Here's the rest of the scoop on Newt Gingrich's not-so-conservative positions, from the Cato Institute:

Gingrich's campaign nearly imploded this summer when he dismissed Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., Medicare reform plan as "right-wing social engineering." But that gaffe was a window into Gingrich's irresponsible approach toward entitlements.

In 2003, Gingrich stumped hard for President George W. Bush's prescription drug bill, which has added about $17 trillion to Medicare's unfunded liabilities. "Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill," Newt urged.

And in his 2008 book Real Change, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.

It's also unclear why anybody looking to distance himself from Pelosi would plop down on a love seat with her to call for government action on climate change — as Gingrich did in a 2008 television commercial.

It was a season of bipartisan chumminess for Newt. "Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees — and (Almost) Each Other," the Washington Post described a 2007 global warming event Gingrich headlined with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

In 2009, the ethanol lobby paid his firm $312,000, and in 2006, the former speaker scored a $300,000 fee from Freddie Mac, one of the government-sponsored enterprises that helped pump up the disastrous housing bubble.

In addition, we have Gingrich's advocation of those "death panels" conservatives don't like, and here's a bit more on his ties to the pharmaceutical lobby:

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)is one of the largest lobbying organizations in the country, and it was a leading advocate of Bush's Medicare drug bill, which provides billions of dollars in subsidies for seniors to buy drugs, while prohibiting Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.

A source who worked for PhRMA at the time told me that Gingrich was being paid by "someone in the drug industry" — either PhRMA, some other industry group, or a specific drug company — as a consultant during the debate over the drug benefit. My source double-checked this with a former PhRMA colleague, who had the same recollection. The Gingrich Group operates the Center for Health Transformation, through which Gingrich publicizes his health care policy proposals.

"He received a monthly retainer," the former PhRMA employee recalls, saying Gingrich's price was "at the high end."

I don't want to pick on Newt, but he has some baggage, and I haven't even mentioned his divorce issues or his ethics violation that resulted in him resigning as Speaker Of The House and Congress. What can't be denied is that Gingrich is a beltway insider, has often acted like one, and profited from being one. As you can see from the above, Gingrich has endorsed big government policies in the past. He has also done some great work, as he did during the Clinton years when he helped write the Contract With America. When Gingrich was Speaker Of The House, the federal government balanced it's budget (more or less). That is no small achievement, and look where we've gone since he left his leadership role in Congress. We've gone into the dumper, and we now have a President who is leading us on the path of self-destruction. Even with his baggage, I would vote for Gingrich over Obama without a second thought.

In this election cycle, President Obama needs to manufacture something on which to run his campaign, because he sure can't run on his dismal record. If the American people ask themselves – Are we better off than we were four years ago ?, the answer is a resounding 'NO', and Obama will be out the door. Thus, Obama needs to distract the voters with some type of sideshow to win a second term. That sideshow will almost surely consist of the politics of division, in the form of Obama blaming a "do-nothing" Congress and Republican "obstructionism" for his failures as President. He'll also use his usual class warfare tactics. That approach will work with Democrats, but it won't work with Republicans and Independents. Obama needs more acts in his sideshow arsenal to distract voters from the reality of his presidency. He needs to be able to show that his policies are indeed the correct ones, and he can point to the items I just mentioned in Gingrich's record as proof that they are. Romney has some of the same problems to overcome, mainly with RomneyCare, but if conservatives are really looking for an anti-Romney candidate, the so-called "real conservative", shouldn't he at least BE an anti-Romney candidate ? I see Romney and Gingrich as being somewhat similar types, but Newt is actually the one with the most baggage to overcome, not Romney. I haven't heard a hint of scandal about Romney, and, unlike Obama, Romney has a proven track record of success in both the public and private sectors. Romney has some big advantages over Obama, and a challenger for the presidency needs those advantages. It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent, because the President has the bully pulpit, and he's going to have a boatload of money. As proof of how difficult it is to beat the incumbent, since FDR only three Presidents lost their bids for re-election (Bush Sr., Carter, and Ford), and Ford wasn't elected in the first place. He took over after Nixon resigned. That means only two elected incumbent Presidents have lost re-election since the 1930's. Beating Obama will be a formidable task.

Romney has also shown an ability to attract voters across the aisle. How else could he have become Governor in one of the most liberal states in the country, Massachusetts ? Gingrich's record is more divisive. He shouldered much of the blame for the government shutdown in the 90's (not a problem for me, but it is for others). If I was a Democrat opposition researcher, I'd have an easier time discrediting Gingrich than I would Romney.

I know this post is coming across as an ode to Romney and a swipe at Gingrich, and it sounds a bit harsher toward Newt than I actually feel, and a little more adoring of Romney than I actually feel. I like Newt. He is a good debater and he comes up with lots of interesting ideas. He comes up with more good ideas in a month than Obama has in his entire life. He's a policy wonk, a fighter, and if the Republicans make him the nominee, I will vote for him.

But what I want above all else is to defeat Obama. If we don't accomplish that…..this country is in BIG trouble. BIG trouble. I see the coming election as the most important one of my lifetime, and we can't afford to get it wrong this time. We can't afford to lose to Obama. As of today, I think Romney has the best chance to beat him, in my humble opinion.

When it comes to economic issues, Republicans and Democrats see things very differently.

Liberal Democrats bill themselves are being pro-little guy. Liberals want to, as President Obama said to Joe The Plumber, spread the wealth around. Specifically, they want to take from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood. Liberals concern themselves with the redistribution of wealth. That's why liberals engage in class warfare tactics, and believe massive government programs and government spending are needed to carry out their wealth redistribution dreams.

Conservative Republicans bill themselves as being pro-business. Conservatives believe that if the business sector prospers, that is what creates jobs for the little guy, thus enabling him to prosper too. Conservatives believe economic growth is the key to prosperity. That's why conservatives favor tax cuts, and believe government often gets in the way of economic growth with burdensome regulations, interference with business, high taxes, etc.

This is the crux of the ideological battle on the economy. Neither of these opposing belefs is bad or evil or necessarily wrong, though you'd certainly think they were if you listen to all the political rhetoric that is shoveled on a daily basis. Liberals call conservatives heartless, racist, only caring about the rich, etc. Conservatives call liberals marxists, anti-liberty, etc.

Anyone who has read this blog knows which side of the argument I favor, for a variety of reasons. I'm with the conservative pro-business, pro-growth, pro-liberty side, and I'll tell you why.

I'm not against "helping the little guy", as liberals favor, but I think liberals have a blind spot when it comes to the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs. Those things come from the private sector, not the government. Wealth creation, jobs, the resultant rise of the middle class, and even government revenue ultimately comes from private sector BUSINESS. Therefore, being antagonistic to the business sector, as liberals so often are, is counterproductive. Putting it in the simplest terms, if our businesses aren't profitable and growing, as conservatives desire, then there won't be any wealth for liberals to spread around later. That's why making our businesses successful is Job One. You don't accomplish that by taxing them heavily, holding them down with burdensome regulations, placing one financial burden after another on them, and in general making it more difficult to do business in this country. You especially don't want to do that when our businesses are competing in a world economy, because we will be the losers with such an attitude. Our jobs will continue to disappear. In my view, helping business IS helping the little guy. I want our businesses to make money, lots of money. The more the merrier. Though liberals demonize profits for some reason, they are only exhibiting their blind spot again when they do so. Those business profits are what provide more jobs, more investment, and more economic growth. Those jobs are also what provides revenue to the government for the government services liberals love. When I see liberals demonizing business and profits, I only see them shooting themselves in the foot.

It's not business profits that are the problem in this country. As I said before, those profits are what creates jobs. No, the problem isn't profits. The problem comes when business profits end.

If you want to see what happens when businesses fail in this country, you don't have to look very far, because we just went through one such period, known as the Great Recession. Business profits plummeted, Wall Street crashed, unemployment rose dramatically, government revenue diminished, and we went much deeper in debt. That's what happens when American businesses don't succeed. Our economic Jenga tower collapses.

Therefore, it should be obvious we'll be better off if we implement policies that help our businesses thrive, because every other economic plus flows directly from them. The CEO of the 3M Corporation, George Buckley, who called Obama "anti-business" a couple months ago, put it in stark terms:

"Politicians forget that business has choice. We're not indentured servants and we will do business where it's good and friendly. If it's hostile, incrementally, things will slip away. We've got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada and Mexico — which tend to be pro-business — or America," [Buckley] told the Financial Times.

Lots of business people view Obama as being anti-business. When business people hear "redistribution of wealth", which raises specters of marxism, they get very nervous. Marxism is, by definition, anti-business. Even former Obama supporters in the business world have begun backing away from him. Harry Alford, head of the National Black Chamber Of Commerce, said voting for Obama was "the worst mistake I ever made in my life". Because Alford is black, I'd like to take a little subject detour into matters of race for a minute. I'm hearing a constant drumbeat from liberals these days about how conservatives are racists for being anti-Obama. No, liberals, that's not it. I'm sure there are right-wing racists, just as there are left-wing racists, independent racists, and racists of all colors and nationalities from all walks of life, but liberals are missing the boat. The right-wing opposition to Obama isn't due to his race, it's due to right-wingers perception of Obama's leftist beliefs. There's no way conservatives WON'T be opposed to that. They aren't going to suspend their own beliefs and withhold their criticism just because Obama is black. In my own view, Obama seems like a pretty nice guy personally. I'd hang out with him, but I've been highly critical of him because I disagree with his politics. I basically think he's in over his head, and though he's plenty intelligent enough, he didn't have the necessary experience to be the President. As a result, he has floundered about. I'd be pretty offended if anyone thought I believed these things because I'm a racist. In my eyes, race has nothing to do with anything. The racism charge is just an easy and convenient accusation for liberals to make, so they make it…constantly.

Sorry for the diversion, but I had to get that off my chest.

Getting back to business, as the 3M CEO said, business has choices. As we all know by now, companies don't have to manufacture in America. A lot of them have moved overseas. A lot of our jobs have moved overseas with them. I'm all for keeping as many of those jobs here as possible, but there's a problem. Many companies move away to take advantage of cheaper overseas labor, and the last thing we want here is to pay slave wages to our own workers. Obama might call that scenario a "race to the bottom", which I don't want either. We want to keep wages up.

How do we keep wages up and jobs in America at the same time ?

What I would do is make it more attractive for companies to do business in America in different ways. First of all, I'd END corporate income taxation. As I say this, I picture liberal heads spinning in circles like Linda Blair in The Exorcist, because liberals complain that corporations don't pay enough in taxes, especially the evil ones like Exxon (the oil industry employs millions of people and generates tons of tax revenue for the government). Sorry liberals, but I'd rather have the jobs. The taxes will come from the incomes and economic activity of all the employed workers. The second thing I'd do is to remove the skyrocketing health care cost monkey from companies backs. Liberals complain about wages not rising fast enough in this country. Well, those health care costs are a major reason why. If you add in a companies health care contributions, which are part of an employee's compensation package, I bet you'd see that compensation HAS risen.

Those are two big ways to attract businesses to this country. I have many more, but this post is getting rather lengthy, so I'll stop here.

In 2000, federal spending was $1.789 trillion.

Enter George W. Bush as President.

In 2008, federal spending was $2.983 billion.

Over 8 years, federal spending increased by $1.2 trillion PER YEAR on Bush's watch. That's a LOT of additional spending. An enormous spending increase. People try to tell me Bush was a conservative, but I have a hard time accepting that with astronomical spending numbers like he had.

Enter Barack Obama as President, or as I described it when Obama was elected, "going from the frying pan into the fire".

In 2009, federal spending was over $3.5 billion.

Obama has proposed a budget for next year of $3.72 trillion.

If that budget was accepted, which it will not be thanks to Republican victories in the House, federal spending would have increased almost $800 billion PER YEAR since Obama became President. This follows the $1.2 trillion PER YEAR spending increases implemented by Bush. Obama has implemented an unbelievable amount of additional federal spending over a very short period of time. People try to tell me Obama is a centrist, but all I can do is laugh at that. I'm still trying to reconcile the talk of Bush being a conservative. I'm beginning to think people have lost their minds. From my vantage point, Bush was a liberal, and Obama is the most liberal President we've ever had. Heck, both Presidents did the same things on economics. They both increased spending by a bunch. Both Presidents created brand new entitlement programs, Bush with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Obama with ObamaCare. Bush increased social spending by a greater percentage than any President since LBJ, the creator of the welfare state. Obama would surpass Bush if left to his own devices. I haven't seen many conservatives in charge lately, just liberals and conservative posers. In my opinion, the last time our government had any significant conservative economic influence was during the Clinton years. Spending was slowed, welfare was reformed, and the budget was balanced. That's what conservatives are SUPPOSED to accomplish, not tax cuts coupled with gigantic spending increases as was done under Bush. That's not conservative, it's crazy.

If you want a statistic to drive home exactly how crazy the spending increases of the last dozen years have been, here it is – In 1997, total federal spending was $1.6 trillion. This year, our federal DEFICIT is $1.6 trillion. Here's another way to look at it – if federal spending had only increased at the level of inflation over the last dozen years, we'd have a balanced budget right now, even with the recession, even with the Bush tax cuts. At this point in our country's history, big expanding government means economic death, via either debt and the destruction of our currency, or the fiscal strangulation of the people through prohibitive taxation. There is no magic wand we can wave and make it all better. We HAVE to reduce the size of government.

But all of the preceding information is just backstory for the actual subject of this post. As you digest the following information, keep in mind that federal spending has increased almost $2 trillion PER YEAR over where spending was a short decade ago. It has literally doubled. It took our country 224 years for federal spending to reach $1.789 trillion per year. It has taken us 10 years to double that number. If that's conservative, then I'm Karl Marx. Remember that as you read today's story:

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a measure to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year and cut $61 billion in the process. The bill was considered under an open amendment process, and there were hundreds of amendments offered and over a hundred votes cast over the span of a week. This after-action report will look solely at the Congressional appetite to cut spending.

After TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of yearly federal spending increases were implemented over the last decade, House Republicans proposed cutting $61 billion from the budget. That's pretty weak, given our $1.6 TRILLION deficit. $61 billion only amounts to like three tenths of one percent of all the spending increases that have been implemented over the last decade, and it amounts to less than two tenths of one percent of the federal budget.

The results of this vote are why the Democrats have got to go. Their reaction to these measly spending cuts ????

THEY VOTED AGAINST THEM:

…how many House Democrats refused to vote for any spending cut out of the 21 proposed? 96. Almost 100 Democrats — one shy of half of their caucus — couldn’t find any spending cuts they could support. And beyond those 96, another 47 could only vote to support one tax cut. Combined, that means that 143 out of 193 Democrats could only find one or less spending cut to support — or 71% of their caucus. The highest-ranking Democrat on spending-cut votes is Robert Costa of California, who supported 50% of the proposals.

On the other end of the spectrum, how many Republicans voted for every spending cut proposed? Out of 241 Republicans, that number was … 47. Most Republicans supported most of the cuts…

The bottom line is, the Democrats don't want to cut spending. They are just giving lip service to the idea, from Obama on down. Many Republicans do want to cut spending, though there aren't enough of them willing to take the risk to cut spending in a significant manner. At least the Republicans are looking to move the ball in the right direction, toward reducing the size of our mammoth government.

Let's start by voting a lot more Democrats out office and see where that gets us. Right now, we're living in an imaginary economy, a debt-fueled fantasyland led by President Weakling. We're living in a house of cards that will soon come crashing down. It has to stop, and the Democrats are acting like crackheads who don't want to admit they have a problem. Most of the mainstream media continues to enable the Democrat crackheads by covering for them. The voters need to conduct an intervention and send the Democrats off to rehab until they can become reintegrated back into economic reality. That may take a while.

When the new Congress convenes, the GOP-led House is planning to move on several fronts.

1. They are going to try to repeal ObamaCare:

The new Republican-controlled House plans to schedule a vote to repeal the sweeping health care overhaul before President Barack Obama delivers his annual State of the Union address late this month, incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Sunday.

“We have 242 Republicans,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” He added, “There will be a significant number of Democrats, I think, that will join us. You will remember when that vote passed in the House last March, it only passed by seven votes.”

Upton, whose committee will play a key role in the GOP's effort to roll back the law, said that he believes the House may be near the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto.

Regardless of how the repeal vote turns out, the GOP will go after pieces of ObamaCare:

Upton specifically called out the requirement for businesses to complete 1099 tax forms, the individual mandate and the amendment on abortion introduced by Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak. "We will look at these individual pieces to see if we can't have the thing crumble," he said.

This should cause quite a stir. Democrats will fight back:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, appearing on CNN, said “health care reform is going to go down in history as one of the great achievements of this president.”

And Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said repeal is a lost cause for Republicans.

“We cut prescription drug bills for senior citizens by 50 percent,” she told CBS. “We've already made sure that young adults up until they're 26 can be on their parents' insurance. A constituent in my district came up to me a few weeks ago and thanked me for saving her $3,000 a year because she could put her two adult children back on her insurance," she said.

"That's what the Republicans are going to be proposing to repeal this week," Wasserman Schultz added. "It's not going to happen. If it's about jobs and the economy and reducing the deficit, wasting time and money and adding to the deficit by repealing health care reform or on the attempt is irresponsible.”

In order for the Republicans to successfully repeal ObamaCare, I believe they will have to come up with a REPLACEMENT for it, a better idea. If the GOP forgets all about that part of it, they might be doing themselves more harm than good. I'm all for repealing ObamaCare, as long as something better takes it's place. We can't just stick our heads in the sand and pretend spiraling health care costs are not a problem.

2. Rep. Darrell Issa plans to go after wasteful government spending by the Obama administration:

The Republican congressman who is taking over responsibility for congressional oversight called President Obama's administration "one of the most corrupt administrations" on Sunday and predicted that the investigations he is planning over the next two years could result in about $200 billion in savings for U.S. taxpayers.

Issa, who as chairman will have subpoena power, said he will seek to ferret out waste across the federal bureaucracy. While he used fiery rhetoric in describing the Obama administration in a series of television interviews Sunday, he said he will focus on wasteful spending, not the prosecution of White House officials.

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" about reports that the White House is staffing up on lawyers to prepare for his oversight hearings, Issa said: "They're going to need more accountants.

"It's more of an accounting function than legal function," Issa said. "It's more about the inspector generals than it is about lawyers in the White House. And the sooner the administration figures out that the enemy is the bureaucracy and the wasteful spending, not the other party, the better off we'll be."

Issa said he plans to lead bipartisan investigations on food and drug safety, as well as Medicare fraud.

"We can save $125 billion in simply not giving out money to Medicare recipients that don't exist for procedures that didn't happen," Issa said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "These are real dollars. Ten percent of the deficit goes out in wasted money – money that doesn't get one person health care in Medicare."

On the CNN show, Issa said: "When I look at waste, fraud and abuse in the bureaucracy and in the government, this is like steroids to pump up the muscles of waste."

Here is a list of investigations Issa has planned:

As the replacement for outgoing Democrat Henry Waxman, Issa is aiming to launch investigations on everything from WikiLeaks to Fannie Mae to corruption in Afghanistan in the first few months of what promises to be a high profile chairmanship of the top oversight committee in Congress.

According to an outline of the committee’s hearing topics obtained by POLITICO, the House Oversight and Government Reform is also planning to investigate how regulation impacts job creation, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the foreclosure crisis; recalls at the Food and Drug Administration and the failure of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to agree on the causes of the market meltdown.

A look at the preliminary hearing schedule illustrates that Issa plans to stay away from hurling subpoenas at the White House.

In investigating the impact of regulation on job creation, the committee plans to ask why the economy hasn’t “created the private sector jobs the president has promised,” and he’s calling in business leaders to explain “about the government regulations that are doing the most harm to job creation efforts.”

“The committee will examine how overregulation has hurt job creation and whether the administration intends to try and abuse the regulatory process to implement regulations that Congress would reject,” according to an outline of committee hearing topics.

Issa also wants to study why the financial crisis commission couldn’t reach consensus last year. He’d like to call Phil Angelides and former Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), the chair and ranking member of the committee, to determine if there was any agreement on the panel in relation to the cause of the meltdown.

Thar's a new sheriff in town, and his name is Darrell Issa.

3. The Republicans might demand budget cuts in exchange for raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling:

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, said if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, the “impact on the economy would be catastrophic.”

“I don’t see why anybody’s playing chicken with the debt ceiling,” Goolsbee said today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “If we get to the point where we damage the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

The government is slated to hit the legal limit on borrowing, $14.3 trillion, early this year. Congress must agree to raise that ceiling or the U.S. could be forced to default on its obligations.

After candidates supported by anti-deficit Tea Party activists were elected on pledges to rein in government spending, some lawmakers have said they would demand budget cuts in exchange for voting to raise the debt ceiling.

The U.S. has a $1.3 trillion federal budget deficit. President Barack Obama’s debt-reduction panel failed last month to agree on its chairmen’s recommendations for ways to reduce the annual deficit to about $400 billion in 2015.

The plan would have increased taxes by $1 trillion by 2020 by scaling back or eliminating hundreds of deductions, exclusions or credits such as those allowing homeowners to write off interest on their mortgage payments. It would also have cut individual and corporate income tax rates.

Goolsbee said he anticipates Obama will find common ground with Republicans on legislation to benefit the economy, citing investment incentives and tax cuts for workers and small businesses, and warned against cutting back on spending needed for economic growth.

“The reason the deficit is big this year is because we’re coming out of the worst recession since 1929,” Goolsbee said. “That’s the reason. The longer-run fiscal challenge facing the country is important.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said failing to raise the debt ceiling “would be very bad for the position of the United States in the world at large.” Still, he wouldn’t vote to raise it “until a plan is in place” to deal with debt, Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

If the GOP was paying attention to the last election, they definitely SHOULD demand some budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. How else will the runaway freight train of government spending ever slow down ? The federal government has been kicking the fiscal responsibility can down the road for a long, long time now. It has to stop.

Liberal Democrats are throwing major hissy fits over President Obama's so-called tax cut deal with Republicans. Meanwhile, most Republicans appear to be tentatively supportive of the deal.

My question is, why is either side taking it's positions ? Let's look at the tax cut deal from a purely political viewpoint. I'll try to put my own opinions aside (mostly).

Let's look at the liberal side first. I ask liberals, what are you crying about ? What did Obama give up ? The only thing I can see liberals objecting to in the deal is two more years of Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K, meaning no tax increases for only TWO YEARS. This also means the "tax cuts for the rich" class warfare weapon will still be in the Democratic arsenal for the next presidential election. In return for giving up those measly two years of no tax increases during a recession, Obama got EVERYTHING else he wanted – a $57 billion extension of unemployment benefits, a $225 billion payroll tax holiday, an assortment of tax credits, more federal spending, etc. Obama has effectively gotten his second round of economic stimulus passed if the deal goes through, and liberals have been calling for more stimulus for nearly two years. The CBO scored Obama's tax cut deal on friday, and said it would add $893 billion to the deficit over the next five years, with $756 billion of that coming from lost revenue. The CBO says the biggest factor in "lost revenue" is the renewal of the Bush tax cuts (all of them). Now, I have a problem with calling the renewal of marginal tax rates that have been in place for a decade "lost revenue," but I'll leave that argument alone for now, other than to point out it's also "lost revenue" for the government when anyone's marginal tax rate is lower than 100%. That is no justification for stealing people's wages.

In summary, liberals are howling mad because the marginal tax rate for families and small businesses making over $250K (over $200K for a single person) are going to stay at 35% instead of rising to 39.6%. That doesn't seem like something to get howling mad about to me, especially when the whole argument will be revisited in two short years.

Obama didn't give up much, but he did do something huge to Republicans. Remember, the GOP just won huge election victories running as the party of fiscal responsibility, by co-opting the Tea Party message of reducing spending and lowering the deficit. With the tax cut deal, Obama stripped away some of the GOP's claim to fiscal responsibility by getting them to agree to more spending and more deficits/debt. Liberals, who really don't care about deficits and debt in the first place, will now say "look, the Republicans just added almost $900 billion to the debt. What a bunch of hypocrites." Even though that $900 billion amount is wrong, the GOP will agree to increase the debt if they approve the deal, just the opposite of what they promised to do throughout the entire election cycle. Yes, Obama broke his word on the Bush tax cuts as well, but in doing so, he has succeeded in positioning himself as both a populist and a centrist, while getting Republicans to partially abdicate their claim to fiscal responsibility barely a month after the elections.

Maybe Obama is a smarter politician than either liberals or conservatives give him credit for. He has pissed off his liberal base, but if the recent elections told us anything, it told us America rejects the liberals. Liberals only represent 20% of the populace. It's also unlikely that Obama will be able to muster the kind of euphoric insanity among young voters in 2012 that pushed him to victory in 2008. If Obama wants to be a two-term President, he has to capture the middle, the independents, and those are the very people who rejected the Democrats in 2010. And let's face it, who else are liberals going to vote for in 2012, if not Obama ? Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, or whomever ? I don't think so.

With this tax cut deal, Obama WINS. He gets his desired stimulus, and everyone's paycheck gets larger for a couple years. The Republicans lose. They lose the claim to fiscal responsibility. The liberals live to fight the same class warfare battle all over again in 2012, just when they want to fight it most.

Maybe Obama IS smarter.

P.S. – While I'm on the subject of Republicans abdicating fiscal responsiblity and election promises, guess who is having second thoughts about banning earmarks ??? That would be…Republicans. It seems some Republicans, including Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the queen of the Tea Parties, have suddenly realized that by banning earmarks, they don't have a way to fund the federal projects they want for their districts, aka, earmarks. Uh, no kidding. What did you GOP'ers think an earmark was, getting a piercing down at the local mall ?

On tuesday, the National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People (NAACP) passed a resolution calling for the Tea Party movement to condemn the alleged racist elements within it's organization. Here's NAACP President Benjamin Jealous:

"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate. "We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations."

White supremacists ? I've been to Tea Party events. I've talked to a lot of Tea Party people. I've never heard anything about white supremacism, and I've never heard a racist statement made against Obama or black people in general. I've talked to several black people who are IN the Tea Party movement. Do these black people also hate…black people ?

Much of this concocted brouhaha stems from one alleged racial incident at one specific Tea Party event, where black Congressmen were walking past a Tea Party crowd who were shouting "kill the bill." The crowd was referring to Obama's healthcare reform bill. At that event, it was claimed that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon by a Tea Party protester. That never happened (at least not intentionally), but the media still pretends it did. The other alleged incident at that Tea Party event involved Tea Party members shouting the n-word at the black Congressmen. Every news organization in the country has looked for audio or video evidence of that, but none has been produced to date. Maybe it did happen, or maybe it didn't. All I ever heard on the numerous tapes of the event was the crowd shouting "kill the bill." Even assuming a Tea Party protester or two did hurl the n-word at the Congressmen, how exactly is that an indictment of the entire Tea Party movement as a racist organization ? Every single Tea Partier I've met and heard would abhor such behavior.

The other question to ask is, why would the NAACP single out the Tea Party for it's alleged "racist elements" ? If you look at any large, diverse group of people, you will be able to find some racist elements. Let's take one such group at random, say, oh, I dunno….the Democrats. Why hasn't the NAACP passed a resolution to condemn these racist elements ?…

"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." — Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." – Vice President Joe Biden.

And my all-time favorite, from Mr. Great Society (welfare state) himself:

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." – Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

I could go on with these examples, but the examples are not the point. The point is, the real reason the NAACP passed a resolution against the Tea Party movement has absolutely nothing to do with an alleged case or two of racism. That can be found anywhere, even in the NAACP's favored Democratic party, as I have just illustrated. The real reason for the NAACP's resolution has everything to do with partisan politics. This is just the latest example of a left-wing group playing the race card to gain a political edge, and that is why the NAACP has just embarrassed itself. This is a low point for them. The NAACP is in reality engaging in the very types of actions it claims to deplore. Listen to the fearmongering being pedaled in this next NAACP quote:

"They are pulling people together and focusing on the negative, and then it's hard to make anything positive out of that," said Anita L. Russell, president of the Kansas City, Mo., branch of the NAACP, which introduced the resolution. "And then these groups, these extremist groups, are looking for something, and they are latching on to this. The thing is going to grow and grow out of control."

The Tea Party movement is focusing on less intrusive government, constitutional principles, lower taxes, individual freedom, and political activism. How is that "focusing on the negative," or "extremist," and how is it going to "grow out of control" ???

And if the NAACP were really concerned about civil rights here, wouldn't they be defending BLACK Tea Party members who have been called names and beaten up (see: Kenneth Gladney) because of their political beliefs ???

They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.
“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government…

Yet, no resolution from the NAACP about these things. Of course not, because they are inconvenient to the real agenda.

My final quote comes from a former NAACP chapter President, who is now a Tea Party member. I have heard him speak in person at a Tea Party event:

"Those ideas that Tea Party people are racist and that we're trying to instigate a racist climate in this country, that's simply a lie. That's out and out falsehood," said Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former president of NAACP's Garland, Texas, chapter who is now a leading Tea Party activist.

"I have not heard one racial slur that came out of that march," said Bryant, referring to the Tea Party protest on Capitol Hill where members of Congress alleged racist comments. "Those were simply Americans who were protesting."

That's right. The Tea Party movement has NOTHING to do with racism, and I think even the NAACP knows it. This is all about politics, period.

The NAACP is planning a march of their own to build momentum against the Tea Party. It's called One Nation. That's perfectly fine, but it does raise a question:

Isn't it time to reconsider the NAACP's tax-exempt status, since it is so obviously a partisan political group now ????

Over and out, race-baiters.

We've been hearing from the media for a year now that the Tea Party movement has been inciting violence.

Well, as Samuel L. Jackson's character said in the movie Pulp Fiction…allow me to retort.

A couple days ago, the FBI arrested Norman Leboon for threatening to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-NY). It appears Leboon was an Obama campaign donor. Leboon posted his threat against Cantor the day after a gun was fired outside Cantor's campaign office and a bullet went through one of the windows. The left-wing media universally poo-pooed the threat (do you think they would have done so had it happened to a Democrat ?).
—
A couple days ago, a Code Pink mob shouted down Republican Karl Rove and ended up shutting down his book-signing event. Code Pink has disrupted many events, including the Republican Naitonal Convention.
—
A few days ago, at a Tea Party event in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nevada, pro-Reid people egged Tea Party buses and threatened conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.
—
About a week ago, conservative columnist Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at the University of Ottawa after she was threatened by about 2,000 student protesters who were egged on by left-wing professors. You may remember a Coulter speech at Columbia University a few years ago, where audience members threw things at her and stormed the stage. Columbia was the same university where students sat quietly and respectfully to listen to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel, among his many other insane beliefs.
—
A left-wing nut who goes by the name of Jason Brown has issued numerous online death threats to Republican Sarah Palin. Brown is a BIG fan of MSNBC (hatemongers?) Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Here is an example of Brown's sweet, reasoned rhetoric – "Death 2 Palin family them retarded hillbillies take teabaggers w/ you hateful b*tch," and "@Palin360 you need 2 b assassinated soon we ll settle 4 one of the family if not u!." This nut wants to take out some Tea Party members too, as follows – "maybe it takes a murder or 2 2 get the point across take aim at radical TP members." Yet, I never hear ANYONE tell Keith Olbermann to stop inciting violence. Weird, huh ?
—
Now get a load of some of the sweet, reasoned hate mail and death threats conservative blogger Michelle Malkin receives. She gets it by the boatload, and I have to apologize in advance for the following sick, ugly language. If you are easily offended, stop reading NOW. The editing of profanity is mine.

Here's one from Greg Diaz – "times up you ugly motherf*cker make sure sure your husband signs that policy b*tch."

Another from Jim Sneller – "What the f*ck are you?? A f*cking Jap or what?? If you f*cking don’t like the the USA, get the F*ck out!! You have nothing good to say about anybody !! You are a F*cking Idoit !!!! In your own Country you would be put to death!! You are one stupid f*cking C*nt!!!!!!!! You don’t like how I talk?? F*ck you !!!!! Get out the f*ck of my Country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You f*cking a$$hole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

A third from Steven Frankel – "Go back to what ever Asian hell hole you came from, you’re not an American no American would cheer a defeat to America…get the f*ck out now you stupid c*nt before we drag you out by your Pubic hair..out damn twat!!!"

Nice, eh ? But, according to liberals, it's the Tea Party movement that is racist. Mmm-hmm. Whatever.
—
Left-wing anarchist protesters and other left-wing protest groups broke store windows, threw bottles at the police, and set trash cans on fire at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.
—
Left-wing eco-terrorist groups like Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front have launched hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks, ranging from property destruction and vandalism to arson, firing rockets, and blowing people up. The Unabomber was one such eco-terrorist.
—
During last summer's townhall meetings, where the media was obsessed with the alleged violent behavior of the anti-ObamaCare people, of the 10 documented violent acts, most of them minor, 7 were committed by Democrats.
—
In february, the University of Alabama professor, left-winger Amy Bishop, went on a shooting spree because she was denied tenure. She shot five colleagues, killing three. She also killed her own brother in 1986 and is suspected of planting a mail bomb. She was, according to family members, "obsessed" with Obama.
—
Last June, James Von Brunn shot two guards at the Holocaust Museum. Von Brunn left many writings on the internet. Among his beliefs – he hated Bush, McCain, neoconservatives (read: jews), was a 9/11 Truther, and voiced his approval for socialism. He was also a white supremacist. Yet, the left-wing media tried to portray him as a right-winger. Sure. Whatever.
—
A 2008 report said there had been 50 attacks on army recruiting centers between 2003 and 2008. "The peace protesters are not peaceful," said Catherine Moy of Move America Forward. "They are violent."
—
I could go on and on and on with more examples, but I'm hoping some will see my point here. The point is that the left has been engaging in intimidation tactics and disruptive violent protest for as long as I can remember. That's just what they do. I've seen it from the 60's forward. It has never stopped. What I can't remember is even one time where those protesters were painted as a systemic danger by the media. I also can't remember the media ever citing liberal speech as the reason for the violence. Yet, when conservatives and independents finally emerge to protest the unsustainable economic path our federal government has put us on, aka, the Tea Party movement, the media falls all over itself to paint the movement as a danger, and falls all over itself to say conservative speech is inciting violence.

It's an absolute disgrace, and perhaps the clearest example of media bias I have seen to date.

Quote Of The Day: "we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it" – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
===
Burning Fiscal Issue: "he's trying to pawn himself off as a fiscal conservative. And yet just in recent weeks, two weeks ago it has come out in news accounts he had a Republican Party of Florida credit card that he charged $130 haircut, or maybe it was a back wax — we are not sure what all he got at that place." – Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL), talking about U.S. Senate primary challenger Marco Rubio, who is leading Crist by 32 points in the latest poll.
===
A New York Corruptocrat State Of Mind: Recent scandals in New York…Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Gov. David Paterson, Rep. Charlie Rangel..and now, I give you Rep. Eric Massa, who recently resigned from Congress amid year-long allegations of improper sexual contact with male staffers. This guy is some piece of work. In recent days, Massa said he wouldn't seek re-election because he had cancer. Then he resigned immediately when the sexual allegations came out. Then he said he was pressured out by Democrats because he was against ObamaCare (ObamaCare isn't liberal enough for Massa). Then he went on Glenn Beck's show and said he did grope and tickle a male staffer. Then he went on Larry King's show a few hours later and said he didn't grope anyone. Massa called Obama's Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel "the son of the devil's spawn," and described the following nude shower scene, with Emanuel allegedly threatening Massa that he better vote for ObamaCare or else – "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me." The White House denies the incident ever occurred. When Larry King asked Massa if he was gay, Massa refused to answer, saying the question was an insult to gay people. If you are interested in this bizarre tale, The Washington Post has a pretty good take on it here.
===
ObamaCare To Bring Down Deficits, Part Red Sea: Here's President Obama singing the merits of health care reform, from Fox News:

"Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion dollars over the next decade because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely," Obama told an audience at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pa., a suburb north of Philadelphia.

Obama was so proud of these cost-saving numbers in the latest version of health care reform, he delved into a bit of Washington-speak to back them up.

"Those aren't my numbers," Obama said to the rising applause of the estimated 1,300 in attendance. "They are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost."

Sorry, Mr. President. You're numbers are a wee bit off. The actual ObamaCare deficit reduction estimate from the CBO over the next decade – $132 billion. The real deficit increase estimate over the next decade after all the Democrats smoke and mirrors accounting tricks are stripped away from ObamaCare -$460 billion. (link)

Nice try, Obama.
===
Canadian Socialist Health Care Paradise: Because almost every pro-ObamaCare Democrat under the sun has come out with some American health care horror story in order to further their cause via emotion rather than logic, I have one such story from that wonderful government-run Canadian health care system, where everyone is covered for everything and life is beautiful all the time (or so say liberals). From the Toronto Sun, this article is titled 'Sick Man Faces Bankruptcy Or Death':

Kent Pankow lives in Edmonton, in a province and a country that is trying to either kill him or bankrupt him.

No sense mincing words.

Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. for lifesaving surgery — at a cost to family and friends of $106,000 — after the health-care system in Alberta left him hanging in bureaucratic limbo for 16 crucial days, his tumour meanwhile migrating to an unreachable part of the brain, while it dithered over his case file, ultimately deciding he was not surgery worthy.

Now, with the Mayo Clinic having done what the Alberta Cancer Board wouldn’t authorize or even explain, but with the tumour unable to be totally removed, the province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size — despite the costs of the drug being totally funded by the province for other forms of cancer.

Kent Pankow, as it turns out, has the right disease but he has it in the wrong place.

Had he lung cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer, then the cost of the drug — $4,555 per treatment, two times a month — would be totally covered by Alberta’s version of OHIP.

But he doesn’t.

And so he is not only a victim of brain cancer, he is also a victim of arbitrary discrimination.

Our supposedly universal federal health care system, the pride of most Canadians and the political struggle of America, is only as good as the length of the waiting line and whether you have the right disease at the right time.

After writing more than 150 letters to everyone from the prime minister to virtually all health authorities both federal and provincial, and being ignored in return, Kent Pankow’s wife, Deborah Hurford, decided to finally go public.

Btw, Canadian official Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, chose to have his heart surgery in the United States. Williams said, and I quote, "This was my heart, my choice and my health…I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." So much for Canada's universal health care paradise.

Exit question – Is MORE bureaucracy really the way we want to go with health care in America ? With ObamaCare, that is exactly what we will get.

A couple incidents from the recent C-PAC Conservative conference led me to believe Conservatives are moving toward Libertarianism, a move I mostly welcome.

The first was Ron Paul winning the C-PAC straw poll vote for the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. Paul captured a surprising 31% of the vote, with Mitt Romney in second place at 22%. No other Republican tallied higher than single digits. Sarah Palin took third place with 7%. Paul's victory is probably due to the fact that over half the C-PAC attendees were under the age of 25. It's the younger conservatives who I feel are more Libertarian-leaning, which is borne out by the second incident I'm mentioning.

For the first time, a group of gay Republicans called GOProud attended the conference. This caused tension with the Religious Right wing of the GOP. I've never been a fan of the Religious Right. The gay issue is but one area where I have problems with them. The tension between the gay GOPers and the social conservatives came to a head as one C-PAC speaker condemned the conference for allowing the gay group to attend, in true intolerant fashion. Happily, the anti-gay speaker was booed. Here is the video:

If the GOP wants to be a big tent party, which I assume they do, it won't happen by excluding people from the movement, as that wrong-headed C-PAC speaker advocated. I'm of the opinion that in 2010 fiscal issues are by far the most important ones, and Democrats are dead wrong on almost every fiscal issue, but some social issues also matter. The Religious Right should be free to air their opinion within the GOP (even though they make me cringe sometimes), but so should everyone else. The upcoming elections, as with most elections, will be decided by independent voters. If Republicans want to win in the 21st century, if they want to attract younger voters going forward, they will encourage debate on the social issues, and not attempt to exclude what they don't like. George W. Bush was for gay marriage in the civil sense. Ditto for Dick Cheney.

The Libertarian party platform says the following – "we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

Nothing wrong there.

Memo to Religious Right – Gays don't tell you how you should live. Don't tell them how they should either.

Rassmussen Reports conducted an interesting poll that included Tea Party candidates on a generic congressional ballot. The results of the three-way race ???

Democrats – 36%
Tea Party – 23%
Republican – 18%
Undecided – 22%

More results from the poll:

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

This shows that non-Democrat voters prefer the Tea Party movement to the GOP. Pretty interesting when you consider the Tea Party isn't even a political party and has no candidates for office. The Rassmussen poll was more of an ideological exercise than anything else, but it reflects the mood of the public. Unaffiliated voters prefer the Tea Party movement to both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans barely beat the Tea Party among REPUBLICAN voters. In addition, Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll showed that only 55% of conservatives consider themselves Republicans. This is what happens when Republicans abandon conservative principles, as they did during the Bush presidency, but many Republicans and most of the mainstream media (who want the Democrats to win) are still promoting the silly idea that the GOP needs to move to the center to become successful. I'd say the polling shows precisely the opposite.

There is some good news for the GOP, however. They are leading the Democrats on the Rassmussen generic congressional ballot by 44% to 37%. This is more a reflection of dissatisfaction with the policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress than any endorsement of the GOP in my opinion, especially regarding the health care reform effort moving it's way through Congress. Public issue polling backs up this assertion, as follows:

November 24th Rassmussen ObamaCare poll - 56% opposed, 38% in favor.
November 18th Quinnipiac ObamaCare poll - 51% opposed, 35% in favor.
RealClearPolitics (average of all polls) on ObamaCare – 49% opposed, 40% in favor.

Obama's overall approval rating has been steadily dropping since his inauguration, and Quinnipiac had his approval rating at 48% recently, the first time Obama has dropped below 50% approval.

The RealClearPolitics poll of Congressional Job Approval - 27% approve, 64.3% disapprove.

My utopian solution would be to dismantle the Republican party and replace it with something better, a lot better, but I know that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Democrats and Republicans set the rules for political candidates, and they design those rules to heavily favor Democrats and Republicans. The game is rigged to perpetuate a two-party monopoly (I guess "duopoly" would be the more correct term).

Bottom line message to both Democratic and Republican politicians….we don't like you very much.

Message to liberals – Encourage a third party to blossom around the Tea Party movement (instead of calling them crazy racist nutjobs. Liberals only discredit liberals when they resort to such tactics). That would split the vote and allow liberals to crawl through the divide to victory, even though liberals poll the lowest of all, far lower than conservatives and moderates.

Why bother watching Olbermann or Maddow go after Sarah Palin, when you can get a two-fer by watching both Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity together in one interview ?!?! Here it is from the source, undiluted. Grab yourself a veggie burger and a soy latte, and get your hate on.

My favorite line ? Palin actually referred to the liberal elitist tabloid hate press as "the lamestream media." How can I not like that ? I use the term myself, and they haven't even attacked my family, as they have Palin's. She has earned the right.

- One nice thing about Bill Clinton's presidency was that you could oppose his policies without being called a racist (mostly).

- People who think Bush went into Iraq to enrich Halliburton have no right to complain about the Birthers.

- When you go looking for "code words" for racism, aren't you just making stuff up ?

- When I talk about Obama's huge first year deficit ($1.8 trillion) on this blog, why do liberals always bring up Bush's deficits to excuse Obama's ? (Note to libs – By doing that, you aren't countering my argument. You are only making the argument that Obama is worse than Bush).

- Obama can offer health insurance to 30-45 million more people with health care reform, or he can reduce health care costs, but he can't do both at the same time.

- Obama's health care reform offers less choice, not more choice.

- Only Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

- Why is it that when liberals call conservatives racists nearly non-stop, nothing ever happens to those liberals, but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist one time, 20 advertisers are pressured into dropping their ads from Beck's show ?

- The only point being made by those people who are carrying guns outside events at which the President is speaking is that the gun carriers are oblivious morons.

- Is there any doubt at all that House Democrats are seeking the financial records of health insurance companies in order to demonize those companies ?

- Why is it okay for Congress to buy private jets with taxpayer dollars, but it's not okay for CEO's to fly private jets to Washington D.C. after being bailed out with taxpayer dollars ?

- Why would we want the federal government, an organization that is nearly $12 trillion in debt (and counting), to run our health care system, which represents 17% of our economy ?

- The "Obama is Hitler" signs must stop, because Obama is not like Hitler – he's much more like a combination of Saul Alinsky and P.T. Barnum. (Note to liberal media – that Obama-Hitler "I've Changed" sign you idiots at MSNBC, NBC, and CNN keep attributing to right wingers came from a Lyndon Larouche group, a communist group. Is even a tiny bit of journalistic integrity too much to ask ?)

- Speaking of Saul Alinsky, doesn't Obama's playbook seem awfully close to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it) ?

- MSNBC is such a biased organization that they actually edited out the fact that it was a black man who was carrying the AR-15 outside an Obama event, so MSNBC could peddle it's racist angle to the story.

- In the interesting political poll of the week, Gallup polling showed that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one when it comes to political ideology, yet Democrats have a sizeable lead over Republicans in party affiliation. (In other words, conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. I can identify with that).

- If you want to know why the health care public option was in, then it was out, then it was back in again….it's because up to 100 House Democrats said it better be back in again.

Recent polling shows that Americans increasingly have no party identification. There are more Independent voters than those having allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. Here's a chart from Pew Research:

The above chart shows that Republican voter identification has plummeted since 2004. Democratic voter identification has remained relatively stable (though it has dropped since Obama became president), and Independent voter identification has risen steadily. It's not too difficult to figure out why the Republicans have lost ground. After 8 years of Bush, I can summarize it in three words – war, deficits, recession. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones. The Republican party has become marginalized.

Now for the twist. If you remove political parties from the equation and just ask the voters about their political ideology, you get a far different picture of America. The following chart comes from a recent Gallup poll:

Suddenly, conservatives rule, with moderates a close second. Liberals are marginalized. This gives credence to the idea that we are a center-right nation (75% conservative or moderate).

So, why the disconnect between the low poll numbers of Republicans and the high poll numbers of conservatives ? After all, aren't Republicans supposed to be the conservative party ?

My answer is, yes, they are SUPPOSED to be the conservative party, but that's not what they were during the Bush years. They were just the opposite, so it's not a surprise that lots of conservatives and many moderates abandoned them. That also explains the huge rise in Independent voters. The voters didn't change ideologically and become a lot more liberal. The voters remained pretty much the same. It was the Republicans who changed. It was the Republicans who abandoned conservatism.

Ronald Reagan once said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." I bet a lot of conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party these days.

To the deep thinkers in the Republican Party (if there are any left) – If you want to get back into power, the answer is staring you right in the face. Return to conservative principles. And then don't ABANDON them if you do acquire power.

To the deep thinkers in the Democratic Party (if there are any left) – If you want to stay in power, forget about the liberals (who else are the liberals going to vote for, anyway ?), and move to the middle, where America is. If you do that, the Democrats can remain in control for quite a while. If you don't, you'll be kicked to the curb just like the Republicans were. So far, it looks to me like the Dems want to be kicked to the curb.

My advice to the nation would be to kick both these corruptocratic parties to the curb, but that's probably not realistic. The corruptocrats have rigged the game heavily in their favor. A poor Libertarian or other third partier has a long, steep, uphill battle in front of them. One reason the Big Two parties are so corrupt is that they CAN BE. They're a duopoly.

And as I said in yesterday's post, FREE CHEERIOS FROM TYRANNY !

No justice, no peace.

To all those far left kooks (Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, The Reverend) who cling to the absurd idea that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and conservative free speech in general are somehow responsible for the heinous acts of the murderers James von Brunn and Scott Roeder, I say….

Stop being illiterate and pick up a history book. Almost all the biggest perpetrators of violence in history have come FROM THE LEFT. Here are a few examples.

Joseph Stalin – Communist – murdered 62 million
Mao Tse Tung – Communist – murdered 35 million (estimated)
Pol Pot – Communist – murdered 2 million
Che Guevara and Fidel Castro – Communists – Murdered 12,000, imprisoned 500,000
Adolph Hitler – Socialist (Nazis = National Socialist German Worker's Party) – 21 million killed
Augusto Pinochet – Communist – 3,000 killed
Mengistu Haile Mariam – Socialist Ethiopian dictator from the 1970's – one million starved to death
Slobodan Milosevic – Socialist – 230,000 killed, millions displaced
Maoist rebels in India – killed 10 policemen on June 10, 2009 – have murdered 6,000 in all in their 20-year struggle

Not to mention:

Lee Harvey Oswald – Killed JFK
Sirhan Sirhan – Killed RFK
The Manson Family
Weather Underground
Symbionese Liberation Army
Jim Jones
Kim Jong Il
ELF
James von Brunn (more on him follows)
…and about 100 other violent left-wing groups and/or persons, too numerous to list here.

For all those calling for an end to right-wing free speech over TWO acts of violence, big fat DUH ! You are only outing yourselves as anti-civil rights and anti-american. If right-wing speech should be censored or blamed for acts of violence, well, then left-wing speech must come from the very devil himself !!! About 120 million were killed due to left-wingers in the 20th century alone. You condemning lefties better become self-aware and get off the airwaves and blogs immediately. You're a menace to society, according to all this evidence, and according to your own words condemning the political right. Your condemnations amount to a drop of water in the ocean when compared to all the left-wing violence I've outlined here.

Or, you can all stop the insanity, and allow for the idea that free speech in America is essential, and stop trying to blame an entire wing of politics for the acts of one or two people. That's what sane people would do, even if my friend the Reverend isn't one of them. According to his latest post, which quotes yours truly several times, the Reverend tries to cast me as some type of villain due to the Brunn and Roeder murders, even though I condemn such acts. I haven't advocated anyone's murder for politicial purposes, not that the truth matters much to our dear Reverend. He's hopelessly lost in a partisan daze, I'm sad to say.

Update on James von Brunn, the white supremacist who attacked the Holocaust Museum. To everyone who thinks he was a right winger, you better think again. Brunn was a SOCIALIST, and was anti-Christian. When I wrote previously that Brunn was against Marxism, that was because Karl Marx was a Jew. Brunn favored western socialism and denounced capitalism. Following is an excerpt from Brunn's book, Kill The Best Gentiles:

Yockey, in his suppressed book Imperium, notes that MARXISM is seriously flawed because MARX, being a JEW, could not understand the real differences between CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM, which emanated from the WESTERN CULTURE-ORGANISM. Capitalism and Socialism are how a Nation (Family, People, Race) feels, thinks, and lives, and secondarily are ECONOMIC CONCEPTS. One [capitalism] is past history; the other, WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.

The Age of Reason produced CAPITALISM in the West, the IDEA of rugged individualism: “Every Man for Himself.” Freedom from authority: “Don't tread on me!” At the same time, paradoxically, it was understood, that these rugged individuals should act in the best interest of the Nation-State. To the West ECONOMIC CAPITALISM meant: free trade, no personal income-tax, no state interference in money matters, private ownership, etc. USURY, however, was relegated outside the Pale, and proscribed. Capitalists found no fault with economically defeating, within the law, opposing economic groups. That was considered “healthy competition.” European States, goaded by Bankers, also competed with one another. Often with disastrous results. During WWI it became painfully clear that the IDEA of “rugged individualism” worked against the ARYAN NATION and its individual States.

WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates not from Reason alone but from the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea is the Musketeers' cry: “One for All and All for One!” The ingathering of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM — its own territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the Nation — precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value — not an ILLUMINATI weapon.” (pp. 143-4). “No intelligent person took MARX seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil — and New Testament idea that men and races are equally endowed — opposes Nature and the very Soul of the West.” Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce “capitalist pigs.” While from behind the scenes — in the on-going battle to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION — all wars and revolutions are financed by JEW CAPITALISTS. (pp. 143-5.)

All left-wing accusers can start apologizing as of three, two, one…right now. We will accept your apologies. Of the three recent domestic terrorist attacks, two came from the left, and one from the right. Hardly evidence of right-wingers inciting violence.

Osama Bin Laden, the world's leading terrorist (or "freedom fighter," as Michael Moore would call him), has released a new tape, saying President Obama is sowing "new seeds of hatred and revenge against America." Apparently, Bin Laden's Dish Network package doesn't include MSNBC, or Bin Laden would know that everything changed the day Obama took office. We're closing Gitmo, have banned EIT's, are pulling out of Iraq, are apologizing to the world for our bad behavior in fighting terrorists, etc, etc.

Or maybe Bin Laden doesn't really care about any of that. It seems he doesn't.

On the tape, Bin Laden says President Obama is "walking the same road of his predecessors to build enmity against Muslims and increasing the number of fighters, and establishing more lasting wars."

Say what ? President Obama is INCREASING the number of terrorist fighters ???? Say it ain't so. Our liberal media has been telling us for years that it was Gitmo and Iraq that increased the number of terrorist fighters. Quick, somebody send Bin Laden a subscription to the New York Times, so he can be told what to think. Seriously. Just send the Times to Al Jazeera. I'm sure somebody there can ensure it gets forwarded to Bin Laden.

Another terrorist video, this one from terrorist recruiter Abdullah al-Nafisi, a Kuwaiti dissident and friend of Bin Laden, declares that Al Qaeda is looking to smuggle weapons of mass destruction across the Mexican border to inflict severe damage on America. Here's al-Nafisi:

"Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big [about 2 feet wide]- carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there," the recruiter said. "What a horrifying idea; 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry 4 pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this 'confetti' all over them, and then we'll do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real celebration."

How do you feel about sealing the southern border now, liberals ? I hope you can at least stop saying the only reason for it is that GOP is so darned raaacist. Secured borders are a matter of national security. Period.

On the vigilante front, an anti-abortion extremist, Scott Roeder, was arrested for the murder of late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. Following this heinous act, President Obama immediately condemned it and announced that security would be enhanced at abortion clinics across the country. In response to Tiller's murder, liberals immediately blamed all conservatives and called for the removal of their free speech rights. Ubermoron Keith Olbermann blamed Bill O'Reilly and Fox News for Tiller's death, and said O'Reilly should be "quarantined." Fellow MSNBC'er Rachel Maddow called Tiller's death "terrorism," as did many other liberal groups. The favored phrase among liberals is to say conservative speech "foments violence" by opposing abortion. That's a complete bunch of crap (did liberals foment violence by opposing Bush ?), but that's what they are saying.

Two days after Tiller's murder, a young black man, a Muslim convert who opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who was anti-military and anti-American, attacked an Army recruiting center in Arkansas, killing one recruiter and wounding another. Following this heinous act, there was no immediate condemnation from President Obama. There was no tightening of security announced at Army recruiting centers. And there was no condemnation of all liberals by conservatives. Nor was there a call to end liberal free speech rights by conservatives. I bet Bill O'Reilly didn't blame it on Keith Olbermann either. I can't think of one conservative who said liberal speech "foments violence."

And that, my friends, is the difference between reasoned people and lunatics.

P.S. – Sorry I've been away for a few days, but I've been having some problems with my knee that prevent me from sitting down at the computer (you know you're getting old when it's tough to sit). I don't know if it's my "knee-jerk" reactions that caused the problem, but I should be back to normal pretty soon. As normal as I can be, anyway.

After 34 years as a Republican politician, Sen. Arlen Specter (?-PA), at 79 years of age, has finally figured it out….he's a Democrat.

Here's Specter's statement about making the switch:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

As you can see, Arlen Specter is making his decision based upon his own deeply held personal convictions.

The fact that Specter's Pennsylvania Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, was leading Specter by 21 points in the polls was just a convenient coincidence, I guess. And as for Specter's contention that the Republican party has "moved far to the right," I seem to recall the GOP's last presidential candidate was John McCain, a moderate Republican, hardly a conservative ideologue. I also remember ex-President Bush as not being much of a limited government proponent either. Neither Bush nor McCain was an actual conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who became President the same year Arlen Specter entered the Senate so proudly under "Reagan's Big Tent."

If I didn't know better, I'd think Arlen Specter was nothing more than a conviction-free political opportunist. But whatever Specter's convictions are now, he held far different convictions way, way, way back in March 2009, ONE MONTH AGO. Here's Specter in an interview with The Hill:

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.

Looks like those principles iterated by Specter, such as checks and balances, separation of power, and the importance of the two-party system, all run a distant second to Specter's overarching principle, which is….Arlen Specter comes first.

I just love politicians more and more by the day, don't you ? Their beliefs are malleable, their principles are negotiable, and they lie all the live long day. How could our country ever go wrong with such distinguished leadership ? And some people wonder why I beat my limited government drum over and over. This is why. We're governed by a bunch of narcissistic, power-hungry con-men (and women).

The Democrats, who've been trying to coax Specter over to their side for some time, are "thrilled to have [him]," as President Barockstar Obama said to Specter. Obama also told Specter, “You have my full support," whatever that is supposed to mean. What's Obama going to say, "no, you can't join my party" ??? The Dems don't care who is on their side. They only care that they ARE on their side.

The Dems see Specter as the possible 60th Senate seat, which would give the Dems their coveted filibuster-proof majority, especially if the comedian Al Franken makes an even bigger joke out of the Senate than it already is by becoming the Saturday Night Live Senator from Minnesota.

My personal opinion is that I could care less which party the spine-free Specter represents. In fact, I wish more GOP'ers would defect along with Specter. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins come readily to mind. I could be interested in the Republican party again if they cut loose all the phonies and Democrat-lite impostors, and if the Republicans ever did actually become the conservative party of freedom and limited government they like to say they are. When the inevitable backlash comes against the insane tax and spend policies of the Obamanation, it would be quite nice if the alternative to the Democrats was REALLY A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, and not an alternative full of jellyfish like Arlen Specter. It would be nice if the lines of distinction were clearly drawn when Obama crashes and burns.

My favorite quote regarding Specter's defection came from Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC), who said, "I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” I'll second that. Nothing is gained by abandoning principles, and the only way to ultimate political success is to adhere to your principles and then convince the electorate you're right.

President Obama has been criticized in conservative circles for going around the world and apologizing for America, and also for reaching out to America's enemies. I have criticized Obama myself for the apologizing, which I consider counterproductive. America does, after all, engage in diplomacy in order to advance America's interests, not to immolate itself on the world stage or score political points back home. Obama's latest apology was to Mexico, where Obama repeated the false statistic, previously cited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, that 90% of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from America. The real number of weapons traceable back to the U.S. is 17.6%. The Obama administration should have known better.

Where I think the conservatives are wrong is in criticizing Obama for engaging antagonist foreign powers in the first place. As an opening foreign policy gambit, which is what Obama's world tour is, a first act in a longer foreign policy play, I think it's quite smart of Obama to engage our enemies as well as our friends. Without opening the channels of communication, how is progress even possible ? It isn't. As long as Obama isn't making strategic concessions to our enemies, there is no harm in talking to them, and there is a potential benefit. In that sense, pushing the reset button is a good thing.

So far, there are few tangible foreign policy benefits. Cuba has signaled that it is willing to put discussions of everything on the table, including Cuba's political prisoners and human rights violations. If true, some real good could be accomplished there. In South America, Obama has had to endure a litany recitation of America's alleged sins against our Latin neighbors. The coca-head Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave our President a book as a gift. The book was "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. As you can probably tell by the title, it is a highly critical portrait of American and European foreign policy in South America. Obama sat through a 50-minute long anti-American tirade by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, where Ortega spoke of "terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America." While Hillary Clinton dodged questions about Ortega's inflammatory words, Obama eventually said this:

"To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We've all heard these arguments before."

That's only a mild slap at Ortega, but Obama's words were well-chosen. We can't move forward on foreign policy while looking only at the past. Several other Latin American leaders complained about U.S. foreign policy as well.

Obama has made a couple recent moves on foreign policy that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first was in allowing the Navy to take out the Somali pirates if the American captain's life was under imminent threat. There was no other decision to make there, and Obama made the right one, even though it took a couple days longer than it should have for him to make it. America's policy of non-negotation with thugs remains. Secondly, Obama pulled out of the United Nations international council on racism, because of the U.N. inclusion of a draft document that is itself racist. The UN Human Rights Council has long singled our Israel for human rights violations while ignoring the human rights violations of other countries. Much of the UN Human Rights Council is anti-semitic, and Obama was correct in not legitimizing racism in the name of fighting racism. Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy and Sweden are also not attending.

By traveling around the world, our new President is getting the education in foreign affairs that he needs. We have a long way to go, and the tough decisions remain, but overall, for a new President, Obama is off to a pretty good start on foreign relations. The conservatives would be well-served by not engaging in knee-jerk criticism solely for political gain, because that's what it's starting to sound like. With the exception of easing travel restrictions to Cuba, Obama hasn't abandoned any long-held American foreign policies yet, and a change in American-Cuban relations is probably overdue anyway. When you criticize, it's only helpful if there's actually something of which to be critical. If you're critical of open dialogue only because 'thy name is Obama,' well, then that is the conservatives problem, not Obama's.

Just in time for the Tax Day Tea Parties that are scheduled across the nation, President Obama's new head of the Department Of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), has released an unclassifed report outlining a terrorist threat against the United States Of America. The threat comes from (drumroll, please) – RIGHT WINGERS. Imagine that. The DHS report is titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." The report's stated purpose is:

…to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.

And what are the characteristics of this "violent radicalization" taking place in Right America ? Where are these "terrorist attacks" going to come from ? I'm glad you asked. Here's some of what is driving those wingnuts so crazy:

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

Um, wait a minute. Is it only the Right who is concerned about the economic recession ? No, and the Obama admin is milking it for all it's worth ("never let a crisis go to waste.") Is it only the Right who complains about the outsourcing of jobs ? No. During the last election cycle, job losses was a huge election issue for the Left. How many times did you hear "Bush lost four million jobs" coming from Democrat politicians ? And as for threats to U.S. power and sovereignty from foreign powers, who were all those protesters at the recent G20 Summit ? Were they right-wingers ? Nope, not by a mile. Yet, this DHS report isn't about left-wingers at all, only about right-wingers.

Here's another thing to fear, according to the DHS report:

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Okay, now I get it. What we should be fearing are those crazy people who believe in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and we should also fear OUR OWN RETURNING VETERANS. The American Legion has already responded to Janet Napolitano's politically-biased smears.

The DHS also points out the following for your edification:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Aha ! The right-wing "haters" reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. There's the mark of an extremist, by golly. I can name several extremists who thought just like that. They were wingnuts with names like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. The concept those wackos believed in is called federalism, and the notion is wholly supported by our Constitution, which limits federal authority, and a 10th Amendment that cedes remaining matters to the states. It seems the Constitution itself is now some kind of national security threat (and some of y'all thought I was kidding about the Constitution being shredded the other day. I wasn't. I'm introducing you to some of the shredders right now).

I also have a teeny-weenie problem with our federal government calling people who are anti-abortion or anti-illegal immigration "right-wing extremists." Another teeny-weeny problem I have is when racism is equated with the political right. Racism crosses all political boundaries. To say anything different is merely propaganda.

But wait, there's more from the DHS:

the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

Scary, eh ? Now, if you substituted the word "leftwing" for "rightwing" in that last statement, it would be just as equally true or untrue, yet somehow we're only supposed to be afraid of the righties.

This same type of bullspit goes on for 9 pages in the DHS report, but when it comes to specific cases of crazy right-wing terrorist plots, the DHS is forced to admit….THERE AREN'T ANY. That's right, NONE:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence

So, no violence is being planned by the right, but, you know, you should still be VERY AFRAID of them. Imagine the outcry if the DHS came out with a report like this about ANY other group – "No Jews are planning any violence, but you better watch out for those Jews anyway. You never know when they're going to blow." I also noticed that Obama's DHS freely uses the word "terrorism" when referring to imaginary right-wing plots, but when referring to folks who really are plotting terrorist activities, like Al Qaeda, the word "terrorism" is now politically incorrect. Al Qaeda deals in "man-made disasters." I guess only imaginary violent right-wingers are terrorists now.

In summary, the DHS has issued a report "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of [right-wing] violent radicalization in the United States" even though the report acknowledges there is no evidence of right-wing violent radicalization in the United States. Sooooo, why issue the report in the first place ?

It wouldn't have anything to do with politics, would it ? Some might even call it "the politics of fear."

Sure glad we don't do that kind of stuff anymore.

I'll say one thing about the Obama administration. They promised transparency, and they sure delivered. I can see right through them.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

Rabid lunatic left-wing bloggers have been casting the blame for the killings of three Pennsylvania police officers by Richard Poplawski right where the blame lies – on Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. When I first heard about this, I thought it was some kind of sick joke, for the following reasons….

Did Beck tell Poplawski to go kill cops ? No.
Did Beck tell anyone to go kill cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against anyone ? No.

But lunatics are undaunted by facts. That's what makes them lunatics. Lunatics act in irrational ways. That's why the lunatic Poplawski murdered three police officers in Pennsylvania, and that's why the lunatic left-wing bloggers think it's Glenn Beck's fault. Here is why the loony left thinks Beck is to blame – one of Poplawski's neighbors said Poplawski was afraid President Obama would take away his guns, Glenn Beck interviewed NRA head Wayne LaPierre about the Obama assault weapon ban/Mexican drug cartels, and Poplawski allegedly saw Beck's program about alleged FEMA internment camps. That's pretty much the loony left's entire case against Beck. The loons say Beck is "inciting violence" (normal people would say Beck is engaging in "free speech").

I wouldn't even be reporting this spew from the lunatic bloggers, because I could care less about their hate-filled nonsense, but the lunatic fringe blogger spew has spilled over into the lunatic fringe mainstream media, namely the Countdown With Keith Olbermann program on MSLSD, er, I mean, MSNBC. Last night, Olbermann named Beck one of his 'worst persons in the world,' and declared that Beck was inciting violence and shared the blame for Poplawski's actions (FYI – Olbermann is obsessed with Fox News, who clobbers Olbermann and MSLSD in the cable news ratings. One or another Fox News host is almost ALWAYS one of Olby's 'worst persons.' It's incredibly transparent and self-serving on Olby's part).

For the sake of argument, let's suspend disbelief and pretend the lunatic left spew has enough credibility to be addressed. I'll address it here:

On Obama banning guns - Obama DOES want to ban assault weapons, just as Beck said on his program. There are also several pieces of gun restriction legislation in Congress at this moment, as I reported myself in a blog article I called 'Democrats And The Second Amendment.' (I guess that makes ME responsible for the cop killings too). Obama's own attorney general, Eric Holder, has said he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment allows private citizens to bear arms. If the lunatic left wants to know where people get the idea that Obama and the Democrats want to take away their guns, I suggest the lunatic left take a look at OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

On Beck interviewing NRA head Wayne LaPierre - It's called the First Amendment, loony left. Get used to it. This is the USA, not Soviet Russia. And there was NO incitement to violence by Beck. That exists only in the fevered imaginations of the loons.

On Beck talking about FEMA internment camps - Beck is DEBUNKING the story about the FEMA camps, you lefty blogger morons. Beck is investigating the claims and finding them to be FALSE. Beck says the government is NOT intending to put Americans in internment camps.
—-
Beyond the absurd notion that Beck is somehow responsible for the actions of a crazed cop killer, let's take a look at the galactic hypocrisy in which the lunatic left is engaging. These people have the gall to say right-wingers are inciting violence after the lunatic left has engaged in the following (to name only a few examples out of a multitude):

- Called Bush an international criminal, racist, fascist, terrorist, murdering thug for the last 8 years. If somebody assassinated Bush after listening to the loony left, would the loony left be responsible ???

- Openly advocated violence against AIG employees and their families. This wasn't only the loony bloggers. Even House Financial Services head Barney Frank (D-MA) threatened to publish the names and addresses of AIG employees unless they returned their bonuses, so the mob could find them. President Obama himself said Americans should be outraged at AIG. Obama also told the bankers, "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." An ACORN group led bus tours to the homes of AIG employees, so the mob would know where they lived. If somebody killed bankers or AIG employees, would the loony left, the Democrats, and the President be responsible ?

- Left wing Air America radio ran audios of the simulated shooting of president Bush on more than one occasion. Luckily, since only three people listened to Air America, nobody heard the implied threats against the president. When Glenn Beck does something like THAT, then I'll listen to your complaints, haters.

- Obama's left wing buddy Bill Ayers bombed buildings as a member of the Weathermen.

- Left wing groups like Code Pink routinesly disrupt proceedings, such as the Republican National Convention, sessions of Congress, etc. Left wingers routinely shout down and attack conservative speakers at college campuses and at their homes. Left wing groups like PETA throw blood all over people wearing fur. Left wing environmental groups routinely spike trees, resulting in the maiming and death of lumberjacks. Left wing groups like Al Sharpton's National Action Network have incited riots against store owners, resulting in murder. And if we REALLY want to talk about fomenting violence, the leftist philosophy of Karl Marx was responsible for about 120 million people being killed in the 20th century.

I could give you scores more examples. If the stupid moonbats want to go on a witchhunt looking for people who incite hatred and foment violence, I suggest they go look in the damned mirror.

The following chart illustrates what percentage of CO2 greenhouse gases are attributable to man:

The rest of the greenhouse gases consist mostly of water vapor (95%). Read the Global Warming Primer for more information. Also keep in mind that the proposed cap-and-trade system of taxation being proposed by Obama, which would cost trillions of dollars, aims to decrease that tiny dot of man-made CO2 in the above chart by only 15%. Color me skeptical as to the positive effects of cap-and-trade.
—-
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has introduced the Save The Liberal Media Act, er, I mean, the Newspaper Revitalization Act, which he says could help save the ailing newspaper industry. Cardin's press release stated, "The Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, if they choose, under 501(c)(3) status for educational purposes, similar to public broadcasting. Under this arrangement, newspapers would not be allowed to make political endorsements, but they would be allowed to freely report on all issues, including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

As most of you already know, the vast majority of newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lean left. The Dems don't want to lose their propaganda advantage.
—-
From the Here's Why The GOP Is Braindead files: Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) may soon have both houses of Congress taking up an issue of vital national security – the NCAA football championship system (BCS). The legislation would prohibit the NCAA from naming a national champion unless it follows whatever playoff system Congress dictates. Unbelievable. I don't know where Congress gets the idea it has the authority to regulate this, and I have even less idea why Congress thinks this deserves their attention. Maybe Hatch is mad that undefeated Utah didn't make the championship game last year. Whatever. This is just one more small sign that Capitol Hill is WAY out of control.
—-
The Big Lie: "…in this budget, we have to make the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term, even under the most pessimistic estimates. At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest." –President Barack Obama, who is moving America into the most massive crushing debt in history, faster than any presidential administration in history.

And, of course, when Obama says "invest," he means tax, borrow, and spend.
—-
Joke of the day: On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's sermon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint. The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."
The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon."
As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle. And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present. Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation — "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington, and in California. She simply is not to be trusted."
The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."

Last sunday on Face The Nation, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said [Rush Limbaugh is] “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Emanuel also said Limbaugh has been "praying for failure' of the Obama administration. He went on to say "…it’s our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh.”

Notably, nobody had asked Rahm Emanuel a question about Rush Limbaugh. Emanuel just volunteered the above information. Previously, President Obama said people shouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh, as if the entire GOP is but a parrot of Rush's daily radio talking points. ABC News' George Stephanopolous and talking head James Carville, both refugees from the Clinton administration, have called Rush Limbaugh the head of the Republican party. You may remember that Stephanopolous was criticized recently for getting HIS talking points directly from the White House. It seems abundantly clear that the strategy to demonize Rush Limbaugh, and by extension to demonize the entire conservative Republican ideology (by casting Limbaugh as it's leader), is coming directly from that same White House.

When Rahm Emanuel says Republicans shouldn't "adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh," what does that mean ? What is Limbaugh's philosophy ? We can find out by perusing Limbaugh's recent speech at the CPAC conference. Limbaugh literally tells us what his definition of conservatism is:

"I want to tell you who conservatives are…When we look out over the United States of America… we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit…We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government…We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault.
We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty…There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance…We want everybody to succeed. You know why? We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people — its individuals — must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us… take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any [who's problems have been solved]. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us.
…I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed…the people who have achieved great things, most of it is not inherited. Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial, just plain old hard work. There's no reason to punish it. There's no reason to raise taxes on these people. Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that's to respect the oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs, from the back pockets of producers, and give it to groups like ACORN, which are going to advance the Democrat Party.
"President Obama…he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable.
President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration? Now, this is not prosperity."

Thus, when Rahm Emanuel says the GOP shouldn't "adopt the philosophy of Rush Limbaugh," he is saying the GOP should stop being the GOP, because individual liberty, equality of opportunity, limited government, low taxes, etc. are supposed to be core Republican principles (I say "supposed to be," because Republicans often haven't followed their own stated conservative principles). Such a philosophy isn't something Rush Limbaugh dreamt up. That philosophy predates Rush by over two hundred years. It's the philosophy espoused by our founding fathers and enshrined in our founding documents. It's the philosophy of freedom that made America great. Obama, Emanuel, and company would have you forget all that, by placing the focus on the "divisive" Rush Limbaugh instead. They are saying, in effect, 'forget about America's founding principles, because Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard." I'd respond, "Rush Limbaugh is not the issue, the abandonment of America's core principles is the issue." The Democrats are using the Limbaugh distraction to mislead Americans into blind submission to the will of the Obamans. That's utter nonsense. You SHOULD listen to Limbaugh or someone similar, just as you SHOULD listen to Obama, and SHOULD listen to everyone else, from the far left to the far right. That's the only way to arrive at an informed decision. When political operatives like Emanuel tell you to STOP listening to the opposition, to stop questioning Obama for the sake of "unity," and when they start characterizing any disagreement as divisive and destructive, well, those are the very people you should be worried about. There should never be a time in America when Big Brother is not questioned, and Obama is certainly no exception, especially with so much at stake. Rush Limbaugh doesn't represent power in this debate. Obama does. And we should pay very close attention. Pre-Obama, liberals said it was imperative to speak truth to power, but now, it's questioning power that troubles them. Yesterday's activist becomes tommorrow's oppressor. No, thanks. All oppressors are the same to me. You can have them.

During tuesday's speech to Congress, President Barack Obama spoke of the need for fiscal responsibility, eliminating wasteful government spending, and cutting the deficit in half, among other things. Republicans and Democrats alike cheered. Sitting directly behind Obama was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who appeared positively ecstatic with our new President (was I the only one creeped out by Pelosi's cult-like rapture ?) In particular, the Republican side of the aisle cheered (derisively ?) when Obama made a pledge to reduce spending. We'll get back to that in a minute.

But tuesday was tuesday. Let's call it Fiscal Responsibility Tuesday (ladies drink free), because what a difference a day makes. On wednesday, when the whole country wasn't watching the dog and pony show on teevee, Pelosi's House of Representatives passed a huge $410 billion Omnibus spending bill, with 8,570 porky earmarks attached. The price tag for the spending bill was $32 billion more than last year. Clearly, there's no recession on Capitol Hill, and there darned sure isn't any fiscal responsibility. The vote on the bill was largely along party lines. It passed 245-178, with 159 Republicans and 20 Democrats opposed.

I would have thought all the pet pork projects were used up in Obama's stimulus bill, but apparently, there is no end to the ways Congress can dream up to spend our hard-earned tax dollars. Here's just a taste of the pork – $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program, a dozen earmarks for a lobbying group currently under federal investigation for corruption (PMA Group, linked to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and others), $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory, $346,000 for research on apple fire blight, $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, $1.8 million to conduct research on swine odor and manure management (pork spent on actual pork !), $173,000 for research on asparagus production, $206,000 for wool research, $209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production, $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass, $1.2 million to control cormorants, $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah, $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii, $17.5 million for Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidential library, $22 million for John F. Kennedy's presidential library, $2 million for Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential library (what, no money for Republican presidents ?), and on and on and on.

While I'm glad the Republicans voted against the bill, it must be noted that 40% of the earmarks WERE INSERTED BY REPUBLICANS. What in the heck is wrong with the GOP ? They are supposedly trying to rehab their image from the Bush days, and then they do this. If they want to be taken seriously, they have to walk the walk, but it looks like they only talk the talk. What a bunch of hypocritical morons.

If that's not enough "fiscal responsibility" for you, the Congressional Budget Office released a report analyzing Obama's stimulus monstrosity, and determined the permanent increase in the size of government resulting from the bill could cost $3.27 trillion.

Then there's the $634 billion health care reserve fund in Obama's budget, to help pay for his health care reforms.

The hits just keep on coming.

There is no fiscal responsibility in Washington D.C. There is no leadership coming from Obama on this subject. There is no leadership coming from Congress. It's just spend, spend, spend, the taxpayer be damned. The soaring rhetorical fluorishes from our President are little more than misdirection, meant to fool the rubes. Our government is growing to a place it's never been before, and if any of you really think "the rich" are going to pay for it all, while the rest of us suffer no consequences, you're living in a dream world. We will ALL pay in the end, one way or another. That lunch still isn't free, and it never will be.

I've grown weary of President Obama referring to the GOP's "failed theories." It's time for a history lesson from the one actual Conservative to inhabit the White House in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. (FYI: 'Republican' does not equal "Conservative." Not in my book. For example, I considered Dubya to be an economic liberal. Party designation is just a meaningless label.)
—
Liberal Democrats mostly detest former Republican president Ronald Reagan. The only viable reason I've been able to deduce for their hatred is this:

Reagan's policies worked.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the country was mired in a deep economic slump, just like now. What came before Reagan was many years of bad policy, just like now. Nixon instituted price and wage controls, tax and tariff hikes, and devalued the currency. Stagflation (stagnant economic growth and high unemployment, coupled with high rates of inflation) actually began to rear it's ugly head with Nixon. It continued through Gerald Ford's presidency, and reached epidemic levels under Jimmy Carter. Carter's bad policy contributions were – raising taxes, increasing government spending, enacting his own voluntary wage and price controls, putting restrictions on domestic oil production even as OPEC was cutting back production (prompting the 70's energy crisis), the Federal Reserve jacking up interest rates in an already stagnating economy…I can't even remember them all anymore. It seemed that if there was a misstep to be made, Jimmy Carter made it. The one atypical move Carter made was to begin the deregulation of industry, which Reagan continued.

Reagan mostly abandoned the previous principles, which were based upon the faulty notion that the government can effectively micromanage something as large as the American economy (from what I've seen so far, I predict the term 'Obamanomics' will one day become synonomous with epic big government failure, because he's bent on taking the government to a magnitude never seen before). Instead, Reagan freed the economy and allowed the market to run with less government interference.

Reagan's economic recovery program (Reaganomics) had four main components: Reduce taxes on labor and capital, reduce government spending, control the money supply to reduce inflation, and reduce government regulation of the economy.

Reagan was successful on three of those four components. He didn't reduce government spending as he would have liked. He had an opposition Democratic Congress to contend with who didn't like spending cuts, and Reagan himself raised defense spending (which, btw, resulted in the USA winning the Cold War). Reagan raised spending in a few other areas as well, such as with his jobs program to help with high unemployment. Reagan also considered balanced budgets of secondary importance to getting the economy going again. Reagan looked at it as temporary deficits to get over the bad times, which has become a sadly familiar refrain that never seems to end.

The results of Reagan's policies stand in such stark contrast to the previous policies and turned the economy around so well that it takes mountains of liberal spin to attempt to deny it (and lord knows, they DO spin and spin about Reagan. Soooo many lies). They'll try to tell you that Reagan's policies had nothing to do with the economic turnaround, that it was all a mere coincidence, some kind of magical economic alignment of the planets. Don't believe it for one second. Here are the numbers:

Unemployment – January 1981 (when Reagan took office) – 7.5%
Unemployment – January 1989 (when Reagan left office) – 5.4%
Inflation – January 1981 – 11.83%
Inflation – January 1989 – 4.67%
Real GDP (adj. for inflation in 2000 dollars) – Jan 1981 – $5.3 trillion
Real GDP (adj. for inflation in 2000 dollars) – Jan 1989 – $6.9 trillion

Reagan's economic principles resulted in the creation of over 20 million jobs after the recession he inherited bottomed out in 1982 (with unemployment reaching 9.5%), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime economic expansion in American history from 1983 to 1989. Gee, who'd want to emulate his "failed theories" ??? Uh, I would.

The economic situation Reagan inherited was bad, like the current one. There were some differences. Reagan inherited a severe inflationary cycle, and in our current downturn, the economy is too frozen for inflation to occur. I expect if we follow the big government spending path that Obama is recommending, we will begin to experience hyperinflation within a few years, wiping out the benefits of any recovery that takes place. Obama is directing a course precisely opposite of what Reagan did. It has much more in common with what Jimmy Carter did, though Obama is going well beyond Carter into utterly insane big government spending solutions.

Please look at history to see what works and what doesn't. Democrats love to tout FDR's New Deal as a solution to the Great Depression, but HELLO, the Great Depression lasted a DECADE, only ending with the onset of WWII. Reagan turned the economy around in two years with his solutions. Secondly, FDR wasn't starting with a country already $10 trillion in debt, and with massive unfunded liabilities to boot. Obama may talk about hope, but if early indications are a guide, he'll be sounding the death knell for the American standard of living and the capitalist system.

The Left is using this severe recession to fool you all into buying into socialist nonsense. Nothing more, nothing less. And that will be the real disaster, almost impossible to turn away from once it's implemented (until it collapses, that is, which it will). Socialism has failed virtually everywhere it's been tried, but somehow, liberals never learn the lesson. They still think the government can give us all "free stuff" with no consequences, as if resources are unlimited. It's irresponsible and inane. What goes into the public sector comes out of the private sector, and in a capitalist system it's the strength of the private sector that determines our collective wealth. That's how we became the most powerful country on earth. Socialism is a freedom crushing inferior design which saps initiative as the citizenry becomes subservient to the all-powerful state. Everybody becomes less well off. Don't let it happen here. Stop them before it's too late.

Reagan turned our economy around with the principles of freedom, and he didn't have to spend the country into oblivion to do it. Far from being "failed theories" or "discredited ideas" or whatever spin the Obama administration is pushing as it's daily scare tactic, Reagan's ideas worked. The real problem is, we haven't been following them for years. The government has insinuated it's way into too many areas of our economy, from health care to housing. Don't forget, it was the government that built the housing bubble in the first place, by interfering with a previously stable financial system. It was the government that setup Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bundle and peddle those subprime mortgages that Wall Steet went wild with. It was the government that created the subprime market in the first place, by forcing the banks to make loans to unqualified persons. It was the government that didn't practice sound monetary policy, which let the housing bubble grow and grow. It was POLITICS that created our economic crisis. Then after it all blows up in their faces, what do the politicians say ? They absolve themselves of all responsibility and say, 'it was a failure of the free market.' And they count on Americans being dumb enough to believe them.

Reputed conservative president George W. Bush walks off into the sunset with a 34% approval rating. That's the same approval rating Jimmy Carter, the Plague From Plains, left with 28 years ago. Carter brought us a new word – 'stagflation.' They haven't invented a word yet for what Bush has brought. If they do invent a new word for him, I doubt it will be kind.

The reality of Bush is that he was a fiscal liberal and a foreign policy neocon. Now we know what Bush meant by 'compassionate conservatism.' It meant 'spend a lot of dough and cut taxes at the same time.' On the fiscal side, he brought us the first new Medicare program since the 1960's, Part D, the prescription drug benefit. He was a BIG spender from beginning to end. He increased spending in virtually every area of government, so I won't even try to list them all. That's not at all conservative in my book. His final act was to urge Congress to allocate the additional $350 billion in TARP funds to his successor. That's not at all conservative either. He ran up huge deficits in every one of his 8 years, adding the most to our national debt of any president. Not at all conservative. Under his watch, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates even as the housing bubble grew and grew. Not at all conservative. The conservative move would have been countercyclical, to raise interest rates during the boom period to slow down the bubble and promote solid conservative growth, as opposed to the boom-bust cycles that marked Bush's presidency. In fact, the primary solution to the current economic downturn is also countercyclical, to lower interest rates to stimulate housing, lending, and credit again. At least the Fed is doing it right now, though they should do more, cut them even lower. Spending trillions and trillions of dollars is not necessary, is frightfully stupid, and is incredibly dangerous in the long term. The hole we have to climb out only gets deeper, yet we're still digging. Fiscal sanity has been abandoned, and much of the blame lies with Bush, along with 8 years of a Congress that went along with it, six years under Republican control (what were they thinking ?), and two years under Democrat control (the two biggest deficit years in history). Unfortunately, the incoming administration promises more of the very same thing. It appears Obama is going to use the economic downturn to implement all his campaign promises under the guise of 'stimulus', when much of it isn't stimulus at all. The horse is out of the barn.

On the foreign policy front, I see Bush as partly right and partly wrong. The Afghanistan War was right. The Iraq War was wrong (but once we were in it, it became imperative that we succeed. I have nothing but contempt for those who voted for the war when it was popular, but then reversed course and tried to undermine it for their own political gain the second it became unpopular. The names John Kerry and Hillary Clinton come to mind). Wiretapping international calls from terrorists and tracking their finances after 9/11 was right. Torture was wrong, if it happened (though I can't bring myself to shed a tear over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, being waterboarded for 2 minutes. I just can't. We even waterboarded Navy Seals as part of their training, but we're supposed to gnash our teeth and wail over a guy who killed 3,000 innocent americans, who bragged a couple days ago about being involved in 30 worldwide terrorist attacks, who had knowledge of future attack plans ? No. Sorry. Can't do it.) I had no problem with Bush putting prisoners of war at Gitmo, with 'war' being the key word that the anti-Bush forces seemed to conveniently forget. Several terrorist plots were thwarted after 9/11 on Bush's watch, so he gets credit for that. He reformed our national security apparatus to better deal with the threat of terrorism. He gets credit for that too. Bush stuck with the failing Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq for far too long. That's a big minus. Thank you, General David Petraeus, for finally making him see the light there. And thank you, George Soros, for proving what a colossal ass you are with that General Betray-Us ad.

Btw, conspiracy theorists, blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks is stupid.

The Hurricane Katrina response involved the failure of government at all levels – local, state, and federal. Part of that was no doubt due to the fact that we never had to deal with anything like that before, not to mention those second rate levees, but Bush struck several wrong notes, appearing almost indifferent at first. That looked real bad, as did the petty squabbling over jurisdiction between Bush and Louisiana Governor Blanco with so many american lives hanging in the balance.

I hear many conservatives saying Bush will be judged more favorably from a distance, from the long perspective of history. That may or may not be true, but it is little more than wishful thinking on their part at this point. Much of it probably depends on how the future of Iraq plays out, and nobody has a crystal ball to make that determination now, especially in an area of the world as volatile as the Middle East.

I have no doubt that George W. Bush did what he thought was right. I don't attribute all kinds of evil machiavellian motives to his actions, as the lunatic fringe do. His presidency was defined by 9/11, and his actions, both right and wrong, were taken in that context. Bush definitely isn't the smartest president we've ever had (understatement), but even when he made the wrong move, such as with Iraq, which ultimately destroyed his popularity and the popularity of his own Republican party, he wasn't looking at polls to determine how he should act. He was looking at his own idea of right vs. wrong, or as Bush recently put it, good vs. evil. You might disagree with him, as I often did, but you weren't the one who had to make those hard decisions. He did.