Hardly A Mandate

These figures are very intriguing. Obama is our President and is the Executive so his job of pushing policy and direction for the country is self evident. However, these figures should act as a brake for liberals that feel they have a mandate to push their ill conceived and misguided agenda. I ask that the liberals remember who rights the checks for this country. Once again you have been elected into power and destroyed your selves. Let this be a lesson that your subjective altruism is nothing more than over zealous, self righteous, hyper elitist bull shit. It takes a MAJOR leap of faith to conscribe to the ends you proclaim. Throughout your heathenistic condemnation of non-secular theology, you have only replaced it with your own secular theology. You have replaced God with Man, and the Church with the Government. Your pursuit of Utopian Humanism is counter to our evolution. It becomes more evident over time that you are the weak link. You have convinced many with your promises of Hope. This is nothing but a false Hope. Your Hope is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Face it liberal children, America is right of center. So, shovel your shit elsewhere.
Now, of the soap box...please enjoy and contemplate the numbers.

-Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

a.. Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

b.. Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

c..Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

d..Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

I will concede...we conservatives need you liberals to help balance out the scales. But when it comes to management of a nation, management of an economy, and guidance into the future, maybe you should actually manage or create wealth on your own first.

Watch Out Dems - Beginning of the End

Watch these Elections next week. The outcome of these will act as a vote of confidence or no confidence with the current Administration. If the Conservatives can pull these out BHO is finished and his liberal agenda is finished.

Election 2009: Virginia Governor Election
Rasmussen Poll - October 28

Robert F. McDonnell (R) 54%
R. Creigh Deeds (D) 41%

- +13 Points

Election 2009: New Jersey Governor
Rasmussen Poll - October 28

Chris Christie (R) 46%
Jon Corzine (D) 43% - Incumbent

- +3% Points

Election 2009: New York 23rd Congressional - Special Election

Hoffman (C) 34%
Owens (D) 29%
Scozzafava (R) 14%

Hoffman + 5%

*Fiscal Cons must support Hoffman in this Election. He is the only conservative in the race. The Republican is part of the New York Political Machine and as liberal as any other Dem.

This is the Beginning of the End Libs. Hope you had fun!

Also, pay attention to the 2010 Florida Republican Primary for the US Senate.
Crist is in the running against Marco Rubio a young fiscal con who will be the face of the Republican party someday very soon.

Support Rubio!!!

Critical History -- David Kaiser

World renouned professor of history David Kaiser looks critically at history and the lessons that were clearly not learned by the Obama Administration and the people that voted him into power.

History Unfolding
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September.

Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not. We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten...And we are at war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska .. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
And that is only the beginning..

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s In those times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did - regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so.

No Jews of course. How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ..... . .. change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history books. So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.. And the world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.
I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in the next elections.

David Kaiser Jamestown , Rhode IslandUnited States

Don't Follow -- Go To Jail

Rhetorical Tax Evasion

The IRS says it will fine or jail you for not paying Obama's mandate levy.

Wall Street Journal Online -- September 29, 2009

President Obama's effort to deny that his mandate to buy insurance is a tax has taken another thumping, this time from fellow Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee.

Chairman Max Baucus's bill includes the so-called individual mandate, along with what he calls a $1,900 "excise tax" if you don't buy health insurance. (It had been as much as $3,800 but Democrats reduced the amount last week to minimize the political sticker shock.) And, lo, it turns out that if you don't pay that tax, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail, or both.

Under questioning last week, Tom Barthold, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, admitted that the individual mandate would become a part of the Internal Revenue Code and that failing to comply "could be criminal, yes, if it were considered an attempt to defraud." Mr. Barthold noted in a follow-up letter that the willful failure to file would be a simple misdemeanor, punishable by the $25,000 fine or jail time under Section 7203.

So failure to pay the mandate would be enforced like tax evasion, but Mr. Obama still claims it isn't a tax. "You can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," Mr. Obama insisted last week to ABC interviewer George Stephanopoulos. Accusing critics of dishonesty is becoming this President's default argument, but is Mr. Barthold also part of the plot?

In the 1994 health-care debate, the Congressional Budget Office called the individual mandate "an unprecedented form of federal action." This is because "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This coercion will be even more onerous today because everyone will be forced to buy insurance that the new taxes and regulations of ObamaCare will make far more expensive. Too bad Mr. Obama's rhetorical tax evasion can't be punished by the IRS.

Support the Honduran Coup

All fiscal cons and neocons should love and embrace Honduras. We can learn something from their commitment to democracy and capitalism.

The automatic response condemning President Zelaya’s removal by many political leaders in the region reveals the appalling degree to which they have ceased defending democracy. As Roberto Micheletti, chosen by the Honduran Congress to complete Zelaya’s term, observed, “What was done here was a democratic act. Our constitution continues to be relevant, our democracy continues to live.”

What happened in Honduras was not a standard coup. The Supreme Court ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office. The Congress, albeit after his detention and exile, voted unanimously for his removal and confirmed his constitutionally mandated successor to fill the remainder of his term in office.

Kudos to Honduras and the constitutional leaders of its' coup! Unfortunately, the President and the rest of the Administration do not feel a similar sense of solidarity with the patriots of Honduras. Amidst a region of Che Socialism and Anti-American sentiment, one would think the President of the 'free world' would embrace this beacon of freedom and democracy. However, one would be wrong with this thought. It is now quite apparent that the appeasement of Chavez and Cuba, and meeting with tyrants in Iran, is much more important to this President. With a collective voice our newly crowned ruler proclaims "America is sorry."

I respectfully, disagree Mr. President. America should never have to apologize for anything it does. This is the greatest empire in world history, thus far. Julius Caesar could only have imagined this kind of power in his dreams. The sitting President of the United States does not apologize for its actions. The U.S. may learn from mistakes, but looking forward the United States is the torchbearer and leader of freedom for the rest of the world. Where is the respect for a leader that admits they don't know the directions? The ends may be unclear but the justification of the means in the United State's possession.

Not Quite A Reaganite But We Do Miss You George

YRP Joke of the Day

The POSITIVE news from "Cash for Clunkers":

Its taken 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road...

YRP Daily Recommendation

The Neocons Make a Comeback
Brett Stephens
Wall Street Journal Online

The other day I was asked by a writer for a mainstream French newspaper to say something about the "return" of the neoconservatives. His thesis seemed to be that the shambles of Barack Obama's foreign policy had, after only nine months, made what was thought to be the most discredited wing of an ostensibly brain-dead conservative movement relevant again. And France—no longer straining at the sight of Michelle Obama shopping in Paris's 6th arrondissement—is taking notice.

My answer was that the neocons are back because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Vladimir Putin never went away. A star may have shone in the east the day Barack Obama became president. But these three kings, at least, have yet to proffer the usual gifts of gold and incense and myrrh.

Instead, the presents have been of a different kind. North Korea claims to be in the final stages of building a uranium-enrichment facility—its second route to an atomic bomb. Iran, again caught cheating on its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, has responded by wagging a finger at the U.S. and firing a round of missiles. Syria continues to aid and abet jihadists operating in Iraq. NATO countries have generally refused to send more troops to Afghanistan, and are all the more reluctant to do so now that the administration is itself wavering on the war.

As for Russia, its ambassador to the U.N. last week bellyached that the U.S. "continues to be a rather difficult negotiating partner"—and that was after Mr. Obama canceled the missile-defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thus does the politics of concession meet with the logic of contempt.

All this must, at some level, come as a surprise to an administration so deeply in love with itself. "I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world," Mr. Obama told the U.N.'s General Assembly last week with his usual modesty. He added that those expectations were "rooted in hope—the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change."

Yet what sounds like "hope" in, say, Toronto or Barcelona tends to come across as fecklessness in Warsaw and Jerusalem. In Moscow and Tehran, it reads like credulity—and an opportunity to exploit the U.S. at a moment of economic weakness and political self-infatuation.

For those much-scorned neocons, none of this comes as a surprise. Neoconservatives generally take the view that the internal character of a regime usually predicts the nature of its foreign policy. Governments that are answerable to their own people and accountable to a rule of law tend to respect the rights of their neighbors, honor their treaty commitments, and abide by the international rules of the road. By contrast, regimes that prey on their own citizens are likely to prey on their neighbors as well. Their word is the opposite of their bond.

That's why neocons have no faith in any deals or "grand bargains" the U.S. might sign with North Korea or Iran over their nuclear programs: Cheating is in the DNA of both regimes, and the record is there to prove it. Nor do neocons put much stock in the notion that there's a "reset" button with the Kremlin. Russia is the quintessential spoiler state, seeking its advantage in America's troubles at home and abroad. Ditto for Syria, which has perfected the art of taking credit for solving problems of its own creation.

Where neocons do put their faith is in American power, not just military or economic power but also as an instrument of moral and political suasion. Disarmament? The last dictator to relinquish his nuclear program voluntarily was Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who did so immediately following Saddam Hussein's capture. Democratization? Contrary to current conventional wisdom, democracy is often imposed, or at least facilitated, by U.S. pressure—in the Philippines, in the Balkans and, yes, in Iraq. Human rights? Anwar Ibrahim, the beleaguered Malaysian opposition leader, told me last week that "the only country that can stand up" to abusive regimes is the United States. "If they know the administration is taking a soft stance [on human rights], they will go on a rampage."

None of this is to say that neoconservatism represents some kind of infallible doctrine—or that it's even a doctrine. Neocons have erred in overestimating the U.S. public's willingness to engage in long struggles on behalf of other people. They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom.

But as the pendulum has swung to a U.S. foreign policy based on little more than the personal attractions of its president, it's little wonder that the world is casting about for an alternative. And a view of the world that understands that American power still furnishes the margin between freedom and tyranny, and between prosperity and chaos, is starting to look better all the time. Even in France.

Real Choice -- Real Responsibility

This is an Edit and Update of an original article I wrote

A Fiscal Conservative on Choice

I hear a lot of people talk about Choice...their Freedom of Choice, their misnomer Pro-Choice, their misguided Choice, their un-American Choice. Most I observe, or talk to, seem to have such passionate feelings about their Choice. I wonder if they even know what it means. The ‘pro-choice’ sect sells it as personal freedom. This is nothing but a rouse, perpetuating the national endorsement of irresponsibility and pure selfishness.

In America...

We all make choices everyday. Some are very significant cognitive choices and many insignificant to the conscious mind. For example, I have a choice to go out and get wasted. I also have a choice to get in my car and drive home. If I hurt myself or God forbid anyone else, I do not get to raise a defense that I wasn't ready to deal with this decision. I will be responsible; I don't get a do over.

The ability to choose the right path when faced with a fork in the road does little to define the human character. It is natural to choose, many animals choose. The mark of the individual is their ability to recognize the right choice. Unfortunately, our kind has proven we more often recognize and justify the wrong choice. However, we have the wonderful ability to learn from our past choice. This makes us better, this makes us stronger, and this makes us evolve.

Like most, actually everybody (except Obama, he is perfect, do not question his glory), I have made many wrong choices in my life. I made a choice to max out my credit cards, and take out massive loans so I could attend law school. Even if I am not ready to deal with the consequences of those choices...In America I am responsible. There is no easy way out. Like a Bailout. Well, we could just create a Constitutional interpretation and abort irresponsibility. It is only fair…I was not ready.

We are living in a time when it seems everyone is looking for the easy way out. Our banks, auto industry and idiots who bought more house than they could afford want someone else to bail them out. Our choices are no longer personal; they are now society's problems. A country based on individual freedom can not exist with a current situation like this in America. We are losing any and all sense of personal responsibility and self-respect. Work ethic and individual ambition are becoming foreign to the rule of entitlement. Whether it’s from the government or society; nothing is owed to us in life, NOTHING. We are all responsible for ourselves.

The left – purveyors of misguided Choice, free love, and a denigrated generation

We have I lot Choices in this country. One of those choices is to have sex. We all know, we have known since sex education in elementary school, where babies come from. Here is a Life opinion from a secular fiscal conservative. This debate is much simpler than religion v. choice. It comes down to taking responsibility for our actions.

When a woman and a man CHOOSE to have sex, EVERYONE knows that a possible outcome of that choice is a child. This is where the choice lies. Everyone knowingly accepts all responsibility for this Choice. (Outside of rape/incest) The choice no longer exists after the act is done...it was already made. It is that simple. All choices have an outcome, whether it is a negative or a positive, and it is never a negative when a life is created. If a woman and a man are not ready for the responsibility than choose Adoption. Or, here’s an idea…keep your pants on. The argument that the state can't take care of these children or foster care has problems or some kids don't get adopted is MERE speculation at the time of choosing Adoption or taking a stand and raising the LIFE you created. Abortion is a getting out of jail free card. The selfish way out. Carrying the child for 9 months is the outcome of the initial choice to have sex in the first place. Be a human, a responsible human, and deal with the choices you have made.

Last summer I did not think I was near ready to be a father. I did not think I was near ready to be a husband. I had two years of law school left. Student loans higher than most of you reading this will ever make in one year of work. I had a plan and at the time a child was not part of it. I still chose to have a relationship with someone I loved more than anything in the world. We could have waited but we are young and we made the Choices we made. Regardless, I knew what could happen by making this choice. And yes, In July I found out that I was going to be a father. And yes, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I mean a child was not part of my plans. I realized at that moment, whatever my selfish self-serving plans were for my life have now changed. I was going to be a father. Then, that August we went to the Doctor...I heard and saw my son for the first time. I heard and saw his heart beating. He was 8 weeks old...THIS IS NOT A CHOICE ANYMORE...NOT A CHOICE...this was my son. My personal plans are out the window, they do not matter, and my son is now my plan, being a great father is my job.

I am not a medical doctor, a scientist, or hold myself out to be an expert on human reproduction. However, the argument that an embryo or fetus is not a child until a certain point in gestation is truly ridiculous. Yes, I concede an embryo could not exist outside the womb on its own without the proper development. (Many Americans can not exist outside the womb independently without assistance or further development…they must not be human either). The point is the embryo, the fetus, the child, THE LIFE is human, and it was created when mother and father came together.

For those who see a Life as a burden or a negative consequence then please don't have sex. You know, we all know life happens. It really makes me sick that Abortion is used as another form of contraception, and a pseudo-Bailout for the irresponsible. Yes, a child will change your social life. Yes, a child will change your career or educational goals. Life is difficult at times; it should make your resolve stronger. If you are too weak you are a poor excuse for a human, and you shouldn't have sex in the first place. If you can not take responsibility for your actions, you should not be reproducing. Your gene pool is weak! I mean it.

Sex is the choice...the Child is not.

Deal with the choices you make.

Obama the Great (or Not)

Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency
since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed
presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one
strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of
course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming
traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet
his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant
overture to China.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing
everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in
forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy
Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing
because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed
loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because
he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of
American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is
failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his
intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president
riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his
tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free
fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point
advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about
himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised
or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't
connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the
rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American
character that intersects with their own where they display a command of

history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that
resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We
admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who
seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are
aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our
own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing
about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for
the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one
of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like
a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he
doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense..
His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't
add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in
don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this
man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers,
banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital
administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green
job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For
those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not
offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second
term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a
useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of
the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get
voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of
legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after
that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl
but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Joke Of The Day

The Pope and Obama are on the same stage in front of a huge crowd.

The Pope leans towards Mr. Obama and said, "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, like that of your followers, but go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"

Obama replied, "I seriously doubt that. With one little wave of your hand? Show me"

So the Pope slapped him.

Great Read From George Will

The Cost of a Presidential Cave-In

The Washington Post

By George F. Will
Wednesday, September 23, 2009

While in Pittsburgh, a sense of seemliness should prevent President Obama from again exhorting the Group of 20, as he did April 2 in London, to be strong in resisting domestic pressures for protectionism. This month, invertebrate as he invariably is when organized labor barks, he imposed a 35 percent tariff on imports of tires that China makes for the low-price end of the market. This antic nonsense matters not only because of trade disruptions it may cause but also because it is evidence of his willowy weakness under pressure from his political patrons.

In 2000, as a price of China's admission to the World Trade Organization, Congress enacted a provision for "relief from market disruption" to American industries from surges of Chinese imports. Actually, American consumers cause "disruption" in American markets when their preferences change in response to progress -- better products and bargains. Never mind. Congress said disruption exists whenever imports of a product "like or directly competitive with" a U.S. product increase "rapidly" and threaten "significant" injury to a U.S. industry. Examples of disruption include the volume of imports of a particular product, the effect of imports on the prices of competing U.S. goods and the effect on the U.S. industry.

Notice that China need not be guilty of wrongdoing: It can be punished even if it is not "dumping" -- not selling goods below the cost of manufacturing and distributing them. (That we consider it wrongdoing for a nation to sell us things we want at very low prices is a superstition to be marveled at another day.) And China need not be punished: Presidential action is entirely discretionary. So Barack Obama was using the sort of slippery language that increasingly defines his loquacity when he said he was simply "enforcing" a trade agreement.

None of the 10 manufacturers that comprise the domestic tire industry sought this protectionism. Seven of the 10 also make tires in other countries. Most U.S. manufacturers have stopped making low-end tires, preferring the higher profit from more expensive models. (Four U.S. companies make low-end tires in China.)

The president smote China because a single union, the United Steelworkers, asked him to. It represents rubber workers, but only those responsible for 47 percent of U.S. tiremaking. The president's action will not create more than a negligible number of jobs, if any. It will not restore a significant number, if any, of the almost 5,200 jobs that were lost in the tire industry from 2004 to 2008. Rather, the president will create jobs in other nations (e.g., Mexico, Indonesia) that make low-end tires. They make them partly because some U.S. firms have outsourced the manufacturing of such tires to low-wage countries so the U.S. firms can make a small profit, while making high-end and higher-profit tires here in high-wage America.

The 215 percent increase in tire imports from China is largely the fault, so to speak, of lower-income Americans, many of whom will respond to the presidential increase in the cost of low-end tires by driving longer on their worn tires. How many injuries and deaths will this cause? How many jobs will it cost in tire replacement businesses or among longshoremen who handle imports? We will find out. The costs of the president's sacrifice of the national interest to the economic illiteracy of a single labor union may also include injuries China might inflict by imposing retaliatory protectionism or reducing its purchases of U.S. government debt, purchases that enable Americans to consume more government services than they are willing to pay for.

Obama was silent when Congress, pleasing the Teamsters union, violated the North American Free Trade Agreement by stopping Mexican trucks from delivering goods north of the border. And although he is almost never silent about anything, he did not significantly resist "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus legislation. And he has not denounced the idea many Democratic climate tinkerers have of imposing "border adjustment mechanisms" -- tariffs -- on imports from countries that choose not to burden their manufacturers, as the Obama administration proposes burdening American manufacturers, with restrictions on carbon emissions. And he allows unratified trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama to languish. Nevertheless, he says he favors free trade.

He must -- or so he thinks -- say so much about so many things; perhaps he cannot keep track of the multiplying contradictions in his endless utterances. But they -- and the tire tariffs -- are related to the sagging support for his health-care program.

georgewill@washpost.com

Obama on ACORN & Kanye: This is are President

Obama on ACORN: What the hell is going on in his brain?

Here is the full exchange between Stephanopoulos and President Obama. This is frightening. I must ask what are his true priorities? Or is he just an idiot?

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're not committing to -- to cut off the federal funding?

OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.

Okay Obama this is not a big issue?

This is American tax dollars going to fund illegal activity and voter fraud. Oh wait they helped get you elected.

And you were not "paying a lot of attention" to this issue?

Well thank heaven you were paying enough attention to Kanye West on a music awards show and giving props to Derek Jeter. Thanks Barack. I am glad you have the nation's priorities within your sight.

Joke of the Day

Question – What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?

Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Check out this YouTube posting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Spoken from the Man himself!

Obama on Golf

OBAMA PRESSES USGA FOR MAJOR RULE CHANGES

The USGA has announced there is a possibility of MAJOR rule changes to the

game of golf. This may occur sometime after March 1, 2010. This is only a

preview as the complete rulebook is being rewritten now. Here are a few

basic changes:

Golfers with handicaps:

- below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.

- between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.

- above 18 will get a check each time they play.

The dollar amount placed in bets will be as follows:

-for handicaps below 10, an additional $10.

-between 11 and 18, no additional amount.

-above 18, you will receive the total amount in the pot... even if you do not play.

The term "gimme" will be changed to "entitlement" and will be used as follows:

-handicaps below 10, no entitlements.

-handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts.

-handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt.... just pick it up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most

importantly, equality in scoring.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars

in any given round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who

have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a

birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that

player begin to count his pars and birdies again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes but the

term 'net score' will be available only for scoring those players with

handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to 'redistribute' the success of winning by making sure

that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only 'net

score' against every other player's gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. Golf must be about

Fairness. It should have nothing to do with Ability.

"YES, WE CAN!!!"

Taming the Beast

If the fiscal conservative faction of the GOP ever needed the perfect moment to regain control of the direction of the party, this time is that moment. The Democrats have shot themselves in the foot once again, and presented us with the perfect opportunity to regain a footing in the American political arena. Unfortunately, not much in terms of policy, seems to be emanating from the aisles on the right. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am telling you nay saying will get the movement and our message nowhere. There is more to do than raising the 'No' vote to Obamacare. The policies of the fiscal conservative movement are the only reasonable methods to address the federal budget problems of the past 21 years, and hedge the damage that the current Administration is pushing through. This country is in need of a Reagan Revolution. Newt Gingrich has been pushing for a return to fiscal conservative principles within the party and I suggest we listen.

Economic Musts:

Emphasize role of free market in all policy decision making to foster economic prosperity.

Favor laissez-faire free markets; economic liberty (not social); fiscal conservatism; and personal responsibility.

Advocate supply-side economics.

Party Musts:

Cease pandering for votes from groups that have nothing but harmed the GOP image since 1988. The Republican Party has always been the minority party in terms of the porportion of voters who identify as such. We need to stop competing for votes by selling out our platform and just sell our policies. Our policies will sell themselves. What has had and continues to hurt the movement, is allowing certain groups from the fringes of the right to effect our image and policy. The religious right has helped to destroy almost every amount of respectability this party has with the mainstream of this country. These people are nothing but doomsdayists, bigots, racists, and quite honestly not very intelligent. Now, I believe in God, but the economic policies that made the GOP and America great under Reagan were secular in nature, and that is the way it should always remain. ----I should qualify 'religious right'; I am speaking of the Pat Robertson, moral majority type. The faction that wants Christian doctrine (at least their view of it) enforced as law on the nation. I am not speaking of religious people who happen to be on the right.----

The reason the Democrats continually collapse shortly after taking control is the result of pandering and over extending their platform to get votes. They make too many promises and owe too many favors to groups that are inconsistent with their platform. We need to stick to our messege and not waiver by cheapening what we advocate.

The Policies that work:


1) Call for a large reduction in government spending -- I do not advocate cutting all the fed does. However, we need to start by addressing the inefficiencies and administrative costs of the bureaucracy system.


2) Lower Taxes (sorry Bush, I like you but you can't cut taxes and not reduce spending...that always leads to...yes, a deficit) -- Again this only works if we cut spending.


3) We must Balance the Budget -- In 2008, the federal revenues were about $2.524 trillion and the federal expenditures were about $2.978 trillion. If you call yourself a conservative this has to be unacceptable. Personal responsibility must be advocated to not only the citizen but the federal budget, as well.


4) Focus on Deficit Reduction -- Now with the addition of President Obama's spend-a-thon, Reduction is cleary out of mind. This needs to be a focus of the 2010 campaign.


5) Begin Paying of the National Debt -- As of 31 December 2008 our external Debt was at $13.64 trillion. If we want to remain the global hegemon this must be paid down NOW.


6) Advocate and Implement Free Trade (not Fair Trade...if you can't compete...too bad) FREE TRADE -- currently, this country only exports $1.291 trillion compared to importing $2.112 trillion. This is a serious problem we must remedy.


7) AND favor LESS regulation of the Economy



This platform is needed...Our time is now...This is our rallying point.

Cash for Clunkers Fun

This is courtesy of my father:

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that ???

They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!

Respect Decorum

We live in an age where mutual respect and common courtesy toward your fellow man, at least to me, appears to be at an embarrassing low. I would make the contention that it is as much a national crisis as any other issue facing this nation. The disrespect we harbor toward each and especially toward those in authority is a microcosm of many of the larger policy debates going on in Washington and across the country. From observing many individuals, many unqualified to give their opinion much less their policy input, their beliefs and ideologies have exited the realm of politics and entered the realm of a pseudo-religion.

As a fiscal conservative I always try (don't always succeed) to take an objective approach to my political views and policy considerations. The pseudo-religious fervor I speak of is prevalent among the liberals and liberal Democrats, but to see it coming from the supposed "conservatives" and among Republican members of Congress is disheartening to what it means to be a true conservative. Of course I am excluding social cons from my definition (theocratic rule has no place in the GOP) and big government Republicans that have misguided our party, domestically, since Bush Sr. The pseudo-religious action I speak of is the emotional outbursts coming out of certain factions in the right wing speaking out against the current Administrations policies.

Now, I am against almost every policy President Obama has proposed, pushed through, and believes in terms of ideology. But to answer the President and the Left with simple rhetoric, popular catch phrases, and subjective emotion only takes conservatives down to their level. How short are our memories when we forget how liberals and the left have always responded to policy they don't like...shouting, protest, name-calling (racist, sexist, extremist, etc.)? These responses are not qualified counters to policy, offering reasonable alternatives, it isn't even a cognitive intelligent thought that could qualify as debate. The Right has always criticised the Left for its subjective emotion and lack to remain objective in policy debate. This is nothing more than hypocrisy at its utmost.

"Oh but the left called Bush a lier all the time." So what if they did? Two wrongs don't make a right. They are liberals , when they act that way it proves what we have been contending all along. When we respond to the Left with the religious fervor and subjective emotional outbursts that have sprouted since President Obama's election, it makes you no better than the people that called President Bush a "lier" or "war criminal" or the dirty ignorant hippies that protest the Vietnam War, not because of true concern but because it was hip. You are going down to their level when you act this way.

I ask, especially if you hold yourself out to be a conservative. Carry yourself with the pride, class, character, and respect you feel your views should merit. Meet all opposition of ideas with the virtues of true conservatism. If anyone, liberal, democrat, guy who cut you off on the highway, whoever it is, attacks your actions or views with subjective rhetoric maintain your composure and objectivism. Don't sink to their level, make them come up to yours. This is a tenant of personal responsibility. You don't have to be right, you just need to show to others that they are wrong. Remaining stoic, reserved, and respectful to opposition will take you much farther and give you much more respectability.

The direction of the Republican Party and the fiscal conservative movement can't afford to be equated to the simple ignorant rantings of the liberal left. Let's move the party forward, if you can't handle being a man about things and want to keep shouting, well, that is your right but get the hell out of our party. Your actions only affirm the stereotypical contentions of the left toward the right.

No one person is the pervayer of Absolute Knowledge and Truth (please, please, no one say 'well Jesus is'), so, go into every conversation, debate, meeting, or interaction with that in mind. Remember you don't need to be right, they simply need to appear wrong. Hey, I get to bring up Jesus again. In times like these he said "turn the other cheek." An emotional subjective action vs. emotional subjective action has no winner. Emotions are unique to the individual feeling them, so our only option to legitimate debate and finding common ground in our human interaction is to offer objective reasoning.

In summary, it is fine to disagree with the President. I am ardently oppossed almost everything he stands for, however, everyone disagrees. Disagreement or a difference of views should have very little effect on a man's character. Character is flawed when they physically force your agreement (some try to say thats what the left is doing, but I disagree) instead of through persuasion. Obama won the office through persuassion and the democratic process (so was Hitler...that was a joke!).

You may disagree, I definately disagree, but he IS our President, at least to 2012. We all need to respect that office. Any man that takes on that responsibility deserves our respect, if not at least for the commitment that takes. Could you do it? Could you be the CEO of the largest empire to ever exist in our societal evolutionary process? There are 300,000,000 people in this country. It is amazing if a small group could agree on various policy. Now, imagine that group is our populous and you were elected to act in the best interest of all. Do you respect the office yet?

Lets lead the GOP forward. I believe fiscal conservatism, personal repsonsibility, and the virtues of ardent followers that adhere to its tenants will take the party farther than we could ever imagine. Barry Goldwater followed this way. Ronald Reagan definately followed this way, and so should we.

Author's Disclaimer

I feel I should explain the way I operate and the things I say sometimes. I realize I can say some far out there (right-wing) things at times. It is mostly done in an attempt to spur debate and conversation on an issue, to test an individual's conviction and commitment to an idea. With that said, my posts here will be polarizing at times and maybe even offensive to some. But please note it is never intended to offend.

If you know me...I am sorry :). No, if you know me, than you know that I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate and I just love debate, politics, and conversations. Many of my best, most enjoyable conversations come from those I have little in common with in terms of policy and ideology. That is the only way to have your ideas and beliefs tested and tried. I am a non-Absolutist, I recognize that I am no more right than anyone else. However, I do know that I don't need to ever be right, that's not the point, I just need to prove that you are wrong to enough people. That's how politics works, that's why it is dirty, in the mud fighting at times, but that is why America is the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

The GOP: The way it once was and the way it has to be again.

No matter how loyal a Republican you are, one must admit our Party and movement is in need of a drastic image revival. Since, the fall of communism the party has slowly lost its free market-less government ideology. That is the ideology I would love to see control the GOP again. I hear the critiques of Reagan and the policies of the GOP from the left. You lefties are usually right, on appearances we were not 'fiscally conservative' nor for 'small government.' With that said though you are completely wrong and missed the real reason for why we did anything during that time. Learn your history and your political science and it is pretty easy to see. If you are still on the left after an objective historical critique of the policies of the time than I would love to discuss this with you. But if you are still on the left and still believe the reasons sold to the masses for why the government acts the way it does sometimes, well...maybe you should go color in the corner with the other kids. Now, I am going to continue my piece and attempt to offer a 'real' conservative critique of the times, as well as combat common liberal criticism of the greatest President this country has had...at least in the past one-hundred years. I hope you all enjoy. (Please note this is a historical/political critique, I am using objective reasoning, so please respond likewise).

ATTENTION LIBERALS: At this point, the common response from the left is 1) Reagan had a $200 Billion budget deficit, 2) the expansion of the Fed under Reagan was far from 'little government ideology, and 3) The War on Drugs was a complete expansion of Federal control and a dismal failure. That's fair, but please recognize the global situation at the time. WE HAD TO WIN THE COLD WAR. It was a war for economic control and influence of the world. To the winner, Alpha Status over all the rest. Reagan's policies of securing free market proxies to buffer the influence of Communism, the expansion of the military, the promotion of American business through global expansion, and the resulting increase in Federal spending, was promoted by Reagan and the Fiscal Cons in complete synchronous harmony to ensure that Capitalism and Democracy won the War against Economic Centralization and Communism. To the winner literally went the world, relatively complete economic hegemony for the next generation. To me the cost is immaterial when compared to the alternative.

I have to ask all liberals, Dems, Social-Cons, Libertarians, Hippies, & and ignorant college kids with inflated unsupported opinions; Do you really believe that the 'War on Drugs' was a moral altruistic battle to fight the evils of drugs and addiction? Likewise, do you believe that all the Wars we fight are just or unjust, moral or immoral, based on some subjective higher calling for America to intervene and help the weak and oppressed? If so, WOW! There always exists the subjective reasons for 'why' we go to war. However, everything we do is an attempt to position America's influence and seek a benefit...or why else fight. If we actually fought wars to solely save the oppressed we would be in Africa and probably BANKRUPT! (Traditional Democrats and Republicans know this game...its the fringes that don't get how geo-politics works, if anythin at all).

The 'War on Drugs' had nothing to do with a fear to protect America from the evils of drugs. Just like the Iraq War had nothing to do with WMD's or fighting for Judeo-Christian values. We fought those battles for one central idea: SECURE UNITED STATES HEGEMONY & CONTROL, TO ENSURE FREE MARKET PROXIES & ALLIES, AND ENSURE OUR EMPIRE WINS. What do you think our country did with the massive amounts of cash and drugs we seized coming from Mexico and South America...burn it?

We should all know not to listen to our televisions, of course the President will sell a push to the masses without all the facts in place, or state the true reasons for an action. Don't be so naive. The President of the United States is essentially the CEO of the greatest empire to exist, so far. Not to mention, hopefully not a suprise to you, but not all the 300 million or so Americans are very bright or can handle complex geopolitical manuevering. How well do you think a President would be if he explained the REAL reasons he was doing a policy a certain way? The masses can't handle the truth, so they fib. Left and Right are guilty of this, however this is how it is done.

The GOP messed up after the fall of communism. At that time we needed to draw back the mechanisms we put in place to defeat the USSR. Unfortunately, Bush the First did not draw back the Fed, and that was our chance. As a result we were given Clinton. The policies of the 80's made the boom and growth of the 90's possible. If it weren't for the Republican Revolution in 1994 led by Gingrich, the Boom would have NEVER occurred. The technology & the economic growth are all connected to our military spending, capitalist push against communism, and beneficial corporate and individual tax adjustments that often require 8-10 years to truly take hold. It was also very unfortunate that Clinton and the Dems decided to force banks and lenders to offer loans and mortgages to people they knew could not truly afford them. No suprise than the housing bubble and banking industry collapsing within 10 years of that LIBERAL idea.

So, go ahead and thank Reagan today for what he and the fiscal cons did. Secured America has the perennial power for generations. We won the chess game. Currently, there is no one even close to competing with the influence this country has. We need to ensure it stays that way.