I’ve been taking a fair amount of heat lately because I can’t find it in my heart to support Our Dear Leader…I mean, The Greatest President Ever®… I mean Barack H. Obama as he runs for reelection.
Apparently, all I ever do is lie about him and make up stuff and be mean and disrespectful. I’ve even had the racist card played on me a couple of times.
I will freely admit to being disrespectful, primarily because I’m one of those curmudgeonly folks who believe respect should be earned and not come automatically with being elected to something. The rest of the charges, well, I imagine they come from folks who live by sound bites and pretty much want to believe that “Yes, we can” move “Forward” and build castles in the sky but really don’t like it when folks point out things like gravity, so they lash out. But that’s okay. I have a pretty thick skin.
Still, I do feel a little bit bad that I made them feel bad. So today, I’m not going to say anything bad about Barack H. Obama. I’m not even going to point out any uncomfortable truths. I’m just going to offer this short music video by two folks who apparently were card-carrying Obots hopeful, thoughtful supporters in 2008.
I’ll leave it to you, kind readers, to comment on the video.
You might think the Commander in Chief of a nation’s military would want to make it as easy as possible for the troops he commands to vote. You might think that, but in the case of Our Dear Leader, you’d be wrong.
President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?
On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.
[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.
I think it’s unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn’t make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.
If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could “disenfranchise” some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.
Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.
How telling is it of the Obama and Democratic mindset that they would attempt something like this? Don’t they understand how bad this makes them look? Don’t they care? Or are they so desperate at this point that they will do absolutely anything to minimize the number of votes against The Smartest President Ever® when November rolls around?
I may not agree with some things the military is used for, but I absolutely agree that every service man and woman should be able to cast a vote for the person he or she wants to lead them.
Were I in charge, I’d make sure ballots were distributed to every service member at least two months in advance, collected soon after, and transported to everywhere they will be counted no later than a week before the election. I might even make it a serious felony to mess with such ballots, just to forestall anyone deciding to “forget” or lose” the ballots in states where they might well make a difference in the outcome of an election.
Obama, his campaign, the DNC, and the Ohio Democratic Party should be mightily ashamed of themselves. But then, shame is not something anyone ever associates with any of them.
What do you think?
Much ado about nothing or an open attempt to disenfranchise voters not likely to vote “the right way”?
Are some cultures inherently “better” than others?
It’s a question many have pondered and one that is in the news again thanks to the media trying to paint Mitt Romney as a racist who holds that view when he did not say that at all.
What he actually said was:
I was thinking this morning as I prepared to come into this room of a discussion I had across the country in the United States about my perceptions about differences between countries. And as you come here and you see the GDP per capita for instance in Israel which is about 21,000 dollars and you compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority which is more like 10,000 dollars per capita you notice a dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality. And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States. I noted that part of my interest when I used to be in the world of business is I would travel to different countries was to understand why there were such enormous disparities in the economic success of various countries. I read a number of books on the topic. One, that is widely acclaimed, is by someone named Jared Diamond called ‘Guns, Germs and Steel,’ which basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth. And you look at Israel and you say you have a hard time suggesting that all of the natural resources on the land could account for all the accomplishment of the people here. And likewise other nations that are next door to each other have very similar, in some cases, geographic elements. But then there was a book written by a former Harvard professor named ‘The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.’ And in this book Dr. Landes describes differences that have existed—particularly among the great civilizations that grew and why they grew and why they became great and those that declined and why they declined. And after about 500 pages of this lifelong analysis—this had been his study for his entire life—and he’s in his early 70s at this point, he says this, he says, if you could learn anything from the economic history of the world it’s this: culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.
Do you see racism there? I don’t. I see someone pointing out that more freedom generally produces better economic results than less freedom. The simple fact is that Israel’s economy is much better than that of the Palestinians. And yes, perhaps some of that is due to travel and shipping restrictions, which liberal reporters are quick to point out. But they never seem to mention why those restrictions are in place. If they did, then they’d have to call attention to the many decades of Palestinian and Arab aggression that caused Israel to impose the restrictions, thus belying their original contention of racism.
The fact is, some cultures are superior to others in fostering innovation, risk-taking, and economic advancement for all. Does that make them “better?” I guess it depends on how you define “better.”
I think an easy way to settle such an argument is to look at the number of people who want to go live in a nation. Do you see hoards clamoring to get into Mexico, China, North Korea, or the Palestinian-controlled territories? Or do you see them heading to America, nations in Europe, Australia, and, yes, Israel?
No nation is perfect, especially America. But all-around, it’s still a damn sight better than Mexico or China or lots of other places on the planet, including the Palestinian territories. And all this media baloney aimed at Mitt Romney is little more than an attempt to steer the election conversation away from the horrendous job performance of Barack Obama.
I’m no fan of Romney, as you know if you’ve been reading this blog for awhile. But I’d much rather have a president who believes in American exceptionalism than I would one who goes around the world apologizing for our success and then comes home and tries to turn us into bankrupt Euro-weenies.
What about you?
Do you think some nations “better” than others? If so, in what way(s)?
And which kind of president will you prefer to have come 2013?
The video below and the column that follow may not seem related, but they are. Both speak to the unconscionable disaster our Federal government has become.
A Three-Minute Rant On How Bad The TARP Bailout Really Was
If Federal officials really knew something was wrong and ignored it all before we wasted $750 million…is dereliction of duty by elected officials and bureaucrats a punishable offense? If not, it should be, and a lot of federal officials should be be in prison right now.
A Campaign Altogether Old
by William Kristol
A new political science is needed for a world altogether new. But that is what we hardly dream of: placed in the middle of a rapid river, we obstinately fix our eyes on some debris that we still perceive on the bank, while the current takes us away and takes us backward toward the abyss. —Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
After the most serious financial crisis of our lifetime, after frantic bank bailouts and a massive government stimulus, after unprecedented deficits and extraordinary quantitative easing, we find ourselves in 2012 in a political-economic world altogether new. We need new policies to respond to our novel situation, policies reflecting fresh thinking based on firm principles. But this is precisely what our current presidential campaigns hardly dream of. And so, finding themselves in the middle of a rapid river, they obstinately fix their eyes on some debris they perceive on the bank, while the current takes all of us away and backward toward the abyss.
We expected no more from Barack Obama. We still hope for better from Mitt Romney. Perhaps Romney will start to take Matthew Continetti’s excellent advice in the editorial above, and decide to “talk straight to the American people about the manifold challenges facing the country and how he would fix them.” Perhaps he’ll address the worry “that the Republicans may not have changed after four years’ exile from the White House.” Or perhaps not. If not, we’ll just have to hope that candidate Romney knows what he’s doing in running a cautious and vague campaign; that he’ll win; and that President Romney, once elected, will adopt the bold remedies and imaginative policies the country needs.
Many presidents, after all, have done far more in office than would have been suggested by their campaigns. Franklin Roosevelt ran a reasonably conventional and cautious campaign in 1932. But as president, he transformed our fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies, and altered fundamentally the size and scope of the federal government.
Could Romney turn out to be a modern-day FDR? Let’s hope so. This presidential campaign may not feature big-time ideas, but the next president had better be a big-time reformer.
I can’t argue with much Kristol said except that the very last thing we need is another FDR. FDR was not a reformer. He was a liar and a bully; a man caught up in his own self-importance and so sure of his misguided vision that he turned what should have been a short recession into the Great Depression with his policies. Besides, we already have an FDR-wannabe in the White House whose socialist dreams have been just as disastrous for the nation the real FDR’s were for America eighty years ago.
True, we need a reformer, but we need one who will set America back on the road to independence and freedom, who understands that government cannot solve problems, that too much government is the problem that is driving every other problem we face as a nation.
Will Mitt Romney be that person? I don’t know. Based on his record in Massachusetts, I doubt it. But perhaps, like FDR, he’s just played the political game for a long time in order to get to the place where he can effect real and lasting change, where he can use the power of the Presidency to wake up the Lost generation, the Dancing with the Stars generation, and begin the painful process of lifting America out of the humongous financial and social holes the past four generations of politicians dug.
All I know for sure is that America is unlikely to survive four more years of Obama and his cabal.
Slim as the chance may be, Romney seems to be the last hope for America short of armed revolution, and I’m too damned old and tired for that kind of battle.
Times were good when I was in my late-teens and twenties back in the ’60’s and ’70s. Yes, we were all a little crazy back then, but we sure had fun and anyone who wanted a job could find one. Even when unemployment peaked in the mid 70s at 9%, it seemed like there were jobs to be found if you really wanted one. Or perhaps we were just lucky here in Eastern Massachusetts.
Times are not so good for young people today. New unemployment figures released by youth-focused Generation Opportunity peg the unemployment rate in the 18-29 year old group at 12.8%. And that’s just for those who are still looking for work. Add in the 1.7 million young folks who’ve given up looking for a job and you get a real unemployment rate of 16.8%!
Generation Opportunity President Paul T. Conway, a former Chief of Staff for the US Department of Labor and US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), had this to say:
“For young Americans, through no fault of their own, their story is one of few opportunities, delayed dreams, and stalled careers. Today’s unemployment numbers tell the story of millions of young Americans who are paying the price for the failed policies coming out of Washington that have inhibited economic opportunity and job creation.”
He’s correct, of course. Government spending and regulations have always been job killers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt couldn’t seem to grasp that simple concept in the 1930s just as Barack Hussein Obama can’t understand it today. True, there was then and is now much blame to be spread throughout the halls of Congress as well as in the White House, but it is to the White House people have come to look for leadership and only terminal myopia can allow anyone to suggest the current President has done anything but a horrendous job of anything but playing golf since taking office.
I’m no fan of Mitt Romney nor of most of the Republicans who vied for the nomination. If I had my druthers, I’d install Ron Paul in the Oval Office. But that’s not going to happen so the next best thing is to not reward incompetence by voting against another four years of socialist, pie-in-the-sky Obamanomics.
What we really need in Washington is to sweep out the entrenched politicians and bureaucrats at every level. Unfortunately, that can’t happen in one election. But what can happen is to send a clear message by giving the boot to all those up for re-election who had a hand, or even a finger in the economic disaster of the past three years, starting with the Apologizer-in-Chief.
If you’re part of the 16.8%, you really have to be a little crazy to vote for four more years of failure. And if you’re working, think about the 16.8% and how you could contribute to pushing the number even higher if the nation is subjected to four more years of job-killing, trillion-dollar deficits and failed economic policies.
Are you part of the 16.8%?
Either way, how will you be voting in November, and why?
Congratulations to this week’s Comment Contest winner — Brian.
As I was looking around last week for cartoons for my Sunday Truth in Toons posts, I came across this one by liberal cartoonist Jeff Danziger.
Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of it. Check it out, first, then I’ll explain.
So…clearly Danizger wants to convey the justifiable reality that those in the Democratic party are seriously worried. Things have not been going well for them lately and left-leaning cartoonists have been pounding the newspapers and other media with pretty much anything they can make up, perhaps hoping their ‘toons will somehow turn the tide.
When I first read the above ‘toon, I dismissed it as just another liberal calling the American people stupid because they don’t agree with his politics or worldview. But then I started thinking about how he did it –repeating the line about the basic intelligence and fairness of the American people — and I began to wonder if Danziger has begun to realize it is, in fact, that basic intelligence and fairness that has been driving the growing shift away from the liberalism of the left toward the Tea Movement and other conservative groups. It sure seems like many on-the-fence and other liberals are abandoning the party of empty promises for something with more subsstance.
Perhaps he understands that more and more of the American people are waking up from their hope-and-change-induced euphoria and are actually using their basic intelligence to examine what the Democrats have wrought these past few years under the leadership of their no-experience socialist dreamer and his cabal.
Maybe he, too, has figured out that “Yes we can” really meant “Yes we can use the power of government to tell you how you will live your life, or else, because we’re so much smarter than you.”
Perhaps he’s beginning to see just how many folks have stopped falling for the platitudes and empty promises and how many have begun reading up on real issues, like why the housing market and the economy tanked, and are discovering the truth…the very inconvenient truth the D party desperately does not want their formerly loyal voters, to know.
I don’t know.
I’d like to think Danziger is beginning to see the light, but my gut tells me my first impression was correct.
Two related items today concerning Our Dear leader.
First up, The Smartest President Ever® and his handlers appear to be getting desperate for donations. Apparently, the big bucks from Hollywood and other 2008-campaign sycophants is not rolling in this time around now that everyone has seen what their money bought them the last time. So Obama & Co. decided to appeal to the little people. And what kind of appeal did they come up with? Here it is, straight from the official Obama-Biden blog.
That’s right! Obama and his ilk think you should celebrate your 21st birthday, your 50th anniversary…even your upcoming wedding by directing those who will celebrate with you to give him the money they would have given to or spent on you as a gift.
Talk about the audacity of hope!
It seems there is no limit to the man’s arrogance, to his cluelessness, to his shamelessness.
Will he and his cabal be telling you to forgo you children’s birthday parties and send him the money you would have spent on that, too?
Or maybe he’ll be looking for your vacation money…or trying to convince you you really don’t need new shoes.
Heck, as his wife likes to remind everyone, lots of us can afford to skip a few meals. Will he soon be telling us to only eat once a day and give him the rest of the grocery money?
It you follow the news, you’re probably aware of the big flap in Massachusetts caused by Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who, according to her and despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, did not claim to be an American Indian, and thus a minority, in order to advance her career in academia, where things like minority status are important.
After vigorously denying it all for weeks, she finally admitted she might have mentioned her heritage to someone, somewhere, sometime. If you care enough about the gory details, just google her and you’ll find more than you care to read.
When it came to light a month ago that she’d been listed as a minority faculty member at two schools where she worked, the smartest thing she could have done was to issue a statement saying something like,
While I have a small amount of Cherokee blood, it’s certainly not enough to be considered a Native American. Nevertheless, when I was younger, I did mention that part of my heritage because I thought it might help me in my career. In hindsight, it was wrong to leave people with a false impression, and certainly wrong not to correct them and the various written records. I deeply regret my taking unfair advantage of that bit of my heritage and want to apologize to those who were misled. And I want to assure the people of Massachusetts that I will work tirelessly for them in the United States Senate should they be inclined to forgive my youthful transgression and elect me in November.
I’m sure her PR people could craft something a bit more compelling, but the point is, all she had to do was own up to what she did, apologize and ask for forgiveness, and it would all have been over by the next news cycle. Instead, she chose to repeatedly lie and deny, turning a tiny zit into a festering boil.
Perhaps it’s because Warren is not a career politician that she imagined she could get way with the same kinds of lies and obfuscations that worked so well for her during her years teaching. You might have thought those running the democratic machine that’s promoting her would have told her to fess up so the story could die. But they did not, which speaks not only to her character, but to the character of those advising her.
It’s a rare thing for voters to be able to examine the true character of a politician before they have to vote. Normally, pols take great pains to hide who they really are so they won’t offend anyone. But this time, in this election, the curtain has been pulled back so the voters of Massachusetts can see exactly the kind of person they’ll be voting for come November — someone who’s default mode is to mislead to gain advantage and then lie to cover it up.
As of this writing, she still doesn’t get it, as evidenced by an interview she gave to Boston Globe columnist Brian McGrory. Frankly, all-things-democrat-and-socialist supporter that it is, I’m surprised The Globe printed it since it portrays her in such a bad light. But maybe they know something I don’t.
During the interview, Warren is quoted as saying, ““I won’t deny who I am, I won’t deny my heritage, but I didn’t ask for anything because of it.’’
Elizabeth, it’s not about your heritage. It never has been about your heritage. It’s about your character. And your performance this past month has made very clear to all who look with open eyes just what kind of character that is.And maybe you didn’t actually ask for anything because of it, but surely you knew that just mentioning it would get you something.
I’m reminded of a song my kids learned when they were quite young. It began, “The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels of the bus go round and round, all through the town.” Be careful, Elizabeth, because it’s starting to feel like your party and their daily mouthpiece are getting ready to acquaint you with those wheels.
So, the questions for today are…
If you lived (or live) in Massachusetts, would you vote for Elizabeth Warren knowing what you do about her character?
Does it even matter that she lied since so many politicians regularly do the same?
If you’ve read this blog for awhile, you know I’ve always supported Ron Paul in the Republican presidential nomination race. Logically, Paul was, and still is, far and away the best candidate for America, but logic and reason have never played any part in American politics. Thus, on November 6th, we’ll all be faced with choosing between Barack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney, who just clinched the Republican nomination with his win in Texas.
Yes, I know we can vote our conscience or cast a protest vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson or one of the other third-party candidates, but the political reality is that none of them can win, they can only take votes away from Obama or Romney. I sorely wish I was wrong about that, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.
Since most folks in America these days seem to cast their vote with only cursory of knowledge about the candidates — can’t be missing Dancing with the Stars to bone up on political platforms and past performances, dontcha know — I thought it might be helpful to provide a cursory analysis of the candidates for them to use.
Let’s begin with the most important stuff:
How they look
Both are handsome enough, have winning smiles, and a good head of hair, though both hairlines do seem to be receding a little.
How they dress
Given their wealth, neither candidate will be found wearing off-the-rack clothes from Target or K-Mart. Both dress well though Romney tends to look business-like while Obama usually looks more urbane.
How they speak
Obama gives a great speech when using a teleprompter. Off the cuff, meh. I’ve not seen Romney speak using a teleprompter, so I can’t judge there, but he does well with written notes on the podium. Off-the-cuff, he’s okay.
Romney’s 6’2″ height literally inches out Obama’s 6’1″.
As best I can determine, Romney weighs in around 190 while Obama tips the scales around 170.
Both Ann Romney and Michelle Obama are attractive, dress well, and have good smiles.
Romney is white. Obama is half-white and half-black.
As for the less important stuff:
Real World Experience
Obama was a community organizer. After college, Romney worked as a management consultant for Boston Consulting Group, then for Bain & Company. He later co-founded Bain Capital. In 1999, he took on the job of President and CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.
Real World Accomplishments
Romney helped many companies become profitable and earned many millions for himself and others. He helped make the 2002 Olympic games a success. Obama was a community organizer.
Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2003 and oversaw the imposition of the universal health insurance mandate, also known as Romneycare, on Massachusetts citizens.
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1997 where he mostly voted “present” until 2004 when he was elected to the U.S Senate where he mostly voted “present” until 2008 when he was elected President of the United States. During his term, he’s overseen the greatest expansion of national debt in history. He takes credit for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, although in reality it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and a bevy of special interests who cobbled together the health care miscarriage.
So, folks, there you have it in a somewhat over-sized nutshell.
Feel free to copy and distribute it to those of your friends who normally do not pay much attention to politics because lord knows, what we need most in this country is millions more marginally informed voters.
Comments anyone? Did I miss anything in the “most important” section?
Comment Contest Winners # = Repeat winner
For the week ending
1/29 Leonard Barnes2 2/5 Pat
2/12 Brogan1 2/19 Stephanie
2/26 Scott Schluter
3/5 Storm4 3/12 Donna C.
3/26 Becky Holm
4/30 Brogan1 5/7 Blue_Sky
5/14 Drill Sgt K.
6/25 Woody3 7/2 Christie
7/9 Candace Delaney
7/16 No responses!
7/23 Rob Andrews
7/30 George Deas
8/6 Vinny V
9/17 Leonard Barnes2 9/24 Kathy
11/5 Kentucky Kid
11/26 Woody3 12/3 Leanne
12/10 Gina Jackson
12/31 charles scamman
1/7/12 Gloria Meyer
1/14 Liz Gavaza
2/4 Phillip Dukes
2/11 Storm4 2/18 Leslie
3/3 Debby Rich
3/17 Carolyn McBride
3/24 Keith Hodges
3/31 Jeffrey C. Anthony
4/7 Sue Reynolds
4/14 No responses!
5/5 No responses!
5/19 Estes Mills
6/16 Chip Johnson
6/30 Elizabeth Martin
7/21 K Howe
8/4 Will you be this week's winner?