What’s Wrong With This Picture?

“Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say infinitely when you mean very; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.” -C.S. Lewis

This picture was spotted on Facebook. It was linked by a liberal friend of mine who does agree with it. She also happens to be the only liberal I know who doesn’t openly hope that I’ll be shot in the face. We agree to disagree on politics, pretty much sticking to films and other such subjects.

Look carefully at this, and ponder the claims.

First, Gingrich. The very first claim made is the only honest one – yes, he has been married three times. I don’t like it. There’s a lot of conservatives who don’t like it. I’m not, however, willing to use it as a reason to push him out of politics because of it. The second claim is that he was indicted for scandal; this is either a bald-faced lie or an ignorant mistake. The whole scandal revolved around the improper usage of tax-exempt donations and using the chairman of GOPAC to help him develop the legislation that the GOP would support during his tenure as the Speaker of the House; the use of a consultant violated House rule 45 (which apparently bars the use of official resources for unofficial purposes, yet I cannot find a single document that lists what the rules were for the 104th Congress), as did apparently allowing a man named Donald Jones to use his Congressional office to work on a reading program for children that was supposed to tie in with the Speaker’s “Earning by Learning” program.

“Indicted” means just cause was found to bring charges before a court because a crime was committed. Gingrich was investigated but never indicted – nor was he ever impeached. In fact, 83 of the original 84 ethics complaints against him were dropped after an extensive four-year investigation because it was determined that none of the violations occurred while Gingrich was the Speaker of the House – which was when the violations were alleged to have taken place. The only complaint that remained was a claim that he had failed to abide by federal tax law in regards to donations. THAT was tossed as well when the IRS and a federal judge determined the law had not been broken (the original complaint stated that GOPAC had improperly funded his campaign and failed to publicize its list of donors). In the end, he was fined $300,000 to repay the cost of the investigation.

The third allegation is where the C.S. Lewis quote comes in. It simply says “racist/homophobic”. The only evidence anyone has ever provided that he’s a racist was his comment, made in 2008, that “Spanish is the language of living in the ghetto.” He was talking about the importance of teaching English in this country. Now, he almost immediately apologized for how it sounded, but not one of the people who claim he is a racist has acknowledged that fact. He clarified that what he was trying to say was that English is the language spoken in the United States and it is important to learn our language if you want to really succeed here. He is correct about that, and there’s nothing racist about it. Every other claim is that he’s used “coded racist speech” (translation: we want to call him a racist to shut him up but he won’t cooperate and use overt hate speech so we’ll read into his words whatever we want).

Homophobic? I don’t think so. He has said that he doesn’t believe genetics have to be followed, he believes homosexuality to be a choice, and he is against gay marriage, but I don’t consider that homophobic. A person who has an irrational fear of homosexuals is a homophobe, and not one person can claim that he has an irrational fear of us (see my previous post for genuine evidence of homophobia). It is ridiculous to claim that the man is a racist or a homophobe because there is no evidence of either – and when you do call him those things, when you come up against the real deal you no longer have a word to describe them.

Now, for the claims about the Big O!

Married once – yes, that’s true. Has he been faithful? We honestly don’t know. At least three separate claims of infidelity from both Barack AND Michelle have been made, but the press is sleeping on the job. They’re about as interested in investigating these claims as I am in having my wisdom teeth removed.

No scandals? I beg to differ. Fast & Furious leaps to mind – under Bush, it was known as Project Gunrunner and when they figured out it was going to be a failure they killed it. Obama resurrected it, gave it three times the original budget and four times the manpower, and it became a train wreck on steroids. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already lied in Congressional hearings about his knowledge of the program – and is now dodging subpoenas. At least one ATF official, Patrick Cunningham, has pleaded the Fifth (and has since resigned). There’s Carol Browner and Ken Salazar, who both helped draw up the completely illegal offshore drilling ban, complete with invented claims attributed to a Congressional panel that actually strongly objected to the ban. The administration was later called out by a Louisiana judge for continuing to enforce the illegal ban. There’s the administration’s loan to Solyndra, $535M to be exact. More recently, other “green” companies that received millions of taxpayer dollars – Evergreen Energy, Beacon Power Corp., and electric car manufacturer Ener1 – have gone belly-up, with several others teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

There was the no-bid $433M contract awarded to Siga Technologies for an experimental smallpox drug that some experts say may not even work. There’s the ongoing issues with former NJ governor Jon Corzine, who quietly got his Obama campaign donations back although Obama hasn’t commented on Corzine’s role in the MF Global scandal (and Corzine wasn’t the only MF Global head who had supported Obama). The Obamacare waivers, however, are one of the biggest scandals of all – every single one went to DNC supporters, including labor unions, Nevada casinos and fancy restaurants in Pelosi’s district responsible for thousands in Obama campaign money (literally 20% of those waivers landed in Pelosi’s district).

Oh, but he ended DADT! That’s great, right? Well, I’d buy that if it weren’t for his continued support of DOMA, originally signed into law by Bill Clinton (sorry, lefties – claiming that he doesn’t because he’s telling the DOJ not to defend it in court isn’t enough, he does not support repeal at all). You’ll never see a photo like this containing Mitt Romney. He has no scandals in his personal life and he signed gay marriage rights into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. The gay left has no response to him, so they’re going to attack Newt.

And, really…Jeremiah Wright? Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? Tony Rezko? ACORN?!? No scandal, my backside.

Obama: King of Gaffes

This will either make you giggle or make you nauseous. Either way, here’s nearly twenty whole minutes of Obama oopsies and embarrassments. Bush goofed one idiom and the entire press verbally flayed him…Obama gives us a running narrative of stupidity and he’s brilliant.

Go figure.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T73phKWYHTc]

Where Are The Jobs? (Left vs. Right)

In response to a voter’s question in August of 2009, President Obama said:

Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.

Oddly enough, conservatives are still shying away from indignant liberal cries: “Where are the jobs?” when they attempt to underscore the success of the Bush Tax Cuts including raising revenue to the Treasury 785B by 2007, adding 8 million jobs to the economy, and increasing the median household wealth by more than $20K.

But what about the Lamestream Media who constantly allows the White House and Democrats in Congress to escape their drunken spending spree which took place in the last three years including the failed stimulus and the ObamaCare travesty?  “Where are the jobs?”  Trillions of dollars of feckless spending, unemployment did go above 8%, and revenues to the treasury are at historic lows.  Yet, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are allowed to escape on their loose versions of a series of “what-ifs?”

Can you imagine what would have happened if we weren’t allowed to fecklessly spend trillions of dollars in historic amounts of time? If you thought unemployment was bad now, you wouldn’t believe what it would have been if we hadn’t printed billions of valueless paper and created a few temporary Census jobs!

Listening to the House today during the debt-ceiling debates made me ill.  After it being crystal clear, not only proven by President Bush but also by President Reagan, that tax cuts and deregulation creates millions of jobs, liberals are still allowed to deny the benefit of the doubt to tax cuts but get to hand it over no- questions-asked to excuse the most unbelievable spending ever in the history of our government.

This is common sense.  This is what we must continue to remember as our party heads into the 2012 battle for the White House and the Senate.

America is broke.  We need politicians who are going to respect Americans by being honest with them.  Clearly, the accounting tricks, gimmicks, and experiments of the left are not prepared to do that.

Obama Receives Mediocre Bump in Approval

The second full day after Osama’s killing shows Obama’s approval rating at a not-so-impressive 50% up from 46% just a few days ago.

Admittedly, we have one more day to go for the polls to reflect a full three days of post-dead-Osama results.

However; GHWB’s approval rating shot up to 69% after kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.  One year later; due to a mild recession and raising taxes, he lost his re-election.

My liberal friends are going to have to work much harder than they are if he wants to win a second term especially given the gas prices, unemployment rate, and the historic climb of debt this president is responsible for.

***Update***

As I predicted yesterday, there was one more day in which the rating was to take full effect.  THREE full days average after the killing of Osama moved the rating up 2 more points. 

Making the TOTAL bump in approval a MEDIOCRE 6 points which GALLUP also acknowledges.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/Obama-Approval-Rallies-Six-Points-Bin-Laden-Death.aspx

WHCD Suprisingly Mum on Palin

After watching the White House Correspondents Dinner tonight and listening to the speeches of President Obama and comedian Seth Meyers (a supporter of Mr. Obama), I am left wondering if Donald Trump was a liberal-plant to remove the media’s fixation of Sarah Palin.

The president and Seth Meyers combined must have spent a good three-four minutes on poking fun at Donald Trump as Trump sat and appeared none-too-pleased.  The president also casually mentioned a handful of possible GOP candidates including Tim Pawlenty (snore), Mitt Romney (snore), and Michelle Bachmann.  The president himself mentioned nothing of Sarah Palin.  This is very stunning considering Palin has been the most vocal on attacking the president over his policies (the ones the media claim everyone should be focused on) and she’s probably received at least 90% of the media’s coverage over the last two years in comparison to that of Pawlenty or someone like Romney.

This has me wondering just what kind of Palin-chatter has been happening inside of the White House.  While the MSM has some Americans convinced that they’d love nothing more than for Palin to win the Republican nomination for President, it seems almost strategic on the part of the president to mention nothing of her in his round of jokes tonight.

Just last night in an interview with Bret Baier, Palin continued her harsh criticism of the president by pointing out gas prices increasing by 67% since he’s been president.  She also segued into her experience as Governor of Alaska explaining how she took on the oil companies and how she believed lower tax rates with tough policies against large corporations and closing loopholes would be a great commonsense approach to address many of these issues.  Finally, she suggested Obama has no idea what he is doing with regard to energy and how ramping up domestic production of our energy here at home by drilling — as opposed to asking other countries to do it for us — would be a solid step to better times.

So while Donald Trump is out dropping F-Bombs at speeches in Nevada and setting himself up suspiciously under the name “republican” to further explore an issue dismissed by most conservatives months ago (a rumor which began with the Hillary Clinton campaign), we still have a savvy potential candidate making the case for some of the commonsense ideals mentioned above.

He Shall Take Care That the Laws are Faithfully Executed

A political science professor of mine once said that “some people in America consider the Constitution very important.” I should hope so. It is the very foundation of all law in our country, and the single document through which our rights are protected.

The Constitution ensures that the government cannot oppress its people, and gives individual states the right to handle matters not specifically assigned to the federal government. So should “some” people consider it very important? Or is it, in fact, very important to all of us – whether we choose to realize it or not?

Yesterday, President Obama announced that his Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. For those on the left this is a major victory. They have been waiting for DOMA to be repealed ever since President Bill Clinton (Yes, a Democrat) signed it into law in 1996.

For anyone who does not know, DOMA allows states to choose not to recognize gay marriages, partnerships or unions from other states where they are legal, and provides no federal recognition of same-sex relationships whatsoever. This has been a major sticking point for the gay marriage movement, because no matter how many states legalize gay marriage, there will be no federal benefits for gay couples.

For the record, I believe marriage is a state issue. It always has been, and nowhere in the Constitution does it mention marriage falling under the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, I happen to personally feel that DOMA is unconstitutional. If a state decides gays can marry legally, or enter into domestic partnerships or civil unions, the federal government should be obligated to recognize the laws of that state – so long as they do not conflict with federal law.

I also believe that any state has the right to choose not to recognize a marriage from another state. Keep in mind this would not be an issue if the federal government stayed out of marriage altogether. I still have no idea why the federal government gives anyone special benefits because they are married. That is the very definition of “special rights,” whether you are traditionally married or gay married.

The 14th Amendment, which is cited so often in protecting marriage recognition across state lines, simply states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

That means no state can deny you rights protected by the federal government. However it does not prevent states from denying you rights protected by other states. Example: You have a concealed weapons permit from Nevada. You own a gun, and are allowed – by Nevada law – to carry it concealed on your person, within the laws set forth in Nevada.

You are not allowed, however, to bring that gun to Maine – unless you obtain a concealed carry permit from Maine. Maine will deny your right – protected by Nevada – to carry a concealed weapon, until such time as you obtain that right from Maine. Meanwhile, Illinois does not allow any concealed weapons at all. Therefore, Illinois will deny your right – protected by Nevada – to carry a concealed weapon.

So clearly states have the right to have different laws from other states, and the Constitution does not force them to recognize privileges you’ve obtained from other states.

So while the left celebrates Obama’s refusal to enforce DOMA, the rest of America is wondering why this president feels he has the power to choose which laws are valid and which are not. As stated in Article 2, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” DOMA is currently the law, and therefore President Obama is constitutionally obligated to enforce it – whether he likes it or not.

Imagine, for a moment, if George W. Bush decided that he did not personally approve of Roe v. Wade, and chose to overturn it. “I will no longer enforce protections to allow abortions.” How do you think the left would react? With outrage, I’d imagine – and they would be justified. Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal in America. You can try to make it illegal, advocate the overturn of Roe v. Wade, pass laws restricting abortion, etc… but TODAY, it is legal.

Likewise, TODAY, DOMA is law. President Obama may choose to ignore the law, but the moment he chooses not to defend DOMA in court, he is in direct violation of the Constitution – which by the way is his SOLE responsibility as president: “To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

500 BILLION PEOPLE saw him recite the oath on inauguration day. A few people even saw him recite it a second time later in the week. Did he not understand what he was pledging?

Regardless of whether you support or oppose President Obama politically, there is no doubt that he is testing the limits of presidential power. He has done this numerous times.

Health Care – President Obama has given the federal government unprecedented power in the area of health care, even though it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Obamacare has been declared unconstitutional by two federal judges, and will not likely stand up to a Supreme Court review.

The government simply does not have the right to mandate that every American buy a product from a private company, or face fines. (And for those of you who will bring up car insurance, it is only mandatory if you choose to own a car – and you get to make that choice)

Cap & Trade – The Constitution does not give the federal government power over energy, yet President Obama’s Cap & Trade policy would put costly burdens on companies (which would be passed on to consumers) to meet arbitrary goals that the largest polluters on the Earth (India and China) refuse to agree to.

You think we’re losing jobs to India and China now? Wait until these companies have to live under oppressive costs invented to fund a premature green movement. They’ll simply move to India and China where there are no restrictions – and they get the added bonus of cheaper labor. Then all the liberals will complain about evil corporations moving to China to exploit workers. You know the story. It’s as old as time.

Student Loans – Where the hell does the federal government have the right to take sole custody of the student loan industry? I have no problem with federal loans, Pell Grants, etc. But to remove student loans from private institutions completely? That’s just ridiculous. While President Obama says he wants to increase access to education, he really just wants to control the access to education.

There are many more examples just like these.

I’m not a birther, or a right-wing radical – I’m just an American that sees a president consistently ignore the restrictions placed on his office, and the entire federal government. And while every response I get to this article from a liberal will no doubt conjure up images of George W. Bush shredding the Constitution while drinking the blood of poor people with Dick Cheney – two wrongs do not make a right.

President Obama is constitutionally obligated to execute the office of the President of the United States. He is constitutionally obligated to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

While campaigning in 2008, then-candidate Obama promised to repeal DOMA. With super-majorities in Congress, he never made one attempt. He had the opportunity, and Republicans would have had no choice but to sit back and watch it happen. He did not act. He is not repealing DOMA now. He is ignoring DOMA – and that’s just as unconstitutional as DOMA itself.

We, as Americans, should want a president who stays within the confines of the Constitution, and within the restrictions it places on the power of the federal government.

We, as Americans, should want any law we disagree with to be overturned legally – so the repeal has a foundation in law and cannot be overturned later on what some may call a technicality. I happen to believe violating the Constitution is a tad bit more serious than a technicality.

This is not a matter of gay versus straight, or Democrat versus Republican. This is a matter of what is right. And even if you believe President Obama’s heart is in the right place, his methods must also be in the right place – or they have no merit.

The ends do not justify the means, when the means are illegal.

Obama Has Left The Building

Hey Kids!  This in an activity that invites participation from all of our blog readers and my fellow moderators. Here are the instructions:

Watch the following YouTube video of President Obama’s joint press conference with former President Bill Clinton.  The video is over 30 minutes (it involves Bill Clinton).  I’d urge you to watch all of the video because it is informative, but I’d ask, at least, that you watch the first 11 minutes to gain full context.  The critical moment is at 10:24. And then observe at least a little beyond that to watch Clinton’s interactions with the reporters.

Just check it out and let me know what hits you.  I won’t comment in the body of this post.  I’ll wait and make my observations later.  I’m interested in hearing your comments concerning how this reflects on Obama and what it has to say about Hill and Bill.  This is incredibly significant in so many ways, in my opinion.  Let’s see if you agree.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ac9uDLUdSs]

Tuesday’s Revolution

I love foreign affairs, foreign policy issues, international news, etc.  But I also enjoy peeking around the corner to understand foreign perspectives on American events – particularly politics.  The London Daily Telegraph is always a great source.  And this article by Janet Daley is more introspective in terms of Tuesday’s elections than any American source I have read.  It’s amazing how much clarity is realized from the outside looking in.

More than three centuries ago, the residents of America staged a rebellion against an oppressive ruler who taxed them unjustly, ignored their discontents and treated their longing for freedom with contempt. They are about to revisit that tradition this week, when their anger and exasperation sweep through Congress like avenging angels. This time the hated oppressor isn’t a foreign colonial government, but their own professional political class.

Daley appropriately identifies the Tea Party movement as a grassroots reaction against the political establishment rather than some arm of the Republican Party.  And she correctly identifies the terms of the Tea Party’s tentative support of the GOP in this election in her evaluation of the upcoming midterm elections.

My Republican friends, perhaps surprisingly, were not gloating. They were too furious. But contrary to the superficial British assumption (heavily promoted by the BBC), they were not devoting their excoriation exclusively to the Obama Administration – or even to its clique of Congressional henchmen, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That they were opposed to the Big State, European social democratic model of government which Obama had imported to Washington went almost without saying. But they were at least as angry with the leadership of their own party for having conceded far too much of the argument…..

So the Republicans are, if anything, as much in revolt against the establishment within their own party as they are against the Democrats. And this is what the Tea Parties (which should always be referred to in the plural, because they are not a monolithic movement) are all about: they are not just a reaction against a Left-liberal president but a repudiation of the official Opposition as well.

Assuming that the GOP benefits resoundingly from voter anger on Tuesday, the Republican leadership should be fully aware that this mandate is not a response to their establishment policies or agenda.  It is not even an endorsement of the GOP platform.  Their mandate will come from a total rejection of Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s attempts to push Big Government.  And many of the voters who put the GOP into power will be independent voters, unaffiliated with either political party.

I am socially conservative on most all issues.  I also want a strong miltary and an emphasis on national defense (independents won’t disagree with this).  But this election is about the economy and overbearing government intrusion.  And that intrusion finds itself creeping into many of the social causes that I hold dear.  The thing that I hold in common with the frustrated independent voters is a desire to get the government out of our lives.  This may seem libertarian, but is also a basic tenet of our nation’s founding principles.

It seems like voters are returning to those foundations in the face of the frightening alternative.  The GOP will likely benefit from this phenomenom based on the philosophical underpinnings of the Republican Party in contrast to the Democrat philosophy of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  The GOP will be entrusted with a very specific mandate.  And if they screw up like they did last time or misinterpret that mandate – I can assure you that the wrath from voters will be equally swift next time around.

Evidence of a Potential Palin Landslide in 2012

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIJbfCk_NxA]

The liberals have insisted on obsessing of the possibility that in November of 2012, they could wake up in the morning with a new America: one ready to move forward with President-elect, Sarah Palin. 

It’s no secret, I am a massive Palin supporter.  She’s energetic.  She electrifies the ones who need inspiration to mobilize, turning their silence into endless wells of energy.  If that isn’t enough, she continues to infuriate all the right people, too.

Just yesterday, a questionable Bloomberg poll was released which suggested that Barack Obama would trounce Sarah Palin in a national election.  It placed Obama getting 51% of the vote with Palin getting 35% respectively.

Of course, every major news outlet has jumped on it including CBS and USAToday

The MSM is so terrified of Sarah Palin just as they were terrified of Ronald Reagan.  In fact, an article released by the NY Times in January of 1979, with numbers from a GALLUP poll stated the following:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20–President Carter would easily defeat either former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California or former President Gerald R. Ford if the election were held today, according to the Gallup Poll.

But something else is coming into play here.  This is just as much a campaign to discourage Republicans from electing true conservatives as it is discouraging Americans from providing support to Sarah Palin. 

I would like to make it clear.  While I am focusing on 2010’s midterms (as Palin allegedly is), I am watching the media more closely this time.  I will not personally settle for another McCain. 

Hucakabee is boring who also compared illegal immigration to slavery. 

Romney is boring who passed his own state version of Obamacare.

Newt Gingrich is brilliant but lacks the energy which Palin is passing around to the grassroots who decide elections.  In other words, people are more likely to be energized to come out and vote in her case.

The only other person I would consider at this point would be Chris Christie.

After a day of obessing about the poll mentioned here, Chris Matthews has a hissy fit when conservative strategist, Ron Christie, says that Palin is absolutely qualified to be President, especially considering what we have now.

The video is posted above.

If You Can’t Blame “W”…..

Then just blame Congress.  Obama apparently got the message from poll numbers that suggested Americans were tired of his “blame it on Bush” strategy as a way to avoid responsibility for the nation’s still-unrecovered economy. So, what does the Big O do now?  Throw it off on Congress.

– But before leaving for his ninth presidential vacation, 10 days at a…...secluded estate on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama devoted four minutes in the White House driveway to a special statement on the latest disappointing jobs numbers. (Full text, as usual, can be read on the jump, along with a brief reaction from the Republican National Committee chairman.)

No questions allowed because the president didn’t want to explain why despite the administration’s announced Recovery Summer Program, the jobs numbers have started going backward again after 19 months of promises and $787 billion in alleged stimulation spending. Because, faced with the uncertainty of the economy and the certainty of new taxes after Nov. 2, employers are holding back on hiring.

According to the president, he’s been “adamant” with Congress for months now about a new jobs bill to help small businesses. Obama says this really good bill is stalled in the Senate, where so much administration legislation has been crammed through so effectively by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Interesting ploy.  Blame it on Congress.  But….hold on now!  One problem.  OBAMA’S PARTY RUNS THE DAMNED CONGRESS!!!

It’s time to man up, Barry.  Face the fact that your idiotic policies have done nothing to pull this nation out of a lingering recession.  While Europe begins to turn things around with surprisingly conservative economic measures, you go the opposite way.  You endorse ridiculous spending measures that bring our deficit into the trillions, and you pursue social(ist) entitlement programs during a time when we can least afford it.  You are about to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and every new piece of legislation that you hatch with Pelosi/Reid is riddled with new taxes.  All of this during a time of recession.

Don’t blame your failure to pull us out of recession on George W.  And don’t blame things on Congress either.  Your party has more than enough votes to ramrod more crap down the throats of average Americans.  If you honestly think that throwing more money in an inefficient manner at this recession is going to solve the problem, then just tell Nancy and Harry to do it.  Are you scared?  Are they?