'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.

From Heritage.org

Another problem caused the auto industry to suffer. That problem would be the unions and their staggering legacy costs to auto companies. From Heritage.org, 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

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 Zombietime.com, 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

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