Iconic Presidents

You are thinking to yourself, I want to model myself after a real man.  Someone who knows how to work hard, clear brush, brand a steer.  Someone not afraid to get his hands dirty.  Oh, and I’d like to also grow up to be the President of the United States.  Let’s see… I need some role models. [Read more…]

Is Michael Moore suggesting violent revolution?

Michael Moore, speaking on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, said “The smart rich know they can only build the gate so high. And, and, sooner or later history proves that people when they’ve had enough aren’t going to take it anymore. And much better to deal with it nonviolently now, through the political system, than what could possibly happen in the future, which nobody wants to see.”

Does he really mean it when he says nobody wants to see violence and riots in the streets?  I doubt that.  He’s used violent rhetoric and metaphor before.  I think he’d love to see a communist uprising in America.

[ See the video clip here ]

Dem Rep. Mike Quigely (D-IL) and his inappropriate comments

Speaking to the American Islamic College Conference in Chicago, Dem Rep. Mike Quigely (D-IL) stated that he feels “it’s appropriate for me to apologize on behalf of this country for the discrimination you face.”

No, Congressman Quigely.  It is not appropriate.  Members of Congress do not specifically speak on behalf of the country.  Maybe it would be appropriate for you to speak on behalf of yourself.  You do speak on behalf of your constituents when speaking in Congress.  But when you are out in a public forum, you do not speak on behalf of the country.

The Obama Buffet Tax Scam

Last night, President Obama dragged out a few lines of rhetoric that frankly are wearing quite thin.  He uses them because they are effective.  And they are effective because the average American is more concerned about who will win America’s Got Talent than they are about understanding our economy and the tax code.

“Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary – an outrage he has asked us to fix.  We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share.”

It is true that Buffet does pay a lower rate than his secretary if his entire income is factored.  The problem, and what he and Barack hope you don’t figure out, is that the reason for this is the marjority of Buffet’s earnings in a year come from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than regular earned income.  If we only took his earned income and compared his tax rate to that of his secretary, his tax rate is about double that of his secretary.  But that wouldn’t move the commie agenda forward, now would it?

So, since the regular income tax rate is already progressive, what is the solution?  Is it to tax capital gains at an even higher rate?  Would it be to tax all income at a single rate?  They won’t say.  I’m sure this is because they would be eaten alive by any reasonable economist.  Raise the cap gains rate and you will see investment in the US economy move elsewhere.  Buffet knows this.  I’m not sure why he insists on his tired tax mantra.

Loose lips sink ships…

…and can get people killed.

Fredrick Kunkle would be wise to heed this advice.  He published this article in the Washington Post:

SEAL-spotting becomes local sport in Virginia Beach after bin Laden raid

Does he not care about exposing too much information to the enemy?  Does he even know there is an enemy? If this is how we operate in war-time, we may as well get a list of names of DevGru members and hand it out to Taliban and al Queda members in Afganistan and Pakistan.  That would just save everyone a lot of time.

And the Washington Post editorial staff is complicit. They should have known better than to publish this story.  But I guess they don’t care about the safety of our nation’s elite special forces and national security, either.


A non-starter

The President laid out his plans to tackle the deficit yesterday but 50% of his speech was targeted at telling you why the Paul Ryan plan was bad for America.  The administration is telling us that it’s the real deal and not just a campaign speech.  To that, I ask, “just how dumb do you think I am?”

If President Obama had truly wanted to tackle the deficit, he would have done so already.  In fact, he made campaign promises to that end.  But he brushed it off during the first two years of his administration, piling on new spending as if we printed our own money.

So NOW you want to tackle the deficit?  Actions speak loader than words, Mr. President.  And your actions tell me that you don’t have the ability to do this.  Step aside and let the real work get done.

And don’t give me any of the this “the economy was so great under Bill Clinton because of a balanced budget” business.  Clinton came off looking like a genius because he allowed the Republicans in Congress to reign in spending and then he spent his time taking credit for it.  If Obama was as smart as he thinks he is, he would do the same.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t play to his ego.  And he’s about to step into an arena where he is outclassed.  Governing as an ideologue works for awhile, but when it comes time to fix financial problems, book smarts don’t cut it.

So back to my point.  Is this campaign rhetoric, or does he really mean it this time?

Listen, he had two years of a majority in Congress to get his budgets through.  Have those budgets fixed anything?

Then why would he start now?

Does that answer your question?

President Obama faces new challenges in his re-election campaign

As President Obama begins to gear up for the 2012 election, he faces significant challenges that he didn’t have in 2008.  After riding a wave of discontent, he came into office by basically being the “other guy” or “not them” vote.  But now that America has had two years to watch him where he can’t hide is record, people are waking up to see what they voted for in 2008, and frankly, they aren’t pleased.

Obama acknowledged the challenge last week in Boston. “Somebody asked me, how do we reinvigorate the population, the voter, after two very tough years?” he told Democratic donors. “How do we recapture that magic that got so many young people involved for the very first time in 2008?”

I have an answer for you Mr. President.  You could step up and actually lead.  Could someone name one single piece of legislation or policy that the President has actually shown leadership on?

  • Healthcare? Sorry – Obama’s “landmark” achievement was bundled together by Nancy Pelosi and her handpicked crew.  Obama had little to do with the packaging and more to do with the selling of the idea.
  • Financial Reform? See above, only insert Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
  • Stimulus? Get real – he just said, “Send me a giant bill full of shovel ready projects and I’ll sign it.”  This was nothing more than a collection of items that every House Democrat had been waiting around for the right time to earmark.
  • What about Gitmo? He’s basically done the exact opposite there of his first executive order and promise – to close it in a year.  Two years later it is not only still open (thankfully), but he has now said that there will be a process of indefinite holding of terror suspects.

I can’t say I am surprised.  While everyone was swooning over “Hope and Change,” the reasonable people were asking for definitions – definitions that were never given or were vague in nature.  This is a man who really never did anything in the Illinois State Senate, where he more often than not voted “present.”  He had no significant achievements in the U.S. Senate, either.  How could we expect a career legislative slacker to be an effective workaholic executive leader?

5 Reasons Unions Are Bad For America

5 Reasons Unions Are Bad For America – John Hawkins writing for townhall.com

There’s more to being President that good speeches

There is no doubt that President Barack Obama is a brilliant orator.  But it’s easy to give a great speech when you don’t care about reality.  Take, for example, a recent speech at a DCCC Fundraiser where Obama praised former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as “someone who’s going to go down as one of the greatest Speakers in our history.”

That is something that isn’t even debatable as remotely possible, in my opinion.  Under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi the House rammed through one of the most divisive pieces of legislation in our nation’s history; landmark legislation without a single vote from the opposing party.  During that process, she shut out the opposition from amendments and built the bill behind closed doors when transparency was promised.  And remember how she told us that we had to pass the bill to find out all of the great things that were in it?  If it is so great, why are there so many waivers being granted (over 1000 at last count)?

Further, the national debt under Speaker Pelosi rose to record proportions.  She spent more, approved more spending, traveled like a queen while Rome was burning with a cratering economy and rising unemployment.  All of this happened under Democrat leadership of the House and Senate; and for two years, the White House.

And what about any of that makes her “one of the greatest Speakers in our history?”

Michael Moore says protesters have “aroused a sleeping giant”

Michael Moore says protesters have “aroused a sleeping giant” in national fight for workers’ rights.  This might be more appropriately stated as arousing a sleeping giant in the American Communist Revolution.

Moore says “America is not broke.  Wisconsin is not broke.” – he is right, in a sense.  If you have a warped sense of what America stands for, you might think that the wealth belongs to all.  Ask the Soviet Union how that worked out, or a number of countries in Eastern Europe.  Ask East Germany or Cuba how it worked out to seize wealth and redistribute it.

So if you are Michael Moore, we are not broke.  But if you believe that America is great because of freedom and opportunity, then you have to see that he is wrong.