I Couldn't Agree More Mrs. Obama

Mrs. Obama told a reporter her fantasy was to just walk out the front door of the White House and keep walking.  Assuming she's taking her husband with her on that trip, I couldn't have shared a greater fantasy with her.  Hopefully, in November the voters will make my fantasy come true.

Perpetual War

A video about the atrocities of Ugandan leader of the Lord's Resistance Army Joseph Kony went viral several months ago, bringing attention to what is rightfully recognized as horrific actions in the abduction of children for sex trafficking and to force them into being soldiers. Prior to the release of the viral video "Kony 2012", President Obama authorized placing United States troops in harm's way on the ground in Uganda to assist regional forces opposed to the LRA. That was October of 2011. As with much of what President Obama does, this is a war being conducted without Congressional authorization. Say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, at least President Bush went to Congress for authorization to act (with the approval of then Senator Hillary Clinton (D, Wherever the hell she lives). I'm betting you didn't know we were conducting a small war in Uganda.

I'm also betting you didn't know we are conducting one in Yemen, too. President Obama has authorized the use of drone strikes against targets even when the identity of the target is not known. President Obama's authority to conduct these strikes is also in question, not that he exactly acknowledges Congressional authority anyway. The question isn't whether or not Al Qaeda in Yemen is actively a threat to the United States. They clearly are. The question isn't whether or not the Yemeni government has an issue with the strikes, they don't. The issue is why are we going to war without declaring war or at least having Congressional authorization of the action to legitimize the actions? How are Uganda and Yemen different from the illegal operations in Laos during the Vietnam war? I wonder how the Nobel committee feels about that Peace Prize they gave President I'm Not George Bush Obama. Don't get me wrong, Republicans and Democrats alike have behaved in this manner. They were and are both wrong to do so.

Environmentalists Hate the Blacks!!!

As a counterpoint to Earth Day (which I presume is the day we celebrate our victory over Mars as relayed by Orson Welles) an organization named Free Market America released this video on YouTube which attacks the environmental backlash against hydrocarbon energies such as coal and oil as the strategy which the speaker says he would take if he wished to destroy America.  It has gotten quite a lot of attention.  I doubt they could have known that just a few days after the video's release, another video would surface proving the point.  Today, video surfaced of an EPA official saying that agency's philosophy is to crucify oil and gas companies to make examples of them.  Good to know it's not personal.
I propose the only rational response is to accuse the EPA of racism, as they seem to hate the darker colored fuels, such as coal and oil.  I think that makes as much sense as a government agency determined to demonize the use of an inanimate object as a fuel.

TARP Should Have Been Named CRAP

Many on both sides of the fence, conservative and liberal, hailed the TARP program, started under President George Bush as an absolute necessity and example of when government intervention was both appropriate and good policy.  Many cited how the program would not only pay itself off as the beneficiaries of the bailout would pay back the government loans with interest.  Those of us such as libertarian leaning Congressman Ron Paul (R. TX) who believe that government intervention in the economy is pretty much universally bad were opposed to the creation of the bailout program.  As is usual, it turns out, despite a short-lived General Motors ad campaign claiming it had repaid the funds, TARP is a bit of a turkey (which is a lovely country if you're not an Armenian in the early 20th century, but don't ask President Obama about that, he's kind of vague).  The Inspector General in charge of the TARP funds announced today that $119 billion remains outstanding in TARP funds and the government expects $60 billion will never be repaid.

And that GM loan?  GM remains one of the three worst examples of the program, with the government still heavily invested in equity shares.  Maybe they should stop running those asinine Chrysler commercials that say "Imported from Detroit" reminding us all that Detroit has turned into a third world foreign nation (in my opinion due to unions and Democratic politicians).  I have no idea if what they still owe includes the TARP funds they paid back using TARP funds.  Those GM record profits and claims that President Obama saved the auto industry have less basis in reality than the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

Please President Carter, Don't Say That

If you want to know why I'm not real happy with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney being the Republican candidate for President in 2012, here it is: former President Jimmy Carter say's he  would be comfortable with a President Romney.  I can only hope Mr. Romney gets elected and disappoints Mr. Carter very deeply.

And This is Why When I Hear President Obama Refer to President Reagan I Vomit

The Washington Post routinely does fact checking on statements by political figures on a scale of 1-4 Pinocchios. President Obama, in referring to his "Buffet Rule" which would push for a minimum tax for higher income earners regardless of the source, has referred to President Reagan, claiming he advocated for the same principles and he should be able to call it the "Reagan Rule". The Post rated that statement at two Pinocchios. I think they were being generous.

Let's be clear from the start, this is all about class warfare from the jump, a concept President Reagan would be revolted by. The Buffet Rule came about from the idea that somehow billionaire investor Warren Buffet paid less federal income tax than his secretary. She was even perched in the stands next to Michelle Obama during the State of the Union speech to further illustrate the President's false premise. What is correct is that Mr. Buffett pays a lower percentage rate on his income from investment. This is know as the Capital Gains Tax. Investment income is treated differently and taxed lower than regular income because we want to encourage investment in business. It should also be noted that the invested money was taxed when it was first earned as well.

When President Reagan was talking about tax fairness, he was talking about lowering rates for every American and removing exemptions to make a simpler tax system. President Reagan's version of the Buffett Rule would likely be to lower the secretary's tax rate to the same rate as capital gains. Almost everything Reagan stood for is the exact opposite of what President Obama advocates. Listening to him invoke Reagan is like listening to an atheist try to give a speech on the necessity for God in your life.

That Security Net is Starting to Look More Like a Security Napkin...Maye a Securty Tissue

News came out today that Social Security will run dry in 2033 and Medicare will run out of funding in 2024. Forget these programs not having enough for your grandchildren, if things are left as is, you won't be seeing anything from the money you've paid in to these systems either. This is such a short period of time that current beneficiaries could see the programs go broke. Luckily, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a man who can't manage his own taxes, said that any plan that changes the programs will not receive support. Hmm...so the programs are going to go broke unless there is some sort of change, which Secretary Geithner says Democrats won't support. So I guess this means the only way Democrats will support keeping Medicare and Social Security is taxing the living hell out of everyone they can lay their hands on, and don't think taxing the rich alone can somehow save these systems even if they took 100% of everything they made over $200,000.00. Welcome to Greece, boys and girls.

Unions Making Slavery Seem Like it Wasn't All That Bad

Unions are suing to revoke the Indiana "right to work" law. As I've explained before, so-called "right to work" states have laws on the books that allow people to work in unionized industries without being forced to join the union. Sane people ask why there needs to be a law to say a person cannot be forced by another person to join a union. The union says that they are enslaved by these laws. Confused? You should be. Unions are arguing in the lawsuit that, because they negotiate wages on behalf of the workers, the people who aren't forced into the union are getting those services for free, which means that the unions are slaves under the 13th Amendment. Let that soak in. The union is arguing that if they cannot force employees to join their organization and give them the fruits of their labor in dues, that the union is being enslaved.

If you're not laughing yet, you're like me, still stunned at the pure illogic of the argument. I mean, if someone argued that they were being enslaved because they were forced to work for a union, I could kind of see that argument, because they are having their labor taken in the form of dues without any choice in the matter. But that's still a stretch. The union argument is like the slave owner claiming that his slaves force him to own a plantation against his will. Unions had a purpose once, and it was good. Now they are just a quasi-governmental organization that thinks other people's money belongs to them simply so that they can perpetuate their own existence. After all, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, makes eight times what the average worker does ($200,000-$300,000 a year since 2003 according to a union watchdog) all while making a living complaining about CEO salaries. I strongly suspect that salary is not his sole source of income either.

One to Watch

In these days of conservative cries for fiscal discipline and a return to Constitutional principles, many forego some of the international bodies that just don't work. My personal want is for the United States to withdraw funding from the United Nations and remove all troop support and ambassadors to that organization. Why we give money to a group that lets murderous dictators have a platform to address the world, ranting for hours on end (e.g. Khaddafi, Amhadinajad) is beyond me.

In that spirit, I would like to introduce the reader to Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R. WA). Ms. Rodgers has introduced legislation to revoke the $100 billion dollars pledged to the International Monetary Fund in 2009. This is not the knee jerk reaction of some Tea Party candidate as many liberals would assume. Ms. Rodgers is a 4th term Congresswoman from one of the most liberal states in the U.S. (though the Eastern portion, where her district is, is considerably less so than say, Seattle, or, as they like to think of themselves, New Leningrad). She is concerned with the lack of openness and transparency at the IMF. She also understands that continued borrowing and spending of governments is impeding economic recovery. This makes Ms. Rodgers someone to keep an eye on for the future, even though it is difficult to come to national prominence through the House of Representatives.

Damn the 1%

Ever since the Occupy Wall Street idiocy, the national lexicon has come to refer to the 99% (supposedly the poor and middle class) versus the 1% (the evil people who are wealthy). The Obama campaign is, of course, delighted by this kind of class warfare, it is what they eat and breathe. At a recent campaign appearance to pander to students by offering them money, President Obama noted that he "was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth" and that someone had to give him an education. Whether or not the comment was meant to be a dig at Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (the White House says it wasn't, but then, they say a lot of things that don't quite pass the smell test), it is clearly playing class warfare. As for someone having to give President Obama an education, that's probably the most honest I've heard him be, because he certainly didn't earn the education he received. From everything I've seen it appears he was a mediocre student at best, especially by comparison to people who get into Columbia and Harvard. But I digress...

I wonder if Democrats would be so quick to criticize the supposed 1% if we attach some names to them. John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. All were born into wealth from a family of insane riches. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was from a similarly wealthy family. George Washington. The first president and arguably the greatest American in history (recently voted the staunchest foe in the history of the British Empire) may also have been the wealthiest man to ever serve as President. Surely President Obama and his campaign would acknowledge that these wealthy men were too wealthy to understand the plight of the common man and woman in the United States and, as such, unqualified to serve in public office. Right?

That Pesky Constitution

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) announced that she is in favor of a plan being advanced by Democrats that finally takes the progressive extreme left out of the closet regarding their hatred of the Constitution. Democrats are so offended that corporations can give political donations now (because it means Republicans might be able to raise money similar to the kind of money Democrats have always gotten from unions) that they want to alter the First Amendment. Feel free to read that again and get a rag to wipe up whatever you just spit out. Democrats want to essentially amend the First Amendment so that they can regulate (i.e. stop) corporate speech.

The thing that scares Democrats most is that they can't win a straight argument. They have to change the subject, drown the argument or stop it all together. Because, in the end, conservative Constitutionalism wins hands down every time it is presented on equal footing. They claim there is a problem with the anonymous nature of the donors. That doesn't take an amendment to the Constitution to fix, that takes a statute to require disclosure. One that would likely gain bipartisan support no less. As soon as the names are out, they will demonize the donors, digging up every piece of dirt they can find on them, just like they did when Joe the Plumber spoke out in 2008. This isn't about disclosure, it's about silence. Ms. Pelosi is just another petty bully, insecure in her beliefs, knowing that in a straight fight, she will lose. So much for that oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Today's Recommended Reading

Ann Coulter, always funny, always controversial, always insightful, and while you can disagree with her opinions, her history and facts are dead on.

And If I Refuse, Mr. Bond?

Senate Democrats, specifically Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D. NV), have refused to pass a budget now for three years. Actually, they've refused to even propose one. The only Democratic budget proposals have been President Barack Obama's ludicrous budgets which I can only assume have been an attempt at humor. The last one was voted down without a single vote in favor. Meanwhile, this refusal to propose a budget runs deep. Outgoing Senator Kent Conrad (D. ND),Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, had the strange idea that he would introduce a budget to be marked up for debate based on the Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations. Not so fast, mister! Senator Ried stepped in and killed the idea, leaving Senator Conrad to plead indirectly to his own party leader for permission to bring a bill in his own committee.

Senate Democrats have been deathly afraid of unveiling a budget because it would likely destroy their chances of holding the Senate and the White House. Their budget priorities are spending, their constituents are blocs they buy off with government goodies. If independents were to see through this it would likely throw the elections heavily to Republicans in November, much the way it did in 2010 when Republicans took historic gains in the House. It's amazing what a group will stoop to in order to maintain power.

Back to the Grind

Sometimes it's hard to self motivate, especially given that I write about an inherently depressing topic. In that spirit and in the hopes that it kick starts me to get back to doing this blog, especially given the coming election season, I give you this video, We're Not Young, a spoof of a son made most popular by a Chevy commercial, and a perfect capture of what it feels like to be in your 30's sometimes. Now, where's my gun? Time to get angry again and start shooting off my mouth.