Thursday, June 30, 2011

'Tis the Season for Some Reason

Let the Race Begin
Noting the fact that presidential campaigns seem to begin earlier and earlier each cycle, the silly season is once again upon us and it is starting out to be one of the silliest yet. With Michele Bachmann's announcement that she will run, Obama's people and local Democratic parties are already dusting off a tired mantra in an attempt to obfuscate their way back to the White House.

After Michele Bachmann formally announced her candidacy, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt had this to offer:
"[Bachmann] voted for a budget plan that would extend tax cuts for the richest Americans on the backs of seniors and the middle class while ending Medicare as we know it. Congresswoman Bachmann introduced legislation to repeal Wall Street oversight -- risking a repeat of the financial crisis -- and while she voted to preserve subsidies for oil and gas companies she opposes making the investments necessary to enhance America's competitiveness and create the jobs of the future"
There is so much wrong with every assessment made by Mr. LaBolt that reflects the Goebbels-like methods of the left in this country today. They have seized upon the notion that if they lie boldly and often, the lie will become the accepted truth.

His first point is the attack on "the wealthy", and the notion that they got that way by virtue of stealing from the poor, combined with the equally asinine idea that tax breaks are somehow a "gift" from the government. I'm sure that many of you would not consider a carjacker's sudden change of heart as a gift. He didn't give you your car, he simply decided not to steal it. Why is that concept so hard to understand for a liberal when the same principle is applied to taxation?

Mr. LaBolt also infers that Wall Street -- and a lack of interference by the government --  was the reason for the financial crisis we faced in 2008. As we should all be aware, the "benevolence" of the Democrats -- through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the insistence that poor people own homes knowing that eventually they would default on the mortgages -- is what caused the problems we now face.

Finally, Mr. LaBolt demonizes the oil and gas industries as some form of welfare recipient black hole, sucking money away from ordinary, poor and suffering people. The truth of the matter is this, however; if the government received the same amount of taxes and staple products from actual welfare recipients, this countries economy would be in far better shape.

Let's be clear; Wall Street didn't cause the financial crisis, the reasons for which we will explore shortly. For the time being, let's examine another fallacy of the left. The Iowa Democratic Party also issued a statement regarding Ms. Bachmann, in which they bludgeon another deceased equine. They claim that a President Bachmann would lead us back to "the flawed economic policies that cost us millions of jobs and almost sent us into a second Great Depression", and repeat the drumbeat that this economy is actually improving.

Unemployment Rates Since Bush 
Barack Obama himself keeps blaming his predecessor for the sad state of our nation, but history indicates otherwise. As indicated in the graph, unemployment was edging downward for most of George W. Bush's administration, and only began to rise when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006. To further complicate the Democrat talking points of today, then-President Bush had been beseeching Congress for years to act on the impending crisis that Fannie and Freddie were about to inflict. Congress not only ignored the president's pleas, but firmly declared that there was no problem with those now failed institutions.

As far back as April of 2001, President Bush sounded the alarm over Fannie and Freddie:
The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
Bush would remind Congress many more times throughout his administration that those two institutions were headed for trouble, and that they would take a lot of others with them. Barney Frank (D-MA) would have none of it, and refused to increase oversight on them. By the end of Bush's second term, the damage was done, and it was all too easy to lay the blame at his feet, and Barack Obama, the Democrats and the media continue to do so.

Since 2003, Barney Frank has been adamant that there were no problems with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Strange then, that as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2010, Frank began to say that Fannie and Freddie need to be abolished. Perhaps it's because he knows they have a problem, only this time it will affect his parties president.

Another problem caused the auto industry to suffer. That problem would be the unions and their staggering legacy costs to auto companies. From, the chart shows the average hourly labor costs of the Big Three Detroit auto makers compared with the rest of the private sector. The figures include benefits to current as well as retired employees. For a company to support former employees while paying current ones is simply unsustainable.

So as the campaign season begins to rev up, let's all remember what is causing the misery. It is the policies of the Democrats, and we must remind the electorate loudly, repeatedly and firmly. The Democrats must not be permitted to perpetrate the lie that they will eventually make things right if given enough time.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Kumbaya and the High Road

McCain Tried Nice. It Failed.
Today at New York Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, former governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman, announced his candidacy for President of the United States. So far, so good. Then he started speaking, and I had a feeling of dread and deja vu of the campaign of John McCain in 2008.

McCain, if you'll recall, refused to street fight in that losing proposition, insisting that even attendees at his speeches remain "civil", and while Obama personally remained above the fray, his surrogates -- both in the campaign and in the allegedly neutral press -- were ruthless. When McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, it got downright vicious.

And lest we forget, that same press was instrumental in steering McCain to the nomination. That's our fault, America. Not again.

This time around we need a candidate and a team that is not afraid to point out Obama's flaws, and that goes for policy as well as ideology. Obama is anathema to traditional American values, and he has assembled both a cabinet and a team of unelected appointees, or czars, that share the same disdain for what made this nation great. If we can't muster a challenger willing to stand behind that statement, we are doomed, plain and simple.

A Mitt Romney or a Jon Huntsman, for example, will not have the temerity to remind the electorate of Obama's past associations with Ayers and Wright, or of his murky past. They would most certainly be too timid to point out some of Obama's appointees and czar choices. Therefore, I will now.

Let's start with Obama's choice of "Safe Schools" czar, Kevin Jennings. Mr Jennings is the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. He's also a gay activist who has been tirelessly promoting homosexuality in our public school system for over 20 years. In 1990, Jennings co-founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTeN) in Boston. Two years earlier, as a teacher in Massachusetts, Jennings counseled a 15-year-old boy who had confessed to a sexual relationship with an older man to wear a condom when having sex.

That's Obama's "Safe Schools" czar. How does that stack up against your values?

Madman at the Helm
As part of policy, Obama has been steadfast in his belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), using such nonsense to promote a "green" energy agenda as a means to further subjugate our citizenry. One of his foot soldiers is his "Science Czar" John Holdren. Holdren was appointed as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a rather lofty sounding title. One would assume that Mr. Holdren is a man of great intellect and scientific prowess by virtue of such an important role. Not so fast.

In 1977, John Holdren -- who is now making decisions that affect the lives of every American -- co-authored a book titled Ecoscience. According to, Holdren has some extremely radical views on how to "save the planet", and they don't bode well for its human inhabitants. (Please do click on the link because Zombietime has documentation that refutes any potential claims of selective reporting).

From Holdren's book, some of his bullet points include some frightening views.

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; 

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; 

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; 

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. 

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. 

Naturally, Holdren and his co-authors, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, cried foul over the exposure this book received, claiming that the age of the tome rendered it insignificant in light of the trio's "changed views" over the subsequent decades. That may appear to be a reasonable defense if this was some obscure work that was perhaps read by a limited audience, but that is far from the truth. This work of horror was a college textbook, and therefore required reading.

That's Obama's "Science" czar. How does that stack up against your values?

Doesn't This Speak Volumes?
Let's also remember the people who support Barack Hussein Obama, including those who officially campaigned for him. Not to mention his Socialist advisors who have since departed, like Anita Dunn and Van Jones.

Any new candidate can use the current associations of the man currently occupying the White House with ease, using Ayers and Wright as seasoning if desired. The failed policies of Obama speak for themselves, but shouldn't. Our candidate needs to have the fortitude to point out the danger facing America if they have a chance of convincing me that they actually cherish this country.

I want no part of sing-a-longs and hugging; I want a determined, no-holds-barred intervention, one by a patriot willing to sound bad early and lead well later. And above all, I want to give the press a reason to return to their senses, unafraid to actually report the truth rather than curry favor with a narcissistic ruler.

Correction...above even that, I want America back.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 20, 2011

Kids, Start Looking for Refrigerator Boxes

Our Future?
We're being told that Social Security is going broke. We're being told that Medicare is going broke. And we're being told that the engine of economic growth in the United States -- the "wealthy segment" -- needs to "pony up" a bit more in order for our survival.

Economists, to a large degree (Paul Krugman notwithstanding), agree that the best use of the money from the wealthy is in the private sector. When those alleged barons are able to keep more of what they earn, they invest in new ventures which create jobs for those under them. During Reagan's administration, it was referred to as the trickle-down economy.

George H.W. Bush, in the campaign of 1980, ridiculed his rival, Ronald Reagan, for what the candidate Bush called "voodoo economics", but when he was defeated and ultimately Reagan's vice president, he changed his tune. Seeing Reagan's policies become so successful had that effect. Reagan thought it best for government to get out of the way and let the American people do what we do best; succeed and prosper.

It's no accident that the American poverty level is head and shoulders above the actual poverty of the third world. Certainly there are very few people in America who actually suffer but for the most part, our "poor" experience the inconvenience of basic cable and slow internet speeds. Never mind that they have multiple television sets, laptop computers and several vehicles. Bad things do happen to people every day, but some can be avoided quite easily.

Imagine the following scenario:

Mom, with a solemn-looking Dad at her side: "Kids, Daddy and I want you to start looking for large boxes, like refrigerators come in when someone lucky gets a new one". 

Sally: "Why Mom?" 

Mom: "Well honey, by this time next year, we will be living in some of those under the bridge on Maple Street". 

Billy (horrified): "What? But you and Dad both have jobs and seem to make a lot of money!"

Dad:  "We do, Billy, but we give so much to the Johnson's down the street, the Smith's across from us, and the nice folks around the corner, that we're going to be unable to pay our mortgage or utilities in a year".

While the above may sound ludicrous to the sensible, consider that it is precisely what our federal government is telling us. As our social "safety nets" are slowing sinking below the figurative waves -- and as the rolls of the "needy" continue to grow -- our leaders declare the answer is to seize more money from the haves to hand to the have-nots, including foreign countries who may need help, but not to the detriment of our own citizens.

Drowning in Debt
Consider this, however; while our own seniors are seeing the realities of precariousness and destitution rush at them from the horizon, our tax dollars are being spent on propping up young, able people who have been conditioned to rely on hand-outs for their sustenance. But it gets worse...much worse.

This country hands out roughly $20 billion annually to foreign nations in aid. Yes, Israel and Egypt are the largest beneficiaries of that aid, but we also aid Pakistan, Bosnia and Russia, to name a few. We also give nearly $100 million to Gaza and the West Bank. Why? Well, that money is given as a token of "balance" to Israeli aid from the U.S.

It may not sound like much in the total budget, but if you were in danger of losing your home to the bank, would you be handing out twenties to your neighbors? Likewise, would you be buying two hundred dollar Nikes for your kids, or fifty dollar Keds?

I still believe that most people in this country would rather be productive and, as a result, self-sufficient rather than wards of the State. And I still believe that trickle-down economics work well. The misnomer lies in the pejorative "trickle", which is designed to sow the seeds of envy among the classes. The question remains...would you be happier working for a wage as the beneficiary of a wealthy man's investment, or laying about in squalor waiting for the mailman to bring your welfare check?

All the rich owe us is a modicum of gratitude for our labors in making their investments profitable. We owe them a debt of gratitude for providing our livelihoods.

That being said, if our government has its way, we'll be living side by side in refrigerator boxes under the overpass, while the inhabitants of Gaza, et al, swim in the Mediterranean buoyed by wads of U.S. dollars snatched from the drowning Americans.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 13, 2011

Don't Worry, Obama's Got a Plan

Obama's 68th Round of Golf
Lest the reader assumes that the plan is to use a 7 iron in lieu of the 5 in order to lay up short of the trap on the 15th-hole approach, that is not it. While it is difficult to resist the notion that it may be the best plan he can come up with, Obama's plan actually has to do with his job. I think.

After almost two-and-a-half years in office, Obama is still campaigning as though he were not the incumbent, still declaring how he will "fix" the nation's ills. In those two-and-a-half years, as the economy has floundered, as our international standing has plummeted, and as gas prices have soared -- along with the cost of everything else -- Obama has dithered.

But he's got a plan!

Perhaps that plan is not golf-related but rather a plan to party like it's 1999. There have been extravagant family vacations to Hawaii and Spain. There have been myriad soirees in the White House, and there has been general mirth on Pennsylvania Avenue, all while the people struggle to stay afloat. And the endless spending binge is destroying America from within, pushing us inexorably closer to the precipice of utter ruin.

But Obama's got a plan!

That's a Lot of Speed Bumps
Is that plan to slow down while passing over those "speed bumps" he mentioned so that he doesn't bottom out in The Beast? If one is to take Mitt Romney's campaign ad literally, one would hope that Obama would at least swerve to avoid those speed bumps, which are representative of Americans.

The "speed bumps" Obama was referring to, it must be noted, were all constructed by Obama and his party. And despite his veiled umpteenth blaming of the Bush 43 administration in his internet and radio address last Saturday,  the economy was humming along under Bush despite the calamities that it faced, 9/11 most notable among them.

To be certain, Obama did inherit a sinking economy, but he was part of the problem as a member of the 110th Congress of the United States. It was in the 2006 elections that the Democrat Party regained control of Congress. Not coincidentally, it was also the beginning of the dive. Even before they had control, however, the Democrats, led by Barney Frank, posed a formidable resistance to Bush's dire warnings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yet now Obama continues the claim that it "took a long time to get here". From his Internet and radio address on 6/11:
"I wish I could tell you there was a quick fix to our economic problems. But the truth is, we didn't get into this mess overnight, and we won't get out of it overnight."
True, it didn't happen overnight; it took the Democrats less than two years to destroy Bush's hard work and tarnish his legacy. One would think that if they could undo six years of relative prosperity in record time, then once they had total control, they could have had it all fixed better than new in even less time. Not so.

But Obama's got a plan!

After flailing futilely at the problem for two-and-a-half years, Obama's  now reached into the Herbert Hoover bag of tricks. Speaking in North Carolina today, Obama offered a more modern version of Hoover's "chicken in every pot" premise, telling the crowd that he wants everyone to have a good job with security. Hooray! Such a brilliant man, he actually said:
"We're falling behind in the very fields we know are going to be our future. ... We must do better than that. I will not be satisfied until everyone who wants a good job that offers some security has a good job that offers security."
Somehow I doubt he'll lose sleep or a single tee time in the interim, even as tomorrow the media is likely to hail his determination. If George W. Bush had ever said, "I won't be satisfied until every last terrorist decides that they don't want us dead", I'm sure the press would have slammed him as an idiot. We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how the media receives Obama's new "all hands on deck" approach, but don't expect any surprises.

After all, Obama's got a plan!

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 9, 2011

About That "Civilian Security Force"

Guns and Learnin'
Perhaps the most difficult task of the thinking person is to try to reconcile the logic and rationale of the Left in America with any semblance of sanity. Where pacifism and education are concerned, the lines become blurred when combined with the Liberal notions of enforcement and learning.

For example, our classrooms today are cesspools of festering violent tendencies, where teachers fear that their best intended lessons will suddenly fall victim to an unwieldy student upset by his single mother's choice of bedmate the night before. In saner times, that teacher would be well equipped to either handle such a disruption or be assured that someone who could would be within ear shot. In this insane era, however, discipline by the teacher is forbidden, and corporal punishment is met with career death.

The United States Education Department (ED) was created as a stand alone Cabinet level department in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter signed Public Law 96-88, which split the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services.   Ever since, Republican candidates have vowed to dismantle the department. President Ronald Reagan tried but failed with an opposition-controlled Congress, while both Bush's preferred to keep it with modifications. Both of them were wrong. Here's why.

The ED is not only about helping the kiddy-poos. What was once the smallest Cabinet level department has grown into a powerful arm of the federal government. Most people believe that the ED concentrates its efforts on better education for the children and also believe that the increased funding sought by every Democrat in office is designed toward that end. Fact is, there is much more that ED requires funding for now that it has grown beyond its conceived purpose.

One of the expenses of the ED is guns. Yes, guns, as in the shotguns with fourteen inch barrels they purchased a year ago. The law enforcement arm of the ED -- the Office of Inspector General -- purchased twenty seven brand new Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns. If you're thinking that the acquisition of such serious firepower is somewhat incongruous with a department dedicated to learning, pat yourself on the back and give yourself a hand.

According to a blog piece by Valerie Strauss in the March 11, 2010 edition of the Washington Post the Office of Inspector General responded to her inquiry into the purchase by referring to the following statement by the office:

“The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements. For more information on OIG’s law enforcement authority, please visit their Web site at :” 

Okay, so we're now thinking, "what would the Education Department need with these guns"? Considering that the department is now President Barack Obama's, the question bears closer scrutiny, particularly when one recollects then-candidate Obama's notion of a "civilian security force" that would be just as powerful as the United States military.

On July 2, 2008, Senator Obama gave a campaign speech in Colorado Springs, CO. A quarter of an hour into the speech, he uttered these words:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." 
Ah, a clue then! What would the well-funded Education Department need with deadly weapons? Perhaps the answer lies in the recent story of a Stockton CA man who met those guns -- and the "educators" wielding them -- in his home at 6:00AM.

Kenneth Wright looked out his window one morning and saw fifteen uniformed officers on his lawn. According to the resident, the garb they wore caused him to think they were a S.W.A.T. team, although he had no criminal record and therefore no reason to expect that they would be concerned with him, so imagine his shock when, descending his stairs in his boxers to investigate, the officers kicked in his door and hauled him outside by the neck.

These "policemen" were not S.W.A.T. at all, but officers of the Office of Inspector General. They were seeking Kenneth Wright's estranged wife for delinquent student loan payments. Let's reiterate this; fifteen heavily armed and armored officers from the Education Department kicked in a citizen's door and forcibly removed him from his home. They cuffed the resident in his underwear, woke his young children (3,7,&11) and tossed them in a patrol car with their bound father and left them there for six hours while they searched the premises.

The perpetrator (Wright's wife) of their focus was not at the premises, and they never knocked to show the warrant. The worst aspect of the entire affair is not the tactics of the invasion team, however; the true travesty is the fact that the "crime" was delinquent loans, and that the offender was not even at the location.

Or maybe the true shock is that this operation was carried out by Barack Hussein Obama's Education Department. Is that segment of our federal government now the "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" force to which Senator Obama alluded on the campaign trail?

To be fair, perhaps not. Yet.

But who would dare to oppose funding for "education"? It is a sanctuary program for a potentially nefarious cause. I have seen little or no mention of the Stockton incident, though, which gives me great pause when considering such a prospect as the ED becoming Obama's secret police force.

Something to ponder.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 2, 2011

The Gathering Storm

The Liberal Establishment Poised to Explode
Despite the best attempts by Hollywood elites to present themselves as the "mainstream" of America, it's never really been a big secret that the Land of Glitter is perhaps the biggest bastion of Liberal group-think on the planet. Oh sure, there is a large segment of the population that absorbs the messages emanating from the Left coast just as naturally as vegetation does sunlight, but cognizant people have always rolled their eyes even as they may have chuckled at a sitcom or two.

The denizens of Hollywood, both behind and in front of the camera, have carefully cultivated the perception that they are caring, intelligent people who want to help the world's downtrodden and less fortunate. A significant component of that image has been attained at the expense of Conservatives, who are usually cast as the cold, uncaring, greedy types. And despite the claims that they are so tolerant, Hollywood Liberals are anything but, although they will deny such an accusation publicly and unanimously.

With this in mind, the next three weeks should prove to be quite...entertaining, if you'll pardon the pun. Traditionally, Liberals have ruled the roost in the television industry, imposing their will on America while ostracizing any Conservative who dared to step onto the playing field. We've known this even while the perpetrators would never openly acknowledge it. Now they are about to be exposed, and in their own words.

Primetime Propaganda Author
Ben Shapiro
The author of a new book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV,  is poised to blow the cover off of the Liberal elite establishment, and its members are not likely to be very happy about it. Ben Shapiro, the book's author, interviewed television directors and producers on camera with their full knowledge that he was doing it, thus implying consent. Regardless, the subjects will no doubt claim that they were somehow "waylaid".

As part of his promotion for the book, Shapiro will be releasing various interview videos in the next three weeks, sometimes coinciding with events involving the targets of his subjects' ire. For example, the first video released was on Hannity last night, on which Shapiro was a guest. As you might have guessed, it involved a Hollywood Liberal attack on Sean Hannity.

Another video interview due to be released soon will accompany the release of Ann Coulter's new book on June 7th. Ms. Coulter is also a favorite target of the Left. As Shapiro said, "I have two people ripping her by name, so I’ll release those the day Ann’s book is released". Shapiro hammers home the point through the videos and in the book that Conservatives aren't welcome in Hollywood. Perhaps that is because they would never aid in the indoctrination of the viewing audience but would, rather, spoil the whole darned thing for the Liberals.

To listen to Susan Harris speak, there could be yet another reason that Conservatives are walled out of the inner circle of the entertainment industry. The creator of Soap and The Golden Girls, Harris thinks that Conservatives are "idiots" and have "medieval minds", a rather convenient position for someone who peddles excrement to the unthinking masses.

The Left has invested an enormous amount of time, patience and cunning in their insidious quest to transform the country that made it possible for them to destroy it, an irony too rich to be ignored. It began in the public school system, graduated to the university level, and professionalized in the modern media of the time; television. How fitting that Mr. Shapiro may succeed in using a more modern form of media to rip the tarps off before the project of Socialism is complete.

There are two predictable ways in which the stars of these videos will react. One is that they will utilize the tried and true tactic of merely chuckling while waving off the attempts of a "Conservative Neanderthal", which would play favorably with the Liberals' mind-numbed audience. The other is that they will come out with gale-force winds in an attempt to rip Shapiro to shreds. That is where the "entertainment" factor would come in to play, for the smooth veneer that Liberals often hide behind would offer suffer the effects of such a fury, thus revealing their true side.

I'm counting on option number two. I'd wager that Ben Shapiro is, as well.

Sphere: Related Content