Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Romney gathers power in the "Quickening" as Santorum suspends his campaign.

Now that Santorum has suspended his campaign Romney’s nomination is a lock.  Gingrich continues to delude himself, but when $500 checks from the campaign coffers bounce, you know the show is on life support.

I have many friends who hold out support for  Ron Paul.  Well, our society’s “kingmakers” have ignored him from the beginning.   As popular as Paul is that popularity is not enough to get him anywhere near a candidacy let alone the presidency.   I don’t know what role Paul could assume to push forward his truly constitutionally based policies.  How a man like Obama can ascend to the presidency while Paul is ignored demonstrates the bias and corruption within the two party old guard system.

Let’s remember that as powerful as the President is, we have a Supreme Court to consider and two houses of elected legislators  Just as the progressive/liberals have pushed their agenda incrementally for nearly a century, we must be prepared to do the same.

A second Obama term would lose the Supreme Court for a generation.   Surely in a second term he’ll appoint two justices.   Those appointments are for life.  This must not be allowed.

We must also continue to place Tea Party candidates into both the Senate and House of Representatives.  Place more elected representatives like Ron Paul.  This will be  a protracted tug of war.  The left NEVER gives up.  We must not either.


You can email me at

Like me on Facebook at

Please comment.  I respond to all comments.


Supreme Court

Concert hall of the "Supremes!"

Many of us are still scratching our heads over Obama‘s remarks to/about the role of the Supreme Court this past Monday.  There have been in our past Presidents who have had contention with the “Justice’s Nine,” however, I don’t think it’s EVER been in question that a primary role of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of  legislation.

In fact, the President’s assertion is so ridiculous that one could similarly argue that he has no right to veto legislation passed by a strong congressional majority.

Many have suggested this is Obama’s Chicago thug political style coming through.  Well, I didn’t notice any words or tones that sounded threatening.  In fact, I thought he sounded desperate.

As for me, I have no concerns about the black-robed ones being unduly influenced by ANYONE.  I’m quite sure that each Justice has already made up his or her mind.  A vote has been taken.  There will be some deliberations, but I doubt any of them will change their minds.  They didn’t get to their appointment by being wishy-washy.  At least I wouldn’t think so.

In June we’ll know the verdict.  I doubt there is anyone more anxious about the ruling than the President himself.


Currently enjoying the company of 72 virgins.

There is much speculation on the real impact of Bin Laden‘s death. How will Al Qaeda manage without him? Will current plots stall or be sped up? Will budding terrorists be inspired or deflated? Who knows?

The answer is probably YES! Any which way an individual or organization could react will happen somewhere by someone. These are events out of our control.

I created this as a simple copy of a GAO chart

Image via Wikipedia

(link for subscribers )

Despite mountains of compelling evidence of profligate waste, our President and congressional democrats continue to oppose every effort to reduce federal spending.



US taxes as a percent of income in 2008.

US taxes as a percent of income in 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Upon simple contemplation I have the idea that taxes are necessary to fund government in the execution of its role in society.  Seems pretty simple.

The overarching political debate with which we grapple everyday is just what is government’s  role and consequently, what is the tax policy which supports that role.

Wait no, that’s not true.  They are in fact, very separate debates.

Watch this video.

If you listen carefully to the moderator, it’s clear within certain parameters, lower tax rates generate more income.  You obviously can’t lower them to zero.  However, it would seem that if you want to fund all the “wonderful” programs that government should be doing, you would set the rates to generate the most income.  But, that’s not what Obama said he’d do.

Obama talks about “fairness” based on the rate.  I guess he means fairness as measured by the percentage  of one’s income paid in taxes.   So if someone’s “rich,” in fairness, they should pay a higher percentage of their income to congress in taxes.

(Just as an aside, hasn’t he ever heard of a volume discount?  I guess not.)

So, let’s look at this.  A secretary making say $60,000 a year pays 25% of her income in income taxes.  Say she has NO deductions, that’s  $15,o00.  Well that sounds really awful.  That’s a lot of money to someone making that kind of salary.  That DOES sound unfair.  Actually, it pisses me off that ANYONE would think that this is ok.  It is oppressive!

Okay, so here’s what we do.  Her boss he makes $95,000 a year, PLUS he gets some kind of stock bonus thingy that resulted in a $ 10,000 capital gain.  So at 15% capital gains tax he pays $1500 of that plus his $26,600 in income tax @ 28%.   To be fair to her, let’s raise his capital gains to 28% too!  So, now he pays almost $3000 in CG taxes.  She’s all better now!  Don’t you see how that’s better for her?  He paid $29,900, that’s better for her, he is more oppressed, so she is less oppressed.

This kind of “logic” is what seemingly governs liberal tax policy.  It’s not really about fairness though.  Look, if I bash your mouth and bust half your teeth out (that kind of sound like a 25% tax rate, close enough for me anyway), will you feel better if I do the same thing to someone else AND poke one of his eyes out too?    Is that MORE FAIR to you?  THAT’S NUTS.  More fair would be to NOT bash your mouth!

So, it’s not about raising revenue, cause lower rates do that.  It’s not about fairness,  ’cause if it was, they would REDUCE the secretary’s rate.

Their “logic” does not hold up for even more extreme examples.  A hedge fund manager who makes $200,000 in salary and then pulls in say $1,000,000 in CG will pay $70,000 in income taxes and at 15% CG tax, $150,000 into the federal coffers.  If he pays $280,000 in CG tax, does that really lessen her burden?

Watch this video about the nature of actual tax revenues.

I don’t know about you, but I am forced to conclude that liberal tax policy is simply and only about taking money from the rich.  Sure, the libs will throw it around, try to look humanitarian and helpful.   But that is just a facade.

They, the rich, are just not supposed to have that much money.  If liberals really cared about the secretary, they’d just reduce her rate.  If they wanted to really fund all their wonderful programs fully from which the secretary might in fact benefit,  they’d adjust the rate to MAXIMIZE revenue.  But, they don’t want to do that.   The bottom line is this.  They just don’t think anyone has a right to that much money (however much “that” is).  And it’s the liberal’s moral responsibility to take it from them.

So, as the budget debate heats up, don’t be fooled.  When it comes to taxes, the libs really only care THE MOST about one thing.  To make the rich less so.


Please comment.  Click on the title and scroll down for the comment field.  I reply to ALL comments.

I am particularly interested to hear if you like videos included on the blog.

Actually, I want to hear anything you have to say.

Email me at

“Like” me on Facebook at

Get a free copy of the U.S. Constitution at

I did not watch the state of the union speech last night.  I understand our president is a much better than average speaker.  I’m also quite sure he can strike a conciliatory tone if he chooses.   It just seems all so unimportant.

Conservatives, especially elected republican conservatives need to understand that, Obama and our social democrats in the congress and senate do not regard the latest election as defeat for them and their agenda.  IT IS SIMPLY A SETBACK.

They’re chief weapons are patience, time, and relentless incrementalism.

The progressives have been trying to establish a national health care system since the early part of the 20th century.  It took ALL this time to get something approaching national health care into legislation.  Yet, they managed.  They don’t give up.

With this in mind, why did the republicans agree to this non-partisan seating arrangement?  Why do OUR boys and girls need to get along with their boys and girls.  Some would argue that it’s not really important.

What IS important is for the new kids in Washington to recognize the absolutely relentless push they are up against.  To not be lulled or drop their guard by a symbolic olive branch.   Look at Lindsey Graham, he was part of the Gingrich revolution.  If their is a better example of a RINO, I challenge you to name one.  The man is for cap and trade, comprehensive immigration reform and hasn’t seen a bailout he doesn’t like.

Just sayin’



Image via Wikipedia

Excerpted from The Blaze. com

Say 'What?"

A convenient talking point became the latest source of political fodder for President Barack Obama’s antagonists on Capitol Hill Monday. Members of Congress on Monday called on President Obama to issue a public correction after he incorrectly identified “E pluribus unum” as the official motto of the United States, supplanting the country’s real motto, “In God We Trust.”

The verbal gaffe happened in November as President Obama spoke at the University of Indonesia. In trying to spell out some similarities between the two countries, Obama compared national mottos.

“In the United States, our motto is ‘E pluribus unum’ — out of many, one,” he said, then compared it to the Indonesian motto, “Bhennika Tunggal Ika — unity in diversity.”

The official motto of the U.S. was established by law in 1956 as “In God We Trust.”

According to the Washington Times, members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus also remarked that President Obama has displayed “a pattern” of dropping references to God in his public addresses, previously leaving out references of the “Creator” in reciting men’s “endowed” rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

“By misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent you are casting aside an integral part of American society,” the representatives wrote in a letter requesting the correction.

I don’t think this President has any real respect for the history and traditions of this great country.


I remember feeling pretty excited when Newt Gingrich masterfully engineered a kind of revolution.  For the first time in decades, Republicans had the power in Congress.  Republicans took over the House and Senate and pushed back against the very liberal policies of President Clinton.   A balance of power was brought about.  It seemed to work pretty well.  The economy expanded,  and we were fine on the world stage.

Tired of the Clinton’s and those associated with them, a scandal weary electorate elected George Bush president.  A Republican House and Senate were already in place.  To their shame, these nimrods expanded government and entitlements with no less abandon than their Democratic counterparts had for decades.

Midway during “W’s” second term, a war weary electorate threw out the Republican bums and installed a Democratic Congress.  Then they (we) gave the reins of executive power to Mr. Obama who along with his Democratic cohorts have run up more debt than all previous administrations COMBINED!

My point comes to this.  It seems that when any one party has the Presidency and the two Houses, it’s BAD.  VERY, VERY BAD. They can’t seem to help themselves.  There is too much momentum, too much agreement in the direction of throwing federal money at virtually everything.  Hardly anybody knows how or when to say “no.”  The few that do, are too few to make a difference.  And I can only imagine the pressure that can be brought to bear against a junior congressperson seeking to change the “way things are done.”

At least when neither party has “it all,”  there is enough disagreement on HOW to spend us into OBLIVION, that the momentum is somewhat slowed.  Sometimes the animus is enough to bring about gridlock, which is really pretty awesome.

If we go back to the Clinton and Reagan years.  We find that the President’s opposite party mostly controlled the Congress.  This seemed to work the best.  We will have the same situation with Obama for the next two years.  Maybe, it’ll get better.  Let’s just wait and see.  And if we get a Republican President in 2012, a small, very real part of me hopes the Democrats retain control of the Senate.  I can’t believe I said that.


The ineptitude, among other faults, of the Obama Department of Justice went on full display today.

We’ve all heard the story by now. The Guantanamo detainee tried in federal criminal court was ACQUITTED on all counts but one, conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. No conviction of murder or attempted murder, yet in two attacks (that we know of) in which he participated over 200 were outright killed and thousands maimed.

Imagine being on that jury, probably having at least some dim idea that this guy was supposed to go down. And wanting to put him down! Yet, by the rules of jurisprudence you must say, “not guilty.” There may be exceptions, but I bet most of them feel pretty shitty about it. How easy is it to live with that?

What is behind this massive failure? Surely the justice department picked a case in which they were confident of victory. No doubt many high level meetings were involved and great assurances made of success. All to prove a political point. That George Bush was wrong. That America was wrong. We’re not at war, these are just criminals.

There are three words, which like massive cobblestones, paved the road to this particular failure; arrogance, incompetence and delusion.

Obama just “knows best.” The prior administration was evil, corrupt and inhumane. Yet, in nearly every case, from the so-called “domestic wiretapping,” to the indefinite detention of TERRORISTS at Guantanamo, the policies of George Bush have proved to be wise and effective. Obama is arrogant.

It seems to me that this case had to be Holder’s best case. Why would he lead with anything less? He almost lost completely. Yeah, the guy goes away for at least 20 years, but he’ll probably spend a good bit of that time radicalizing short-termers who will be freed to wreak more havoc on our society. Further, I’m sure that those close to the men and women he murdered feel short-changed even betrayed. Run of the mill incompetence with catastrophic consequence. They just don’t know what they’re doing.

Finally, like many of us who “cling to our guns,” the administration clings to a belief that we are not really at war. That the framework of criminal justice is sufficient to deal with terrorist threat. Unfortunately I’m afraid it will take the severe loss of life, which only luck has kept us from thus far, before they come out of their delusion.

You can watch a video from CBS news here.

Looks like a kid, don't he.