In trying to decide who should be our next President, we first have to ask if our current President deserves a second term. This should be based upon his performance in office, not on the political party to which he belongs.

Does Obama deserve a second term ?

Let's look at his record.

I have to start in February 2008, when then candidate Obama brought his campaign roadshow to Ohio. I went to see him speak at Youngstown State University. The three biggest cheers Obama received from Ohioans that day were when he 1) promised to rework NAFTA, 2) promised to close Guantanamo Bay within 12 months, and 3) promised to end the Iraq War in 2009.

Needless to say, none of those things happened. Obama never had any intention of reworking NAFTA. He forgot that promise the minute he left Ohio. As President, Obama has pushed for more free trade agreements, and recently signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia. These were the largest free trade deals signed by the United States since NAFTA.

Guantanamo Bay is still open.

The Iraq War ended, but it ended under the timeline established by Obama's predecessor, President Bush. It definitely didn't end in 2009, as Obama promised Ohioans.

Obama lied to my face and to every Ohioan that day in 2008. An inauspicious start. I knew he was lying then, that he was the kind of guy who would tell people whatever they wanted to hear in order to become President. I don't trust those kinds of politicians, which is why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary. Obama was not only as inexperienced a politico as any who ever ran for President, with zero prior management experience, but he was dishonest as well. I did what I could to defeat him, but alas, it didn't work, and now we're in the toilet.

Obama did keep some of his 2008 promises to Ohioans, like ObamaCare. He also promised to increase federal spending by $874 billion per year that day at Youngstown State, though he didn't put it into those words, because the electorate would have had a negative reaction to that type of honesty. Instead of putting price tags on his spending binge, Obama made all sorts of promises about "investing" in this, that, and almost everything, while never mentioning the costs. This President has never met any spending he doesn't like. Obama has "accomplished" every bit of his spending increase promise, which leads me to the primary reason we shouldn't give Obama a second term in office…he is the most fiscally irresponsible President in American history, bar none.

We have had annual deficits over $1 trillion ever year Obama has been in office. He has run up $4.6 trillion in debt in only 3 years in office. This far outpaces the previous "most fiscally irresponsible" President, George W. Bush, who ran up $4.8 trillion in debt over 8 years in office. Anybody who would vote for a second Obama term after such a record should have his/her head examined. The only people who should be supporting Obama's fiscal recklessness are citizens of China, who stand to gain from our destruction.

And what has all Obama's fiscal insanity accomplished ??? Unemployment is STILL at 8.5%, and it has been over 9% for the majority of Obama's presidency. If you recall, it was 7.6% when Obama took office. We have a huge net job loss during Obama's reign, though to hear him tell it, he is creating all kinds of jobs. That's one reason of many I call him the Great Prevaricator. Unemployment was mostly in the 5% range when Bush was President. Great job, Barry. Not only are you spending us into oblivion and wrecking the future of our country, but we aren't even gaining any temporary benefit from it now. You have managed to be the worst of both worlds. Most amazingly of all, the new ObamaCare spending hasn't even kicked in yet. That starts in full force in 2014. Federal spending is already the highest in the history of the country (barring WWII), and Obama's BIG spending program hasn't even started yet. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends WITHOUT ObamaCare spending in place. Imagine what it will be AFTER ObamaCare.

While I'm on the subject of ObamaCare, let's not forget that the Obama admimistration lied about it's costs and effects on the debt. The Great Prevaricator claims ObamaCare will decrease the debt, but he made that calculation by having the CBO measure ten years of revenue against only six years of benefits. That is profoundly dishonest, and sadly typical of the way our government misleads us.

Then the Great Prevaricator has the audacity to pretend increasing taxes on the rich by 5% is going to pay for all his crazy spending increases. That may be his most egregious lie of all. There is NO WAY his numbers come anywhere close to adding up, but I rarely hear a peep about this from the mainstream media. Perhaps there would be a few more media types peeping if 90% of them weren't Democrats. We'd be hearing the truth about the high speed rail to fiscal destruction we are on if the President was a Republican. Of that I have no doubt, but when a Democrat sits in the catbird seat, all we hear about is taxing the rich. I hate to break it to you America, but everyone's taxes will have to go through the roof in one way or another to pay for all this spending and government growth. Those are the facts, even though your illustrious media doesn't want to clue you in to the facts. The prevarication goes far beyond just the White House.

Somebody will also have to explain to me exactly how we are supposed to create jobs in this country going forward when our government spending and taxation levels, our unpaid-for entitlement explosion, and our building Mount Everest of debt are going to drain our pocketbooks and decrease consumer demand for generations to come. How does that work, exactly ??? The unvarnished facts there are, it DOESN'T work. At all. It would be real nice if we had a President who would level with us about these things, rather than the performing circus clown we have in office now.

Just say NO-bama. Change starts at the top. Obama has had his chance, and he failed miserably. It's time to try someone else.

Alternately, you could oppose Mitt Romney and support Obama's reign of destruction because Romney's a Mormon, Romney worked for Bain Capital, or because Romney changed his position on abortion and health care…..but that would make you somewhat of a self-destructive fool, wouldn't it ? We already KNOW Obama is a failure. Romney hasn't had his chance yet. If Romney turned out to be as bad as Obama, we'd be breaking even. But there's a very good chance Romney's policies would be better for the country. I don't know about the rest of you, but when my car falls apart and won't run, I don't try to keep driving it. I get a new one. 2012 is definitely the time for a new car. The Obama-mobile is a lemon.

Newt Watch: With Gingrich leading in the Republican primary polls, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) threatened to release a thousand pages of material from Gingrich's 90's ethics investigation. Unfortunately for Mrs. Pelosi, Gingrich quickly pointed out that it would be a violation of House ethics rules were Pelosi to release that information. Oops. How ironic. Caught with her pants down, Pelosi is now backtracking, and trying to say she didn't say what she said.

I mentioned before on this blog that Gingrich pled to one House ethics violation in the 90's, though Gingrich contended he didn't do anything wrong. There was a question about funding for a class Gingrich taught being a violation of that organization's tax-exempt status. The House ethics investigation was widely reported. What I didn't report before, and what was not widely reported, was that the IRS subsequently cleared the organization, and thus Gingrich, of all wrongdoing. From the Washington Post:

The Internal Revenue Service has cleared an organization of charges that it violated its tax-exempt status when it helped fund a college course taught by former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the organization said yesterday.

The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were "consistent with its stated exempt purposes," and Gingrich's course and course book "were educational in content."

In its ruling, the IRS said the content of Gingrich's course "was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office."

It said the foundation "did not intervene on behalf of candidates of the Republican Party merely by promoting" themes in the course.

Funny how Pelosi didn't mention that. Must have slipped her mind.

Presidential Polling: With Ohio being a key election swing state, a new Quinnipiac poll is pretty interesting. Quinnipiac has Gingrich leading Romney in the Ohio GOP primary, but both Gingrich and Romney lead Obama in Ohio, though the numbers are very close. The swing state poll also included Florida and Pennsylvania:

Florida: Romney with 45 percent to Obama's 42 percent; Obama at 46 percent to Gingrich's 44 percent.
Ohio: Romney at 43 percent to Obama's 42 percent; Gingrich with 43 percent to Obama's 42 percent.
Pennsylvania: Obama edging Romney 46 – 43 percent; Obama tops Gingrich 48 – 40 percent

As of today, the presidency is in play.

The Class Warfare Speech: President Obama gave his class warfare speech a couple days ago in Kansas. The speech included Obama's recurrent theme that everything is the Republicans fault. Same old, same old. Basically, Obama said America was losing it's middle class, and that Republicans think "we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules". I always thought fending for yourself was a basic requirement in life, but I guess not, according to Obama. The President gave us a brief history lesson on the decline of the American middle class, which he attributed to "inequality"…and the Republicans, of course:

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them – that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

More fundamentally, this kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise at the very heart of America: that this is the place where you can make it if you try. We tell people that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, hard work can get you into the middle class; and that your children will have the chance to do even better than you. That’s why immigrants from around the world flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. A few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance fell to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a 1 in 3 chance of making it to the middle class.

So, from the 50's until today, the middle class has been steadily slipping away, along with opportunity in America, according to Obama. He contends this has happened because we haven't had ENOUGH government, that the Republicans' "on your own" economic philosophy is the culprit. Does this strike anyone else as being extremely disingenuous, and exactly the opposite of what has really happened over the last 50 years ? Over the last half-century, there has been an unprecedented explosion in government spending, anti-poverty programs, and entitlements. The number of government subsidy programs has been soaring. There hasn't been any "on your own" philosophy in play at all. It's been just the opposite. Bigger and bigger government has been the trend. The size of the federal government has doubled every ten years. That sure doesn't sound like "on your own" to me. If Obama wants to equate a disappearing middle class with the activities of the government, that sure isn't an indictment of small government. It's an indictment of big government, the kind Obama promotes.

What policies would Obama pursue to rid ourselves of this inequality and foundering middle class ? More government, of course. He'd return tax rates to Clintonian levels for the wealthy (which would barely make a dent in the deficit much less end income inequality). He'd have the government invest (spend) more on education, infrastructure, and new technology (I guess this is supposed to stand in opposition to all those crazy right-wingers who are against education, infrastructure, and new technology, though I don't know any of those people, because they don't exist outside Obama's imagination). And he'd create more regulations and more entitlements. That's his entire plan. More of the very same things we've been doing for the last 50 years, the very same things that are bankrupting us. Brilliant.

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.

In his 2011 book, "To Save America", GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich wrote the following (from Bloomberg):

[The two companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae] “are so thoroughly politicized and preside over such irresponsible lending policies that they need to be replaced with smaller, private companies operating without government guarantees, whose leaders focus on making a profit, not manipulating politicians".

I certainly agree with that. As I've detailed on this blog, government manipulation of the mortgage market is what led to our current financial crisis. The government created the housing casino market over a period of many years.

But Newt has some 'splainin' to do to Republican primary voters, and most especially to Tea Partiers who want to dismantle the ties between government power and private enterprise that transform free markets into government-manipulated markets, resulting in markets driven by politics rather than sound business decisions. Newt has to explain why his consulting firm, The Gingrich Group, was paid between $1.6-$1.8 million over a period of eight years for consulting services Gingrich rendered to none other than Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) Freddie Mac. Freddie and big sister GSE Fannie Mae got into big trouble in the housing market, and the taxpayers have bailed them out to the tune of $150 billion and counting. Fannie and Freddie are both asking for more bailout money, even as Congress is slamming F&F for paying millions of dollars in bonuses to F&F executives, as F&F lives on the taxpayer dole. F&F are poster children for crony capitalism.

Gingrich had this to say about some of his consulting fees from Freddie:

When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.”

If that's true, good for Newt…but unnamed Freddie Mac officials are disputing that account:

None of the former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Gingrich raised the issue of the housing bubble or was critical of Freddie Mac’s business model.

We should withhold judgement until we find out who these anonymous Freddie Mac officials are. After all, Gingrich is running for President, and the anonymous officials could be Democrats looking to derail Gingrich's presidential train. We've already seen what happens to GOP presidential contenders when they make a significant showing in the polls. When Perry was riding high, there was the ridiculous charge about the racist word on a rock at his family's hunting lodge in the 1980's. When Cain reached the top, all of a sudden 14-year old charges of sexual harrassment arose. And how many more times does the media have to discuss the fact that Romney is a Mormon ? That has become particularly nauseating.

There is one former Freddie official who has spoken about Gingrich's work with Freddie on the record:

Gingrich’s first contract with the mortgage company was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker, according to a Freddie Mac press release.

His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement.

During that period, Gingrich consulted with Freddie Mac executives on a program to expand home ownership, an idea Delk said he pitched to President George W. Bush’s White House.

“I spent about three hours with him talking about the substance of the issues and the politics of the issues, and he really got it,” said Delk, adding that the two discussed “what the benefits are to communities, what the benefits could be for Republicans and particularly their relationship with Hispanics.”

That sounds like a pretty far cry from Gingrich calling Freddie policies "insane", and it's no secret that Bush was on board with the goal of increasing home ownership as part of his Ownership Society initiative.

The Bloomberg account makes it clear that Gingrich was never a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, but in the early years of his association with the GSE, it sounds like Gingrich wasn't raising any red flags. It sounds like he was working in concert with Freddie Mac's goals.

As for the later years of Gingrich's Freddie association:

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

Gingrich's mission was to "build bridges" with disapproving conservatives of the wisdom of Freddie's policies ??? Hmmm. It seems to me that Gingrich SHOULD HAVE BEEN one of those disapproving conservatives.

In summary – AFTER the housing meltdown, Newt Gingrich became a big critic of Fannie and Freddie's loose lending practices. Lots of politicians with their fingers in the wind fall into that category, and we shouldn't trust them for obvious reasons. Newt's problem is, he might be one of them.

Not-So-Super Committee: The congressional Super Committee is tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion from future deficits over the next decade. They can accomplish this by cutting spending or raising taxes. They have 9 days left to complete their mission before automatic cuts to defense and entitlements go into effect. Thus far, the Super Committee has been unable to reach an agreement.

If anything illustrates the ineffectiveness of Congress (and a failure of leadership by the President), this it it. Think about it. Over the last ten years, the federal government has spent about $28 trillion. Over the next ten years, federal spending is projected to be $45-50 trillion. All the Super Committee has to do is cut $1.2 trillion out of the next $45-50 trillion in spending, a miniscule percentage. The Super Committee's job isn't even about cutting spending. They are only talking about cutting the rate of future spending INCREASE. I could cut that much out of the budget in a day, if it took me that long. In fact, I'll do it right now, in about ten seconds. We could cut $1.2 trillion out of the military budget over ten years. That would come to $120 billion per year, out of a defense budget that is already larger than the defense budgets of all the other countries in the world COMBINED, a defense budget that costs almost $1 trillion per year when all associated costs are tallied. There. We're done. That wasn't so hard, was it ?

If the Super Committee can't even agree on these small cuts ($120 billion per year out of future $4-5 trillion budgets), what hope is there that Congress can close our annual trillion dollar deficits ? There is no hope, not with our current Congress, and not with our current President. Ron Paul sounds better all the time.

CBS Sucks: Speaking of Ron Paul, CBS held a 90-minute GOP presidential debate on foreign policy. CBS aired 60 minutes of that debate, and candidate Paul got a grand total of 89 seconds to speak on air. Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy (see – defense spending cuts). Apparently, CBS didn't want to hear it. Paul wasn't the only GOP contender complaining, and CBS's excuse was that they gave the most air time to the candidates highest in the polls. It is not the job of CBS to decide which candidates are legitimate and which are not. That's the job of the voters, and the voters can't make a sound choice if certain candidates are cut out of the debate process. It's the job of CBS to give each candidate an equal chance, and CBS failed miserably.

Cain-wreck: I thought Rick Perry forgetting which government deparments he wanted to eliminate was about as bad as it gets for political flubs. I was wrong. Watch Herman Cain trying to answer a question about whether he agreed with Obama's policy in Libya:

Ouch. That was actually painful to watch. 'Let's see…Libya…that's a country, isn't it ? Golly, there are so many countries that it's hard to keep track [even though we've been at war in Libya for months and it was all over the news]. Libya's trying to develop nuclear weapons, right ? No, that's China…or is it Iran ? Wait, no, Libya is where Qaddafi was at, correct ? Whatever it is, I'm disagreeing with Obama's policy on it, because…I have to…even if I have no idea what I'm talking about'.

Give me a break already. Cain sounded like a college student who didn't study for the entire semester and then stayed up all night cramming for the final. So much information "twirling around" inside his head. Thanks for playing Presidential Jeopardy, Mr. Cain, and please accept this wonderful parting gift, dinner for two at Olive Garden. But please spare us any more of your "views" on foreign policy. Cain would have been better off if he just said, 'hell if I know. I'm a businessman. I don't even know where Libya is'.

Given Cain and Perry's recent responses, I'm starting to think maybe I could run for President. There don't seem to be any qualifications for the job.

Supreme Test For ObamaCare: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the lawsuit challenging ObamaCare. This is huge. We should find out next year whether we have a constitutional government or a totalitarian government. If the ObamaCare insurance mandate is upheld by the Supremes, the government would be granted almost unlimited power over the citizenry. The government could then tell us what products we have to buy from private companies, what we have to eat and drink, what we have to wear, you name it. There would be no limits to governmental authority. The ObamaCare mandate to purchase health insurance or be fined is an assault on our basic rights and freedom, and possibly the most unconstitutional law passed since the 1930's, when several unconstitutional FDR laws were struck down by the courts.

There have been calls for Justices Thomas and Kagan to recuse themselves from the proceedings. Justice Thomas' wife has been involved in campaigns to repeal ObamaCare, and Justice Kagan worked for Obama and is on record cheering the passage of ObamaCare. It doesn't really matter if they recuse themselves, unless only one of them does, which would swing the balance of the court. We pretty much already know the entire liberal wing of the court will vote for a totalitarian government and approve the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate. The conservative wing of the court will vote to uphold the Constitution and liberty, and that leaves…Justice Kennedy, the swing vote who will decide the future of freedom in this country. The eventual ruling is almost certainly going to be 5-4 one way or the other. My view is that any Justice who votes to uphold the ObamaCare mandate should be immediately kicked off the Supreme Court for violating his/her oath of office.

The Lord Of The Flies movement takes baby steps…

All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others: “We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out to curb the influx of derelicts.” – OWS kitchen volunteer Rafael Moreno

All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others, Part II: "If you’re going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back. There’s a lot of takers here and they feel entitled. – OWS protestor Lauren Digiola (link)

Yes, we certainly can't have any entitlement-seekers infecting the Occupy movement of…um…entitlement-seekers. Gotta keep those losers out. The stuff the Occupiers have is THEIRS, dammit !!! They can't be expected to redistribute THEIR wealth to the less fortunate !!! We Are The 99%…except for those homeless derelicts !!!
===
Robbing Peter To Pay Paul: "With nine days to go before the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) faces default, a Senate committee on Wednesday is expected to vote on a new plan to address the crisis. … The legislation would … provide USPS billions in cash from taxpayers. Specifically, it would hand over some $7 billion in supposedly 'surplus' contributions the government has made to the Federal Employees Retirement System. Such temporary surpluses, however, are common and are typically erased by normal financial swings or amortization over time. Transfer of the entire pot to USPS leaves taxpayers vulnerable if USPS later falls behind (which, given its condition, is not unlikely) while allowing needed structural reforms to be delayed. … USPS, and mail delivery itself, faces an uncertain future. Comprehensive change is needed to prevent massive losses and virtual bankruptcy. The reforms being considered by the Senate, however, fall short — while putting taxpayers even more at risk for the consequences of failure." –The Heritage Foundation's James Gattuso

I call this the Social Security financial oversight model. When the government sees a pile of money, it can't keep it's grubby mitts off of it. Btw, there is about $17.5 trillion sitting in the retirement funds of Americans if you add all of them together. How much do you think the government money-grubbers would love to gain control of that pile of cash ??? You'd have to subtract the $2.5 trillion sitting in the Social Security Trust Fund from the $17.5 trillion amount, because those SS funds don't really exist (the government already "borrowed" that money), but still, that leaves $15 trillion in our retirement funds, which is almost the exact amount of the national debt. When the cash-strapped government is already thinking about "borrowing" money from the pensions of federal employees, how long will it be until your IRA's and 401K's are taken over ? Lest you think I'm engaging in some fanciful paranoid delusion…the Obama administration already has plans to takeover your 401K's, which it could then "borrow" from. Beware.
===
National Debate Loser: And what can we say about Rick Perry ? Trying to list the federal departments he would eliminate, Perry had an epic debate brain fart instead…

"Commerce, Education and the, uh, what's the third one there? Let's see…The third agency of government I would — I would do away with, Education, uh, the, uh, Commerce and, let's see,…I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."

Doh !!!! I think the third government department Perry was going for there is Lingerie, or maybe Junior Miss. Commodore Perry's presidential battleship may have just sunk.
===
When Life Gets Tough, Make Things Up: "From a policy standpoint I think it's really important to know that President Obama was a job creator from day one. Now, was the ditch that we were in so deep that when you're talking to people and they still don't have a job, that's any consolation to them? No. But I'll tell you this: If President Obama and the House congressional Democrats had not acted, we would be at 15 percent unemployment." –House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

For the record, under Obama, the alleged "job creator from day one", we have lost about 2.4 million jobs, and nobody outside Pelosi's vivid imagination believes unemployment would have been at 15 percent without Obama's failed stimulus package. Pelosi is a perpetual brain fart.
===
Top 1% Denier: Here's an exchange between left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore and a CBS reporter…

Reporter: How are you helping these [Occupy protesters]?
Moore: Because I do well, I want taxes raised on people who do well, including mine.
Reporter: How are you helping these people with your $50 million?
Moore: I don't have $50 million.
Reporter: That's what it's rumored you are worth.
Moore: Well, really. Is that what you do is sell rumors?
Reporter: We're asking you for the truth.
Moore: You're just punk media is all you are. You lie. You lie to people. Stop lying to people. Stop lying.
Reporter: Are you not part of the 1 percent?
Moore: Just don't lie, okay?

I'm still waiting for the FIRST left-wing multi-millionaire like Moore to give their own personal riches away for the "cause". When they start doing that, I'll start taking them more seriously, and not a moment before. Before the wealth redistributors start spending other people's money, how about they spend their own ???
===
Unitary Executive Back In Style: "If the Republican Congress won't join us, we're going to continue to act on our own to make the changes that we can to bring relief to middle-class families and those aspiring to get in the middle class". – VP Joe Biden

Whatever you say, Joe, but what about those 15 jobs-producing bills the Republican House has already passed that are sitting in the Senate waiting for the Democrats to bring them up ? In addition, why does every Democrat "jobs package" have to end up costing the taxpayers between $450 billion and $1 trillion ? Do Democrats simply not know our national debt is about to pass $15 trillion any day now ? Maybe their entire party has had a brain fart. The Democrats idea of stimulus is to take a bucket of water out of one end of the pool and pour it into the other end. They seem to believe they can fill up the pool this way. It won't ever work, because it CAN'T work. The real answer is to take money out of the government's hands and put it back into the hands of the private sector where it can do some good. The private sector is where growth comes from, not the government.
===
And To Think, THIS Is the Guy They Call The Father Of The Democratic Party: "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." – Thomas Jefferson

While I'm quoting Jefferson, who in today's society believes these words ?…

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition". – Thomas Jefferson

Not the political left, I can tell you that for sure.

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain once said foreign policy was not his strong suit.

And he keeps proving himself correct.

Yesterday, Cain said he might release all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in exchange for one American hostage.

Apparently, Mr. Cain didn't get the memo – we don't negotiate with terrorists ! Can you imagine an American president releasing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and friends under ANY circumstances ? I can't.

Cain later said he "misspoke", using the favored obtuse verb of the political class. I would have preferred if Cain said "I was totally out to lunch on that question".

This isn't Cain's first unclear foreign policy position. When asked about the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, Cain originally said he was against it, but then changed his mind and said he was for it. He's also been vacillating on his comment about putting an electric fence on the Mexican border. He said he was joking (leave the jokes to Jon Stewart, Mr. Cain. You are supposed to be running for President), and then he said maybe he would put up the electric fence. Pick a position, Cain. These are not small issues.

As stated at one of the above links, you get the impression that Cain is making up his foreign policy answers as he goes along. As Cain says himself, he is not a politician. If that means he doesn't read from a prepared script or a teleprompter like Obama does, that's one thing. That's a plus. But if it means he hasn't really thought through some of these foreign policy issues, that's something else entirely. That means he's unprepared.

Cain also has a problem with his 999 tax plan. Namely…Congress will NEVER pass it. Democrats and Republicans alike have problems with it. One of the architects of Cain's 999 plan, economist Stephon Moore, is already saying the 9% national sales tax should be removed and replaced with a 9% payroll tax. This reflects the conservative concern that Cain is opening up another revenue stream for the federal government, when the feds have plenty of revenue streams already. Conservatives fear the 9-9-9 plan could eventually become the 20-20-20 plan. Democrats are concerned that the tax is regressive and raises taxes on the poorer segments of society (in political parlance, the word "regressive" means everyone is taxed at the same rate, which is…bad?…for some reason. Democrats favor discriminating against people).

In the polls, Cain and Romney are neck and neck…for the moment.

And now for a little comic relief, let's play…

Are You Smarter Than A Wall Street Occupier ? (Isn't everyone ?)

It's a quiz given by New York magazine to the Zacotti park squatters, and yes, they are as clueless as they seem. Nearly 90% of them don't know the top marginal tax rate for the "rich". 84% of them don't know what the Dodd-Frank Act is. 94% of them mistakenly believe the government spends more on the military than on health care and pensions. The Occupiers don't know anything about the very issues they are protesting. Classic.

A 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll discovered that most people don't know what the Republican party acronym 'GOP' stands for. I wasn't too surprised by that. It's not that important. For the record, 'GOP' stands for 'Greed Over People' (source: MSNBC).

A new poll is much more disturbing. Pew Research found that most Americans aren't paying attention to their own government. We The People don't even seem to know who's running for President in 2012:

Political junkies keeping track of the GOP presidential horserace probably know the candidates by first name only: Mitt, Rick, Michele and so on.

But a new Pew Research Center survey finds only small percentages of Americans can name any of the 2012 Republican candidates. When asked to name a person running for the nomination, only 28% identified Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 27% named former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and 15% identified Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

All of the other candidates got results in the single digits. Forty-seven percent of Americans couldn't name any candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Those numbers are far lower than when the name question was asked in October 2007. At that time, 45% of respondents named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a candidate, while 30% identified Romney and 27% named then Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson. In that survey, 41% of respondents couldn't name a candidate.

Among Republicans voters, name recognition is slightly higher. Sixty-six percent of Republican and Republican leaning voters could name a candidate. Perry and Romney had the highest name recognition, each with 36% of respondents identifying them as candidates.

If you want to know how our government gets away with bloody murder, how it lies, cheats, and steals from us every day of the week, this is how – We The People aren't paying attention. The ignorance of the American people is more offensive than usual right now, considering that America's future is on the line. We're drowning in debt. Unemployment is over 9%. We've lost our lead in manufacturing. Half the citizens are dependent on the government. Government is expanding into every area of life. Government is consuming nearly half of GDP as the normal course of things. We have no idea how we are going to pay for future entitlements. We're actually selling our country off piece by piece. We're fighting wars….and it seems the America people are too busy playing Grand Theft Auto IV to notice.

As a libertarian (mostly), I'm used to people not knowing anything about the libertarian movement ("them liberalarians are like Republicans, but they smoke dope and want anarchy, right ?"), but it's more troubling when people don't know anything about the two major political parties, because the Big Two are in power, actively running this country into the ground. We currently have a President who thinks borrowing money from China is a smart economic stimulus strategy. That's a four alarm political fire, but the American people can't be bothered.

Maybe this country deserves to go down the crapper.

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds…our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live.. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too…retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must…be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." – Thomas Jefferson

Now that Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is making some noise in the GOP Iowa primary, the attacks from the left have begun in earnest. No surprise there. It's to be expected.

After reading a half dozen or so attack pieces from the left against Bachmann, you begin to pickup the common threads. Thus far, the left is trying to portray Bachmann as a evangelical dim bulb anti-feminist who makes a lot of false claims. They say she went to a lightweight college to get her law degree (as if it's easy to get a law degree and pass the bar exam no matter where you go to college). For the record, Bachmann got a B.A. from Winona State University, then went to law school at Oral Roberts (now Regent University), and received her Masters in law from William And Mary Law School. If Bachmann is an idiot, she sure fooled a lot of colleges and professors. After college, Bachmann went to work for the IRS as a tax attorney, but I won't hold that against her. I guess Bachmann's Masters degree isn't sufficient for the liberal blogger elites who work part-time at Starbuck's while still living in their parents basements. She doesn't measure up to their standards. Heck, I bet Bachmann doesn't even know how to make a half-caf double mocha latte !

Liberals believe calling someone an "evangelical" is akin to calling them a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, so you will hear that label applied to Bachmann every single time a liberal refers to her, without fail, unless her shooting star fizzles. I'm not even sure what an evangelical is, other than a Christian who believes the doctrine. Bachmann belongs to a Lutheran church, which isn't any kind of cult to my knowledge. Some libs may believe otherwise, because at Bachmann's church, they don't say things like "God Damn America !", or refer to this country as "AmeriKKKa !", like they do at another prominent politician's former church, which liberals seemed to have no problem with. But calling Bachmann a "Lutheran" or a "Christian" doesn't pack enough wallop, so they'll stick with "evangelical". That makes it sound more like Bachmann is eager for the Rapture to arrive, and maybe she'd push the button on the nuclear football to get back with Jesus sooner rather than later. Liberals actually believe things like this are a genuine concern, while at the same time they believe real Islamic terrorists blowing things up is a minor matter. Liberals believe the real threat there lies in potential civil rights violations against Muslims. They are such nuanced thinkers.

The charge from the left that Bachmann is anti-feminist is outright hilarious. I don't know how many individual accomplishments it takes for a conservative woman to banish that stupid left-wing talking point, but I don't know of any conservative woman who has ever managed to meet the left's definition of feminism, which is nothing more than – she favors killing the unborn. Bachmann does not favor that (she can think for herself, lefties ! That's the true measure of liberation), so she doesn't qualify. Bachmann not only talks the anti-abortion talk, she also walks the anti-abortion walk, having foster parented 23 children as well as having five children of her own, in between getting her Masters, working for the IRS, working in the Minnesota State Senate, being the first Republican woman ever elected to Congress in Minnesota, owning a stake in a family farm, and now running for President. If that isn't enough "equal rights" to satisfy the femi-nazis, they can go piss up a rope, because their movement has no meaning.

My favorite left-wing hit piece on Bachmann is one that says more about how the author thinks than it does about Bachmann. It comes from the Huffington Post. Here's the money part:

The first woman elected as president of the United States has to be exceptional. Superior. The smartest, best educated and most rational person in the room. So, not Palin, not Bachmann. Why? Because failure is not an option.

I used to work at a Wall St. investment bank. There were diversity programs galore but it was still problematic to find a senior woman to promote to Managing Director in Information Technology. I used to discuss this often with my boss, himself an MD. He finally suggested just promoting a particular (and the most senior) woman in the group to managing director. His argument was "self selection". People tend to like and promote people who are similar to themselves. I get that and I agree. But this woman was not good. If there were five options in any given situation, not only would she not pick the best one, she would almost always pick the worst one. So my worry was that the first woman MD would "represent". She would be the standard bearer. She would have to do a good job, on behalf of her entire gender. If she sucked, the reaction would be "See. Women can't be managing directors". If a guy in that role sucked, it would just be "Gee, John is an idiot" and not "Men are idiots".

Barack Obama carries that burden for African Americans. Happily, he carries it well. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit (really, you have to!) that he is well-educated, competent, rational, even-tempered and intelligent.

So, even if my political views weren't the polar opposite of Palin's and Bachmann's (which they are), I would still say "not Palin, not Bachmann". As women, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

This is the perfect example of deranged liberal groupthink. You see, in this mindset, Obama isn't just a man. No, he's a black man, and therefore represents all blacks (the racist subtext is that all blacks are alike, and one black must speak for all of them). Bachmann isn't an individual woman who stands or falls on her own merits. No, instead she represents all women to this liberal dunderhead (the mysoginist and sexist subtext is that all women are alike). The writer of this garbage is a liberal woman who no doubt thinks of herself as a feminist, as she slices and dices individuals up into neat little bigoted categories.

Needless to say, in the non-groupthink world, the rational world, Obama and Bachmann are just people. They don't represent every other person in the country who looks like them. If Abe Lincoln had failed, nobody would have said all tall, bearded people failed. Nobody would have talked about what a blow it was to Bearded Americans everywhere. If Obama fails, it doesn't mean black people fail. That's an utterly insane notion. And if Bachmann fails, it doesn't mean women fail either.

The final nail in Bachmann's coffin for the left comes from the fact that she is a Tea Party supporter. Liberals absolutely cannot hold with any protest movement in this country…unless it is one of the hundred or so liberal protest movements. On the very rare occasion when conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even some Democrats protest, as happened with the Tea Party movement, liberals immediately turn into quaking-in-their-boots pansies, fearing the next Civil War is upon us. They act as if the Bastille is about to be stormed. It would be comical if it wasn't so hypocritical and pathetic. The same liberals who throw things and blackball conservative speakers on college campuses (we can't have any ideas muddying our university waters !), are the ones who believe middle-aged Tea Partiers are somehow going to turn into the Brownshirts. It's absurd. Btw, has anyone heard the libnuts complain and quiver about all the "dangerous" union protesting going on now ? No, me neither. Curious, huh ?

Do I think Bachmann would be a good President ??? I have no idea. I haven't made any such judgement one way or the other. For now, I think other candidates may be better choices, but it's still early. Pushing Bachmann for President is not the purpose of this post. I only defend her to the extent that I will defend anyone against the liberal lunacy. Everybody deserves that much.

Presidential campaign season is here, which means the mainstream media will begin actively campaigning for the Democrats, as usual. One of the ways the media does this is by asking Democratic candidates policy questions on current issues, and then turning around and playing Trivial Pursuit with Republican candidates, asking them history and science questions in the hope they will give a wrong answer. The purpose of this media game of GOP Jeopardy is to make Republican candidates look stupid. In the case of Michelle Bachmann (R-WI), it looks like it will work. Here's Bachmann being interviewed by ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: …You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….

Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?

Buzzz ! Sorry, candidate Bachmann, but John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers. His daddy, John Adams, was one. Thanks for playing our game, and please accept this consolation prize, a $50 gift certificate to Olive Garden. Now, on to our next contestant, GOP candidate Rick Santorum. Mr. Santorum, do you believe everything in the Bible is literally true ? Was Jonas really swallowed by that whale ? Is the earth only 6,000 years old ?…Please stay tuned, in our next segment we'll be asking President Obama if he feels the Republicans are hindering economic recovery !

And so it goes.

What will be lost in this media game of Trip Up The Republican is the fact that Bachmann was right on the larger question – many of the Founding Fathers did want to end slavery. Even the ones who owned slaves, like Thomas Jefferson, spoke about ending it, but it was far easier said than done, as the Civil War attests. It took the deaths of 600,000-700,000 men to finally end it 87 years after our founding as a country.

But all we'll hear about from the media is how dumb that b*tch Bachmann is. Nobody will say how dumb Stephanopolos is for not knowing many of our Founders wanted to end slavery.

Even when Bachmann says something boilerplate, it raises hackles with some folks. Media jackal Chris Matthews of MSLSD did his crazy dance when Bachmann made a statement about returning to our founding principles of limited constitutional government:

After playing a clip of Michele Bachmann longing for a return to the "Founders' vision of a constitutionally conservative government," MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Monday assumed the Republican presidential candidate meant "slavery."

The Hardball anchor offered bizarre analogies, questioning former RNC Chair Michael Steele on Bachmann's 2012 campaign: "What is this, Michael? The Protestant Reformation? That somehow we're going back to the purity of the original Christian church?"

Immediately jumping to the worst interpretation, Matthews continued, "We're going back to the original perfection of slaveholders and how perfect they were and government is the enemy. She speaks pure Tea Party lingo."

After Steele asserted that Bachmann was simply "reminding us of foundational principles," the liberal anchor smeared, "What? Slavery?"

What kind of pinhead thinks returning to our constitutional principles means slavery, or the Protestant Reformation (which started in 1517, btw) ????? A pinhead like Chris Matthews, that's who. Now you know why I call that channel MSLSD. This is the kind of hallucinogenic trash they serve up all night, every night. That channel is almost unwatchable, though I do watch it, because I feel I must keep abreast of all things political. See how I suffer for you, readers ?

Even our better media people get sucked in to the media's bias vortex, such as when Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday asked Bachmann if she was a "flake" (he only asked because the rest of the media keeps saying Bachmann's a flake. The media creates it's own wind). Wallace is known for asking everyone tough questions, which I admire, but that one was insulting. Wallace, to his credit, apologized, unlike the jackal Matthews, who keeps calling Bachmann all manner of insulting names, most recently "balloon head". Is this really what things have come to in this country ? This is how alleged professional journalists talk about presidential candidates now ? How sad.

I'm sure the MSLSD'ers will be getting a big laugh today over the fact that Bachmann said John Wayne was born in Waterloo, Iowa, when in fact his family only lived in Waterloo. He was born in a different town in Iowa. But John Wayne Gacy was born in Madison, so that dumb b*tch Bachmann probably got the two confused !!! That's the ticket !!! Let's keep making it up as we go along !!! We're PROFESSIONALS here at MSLSD !!! Aaaaaarrghhh !!!

But when President Obama said a few days ago that he awarded a Medal Of Honor to a living soldier, when in fact that soldier died in 2006 and the medal was awarded posthumously, the media somehow doesn't notice, and nobody in any of these "57 states" thinks Obama is a dumb b*tch, not even the people who speak "Austrian".

And what is Bachmann's position on, say, marginal tax rates or free trade policies ??? I doubt anyone in our mainstream media would even think to ask, but be sure to tune in tonight, when NBC asks Mitt Romney for the hundredth time if he's a member of a cult. It's must-see-tee-vee.

Last night, CNN hosted a GOP primary debate in New Hampshire (rush CNN transcript here). The Republican presidential contenders were Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain. After watching this debate, I'll say this right up front – I'd vote for any of them over Barack Obama in 2012 (though I'm not much of a Santorum fan). While I don't agree with these Republicans on everything, their views on the economy, jobs, and debt put them far ahead of Obama in my eyes, and those are the issues that matter most in this election cycle, along with America's foreign policy (three wars, along with bombings in Pakistan and Yemen. We've been at war in the Middle East for nearly a decade. Enough is enough already. Time for a big policy change there).

The candidates covered a number of topics, and I'm going to highlight some of Q&A I thought was notable. One of the disadvantages of these types of debates is, the candidates only have one minute to answer a question, and followup comments by other candidates to the same question are limited to thirty seconds. It's almost impossible for the candidates to provide detailed policy answers in such a short time frame. The CNN narrator, John King, was constantly interrupting the candidates and trying to cut them short due to time considerations, which was irritating.

Here we go:

Q: Governor Pawlenty, answer the critics — and as you do so — who say 5 percent [economic growth] every year is just unrealistic. And as you do so, where's the proof — where's the proof that just cutting taxes will create jobs? If that were true, why during the Bush years, after the big tax cut, where were the jobs?

PAWLENTY: Well, John, my plan involves a whole plan, not just cutting taxes. We're proposing to cut taxes, reduce regulation, speed up this pace of government, and to make sure that we have a pro-growth agenda.

This president is a declinist. He views America as one of equals around the world. We're not the same as Portugal; we're not the same as Argentina. And this idea that we can't have 5 percent growth in America is hogwash. It's a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5 percent growth and Brazil can have 5 percent growth, then the United States of America can have 5 percent growth.

And I don't accept this notion that we're going to be average or anemic. So my proposal has a 5 percent growth target. It cuts taxes, but it also dramatically cuts spending. We need to fix regulation. We need to have a pro-American energy policy. We need to fix health care policy. And if you do those things, as I've proposed, including cut spending, you'll get this economy moving and growing the private economy by shrinking government.

I love how Pawlenty shattered the illusion that America is destined to mediocrity. It's not our destiny that our best days are behind us, it's our POLICY that dooms us. If I was Pawlenty, I would have pointed out that unemployment during the Bush years was mostly in the 5% range, and we did have several years of significant uninterrupted job growth after the Bush tax cuts, until the housing crisis led to an economic meltdown and wiped them out. Obviously, marginal tax rates had nothing to do with that meltdown. It's also pretty obvious to me that raising taxes in a weak economy would only further suppress demand by removing money from people's pockets, thereby making the recession worse.

Q: As a journalist who's written frequently about health care and medicine for both newspapers and for corporate publications, I'm very concerned about the overreach of the massive health care legislation that was passed last year. My question is, what would each candidate do? What three steps would they take to de-fund Obamacare and repeal it as soon as possible?

BACHMANN: I was the very first member of Congress to introduce the full-scale repeal of Obamacare. And I want to make a promise to everyone watching tonight: As president of the United States, I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare. It's a promise. Take it to the bank, cash the check. I'll make sure that that happens.

This is the symbol and the signature issue of President Obama during his entire tenure. And this is a job-killer, Sylvia. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs. What could the president be thinking by passing a bill like this, knowing full well it will kill 800,000 jobs?

Senior citizens get this more than any other segment of our population, because they know in Obamacare, the president of the United States took away $500 billion, a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare, shifted it to Obamacare to pay for younger people, and it's senior citizens who have the most to lose in Obamacare.

Okay, but the Republican plan that passed the House, Paul Ryan's plan, which Michelle Bachmann voted for, will cause seniors to pay more for their health care starting in 2022. There is also a cost to seniors under the GOP plan. We have to acknowledge this instead of playing partisan ping-pong with the issue.

Unless maybe…

PAUL: Well, under these conditions, [Medicare is] not solvent and won't be solvent. You know, if you're — if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into — into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much.

So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine.

And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.

And that's why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.

But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just — you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?

People provide for their own health care ? Why, Dr. Paul, that's just so, so,…radical. Where'd you ever get the crazy idea that people could take care of themselves ? What do you think we are, adults or something ? Sheesh.

While we're on this subject, what about Obamneycare, as Governor Pawlenty called it the other day ? What say you, Mitt ?

ROMNEY: You know, let me say a couple things. First, if I'm elected president, I will repeal Obamacare, just as Michelle indicated. And also, on my first day in office, if I'm lucky enough to have that office, I will grant a waiver to all 50 states from Obamacare.

Now, there's some similarities and there are some big differences. Obamacare spends a trillion dollars. If it were perfect — and it's not perfect, it's terrible — we can't afford more federal spending.

Secondly, it raises $500 billion in taxes. We didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts.

Third, Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare. We, of course, didn't do that.

And, finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution, and if people don't like it in our state, they can change it. That's the nature of why states are the right place for this type of responsibility. And that's why I introduced a plan to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a state-centric program.

PAWLENTY: Well, the issue that was raised in a question from a reporter was, what are the similarities between the two? And I just cited President Obama's own words that he looked to Massachusetts as a blueprint or a guide when he designed Obamacare.

ROMNEY: …my guess is the president is going to eat those words and wish he hasn't — hadn't put them out there. And I can't wait to debate him and say, Mr. President, if, in fact, you did look at what we did in Massachusetts, why didn't you give me a call and ask what worked and what didn't? And I would have told you, Mr. President, that what you're doing will not work.

It's a huge power grab by the federal government. It's going to be massively expensive, raising taxes, cutting Medicare. It's wrong for America. And that's why there's an outpouring across the nation to say no to Obamacare. And I'm delighted to be able to debate him on that.

That's a lot better answer than I expected from Romney. I'd like to hear that debate between Romney and Obama myself. Hopefully, the courts will strike down ObamaCare and save Republicans the trouble.

Back to jobs:

Q: Well, for the candidates I'd like to know how they plan on returning manufacturing jobs to the United States.

BACHMANN: Well, the United States federal government and the states have done numerous job training programs over the year with mixed results. This is what we need to do to turn job creation around and bring manufacturing back to the United States.

What we need to do is today the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. I'm a former federal tax lawyer. I've seen the devastation. We've got to bring that tax rate down substantially so that we're among the lowest in the industrialized world.

Here's the other thing. Every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects. What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it's the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.

Michelle, you had me at "second highest corporate tax rate in the world". Not only is this anathema to job creation, it also gives the government too much power to pick winners and losers in business by granting favored businesses tax credits. The market should decide the winners and losers in business, not the government. Get rid of the corporate income tax for businesses that provide American jobs. The employees of those corporations will send plenty of revenue to the government. And if you want to know how Bachmann is correct about the EPA killing jobs, see my last post.

Q: Where do you fall on right to work and would you support a federal right-to-work law?

PAWLENTY: We live in the United States of America and people shouldn't be forced to belong or be a member in any organization. And the government has no business telling you what group to be a member of or not. I support strongly right-to-work legislation.

GINGRICH: …one of the things the Congress should do immediately is defund the National Labor Relations Board which has gone into South Carolina to punish Boeing, which wants to put 8,000 American jobs in South Carolina by fundamentally eliminating right-to-work at the National Labor Relations Board.

That's a real, immediate threat from the Obama administration to eliminate right to work. And I think that it is fundamentally the wrong direction. I hope that New Hampshire does adopt right-to-work. I frankly keep it at the state level because as each new state becomes right to work, they send a signal to the remaining states, don't be stupid.

Why you want to be at California's unemployment level when you can be Texas's employment level? Or North Dakota's?

CAIN: …I agree with the speaker and the others who believe that if the federal government continues to do the kinds of things that this administration is trying to do through the back door, through the National Labor Relations Board, that's killing our free market system, and the free market system is what made this economy great. And we have to keep the free market system strong.

When I hear the phrase "right to work" brought up as if the idea is even debatable, it makes my head spin. This is the United States Of America. Unless you're an illegal immigrant, EVERYBODY should have the right to work without having to pay dues to someone else. This ain't mob rule. It's supposed to be a free country. I'm sure I read that somewhere.

There's a lot more I could cover, but this post is getting rather long, so I'll stop here. Maybe I'll write a followup tomorrow.

I was wondering…in the last election cycle, Obama ran on 'Hope And Change'. Since that's obviously not going to fly this time around, what will his new slogan be ? I'd suggest….'Hey, At Least It's Not The Great Depression !!!". Very inspiring, and it's pretty much what I hear Obama say every time he talks about jobs and the economy. 'Why heck, America, I know 9.1% unemployment is bad, but unemployment could be 40% !! Ya ever think of that ? And we could be $50 trillion in debt !!! But I saved you !!!". Gee, thanks for next to nothing, Mr. President. Or should I say, Mr. One-Term President ? I sure hope so.

For the second year in a row, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Politicial Action Conference (CPAC). Paul is noted for his Libertarian political views. Here are the full results of the poll:

Congressman Ron Paul (Texas): 30%
Mitt Romney (Mass.): 23%
Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson: 6%
NJ Gov. Chris Christie: 6%
Newt Gingrich: 5%
Former Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty: 4%
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann: 4%
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: 4%
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: 3%
Businessman Herman Cain: 2%
Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2%
Former Penn. Senator Rick Santorum: 2%
So. Dakota Senator John Thune: 2%
Fomer Utah Gov. John Hunstman: 1%
Miss. Governor Haley Barbour: 1%
Other: 5%
Undecided: 1%

Of note here is that Gov. Gary Johnson, also a Libertarian, came in third place, signaling the rising popularity of Libertarian Republicans at CPAC. This also reveals the ideological split within the GOP between the Libertarians and more traditional conservatives. From Fox News:

Many convention-goers booed when the results were announced but the Paul supporters drowned them out with chants of "Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!"

Paul's consecutive victories in the straw poll have frustrated many GOP faithful who would rather see a more credible contender win. A CPAC official told Fox News that the big story is not Paul winning again but rather the strength of Romney's second-place finish.

A quick look at Ron Paul on the issues illustrates why some Republicans love him and other Republicans, not so much. Here are some selected one-line descriptions of Paul's positions:

- Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
- Wasteful government spending backed by both parties. (Apr 2008)
- Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008)
- We’re worse off than in 2000, due to Bush & Congress. (Jan 2008)
- Economic stimulus ok, but not via spending & printing money. (Jan 2008)
- Currency inflation counterfeits prosperity & destroys poor. (Oct 2007)
- We can’t afford a trillion-dollar war in Iraq. (Jan 2006)
- Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)
- Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve. (Sep 2010)
- National ID card is part of fear-based government. (Feb 2008)
- No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
- No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
- Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)
- Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
- School prayer is not a federal issue. (Apr 2008)
- Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
- Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
- Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
- Liberty Candidate: tax incentives for US-based [energy] alternatives. (Sep 2010)
- Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
- Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
- No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)
- No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)
- Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty. (Apr 2008)
- No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
- The “living Constitution” is the death of democracy. (Apr 2008)
- Constitution defines much smaller government. (Feb 2008)
- Dismantle agencies that have no Constitutional role. (Dec 2007)
- Signing statements erode constitutional balance. (Jul 2007)
- Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it’s not just a “collective right”. (Mar 2007)
- Insurance companies & gov’t make healthcare unaffordable. (Oct 2007)
- Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007)
- Socialized medicine won’t work; nor managed care. (Oct 2007)
- Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax. (Dec 2007)
- Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
- Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
- Right to organize; but no special benefits for unions. (Oct 2007)
- Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)
- Liberty promotes peace, and peace promotes prosperity. (Feb 2008)
- Tyranny and inflation are ancient, Bill of Rights isn’t. (Feb 2008)
- Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. (Jan 2008)
- Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure. (Jan 2008)
- Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)

That should be enough to give you an idea what Ron Paul is all about.

Civil rights questions: How can a President who passed a law mandating that all Americans have valid health insurance cards or be fined also believe the Arizona immigration law asking suspected illegal immigrants for their papers is "misguided" ? Do illegals now have more rights than American citizens in the President's eyes ?

Gentlemen, start your engines: Evolutionists believe life on earth started with the spontaneous conversion of inanimate matter to animate matter (they call it the "primordial soup." I call it the movie Frankenstein, which was never been duplicated in any laboratory). How do these folks have the nerve to dismiss a higher power that many call God ? Is the higher power argument somehow less believable than the evolutionists Shazaam! belief ?

Subjugation as the new feminism: The United Nations has selected Iran to a commission on women's rights. The commission is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to it's website. Women in Iran have been struggling for basic human rights, and have made some progress, but Iran is a country where stoning is still the law, where lashings are given to women for "improper dress," and where female civil rights protesters are arrested, beaten, raped, and tortured. Assigning Iran to a women's rights commission is like assigning the Ku Klux Klan to a commission on racism. Of course, this is the crazy UN, which also put China and Saudi Arabia on it's Human Rights Commission. Here's my question – in light of this move, shouldn't the UN also find some Neo-Nazi group to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue ? This does partially explain why so many think Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central is the real political news. It's hard to distinguish political reality from comedy these days, even though there's not much funny about the reality.

Speaking of comedy: President Obama did his brand of standup at the recent White House Correspondent's Dinner. Never one to miss a chance at gaining a partisan edge of any kind, the President took direct aim at one of his presumed presidential contenders in 2012. Here's Barack "Shecky" Obama:

“Speaking of undeserved honors, a few weeks ago, I was able to throw out the first pitch at the Nationals game….It was high and wide. FOX News reported it as the president pandering to the left wing, while MSNBC declared: “President pitches a no-hitter.”…

Of course, that’s not the only thing we’ve been accused of socialiizing this year. You might have heard we passed a healthcare bill… Some Republicans have claimed the bill includes a few secret provisions. That’s ridiculous. There aren’t a few secret provisions in the healthcare bill, there are like hundreds….such as The Bay State denial: This bill shall cover short-term memory loss with regard to healthcare reform. So good news Mitt, your condition is covered."

Pretty funny, but it does lead to an important question. How is Mitt Romney going to overcome the mandated health care reform he instituted in Massachusetts to secure the 2012 GOP nomination ? Romney has repeatedly said he is against ObamaCare, but his own record flies in the face of that. Romney won't be the first politician to run on an 'I was for it before I was against it' platform, of course. John Kerry got the 2004 Democratic nomination with that schlock, but remember, Kerry LOST the general election. The next question is, if Romney isn't going to be the 2012 nominee, who will be ? Huckabee ? Gingrich ? Pawlenty ? Palin ?…..I just can't see it.

1. Japanese officials were executed for waterboarding prisoners during World War II.

Wrong. Japanese officials were executed primarily for mass murder and for waging war against other countries. Torture was among the charges, and among the numerous torture charges was Japanese water torture (aka, water cure), not waterboarding. The two are not the same thing. Water torture involved putting a hose down a prisoner's throat and pumping water into him until his insides burst or nearly burst, often resulting in death. In addition, the Japanese usually executed the prisoners following water torture and/or other forms of torture. Even without water torture, those Japanese officials would have been executed.

2. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was pressured by the Bush White House to raise the terror alert level prior to the 2004 elections for political reasons.

This one is debunked by Tom Ridge himself, who said he was never pressured to change the terror alert level.

"There was no pressure at all. There was a judgment call on their part and on my part," Ridge, 64, a former Pennsylvania governor and an Erie native, told the [Erie-Times News] newspaper.

In addition, there was a threat made by Bin Laden prior to the 2004 election, which Ridge himself thought might be to disrupt our presidential elections, just as Al Qaeda bombed trains in Madrid three days before Spain's elections.

Not to mention that the terror alert level was NOT raised (and it probably SHOULD have been). The charge made for a nice phony left wing attack du jour, however.

3. George W. Bush is a chickenhawk who went into the Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam.

The truth is, Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but he didn't have enough flying hours, so other pilots were sent instead. In addition, CBS producer Mary Mapes, who did the phony partisan hit piece on Bush with anchorman Dan Rather, which was based upon forged documents, KNEW Bush had volunteered, but never mentioned it. Remember, the thrust of the CBS Rather/Mapes hit piece was that Bush was a coward who was trying to avoid combat. And it was THIS NEWS STORY that attempted to influence an election, coming shortly after the 2004 Republican convention.

4. The federal government is efficient.

This one doesn't really require an explanation, but what follows is a letter to the federal government from an irate citizen that has been making it's way around the internet. I have no idea if the letter is authentic, but it sure is funny, and it sure does illustrate exactly how efficient our federal government isn't. That would be the same federal government to whom we are about to hand over our entire health care system, not that anything could possibly go wrong there.

Warning – there is profanity.

Dear Sirs,

I’m in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this. How is it that Radio Shack has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a cable t.v. from them back in 1987, and yet, the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date.

For gosh sakes, do you guys do this by hand? My birth date you have on my social security card, and it is on all the income tax forms I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It is on my health insurance card, my driver’s license, on the last eight damn passports I’ve had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the plane over the last 30 years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.

Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’s name is Maryanne, my father’s name is Robert and I’d be absolutely astounded if that ever changed between now and when I die!

I apologize, I’m really pissed off this morning. Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this bullshit! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my address!

What is going on? You have a gang of Neanderthal asses workin’ there! Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for crying out loud! I just want to go and park my ass on a sandy beach.

And would someone please tell me, why would you give a shit whether I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I ever got the urge to do something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you me, I’d sure as hell not want to tell anyone!

Well, I have to go now, ’cause I have to go to the other end of the city and get another blasted copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of $60. Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day? Nooooo, that’d be to damn easy and maybe makes sense. You’d rather have us running all over the place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some ass to confirm that it’s really me on the damn picture – you know, the one where we’re not allowed to smile (bureaucratic ignorant morons)! Hey, you know why we can’t smile? We’re totally pissed off!

Signed
An Irate Citizen.

P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it’s me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1776, I have served in the military for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the ying yang. However, I have to get someone ‘important’ to verify who I am – you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN INDIA!

Sincerely,
You Sure In The Hell Should Know Who.

Last fall, when I kept hearing that the Obama presidential campaign would accept fraudulent campaign donations, I decided to test it out for myself. I tried to donate $15 to the Obama campaign using my credit card and a phony name. The name I used even signaled my fraudulent intentions. It was 'Campy Aignfraud,' (as in 'Campaign Fraud'). Not only did the Obama campaign accept my donation, but six months later, they haven't returned the money, and 'Campy' still receives e-mails and literature from them. Here's an e-mail I (Campy) received this morning from Obama's activist arm, which is called Organizing For America:

Campy –

It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.

In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.

Americans…deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.

The e-mail went on to ask for a donation of $25 or more.

I'd like to say this in response to Obama's e-mail – No, I DON'T see things the same way you do, Mr. President, and I object to you "playing the same old political games" even as you complain about others doing the same. Just because I disagree with your enormous unfunded spending plans that will skyrocket the deficits and debt, it doesn't make me an "advocate for the status quo." In fact, those calling for fiscal responsibility from their government are the real advocates for change, not you, Mr. Obama. I also think it's pretty pathetic that you keep lumping everyone who disagrees with you in with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, by saying your critics are "calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle." If that isn't "playing political games," I don't know what is.

First, Obama said that if his enormous and unprecedented stimulus package didn't pass, it would be "catastrophic" for America, that we'd plunge into another Great Depression. Then, Obama said the same thing about his bloated, pork-filled Omnibus spending bill, the largest in history. Now, he's playing the exact same tune about his budget, the largest budget in the history of the country, about $500 billion larger than any other budget. Obama beats the fear drum over and over, and at the same time he has the nerve to talk about ending "divisive politics," and calls for a "truthful debate about real issues." Give me a break already. The government spending our country into third world status and printing trillions of dollars out of thin air IS a real issue. It's the ultimate real issue. It would be nice if our President would engage in a "truthful debate" about it. But he won't. Instead, he demonizes his dissenters. Post-partisan, my butt. Obama's vauge buzzwords and phrases have become very tired. His talk about the "failed policies of the past" about makes me want to throw up. The biggest failed policy of the past I can think of is the endless red ink our government runs up, and Obama is DOUBLING the rate of the red ink. Obama embodies the failed policieis of the past, but this time on steriods.

I did a little checking about where the donations for Obama's Organizing For America group go. It turns out they go directly to the Democratic National Committee. As the Washington Post reports:

The [Organization For America] brought Obama's massive campaign e-mail and address list under the umbrella of the DNC, which is run by Obama's handpicked chairman, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine…DNC financial filings give little indication of the contours of OFA, since the project's expenditures are not separated from the committee's overall operations.

So, in essence, the Organization For America IS the Democratic National Committee, yet the Obamans make the OFA appear to be an independent grassroots movement. There's your hope and change, folks. It's the same old cynical partisan politics as ever.

And did any of you notice that in his April 12th e-mail to 'Campy', Obama is calling for donations to HELP PASS HIS BUDGET, when that budget has ALREADY PASSED IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ???? All that's left is for the two chambers of Congress to reconcile the two versions. Obama doesn't need any money to help pass a budget that has already been passed. That's just misdirection on Obama's part, more smoke and mirrors. He's just trying to raise money for the DNC. The budget has nothing to do with it. Obama is being dishonest and playing political games to fool the rubes.

As for Obama's call for "truthful debate about real issues," the Republicans offered an alternative to Obama's budget that would have resulted in $4.8 trillion LESS in spending over the next 10 years. It was voted down in the House along party lines. While Obama was quick to point out a few weeks ago that the Republicans didn't have an alternative budget, did you ever hear him mention it again once the Republicans proposed one ? No, you didn't.
Obama disproves his own rhetoric time after time. Obama didn't want to consider any alternative budget. Obama just wanted to play partisan politics during his endless campaign.

P.S. – Speaking of Obama's budget, it will be interesting to see how Obama's "tax cuts for 95% of all Americans" fares. In the House version, those tax cuts EXPIRE IN 2010. Yes, that's right. They expire NEXT YEAR. They'd be ONE YEAR tax cuts. What a great help to the middle class, a one time $400 tax cut. Suckers. In the Senate version, they expire in 2012. I guarantee you that none of Obama's spending and tax increases will expire.

Wake up, America. You're being played.

Barack Obama – 52%
John McCain – 46%

The anti-Bush backlash is complete. Barack Obama (D-IL) will become the 44th president of the United States of America, and take with him solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (as of now, 54-44-2 in the Senate, and 248-187-1 in the House Of Representatives). This gives Democrats a level of governmental power not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. For the sake of our country, I sincerely hope this Democratic rule works out better than the disaster of the Carter years. It may seem to many that there is nowhere to go but up following 8 years of George W. Bush. That is not the case. In the past, things have been much worse than they are right now. Which direction this country takes under an Obama presidency remains to be seen, but I pray that God grants our new president the wisdom to make positive change. Though it seems Barack Obama and myself could hardly be further apart in political ideology, I don't want him to fail so I can prove some ideological point. I want him to succeed, for the good of our country and citizens.

From a historical viewpoint, Obama's win is phenomenal. I'm old enough to remember the civil rights struggles of the 1960's. An Obama presidency would not have been possible back in those days, when racism was still prevalent and institutionalized. That we can now elect a black man to the highest office in the land serves as witness to how far we have traveled away from that wicked path. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream was realized in voting booths across the nation yesterday. There was no Bradley Effect, as many had anticipated. I never believed there would be one. I never believed race would be a significant or determining factor in this election. In fact, I think there was probably a negative Bradley Effect. If anything, Obama's race worked to his advantage. That was a long time coming too.

The central question I have about Barack Obama is – How will he govern ? Is the real Obama the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, the one who ran to the left in the Democratic primaries, the one with the far left extremist friends, or is the real Obama the one we saw in the general election, a more centrist leader who reaches across the aisle for bipartisan solutions ? The answer to that question remains to be seen, but we will surely find out. I hope for the latter, and I fear the former.

P.S. – What the heck is going on in Minnesota ? First they elected a professional wrestler as their governor, and now the comedian Al Franken could actually win a Senate seat. Words fail me.

This has been the longest presidential election cycle ever. It's been going on for, what, about 17 years now ? It seems like it. I have Obama's rap down so well that I know what he's going to say before he says it. I amuse my girlfriend by pausing the television and then telling her exactly what Obama is about to say, and then playing back Obama's answer to see how close I was. I'm usually right on the money. It's almost eerie, really. If you listen to Obama enough, you start to realize how robotic he is, how programmed his responses are. The media refers to this as Obama being "focused" and "on message." He certainly is that. Maybe familiarity does breed contempt, because I have Obama fatigue, and he hasn't even been elected yet. Not that I mean to bring anyone down from their "hope" and "change" Obama high. I'm just making an observation.

This has also been the most expensive election cycle ever, by far. According to the Wall Street Journal, the presidential campaign has cost $1.6 billion in 2008, more than double what it cost four years ago. In total, WSJ estimates the cost of all the political campaigns across the country at $5.3 billion. Barack Obama has raised more than $620 million, smashing all previous records. Ironically, both presidential candidates talk about keeping the money and special interests out of Washington D.C. At least John McCain stuck to his public campaign financing pledge, even though it put him at a huge disadvantage. Obama did not stick to his word, choosing instead what was politically convenient. If past is prologue for an Obama presidency, that does not bode well.

It does appear that Obama will win, if the polls are to be believed. All the polls have Obama ahead. Professional people run these polls, so they are probably accurate. As proof, look at how accurate the polls have been in the past. Why, they haven't been wrong since way back in………2004, the last presidential election. The polls had John Kerry winning that one by 3-5%, and he lost by 3 million votes. Maybe everybody should go vote in spite of the fact that the experts are saying Obama has it all wrapped up, just to be sure. I'm not a big fan of letting the media tell me how things are supposed to be anyway.

This election is historic, and interest is high. The voter turnout should be the largest ever. I'm glad people are taking an interest in politics. That is a good thing. Americans have been far too lethargic about political matters in the past. In some parts of the country, such as Indianapolis, Philadelphia, some Alabama counties, some Missouri counties, and others, enthusiasm is so high that more people have registered to vote than are even eligible to vote. Indianapolis, for instance, has registered 105% of it's eligible voters. Now, THAT'S enthusiam, folks. Power to the people ! From a single ACORN grows a mighty oak tree. And the Democrats tell me they are going to make darned sure that every one of those registered voters will indeed get to cast their ballots. There won't be any voter suppression THIS time, by God. Dead or alive, the voters will have their voices heard.

I voted early last saturday, and the process didn't exactly fill me with confidence that Ohio voter fraud will be rooted out. Nobody was asked to produce any identification. You just had to fill out a piece of paper that required you to write down either the last four digits of your Social Security number, your Drivers license/State ID number, or a utility bill/bank statement with your name on it (or your name written in crayon on a Post-It). Even if you had none of those, you could still cast a provisional ballot. Using the terminology of my former profession as a computer programmer, the system appears WAAAAAYYY easy to hack, doubly so if they are only checking the ballot cards against voter registrations, as I suspect they might be doing. If this election turns out to be close and hinges on a few hundred Ohio votes, we are going to have a firestorm of national controversy that will make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I was concerned. So was the fellow I struck up a conversation with while waiting to vote. His name was Luke Skywalker.

I'm not going to try to tell anyone how they should vote. Each person has to make that decision for themselves. If you want to make the catastrophic mistake of voting for the inexperienced left wing socialist Barack Obama, that is your prerogative. I'm certainly not going to try to influence you to vote instead for the genuine American hero John McCain, who has earned the right to be president through a lifetime of public service and the acquired knowledge of over two decades in Congress. No, I would never do that.

Happy voting, America !

Time for a little economic straight talk. This week's headlines informed us that Exxon/Mobil made a record profit of $14.3 billion for the 3rd quarter of 2008. Barack Obama immediately added this tidbit to his campaign stump speech to illustrate the unfairness gap between the haves and the have-nots, and also to bash John McCain's tax plan. The Barack Obama's of the world get very upset when private companies make such large profits. They see it as E-V-I-L and G-R-E-E-D-Y. In ObamaWorld, the more money you rake in, the more evil and greedy you are (federal government excepted). What Obama and friends leave out of the equation is this – Exxon/Mobil also paid $11.3 billion in taxes for the 3rd quarter. Isn't that enough ? Isn't that too much ? That money funds those endless government programs Obama loves so much (Obama has proposed increasing spending on no less than 175 government initiatives. I wonder when he finds time to sleep). You see, in order for Obama to redistribute wealth, there must be wealth to begin with, and it's our private sector that creates it. With so many American businesses struggling and/or failing right now, why is Obama holding up for derision the one company that is doing the best ? The reason is, Democrats play class warfare games to get elected, but Obama should realize that killing the golden goose doesn't make for very smart economic policy. It's not like we'd be better off if all our companies were losing tons of money, as the automakers, banks, airlines, and many others are doing. Count me as one who wishes all our businesses were as successful as Exxon/Mobil. That would take care of 98% of America's problems right there. In order to help our businesses be successful, which in turn enables our citizens to become employed, successful, and prosperous themselves, it just might be a good idea to HELP the business sector rather than add ever more hurdles for it to overcome. That's why John McCain's tax/economic policy, which lowers the business tax rate, keeps the capital gains tax rate low to encourage investment, and enables American businesses to be more competitive, is a REAL GOOD idea, while Obama's tax/economic policy, which penalizes business success and adds new business burdens, is a REAL BAD idea, unless we as a nation have some sort of perverse death wish.

While I'm on the subject, let's explode another Obama falsehood, one that he's repeated about 100,000 times by now. McCain's tax/economic policy is NOT the same as George W. Bush's, not at all. Bush cut the individual income tax rates for 100% of us, like Obama is proposing for 95% of us. McCain is NOT proposing individual income tax rate cuts. What McCain is proposing is to cut the business tax rate from 35% (second highest in the entire world) to 25%. I only wish McCain was cutting that tax rate even lower to attract more new businesses and more new jobs to this country. The object of taxation isn't to centralize wealth in the hands of the federal government, it's to help the people. Nothing helps people more than jobs. No government entitlement even runs a close second to employment for promoting the general welfare.

All this brings me to the news item of the day. In Janurary 2008, Barack Obama described his energy policy as follows:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

Obama plans to bankrupt the coal industry, by design. The coal industry supplies 70% of our electricity. Funny, the Messiah didn't mention his coal bankrupting plans when he was campaigning in coal mining states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia. He pretended to be a friend of coal then.

During the same interview, Obama went on to say, "under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket".

And you folks thought Obama was a friend to the middle class. You won't think so when you get your utility bills during an Obama administration. Obama's plans for coal come from the same left wing environmental mindset that have restricted our domestic oil supply and stopped nuclear power, leaving us dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia. If you are naive enough to believe Obama when he says he isn't beholden to special interests, you better think again. The environmental lobby is one of those special interests. Barack Obama will hurt every person in this country to appease them, by his own admission.

Most amazing of all is, Obama said he planned to bankrupt the coal industry and send electricity prices soaring BACK IN JANUARY, yet we haven't heard a word about it until now, on the verge of the election. Millions of people have already voted, and I bet next to none of them knew about this.

Instead of getting substantive information from the media, information that could help us make an informed decision about who should be the next president, we get "hope and change", and we get questions like the ones that Leisa Zigman, a reporter for KSDK-TV in St. Louis, asked Obama during a recent interview:

1.) “Your presidential campaign may go down as the most organized in history. Yet the polls remain tight in Missouri. In the last seven days what else can you say to sway undecided and McCain-leaning Missouri voters?”
2.) “Today, Bob Clark, founder of Clayco Construction, sent a letter to his employees. In part it read, ‘Sometimes, but rarely, a person appears at the right time and the right place to transform ordinary people into thinkers and doers who can accomplish more than they ever thought they could. That truly is the definition of inspiration. Barack Obama has this quality. I have witnessed it personally many times.’ In 2004, Mr. Clark raised thousands for the Bush campaign, but for the past two years, he’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for your campaign. Please respond.”
3.) “Who has helped your campaign more: Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill or Oprah?”
4.) “What was it like when you were in St. Louis in front of 100,000 people? What were you thinking as you looked out from the Arch to the Old Court House and beyond?”
5.) “Many people are worried about your safety. What are your thoughts in light of the alleged skinhead plot?”

One only marvels at how the Messiah maintained his composure under such withering journalistic scrutiny.

Wake up, America. You only have one more day.

Liberals have an affinity for the big government nanny-statism of socialist Europe. Don't ask me why. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it is. However, if a Conservative actually uses the word "socialist" to describe liberal socialist policies, liberals become apoplectic. Don't ask me to explain that one either. That makes even less sense. I mean, it's not like The Communists of the old USSR bridled at being called Communists. Of course they didn't. They WERE Communists. They were proud of it. They thought their way was the best (wrong, comrade, but nice try). Yet liberals, who propose one collectivist, socialist, big government policy after another, take umbrage at being called Socialists. I don't get it. It's as if liberals are afraid to air their true beliefs in public, for fear they will be exposed. Why ? Let's stop all the game playing, and call a spade a spade. Let's measure European socialist policy against American free-market capitalist policy. Maybe we can discover which policy works the best (the question was actually settled long ago, but apparently, liberals keep forgetting).

Back in 2004, a pair of Swedish economists, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, did a study called "The EU vs. USA", for the Swedish think tank Timbro. You may recall that Sweden is one of those European socialist countries that liberals like to point to as a model of success, a country we should pattern ourselves after.

So, how did the USA stack up to the European Union in the study ? I'm glad you asked. Here are the results:

[The study] found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

Americans are richer, have more disposable income, and have greater economic growth, by far.

Europeans have a black market. That's what happens when freedom is forced underground.

Only Ireland, which has emulated the American ideals of lower taxes and fewer regulations, is catching up economically to the good old USA. Conclusion – freedom works, and top-down government control is a piss-poor substitute.

But what about that "fairness" and "spreading the wealth" that Barack Obama is always trumpeting ? Again, I'm glad you asked. Here's more from the study:

The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden–the very model of a modern welfare state–were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

And do I even need to mention that America provides military defense for Europe ? Europe is relieved of most of that huge burden, yet we are STILL doing far better than they are. Wake up and smell the coffee, America. We shouldn't be emulating THEM, they should be emulating US. The smart ones, like Ireland, are.

The American way is imperfect, of course. All systems are imperfect, but America's way is FAR better than the European way, and far better than any other way that has been devised. Yet, liberals, including Barack Obama, keep wanting to emulate the inferior model. Lord knows why. I don't speak liberal, but I do know this – doing it in the name of "fairness" is extremely misguided.

It's said that harsh economic times are when it's mostly likely for a people to embrace the wrong philosophy. There are numerous examples of that throughout history. That's what I think we are about to do here, by embracing Obama as a backlash against Bush (who governed as a big government, big spender, people. Again, wake up. It's not about R vs. D). Obama's a nice guy, good public speaker, well intentioned and all, but he's just wrong – end of story.

Be careful what you ask for America, because you just might get it. In fact, you are only a couple days away from getting it. Good luck with that. You'll need it.

"Bitter partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today, but a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will" – Barack 'The One' Obama

Wow. That's inspiring stuff. Do you feel the tingle ? I know I do. At least I think it's a tingle. It could just be acid reflux. I'm not sure, but I'm ready to cast aside all my fears, doubts, and independent thought processes, because this election is historic, the most important election in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND, the most important election held in the known universe, ever. We must discard those "outworn ideas of the left and right" (and instead embrace only the outworn ideas of the left), because the only way we can achieve "unity" is to stop arguing over petty matters, such as the role of the federal government, federal taxation and spending, the economy, the U.S. Constitution, and so forth. Those things are not really important. What IS important is to blindly follow our "better angels", as embodied by Barack Obama, the new Messiah. How else can he deliver us from this mean, third world hellhole we call the United States of America ? How else will we ever take our place among the righteous nations of the earth, like Venezuela ? The old ways, the ways designed by our Founding Fathers, clearly do not work. Yes, those frayed and threadbare concepts promoted by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madision, and George Washington may have resulted in America becoming the world's pre-eminent superpower, the world's beacon of liberty, hope, and opportunity, and the creation of 30% of the world's wealth by only 5% of it's people, but c'mon folks, life is not a totally carefree utopian paradise here, there are still problems, so we need drastic CHANGE, a change that only a Messiah who promises to "change the world" (not kidding, The Big O really said that) can bring.

"We've got to transform the political culture, so it's responsive to you, not to the special interests, not to the fat cats, not to the lobbyists" – Barack Hussein Obama

Tell it, Barack ! Tell it ! And of course, the way to get rid of the special interests and lobbyists is to create an ever larger federal government bureaucratic monster that micromanages all essential aspects of our society (the "progressive" way), so every special interest and lobbyist in the country is forced to fight like a starving dog over the scraps being doled out from an all-powerful federal government that picks the winners and the losers. Ask National City Bank (NCB) about that. When our Congressional overlords handed Treasury $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out the financial industry, our government designated NCB and northeast Ohio the LOSERS, and PNC Bank from Pittsburgh the WINNERS. PNC got bailout money and NCB didn't. PNC bought NCB with the bailout money, and now thousands of northeast Ohio jobs are gone like the wind. Lots of those newly jobless NCB people are my friends. Thanks goodness they can rest easy knowing they'll get that Obama tax cut for the middle class. I'm sure they are grateful.

Thinking you can reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests with more and more centralized government is one of the most braindead ideas I've ever heard. The truth is precisely the opposite. You minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists by NOT letting the government pick all the winners and losers. You minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists by limiting government and promoting individual liberty, which our old Founding Fathers figured out over 220 years ago, dummies that they were.

Oops, I apologize folks. There I go, thinking again, when I should be FOLLOWING the One, for the sake of, you know, "unity", "post-partisanship", and that "shared responsibility" thing. I'll have to work on that. It's going to take a LOT of work, so I may have another slip or two before I learn to obey my new massuh, like a good boy should.

"It is the essential belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, that makes this system work" – Barack Obama

Amen ! To test the validity of this idea, go find one of your neighbors who has more than you do, and demand half his hard-earned money. You'll quickly find out how people REALLY respond to the forcible "redistribution" of their wealth. I suggest you pack some heat to facilitate your neighbor's desire to be his "brother's keeper", or you probably won't get his money. A mask might help too. It's no different at all when the government forces that same redistribution, and that's what the Messiah is proposing, all in the name of "fairness", of course.

But don't get me wrong, I love it ! It's "transformative", just like the Messiah says.

For those of you lucky enough to have a certain satellite television network, you can watch The Obama Channel, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (I'm not kidding about this either). You didn't have to wait for the Messiah's primetime Hollywood television special last night. You can get all the knowledge you need right from the Obama source, even though you pretty much get that anyway from almost every television station and newspaper in existence. I have the Obama Channel on in the background right now. It's all the Big Brother anyone really needs. Quite convenient. For instance, the Obama Channel just informed me that Obama had both parents and grandparents, and they worked at various jobs during their lives, right here in America ! His grandfather even served in World War II, and Obama also has relatives who resided in the Kansas heartland (and we all know how liberals revere Kansans). What more do you need to know, people ? Barack Obama is a regular American, just like you, just like me, and just like Barry's pals, the terrorist William Ayers, the terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, the racist anti-semitic, anti-american Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the radical Father Pleger, the mobster Tony Rezko, and former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. There's nothing to see here. We are the ones we've been waiting for. The only other thing we need is the Fairness Doctrine to shut up all Obama's talk radio opposition, and the Employee Free Choice Act to remove the secret ballot in union voting. Then we'll all be free and "united", just like the Soviet Union was. The new worker's paradise could be just around the corner, and the inconvenience of the dissenting voice will be effectively muzzled. Oh, the glory !

As evidence of Obama's "transformative" agenda and his "new politics", just look at how he ran his most excellent political campaign. He lied about opted out of taking public campaign financing, while still saying he believes in it (taking both sides of an issue at the same time is one of Obama's special oratorical gifts. A mere mortal politician couldn't get away with that time after time, but the Messiah pulls it off effortlessly), and he has spent the most money in the history of American politics trying to get elected, almost doubling the previous campaign spending record held by George W. Bush in 2004. Obama has the entire American media serving as sycophantic shills for him as he does this, and Obama also gave $900,000 to the biggest voter fraud group in the country, ACORN. Over $200 million of Obama's campaign contributions remain secret, in spite of Obama's repeated calls for "transparency" in government. Hillary Clinton's people are saying the Obama campaign won the early Democratic primary caucuses through voter fraud and intimidation. There are reports of millions in illegal foreign contributions being received by the Obama campaign. I even tested the authenticity of donating to the Obama campaign myself. After hearing that online Obama donations were not being screened properly to prevent fraud, I went to Obama's website and tried to donate $15 with my credit card. The phony name I used for the transaction was 'Campy AignFraud'. I used a phony address as well. The Obama campaign accepted the fraudulent transaction lickety split, and never even asked for my credit card security code. They even sent me a nice followup e-mail, thanking the non-existent Campy for donating money with my credit card. Change We Can Believe In.

The Messiah is a special, special man, folks. Get on board the train, or be left behind at the station. I have, as Campy's campaign donation has proven.

Obama/Biden in 2008. Vote early and vote often. This is freaking historic.

This presidential election is about the future direction of our country. It is a referendum on what type of country we want in America. There are fundamental differences between the progressive (Obama/Biden) view and the conservative (McCain/Palin) view. As I see it, the differences are fairly stark, and are illustrated clearly by looking at tax policy. The progressives view tax policy as a moral issue, to be used to implement social change. Therefore they favor higher taxes on the wealthy to "spread the wealth around" to the less wealthy, as Obama puts it. It is a redistributive policy. Conservatives, on the other hand, view tax policy more as an economic calculation, to be used to stimulate the overall economy in the best possible manner. Conservatives feel economic growth is best accomplished by keeping taxes low for everyone, and in McCain's case, lowering tax rates for business and capital gains to create jobs and growth.

It is only natural to consider progressive tax policy as more socialist in nature, and to consider conservative tax policy as more individualist in nature. When you look at the economic state of our country, with $700 billion bailouts for the financial industry, a $165 billion stimulus package being passed, another $300 billion stimulus package being proposed by the Democrats, the federal government buying up shares of the largest banks in the nation, bailouts for automobile manufacturers, $53 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities, $10 trillion in national debt….

It is therefore entirely proper to ask the men and women who are vying to lead this country about the direction in which we're heading. Everyone I know is concerned about it.

Enter Joe Biden's interview with a local television newswoman from Florida, Barbara West.

West: Senator Obama now famously told Joe the plumber he wanted to spread his wealth around. A Gallup poll showed 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S., as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth. Isn't Senator Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder ?

Biden: Absolutely not. The only person who has spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. We, for the first time since the late 20's, we have 1% of the people make over 21% of the income in America. That wasn't the way before George Bush became president. All we want is once again to have the middle class to have a fighting chance. That's why we focus all of our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break..

Timeout. Let's take a reality break from Biden's talking points. First of all, George Bush did NOT "spread the wealth around" with his tax cuts. Bush cut taxes across the board for everyone, allowing all taxpayers to keep more of THEIR OWN money. That goes for both the wealthy and the middle class. Middle class taxes were far lower under the Bush administration than under the previous Clinton administration. How does giving the middle class more money devastate the middle class, as Biden put it ? Despite all Obama's talk of growing the economy "from the bottom up" with his middle class tax cuts, if you look at Bush's tax cuts realistically, they amounted to growing the economy both from the bottom up and from the top down, because he cut taxes for all. When Obama/Biden talk about returning to the tax policies of the Clinton era, those policies taxed the middle class MORE. Obama/Biden are being dishonest in their portrayal of the Bush tax cuts.

West: You may recognize this famous quote, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around ?

Biden: Are you joking ? Is this a joke ?

West: No.

Biden: Is that a real question ?

West: That's a question.

Biden: Ha, ha, ha. He is not spreaking the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.

Huh ? Giving the middle class back the tax breaks they used to have ? That's a lie. As I just said, Bush CUT middle class taxes, and Biden is acting like Bush raised taxes on the middle class. Utter dishonesty from Biden.

Biden: We think the people should be getting a tax break, and not continue to distribute the wealth up…it's a ridiculous comparison, with all due respect.

Here Biden talks about wealthier people keeping their own money as a "distribution of wealth up", which it plainly isn't. It's THEIR OWN MONEY. That's not redistribution. Someone should tell Biden that other people's money doesn't belong to Joe Biden or the federal government. It belongs to the people who earned it. Regardless of our view of what constitutes fair tax policy, we need to at least be honest in our uses of terminology. Biden isn't being honest.

West: Getting back to the spreading the wealth question, what do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country, much like Sweden ?

Biden: I don't know anybody who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican party.

Really ? Barack Obama's plans for universal health care, to nationalize pre-school, greatly expand government spending, redistribute wealth, and greatly increase taxes, don't bring to mind european-type socialism, such as that practiced in Sweden ? Of course they do, to any thinking person. Again, this election is about the fundamental direction this country will take in the future. These are just the type of questions that should be asked of our candidates.

But Biden objected. Biden addressed the interview at an event in North Carolina – saying it’s one more example of how “mean” the campaign has gotten. “I was on a television station the other day doing a satellite fed to a major network in Florida, and the anchor quotes Karl Marx, and says in a sense, isn’t Barack Obama Karl Marx,” Biden said. “I mean, folks, this stuff you’re hearing, this stuff you’re hearing in this campaign, some of it’s pretty ugly. And some of the innuendo is pretty ugly.” According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Obama campaign pulled an appearance by Biden's wife from the Florida television station, and also limited access of other Obama campaign members.

Are you kidding me ? Hasn't one of the complaints from Democrats about the Bush administration been that the Bushies won't answer any hard questions, and that they limit access to reporters ? Now we have the Obama campaign doing the very same thing in response to fundamental questions about which direction our country is heading. And Biden calling these fundamental questions "mean" and "ugly" ? I don't think so. Biden's arrogance is off the charts.

With all due respect, Mr. Biden, you work for us, the people. We can and should ask you any damn question we please, and you are supposed to answer it. That's how the public becomes informed and reaches a decision. I only wonder why these questions weren't being asked earlier than one week before the election. It would also help if you told the truth, Mr. Biden, at least once in a while. You aren't doing much of that either.

The NY Times endorsed Obama ? What a shocker. This is almost as unexpected as the old headline proclaiming 'John Wilkes Booth Hates Abraham Lincoln'. Sure didn't see that coming. The Times released this non-bombshell on it's internet site. Here's the Times' reasoning, according to Yahoo:

"He [Obama] has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility," the Times said. "He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems."

The part about Obama bringing in "legions of new voters" is certainly correct, but what was that stuff about Obama calling for "shared sacrifice and social responsibility" ???

Obama wants the "rich' to pay for universal health care, nationalized pre-school, and all the rest of his trillion dollars in new "investments." At the same time, he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, about half of whom don't even pay income taxes, and he wants the "rich", who already pay the lion's share of income taxes, to pick up the slack. I'm missing the "shared sacrifice" in all that, unless Obama's using "shared sacrifice" as a metaphor for The Next Great Depression that his million new taxing and spending policies will bring about. As for the "social responsibility" part, Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has never voted against any abortion control measure, including partial-birth abortions and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would provide medical care for live babies who have survivied abortion. Obama takes his pro-abortion radicalism to such an extent that he would allow live born babies to die rather than help them. In other times, that would be called infanticide, but not in Obama and the Times' view of "social responsibility." The old Nazi Dr. Mengele had a similar view of social responsibility.

The NY Times declared that the choice between Obama and Republican John McCain was easy. Not even close. They said:

"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing."

What is the Times talking about here ? McCain doesn't want to raise taxes, he wants to decrease federal spending, and balance the budget. If those things are the "limitless demands and narrow vison of the far right, then our entire country is in big, big trouble. Or maybe it's all those calls by McCain for bipartisanship and working across the aisle to get things done that so irritates the NY Times. I don't know. Also, when the Times chooses McCain as the "best Republican nominee in the primaries", that tells you McCain was NOT the best Republican nominee, just the one furthest to the left in the Times' view.

But then again, who cares what the NY Times thinks ? I wonder who was the last Republican they endorsed for president ? I wonder if there has ever been one.

American newspapers are endorsing Obama over McCain at about a 3-1 rate. The only thing that surprises me there is that the numbers don't favor Obama even more. After all, Obama has no military experience, no management experience, no executive experience, no economic qualifications, little U.S. Senate experience, and next to no significant legislative accomplishments during his political career. He is the champion of the noncommital "present" vote. He has never run so much as a Dunkin' Donuts shop. He has associations with several shady and far left characters. His positions change like the wind (he even changed his tax policy this week in response to McCain's onslaught), but he gives a good speech, carefully crafted by his 300 advisors. He also says "hope" and "change" a lot. What's not to like ? Barack Obama, America's first entry-level president.

By choosing Obama over McCain, America will be choosing style over substance, again. And then we wonder why things don't work out so well.

For an alternative and far superior viewpoint to the NY Times, read Charles Krauthammer's column about who should be the next president.

If Barack Obama wins the presidency in november, and the Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress, there will be a massive ideological shift in government. Not just Democrats, but LIBERAL Democrats, will run the whole show. This hasn't been seen since the days of FDR or LBJ, who gave us the New Deal and Great Society policies, respectively. I suggest that Obama come up with a name for his policies, like FDR and LBJ did. Since The One hasn't done that yet, I have some suggestions of my own. I think BO should call his economic scheme AMERICA – THE NEW FRANCE, or maybe SOCIALISM FOR DUMMIES. How about a THOUSAND POINTS OF LEFT ?
—-
Obama's pet media has descended upon poor Joe the plumber like a pack of snarling wolves, and have torn through his personal life. Just like they did to Sarah Palin. Does this say anything about what an Obama presidency would be like ? Will the media help to silence Obama critics by mischaracterizing or exaggerating their words, as they have during this campaign ? Will they cover up and/or ignore Obama's mistakes, as they have during this campaign ? John McCain had it right when he said, “Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.” Yes, they certainly should, but that isn't the world we live in. The media thinks it's job is to discredit anybody who criticizes their hero.
—
Speaking of the media trying to discredit people, remember the left wing rage the media generated when they reported that a member of the crowd at a Palin campaign stop allegedly yelled out "kill him", which was allegedly directed toward Obama ? That led lots of Democrats to make allegations of racism toward the GOP. Obama even brought it up in the last presidential debate. It was supremely stupid to color McCain, Palin, and the GOP as racist due to a couple random shout-outs from the crowd in the first place, but as it turns out, the original charge isn't even true. Nobody at the Palin rally yelled out "kill him." The Secret Service reviewed the tapes, and concluded what was shouted out at one rally was "tell him", not "kill him", and at another rally the Secret Service said no comment anything like "kill him" was made (link). I can't wait for all the forthcoming apologies from the media, Democrats, and Obama. Not that they will ever come.
—
In my last post, I contended that McCain won the third presidential debate decisively. Two new polls came out yesterday. An AP poll had it Obama 44, McCain 42. A Gallup poll of registered voters had it Obama 46, McCain 44. Other polls have Obama further ahead, but they weren't done after the debate. The new polls show McCain closing the gap. Sounds like McCain got a debate bump to me. You don't do that by losing.
—
The unintentionally hilarious Democratic VP candidate, Joe Biden, appeared on the NBC Today Show, talking about Joe the plumber. Biden said "I don't know any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood who make over $250,000. The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood…they make less than $250,000 a year."

FYI – Joe Biden lives on a $3 million compound. There AREN'T any plumbers, cops, or small grocery store owners living in Biden's neighborhood.

Bonus Biden quote: "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

I'm no Einstein, but doesn't "JOBS" have four letters ?
—
From the 'Boundless Ego' files – Can you BELIEVE that Barack Obama complained that he'd be 2-3 points higher in the polls were it not for FoxNews ? RIIIIIIIGHT. Like Obama doesn't have ENOUGH of a media advantage already. As Newsbuster's publisher Brent Bozell rebutted, "Okay, Sen. Obama, we will cede you the point that the Fox News Channel, by accurately portraying you and your record, has brought you down 2-3% in the polls. Now it's time for you to concede that were it not for NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc., etc., etc. Sen. John McCain would be up by 20%."

Amen.

If Obama wins, maybe he will amend the Fairness Doctrine to outlaw FoxNews so he won't have to be bothered with ANY media opposition for his re-election campaign.

Dos Vadanya.

If any of you read my last post, called A Deficit Disorder, you probably know my feelings regarding our federal government's economic policies range somewhere between cynical and disgusted. Lately, with mob boss Hugo Chavez Hank Paulson running the Treasury like Don Corleone, making the big banks an offer they can't refuse to force a partial nationalization of those institutions, "disgusted" might not be a strong enough term. Paulson even told Wells Fargo Bank, who didn't want to be nationalized, that if they didn't accept his offer, they should (cue Marlon Brando's Don Vito voice) "never seek my favors or protections again." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but Paulson really did say words to that effect. Heaven help us. That's what happens when you give the feds so much power.

So, I almost passed on watching the third presidential debate last night. However, I was interested to see if John McCain would go down fighting or go down easy, so I tuned in. I was glad I did. While the talking heads, with their sound-byte mentalities, were saying things like "McCain didn't score the knockout he needed", or that Barack Obama "didn't make a major gaffe" after the debate, I saw things much differently. I thought John McCain cleaned Obama's clock on almost every issue. As an economic Conservative and an economic Libertarian, I finally heard from McCain some of what I've been hoping to hear. I finally heard McCain outline some fiscal policies to balance the budget and reign in Fedzilla (as Ted Nugent calls it), and I finally heard McCain expose Obama for the wrong-headed, wealth redistributing, big government tax and spend liberal that he is. I only wish McCain had mentioned some of the fascist policies of the other two heads of the liberal triumvirate of terror who would control our government if Obama gets elected and the Democrats increase their control of Congress – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who would attempt to do things like eliminate the secret ballot in union voting (you VILL join ze union, comrade !) with the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, and squelch free speech on talk radio (which mostly happens to be Conservative free speech) by imposing the equally Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine. Ah, how I love the smell of our basic democratic principles burning in the morning.

McCain and Obama spent much time talking to Joe the plumber, who, after 15 years of working hard at his job, was finally in a position to own his plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's tax plans would steal his hard-earned success and limit his ability to expand his business. (you really need to watch the entire video of Obama and Joe talking here). Obama's answer really does amount to stealing Joe's success, squelching Joe's American dream, and Obama taking the fruits of Joe's labor and "spreading the wealth around" to others. It's classic big government liberal-speak. In contrast, McCain showed how his tax cuts for business and low capital gains tax rates would enable Joe to grow his business, allowing Joe to hire people and create jobs. Obama's answer to Joe is the perfect example of how big government high-tax policies work against wealth creation and economic expansion. Instead of penalizing Joe for his success, the government should get the hell out of the way of people like Joe and let them do their thing. That is what would benefit society. McCain also rightly pointed out that Joe the plumber is not rich, though he would be under Obama's entitlement mindset. When Obama talks about tax "fairness", there really is nothing at all fair about it. Joe the plumber mentioned the flat tax during his conversation with Obama. The flat tax would be fair, but to Obama, those "rich" folks like Joe, who pay 35% income tax rates, aren't being taxed enough, whereas the non-rich, who often pay little to no income taxes, deserve even more money from the government. Once again, the word "fairness" takes on an Orwellian meaning in liberaldom (some animals are more equal than others).

McCain also pointed out that the last president wrong-headed enough to increase federal spending and raise taxes during a severe recession like this one was Herbert Hoover. Hoover's policies are widely seen as leading to the 1929 Great Depression. Are we about to allow history to repeat itself by electing Obama ? McCain noted that we shouldn't be raising ANYONE'S taxes during these harsh economic times. Amen, brother. We should be cutting back on government spending and stimulating the economy instead, as McCain said he plans to do, with both a hatchet AND a scalpel, and the veto pen too. Aww, Johnny, you had me at "freeze government spending."

McCain's plans are responsible, at least relative to Obama's. Obama's plans are nuts, unless our desire is to create a socialist country. I know I don't want that. I hope you don't either. Our founders sure didn't, which is why we have that wonderful document called the Constitution. It's too bad that very few are paying any attention to it these days, and that goes for both sides of the political aisle, including both Barack Obama and Hank Paulson. I couldn't find where Paulson is allowed to forcibly nationalize privately owned banks anywhere in the Constitution, but I guess I just don't get the notion of the "living" and "evolving" Constitution (Damn right I don't).

McCain mentioned several times that Obama's answer to absolutely everything is more government spending, more government control, and more government, period. Obama would take our already overblown federal government and put it on even stronger steroids. That is exactly the wrong answer – wrong for liberty, wrong for fairness, and wrong for America. Taxes, while necessary, should always be kept as low as possible. We have an annual time known as Tax Freedom Day, which is when the average American has paid off his government tax burden. It varies from state to state, but now falls around the end of April. After the financial crisis is cleaned up, and counting all our unfunded liabilities and national debt, who knows, it might fall at the end of June, July, or even August. When the average American is working 4-6 months of the year just for the government, what is that, but forced labor ? And what is forced labor, but slavery ? Do we want to keep EXPANDING that ? Hell no. America isn't a government chain gang. That cannot possibly be good for any of us in the long run. Each and every one of us has a civic duty to keep America free, to keep taxes low, and to limit our Fedzilla, to keep the American dream alive. And if the citizenry can't see that now, with all that is currently going on in our country, then we are certainly doomed.

You can find a transcript of the third presidential debate here. McCain took it to Obama, finally, though I wish McCain had been even more forceful in making his case. In boxing parlance, McCain too often jabs and jabs, and then inexplicably backs off from throwing the overhand right that he just set Obama up for. Too bad, because I don't think Obama could hear the rest of us Conservatives delivering those overhand rights by yelling at the tv sets in our living rooms.

I'm sick and tired of hearing our D.C. politicians talking about when it's "okay" to run federal deficits. They all come up with some excuse to do it, or if they pretend to address the issue, they come up with some 5-10 year plan to balance the budget the year AFTER their presidential term ends. Yet, we keep putting these same con men in office over and over. I think it was 2003 when I first heard George W. Bush say it was "okay" to run a deficit (more federal spending than federal revenue) during either a war or a recession. Conveniently for Bush, he inherited a recession and started two wars, so, voila!, he could spend to his heart's delight, and he did, running deficit after deficit. Now, we have both Bush and the Democratic-led Congress jumping on board the deficit train, because we have another, voila!, recession, brought on by the financial crisis. Calling what's going on now in D.C. the "deficit train" is a severe understatement. It's really more like the deficit supersonic jet. After we end up spending a couple trillion beyond our means to fix the financial crisis brought on by living beyond our means (does the word "ironic" even have meaning any more ?), where will we be ? All the same deficit problems we had before will still exist, only worse. The deficits will be much larger. Now, add our two presidential candidates to the mix, Barack Obama (D) and John McCain (R), both of whom's economic plans are projected to add trillions more to the federal deficit in their first term by independent analysts. That means by 2012, our current federal debt of $10 trillion will explode up to $13-14 trillion. And the $53 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities will still be there, rolling in like a tsunami to sweep away our country's future.

What will we have accomplished by all this deficit spending ? Not a thing, really, and the destruction of our country, ultimately. And I haven't even got to the inflation part of the equation. All this deficit spending will devalue the dollar much further and result in inflation, stagflation, or whatever kind of -flation you prefer, none of it good for our country, none of it good for our citizens.

Pop question: Who was the last U.S. president to reduce the federal debt during his administration ?

If you said Bill Clinton, that's wrong. He added about $1.4 trillion to the debt during his eight years. He looks good compared to Dubya, who is projected to add around $4.7 trillion to the debt, but Clinton still ran it up, as did Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt, if my calculations are correct. I can't even answer my own question, because the historical debt tables I found only went back to 1940, and every single administration since that time has added to the federal debt.

With the unfunded entitlement liabilities looming, it appears to me that without significant policy changes, the federal debt will rise geometrically, ultimately destroying the American empire. The current financial crisis will only be the beginning of a much deeper and unrelenting financial crisis.

And McCain is running campaign ads about William Ayers. Obama is running ads about McCain being the same as Bush. Obama pimps CHANGE while ignoring the huge deficit and debt increases his own policies will bring. Ditto for McCain.

Change, my butt. They are BOTH more of the same.

There are only two ways out of the mess we are in. We have to either jack taxes through the roof to pay for all this government spending, or we have to drastically reduce government spending. If we take the tax increase path, we'd have to virtually double our current tax revenue. Doubling taxes is an economy killer of an idea if I ever heard one, so the only viable path out of this is to drastically cut government spending.

Since it appears that the Democrats are going to take over both the Presidency and Congress this election cycle, and will have the power to mostly do whatever they want, let me deal with their plans. Color me more than skeptical that liberal Democratic control will result in anything other than giant government spending increases, along with an additional tax burden on all Americans. If any of you really buy into the "Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans" jive, let me remind you of a few things. First, it's really only about 80% that Obama will cut taxes for, and second, about half of those 80% don't pay any income taxes, so what Obama is really proposing for them is welfare, not tax cuts. Third, if you think Obama's little tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy "from the bottom up", as Obama likes to say, you only need to look at the failure of the $150 billion stimulus package that was passed earlier this year. It didn't stimulate anything, and neither will Obama's plan. Only 10-20% of the stimulus money was actually put back into the economy. In order to stimulate the economy, your have to increase private investment and induce business to grow. I'm philosophically in favor of tax cuts for sure, but Obama's tax cuts and his health care plan are really only expansions of the welfare state, and that only leads to MORE government spending, not less. In fact, other than the little middle class tax cut that Obama has devised to get elected, ALL of Obama's plans are for more and more big government. Exactly the wrong path to travel forward for America.

We are in trouble, and there is no relief in sight. We won't get any relief unless we demand it, and we aren't doing that. We are letting the status quo that has given us these enormous financial problems remain.

Soon I'll try to lay out some plans to fix what ails America, the Libertarian way, since it appears neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are up to the task, judging from the evidence I've seen most of my life.