears more socialist.  He is treading more carefully now since he doesn’t have control of the House of Representatives.  He says he will not refight the healthcare battle.  I’m sure the Harvard Law professor will put his significant legal mind to work figuring out a way to avoid that.  Look for the administration to try to stop the Supreme Court from hearing the case.  And, if it makes it to the Court, will new justice Sonya Sotomayor recuse herself from hearing the case since she worked on healthcare issues while she was a lawyer before being appointed?  Don’t expect that. 

Obama’s arrogance is hard to watch.  He truly believes the American people are with him and that we think he’s doing the right things in our country.  Either that or he should get an Oscar to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.  If I worked with someone that arrogant, I might have to punch him in his nose, if I could reach it with it pointed into the air.  Of course, that would solve nothing, except that I would feel better. 

So, next year, I’m going to do the only thing I can do to make myself feel better.  I’m going to punch Obama in the nose at the ballot box. 

Maybe then, if he is a one term president, he will be humbled.

Obama and Freedom in Egypt

January 31, 2011

It’s been a rough weekend for the president.  He has watched as protesters in Egypt took to the streets, defying curfews and challenging the police and army, throwing rocks and setting stuff on fire.  And the enlightened one is in a tough spot.  Does he choose Hosni Mubarak, or does he choose a freely elected Egyptian government?  Mubarak has been an ally of sorts for the US.  The Egyptian government has been among the most stable in the middle east. 

Obama’s response?  Hey, Egypt.  Turn the internet back on.  Turn the cell towers back on.  All this at a time when his own FCC is trying to silence opponents with the “fairness doctrine” and “net neutrality” rules.  Apparently, information should flow freely everywhere in the world, unless you disagree with the president’s pinheaded ideas.  His response is not exactly what the people in Egypt were hoping for.

But with the annual income in Egypt per capita being one hundred thirty-seventh among countries, and with a young population, it looks like the people of Egypt have had enough of Mubarak.  They want economic and political freedom. 

And our president has to decide which side to choose. 

I remember during the campaign that Obama’s campaign rhetoric maligned George Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy.”  The media praised Obama for being thoughtful and deliberate.  I guess “thoughtful and deliberate” means he can’t choose a side without seeing which way the political winds are blowing. 

Remember Obama gave a speech in Cairo shortly after being elected.  In that speech, he apologized for America acting unilaterally in the middle east and being “arrogant.”  During the speech, he did not mention freedom or liberty.  Now, it looks like he is going to have to think about freedom.

I understand Americans’ apprehension about the Islamic Brotherhood.  I don’t know much about these guys.  If there are free elections in Egypt, we could see a replay of Palestine, where Hamas won elected office.  But here’s the rub.  The people of Egypt want the chance to choose for themselves who will represent them in their government.  Most of the population of Egypt is young; 77% of the population is under thirty.  Most of the terrorists that perpetrate attacks come from an age group between 18 and 34. 

But I think there’s another angle to consider here.  The people in Egypt are tired of living in poverty.  Wherever theocratic regimes are put in place, the population becomes less wealthy.  The people in Egypt clearly do not want this.  They want stuff.  And Mubarak’s regime hasn’t provided them the opportunity to obtain stuff. 

With our recent penchant for nation building, you’d think that when a large number of people show up to protest government oppression, our country would jump on the bandwagon for them.  Iraq didn’t ask us for help.  Afghanistan didn’t ask us for help.  Egypt seems to be crying out for help.  And if the protesters get their way, they’ll remember the way we reacted when all this started.  Obama can give all the speeches in the world, but his hemming and hawing over this says all those people need to know.  The US wouldn’t help us when we wanted freedom. 

There is risk here.  The government of Egypt could end up in the hands of terrorists.  I’m not so sure a theocracy would last long in Egypt.  Seems to me if the government became opressive, the Egyptians would take to the streets again and burn down any mosque they thought housed an imam that supported sharia law and forced them into deeper poverty.  If the government of Egypt is taken over by hard line Muslims, gas prices would skyrocket.   One other reason we need to “drill baby drill.”  If we had our own supply of oil, some whack job seven thousand miles away couldn’t affect our ability to get to work or heat our homes. 

Either way this thing turns, Obama has to choose a side.  Will he choose the side of freedom?  He hasn’t done so in the US.  He rarely mentions freedom in his speeches.  Maybe he thinks that freedom is implied, and therefore he doesn’t need to mention it.  But freedom is not implied.  It’s a gift from God, and governments take it away.  And the people of our own country need to be reminded often that it is not something you can take for granted.