Saturday, January 31, 2009

Is Michael Steele the Best Man For the Job?

I watched with interest the news and commentary programs last night to see what was said about the election of Michael Steele as the new head of the Republican Party.  I will say up front that I know virtually nothing about Steele or any of the other front-runners for the position.

My first concern is that all of the news and commentary programs made a big deal about the election of the first African American head of the GOP.  That's a problem.

Not that an African American can't or shouldn't be the head of the GOP.  The problem is that everyone commenting on his election to the position seemed to focus on his race to exclusion of everything else.  

If the Republican party elected and African American just because he is an African American and because it's time for us to have a token black leader, then the Republican party is in trouble, indeed.  And after watching three hours of news and commentary programs, I learned very little else about Steele, other than his race.  

Now, in all fairness, that may reflect more on the particular news anchors and commentators that I was watching than it does on the party or on Steele.  After all, I don't know what was going on in the minds of the delegates who were actually doing the voting.  Furthermore, most of the conservative commentators were complimentary of Steele.  That gives me a little hope.

After googling and reading a number of blogs today, it would seem that Steele is a fiscal conservative, but not necessarily a social conservative.  I'm not sure that bodes well for the party.  Part of McCain's problem (aside from a poorly run campaign and an energized Democratic party) is that he had trouble appealing to the base of the party.  Particularly, he did not have much appeal among the religious right.  

The religious right is frustrated with the party, and has been for a number of years.  For the last 30 years, we've been told that if we vote for Republicans, they will support us on social and cultural issues.  And in the last 30 years, abortion has been easier and easier to obtain, homosexuals have made significant advances to their agenda, and everywhere we turn, our religious freedoms are disappearing. 

In my opinion, the last thing we need a party leader who is willing to alienate the base in order to attract a few moderates.

Of course, I'm making a few assumptions here.  I have yet to hear Steele himself say what direction he plans on taking the party and what he hopes to do to put the GOP back into contention in national elections.  We have yet to see. 

I will say this:  The Republican Party is in danger of losing is strongest and most loyal members.  The farther we move from the social and cultural issues that brought Evangelicals and other religious folks into the party, the less inclined those people are to go to the polls.  In fact, while I, personally, am fiscally conservative, I know many Christian people who only go to the polls because of the social and cultural issues.  They are moderate or dispassionate about fiscal policy.

One think I know is that the Democrats do not have the solutions that our country needs.  They are planning on taking this nation down a path to secular socialism.  That is a road that will tear down everything our forefathers fought and died to build.  Let's hope Michael Steele understands where the strength of the party lies.


Are People Stupid?

I have often wondered about the rationale behind the American voter.  What causes people to do what they do in a voting booth?

I can understand differences of opinion and a differing World View.  Not every rational human sees things as I see them.  That may be hard to believe, but it's true.

What I don't understand is the "swing voters."

Statistically, about 40% (or slightly less) of American voters identify themselves as either liberals or strong Democrats.  These people have a world view that is socialistic, humanistic and they will vote for whatever Democrat runs for office, regardless of who that person is.

Statistically, about 40% (or slightly less) of American voters identify themselves as either conservatives or staunch Republicans.  These people generally have a world view that is based on economic freedom, limited government, Judeo-Christian, and believes in the power of the individual.  They will generally vote for whatever Republican runs for office.

Granted, these are very broad generalizations.  Neither group is completely monolithic, and my descriptions are, admittedly, overly simplified.

What I don't understand, however, is those who fall in the middle.  These are the people that ultimately decide elections.  And, generally speaking, these are the least informed people in America.  

Yes, I understand that there are some smart well-informed citizens that have a moderate World view and go back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats when they vote.  But these people are very few.  The reality is, that the people who pick our President don't pay attention to politics, don't understand basic economics, don't watch news, don't recognize bias in the media, and don't know what's in the Constitution.

Here's a case in point:  My mother works for a company that administers 401K plans.  During the past several months, most 401K plans haven't done well (as if you hadn't noticed).  One of my mother's fellow workers received a call from a client, recently.  This client wanted to know why the value of her 401K had dropped so much.  The customer service representative began to explain what was going on in the stock market, but was interrupted by the client:  "I don't have my money in the stock market," she complained, "I have it in a 401K." 

Now, this is probably not representative of most Americans, but it does make a point.  Many people allow themselves to be uniformed of things that have a huge and direct impact on their lives.  Especially the political landscape.

That's why, for example, the Democrats were able to blame our current economic problems on John McCain in October, George W. Bush in November, De-Regulation in December and on corporate CEOs in January, and nobody seems to notice.  

The reason I'm so concerned about this is that I think when the economy recovers, credit will be given where credit is not due.

I read this week that the average economic downturn has lasted between 6 and 18 months since World War II.  Our economy moves in cycles.  Sometimes it goes up, and sometimes it .... corrects itself.  Most of these fluctuations have relatively little to do with what happens in Washington D.C.  The biggest economic downturn since the great Depression occurred in the 1970s.  Many economists believe that the "staflation" of the late 70's was due in large part to over-regulation and the Johnson "war on Poverty" which gave us the largest increase in governmental power and programs since FDR.  It also began our downward spiral from balanced budgets to multi-trillion dollar national debt.  

History would suggest that the current economic downturn will end, and that the end of the downturn will be before the next Presidential election.  That's why I think the Democrats are pushing for the largest increase in the size of government in history.  They know that the markets will correct themselves with or without a stimulus package.  But if they pass a huge socialist program and the economy recovers, they can give credit to B. Hussein Obama and the socialist policies of Congress.

And America will buy it.

At least, the 20 or so percent of Americans who decide elections.  Those who don't really pay attention to what's going on will accept the mainstream media's explanation that Big Government and Democrats are best for the American economy.

A study done a while back by UCLA estimated that the policies of FDR extended the Great Depression by as much as 7 years.  It is possible that the huge "porkulus" package that Congress will pass will do the same thing.  If that happens, it will be good for America in the long run.  But my prediction is that the economy will recover before then.  And when it does, watch out.  Democrats will take credit for it and entrench themselves in power for decades to come.


Friday, January 30, 2009

New Layout

As you can see, if you stop by often, I've changed my layout.  (I guess I'm giving liberals what they want, and keeping with the theme of the times.)  I like the clean look of the new layout.  However, I'm still in the process of getting everything updated.  Please be patient.  Some things didn't transfer over, so I have to restore a number of things on the blog.  If your blog used to appear under the "usual suspects list" and you don't see it here, let me know.  I'll add you back in.

Be patient.  I'm still working on it.  Also, feel free to make suggestions. 

... and thanks for stopping by.


Ben Stein on the Economy

The following is copied verbatim from and is written by Ben Stein:

Recently, I met a young woman at The River shopping center in Rancho Mirage. She was celebrating her 30th birthday. She was also lamenting the fact that she was now 30 and telling me how hard it was to be 30. Not so hard, I thought, for a man who is 64, but I patted her on her head and wished her well, and then I started to think about the passage of time and chance and thought about measuring what we've gained and what we've lost, to paraphrase a great songwriter.

Thirty years ago. Early 1979. If you think we have it bad economically now, with our bank crisis and our recession, think about 1979. Yes, unemployment was about one and half percentage points lower, but it was rising fast. We were well on our way to the worst recession in postwar history, far worse than the one we are in now, at least so far. But inflation -- that was the killer. On the heels of the radical revolution in Iran and a huge jump in oil prices, we had inflation in 1979 of over 13 percent. The misery index -- the total of unemployment and inflation -- was about 19.5 percent, compared with about 7.5 per cent now. Times were hard.

We got through it, and went on to record -- shattering prosperity. We got through the bleak days to "it's morning in America." There is hope today, too.

Think the stock market is bad now? We thought it was bad in 1979. It has risen since then -- even with the recent crash -- by almost ten times. Not ten percent. Ten times. Think real estate has dropped now? It has but it is still about four times what it was in 1979 here in Southern California. Things look bleak now, and they are, but they are a lot better than they were in 1979 in many, many ways.

We will get through this. I wish I had bought more stock in 1979, and more real estate, too. But here's what I really miss about 1979: both of my parents were alive. I could have spent as much time as I wanted with them, I could have learned from them, shared with them. Loved them. Let them love me. I desperately wish it were 1979 again, not for Jimmy Carter and the bargain stock market, but for missing my parents, whom are both long gone now.

I don't know if it's a good time to buy stocks or real estate or what the inflation rate will be next year. I do know you won't have forever with the people you love. Be with them now. That's your best thirty-year investment. You cannot lose.


Thursday, January 29, 2009

Turbo Tax Seminar


Time to March on Washington

Many months into the disastrous financial crisis, I am still waiting for the people of the US to get really mad at their representatives in Congress who share a great deal of the blame for this mess. What started with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act as a way to help some low income families to buy a home soon got blown totally out of shape by members of Congress through several Administrations. It morphed to where it could help almost anybody with a pulse to buy a home whether they were financially qualified or not. No down, low down, interest only, adjustable loans were made assuming that the value of the real estate purchased would only increase in value.

The financial industry spent tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying efforts the late 90s to get the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Deregulation Bill past by a large majority of both Parties, and was signed into law by President Clinton. This bill, with little or no oversight, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteeing the questionable loans, set the stage for the financial crash we are all living through. Yes, there were many greedy people in the financial industry who took advantage of the situation, but the enablers of this mess were to be found in Washington DC, in the halls of Congress. Hearings in 2004, that might have prevented, or at least softened the financial blow, went nowhere.

Taxpayers are now being forced to foot the bill to the tune of Trillions of dollars to try and fix Congress’s mistakes. If you have been paying attention to the news, you probably have heard that the first $350,000,000,000 that was used to “bail-out” the financial industry, hasn’t accomplished much and much of it hasn’t been used by these financial institutions for the purposes put forward by our wonderful government. As usually, our government’s cure for every problem is to throw more and more TAXPAYER money at the problem, and if the taxpayers don’t have enough, they get it from foreign governments who now hold more than $3,000,000,000,000+ of our government debt. Our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for this mess for years. So what do the voters do in 2008 but reelect many of the same people who were complicit in creating this disaster.

Credit card companies, Chase and Citicorp, who have received billions in "bail-out" funds, are now asking their card holder to pay a much higher interest rate on their charges to help pay for their bad debt which they created due to their extremely bad mortgage decisions over the past years. If I was a Chase of Citicorp cardholder, I'd cancel my cards.

As I said, I am still waiting for the US taxpayers to show some anger. Thousands laid off every day, unemployment at 9%, foreclosures continuing, profits down, the stock market and IRA values down 40+%, businesses closing, home values continuing to fall, and millions of hard working taxpayers seriously hurt financially. Instead the taxpayers are sitting there, counting on many of the same people who created this mess, to fix it with more and more of OUR tax money. I guess the taxpayers deserve what they get.

Almost every day I see or read something in the news about the financial crisis that makes my blood boil. I have called, written, and e-mailed my elected “representatives” (?) in DC almost every day. Maybe if they heard from more of the taxpayers they might (?) actually step up to their responsibility to protect, preserve, and defend the people of the United States against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.

People…. Get mad,,,,,, get angry,,,, get involved!!! They survival of this country may depend on citizen action to regain control of our out-of-control government!!!! I'm not counting on President Obama to solve our problems. He was the third highest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the last 10 years behind Chris Dodd(D) and John Kerry(D), and he was only in the senate for 4 years. Fannie and Freddie have received many billions of dollars of "bail-out" money and are wanting/needing more.

Anybody want to join me for a "Million Taxpayer March" on Washington???   (No, wait.  Us taxpayers have to go to work every day.  We can't just go and march on Washington ... like the libs.)


The Most Patriotic Man in America

They say that dissent is the truest form of patriotism, and by “they” I mean every liberal for the past eight years who would put that bumper sticker next to their “Bush is a War Criminal” one. So taking these progressives at their word, for the next four years it would appear that Rush Limbaugh is the most patriotic man in America.

And apparently, since George Bush isn’t around to rally the troops against, President Obama has apparently decided to make Rush Limbaugh the new boogie man. Obama met recently with the Republican leadership to discuss the 2009 Fiscal Suicide Plan, and this report of the meeting found its way to reporters:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

Here’s what I don’t get, other than the fact that our most recent candidate is one who DIDN’T listen to Rush…and we all see how that turned out. Obama doesn’t need the Republicans to get FSA09 passed. There are enough D’s in the House and Senate for it to pass without a single Republican vote. If the Democrat party believes that spending $1 TRILLON is the way to jump start the economy, than so be it. Grow some testicles and stand on your convictions. Vote. It could pass today in the senate 59-41.

But they don’t want that. Instead they want to guilt Republicans to vote with them to give them “cover” with the voters if and when this thing goes down in flames, and guilt them with “bi-partisanship.” And of course they’ll have the media to back them up. You see when a Democrat takes a principled stance, they’re being true to their convictions. When a Republican takes a principles stance - as they should be doing against the Fiscal Suicide Act - then they’re being divisive. They aren’t acting bi-partisan.

There are two ways to define bi-partisanship.

As defined by the American people - both parties working together to craft the best legislation they can, and meeting somewhere in the middle to do so.

As defined by NBC News and friends - Republicans bending over and doing whatever the Democrats want.


Michelle Malkin on the "Porkulus" package

I love Michelle Malkin.  She's cute; she's smart; she's witty; and she's conservative.  

Here's what Michelle said about yesterday's vote on the "Porkulus" package.  ("Porkulus" is a term Limbaugh coined.  I like the term, and since he's still allowed to be on the air, and people are still allowed to listen to him, I'm going to use it.)

Own it. Embrace it. Swallow it. The House version of the $1.1 trillion Generational Theft Act of 2009 is all the Democrats’ doing now.

Not one Republican voted for it. (1 Republican had to leave early).

177 Republicans and 11 Democrats opposed.

No bending over today.

Finally. A party of opposition worth its name.

And now… on to the squishes in the Senate.

Savor this while you can.

Kudos to the GOP leadership for showing some spine. More, please.

Mega-kudos to the conservative staffers on the Hill behind the scenes standing up for what’s right and providing intellectual and informational ammunition to the grass-roots.

And bailout-sized kudos to each and every one of you who made your voice heard.

Gird your loins. We’ve only just begun.


Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Quote of the Day

"You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States, former Senator from Illinois and "idol" of PBHO.


Rep. Darrell Issa on the "stimulus" package

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has the following to say regarding the proposed economic stimulus package.  I can't say it better, so I'm going to post what he has written, verbatim:

The so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act amounts to nothing more than an $825 billion earmark designed to expand government on the backs of the American taxpayers using money we do not have. There is little guarantee of any short-term gain, but there is no question of the irreparable harm we can expect by saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of additional debt. 

According to a report recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, only 7 percent of the $355 billion in discretionary spending included in the bill would be injected into the economy by the end of fiscal year 2009. More than $200 billion of “stimulus” funds will be spent between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2019 — long after the recession is projected to be over. 

Time and again, we are hearing how urgently these stimulus funds are needed. The American people have been cautioned that without this proposal, the recession we are currently experiencing will only deepen. You would think that given the severity of this economic crisis, the Democrats in Congress who have crafted this plan would ensure that every dollar spent will help create jobs and jump-start our economy. Yet a closer look at the bill reveals that 93 percent of the bill’s discretionary spending will be spent in years to come — or, as the Washington Post put it, “too late to lift the nation out of recession.” 

Instead of injecting new life into the economy, we’re seeing a massive expansion of government. The bill by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey contains $137 billion for the creation of 32 new programs — that’s 38 percent of all spending in the current bill. Seventeen of these new programs have never been authorized by the Congress. This is on top of the $76 billion being spent to expand 60 existing government programs — 19 of which have been described as “ineffective” or “results not demonstrated” by the Office of Management and Budget. It’s just another example of good money after bad. 

Furthermore, while billed as a transportation, infrastructure and energy investment, a closer look at the Pelosi-Obey stimulus bill shows that only 3 percent of the $825 billion will go toward road and highway construction. In fact, of the $30 billion set aside in highway spending, less than $4 billion would occur over the next two years. Of the $18.5 billion proposed for renewable energy, less than $3 billion would be spent by 2011. Of $14 billion for school construction, less than $7 billion would be spent in the first two years. 

Democrats should be honest with the American people about how they intend to spend taxpayer dollars. By the end of 2010, only 12 percent of the funds set aside for highway construction will be spent. What kind of job creation can we expect when the majority of funds for public infrastructure aren’t spent for another two years? The only road being paved with this bill is the road to financial ruin. 

In reality, the proposed Pelosi-Obey $825 billion economic stimulus is nothing more than an $825 billion earmark that will do little but expand the federal government at the expense of America’s long-term economic health. In 1993, the unemployment rate in America was virtually the same as the rate today — around 7 percent — yet the stimulus package proposed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 included only $16 billion in new spending. The total cost of this piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government, or enough to give every man, woman and child in America $2,700. 

Lawmakers are supposed to be stewards of taxpayer dollars, yet all too often their money is spent without any transparency or accountability. Pelosi-Obey is the wrong kind of stimulus — it will grow the government, stick the taxpayers with the bill and leave the American people wondering what they got in return. 

Rep. Darrell Issa represents the 49th District of California and is the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Hillary: Iran had better do what WE say, or else.

Hillary Clinton told the world today that Iran now has the chance to do what we want them to do, since Obama is now in office.  

No, she didn't use those words.  But when you translate what she DID say, this is the way it comes across:

"We know that the Bush administration was impossible to cooperate with.  We know that they were bullies and that they were demanding.  They weren't willing to negotiate with you, Iran.  But there is a new President and a new administration, now.  And we are more open.  Not only that, we're cool and the world likes us.  We are very popular.  So you'd better come to the the table and negotiate, and then you'd better do what we say.  Or else. ...  or else we might get mad.  We might ask for UN sanctions.  We might ask for the UN to oversee your nuclear program.  And .... and who knows what else we might do...."

Hillary can be very intimidating.

Just ask Bill.


Monday, January 26, 2009

A New Promotion for Turbo Tax

In their commercials for their tax preparation services, H & R Block uses the catchphrase:  "I've got people."  Their "My People" campaign emphasizes what they consider their advantage over Turbo Tax, by stating that if you are ever audited, their people will go through the audit with you and will ... well, essentially "cover your butt" in the case of an error.

I think it's time for Turbo Tax's response:  "We've got Obama.  If you're ever audited by the IRS, and if you've made multiple mistakes, repeated over several years, even if they are intentional, we promise to have President Obama appoint you to a high position in the Federal Government.  You can then declare that the errors were "honest mistakes" and that they won't happen again.  The IRS will HAVE to accept that as a valid explanation.  Because that's what their leader did."

And for my advertising consulting services, I would ask that Intuit (the company that makes and markets Turbo Tax) please send the consulting fee to my home directly.  Email me for the name and address, please.


Will the Senate Investigate the Bush Admin For War Crimes?

As President Barack Obama reverses some of ex-President George W. Bush’s most controversial “war on terror” policies, a consensus seems to be building among Democratic congressional leaders that further investigations are needed into Bush’s use of torture and other potential crimes.

On Wednesday – the first working day of the Obama administration – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would support funding and staff for additional fact-finding by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which last month released a report of alleged abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to Bush’s Feb. 7, 2002, decision to exclude terror suspects from Geneva Convention protections.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who issued that report, echoed Reid’s comments, saying “there needs to be an accounting of torture in this country.” Levin, D-Michigan, also said he intends to encourage the Justice Department and incoming Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate torture practices that took place while Bush was in office.

Two other key Democrats joined in this growing chorus of lawmakers saying that serious investigations should be conducted.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a floor speech, “As the President looks forward and charts a new course, must someone not also look back, to take an accounting of where we are, what was done, and what must now be repaired.”

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters: "Looking at what has been done is necessary.”

On Jan. 18, two days before Obama’s inauguration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed support for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’s plan to create a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to probe the “broad range” of policies pursued by the Bush administration “under claims of unreviewable war powers.”

The truth is that the allegations made against the Administration reflects a difference of opinion in policy matters.  Democrats have thus far been unable to make a legitimate argument or present credible evidence of any real violation of the Constitution or any law.  

What this really boils down to is that the Democrats want to prosecute the Bush administration because...

1.  Bush left with a low approval rating, therefore the Democrats think they can get away with it.

2.  Democrats want to deflect the attention away from the recent myriad of scandals involving other Democrats and try to drag down the Republican party as much as possible.

If they are successful, the Democrats will have succeeded in doing what they have really been trying to do for ... well, at least for most of my life on this planet:  and that is destroy Democracy and the American political system.

If a previous administration can go to jail because of matters of policy, then our government by the people and for the people is over.  If this goes forward, then every time a Republican is elected to the Oval Office, he has to worry about whether he and his team (or she and her team ... Vote Palin!) will end up going to jail four (or eight) years later because the Democrats might be in power in congress and have enough votes to do whatever it is they want to do.  

On the other hand, if Obama really screws up the economy (which is looking more and more like a possibility every day), and he gets voted out along with all the Democrats in congress four (or eight) years from now, how would the Democrats like it if a new Republican congress sent all of them to Jail for violations of the Constitution? 


Blago: Impeachment trial is "Rigged and it's fixed"

Embattled Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich compared himself to Nelson Mandela on Sunday and impugned the integrity of his impeachment trial the day before it was to begin.

Appearing on NBC's "Today" show, Blagojevich said the trial was "rigged and it's fixed."

"I think what you'll see is a roll call that will be pre-designed, and we'll see whether or not I even get one vote," he said.

With state senators serving as Blagojevich's judge and jury and the governor mounting no defense, the trial is expected to conclude within days. A conviction would require a two-thirds vote and result in the governor's removal from office.

Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Obama.

Federal prosecutors also said their wiretaps caught Blagojevich threatening to withhold money for children's healthcare unless he got campaign donations from a hospital executive and offering to trade state aid to the Tribune Co. in exchange for the Chicago Tribune firing unfriendly editorial writers. Tribune owns several newspapers and television stations, including the Los Angeles Times and KTLA.

Several politicians have called on Blagojevich to resign, but he has refused -- as he did again Sunday.

"And for me to just quit because some cackling politicians want to get me out of the way because there's a whole bunch of things they don't want known about them and conversations they may have had with me . . . would be to disgrace my children when I know I've done nothing wrong," he told NBC.

I'm not sure what Blago means by "fixed", but I suspect he means that the outcome of the trial has already been determined, and that the Illinois Senate is simply going through the motions.  Now, this is just my opinion, but for what it's worth:  If you're as guilty as sin and you have no evidence worthy of mounting a defense, I'd say the outcome has been determined.

The more things "change", the more they stay the same.


Sunday, January 25, 2009

Small Business to get Short Shrift from Obama Administration

As the Ford Motor Company prepares to cash its first multi-billion dollar corporate welfare check and hand part of it over to the union, it’s easy to forget that almost exactly a century ago, this multi-billion dollar behemoth with 240,000 employees was just another young small business with big dreams about to launch its next product.

While many small businesses fail, including Henry Ford’s first two attempts, a precious few survive, thrive, and then change the world, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. Just about all of the great American companies were once mere dreams in the mind of an entrepreneur. Microsoft, Apple, Intel, McDonald’s, and WalMart are but a few examples.

The ability to start a small business and grow it into a much larger enterprise is the greatest wealth creation opportunity in America. Studies have shown that 2/3 of all millionaires are small business owners.  Entrepreneurs and their children and grandchildren make up almost the entire Forbes 400 list of richest Americans.

If small businesses are the economic engine that creates jobs, builds wealth, and makes the American dream possible, then naturally our new president plans to support and rely upon them and give them everything they need to pull us out of the economic slump, right?  Well, no.

Small businesses are facing the most hostile climate in a generation, and it is not just the slumping economy and credit crunch.  With the quiet scrapping of the $3,000 job creation tax credit — which was “never set in stone” according to a senior Obama adviser –  there is no more small business tax relief on the horizon.  (Clearly, campaign pledges are only valid if chiseled into tablets, Ten Commandments-style.)

(Read the whole article by Tristan Yates here)


Our New Treasury Secretary?

Barack Obama campaigned on his alleged "judgement to lead."  The nomination of Timothy Geithner for the Secretary of the Treasury makes a mockery of that claim.  The nomination, and the circumstances surrounding it, have raised many issues and questions - not only about the nominee himself, but also about senators and others reviewing it. 

Let's look at it another way:

Suppose you or I had done the following...

1) ... been in charge of overseeing an entire industry (the New York Financial Industry) that had collapsed and brought down the whole country with it

2)  ... cheated on our taxes.

3)  ...  lied about paying that taxes that we owed

4)  ...  called our tax cheating an "honest mistake"

5)  ...  hired an illegal employee

Now, if we had done all of these things, do you suppose we would ...

A)  end up in jail 


B)  be nominated for a position in the President's cabinet?

Is this really part of the "Change we can believe in," or were those just words?


Here I am again.

I want to reassure my loyal readers that, in spite of the very real possibility in the near future, my blog was NOT shut down by the incoming Obama Administration as a part of the unFairness Doctrine. 

No, in fact, I have been out of town for the past four days.  Skiing in the Colorado Rockies, to be exact.  I had a wonderful time, but no internet access, and no time to blog.  I have paid attention to the news events of the past week, and will, as soon as I unpack and have a few minutes to gather myself, continue my countdown to the end of the Obama Tyranny ... I mean, Presidency.


Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama: " respect..."

How's this for naivety:

President Barack Obama promised to improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world in his inauguration address on Tuesday, after tensions that followed the September 11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect" said Obama, who became the first black president of the United States.

As I understand the word "mutual," Mutual interest and mutual respect would require that the Muslim world has some of the same interests as the U.S. and that they respect us.

As I understand it, however, much of the world of Islam considers us "The Great Satan".  In fact, the very Muslims that The ONE was referencing in his speech are the ones who hate us the most.

Let me be clear:  That hatred is not based (primarily) on anything we've done.  It's not based on our relationship with Israel.  It's not based on the war on terror.  It's not based on what we've done in Iraq or Afghanistan.  

The hatred that the radical Islamic Fundamentalists have toward us, as well as much of the rest of the western world, is based on the fact that we are not Muslim. 

That's right.  All we have to do for them to "respect" us, is for all of us to convert to radical Islam.  Otherwise, we will continue to be "the Great Satan".  

Actually, I'm even wrong about that.  Muslims don't even respect other Muslims.  Prior to 9/11, 23 of the 24 world conflicts were between Muslims and their neighbors (the 24th was the Irish Republican Army and Great Britain.)  Of those, many have been between Muslims and other Muslims.  Muslims have no problem killing other Muslims if they have political issues with them, if they don't subscribe to the same brand of Islam, or if they are just having a bad day.

Jeff Emmanuel of puts it this way:

Though the far left often claims that President Bush’s policy was unnecessarily heavy-handed and reckless, the reality is that “mutual interest and mutual respect” was exactly the basis for Bush’s policy with the post-Taliban government and people of Afghanistan, the post-Saddam government and people of Iraq, and with so many others the world over.

Further, Obama’s message “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” hints at a view of international relations which is hopelessly Utopian, and which has no place the affairs of this world. All too many residents of the Muslim world are happy to judge their leaders on what they destroy, rather than on what they build (case in point: Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which has sacrificed infrastructure for the chance to convert water pipes into homemade rockets built to fire at civilian populations in the sovereign country to their north).

In short, recent history shows that the residence of the Muslim world buy into the hyperbole of their leaders.  Barack Obama is either hopelessly deluded, or he's lying to appease his constituency. 


Quote of the Day

The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation.

- Adolph Hitler


Can We All Be One, Now?

I just finished reading an article by a nationally syndicated author (I'm not going to say who) that referenced the Festivities of the Coronation of The One.  In that article the author asked the question "Can we all be one, now?"  It expressed eternal optimism that now, finally, our country can and should come together.  That we can and should unite.  That everyone can finally love this country and be proud of it.  That finally, we can all ... agree ... agree with Obama's agenda ... because .... it's perfect. 

Can't we, finally, all be one?

Uhhmm.... In a word ... No.

What I want to know is why couldn't we all be one eight years ago.  

Why couldn't we get behind George W. Bush in the pre-9/11 days when he wanted to improve our Education System and leave no child behind.  No, standards and testing to improve our schools wasn't what the liberals in the education system wanted.  They just wanted more money thrown at the system to use without accountability.

Why couldn't we all stand behind George W. Bush when he wanted to reduce taxes for everyone in order to stimulate the economy?  No, the liberals were afraid that some people might become wealthy.  We can't have that, now, can we?

Why couldn't we all get behind George W. Bush when the terrorist attacked us?  Why couldn't we stand behind the war on terror?  No.  The liberals wanted to paint our president as a criminal and a war-monger.  They wanted to portray the war on terror as a war for oil.  They wanted to portray Bush and Cheney as cowards.

But NOW .... now, everything is different.  Yes, roses are growing spontaneously throughout America.  Hope is alive.  And everyone should get behind the Obama agenda.  Why?   Well .... uhhm .... just because.  Because we should.  Because that's what the liberals want.  Because Obama is The ONE.  Because he wants special rights for Homosexuals.  Because he wants everyone to have an abortion (and kill their unborn child) any time they want.  Because he wants the government to be more powerful.  Because he wants to take away the voices of those who oppose the left, including Christians.

And you can bet the liberals are going to be shocked when some of us don't jump on the bandwagon.


About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP