Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama's Oxymoron

President Obama in a recent interview with Dianne Sawyer said, "he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two term president." Let's dissect that statement a bit and try and figure out what he's trying to say.  Before Obama was elected we had 43 presidents, and not all were elected. Some succeeded to the presidency after death, resignation or assassination, but only 7 who had been elected, attempted to, but  failed to win reelection...John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, William H.Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George HW. Bush. Grover Cleveland served two elected terms but not consecutively, and after his second term did not seek reelection.

Of those 7 presidents who were elected to a single term and lost their reelection bid, do any of those names stand out as a quote, " really good one term president?" You could make the case that George HW. Bush had success running Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but his broken promise of no new taxes, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot caused his down fall. The rest are not really household names, and other than the answer to obscure trivia questions, nothing stands out about their presidencies. There are also many presidents elected to two terms that historians would describe as mediocre. Now if president Obama is saying he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two termer, isn't that phrase "a really good one term president,"  an Oxymoron. There are many known oxymorons...  Jumbo shrimp, a fine mess, boneless ribs, forgotten memories, alone in a crowd, half empty, etc. "Really good one term president" seems to fit. The idea that a really good one term president wouldn't get reelected is ludicrous.

Maybe he's trying to tell us more. Wouldn't history have shown that those infamous seven were vindicated over time if they'd taken that bold initiative, that history proved right, but was rejected contemporaneously,  and cost them reelection. Is he saying he's willing to forgo a second term to do what's right for the American people? Or is there a hidden message in that phrase and an explanation behind it? I vote for the later. Those presidents that failed at reelection didn't really have a distinguished or historic first term, unless the historic nature of their presidency was not a good thing in the minds of the electorate. 

We all watched with anticipation the president's state of the union address Wednesday night, and many of us hoped that we would see a moderation and a definite pivot from policies that lost the democrat party two state house and one senate seat over the last three months. No one can deny that those elections were a rejection of the Obama agenda and the democrat leadership in congress. But instead we saw a defiant president, willing to double down on his signature agenda items of health care reform, cap and trade and a continual expansion of government and record deficits. It's clear he can't accept the conclusion that most Americans have already come to. And that conclusion is less Obama, and more freedom. So what is he trying to tell Diane Sawyer?

I don't pretend to be Dr. Phil, but what we see in this president is a continual hubris that defies description. If it's true he's willing to forgo a second term to become in his words , "a really good president," He has basically dismissed the entire, or a least a majority of the electorate as imbeciles. They are neanderthals, that lack the evolution and intelligence that only he and his Kool-aid drinking sycophants possess. They are unaware of his historic purpose here on earth, and as the first messiah was rejected by the chosen people, he finds himself in a similar dynamic. If only they understood who he was, and why he's here. He came to change America, and the world, and it was all going so well. The campaign saw women fainting at his appearances, and countless thousands waiting for hours to catch a glimpse of him. His Berlin speech announced his appearance to the rest of world. The Nobel committee understood his mission and gifted his arrival as a fulfilled promise like the maji of long ago.

Now he's left to sacrifice his power to one four year term, which is one year longer than the first messiah's ministry on earth. He came to change America for the good of the people, and un-clinch the fist of our enemies, kind of like, "peace on earth, good will toward men." He told Harry Reid after he complimented him on another masterful speech, "I have a gift," and now he's saying that gift may be to sacrifice long term power form what he considers long term gain, and to remake America. What are the American people left to conclude from what has transpired over the last twelve months? Is he the one, that gifted orator and intellectual giant, that came to save us from ourselves, and usher in a new age , an egalitarian utopia, a transformational historic figure? Or is he just another narcissistic elite, that suffers from a messiah complex and delusions of grandeur? Once again I vote for the latter, and recommend we grant his wish, "to sacrifice a second term for good of the people."
Check out my other blog....Con Men 4 Palin

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Obama's Idealistic Hypocrisy

Why has Obama's promise of redistribution and collectivism turned into a special interest hay day? We all remember how Obama told Joe the plumber that it's a good thing to spread the wealth around. There is no question that Obama is a firm believer in redistribution policies, and most all his policies have that stated goal . But, are they really doing what they were intended to do? Let's take a look at the stimulus bill, and it's structuring and timing. In fiscal year 2009  the stimulus money was distributed to twenty five congressional districts, and only eight of those are either represented by Republicans or Blue dog {Fiscally Conservative democrats}. Is that their idea of an egalitarian utopia? Only 24% of the stimulus funds appropriated was spent in fiscal year 2009, while in 2010, an election year, 48% of the funds will be spent, in an obvious attempt to help the democrat majority in the midterm elections. Now let me ask you this, is this a fair redistribution of taxpayer money? Of course there's always a political motive to appropriation bills, but this bill was rushed through to help the America people, and get the economy back on track. But, it's obvious structuring and timing is blatant politics, meant to help democrat Americans and their economy, as well as their representatives.

Let's take a look at the auto bailouts and the bankruptcy restructuring of Chrysler. First of all a bankruptcy of this magnitude should follow established norms, but the Obama administration stepped in and tinkered with the process. Richard A. Epstein in a fine Forbes article points this out. I quote him, "the nonstop political interference of the Obama administration, put it's muscle behind the beleaguered United Auto Workers. It's onerous collective bargaining agreements are off limits to the reorganization provisions, thereby preserving the current labor rigidities in a down market. Equally bad, the established priorities of creditor claims outside bankruptcy have been cast aside in this bankruptcy case as the unsecured claims of the union health pension plan have received a better deal than the secured claims of secured bond holders, some of which may represent pension plans of their own." Does that sound like policy that's good for all, or does it look like a blatant political favor for the unions, that gave their support, and millions of dollars to the president for his campaign, and an unfair cram down to the secured bond holders, and their obligation to the pension plans of many non union workers

How about the health care plan passed by the senate? Once again we have an attempt to redistribute health. Sounds like a noble goal. They will cram down medicare by 500 billion dollars, to pay for a government controlled health care system that will only add about twenty million  newly covered to the insurance rolls and guarantee the insurers whom they love to bash, unprecedented profits because of a mandate that all must buy in. Of course that still leaves about 16 million uninsured, but  these numbers vary depending on whom you ask. They will also tax so-called Cadillac plans, except, once again, for the unions who will be exempt for the next eight years. The trial lawyers, who are major democrat donors are rewarded by a refusal to even discuss tort reform in the bill. So both the elderly, by reduction in service, and non union wealthy Americans will bear the brunt of paying for this redistribution of health.  The process itself is also wrought with favoritism. The two most blatant examples are the Cornhuskers kickback which exempts Nebraska from ever paying for medicaid expansion again, and the Louisiana Purchase which gives that state a $300 million increase in medicaid. These two deals were necessary to secure the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. We have seen the conservative state of Nebraska push back at this favoritism as Nelson numbers have plummeted since the deal was made. It's rather Ironic that a conservative state doesn't want to receive special treatment, and seems to be more concerned with fairness than this administration. 

It's clear that  every major policy undertaken by this administration and rushed through congress doesn't resemble their ideal of redistribution. In their mind it's right to tax the rich and redistribute to the poor and needy. But, their policies are good only for those who support and fund democrat candidates, those living in liberal congressional district, and of course the unions. Remember the statement that Biden made during the campaign. "The wealth of the country needs to be returned to it's rightful owners." Well, we have seen who they feel the rightful owners should be. Their policies are directed at rewarding political allies and punishing political foes. Their code of governing is more partisan than any administration has ever been, and their polarization of the country is second to none, as a recent Gallop polls shows.

It's hypocritical to continue to preach class warfare and declare that the rich should pay their fair share, to help those trying to get a hand up. If they really believed that, they would have to admit that they are now the powerful in Washington. The rich, so to speak. If they believe in redistribution they would be giving up some of their political wealth. They talk about the winners in life giving their fair share to the not so fortunate. But, they declared after their electoral victories, We won, so we'll write the stimulus and health care bills. We will decide, as we intrude into bankruptcy court, who gets what,  and what goes where to whom and how. Sounds like those evil rich corporate CEOs  they so like to vilify, and now they want to punish for their avarice behavior. They are constantly talking about the growing gap between the haves and have nots, all the time separating themselves from the will of the people as a ruling elite that declares without reservation, "We know best." While they excoriate corporate America for profiteering at the expense of the poor, they themselves exclude nearly half the American people and their representatives in congress a voice in the process. Their hubris has offended the public to the point of a rebellious insurrection, that could result in this administration going down in history as the Enron of politics, whose fall from the heights of power could be more sudden and dramatic as to become an infamous historical benchmark of hypocrisy. The court of public opinion, {the American voter} will decide their fate..
Check out my other blog and new post: Sarah Celebrates Pro-Life 4 Palin

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Can Obama Pivot To Populism?

We have a president that loves basketball and apparently is very good at it. But can he pivot in the court of public opinion as well as on the basketball court? The Massachusetts senate upset by Scott Brown, has thrown a monkey wrench into the Obama agenda. Not only was it a death blow to Obama care but all his big government solutions are going to be toxic for a congress who will have to face the voters in November. It seems that some have gotten the message as a few democrat congressmen have crafted a letter to the president to plead for an extension to the Bush Tax cuts for another two years. They know the president's approach of tax increases and smack down of Wall street is antithetical to growth and job creation. Many other members are making statements that health care should be given a time out, while others pronounce it dead.

Meanwhile the president himself is trying to look all populous rather than pompous, but that pivot may draw a traveling violation from the refs, "the American public." It's hard to describe the language he has used up until this point as populous, when just last week he was denigrating Scott Brown's pickup truck while campaigning for Martha Coakley. Not only was it condescending to all American's who drive pick up trucks, but snide little remarks  like, "Anybody can buy a truck,"  is untrue. He actually has no idea of the reality of the countries difficult economic struggles. Does he know how difficult it is to secure a private sector loan  for the purchase of a new Pickup truck? Banks still aren't lending like before the recession, and used pickups have spiked because of government manipulation with the Cash for Clunkers program this summer. A program designed to stimulate car sales, which it did temporarily. But, the clunkers were than mandated to be destroyed by disabling the engines, never to belch their toxic fumes again. This policy comes from the elitist mentality to effect a change for the environment, rather than the concerns of struggling Americans, and those looking for a used car or truck suddenly saw a spike in their retail value because hundreds of thousand were taken off the road. 

We all remember the criticism that George H. W. Bush got when he visited a grocery store and was excoriated  when he watched with amazement a scanner work.  The mainstream media castigated him for being out of touch. No such condemnation for the new White House Inhabitant.. Obama's new populous rants against the big banks, which according to him, he saved from extinction a year ago is the talk of the week. He's caused a 600 point drop in the Dow, just this week with  his proposal of taxing and regulating the behemoths he was so anxious to save. Does he not know the fallout to the average taxpayers 401 K's and retirement accounts when he wants to appeal to their populous anger? The assumption that these new regulations and taxes are going to be absorbed by the banks and not passed on to the consumers in the form of higher fees and interest rates is cynical. Even though the idea to stop the banks from excessive risk taking may be noble he knows all to well the consumer is going to be paying the increase in one form or another.

It's also hard to present a populous mentality while playing 29 rounds of golf your first year in office with an unemployment rate hovering around 10%. The pictures of him vacationing over the Christmas holidays in Hawaii, while the country was struggling to put gifts under the tree for their children,  was tone deaf at least. His few remarks about the Christmas day pantie bomber in between his shaved iced sessions and golf games were unseemly to many. Of course a president is due a vacation, and nobody is denying him that. But, his summer vacation at Blue Heron ranch in Martha's Vineyard, in the town of Chilmark which is described as the most expensive small town in all of America, was tone deaf as well. Not really a populist vacation spot. We all remember the media disgust at Bush's vacation times at his ranch in Crawford, which stemmed from their discontent at spending time in a dusty hot and undesirable climate. They loved their coverage of Obama at the Vineyard though, hobnobbing with the Eastern elites, and didn't seem to criticize his avarice when the rest of the population was canceling modest vacations because of job layoffs. And of course we can't forget those Obama White house parties, with $100.00 a lb Japanese imported steak, Vodka Martinis and Stevey Wonder concerts while excoriating bank executives for golf tournament parties and business trips to Vegas, which hurt the travel industry, and once again the little people.

This first year in office has this president pushing legislative policies like health care and cap and trade as transformative issues, that will secure his place in history, rather than addressing the needs of the public. His stimulus was cynically written, with the money dispersed mostly in 2010, rather than 2009 to coincide with an election cycle, rather than addressing the immediate needs of unemployment. Of course many of us believe it was written as a huge payoff to political allies that helped the democrats take control. 

When you've criticized the Pennsylvania voters as bitter and clinging to their guns and religion, during a fundraiser to San Francisco elites, the pivot to populism may be a stretch. Such a stretch that he's going to drag his pivot foot, and turn the ball over again to the American voters to decide the agenda in 2010. This is not a president who in any way shape or form, presents himself as a populist man of the people, with common sense solutions to difficult problems. He is what he is, an East coast educated intellectual elite, that governs in theory, with less than 7% of his cabinet having any private sector practical job creating experience. My advice is that he cut the phony populist transformation, and let the chips fall where they may, because the public is not as easily deceived as they once were.
Read: Sarah's my other blog....Con-Men 4 Palin

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Scott Brown's Chritmas Gift

Scott Brown is leading as of the writing of this blog, 52% to Martha Coakleys 47% with 96% of precincts reporting. It looks like it's going to be a a very good night for Scott Brown, and in a larger context the American people. The simple question is. what happened? The White House is going to criticize Martha Coakley, and throw her under the bus as the spin machine starts the diesel engines, before the night is done. I went back and looked at the polls that were available on Real Clear Politics, after the primaries and it shows a surprising bit of information. Coakley was leading in the Suffolk poll by 30 points taken from 9/12 to 9/15. Her lead increased to 31% in that same poll taken from 11/4 to 11/8. So in almost a two month period her lead actually expanded. That was the last poll taken before the beginning of the year. I guess a lead of 31 points makes frequent polling unnecessary.

The White Houses spin will be that she was a bad campaigner and took the electorate for granted, while Brown was out campaigning nonstop. The only problem with this analysis is that Brown was campaigning nonstop during those early months of the campaign also, and Coakley still increased her lead, or at least didn't dissipate. You can't blame the holidays and the fact that everybody might have been focused on other things, because that 11/8 poll came almost three weeks before Thanksgiving. The next poll taken was from 1/2 to 1/6, right after the first of the year by the Boston Globe, and her lead had shrunk to 17 points and Rasmussen had a poll on 1/4 that showed a 9 point lead for Coakley. Within another week Brown had caught up and Coakley started to crater and it was never a race after that.

So what took place after the holidays, that led the fine people of Massachusetts to turn on the obvious one, and switch to a little known, and give him a huge victory? It's obvious Brown is a great campaigner, very appealing, and was wise to nationalize the campaign, which brought in over a million dollars a day in the final week. Coakley on the other hand made some verbal gaffes, like, "there's no more terrorists in Afghanistan" after the Christmas day bombing attempt, and seemed to show an elitist attitude. But, remember we are in Massachusetts, the same state that has reelected the haughty John Kerry time and again. Something significant happened during the holidays that was a death knell  to the Coakley campaign.

Christmas eve was the end of the Coakley campaign, and she didn't even know it. She was a dead woman walking from Christmas day to election night. Christmas is a time to celebrate the birth of a savior, but, it was also the birth of a new political hero thanks to Harry Reid and the democrats in the Senate. If you remember, Christmas eve of 2009 was made infamous for the democrats, because they arrogantly rammed through with exactly 60 votes, an ill advised health care bill. A bill already corrupted by the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, and the Florida medicare carve out. We all know why they did it. They figured everyone would be preoccupied with relatives arriving, and last minute gift buying. When the American people re-focused after the week of holiday festivities, Scott Brown began his surge and Coakley never recovered. Obama's Sunday appearance for her, re-enforced the arrogance of power that led to the Christmas Eve senate traverse to lay a gift at Obama's feet. Traditional Americans only give reverence to the true Messiah on that day.

They weren't going to take that kind of arrogance and bribery to have their health care put in the hands of a party that dismisses the people, and imposes their will on the electorate. That sentiment was also reflected in the bluer than blue state of Massachusetts. Then after the Christmas Eve vote there were all the rumors of reconciling the two bills in secret, and the C-SPAN non-transparency dust up. Instead of the appropriate conference committee for reconciling the two bills, the complicity continued. The final straw that put Brown over the top for good was the union carve out just last week, that sickened the public, and reveals a corruption, and cronyism in this administration that's second to none. Brown also promised he would be the 41st vote to stop Obama Care, While Coakley promised she would be the 60th to pass it.

I don't want to take anything away from Scott Brown, because he ran an almost flawless campaign and took advantage of every misstep the democrats in the senate, and Coakley had made. Coakley, instead of questioning an ill conceived game plan, embraced it, and lost her footing in the slippery slime of an Obama agenda. Brown's victory, and Coakley's defeat can be attributed to a Christmas eve debacle that fooled no one.
Now we have in the news today, the administrations defiance, that if Coakley in fact loses this race, which she did, Obama is going to take a combative stance, and essentially double down on every aspect of his agenda. All I can say, is Christmas may come, on the first Tuesday of November this year, for Conservatives, Republicans, and the American people. Will they never learn, the American people will not be made fools of?

Read ...Let Sarah Swing The my other blog...Con-Men 4 Palin

Friday, January 15, 2010

One Last Roadblock To Obama Care

 I watched the Video of Obama imploring the voters of Massachusetts to work for his gal, Martha Coakley in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's old seat. I wondered to myself, is it a wise thing for a president losing his footing in ever slipping poll numbers to tell the electorate, "she will be my ally." I'm aware of the blueness of Massachusetts, but I'm also aware of the anger and revulsion that most of the electorate is showing to the Obama agenda, that even effects the blue states. Massachusetts may very well be a progressive paradigm, but, the good people of the state can also see a president ill equipped for the job at hand. They know and understand that there's a difference between ramming legislation through without proper bipartisan support and transparent debate, and building consensus and grass roots support from the people. Ted Kennedy knew that as well. We saw him many times reach across the aisle and join forces with George Bush, for education reform, and his old friend Orrin Hatch, and many others through the years. He knew that consensus was essential for proper legislation, and proved that he could get it, as his extraordinary tenure in the US senate revealed.

This president's game plan of, "we need to get it while we can," approach is offensive to not only conservatives, but to liberals who would much rather see the country engaged and convinced that this is the right direction we should be going. The rush to legislate is unwise in the minds of most, especially when you're talking about 1/6 of the US economy. This very fact is probably the reason why this race is even competitive. Had this process been more deliberative and transparent with republicans invited into the process, Martha Coakley would be in no danger of defeat. But, when bills, that touch us all are rushed through in secret, the public rightfully reacts. It's akin to a police department summoning all squad cars to put up road blocks at every intersection to stop a deliberate crime spree. Right now this administration needs to put their hands behind their backs and listen carefully to their miranda rights. 

The November election  saw  new Republican governors elected in blue state New Jersey, and the new blue state of Virginia. The Virginia race wasn't even close, but this administration plowed through those road blocks and continued to rob the electorate of bipartisanship and thorough debate on the issue of healthcare. They continued their back room deals that put Ben Nelson on wanted posters in the state of Nebraska, because of the bribery charges, that secured his vote for cloture to move the bill along. Their insistence on seizing this historic opportunity while they still have the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster and close debate is wrong headed and insane. They understand this will be their only opportunity to make this happen because their losses this November will be substantial. This is where they lose me. Why would any politician knowingly vote for legislation that they know is not wanted by the vast majority of the people? Aren't they elected to represent the people? Do they really think that once it's passed everybody will just except it and all will be well? There is already rumblings by many groups that their endorsements to opposition candidates in November, will be contingent on their pledge to repeal

Scott Brown has seized on this theme and has nationalized his candidacy to reflect the mood of America. Massachusetts already has a health care overhaul that insures 98% of the people, using free market solution, and probably have no stomach for another go round that will effect them again. So his campaign is smartly positioning himself as the last road block on the super highway to a health care overhaul that the American people want defeated. There is no other possible explanation for his extraordinary poll numbers this close to the election.

Democrats on the other hand could do the wise thing, and it would only take one senator, to stop this madness. Listen to your constituents and vote to continue debate. Let the American people have the transparency, and debate that they were denied in the stimulus, cap and trade in the house, and many of the appropriation bills passed in 2009. It wouldn't be the end of health care legislation, it would just be the end of Obama care that is being spuriously reworked in back rooms somewhere in DC. A bipartisan bill is still possible that would address the inefficiencies and cost problems in the current system, as well as guaranteeing coverage for more. In every crime movie I've seen, if law enforcement can get through to one of the perpetrators to stop the madness, the crime spree ends without dead bodies lining the streets. So far not one of the gang has succumbed, so the police, "the American people," may have to rely on that one last roadblock, and elect Scott Brown to the US senate.
Read: Let Sarah Swing The my other blog.......Con-Men4 Palin

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Chicago Chicanery

As everyone's attention shifts back from the terror attack over Detroit and re- focuses on the health care legislation slithering through the halls of congress, or should I say under the doors of  smoke filled, dark backrooms, there's becoming a putrid odor in the air. Transparency has been redefined as an opaque black window pane of a sinister limousine sneaking through back alleys. The Chicago thug machine continues it's chicanery at an unprecedented pace. Have you noticed that Chicago and chicanery can be used interchangeable, and the name Chicago comes from a word meaning striped skunk, or as the native's use of a leek they called skunk plant. I'm not trying to disparage all Chicagoans but the group that slithered into DC from the windy city is giving new meaning to the word Chicanery, with their endless bribes for votes, secret negotiations, and un-ending arm twisting. Their goal is obsessive, and no amount of public dis-approval seems to be slowing down their race to Shanghai the health care of all Americans. 

What's next for the thug machine? Well, apparently they're planning to delay seating of the republican senate candidate from Massachusetts if in fact he pulls off the most improbable of all improbabilities, and wins, not Ted Kennedy's, but the peoples US senate seat. The delay could protect the filibuster prove 60 vote majority and insure passage of Obama Care, over the opposition of most voters. This would take cynicism to new heights and guarantee a revolt that would make Boston's original Tea party look like, well, a little girls afternoon tea party. Isn't it ironic it's all taking place in Massachusetts? Of course the dems are enlisting the heavy hitters, as president Obama has weighed in, and  former president Bill Clinton, who thinks the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue would've made an excellent personal barista according to excerpts from the new book, " Game Change." The hope is, these heavy hitters will make sure Chicanery isn't needed.

Meanwhile Obama care is hitting new lows in the polls, and the only ones clamoring for quick passage seems to be the soon disposed dems, who have decided to fall on the sword for their ideologically driven take over of 1/6 of the economy. It would be principled and heroic to commit hari kari if in fact the reason for your de-boweling did a nobel thing, and improved the lives of all involved. However in the light of unprecedented opposition to Obama care, and the burden and intrusion it would foster on an unconvinced populous, this exercise in political suicide seems a little psychotic. Have they decided that they've gone well past the point of no return, and a rethinking would be useless, or do they realize that they're going to be held responsible for the attempted theft, so they might as well carry it out to the final shootout, that will ultimately result in a bloody Quentin Tarentino final scene for those dems up for reelection this November.

Do the worried dems feel that a president teetering on an approval rate hovering below 50% is a good bet to rest your reelection hopes on? Will the Massachusetts Senate race be close enough to slap some rosiness  back into the face of blue dogs, from purple states? I'm unconvinced that Obama Care is a done deal. Hari Kari, although honorable in the far East doesn't seem to be a particularly apt act of valor for a congress that has used every diabolical and dishonest act to perpetuate an insane bill of historic proportions. Would we expect honor from a group easily bribed, and easily willing to sell out their constituents for unprecedented favors from a dead man walking...Harry Reid? Polls show his reelection bid will be improbable at best, especially since his liberal elitist description of what makes an African American attractive to the populous, was revealed in that same new book, "Game Change."

We're seeing a troubled economy where only government is hiring, while the private sector is gasping for air. The British health care system is the third largest employer in the world, with only the Chinese army, and the Indian railway being larger. Great Britian  has 61 million people. What would the employment of government workers be if Obama Care passes and health care is suddenly thrust into the category of a public utility for over 300 million people. The transfer of resources and the shift in  political allegiance would remake America forever. Critical mass would be reached with those dependent and working for government invariably causing an electoral shift that would make free market capitalists endangered. Never again would we see the engines of independent capitalistic endeavors exploding like the last 100 years. Standard of living would be forever reduced, as government sucks more and more from the hard working producers and transfers that to government bureaucrats. I guess maybe I just defined why democrats might be willing to fall on their swords for Obama care. Unending power for the federal government, and a cushy non elected job for life. My only hope now, is that the democrat party is not as cynical and selfish as I just described. Hmmm...I think I just got a revelation, to what the phrase hope and change means. We hope for the best, and then when we look and see who's in charge we change from optimistic, to very pessimistic!

Read: Sarah's 4 Palin

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Tea Party Passion!

There is a new dynamic appearing in News reports and Op-Eds all around the country as we enter into a new decade. The major shift in public opinion seems to be giving hope to the Grand Old Party. But, is their optimism a little too optimistic? Of course there's a sense that the democrat party has squandered their moment of incredible opportunity, and have completely over reached and taken their newly found power over the cliff, like an adolescent driver carelessly testing the limits of an high powered Ferrari. They've created, with their overspending and intrusion into free market capitalism, a movement that seems to be growing stronger rather than abating over time.

The new administration, that entered power with an unequaled basket full of good will has also squandered their political capital with broken promises and a whiplash remake of all things America. Their arrogance that announces to everyone, "we know best," has offended those willing to overlook experience or lack thereof. They have governed, with a left leaning mob mentality, that is ready to knee cap the opposition while picking winners from an array of political allies. Their radical agenda is as ambitious as a lottery winner's Christmas list. Usually the lottery winner will announce upon receiving their check, that "this will not change me at all," until they're seen window shopping that same high powered Ferrari. This administration didn't even make a pretense of fiscal sanity, with an over bloated stimulus and the signing of an omnibus bill filled with 9 thousand earmarks, within the first few months.

While all this has created a scenario where you'd think the GOP would be positioned to take advantage, the truth is far from that. Even though the Republicans are beating the democrats in most generic polls for the midterm elections, there is still a sense that the public is not willing to jump on board a party that also squandered their opportunity to lead with fiscal discipline. The Bush years, while given credit for keeping us safe from terrorism, was replete with budget busting bills that most GOP congressmen and women were eager to sign off on. While many voted against them in the last two elections because of frustration from the Iraq war, which I might add has become an overwhelming success, many were frustrated with the spending priorities that left us deficits that have only been surpassed by the new kids on the block.

I believe that the elections of 2006 and 2008 may appear closer than they actually are in the rear view mirror of most  voters. They rightfully gave the GOP the ole heave hoe, and for good reason. What makes Republicans think that all will be forgiven come 2010. Does the GOP feel that "the lesser of two evils," is an apt campaign slogan to rest their hopes on.  I don't think it's going to fly.  There is unfortunately for the GOP, a third choice emerging.  Conservatives are more than willing to sacrifice the lesser of two evils for principle and fiscal sanity. I believe all incumbent's records are going to be scrutinized going into the midterm elections, and we're going to see many Republicans bloodied in primaries. If you're a Republican that voted for excessive spending, during the Bush years, you might as well do what some democrat office holders  are doing, retiring before they're voted out as the worse of two evils. The Public is engaged at an unprecedented level, and doesn't seem to have the patience for any more big spending arrogant elitism from either party.  

Maybe its time for all incumbents to go the way of the buggy whip. Maybe there's a new voice arising that says a pox on both your houses. Maybe the old Thomas Jefferson quote, "When government fears the people there is liberty," as opposed to "when the people fear their government there is tyranny," is apt for this moment. It's time for all incumbents to shake in their boots. There's a new citizen rebellion that transcends party affiliation, and political connection. It's called the Tea Party Movement, and has it's roots in common sense conservatism. It's not well organized as yet, and has little Washington connection, but, it's real, and it's not going away. It was spawned from the disdain of watching the political elite buying favor and votes without regard for the good of the country, and the liberty of the individual. The two party system has always been good for America, until now, when neither can be trusted with our tax dollars. We may be at a very historic point, and it has come none too soon.

The only question is, how will this all come down at the 2010 elections. Will the Tea Party, which is mostly conservative, put up primary challenges to many Republicans, or just the ones that are too moderate, and too willing to compromise principles? Yes, to the later. Will they continue that beyond the primaries, and field candidates as independents, because the two parties have not a candidate that meets their criteria? A very strong maybe. Will they support and endorse a Republican  conservative that echos their values and principles? Absolutely, They have already endorsed Scott Brown in the Mass. special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Who should be scared? Every moderate to liberal Democrat, every moderate to liberal Republican, and without question the Obama administration.

Read: Sarah's my other blog...Con-Men 4 Palin

Thursday, January 7, 2010

A President's Epiphany

This is the third post I've written since Dec. 29 after the Christmas day attack on the Delta flight to Detroit from Amsterdam. I wrote the first after the presidents initial statement, thinking I'd captured the essence of his policy. A few days later I wrote another, as he starts a walk back from his original statements, which downplayed the attack. Now I'm writing a third because once again the second post is irrelevant as he is again changing his rhetoric and policy positions. My head is spinning, and I'm wondering if I should even attempt another shot at this, or wait another day or two to see if his moistened finger catches another change in the wind.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the difference from campaign style rhetoric and the enormity of the job at hand. Reality can be hell, and it can also deflate the narcissistic swollen head that comes from an over active ego. The theory of immediate transformation as a result of messiah's appearance on sight is crumbling faster than the twin towers on that fateful day.The rhetoric has gone from, this is an isolated extremist, to, an Al-Qaeda launched plan, to, we screwed up and somebody must pay. His latest statement shows that he is understanding the political reality of terrorism, but still has a problem accepting the most productive way to stop it. He excoriated his national security team, in no uncertain words, for their lack of dispersing and acting upon important information. Then he goes back to his default position.This is the fault of George W. Bush and Guantanamo Bay. He said, and I quote. " But make no mistake, we will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula." 

Excuse me, but I would like to see some sort of data that proves Guantanamo bay has been a recruiting boom for Al-Qeada. In fact, the data shows it's just the opposite. According to an article at NRO, 1/3 of all terrorist activity, since 9/11 has taken place in 2009. Wasn't early 2009 when the newly anointed declared he would close Guantanamo in one years time. So, instead of partying in the streets, or should I say rocky paths of some Pakistani, or Yemeni terrorist camp, we got a tighter fist determination from the Bin Laden Brigade, and a  noticeable uptick in all things murderous from the fascist religious church camp. Who was upset about Guantanamo? Was it Al-Qaeda? Arab nations, or our European allies? There's not much left, except of course the left, who have done everything they can to dismiss and excuse terrorism in any form.  Let's dismiss Europe out of hand, as they have long ago succumbed to the politically correct approach to terror, and their societies are bearing the brunt of their insanity. Are we actually going to form our foreign, and domestic defense policies on the attitude of Arab nations, many of whom we've defended, preserved, and aided over the years. That leaves Al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks worldwide. Any school kid knows that when you succumb to the demands of the playground bully, you not only lose your lunch money but he is emboldened to strike again tomorrow.

Could it be, that Al-Qaeda and terrorists world wide have taken Obama's obvious outreach program, that includes redefining terror terms, i.e. Man caused disasters, granting constitutional rights, and the closing of Gitmo, as a sign the smart nerdy kid is a little weak, and welcoming more bullying? I think I may be on to something, but it isn't rocket science. I actually feel for our president. He obviously thought enough of his persona and attraction, that even the terrorist would pay homage to him as the Europeans and the sycophant left have. It has to come as a stark reality that he was a little too self absorbed to understand the true nature of terrorism. 

He has taken the first step to reverse the trend by canceling all new detainee transfers to Yemen, but his insistence on still closing Gitmo, and treating captured terrorist as constitutionally eligible defendants, shows that the epiphany is not complete. No one is asking for him to do a complete Mea Culpa, just reverse himself to show Americans he's more interested in protecting the country instead of his image world wide, and the rights of terrorists. It's not too late to change  priorities from seeking world wide acceptance and adoration to fulfilling his constitutional oath as president of the United States. It is a stark reality, Mr. President, but, even though you think they should, Al-Qaeda will never love you.
Read: Sarah's Standing On 4 Palin


Monday, January 4, 2010

Obama At A Cross Roads

President Obama's policy on terrorism is teetering on the precipice of ridiculous. His best effort at concocting a kinder and gentler method for dealing with a rabid dog called Al-Qaeda has taken major hits over the past several months. The naivete that led to declaring, that the war on terror was over, or at least re-named,   before this last terrorist attack on Christmas day, has been called out and repudiated by the American people, and in so many words, by Obama himself. His last several public statements have included a walk back from the man caused disaster language, and into a more credible phrasing of the problem at hand. The problem is, does the actions of his administration constitute a walk back, or is he simply trying to present a tough guy tongue, with a limp wrist fist?

Apparently two of the top Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen, were former Gitmo detainees, released during the Bush administration. With this revelation the Obama administration doesn't seem to be re-thinking sending back more to that hot spot. His administration is signaling that the transfer will continue  without a hitch. Is he trying to make good on a campaign promise, and initiative signed his first day in office, without regard for the protection of the American people? The Yemeni Government cannot and will not keep these detainees detained. Every terrorist imprisoned for the Cole bombing has either been released or escaped from Yemeni custody. What does he think these detainees do when repatriated to their home country and leave government custody? Sign up for unemployment, or flip burgers at a fast food joint? Yemen is not America. They do only what they know to do. They return to the battlefield of jihad, where they know the Saudi and Egyptian rich, will continue to support their efforts at damaging the west. They are paid mercenaries with a religious cause, and that is the most dangerous of all. 

The administration's sycophants continue their Sunday show rhetoric, declaring Gitmo is the biggest recruiting tool Al-Qaeda has. Excuse me, but the best recruiting tool for Jihad is effective and successful acts of terror. The Fort Hood attack along with the recent Christmas day attack will bring in far more recruits in a week than Guantanamo has in eight years. Especially when you consider that we've just closed our embassy in Yemen, and terrorism is the number one topic in the land. We can only fairly say that, even though the terrorist failed to bring down the Delta airliner, Al-Qaeda has won the last several battles in this war, and has this administration rocking back on its heels. That hand of kindness has been slapped back in their face, and the messiah's insistence that his brown face and outreach to the Arab world, would cool the hatred is about as naive and narcissistic as assuming that one chosen man can tame a rabid dog. There is no reasoning with them. There is no understanding that will cool their hatred. There is no arbiter of fairness that will quiet their rage.

Another confusing policy, that not only seems unwise, but hypocritical is the insistence to try the latest terrorist in federal court with full constitutional rights, instead of naming him an enemy combatant and putting him through a military tribunal, where interrogations are all the rage. The assistant for home land security  intimated on The Sunday Shows that they would extract information from the pantie bomber by entering into some sort of plea agreement, now that he's lawyered up and not talking. Is that really the way to deal with ruthless killers?

Drone attacks have increased greatly during the Obama administration, which I applaud. But, isn't it a bit hypocritical to fire upon, and toast, suspected terrorists, and I stress the word suspected, while at the same time we're giving constitutional rights and defense attorneys to those caught in the very act of terrorism. How does that reflect well upon our values as a society? shouldn't the same safe guards that justify a high altitude drone attack be used on a captured Al-Qaeda operative, including enhanced interrogations. So, are we saying it's fine and dandy to blow them to dust particles from on high, without due process, but a little head dunking is not consistent with our values?

The American people are watching. There's a renewed uneasiness in the land. Is this president up to the challenge? Can we trust that his actions will catch up with his new found verbiage? George W. Bush shunned world wide opinion to keep his constitutional oath to protect the American people. Can this president forgo the coveted adoration from the outside world, and rebellion of his liberal base to do the same. I for one, as a skeptic, am praying I'm wrong. 
Read: Sarah Weighs In On Terror My new blog...Con-Men-4-Palin