Well, the votes have been counted and the voters have made their decision -- another four years of Barack Obama.
Needless to say, my predictions regarding the presidential race and the Senate races were very wrong. Instead of Romney winning the popular vote by a couple of points nationwide, Obama ended up winning by two or three points. I predicted six states wrong in the presidential race -- some of them very wrong like Wisconsin -- and four Senate races incorrectly. Both were simply bloodbaths for Republicans. I missed badly because I was not expecting a Democratic wave that swept nearly every close Senate race and Electoral College state into the Democratic column. I was especially surprised to see Obama win Florida and to see GOP Senate candidates lose in North Dakota and Wisconsin. I didn't do too badly in the House races. Out of 435, it looks like I incorrectly called about 12 races for the GOP that ended up going for the Democrats and about 2 races for the Democrats that ended up going for the GOP (I say "about" because there are still a few races that haven't been officially called yet). I was quite disappointed to see that conservative firebrand Allen West lost in Florida. Referenda didn't go well either. Maryland approved in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Unions won a couple of important state-wide votes in California. Pro-lifers were on the losing end of a ballot issue in Florida. Gay marriage passed in all four states in which it was on the ballot.
When you look at the composition of the electorate and how it voted, it's easy to see why Romney lost. National exit polling showed that self-identified Democrats outnumbered self-identified Republicans by 6 percentage points, a nearly identical margin to 2008. Overall turnout was down significantly compared to 2008, but was very high among Obama's core supporters. Whites made up only about 72% of the electorate, which was down significantly from 2008 which was in itself a year of record turnout for minorities. Jay Cost estimates that as many as 10 million white voters sat out this election. Hispanics gave Obama nearly 70% of their vote, which is even more than he got against McCain in 2008. Women also voted heavily for Obama. The percentage of self-identified conservatives was only 35% compared to self-identified liberals who were 24% of the electorate -- a much smaller gap than typically seen in presidential elections. The bottom line is that a very Democratic, liberal, minority-heavy, female-heavy group of voters turned out to the polls and produced an unexpected Democratic wave.
The bottom line is that these results are unbelievably depressing for conservatives -- far worse even than 2008. Obama won by a landslide in 2008, but at least the decision of voters was understandable, given the unpopularity of Bush, weariness with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial meltdown. Voters were looking for a change, and Obama was an appealing figure who appeared to rise above partisanship and offered grand rhetoric about bringing the country together along racial lines as well as political ones. This year is totally different. The country has had four years to see what Obama is really like. He has openly governed from the far left and campaigned for president on an openly liberal platform. His election strategy was based on dividing the country and using wedge issues to try to turn out his base (amnesty executive order, gay marriage, nationalization of student loans, war on women, union bailouts, etc.). Despite his slogan "Forward," he presented no positive vision for the country and focused his entire campaign on tearing down Romney. I got to see many of Obama's ads airing in the Washington, DC media market, and they were relentlessly and almost uniformly negative. By any reasonable measure, Obama's presidency has been a failure. Economic growth is extremely weak, unemployment is just as high as when he took office (and higher when you factor in the huge number of people who have left the workforce), real household income has decrease significantly, deficits and debt are at record levels, his health care bill remains unpopular and has already resulted in higher insurance premiums, gas prices are nearly double what they were when he took office, and the housing market remains weak in most areas of the country. His presidency has been marked by partisan gridlock, with no effort made to work with the other side and to find bipartisan solutions to our debt crisis or to reform entitlements. And of course, there are the scandals -- the waste of taxpayer money on companies like Solyndra, the racialism and corruption of the Justice Department, and the incompetence, indifference, and lies regarding the Benghazi embassy attack.
Obama and the Democrats will undoubtedly be emboldened by this election. Their bogus war on women meme and their class warfare shtick apparently were embraced by the public, so we will see much more of that in the coming years. Obama has already governed and won reelection by being open about his left-wing views; he will not move to the center now. He will double down on his fiscal and cultural agenda. He will continue to circumvent the Constitution when needed to enact his agenda. His left-wing appointments will leave an indelible mark on the Supreme Court and lower courts.
I don't think there is much of a silver lining coming out of this election for conservatives. There will be no undoing the damage of four more years of Obama, but that is not even the worst. The worst is that Obama is apparently a reflection of a majority of the voting public. They voted to reelect him because they idolize him and believe that he reflects their values. This election opened my eyes to realize how much this country has changed. A majority of the public embraces values and beliefs that are completely the opposite of mine. They will vote for the candidate who supports abortion on demand, regardless of how bad the economy gets or how many lies are told about terrorist attacks on our embassy. They will vote for the candidate that offers them the most free stuff or panders most effectively to them, regardless of how much it drives up our debt and jeopardizes our children's future. There is no doubt that the media is deeply corrupt and that its bias throughout the campaign greatly aided Obama. But ultimately, it is the American people who choose to accept the spin fed to them instead of thinking for themselves and seeking out the truth. We voted for four more years, so we will get four more years just like the last four years. Our country will get the leadership we deserve.
UPDATE: I wanted to add a link to a typically outstanding Impromptus column by Jay Nordlinger with his thoughts on the election. I agree almost entirely with everything he says.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
100 Reasons to Vote Against Obama
1. Unemployment - Under Obama's economic leadership, the U.S. economy has suffered through 43 straight months with unemployment higher than 8% - the worst unemployment slump since the Great Depression. When you factor in the record number of people who have given up looking for a job and exited the labor force, real unemployment is well into double digits. Even though the official unemployment dropped to 7.8% in September 2012, the economy created only 114,000 new jobs, which is less than half of the number of monthly jobs that should be created in a normal recovery. Real median household income is more than $3,000 less than it was when the recession officially ended in June 2009. Nearly 23 million people are out of work or underemployed -- about 20% of the U.S. workforce. This graph showing the employment percentage of the working-age population over the past six years perfectly sums up the Obama "recovery":
2. Lack of economic growth - Economic growth throughout Obama's presidency has been extremely disappointing, with the gross domestic product only averaging about 1.5% growth per year since 2009 compared to the U.S. post-World War II average of 3.3%. Average growth was 2.4% in 2011 and has been 1.7% so far in 2012, which means that the economic situation is actually getting worse. By comparison, Reagan inherited a similarly awful economy, but his pro-growth policies turned the economy around so dramatically that by his third and fourth years in office GDP was growing at 4.5% and 7.2%, respectively. Obama's policies on everything from taxes to regulations to health care mandates to debt to energy have stifled rather than encouraged economic growth, and the results are painfully clear.
3. Deficits & Debt - When he first took office in 2009, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half to about $500 billion by the end of his first term in office (and reiterated that promise in 2010 and 2011). Obama spectacularly failed to keep that promise, and instead the government has run deficits exceeding $1 trillion for all four years of his presidency (with the 2013 deficit under his plan projected to be more of the same). The reasons for this are policies that have stifled economic growth and unprecedented levels of federal spending. As a result of these record deficits, Obama has dramatically increased our national debt from $11 trillion to more than $16 trillion in less than four years. For the first time in our nation's history, our debt exceeds our GDP, which threatens our long-term stability. Once debt reaches a certain level, it starts to slow economic growth, and this can trigger a dangerous cycle of decreased revenues, increasing debt, and ballooning interest payments. The European debt crisis is an example of what can happen.
4. Entitlement reform - Our country is facing a looming fiscal crisis due to our rapidly expanding national debt, and the primary cause of our increasing debt is the runaway growth of government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Medicare, in particular, threatens our country's future solvency. The percentage of our economy spent on Medicare is five times larger than it was 40 years ago, and by 2035 Medicare spending is projected to be double the share of the economy that it is today. If this program is not reformed in a sensible way -- and soon -- then our government will either be forced to drastically cut benefits to seniors or sink into bankruptcy under its massive load of debt. And yet, Obama has done absolutely nothing to address the issue of entitlements, other than exacerbate the fiscal crisis by creating a massive new health care entitlement. While demagoguing Republican budget plans that make an honest attempt to address the entitlement problem under Paul Ryan's leadership, Obama has offered no ideas and proposed no meaningful reforms of Social Security or Medicare. His only strategy seems to be to run out the clock and leave the problem for someone else to deal with. This is the opposite of leadership.
5. Passage of ObamaCare - Obama and his allies forced their landmark health care bill through in a very corrupt and partisan fashion. During the 2008 campaign Obama promised all health care negotiations would be televised on C-Span, but he broke that promise and kept Democratic negotiations behind closed doors. In the process of making the bill law, Obama and his allies bought off wavering members of Congress and health care industry lobbying groups with sweetheart deals; excluded Republican ideas from the bill; dramatically limited debate and amendments; forced votes in the middle of the night and on Christmas Eve; resorted to all sorts of parliamentary tricks such as "deem and pass," circumvention of the committee process, secret amendments, and reconciliation; and in the end passed an overhaul of our entire health care system, on a purely partisan vote, that was nearly 3,000 pages long and was not read by many members who voted for it.
6. Irresponsible long-term budget plan - Obama's 2013 budget plan calls for additional short-term stimulus spending that is expected to increase economic growth in the next year or two. However, due to high levels of federal spending, debt, and taxes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's plan will reduce economic growth by anywhere from 0.5% to 2.2% after five years. According to the CBO, these reduced levels of economic growth could also contribute to deficit increases of as much as $4 trillion over the next decade. Obama's plan irresponsibly projects deficits as far as the eye can see and never balances the federal budget, which stands in sharp contrast to Romney's plan which calls for a balanced budget by 2020.
7. $800 billion stimulus bill - The massive emergency economic stimulus bill that Obama engineered at the start of his presidency proved to be a colossal waste of taxpayer money. The bill was filled with corruption, with key political allies of the president receiving sizable chunks of money for their businesses in the form of grants and loans. Several billion went to foreign-owned companies. Only about 3% of the total spending in the bill went to fund infrastructure and highway projects, which were supposed to be the point of the bill. Even though it was rammed through as an emergency measure, six months after it was passed less than 20% of the money had been spent. The government website tracking how the stimulus money was spent showed jobs created or saved in 440 non-existent congressional districts! One scholarly study found that the stimulus money created or saved about 450,000 state and local government jobs but destroyed or forestalled about 1,000,000 private sector jobs, and another economist estimated that each job created by the stimulus cost an average of $650,000. Despite its size, Obama's stimulus bill, like previous attempts by Japan in the 1990's and by the U.S. under the New Deal, proved to be completely ineffective at jumpstarting the economy.
8. Job-killing regulations on business - The Obama Administration's EPA has proposed many new regulations that harm businesses and kill jobs. Among them are new standards for utility plants that could shut down hundreds of fossil fuel powered facilities and increase electricity costs for Americans by up to 24%, stricter emissions standards for boilers that will add $10-$20 billion in additional costs to businesses and could cost 60,000 to 200,000 jobs, stringent new cost-prohibitive rules for the cement industry that have already led to construction layoffs and could push many American jobs overseas, and the first ever national restrictions on coal ash which are forecasted to close many coal plants and cost up to 100,000 jobs. These are just a few tangible examples of how Obama's policies are harming employment and hindering our country's economic recovery. A Heritage Foundation study found that the costs of government regulations to business were five times higher under the first three years of the Obama Administration than under the first three years of the Bush Administration.
9. Federal spending - Despite the claims of some experts to the contrary, Obama has presided over an explosion of federal spending. There have been only two other times since World War II in which spending as a percentage of GDP has been as high as it has been for all four years of the Obama Adminstration. Spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy shot up from 20.8% in 2008 (Bush's last year in office) to 25.2% in 2009 (Obama's first year in office) and has remained above 24% through 2012 -- and that does not even take into account that Obama's budget consistently proposed higher spending than the amount actually approved by Congress. However, despite this binge in domestic spending, Obama has proposed potentially devastating cuts to our military. His budget announced in January 2012 called for $500 billion in defense cuts, which are coupled with an additional $500 billion in automatic "sequestration" cuts scheduled to take place in January of next year. The cuts would reduce the size of our Army and Marine Corp by 10-15% and take away our ability to be involved in two military conflicts simultaneously. Obama is perfectly willing to spend wildly, except when the security of the United States (the most important task of the federal government) is at stake.
10. Poverty & food stamps - Throughout his presidency, Obama has criticized the wealthy for not paying their fair share and emphasized the importance of not leaving anyone behind. Therefore, it may come as a surprise that Obama's presidency has failed miserably in helping people out of poverty. Over the past two years, more than 46 million people (15% of the U.S. population) have been living below the poverty line -- the highest number in more than 50 years. Median household income has also been declining over the past two years while the gap between rich and poor has increased. This has coincided with an increase in government dependency, as more Americans are now on food stamps (nearly 47 million people) than ever before in our history and food stamp spending has doubled since Obama took office. Based on these facts, it is difficult to argue that Obama's anti-growth, government-centered policies have done much to help the neediest among us.
2. Lack of economic growth - Economic growth throughout Obama's presidency has been extremely disappointing, with the gross domestic product only averaging about 1.5% growth per year since 2009 compared to the U.S. post-World War II average of 3.3%. Average growth was 2.4% in 2011 and has been 1.7% so far in 2012, which means that the economic situation is actually getting worse. By comparison, Reagan inherited a similarly awful economy, but his pro-growth policies turned the economy around so dramatically that by his third and fourth years in office GDP was growing at 4.5% and 7.2%, respectively. Obama's policies on everything from taxes to regulations to health care mandates to debt to energy have stifled rather than encouraged economic growth, and the results are painfully clear.
3. Deficits & Debt - When he first took office in 2009, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half to about $500 billion by the end of his first term in office (and reiterated that promise in 2010 and 2011). Obama spectacularly failed to keep that promise, and instead the government has run deficits exceeding $1 trillion for all four years of his presidency (with the 2013 deficit under his plan projected to be more of the same). The reasons for this are policies that have stifled economic growth and unprecedented levels of federal spending. As a result of these record deficits, Obama has dramatically increased our national debt from $11 trillion to more than $16 trillion in less than four years. For the first time in our nation's history, our debt exceeds our GDP, which threatens our long-term stability. Once debt reaches a certain level, it starts to slow economic growth, and this can trigger a dangerous cycle of decreased revenues, increasing debt, and ballooning interest payments. The European debt crisis is an example of what can happen.
4. Entitlement reform - Our country is facing a looming fiscal crisis due to our rapidly expanding national debt, and the primary cause of our increasing debt is the runaway growth of government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Medicare, in particular, threatens our country's future solvency. The percentage of our economy spent on Medicare is five times larger than it was 40 years ago, and by 2035 Medicare spending is projected to be double the share of the economy that it is today. If this program is not reformed in a sensible way -- and soon -- then our government will either be forced to drastically cut benefits to seniors or sink into bankruptcy under its massive load of debt. And yet, Obama has done absolutely nothing to address the issue of entitlements, other than exacerbate the fiscal crisis by creating a massive new health care entitlement. While demagoguing Republican budget plans that make an honest attempt to address the entitlement problem under Paul Ryan's leadership, Obama has offered no ideas and proposed no meaningful reforms of Social Security or Medicare. His only strategy seems to be to run out the clock and leave the problem for someone else to deal with. This is the opposite of leadership.
5. Passage of ObamaCare - Obama and his allies forced their landmark health care bill through in a very corrupt and partisan fashion. During the 2008 campaign Obama promised all health care negotiations would be televised on C-Span, but he broke that promise and kept Democratic negotiations behind closed doors. In the process of making the bill law, Obama and his allies bought off wavering members of Congress and health care industry lobbying groups with sweetheart deals; excluded Republican ideas from the bill; dramatically limited debate and amendments; forced votes in the middle of the night and on Christmas Eve; resorted to all sorts of parliamentary tricks such as "deem and pass," circumvention of the committee process, secret amendments, and reconciliation; and in the end passed an overhaul of our entire health care system, on a purely partisan vote, that was nearly 3,000 pages long and was not read by many members who voted for it.
6. Irresponsible long-term budget plan - Obama's 2013 budget plan calls for additional short-term stimulus spending that is expected to increase economic growth in the next year or two. However, due to high levels of federal spending, debt, and taxes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's plan will reduce economic growth by anywhere from 0.5% to 2.2% after five years. According to the CBO, these reduced levels of economic growth could also contribute to deficit increases of as much as $4 trillion over the next decade. Obama's plan irresponsibly projects deficits as far as the eye can see and never balances the federal budget, which stands in sharp contrast to Romney's plan which calls for a balanced budget by 2020.
7. $800 billion stimulus bill - The massive emergency economic stimulus bill that Obama engineered at the start of his presidency proved to be a colossal waste of taxpayer money. The bill was filled with corruption, with key political allies of the president receiving sizable chunks of money for their businesses in the form of grants and loans. Several billion went to foreign-owned companies. Only about 3% of the total spending in the bill went to fund infrastructure and highway projects, which were supposed to be the point of the bill. Even though it was rammed through as an emergency measure, six months after it was passed less than 20% of the money had been spent. The government website tracking how the stimulus money was spent showed jobs created or saved in 440 non-existent congressional districts! One scholarly study found that the stimulus money created or saved about 450,000 state and local government jobs but destroyed or forestalled about 1,000,000 private sector jobs, and another economist estimated that each job created by the stimulus cost an average of $650,000. Despite its size, Obama's stimulus bill, like previous attempts by Japan in the 1990's and by the U.S. under the New Deal, proved to be completely ineffective at jumpstarting the economy.
8. Job-killing regulations on business - The Obama Administration's EPA has proposed many new regulations that harm businesses and kill jobs. Among them are new standards for utility plants that could shut down hundreds of fossil fuel powered facilities and increase electricity costs for Americans by up to 24%, stricter emissions standards for boilers that will add $10-$20 billion in additional costs to businesses and could cost 60,000 to 200,000 jobs, stringent new cost-prohibitive rules for the cement industry that have already led to construction layoffs and could push many American jobs overseas, and the first ever national restrictions on coal ash which are forecasted to close many coal plants and cost up to 100,000 jobs. These are just a few tangible examples of how Obama's policies are harming employment and hindering our country's economic recovery. A Heritage Foundation study found that the costs of government regulations to business were five times higher under the first three years of the Obama Administration than under the first three years of the Bush Administration.
9. Federal spending - Despite the claims of some experts to the contrary, Obama has presided over an explosion of federal spending. There have been only two other times since World War II in which spending as a percentage of GDP has been as high as it has been for all four years of the Obama Adminstration. Spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy shot up from 20.8% in 2008 (Bush's last year in office) to 25.2% in 2009 (Obama's first year in office) and has remained above 24% through 2012 -- and that does not even take into account that Obama's budget consistently proposed higher spending than the amount actually approved by Congress. However, despite this binge in domestic spending, Obama has proposed potentially devastating cuts to our military. His budget announced in January 2012 called for $500 billion in defense cuts, which are coupled with an additional $500 billion in automatic "sequestration" cuts scheduled to take place in January of next year. The cuts would reduce the size of our Army and Marine Corp by 10-15% and take away our ability to be involved in two military conflicts simultaneously. Obama is perfectly willing to spend wildly, except when the security of the United States (the most important task of the federal government) is at stake.
10. Poverty & food stamps - Throughout his presidency, Obama has criticized the wealthy for not paying their fair share and emphasized the importance of not leaving anyone behind. Therefore, it may come as a surprise that Obama's presidency has failed miserably in helping people out of poverty. Over the past two years, more than 46 million people (15% of the U.S. population) have been living below the poverty line -- the highest number in more than 50 years. Median household income has also been declining over the past two years while the gap between rich and poor has increased. This has coincided with an increase in government dependency, as more Americans are now on food stamps (nearly 47 million people) than ever before in our history and food stamp spending has doubled since Obama took office. Based on these facts, it is difficult to argue that Obama's anti-growth, government-centered policies have done much to help the neediest among us.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Not On Obama Administration's Agenda: Fighting Terrorism, Defending Free Speech, or Maintaining Ethical Standards
In this excellent editorial, The Wall Street Journal explores the laughable claims of the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice that the attacks on U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East do not constitute terrorist attacks against the U.S. and have nothing to do with U.S. policy but are merely a spontaneous response to that "very hateful, very offensive" obscure video that was posted on YouTube six months ago. Rice's "blame America" view is contradicted by the evidence and by Libyan officials. Apparently this administration's idea of responding to foreign terrorist attacks against Americans consists primarily of denying that any such attacks occurred, pressuring a private company (Google) to remove an "offensive" video from its website and of sending authorities to the filmmaker's house in the middle of the night to bring him in for questioning. That should a send a powerful message to our enemies around the world!
In light of these attacks against this filmmaker's free speech, you might be worried that the Obama Administration would entertain the idea of criminalizing speech against religions such as Islam. I don't think this disturbing video from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez's testimony before Congress a couple of months ago will do anything to allay such fears:
Well, even if the Obama Administration doesn't seem too concerned about responding forcefully to terrorism or defending American's free speech, at least it is taking great pains to be free of corruption and ethics violations, right? Or...not. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blatantly violated the Hatch Act by using taxpayer funds to campaign for Obama's re-election at an official HHS event. Not surprisingly, she faces no disciplinary action from President Obama.
In light of these attacks against this filmmaker's free speech, you might be worried that the Obama Administration would entertain the idea of criminalizing speech against religions such as Islam. I don't think this disturbing video from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez's testimony before Congress a couple of months ago will do anything to allay such fears:
Well, even if the Obama Administration doesn't seem too concerned about responding forcefully to terrorism or defending American's free speech, at least it is taking great pains to be free of corruption and ethics violations, right? Or...not. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blatantly violated the Hatch Act by using taxpayer funds to campaign for Obama's re-election at an official HHS event. Not surprisingly, she faces no disciplinary action from President Obama.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Some Thoughts on the Past Week's Events -- Here and in the Middle East
Like many other Americans, I watched the unfolding events in the Middle East this week and the response from our government with concern, frustration, and anger. I wanted to post on this earlier but had little time and too many disjointed ideas running through my head. I am finally now getting the chance to put those ideas down on paper.
The whole point of free speech is that you have the right to say what you believe without being silenced by the government. If you say idiotic things, you should expect to face criticism from other people who also have freedom of speech. If you tell lies, you should expect to have other people use their freedom of speech to expose your lies. But the notion that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect people’s right to criticize other people’s religious beliefs or their right to say things that offend other people is ludicrous and dangerous. I have freedom of speech to criticize your beliefs if I think they’re wrong. You have freedom of speech to respond and defend your beliefs. If you are offended by my free speech, you do not have the right to silence me. Precisely because we live in a free country, this filmmaker has every right to make a movie about Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t matter if Muslims are offended or not – he still has the right to make the movie and express his opinion. If the filmmaker is telling lies or expressing hate, he should expect to be harshly criticized. If his speech is too offensive, then people will decide not to watch it and movie theatres will choose not to carry it. That’s how freedom works.
I read attacks on the Internet against evangelical Christianity all the time. I frequently read articles and comments that accuse all evangelical Christians of being bigoted and narrow-minded and of hating gays and science and that claim the Bible supports racism and slavery. Plays have run in this country that ridicule "Jesus and his band of queers" and art exhibits that show a crucifix immersed in urine have been funded with taxpayer dollars. I don’t like it when I hear people say those things about my beliefs, but I haven’t gone out and rioted or beheaded anyone. If those people hold important positions and their speech is offensive enough then I have the right to band with other like-minded people and try to get them fired or force them to apologize or keep them from getting taxpayer money. But I don’t deny they have the legal right under the 1st Amendment to say those hateful things. Why are Muslims special? Why do they have the right to demand that no one criticize them when that right is not extended to other religious groups like Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Freedom of speech, religion, and the press does not exist in Muslim countries (with maybe a couple of exceptions). If you go to almost any country in the Islamic world and start saying things that are not approved by the government, you will be imprisoned and possibly killed. Most Muslim countries are theocracies, which means that the religious leaders are also the political leaders. They do not allow any religion to be practiced other than Islam, which means that people who hold to other religious beliefs are persecuted, jailed, or killed. If I go to a Muslim country and talk to them about my faith or try to convert them, I will be deported, jailed, or killed, and if they convert to my religion, they will be killed. That is why Muslims are completely intolerant of any criticism of Islam or Mohammed. In the world they live in, there is no freedom. Everyone must bow to Mohammed or be silenced or killed. In many of their nations sharia law is enforced, which means that all residents of a country must obey the precepts of the Koran. Their religion teaches the concept of "jihad," which seeks to bring all the world under the control of Islam. And the spread of Islam has often been through conquest and forced conversion, following the example of Mohammed.
So tell me again: why are we the ones who need to apologize? We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They do not. Should we apologize for that? Our country gives Muslims the right to practice their religion and proselytize; their countries do not give Christians the right to practice their religion and proselytize. Should we apologize for that? Our country’s people, leaders, and laws are among the most tolerant of any country on earth; theirs are among the least tolerant. Should we apologize for that? We permit filmmakers to make films that offend Muslims, just as we permit filmmakers to make films that offend people from any other religion. We permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about Mohammed, just as we permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about any other religious or political figure. Should we apologize for that? I think we should celebrate all of these things. There are more than 300 million people who live in this country, all of whom are saying and doing all kinds of things in freedom. The government is not responsible for anything that any private citizen in this country says and does not need to apologize for any of it. That includes some obscure filmmaker in LA and some obscure preacher who wants to burn the Koran in FL. How dare our government apologize to those angry mobs on behalf of America!
The events transpiring this week show once again why Obama does not deserve another four years. His foreign policy has been just as disastrous as his domestic policy, in my opinion.
- Why was the Obama Administration not prepared for potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? The British newspaper The Independent has reported that there were credible sources warning about foreign embassy attacks 48 hours prior to their occurrence, but no warnings were given to put foreign diplomats on high alert. Whether or not these allegations were true, shouldn't our government have anticipated the possibility of attacks on that day? It appears the interim embassy in Libya in particular was woefully unprotected, with Libyan security forces rather than U.S. military personnel defending it. And the Marines defending the Egyptian embassy had no ammunition. Why did President Obama skip his daily security briefing that morning -- and every other morning since September 5th? I realize that the president can digest the information from these briefings without having to be physically present at every one of them, but it seems like the one on the anniversary of 9/11 should have been especially important. Maybe he could have made time for it by cancelling his appearance on a radio show hosted by "The Pimp With a Limp" that same day. It seems that our government, from Obama on down, was napping on the job when it comes to our country's security.
- Why did the Obama Administration apologize as its first official response to the violent protests in the Middle East? The U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement apologizing for some obscure anti-Islam film produced in the U.S. and expressing sympathy for the angry protestors. Not surprisingly, the mob went on to attack the embassy, remove and destroy the U.S. flag hanging over the embassy, and replace it with the Al Qaeda flag. These people know weakness when they see it. This apology was reiterated after the attacks and remained the only official government response to the Middle East violence for 9 and 1/2 hours, even after the death of our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans. Not until after Romney came out and condemned the apology did the White House finally issue a statement distancing himself from it as well and saying it did not reflect the official policy of the Obama administration. Later, information came out that indicated the attacks had been carefully planned for the anniversary of 9/11 (the attackers were armed with mortars) and the protests over the American film (which had already been out for a few months) were only used as a pretext and a distraction anyway. But still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement two days later with the same conciliatory, apologetic tone regarding the controversial American film. As Victor Davis Hanson points out, the statements from the U.S. embassy in Cairo and from Clinton played right into the hands of our enemies who want to lay the blame for the attacks at the feet of the U.S. government. But don't hold your breath waiting for President Apology Tour himself to hold anyone from his administration accountable for this.
- Perhaps to cover up its own weakness and lack of preparedness, the Obama Administration quickly tried to distract attention from the important issue -- the attacks on our embassy -- by attacking Romney for "politicizing" the attacks. As though it is inappropriate for a presidential candidate to offer a statement on an important foreign policy issue that has taken center stage during the campaign! I, for one, would like to know Romney's opinion on this issue and I think most Americans would as well. But of course, the lapdog press obediently followed their marching orders from Obama's campaign and launched blistering attacks on Romney as well. The next morning, Romney held a press conference in which he elaborated on his positions on the Middle East attacks and defended his previous statement that the U.S. should not be apologizing to terrorists. He then answered questions from the press. The press showed their true colors in response -- 5 of their 7 questions were all variations on the exact same question about whether Romney regretted "jumping the gun" and attacking the president so quickly after the attacks on our embassies. Our country had been attacked, and yet it was painfully obvious that American journalists had no substantive questions and were not interested in focusing on the important issues unfolding in the Middle East, but were only interested in trying to discredit Romney and score political points. Later, audio was released of a number of the journalists conspiring to attack Romney prior to the press conference and discussing what was the best language to use in the questioning! Clearly those questions at the press conference were no accident but were the result of careful coordination and collusion by the press.
- Obama also gave a statement to the press the morning following the attacks, but unlike Romney, Obama took no questions at all from the press. You tell me whether that makes Obama, the sitting president, look more or less presidential than Romney. Obama also cancelled his daily security briefing that day -- the day after an act of war against our country. Instead, he jetted off to a glitzy fundraiser in Las Vegas, where he barely managed to get the rowdy, adoring crowd to quiet down long enough to say a couple of sentences about the embassy attacks and the loss of four Americans before launching into full campaign mode. No big deal that our enemies knew the location of our ambassador's safe house, dragged his body through the streets (described by Hillary Clinton as "Libyans carry[ing] Chris's body to the hospital") and stole documents with the names of Libyans who cooperated with the U.S. It was left to Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, to assure Americans that these attacks were not an attack against America or the American people or the Obama Administration -- they were merely expressing anger against that evil filmmaker that the Obamites are so obsessed with! How pathetic for this administration to try to claim that attacks against our embassies and our people overseas are not attacks on America. Of course they are attacks on America, and they are attacks that deserve a strong and unapologetic response. That is certainly not happening, as the Administration doesn't even seem willing to admit the incident in Libya was a terrorist attack and an act of war against our country. The State Department has gone silent, citing an ongoing FBI investigation. This is not a liquor store holdup; it's a national security crisis and an act of war against America and the American people deserve answers and accountability. Good luck getting the press to help with that; they're too busy parsing Romney's press releases. Some members of the press even had the audacity to blame Mitt Romney and his press conference for their failure to cover the attacks effectively!
- These attacks show the fundamental weakness of U.S. foreign policy. Charles Krauthammer put it this way in an interview on Fox News: "Obama himself said we’re doing a pivot out of the Middle East to the Pacific. He has proclaimed the tide of war is over. He took us out of Iraq leaving no residual force. He announced withdrawal from Afghanistan on a timetable. When it came to Arab Spring, he was indecisive. In Iran he would not support protesters. Libya, half in and half out. Everybody in the region understands that America, which had been the dominant element, is now in withdrawal, is not interested. The Gulf Arabs are apoplectic about Iran going nuclear, it’s not just Israel. Now our friends are looking around saying, ‘Do we really have anybody who will support us?’ The extreme jihadists and the moderate jihadists in the region are now saying ‘This is our time.’ I’ll give you one example of the withdrawal of our influence: Syria. Does anybody in the region ask what is the American position? Everybody wants to know what Russia is doing and thinking and what supplies it’s sending. What’s Iran doing? What is Hezbollah doing? America is irrelevant." Krauthammer said in another interview: "What we’re seeing now is Al Qaedastan developing in Libya, a meltdown of our relations with Egypt… riots in Yemen, attacks on our embassy in Tunisia….These are the fruits of apology and retreat and lack of confidence in our own principles."
- Obama doesn't even seem to be able to make up his mind about what he thinks about the new Egyptian government. He said in an interview that he considers them neither an ally or an enemy, and the utter failure of their Muslim Brotherhood-led government to protect our embassy there doesn't seem to argue in favor of them being an ally. Yet, his administration continues to push for more than $1 billion in financial aid to that country.
The whole point of free speech is that you have the right to say what you believe without being silenced by the government. If you say idiotic things, you should expect to face criticism from other people who also have freedom of speech. If you tell lies, you should expect to have other people use their freedom of speech to expose your lies. But the notion that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect people’s right to criticize other people’s religious beliefs or their right to say things that offend other people is ludicrous and dangerous. I have freedom of speech to criticize your beliefs if I think they’re wrong. You have freedom of speech to respond and defend your beliefs. If you are offended by my free speech, you do not have the right to silence me. Precisely because we live in a free country, this filmmaker has every right to make a movie about Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t matter if Muslims are offended or not – he still has the right to make the movie and express his opinion. If the filmmaker is telling lies or expressing hate, he should expect to be harshly criticized. If his speech is too offensive, then people will decide not to watch it and movie theatres will choose not to carry it. That’s how freedom works.
I read attacks on the Internet against evangelical Christianity all the time. I frequently read articles and comments that accuse all evangelical Christians of being bigoted and narrow-minded and of hating gays and science and that claim the Bible supports racism and slavery. Plays have run in this country that ridicule "Jesus and his band of queers" and art exhibits that show a crucifix immersed in urine have been funded with taxpayer dollars. I don’t like it when I hear people say those things about my beliefs, but I haven’t gone out and rioted or beheaded anyone. If those people hold important positions and their speech is offensive enough then I have the right to band with other like-minded people and try to get them fired or force them to apologize or keep them from getting taxpayer money. But I don’t deny they have the legal right under the 1st Amendment to say those hateful things. Why are Muslims special? Why do they have the right to demand that no one criticize them when that right is not extended to other religious groups like Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Freedom of speech, religion, and the press does not exist in Muslim countries (with maybe a couple of exceptions). If you go to almost any country in the Islamic world and start saying things that are not approved by the government, you will be imprisoned and possibly killed. Most Muslim countries are theocracies, which means that the religious leaders are also the political leaders. They do not allow any religion to be practiced other than Islam, which means that people who hold to other religious beliefs are persecuted, jailed, or killed. If I go to a Muslim country and talk to them about my faith or try to convert them, I will be deported, jailed, or killed, and if they convert to my religion, they will be killed. That is why Muslims are completely intolerant of any criticism of Islam or Mohammed. In the world they live in, there is no freedom. Everyone must bow to Mohammed or be silenced or killed. In many of their nations sharia law is enforced, which means that all residents of a country must obey the precepts of the Koran. Their religion teaches the concept of "jihad," which seeks to bring all the world under the control of Islam. And the spread of Islam has often been through conquest and forced conversion, following the example of Mohammed.
So tell me again: why are we the ones who need to apologize? We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They do not. Should we apologize for that? Our country gives Muslims the right to practice their religion and proselytize; their countries do not give Christians the right to practice their religion and proselytize. Should we apologize for that? Our country’s people, leaders, and laws are among the most tolerant of any country on earth; theirs are among the least tolerant. Should we apologize for that? We permit filmmakers to make films that offend Muslims, just as we permit filmmakers to make films that offend people from any other religion. We permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about Mohammed, just as we permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about any other religious or political figure. Should we apologize for that? I think we should celebrate all of these things. There are more than 300 million people who live in this country, all of whom are saying and doing all kinds of things in freedom. The government is not responsible for anything that any private citizen in this country says and does not need to apologize for any of it. That includes some obscure filmmaker in LA and some obscure preacher who wants to burn the Koran in FL. How dare our government apologize to those angry mobs on behalf of America!
The events transpiring this week show once again why Obama does not deserve another four years. His foreign policy has been just as disastrous as his domestic policy, in my opinion.
Monday, August 6, 2012
"The Hollow Republic"
I recommend this interesting and thoughtful piece from National Review's Yuval Levin entitled "The Hollow Republic." Levin points out that the policies of Obama and the Left are diminishing and damaging civil society, which has always been one of the keys to America's greatness. In Obama's vision of America, nothing seems to stand between the individual and the all-powerful state.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Some Tuesday Morning Links
My wife and I went to see the final Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises its first weekend in theatres. I highly recommend this movie. The action and excitement are non-stop and the plot has some unexpected twists. And surprisingly (for Hollywood), the movie had clear conservative themes as well. World magazine had a great review analyzing the ideology behind The Dark Knight Rises. As World puts it, the movie "powerfully portrays the logical results of relativism and socialism."
The Daily Caller has released information from a soon-to-be-published book by Richard Miniter about the attack on Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound. Miniter claims, based on an anonymous source with direct knowledge of the operation, that Obama canceled it three times over a period of several months and continued to waffle on whether or not to give the order to carry out the mission right up until the last minute. I had the privilege of hearing a Navy SEAL involved in planning the bin Laden mission speak in person about the operation last year, and he mentioned something similar about Obama. Obviously, we should be careful about putting too much stock in allegations based on anonymous sources. This story may or may not be true, but if true I think it is very damaging to Obama. It shows him both as a weak, indecisive leader and also as a President unwilling to take the terrorist threat seriously.
Finally, I found a couple of interesting links relating to the topic of same-sex marriage. One is an excellent post by William Jacobson from the blog Legal Insurrection that notes that the anti-gay bigot card is now "on full display as a centerpiece of Democratic politics," thanks to Obama's convenient flip-flop-flip on same-sex marriage. The goal is to silence all dissent by branding support for traditional marriage as hate speech. The other essay is by Matthew Franck and discusses a recent book called Debating Same-Sex Marriage, which is co-authored by same-sex marriage supporter John Corvino and same-sex marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher.
The Daily Caller has released information from a soon-to-be-published book by Richard Miniter about the attack on Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound. Miniter claims, based on an anonymous source with direct knowledge of the operation, that Obama canceled it three times over a period of several months and continued to waffle on whether or not to give the order to carry out the mission right up until the last minute. I had the privilege of hearing a Navy SEAL involved in planning the bin Laden mission speak in person about the operation last year, and he mentioned something similar about Obama. Obviously, we should be careful about putting too much stock in allegations based on anonymous sources. This story may or may not be true, but if true I think it is very damaging to Obama. It shows him both as a weak, indecisive leader and also as a President unwilling to take the terrorist threat seriously.
Finally, I found a couple of interesting links relating to the topic of same-sex marriage. One is an excellent post by William Jacobson from the blog Legal Insurrection that notes that the anti-gay bigot card is now "on full display as a centerpiece of Democratic politics," thanks to Obama's convenient flip-flop-flip on same-sex marriage. The goal is to silence all dissent by branding support for traditional marriage as hate speech. The other essay is by Matthew Franck and discusses a recent book called Debating Same-Sex Marriage, which is co-authored by same-sex marriage supporter John Corvino and same-sex marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher.
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Messiah vs. "the messiah"
Back in 2008, some people referred to King Barack I as a "messiah", some in jest and some in all seriousness. Just for fun, let's compare and contrast the messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, with the Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (NOTE: This is tongue in cheek, with no disrespect intended (toward Jesus, that is). Please don't take this too seriously.)
Similarities
Similarities
- Jesus fed the 5000. (John 6) Obama is the food stamp president.
- Some of Jesus's followers were only in it for the goodies. (John 6:26) And so are some of Obama's followers.
- Jesus commands the waves. (Mark 4:35-40) Obama thinks he can do the same.
- Jesus told his disciples to carry swords. (Luke 22:36) Obama told his followers to carry guns. (Some of them also carry billy clubs.)
- Jesus told a rich man to sell everything that he owned and to follow him. (Luke 18:22) Obama wants the rich to pay more in taxes.
- Jesus is the King of Kings. Obama thinks that he's a king.
Differences
- Jesus turned water into wine. Obama turns teleprompter text into whine.
- Jesus blamed the devil. (Matthew 17:18) Obama blames Bush.
- Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me." (Matthew 19:14) Obama said, "Let the little children die alone in a closet."
- Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I'm not quite sure where Obama was born.
- Jesus bows to God only. (Matthew 4) Obama, on the other hand...
- Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. (Matthew 22) Obama appointed a tax cheat to his Cabinet.
- Jesus healed the sick. He did not assess a tax for not being healed. (For that matter, he did not tax the people that he healed, either.) Obama's signature piece of legislation
penalizestaxes people who don't buy medical insurance. - Best of all: Jesus will return one day. Obama is limited to two terms as president.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Latest Proof of Obama's Radicalism
The Obama Administration's latest stunt is to issue a policy directive to attempt to undo the wildly successful welfare reform initiative passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in the 1990's. Read more here.
Of course, all this comes on the heels of Obama's Attorney General being held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents about a scandal that resulted in the death a U.S. border agent, an executive order by the Obama Administration to refuse to enforce certain federal laws relating to illegal immigration apart from legitimate action by Congress to change the law, and Obama's attempt to raise taxes on all Americans making more than $250,000 and his threats to allow taxes for all Americans to go up if Republicans don't agree to his demands. Then there was Obama's campaign's outrageous charge, without any evidence, that Romney may have committed a felony in his SEC filings and a subsequent refusal to apologize. This charge comes on the heels of millions and millions of dollars of brutal and dishonest negative advertising about Romney's involvement in Bain Capital. Dishonest according to numerous people involved in Bain Capital who know the facts, some of whom are Obama supporters. And then there was Obama's recent campaign statement that businesses should pay more in taxes because "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Barack Obama is a blight on our country. He is a radical leftist and ruthless demagogue with no respect for our Constitution or our free market system. And yes, he is a scumbag.
UPDATE: Here is the full quote from Obama mentioned above:
This is not a gaffe on Obama's part. He said exactly what he really believes.
Of course, all this comes on the heels of Obama's Attorney General being held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents about a scandal that resulted in the death a U.S. border agent, an executive order by the Obama Administration to refuse to enforce certain federal laws relating to illegal immigration apart from legitimate action by Congress to change the law, and Obama's attempt to raise taxes on all Americans making more than $250,000 and his threats to allow taxes for all Americans to go up if Republicans don't agree to his demands. Then there was Obama's campaign's outrageous charge, without any evidence, that Romney may have committed a felony in his SEC filings and a subsequent refusal to apologize. This charge comes on the heels of millions and millions of dollars of brutal and dishonest negative advertising about Romney's involvement in Bain Capital. Dishonest according to numerous people involved in Bain Capital who know the facts, some of whom are Obama supporters. And then there was Obama's recent campaign statement that businesses should pay more in taxes because "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Barack Obama is a blight on our country. He is a radical leftist and ruthless demagogue with no respect for our Constitution or our free market system. And yes, he is a scumbag.
UPDATE: Here is the full quote from Obama mentioned above:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.James Pethokoukis paraphrases this incredible statement from Obama: " There is no such thing as individual achievement or merit. All success is directly due to society’s collective effort as manifested by government."
This is not a gaffe on Obama's part. He said exactly what he really believes.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Obama vs. Constitution, Again
I'm sure most of my readers have already heard about the Obama Administration's recent mandate that religious organizations, including Catholic charities, hospitals, & universities, provide their employees with health insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients even if doing so violates their beliefs (which it does in many cases). Work has been busy lately, so I've been a bit late to the party on this. I hope it's obvious to most of my readers that this is an assault on our 1st Amendment religious freedoms. It should also be obvious that this is just one example of what happens when government grows too big and starts trying to control every area of our lives. After all, ObamaCare requires every American to purchase government-approved health insurance, which is also a violation of our constitutional freedoms, and it's really not much of a step from that to this birth control mandate imposed on religious organizations.
I found a great article by one of my favorite National Review Online authors, Andrew McCarthy, about this attack on religious freedom by Obama. It's called "The Contraceptive Mandate's Shaky Justification," and it does a great job of explaining how ridiculous Obama's claim is that women in our country lack access to "reproductive services." And don't be fooled by the so-called compromise that Obama's Administration has since offered to try to appease his critics -- it is all show and no substance, as this NRO editorial makes clear.
This issue is just one of many that demonstrate Obama's hostility toward religion. Other examples, many of which I have posted about here, include his radical pro-abortion positions, his refusal to defend or enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, his appointment of radical gay activist Kevin Jennings as his safe schools czar, his rolling back of freedom of conscience provisions for medical practitioners, his cavalier attitude toward global human rights, and his removal of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from its position as administrator of the government's Human Trafficking Program despite its excellent qualifications to do so. Not to mention his administration's recent attempt to argue before the Supreme Court that the government should be able to interfere in religious organizations' choices to hire or fire their own leaders and teachers (which was fortunately shot down unanimously).
Of course, I'm sure people who are indifferent or hostile to religion or who want to silence religious expression in the public square and eliminate the influence of religious values on our society are perfectly happy with all of these decisions and actions. What I don't get is why any Christian who takes his/her faith seriously would ever consider voting to re-elect Obama (or sitting out the election).
UPDATE: I found another great article on the birth control mandate, this one written by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a blogger himself. Mohler analyzes a column by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times in which, after lying about Christians wanting to ban contraceptives, Kristof defines religious freedom in this way: "“The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.” Wow. Whatever happened to "inalienable rights" and "no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"? It is scary when we have reached the point when a mainstream liberal columnist for one of the largest newspapers in the country defines freedom of religion as the government trying to respect and accommodate religion where it can.
I found a great article by one of my favorite National Review Online authors, Andrew McCarthy, about this attack on religious freedom by Obama. It's called "The Contraceptive Mandate's Shaky Justification," and it does a great job of explaining how ridiculous Obama's claim is that women in our country lack access to "reproductive services." And don't be fooled by the so-called compromise that Obama's Administration has since offered to try to appease his critics -- it is all show and no substance, as this NRO editorial makes clear.
This issue is just one of many that demonstrate Obama's hostility toward religion. Other examples, many of which I have posted about here, include his radical pro-abortion positions, his refusal to defend or enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, his appointment of radical gay activist Kevin Jennings as his safe schools czar, his rolling back of freedom of conscience provisions for medical practitioners, his cavalier attitude toward global human rights, and his removal of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from its position as administrator of the government's Human Trafficking Program despite its excellent qualifications to do so. Not to mention his administration's recent attempt to argue before the Supreme Court that the government should be able to interfere in religious organizations' choices to hire or fire their own leaders and teachers (which was fortunately shot down unanimously).
Of course, I'm sure people who are indifferent or hostile to religion or who want to silence religious expression in the public square and eliminate the influence of religious values on our society are perfectly happy with all of these decisions and actions. What I don't get is why any Christian who takes his/her faith seriously would ever consider voting to re-elect Obama (or sitting out the election).
UPDATE: I found another great article on the birth control mandate, this one written by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a blogger himself. Mohler analyzes a column by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times in which, after lying about Christians wanting to ban contraceptives, Kristof defines religious freedom in this way: "“The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.” Wow. Whatever happened to "inalienable rights" and "no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"? It is scary when we have reached the point when a mainstream liberal columnist for one of the largest newspapers in the country defines freedom of religion as the government trying to respect and accommodate religion where it can.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The State of the Union
Here are a few random thoughts on the passing political scene (I think I stole that line from Thomas Sowell).
I (half) watched Obama's State of the Union speech this past week. I wasn't planning to do so, but my wife is teaching a government class this semester and wanted to set a good example for her students by watching it. So I sat in the room with her and listened to the speech in the background while working on other things.
The speech went on and on (over an hour I think) but never seemed to address the real challenges we face as a country. In all those thousands of words, Obama barely touched on the topic of our crippling national debt and completely ignored the vital issue of entitlement spending. In fact, the speech was filled with new spending initiatives and government "solutions." It's all business as usual for Obama. Lots of "investments in our future," which is code for government spending. And as expected, a lot of talk about everyone getting "their fair share" -- Obama is obsessed with income inequality. His only suggestion for fixing our debt problem is to make the rich pay a lot more in taxes. Never mind that the wealthiest 10% already pay pretty much all the taxes and that about 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Never mind that, even if the U.S. government confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, it would still be less than just the current year's budget deficit under Obama.
There was so much irony in the speech, for those who have been following Obama's actions as President. He talked a lot about working together for the good of the country -- ironic coming from a President who has done so much to divide us and has made zero effort to reach out to the other side of the political spectrum. He talked about Washington's failures, apparently unaware that he himself is the face of Washington and Washington's failures are his failures. He bragged about oil and gas production during his first term, even though he did everything he could to oppose it, including dramatically cutting back on federal oil and gas leases, banning certain offshore drilling, and opposing the Keystone pipeline. He complained about not being able to get quick up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, even though he repeatedly joined his party in filibustering Bush nominees as a U.S. Senator. He praised the results of the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, and just a few short minutes later came down hard against bailouts. Against all evidence, he insisted that our relationship with Israel is stronger than it has ever been and that America is not in decline.
Most bizarrely, Obama's idea of an inspiring ending was to say that "this nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs.” Yeah, that's great if you're describing your teenage son's soccer team. We've come a long way from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Republican response, given by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, was everything Obama's speech was not -- short, concise, and focused on the important stuff. Here are some excerpts from the speech that are well worth reading:
In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours....
We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves....
The routes back to an America of promise, and to a solvent America that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable, start in the same place. The only way up for those suffering tonight, and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we have driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today....
The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.
That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years....
The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.
It’s absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: the dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth....
As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait.
I (half) watched Obama's State of the Union speech this past week. I wasn't planning to do so, but my wife is teaching a government class this semester and wanted to set a good example for her students by watching it. So I sat in the room with her and listened to the speech in the background while working on other things.
The speech went on and on (over an hour I think) but never seemed to address the real challenges we face as a country. In all those thousands of words, Obama barely touched on the topic of our crippling national debt and completely ignored the vital issue of entitlement spending. In fact, the speech was filled with new spending initiatives and government "solutions." It's all business as usual for Obama. Lots of "investments in our future," which is code for government spending. And as expected, a lot of talk about everyone getting "their fair share" -- Obama is obsessed with income inequality. His only suggestion for fixing our debt problem is to make the rich pay a lot more in taxes. Never mind that the wealthiest 10% already pay pretty much all the taxes and that about 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Never mind that, even if the U.S. government confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, it would still be less than just the current year's budget deficit under Obama.
There was so much irony in the speech, for those who have been following Obama's actions as President. He talked a lot about working together for the good of the country -- ironic coming from a President who has done so much to divide us and has made zero effort to reach out to the other side of the political spectrum. He talked about Washington's failures, apparently unaware that he himself is the face of Washington and Washington's failures are his failures. He bragged about oil and gas production during his first term, even though he did everything he could to oppose it, including dramatically cutting back on federal oil and gas leases, banning certain offshore drilling, and opposing the Keystone pipeline. He complained about not being able to get quick up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, even though he repeatedly joined his party in filibustering Bush nominees as a U.S. Senator. He praised the results of the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, and just a few short minutes later came down hard against bailouts. Against all evidence, he insisted that our relationship with Israel is stronger than it has ever been and that America is not in decline.
Most bizarrely, Obama's idea of an inspiring ending was to say that "this nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs.” Yeah, that's great if you're describing your teenage son's soccer team. We've come a long way from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Republican response, given by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, was everything Obama's speech was not -- short, concise, and focused on the important stuff. Here are some excerpts from the speech that are well worth reading:
In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours....
We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves....
The routes back to an America of promise, and to a solvent America that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable, start in the same place. The only way up for those suffering tonight, and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we have driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today....
The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.
That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years....
The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.
It’s absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: the dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth....
As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Obama's Mockery of the Constitution, Part 2
I want to follow up on what I wrote last week on Obama's "recess appointments" by linking to this excellent opinion article in The Wall Street Journal by Michael McConnell, the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. McConnell ably explains why Obama's unconstitutional appointments matter and refutes claims made by Obama's defenders.
I highly recommend that you read the entire article, as I cannot summarize everything from it here. However, I wanted to highlight one portion of the article in which McConnell notes that Obama's latest appointments merely continue the pattern of callous disregard for the Constitution that has marked his entire presidency. Obama decided to go to war in Libya not only without a congressional declaration of war, but also without following the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution that included a 60-day deadline for congressional authorization. His administration is attempting to bypass Congress entirely by imposing cap-and-trade regulations and union card check legislation, despite the fact that the people's representatives in Congress have rejected both.
Obama believes that he is above the law. He believes he has the right to appoint whomever he wants to whatever position he wants without congressional approval, the right to make sweeping new laws apart from Congress, and the right to unilaterally take our country to war with no accountability to Congress whatsoever. If he gets away with this behavior, he will be emboldened to be even more brazen. Democrats don't care; they support Obama's actions. Republicans control only one branch of Congress and so can do little to stop Obama -- and they are not doing a very good job using the power and public platform they do have. The media is far too busy asking the Republican presidential candidates about their views on contraception to bother to keep Obama accountable. It is difficult and time-consuming to challenge many of these things in court.
2012 is a critical year for those of us who value our constitutional system. We have a chance to defeat Obama, and we'd better not screw it up. I read comments on several conservative websites, and it worries me how divided conservatives are and how determined they seem to be to cannibalize each other. We may disagree on which of the GOP candidates is the best, but we should all agree that any of them, with all their imperfections, would be infinitely better than Obama. Romney, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman -- any of them. (Ron Paul is a bit of a special case, and his views are so dramatically out of the mainstream of the Republican party that I could understand some Republicans being unwilling to support him. But he is a niche candidate who has no chance of winning the nomination.) I keep reading comments from supposed conservatives saying they would "never" vote for ___ [insert name of Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, etc]. If conservatives continue with that attitude, they will swing this election to Obama. As conservatives, we should have one political goal this year, and everything we do should further that goal. Obama's defeat is the only thing that will make achieving our other goals possible, including repealing ObamaCare.
I highly recommend that you read the entire article, as I cannot summarize everything from it here. However, I wanted to highlight one portion of the article in which McConnell notes that Obama's latest appointments merely continue the pattern of callous disregard for the Constitution that has marked his entire presidency. Obama decided to go to war in Libya not only without a congressional declaration of war, but also without following the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution that included a 60-day deadline for congressional authorization. His administration is attempting to bypass Congress entirely by imposing cap-and-trade regulations and union card check legislation, despite the fact that the people's representatives in Congress have rejected both.
Obama believes that he is above the law. He believes he has the right to appoint whomever he wants to whatever position he wants without congressional approval, the right to make sweeping new laws apart from Congress, and the right to unilaterally take our country to war with no accountability to Congress whatsoever. If he gets away with this behavior, he will be emboldened to be even more brazen. Democrats don't care; they support Obama's actions. Republicans control only one branch of Congress and so can do little to stop Obama -- and they are not doing a very good job using the power and public platform they do have. The media is far too busy asking the Republican presidential candidates about their views on contraception to bother to keep Obama accountable. It is difficult and time-consuming to challenge many of these things in court.
2012 is a critical year for those of us who value our constitutional system. We have a chance to defeat Obama, and we'd better not screw it up. I read comments on several conservative websites, and it worries me how divided conservatives are and how determined they seem to be to cannibalize each other. We may disagree on which of the GOP candidates is the best, but we should all agree that any of them, with all their imperfections, would be infinitely better than Obama. Romney, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman -- any of them. (Ron Paul is a bit of a special case, and his views are so dramatically out of the mainstream of the Republican party that I could understand some Republicans being unwilling to support him. But he is a niche candidate who has no chance of winning the nomination.) I keep reading comments from supposed conservatives saying they would "never" vote for ___ [insert name of Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, etc]. If conservatives continue with that attitude, they will swing this election to Obama. As conservatives, we should have one political goal this year, and everything we do should further that goal. Obama's defeat is the only thing that will make achieving our other goals possible, including repealing ObamaCare.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Obama's Latest Mockery of the Constitution
This week, Obama appointed Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That's not the problem.
The problem is that this appointment is supposedly a "recess appointment." Recess appointments are a loophole that enables the president to avoid the constitutional requirement for top governmental and judicial appointees to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Recess appointments are only constitutionally permissible if Congress is in "recess." Congress is not in "recess" this week, according to the criteria set forth by Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution and its explanation in past Justice Department briefs. Congress is legally in session, and therefore Obama is not eligible to make recess appointments. But he did it anyway.
This is an open mockery of our Constitution -- and an unprecedented one. Back in 2007, Congress stayed in session for over a year to keep President Bush from making recess appointments. At one point, Congress was called into session for just 27 seconds to prevent such recess appointments. Because President Bush respected the Constitution and the rule of law, he did not make an illegal recess appointment. Now we have a president who doesn't care.
There's a reason the Constitution set up these checks and balances regarding presidential appointments. We live in a constitutional republic with division of powers between three branches of government. The whole point of the "advice and consent" Senate role is to keep the President accountable and ensure that his appointments are broadly acceptable to the public. If the President has the right to ignore such constitutional requirements altogether, he is setting himself above the law.
Obama's new appointee, Richard Cordray, will have tremendous power to influence the economy. The new Financial Consumer Protection Bureau can regulate any and every consumer transaction in this country. Because it is funded out of the Federal Reserve, it has no accountability to Congress. And now all power in this bureau is vested in one individual rather than in a five-member board (which was the original intent when this bureau was set up). Congress was trying to avoid this situation, where one unaccountable bureaucrat was running a powerful unaccountable agency, so it deliberately stayed in session to try to force reforms. Little did they know that Obama would trample on Constitutional and historical precedent to get his way.
People need to know what Obama is doing. The press is not reporting this accurately. CNN's headline is "Obama Recess Appoints Consumer Bureau Chief." You have to read deep into the lengthy article to even find out that Congress is not in recess, so therefore this cannot be a recess appointment. This illegal appointment by Obama continues his past history of avoiding Senate advice and consent by appointing an unprecedented number of powerful, unaccountable czars.
We need a President who respects the Constitution. Right now, we don't have one.
The problem is that this appointment is supposedly a "recess appointment." Recess appointments are a loophole that enables the president to avoid the constitutional requirement for top governmental and judicial appointees to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Recess appointments are only constitutionally permissible if Congress is in "recess." Congress is not in "recess" this week, according to the criteria set forth by Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution and its explanation in past Justice Department briefs. Congress is legally in session, and therefore Obama is not eligible to make recess appointments. But he did it anyway.
This is an open mockery of our Constitution -- and an unprecedented one. Back in 2007, Congress stayed in session for over a year to keep President Bush from making recess appointments. At one point, Congress was called into session for just 27 seconds to prevent such recess appointments. Because President Bush respected the Constitution and the rule of law, he did not make an illegal recess appointment. Now we have a president who doesn't care.
There's a reason the Constitution set up these checks and balances regarding presidential appointments. We live in a constitutional republic with division of powers between three branches of government. The whole point of the "advice and consent" Senate role is to keep the President accountable and ensure that his appointments are broadly acceptable to the public. If the President has the right to ignore such constitutional requirements altogether, he is setting himself above the law.
Obama's new appointee, Richard Cordray, will have tremendous power to influence the economy. The new Financial Consumer Protection Bureau can regulate any and every consumer transaction in this country. Because it is funded out of the Federal Reserve, it has no accountability to Congress. And now all power in this bureau is vested in one individual rather than in a five-member board (which was the original intent when this bureau was set up). Congress was trying to avoid this situation, where one unaccountable bureaucrat was running a powerful unaccountable agency, so it deliberately stayed in session to try to force reforms. Little did they know that Obama would trample on Constitutional and historical precedent to get his way.
People need to know what Obama is doing. The press is not reporting this accurately. CNN's headline is "Obama Recess Appoints Consumer Bureau Chief." You have to read deep into the lengthy article to even find out that Congress is not in recess, so therefore this cannot be a recess appointment. This illegal appointment by Obama continues his past history of avoiding Senate advice and consent by appointing an unprecedented number of powerful, unaccountable czars.
We need a President who respects the Constitution. Right now, we don't have one.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
So This Is What Hope-and-Change Looks Like
Item 1: The Justice Department's involvement in a botched operation called "Fast and Furious" which put 2,000 U.S. guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Those cartels then used the guns to kill more than 300 people, including two U.S. agents. The Assistant Attorney General then apparently lied about it in May, when he denied that the government had lost track of any guns. Apparently, Obama's Justice Department is not only woefully incompetent, but also corrupt. Of course, no one has lost his job over this yet, and don't hold your breath either.
Item 2: The Department of Health and Human Services's awarding of a $433 million no-bid contract to a company run by a top Obama donor. Both the bidding process and the product provided under the bid appear to be highly suspect, as this NY Post article outlines, and now even Democratic senators are calling for an investigation. Hmmm...sounds a little like Solyndra. And come to think of it, no one in the Obama administration lost his job over that scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars either.
It's not just that the Obama administration is left-wing. It's that it is incompetent and corrupt. I can understand why liberals would defend an administration that is merely far to the left, but I would think they would be bothered by the incompetence and corruption.
Finally, one of my favorite conservative columnists, Mark Steyn, humorously demonstrates the folly of Obama's big-government mindset in this National Review Online article.
Item 2: The Department of Health and Human Services's awarding of a $433 million no-bid contract to a company run by a top Obama donor. Both the bidding process and the product provided under the bid appear to be highly suspect, as this NY Post article outlines, and now even Democratic senators are calling for an investigation. Hmmm...sounds a little like Solyndra. And come to think of it, no one in the Obama administration lost his job over that scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars either.
It's not just that the Obama administration is left-wing. It's that it is incompetent and corrupt. I can understand why liberals would defend an administration that is merely far to the left, but I would think they would be bothered by the incompetence and corruption.
Finally, one of my favorite conservative columnists, Mark Steyn, humorously demonstrates the folly of Obama's big-government mindset in this National Review Online article.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Odds 'n Ends
Here are a few interesting links and comments for today:
First, I had the privilege of attending a prayer rally outside of Leroy Carhart's late-term abortion clinic in Germantown, Maryland on Monday morning. The rally memorialized the first anniversary of Carhart's presence in Germantown and planted 720 crosses in the ground to symbolize the approximately 720 human lives killed during that first year. I was greatly encouraged to see how many people came out to participate on a weekday morning, but I couldn't believe it when I checked online afterwards and found out that more than 2,000 people attended! That is more than double the attendance for the other large protests I have attended over the past year and far more than organizers expected.
Second, I found an interesting exchange relating to the treatment of enemy combatants between Andrew McCarthy of National Review and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky which I thought was well worth reading. McCarthy's original article was in response to a discussion on the Senate floor between Sen. Paul and Sen. McCain on this topic (McCarthy links to a video of this discussion in his article). While I don't necessarily agree with everything McCarthy writes, especially related to the topic of Lincoln's conduct during the War Between the States, I think it is one of the best articles I have read refuting Ron and Rand Paul's positions on the War on Terror. McCarthy also has some harsh words regarding the U.S.'s attempts (under Pres. Bush) to set up democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think I have largely come around to McCarthy's perspective on this as well, in hindsight. Rand Paul wrote a short response to McCarthy's article here, which McCarthy then responded to again here and here. Of course, I think McCarthy by far got the better of this argument, but I'm far from an objective observer and Paul's single response may have been too brief to present his argument well.
Finally, Charles Krauthammer summarizes Obama's case for re-election in this article with two words: class resentment. After all, what else does he really have to run on? He has no ideas to solve the big problems facing our country -- the ballooning national debt, out-of-control government spending, runaway entitlement programs, and an outdated and unfair tax code. In fact, his policies have only made these problems worse. He has not been active in working with Congress and seeking a bi-partisan solution to these problems, and barely lifted a finger to help the debt commission (that he himself authorized) succeed. As Gov. Chris Christie succinctly put it, "What the hell are we paying you for, Mr. President?" He says he needs to be re-elected because there are so many pressing problems facing our country that he hasn't finished solving, but he's spent the past year doing little more than giving campaign-style speeches, attending fundraising, and golfing. Next year will certainly be more of the same. He can't run on his record, so he has to blame others for all our country's problems -- especially the rich. His big campaign strategy is to pound the Republican nominee relentlessly and propose big new taxes for the rich to make sure they pay "their fair share." And I'm sure, with the help of the media, that strategy will lock up tens of millions of votes for him. Maybe enough to get re-elected.
First, I had the privilege of attending a prayer rally outside of Leroy Carhart's late-term abortion clinic in Germantown, Maryland on Monday morning. The rally memorialized the first anniversary of Carhart's presence in Germantown and planted 720 crosses in the ground to symbolize the approximately 720 human lives killed during that first year. I was greatly encouraged to see how many people came out to participate on a weekday morning, but I couldn't believe it when I checked online afterwards and found out that more than 2,000 people attended! That is more than double the attendance for the other large protests I have attended over the past year and far more than organizers expected.
Second, I found an interesting exchange relating to the treatment of enemy combatants between Andrew McCarthy of National Review and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky which I thought was well worth reading. McCarthy's original article was in response to a discussion on the Senate floor between Sen. Paul and Sen. McCain on this topic (McCarthy links to a video of this discussion in his article). While I don't necessarily agree with everything McCarthy writes, especially related to the topic of Lincoln's conduct during the War Between the States, I think it is one of the best articles I have read refuting Ron and Rand Paul's positions on the War on Terror. McCarthy also has some harsh words regarding the U.S.'s attempts (under Pres. Bush) to set up democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think I have largely come around to McCarthy's perspective on this as well, in hindsight. Rand Paul wrote a short response to McCarthy's article here, which McCarthy then responded to again here and here. Of course, I think McCarthy by far got the better of this argument, but I'm far from an objective observer and Paul's single response may have been too brief to present his argument well.
Finally, Charles Krauthammer summarizes Obama's case for re-election in this article with two words: class resentment. After all, what else does he really have to run on? He has no ideas to solve the big problems facing our country -- the ballooning national debt, out-of-control government spending, runaway entitlement programs, and an outdated and unfair tax code. In fact, his policies have only made these problems worse. He has not been active in working with Congress and seeking a bi-partisan solution to these problems, and barely lifted a finger to help the debt commission (that he himself authorized) succeed. As Gov. Chris Christie succinctly put it, "What the hell are we paying you for, Mr. President?" He says he needs to be re-elected because there are so many pressing problems facing our country that he hasn't finished solving, but he's spent the past year doing little more than giving campaign-style speeches, attending fundraising, and golfing. Next year will certainly be more of the same. He can't run on his record, so he has to blame others for all our country's problems -- especially the rich. His big campaign strategy is to pound the Republican nominee relentlessly and propose big new taxes for the rich to make sure they pay "their fair share." And I'm sure, with the help of the media, that strategy will lock up tens of millions of votes for him. Maybe enough to get re-elected.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Happy Baracksgiving!
A friend shared this video on Facebook, and I found the statistics quite interesting. I have definitely noticed the increase in grocery prices. In a few cases I have had to adjust my personal/household "don't buy unless it's less than x dollars" rules, and in some cases I just don't buy things (cheese?) as often. I had forgotten that the price of gas was so low just under 3 years ago. Now it seems we get excited when it's below $3.30 per gallon.
And now I realize I have left you on a very negative note. Still, it's worth noting. Hopefully a more positive post is to come later on in the day!
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about the organization that made the video.)
And now I realize I have left you on a very negative note. Still, it's worth noting. Hopefully a more positive post is to come later on in the day!
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about the organization that made the video.)
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Obama's Disastrous Keystone Pipeline Decision
Check out this excellent editorial by Dan Henninger of The Wall Street Journal regarding Obama's decision to delay building the Keystone pipeline. Apparently Obama is fine with unemployment in any industry relating to carbon production. This president's policies are job killers, pure and simple. As Henninger puts it, "Why should any blue-collar worker who isn't hooked for life to a public budget vote for Barack Obama next year?" Good question.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Nobody Makes Fun of Obama...
..better than Andrew Malcolm of The Los Angeles Times. Check out his blistering commentary on Obama's "urgent jobs plan" here.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Fighting Back Against Obama's Job-Killing Policies
As the economy continues to flounder, I continue to hear Obama and his administration deny any responsibility whatsoever for the terrible economic conditions. He and his people continue to tout their "job proposals" and take credit for supposedly turning things around and saving us from a depression. The truth is, Obama's job-killing policies are directly responsible for the economic mess we are in today. The new taxes and regulations his administration has pushed for are toxic to private sector job growth and have stunted what should have been a normal recovery from the 2008-2009 recession.
The two most pressing political problems facing our country right now are the poor economy and the ballooning national debt. These issues are not unrelated, as the deficit grows much more quickly in a sluggish economy. Obama has failed miserably on both counts. He has made no effort whatsoever to address entitlement reform or to push for serious debt reduction and spending cuts. After all, attacking the GOP plan for wanting to throw granny out on the street is much easier than bothering to present your own plan! Under his "leadership," our country has lost its AAA bond rating -- a well-deserved downgrade. He has pushed for tax increases, played political games with the debt ceiling, masterminded huge stimulus bills full of waste and corruption, and pushed through a health care bill that puts a tremendous financial and regulatory burden on employers. Under the "leadership" of his crony Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate went for years without passing a budget (one of the most basic duties given to Congress is to pass a budget annually).
Most of the above items should be common knowledge to people with a passing familiarity with politics and current events. What is not common knowledge to many people, I fear, are the many job-killing regulations that Obama's administration is putting into place behind the scenes. Many of Obama's top administration officials are "czars" who were never confirmed by Congress to begin with and have a free hand to reshape our country's regulatory policies in a radical direction. I highly recommend reading this article in National Review, which highlights 10 of the worst Obama economic policies and what Republicans in Congress are trying to do to stop these policies from taking effect. The Wall Street Journal is another great source for understanding why Obama's policies are hurting our economy so much.
It is vital for Obama to be defeated in 2012. But in order for that to happen, people need to know just how destructive his policies have been to our country economically. They need to know that he isn't just unlucky; there is a direct link between his policies and our current problems. I would encourage you to take the opportunity to bring up some of the facts from the article linked to above next time you are in a conversation with someone about the economy. By educating ourselves and others about how the economy works and what policies create jobs and what policies kill jobs, we can make a difference for our country. If our country is going to have a future of freedom and prosperity, we MUST get someone in the White House with fiscal sanity who understands how a free market economy works.
On a somewhat related note, National Review published a great article last week discussing the issue of global warming. The myth of man-made global warming, or "climate change" as it is now officially designated, has become a political club in the hands of power-hungry politicians. It is the basis for myriad anti-growth economic policies that are contributing to our national joblessness, including several of the ones mentioned in the previous article. I recommend this article as a relatively concise summary of the problems with the "science" behind Obama's global warming policies.
The two most pressing political problems facing our country right now are the poor economy and the ballooning national debt. These issues are not unrelated, as the deficit grows much more quickly in a sluggish economy. Obama has failed miserably on both counts. He has made no effort whatsoever to address entitlement reform or to push for serious debt reduction and spending cuts. After all, attacking the GOP plan for wanting to throw granny out on the street is much easier than bothering to present your own plan! Under his "leadership," our country has lost its AAA bond rating -- a well-deserved downgrade. He has pushed for tax increases, played political games with the debt ceiling, masterminded huge stimulus bills full of waste and corruption, and pushed through a health care bill that puts a tremendous financial and regulatory burden on employers. Under the "leadership" of his crony Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate went for years without passing a budget (one of the most basic duties given to Congress is to pass a budget annually).
Most of the above items should be common knowledge to people with a passing familiarity with politics and current events. What is not common knowledge to many people, I fear, are the many job-killing regulations that Obama's administration is putting into place behind the scenes. Many of Obama's top administration officials are "czars" who were never confirmed by Congress to begin with and have a free hand to reshape our country's regulatory policies in a radical direction. I highly recommend reading this article in National Review, which highlights 10 of the worst Obama economic policies and what Republicans in Congress are trying to do to stop these policies from taking effect. The Wall Street Journal is another great source for understanding why Obama's policies are hurting our economy so much.
It is vital for Obama to be defeated in 2012. But in order for that to happen, people need to know just how destructive his policies have been to our country economically. They need to know that he isn't just unlucky; there is a direct link between his policies and our current problems. I would encourage you to take the opportunity to bring up some of the facts from the article linked to above next time you are in a conversation with someone about the economy. By educating ourselves and others about how the economy works and what policies create jobs and what policies kill jobs, we can make a difference for our country. If our country is going to have a future of freedom and prosperity, we MUST get someone in the White House with fiscal sanity who understands how a free market economy works.
On a somewhat related note, National Review published a great article last week discussing the issue of global warming. The myth of man-made global warming, or "climate change" as it is now officially designated, has become a political club in the hands of power-hungry politicians. It is the basis for myriad anti-growth economic policies that are contributing to our national joblessness, including several of the ones mentioned in the previous article. I recommend this article as a relatively concise summary of the problems with the "science" behind Obama's global warming policies.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Department of Injustice
This post by Ed Whelan on National Review's Bench Memos blog caught my attention. We all know that Eric Holder's Justice Department is refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. What is also coming out is that Holder's Justice Department is also refusing to enforce DOMA as existing law. Whelan gives one clear example of this in his post, and also links to a longer article that provides much more detailed evidence and analysis of the Justice Department's actions.
This is par for the course for Holder's Justice Department. A Washington Times editorial from September 2010 explained how the DOJ is refusing to enforce federal laws that require states to purge their voting rolls of ineligible voters. Whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted how a top official from the DOJ informed her staff that the department had no interest in enforcing those laws (presumably since voter fraud works to the Democrat's political advantage). Then there is this column by Andrew McCarthy on National Review, which recounts the testimony of another whistleblower, Christopher Coates, before the Civil Rights Commission. Coates described how the DOJ's dropping of all charges in the Philadelphia Black Panthers voter intimidation case, shocking as it was, was merely the tip of the iceberg and that at Holder's (and Obama's) direction, the DOJ was consistently enforcing civil rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner. As McCarthy pointed out, it is more than just politicization of the Justice Department - it is the criminalization of the Justice Department.
Clearly, President Obama and his buddy Eric Holder have no interest in enforcing laws they don't like. They will stop at nothing, including ignoring or violating the laws and Constitution of the U.S., in order to achieve their political and ideological goals. Their lawless tyranny must be stopped in November 2012, or our country may never recover.
This is par for the course for Holder's Justice Department. A Washington Times editorial from September 2010 explained how the DOJ is refusing to enforce federal laws that require states to purge their voting rolls of ineligible voters. Whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted how a top official from the DOJ informed her staff that the department had no interest in enforcing those laws (presumably since voter fraud works to the Democrat's political advantage). Then there is this column by Andrew McCarthy on National Review, which recounts the testimony of another whistleblower, Christopher Coates, before the Civil Rights Commission. Coates described how the DOJ's dropping of all charges in the Philadelphia Black Panthers voter intimidation case, shocking as it was, was merely the tip of the iceberg and that at Holder's (and Obama's) direction, the DOJ was consistently enforcing civil rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner. As McCarthy pointed out, it is more than just politicization of the Justice Department - it is the criminalization of the Justice Department.
Clearly, President Obama and his buddy Eric Holder have no interest in enforcing laws they don't like. They will stop at nothing, including ignoring or violating the laws and Constitution of the U.S., in order to achieve their political and ideological goals. Their lawless tyranny must be stopped in November 2012, or our country may never recover.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Obama Politicizes Government Contracts
I was appalled -- but not surprised -- when I read this article from The Wall Street Journal yesterday. The gist of it is that Obama is about to sign an executive order reversing a 70-year-old government policy. This new order will require all private companies and their officers to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts.
This is called using the power of the government to silence your political opponents. Companies have two choices: donate to Republicans (or conservative third-party groups) and lose out on all government contracts, or protect their livelihoods and don't give any money to Republican candidates. Oh yeah, and guess who doesn't have to disclose their donations? That's right. Unions, which donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.
Thanks to Obama, no longer will we have a federal contract system based on best value and best quality. Now politics will decide who gets what contract. That may be good for Obama's re-election campaign, but it's not very good for our country.
It is increasingly difficult for me to understand how someone who genuinely cares about the future of our country can support this radical leftist, this partisan hack who now occupies the White House.
This is called using the power of the government to silence your political opponents. Companies have two choices: donate to Republicans (or conservative third-party groups) and lose out on all government contracts, or protect their livelihoods and don't give any money to Republican candidates. Oh yeah, and guess who doesn't have to disclose their donations? That's right. Unions, which donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.
Thanks to Obama, no longer will we have a federal contract system based on best value and best quality. Now politics will decide who gets what contract. That may be good for Obama's re-election campaign, but it's not very good for our country.
It is increasingly difficult for me to understand how someone who genuinely cares about the future of our country can support this radical leftist, this partisan hack who now occupies the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)