Tag Archives: liberals

The State Old State Old

President Obama’s state of the union speech was the same old same old we have heard from him since he first started running for president. Soaring rhetoric and the abundance use of metaphors sprinkled with emotionalism are used to cover up his unwillingness to really tackle the tough issues. His desire to remain as neutral as possible on all issues in order to deflect as much criticism from himself is in effect his way of voting present instead of taking a stand.

His constant use of the term “investments” is merely a stand-in for let’s spend, spend, spend, because as with all liberals, spending is what makes his world go around. It is completely irrelevent to President Obama whether or not such spending actually works, for all that matters to him is that his conscience achieve some level of satisfaction. I suppose no level of satisfaction is ever achieved, because all he wants to do is spend, spend, spend.

He has been referred to as a constitutional law professor which he actually never was. He was a part-time instructor who was more concerned with political office than teaching anything in college. If he knew anything about the Constitution he would know that there is no constitutional authority for ninety-percent of the spending he proposes, but, as with all liberals he doesn’t care about the constitution.

We have lab experiments in progress right now that show exactly what will happen when liberal policies are put in place. These lab experiments are California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan. This country will end up just like these states, in a state of bankruptcy if those in the federal government do not cut spending and return the federal government to its constitutional function.

Franklin DelanObama Roosevelt

In times of economic crisis the President can do only one of the following two things. He can instill an atmosphere of calm reassurance and certainty, or one of fear and uncertainty. Obama can’t be blamed for the economic crisis he inherited, but he can be blamed for how the country languishes under his guidance, for he has chosen, with his many big government initiatives and his attack dog style politics to instill an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

We had a President many decades ago who did the very same thing—FDR, the liberal’s icon. FDR’s philosophy of attacking business, banks, the rich, and Wall Street, raising taxes and fees, creating numerous agencies for the purpose of controlling the everyday lives of Americans created an atmosphere of absolute fear of the Federal Government. Businesses and the citizens withdrew financially when faced with the great deal of uncertainty FDR created, and because of his policy of intimidation. FDR’s policies turned a depression into the Great Depression. It may have been a good sound bite when FDR said, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself”, but he was patently wrong. There are many things to fear, and one is a intrusive and overbearing federal government.

Fast forward to today. Obama has attacked businesses, banks, Wall Street, and even American citizens, which if reports are correct, has resulted in death threats against these Americans. He is trying to enact health care and environmental legislation that will not only result in massively higher taxes, but will also result in the federal government micromanaging our daily lives. He is instilling fear and uncertainty, not to the degree that FDR did, but he is nonetheless creating an environment not conducive to rebuilding this economy.

The bottom line is that there is little that the President and by extension the federal government can do to cause economic growth. The President can pour barrels of money into the economy which will create temporary jobs, but the federal government isn’t the economy, and getting the economy going isn’t a matter of simple physics such as priming the pump. The economy is the American people—three hundred million individuals making billions of daily economic decisions, and the federal government can’t manage that. If President Obama wants the economy to improve, he needs to back off and stop scaring the hell out of everyone.

Can Palin Be President

The immediate answer for me is yes. Many, mainly those in Washington believe that the talents and intellect required to be President exist only in a handful individuals in Washington and a few governors. As if those traits are foreign to most other citizens in this great land. The exact number can’t be known, but I bet there are tens of thousands of every day American citizens who could step into the Presidency and run the country as competently as any politician.

Not everyone possesses the ability to be president, but it certainly isn’t limited to those in the political class. It requires a respectable understanding of most issues, not all, but most. A thick skin to withstand the criticism, the ability to learn quickly because nobody knows everything, and the ability to make tough decisions without wavering and how to use advisers. However, the most important aspect of anyone who wants to be president, is ideology.

It is ideology that most determines the direction of the country no matter who is president, and we have basically three ideologies; conservative, liberal and a middle-of-the-road mixture. Most polls show this this country to be center-right in ideology, so presidents who operate in that area of the spectrum will be the most successful, and will age the least during their time in office.

From what I have seen of Palin, she does reside in this area of the political spectrum and by contrast the problems that Obama is having and his deep drop in the polls in all areas is the result of his ideology that places him in left field foul territory in a country that resides in center-right field. The disdain that the American people have toward Obama’s agenda is reflected in a recent poll showed that more people wish Bush were president—ain’t that something.

Call It Anything But A Tax Increase

Obama and his cohorts are groping for ways to fund his and their extravagant government life style and not having to call it a tax increase. During his appearances on a multitude of Sunday morning shows he found himself trapped in a discussion of whether the fine in the proposed health care legislation to be assessed on those who do not purchase their own health insurance is a tax or not. Right now, Obama is wishing he hadn’t campaigned on the promise that those in the bottom 95% would not see their taxes increase, because it is patently obvious that something will have to give, for there is no way he will be able to pay for all he wants to do and charge it only to the top 5% of wage earners.

This Sunday Obama argued that a fine for not purchasing health insurance is not a tax. I have heard another democrat strategist say that the tax increase on cigarettes was not a tax increase, because it was not the kind of tax increase Obama was talking about. It appears that Obama wants you to believe that as long as he doesn’t raise your payroll taxes that he is sticking to his taxes promise. This is just another example of Obama thinking he can say whatever he wants, and you will go along with it just because you like the way he sounds when he says it.

Whether it is called a fine, fees, taxes or revenue enhancement, it is all theft from the American citizens. The power of taxation is a responsibility that should be wielded with great deference toward the tax payer, but Obama, as with most statists, doesn’t believe in the principle of personal property, for he sees the personal income and wealth of the American citizens as the property of the State to be used as he sees fit. The power of taxation should not be used by politicians to satiate their never ending desire to be loved.

Racists Of The Highest Order

You are wondering what exactly is a racist of the highest order. Well, very simply they are guilty white and black Liberals who at every opportunity stir the race pot while adding the most rotten ingredients. They are the first to run to the microphone to cry racism at every opportunity when it is obvious none is present. Their sole purpose in life is to create an army of other racists who will then help them carry the mantle of blame Republican whitey for everything, which will hopefully then have the effect of putting Republican whitey on the defensive so that they can then run rough shod over him.

This worn out card however, doesn’t play like it once did. Those who make a living race baiting and those who keep their face in front of the cameras by making false claims of racism do two terrible things. They diminish the belief of the accusation in real cases of racism, and worse yet, they trivialize the experiences of those who were true victims of racism.

“Liberal Bigots” Isn’t That Redundant

I was listening to the Bill Press show last Friday as I do every morning so that I can keep up with what the left wing loons are whining about. One big topic lately has been the boycott of Whole Foods because of CEO John Mackey’s piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he laid out some very good ideas to help improve health care and health insurance. I think the sensibility of his plan is what is driving the liberals so much more crazy. Keep in mind that John Mackey is a CEO who takes a one dollar bill for his salary, and Whole Foods pays their executives far far less,  relative to what the Whole Foods peons are getting, compared to what executives at other companies are receiving compared to their peons.

John Mackey is the liberal’s poster boy when it comes to executive pay, and benefits to the peons. But, woe is he who dares to propose sensible solutions to health care that don’t involve a massive federal government take-over. Bill Press said something that is perfectly telling of exactly how bigoted and useless liberals are to these discussions. Press, in talking about Mackey said, “He needs to keep his opinions to himself, and keep his mouth shut.” Bill Press doesn’t want a logical discussion, he just wants those opposed to his warped vision of health care to stick a sock in it

What Do Republicans Need To Do?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about what the Republicans need to do to start winning again. Some say that they need to become more inclusive and others says they need to moderate their tone on social issues or even drop them completely. It has also been said that Republicans can’t be successful only as the party of old white men. First—the source of most of these suggestions are liberals, and a few spineless Republicans, which begs the question – do you really think those liberals have the best interests of the Republican Party in mind?—I think not. They, however, would love it if Republicans became more like them as some suggest. I have a few suggestions of my own

First:  The Republicans don’t need to panic as some are doing. Republicans have been out of power before, and it was only  a few years ago that everyone was talking about a permanent Republican majority. Even though there has been a huge swing in control of Congress the last couple of years, the losses the Republicans suffered on a race by race basis in the 06 mid-terms and 08 were close losses, not blowouts. Just a few thousands votes gave the Democrats control of the Senate in 06, and the 08 elections were decided by war weariness and the economy.

Second: The Republicans need to stop letting the Liberals establish the rules of engagement. For example, during the campaign Barack Obama decided that lobbyists were the scourge of the Earth, and that he would have nothing to do with them, and any who did were equally contemptuous, and when Obama hit this ball into the Republican court, the Republicans fumbled it, and kicked it around instead of hitting it right back into his court. It could have been hit right back into his court very simply by pointing out that most lobbyists are Americans – they are known as citizens, constituents, businesses, organizations, bureaucrats, governors, etc, etc, and none of them can pass legislation – all they can do is suggest. If politicians pass bad legislation regardless of the nature of the influence or those who exert it, it is the fault of the politicians not the so-called lobbyists, and if Barack Obama wants to ignore and vilify these people, he is ignoring and vilifying Americans—Americans who have every right to petition their government for redress.

Third:  The Republicans must stop being cowards—I do mean COWARDS, and come to the realization that the Liberals are at war with them, which means that they must go to war with the Liberals. If you are going to defeat your enemy, you must go to where your enemy is. You can’t bomb them from 30,000 feet, and you can’t be nicey nice, or appease them – if they are in the gutter, you must go into the gutter after them. There is a saying in basketball that the teams who apply the full court press don’t like having it applied to them, which means the Republicans must start applying the press to the Liberals in the same way that they have been applying it to Republicans.

Fourth: Republicans must go on the attack. For instance, they should never apologize when called racist—they should instead attack by pointing out how the Democrat Party is and has been the party of racism, and that the Democrat Party has done more than any other in keeping down minorities, and in particular, blacks. When called uncaring by the Liberals, the Republicans should attack by pointing out the fact that Liberal policies have done more to impoverish, and to keep impoverished, a huge segment of the citizens of this country, most of whom are black. The Republicans should attack attack attack – they should never, I repeat, never go on the defensive – for if you are on the defensive in politics—you are losing.

Fifth:  Ignore the party pacifists. Yes there actually are Republicans when it comes to politics who believe in the policy of appeasement and pacifism. This policy weakens the party in the very same way that Democrat policy of appeasement and pacifism weakens America on the world stage. These spineless Republicans can be heard everywhere – they include but are certainly not limited to—Jeb Bush, Michael Medved, Joe Scarborough, Tom Ridge, etc, etc, etc. Republicans such as these are embarrassed by conservatives who are willing to take the fight to the Liberals, and they discourage such efforts.  They do not possess what it takes, if you know what I mean, to attack liberalism, and they will end up taking us to the same place that liberals want to take us, only slower. Republicans must not see Liberal policies as the reason for their success and emulate that, but should instead emulate the fervor and intensify in which Liberals promote their ideas.

Sixth: Republicans must stigmatize Liberals as bad for the country. Liberals, primarily since the 30′s have done a very good job of stigmatizing Republicans as heartless, uncaring, racists, bigots, homophobes, and right now are trying to label Republicans as the party of “no”, and they have actually convinced Americans that they are better on the economy—only incompetent boobs could allow this to happen, because Liberal policies are terrible for the economy. The Liberals accomplished this very simply by repeating the same lies over and over and over, all the while, Republicans made no meaningful or concerted efforts to counteract such propaganda, and the result in the end was that it stuck.

Seventh: Republicans need to make people understand that life on the government dole or under government tyranny is no life whatsoever. Being a Liberal is very simple minded approach to politics—just promise everything and then say “don’t forget me when you vote.” It is, however, a much more difficult proposition to convince people that their first duty is to take care of themselves, to not leach on others, and certainly to not rely on others through the federal government—this is where far too many Republicans fall short. Liberals go into politics planning to give away the farm to get votes, and Republicans go along with it because they don’t want to lose votes.

Is Colin Powell Confused or Just Obtuse?

Let’s start with his statement on Meet the Press where he laid out his rationale for supporting Obama for president over the independent moderate maverick John McCain.  He praised Obama for his inclusiveness, his reaching out, his intellectual curiosity, and let us not forget – his rhetorical skills – we mustn’t forget those rhetorical skills. Powell said that in making his decision that he wanted to know if Obama had the experience to be president, but oddly enough he pointed to no experience that made his decision to support Obama, logical. He then went on to complain about how McCain and the Republican party got nasty in the campaign, and how the Republican party in general was moving further to the right. Powell also expressed how he would “have a problem” with two more conservative supreme court nominees, which is what McCain would probably get. I can’t really accept this Republican nastiness notion, because it could be very thoughtfully argued that Obama and the Democrats were nastier in their campaign tactics, and that the democrats have moved sharply to the left, and the idea that a self-described republican would have a problem with conservative Supreme Court justices is oxymoronic.

It seems to me that Powell has been taken in by Obama’s rhetorical skills in the same way that many in the country have been. I think this shows that even those who we think are the brightest among us, in the end are just as human and possess no more depth of thought and analysis than many others do. Powell also seems to believe that if Obama speaks and acts confidently that that translates into competence and experience. What’s really amazing is that he came to that conclusion over the course of seven weeks as he stated on Meet the Press – wow. I think the most important term to remember about Powell’s endorsement is “sellout”. There was no way on God’s green earth that Colin Powell, Mr First-Black All-Everything was not going to support the first black nominee for president. The pressure on blacks in general to conform is much greater than most of us will ever know, and Powell knew that he would have to pay the piper if he didn’t support Obama.

Now as the Republican messiah, Powell is proselytizing on what the Republicans need to do in order to become worldly and inclusive and how if we do these things we will be delivered salvation. Powell has done a very good job of hiding his positions on most issues which is the reason he has high approval numbers, but he has made his opinions known on a few issues. He says the Republican party needs to reach out. Ok, but what exactly does that mean. Could it mean, as he stated on Face the Nation,  that the Republican party needs to be more willing to spread America’s wealth. In other words, steal the private property of productive citizens and give it to unproductive ones. Or still yet in other words, purchase votes through bribery – I guess that’s reaching out.  One point should be made on the idea of America’s wealth. America the country, has no wealth, because most all of the wealth in America is the property of individual citizens and other private entities. He says Republicans need to be more inclusive. I guess that means we should give those who enter our country illegally a bit sloppy kiss and a bottle of water. He supports affirmative action which means he supports racism – now this is a Democrat tenet but it is not a Republican one. He has said that Americans want to pay taxes. Does he mean they want to pay more taxes, or just that they are willing to pay taxes for reasonable constitutional government functions – I suspect he means the former. I think Americans are certainly willing to pay taxes, they just don’t feel like they should have to ask for a rape kit after doing so.

Now, is Colin Powell confused or obtuse. He says he is a Republican, which he is free to call himself a Republican, but he is certainly a very liberal Republican from what is known about him. I think it is safe to say that he thinks Republicans need to become more like him, which means more to the left, which means that his Republican party would take the country to the same place as the Democrat party, only slower. He will have a difficult time convincing most Republicans that this is the way to go.

The Fine Art Of Conflation and Emotionalism

In many discussions about politics, we hear how the government should do this, or the government shouldn’t do that, the government, the government, the government. Have you ever wondered exactly which government is being discussed – if you haven’t, you need to start. I was listening to a debate recently between a conservative and a liberal about national health care, and as you can guess the conservative was against it and the liberal was for it. At one point in the debate when the liberal realized that he couldn’t convince the conservative of the nobility of national health care he used “liberal slight-of-hand”, and asked the conservative if he liked his local fire and police service. Now – they were talking about “NATIONAL” health care and then it suddenly changed to “LOCAL” fire and police service. Do you see what is going on here? The liberal is trying to justify unconstitutional federal spending on health care by conflating it with constitutional state and local spending, and he is also trying to draw on emotion at some level.

This conflation/emotion tactic has been used quite effectively far and wide by liberals for decades, and they will even conflate federal and individual spending in order to make their agenda seem logical and necessary. Have you noticed that in discussions about national health care that the liberals will say how much money “WE” will save if we do national health care. When liberals say “we”, they mean each of us and the federal government and whatever mouse they have in their pocket. This is just another example of the deep rooted belief of collectivism, and the god-like reverence of the federal government that liberals hold so dearly. Another example of this, is the discussion that followed when Barack Obama made the statement that America is not a Christian nation. When many said that America is in fact a Christian nation, because of its overwhelming Christian majority and was founded on Christian principles – liberals took that as an attack against the government, as evidenced by their response. Just how did they respond, they responded by saying that we are a secular nation because of our secular government. Even here, they can’t separate the secular nature of the federal government from the religious make-up of America. They are just too emotionally invested in the federal government to understand that difference.

What I am about say is extremely important, so pay very close attention. We have basically three levels of government spending in the United States – federal, state, and local, and we must add individual spending in there also, because of the liberal proclivity to conflate federal and individual spending. We have the United States Constitution that enumerates limited and specific powers to the federal government, and we also have the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that grants all other powers to the States or the People. Let Me Be Clear (sound familiar) – this means that if the constitutional authority doesn’t exist for the federal government, that it is the responsibility of someone else other than the federal government – either the states or the people.

In closing, it is so so important that with all of the discussions about “the government”, that we understand in a perfectly clear way which level of government is being discussed. We can’t be dragged into discussions about the merits of government control or spending, without first determining if the authority for such a venture exists. I would estimate, without looking at it closely, that seventy percent of the federal budget is unconstitutional as laid out in the Constitution as originally written. Just because some boneheads in black robes who pulled their rulings out of the darkness, say it is constitutional, doesn’t make it so – but it does give shelter to those who want to abuse the Constitution. Liberals believe that the Constitution should be flexible and malleable to fit the times, because the founders couldn’t possibly foresee the circumstances unique to our times, but that just isn’t true. The founders did foresee the need to make the Constitution adaptable to future issues by including an amendment process. This is the way it should be changed – not by judges creating authorities out of thin air.

That Pesky Pendulum

It swings back and forth, back and forth. A few years ago pundits were talking about a permanent Republican majority at which point the Republicans promptly stuck their collective heads into the dark side and became more concerned about staying in power by becoming Democrat-lite. Right after the last elections the pundits wondered if the Republicans could ever re-gain power.

Now, the Democrats have taken the elections as a referendum for their policies instead of a referendum against the Republicans. They now have stuck their collective heads into the dark side in trying to force through their far left policies in a center-right country. Liberals actually believe that they are in the mainstream of American thinking, and the result will be the pendulum swinging back toward the Republicans. It seems that re-gaining power has less to do with what the party out of power is doing, and more to do with what the party in power is doing.