Trump Jamboree

Trump Jamboree

Trump Rally Reaches New Milestone
Economy Endorses TRUMP!

Monday, December 31, 2012

Happy New Year

We hope it is!

 
First fireworks of the New Year 2013
explode over the Opera House in Sydney Australia.
Full size image here.
 
Check the Daily Mail for more as New Year's Eve around the world unfolds.

As you know the primary focus of this blog is on political issues and one cannot escape the fact that 2012 was a disappointment for me, for conservatives and for many who seek effective solutions to our nation's problems. Here's hoping 2013 will be better. I have my doubts. In the first four years of his presidency Barack Hussein Obama proved that he preferred partisan score settling to the leadership necessary to solve America's mounting problems. His attitude in the recent so-called fiscal cliff setup proved that there is every reason to believe he will continue that path.

Our nation's only chance is to hope we prosper in spite of Obama's best efforts to stymie private sector growth. The one bright spot on the horizon is growth in the energy sector, particularly natural gas development. If Republicans in Congress can forestall Obama's efforts to restrict that development in order to favor his campaign contributor's investments in more expensive green energy we might have a chance.


Motivating my thinking are the millions of Americans continue to face a New Year with grim economic prospects. For them we hold out hope.

Whatever happens over the next year you can count on Mike's America to continue the fight. For inspiration we look once again to Winston Churchill. First the British establishment tried to sideline him then the Nazis tried to silence him. Neither succeeded and his vision, leadership and strength of character made history. Let his example serve as a model as we move forward.

Let us resolve to make the most of this New Year and begin now on the long road to prepare for the day when wiser heads will prevail.
 
HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Hawaii Dems Appoint White Male to Fill Senate Vacancy

Contrast with appointment of Tim Scott in SC!

GOP War on women, war on minorities. That was the Democrat mantra from the 2012 election. No many how many excellent minority and women elected officials the GOP showcased at their convention, the big lie worked once again.

But more than words, actions count. When South Carolina needed a replacement for the retiring Senator Jim DeMint, Republican Governor Nikki Haley, a woman, a Sikh, born to first generation immigrants from India, selected Tim Scott, a black male who grew up in poverty in a single parent household to fill the vacancy.

In an article titled "A party that doesn't think with its skin" Columnist Jeff Jacoby reflected on this event with the following: "An Indian-American governor appoints an African-American to the US Senate. Man, that lily-white GOP racism never ends, does it?"

Meanwhile, to replace the deceased Senator Daniel Inouye, the son of Japanese immigrants, the Democrat governor of Hawaii choose Brian Schatz, the Lt. Governor and Democrat insider who also happens to be a white male. When it really matters, Dems keep their minorities in the back of the bus.

The only black member of the U.S. Senate is a Republican. Minority Republicans continue to hold office in white majority states and districts. Elected black Democrats represent areas that are the product of special districts created for minority representation.

The GOP continues to be the home of the ethos best expressed by the late Rev. Martin Luther King who said that blacks should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Boxing Day Briefs

As you clear away the Christmas cheer, here are a few thoughts to carry with you...

 For our British and Commonwealth friends Boxing Day is an after Christmas event. Unlike more recent inventions like Kwanza (I may start a Mike's America day) Boxing Day has a long history.
While we don't celebrate it in the U.S. I will mark the holiday with an offering of a couple of news items that have caught my attention during the holiday season.

*Gun Control agenda sidelines mental health discussion.

A Christmas editorial in the Wall Street Journal bemoans the fact that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newton, Connecticut has degenerated into the usual left wing namecalling and demands for gun control. None of which would stop the next shooter. Lost in the debate is the discussion of mental illness which is the common thread in nearly all of these horrific crimes. Dr. Torrey and Ms. Fuller of the Treatment Advocacy Center write a companion piece in the  Journal describing the problem. The Treatment Advocacy Center also keeps a database of preventable tragedies. How many more lives will be lost because a left wing political agenda which seeks to curtail the rights of lawful gun owners sucks all the political oxygen out of the room?

*Deport Piers Morgan!

Speaking of left wing name callers... CNN's Piers Morgan, who attacks and insults lawful gun owners and admits to being "gleeful" that the Newton tragedy helped him advance his anti-gun cause is upset that nearly 75,000 people have signed a petition at the White House web site demanding Morgan, a British national, be deported for his attacks on the 2nd Amendment. Funny how Morgan hides behind the 1st Amendment to protect his right to speak out yet seeks to deny others the protection of the 2nd.

By the way, a counter petition is circulating in Britain to ban his return: "We got rid of him once and why should we have to suffer again."

*Playing the Race Card while defending white man Piers Morgan

When confronted with ANY criticism, the immediate fall back position from the left is to scream "RACISM" as loud as you can. No difference in the Piers Morgan flap despite the fact that Morgan is white. Author Joyce Carol Oakes takes this absurd screed to a new low in a Tweet comparing the petition to deport Morgan to "the blood-bonding ...of Southern lynch mobs, crucified Negroes."

*Petition: "Gun Free Zone" for Obama?

While the White House petition to deport Piers Morgan has already passed the threshold of 25,000 votes required for action (don't expect any action to be taken unless those signatures are from Obama campaign contributors) a new petition has just gotten started. The kicker? " If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians." But don't worry. Libs will make sure they have armed protection even if the rest of us do not.

*Egypt "definitely worse than under the old regime"

Illegal detentions, beatings, a breakdown in the judicial system are the first bitter taste of the what is in store for Egyptians who do not share the Muslim Brotherhood's zeal for imposing Shariah Law on the country. A Christian critical of the Brotherhood? You go to jail for insulting Islam. Richard Spencer, writing from Cairo for the Daily Telegraph has the story. Have a grudge against a neighbor? Accuse him, or her, of insulting Islam and off to jail with mandatory beatings! Things are likely to get much worse!

*Careful what you order!

After the big Christmas dinner you might consider giving the cook a night off. Why not visit a nice restaurant for your Boxing Day feast? Just be careful what you order.

The Daily Mail examines menus in restaurants in Asia which have been translated, badly, into English. Examples like "Nausea sauce pork," or "Half grilled chicken & herpes" might not be what you had in mind. My favorite is Tomato and egg noddles with "smell of urine."

As Julia Child would say "bon appétit!"

UPDATE: Strict gun laws don't prevent gun crime

A great article in Thursday's Wall Street Journal examines the experience in Australia and Britain where gun control laws are much more strict than in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the author found that taking away the guns from law abiding citizens made them more vulnerable to criminals who were not constrained by the law. The image of a mass shooting going on in one English village for EIGHT HOURS because no one, not even law enforcement, had the means to stop it!

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Holiday Fun with the Christmas Carol Puzzle

The most popular image at Mike's America!

Every year the various Christmas Carol Puzzle postings here get thousands of page views. More than all the other posts into which so much hard work goes but what the heck.

Here's the puzzle in case you missed it. The answers and more puzzles here.


xmasgame

Merry Christmas
from Mike's America!
 
 
P.S. There appears to be a problem with comment system at the present time. The "Intense Debate" service I have been using for many months now has become less than reliable. So no, I'm not ignoring you! Keep your fingers crossed it fixes itself without a major redo on this end.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Liberal Racists Leap on Tim Scott Appointment to U.S. Senate

Imagine the news headlines if Tea Partiers said this about Obama!

Last week I was proud to urge that my Congressman Tim Scott be appointed by South Carolina Governor Niki Haley to replace Senator Jim DeMint who is leaving the U.S. Senate to become President of the Heritage Foundation. Scott is a solid conservative who has served his constituents well and can be counted on to represent the wishes of conservative voters who elected DeMint.

Predictably, some of the left, no doubt including many who instantly accuse Republicans of being racist for opposing Obama's policies, jumped to Twitter to post overtly racist messages. Twitchy has the rundown. Among this sewer of left wing hate are tweets calling Scott "Uncle Tim," "House Negro," "Token Negro," "Uncle Ruckus" and more.

Imagine the news headlines you would see if Tea Partiers went ballistic with racial epithets directed at Obama. But you are not likely to see any of this in so-called "mainstream media" reporting.

Another of the inflammatory comments suggested that Scott is "black only in skin color." Yet, Tim Scott rose up from poverty in a single parent home where his mother worked 16 hours a day to keep the family going. His upbringing taught him the life lessons which led him to become a successful small businessman before entering politics. He knows that government isn't the answer to elevating black Americans trapped in poverty. He knows because he's lived it. And that's exactly why he's being attacked today!



Saturday, December 15, 2012

Christmas Horror in Connecticut

Predictably the Left seeks to politicize tragedy with anti-gun agenda while avoiding any accountability for the culture of violence THEY promote!

And as usual, focus on the REAL problem of mental health gets lost!

How many times have we been down this road? Some horrific gun crime occurs and rather than focus on the breakdown in mental health and community services which might have prevented the crime the left immediately goes bonkers for more gun control.

Would more gun laws have prevented the horror at the Newton, Connecticut school? Nope. Connecticut already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. The guns used in this unspeakable horror were legally purchased by the shooter's mother who is among the victims.

The school itself is a gun free zone but laws about guns don't stop deranged shooters intent on mass murder do they? Had someone at the school been armed this tragedy might never have occurred.

Take away the guns say the Left. Really? You think that would work? Even if you could assure that all the guns were exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officers there is nothing to stop a would be killer from creating a bomb or chemical weapon to do the job. We have laws against those too. On the same day as the Connecticut shooting a knife wielding lunatic slashed 22 children at a school in central China. Ban cutlery next?

Democrats talk about "exploiting" the tragedy to promote gun laws that everyone knows will not solve the problem. It's the same idiotic attitude that causes them to demand tax hikes on the rich knowing that it won't do more than put a small dent in the deficit problem.

Then there's the usual Hollywood crowd who leapt to their Twitter devices to hammer out demands for gun control. But don't you DARE suggest to any of them that violent films, music or video games might play a role in unhinging a fragile mind. Nope... The Hollywood crowd stands firm on their First Amendment rights. It's the Second Amendment they want to do away with.

And Obama got into the act by calling for "meaningful action" to prevent such tragedies. He precedes that plea by listing other recent tragedies such as those at "a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago." Never once does he or any Democrat allude to mental health or culture of violence issues which underlie that carnage. Nope.. it's guns, guns and guns. But why solve a problem when it comes in so handy for promoting a political agenda!

And did anyone ever stop to think that unhinged minds like the Connecticut shooter might see examples of violence coming directly from the left? Just this week we had another violent assault by Labor Union thugs in Michigan. Steven Crowder, who was assaulted in the melee has had to hire private security to protect his family. Union thugs now threaten to go to the school of the Governor's daughter and disrupt a soccer game.

It's no wonder gun sales are skyrocketing with Obama's re-election. On the one hand you have Democrats threatening to take away our guns and on the other you have them threatening to kill us and doing nothing about the mental health and cultural disease that causes tragedies like the Newton shooting to occur with greater frequency during the Obama era.

As I said following the Tucson shooting that left six dead and former Congresswoman Giffords damaged for life, we need to focus on the mental health aspects of this type of crime, not the tools by which perpetrator carries out the evil act. Failure to do so means we will continue to see more shootings, bombings, stabbings, or poisonings like the horror in Newton!

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Republicans in Michigan Legislature Vote to Free Workers from Union Slavery

And once again, violence from Democrat Union thugs is the predictable response!

White House refuses to  condemn the violence?

On Tuesday, the Republican controlled legislature in Michigan passed a Right to Work law that reflected the result of a referendum vote in November. The legislation, signed into law on Wednesday by Governor Snyder (R) allows workers the freedom to work at a job without being forced to join a union. Hitherto, if you wanted a job in a company with collective bargaining you had to join the union and pay dues. Your wages were confiscated by the union for purposes beyond your control. In short, you were a slave to the union and your labor was not voluntary.

It's a great arrangement for unions. It gives them a steady supply of funds that goes to fund the lavish lifestyles of union bosses who make big six figure salaries. It's also a great arrangement for Democrats who rely on millions in forced contributions. In return, Democrats use taxpayer funds to support the unions and the cycle repeats. It's no wonder we have a runaway spending problem.

Naturally, any change in that corrupt arrangement is a threat to Democrats and union bosses. So, the result in Michigan was predictable. Supporters of the Right to Work law were beset by union thugs on Tuesday and Wednesday. Their goal, to intimidate those who support the law and silence opponents. Violence is their tool.

Tuesday, Union goons knocked down a tent that was sheltering the law's supporters from the cold fall weather injuring some inside. They then proceeded to vandalize the tent by cutting pieces of it for "souvenirs." The fascists also destroyed a hot dog stand operated by a black man. Racists?

But the worst came when Steven Crowder, a journalist with PJ Media asked the fascist goons why they were behaving that way. For his trouble, he was physically assaulted. There are multiple videos of the violent scene. Here's a screen capture of one thug throwing a wild punch at Crowder who is attempting to shield himself:

Photobucket

You never saw any kind of violence like this at a Tea Party event. Unless it was fascist union goons showing up to beat another black man at the scene.


When Rush Limbaugh called birth control activist Sandra Fluke a bad word Obama took to the microphones to condemn Rush and called Fluke to offer his support.  When union thugs went wild destroying property and assaulting supporters of Michigan's right to work law, Obama is silent. Democrats played up the Fluke episode into their War on Women campaign theme. Do we now have evidence of a clear war on democracy from Obama's fascist labor thugs?

Welcome to Obama's America where fascist union goons are free to assault you and deny your freedom of speech and right to participate in the democratic process free of intimidation. It's no wonder gun sales spiked following Obama's re-election!

Sunday, December 09, 2012

Tim Scott for U.S. Senate

The replacement for Sen. Jim DeMint needs to be an unassailable conservative!

Photobucket
Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC)

Senator Jim DeMint is leaving the U.S. Senate to take over the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington next year which means South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley must appoint someone to fill the remainder of DeMint's term which expires in 2016.

South Carolina voters elected DeMint to be their conservative champion in the Senate and his replacement should honor their wishes. I can think of no one better than Tim Scott.

I proudly cast my vote for Tim as my Congressional Representative last month and would be only too happy to see him represent me in the U.S. Senate.

Like so many other black Republicans, Tim's story is an inspirational one for all Americans. He grew up in poverty in North Charleston in a single parent household. His mother worked 16 hours a day to keep the family together.

Tim worked his way up through the SC GOP circles and was first elected to Congress in 2010 with a wave of Tea Party support. He won re-election this year with 62% of the vote. He's a solid conservative with a 96% rating from the American Conservative Union.

South Carolina voters could count on Scott to continue the conservative traditions of Jim DeMint. And Scott, who has already demonstrated leadership potential in the House of Representatives would bring a fresh perspective to the Senate.

Perhaps what I would look forward to most is that Scott could criticize Obama without being called a racist. In fact, we could turn the tables on Democrats. When they go after Scott, as they surely would, we can point out that by their own rules that makes THEM racists. Oh the fun we could have!

TIM SCOTT FOR SENATE!

Obama's Arms for Hostages for Al Queda Scandal

Another scandal the press will sweep under the rug to protect their affirmative action President!

Remember the Arms for Hostages scandal that almost brought down the Reagan Administration? It was a big deal. Every day the press hammered home questions which the White House was unable to avoid. What followed was a Special Prosecutor and a slew of indictments and resignations. But all that happened because the media doggedly would not let the story go.

Just the opposite seems to happen whenever the Obama Administration is implicated in scandal.

Now, a month after the election we learn that weapons intended to help the rebels in Libya to defeat Khaddafi  fell into the hands of radical Islamist or Al Queda affiliated groups in Libya.

Could it be that this is the reason Obama has tried so hard to stonewall the investigation into the September 11th attack in Libya? Was he afraid the arms he authorized were used in the attack? We may never know since the same media that pounced on Reagan won't hold their hero accountable to the same standard. It's almost as if they don't think Obama is capable of meeting the standard of past presidents. What did George Bush say about the "soft bigotry of low expectations?"

Egpypt's Morsi is Destryong Egypt in Service to a Corrupt, Radical Ideology

Remind you of anyone else?

The violence continues in Egypt as the legitimate democratic movement remains under violent siege from the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood led by Egypt's President Morsi. Illegal detention and torture are now the rule. All for the sake of turning Egypt into another cesspool of terrorism and hate like Iran.

Who else would run roughshod over principled, democratic opposition for the sake of a radical ideology?


Friday, December 07, 2012

Senate Democrat Leader Blocks Vote on Obama Fiscal Proposal

And they say Republicans are obstructing Obama's agenda?

If you needed another example (you didn't really did you?) that Democrats are not seriously looking to solve the nation's fiscal problems but are merely posturing for political gain, here you go.

On Wednesday, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell offered to have a vote on Obama's proposal to end the fiscal crisis. This is the same proposal that has trillions in new taxes and grants Obama unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling. McConnell offered the vote to see how many Democrats would support it.

But Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid refused to allow the vote. He called the move a "political stunt." But isn't that exactly what Obama's proposal is? It's likely that Obama's proposal would get few if any votes in the same way the Senate rejected Obama's budget proposal by a unanimous 97-0 vote in May.

Refusal to bring Obama's fiscal plan for a vote leaves Obama free to continue demonizing Republican opposition and the class warfare rhetoric that substitutes for sound policy or honest negotiation with opponents.

Senate Democrats also know that passing Obama's plan, even if the House went along with it and Obama signed it would not solve the problem. Even if Obama taxed the rich at 100% of taxable income it would barely be enough to cover the deficit for one year. And you can only take 100% of income once. After that the Golden Goose is dead and what do you do?
Even a 100% tax on those making more than $200,000 wouldn't solve the fiscal problem.


Obama has rejected GOP plans which would raise revenues but keep tax rates the same. Obama insists on raising tax rates. Period! It doesn't matter that such increases lower revenue.

Photobucket

Obama's plan has been exposed as a purely political and designed to be used to attack Republicans but not to solve the fiscal crisis. Obama is more than happy to return to this "fiscal cliff" again and again as long as it pays a political dividend to him. Meanwhile, the American people continue to suffer economically as a result!

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

34,000,000 More Reasons ObamaCare is Bad for America

When the cost of your pizza goes up to pay for this legislative malpractice, thank the Democrats!

Remember when then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the great intellectual  heavyweight of the Democrat Party said we had to "pass the bill [ObamaCare] to find out what is in it"? A bill with over 2,000 pages and Democrats made sure to rush it through before anyone, even Congressman voting on it, had a chance to read it.

Ever since then we've been learning more and more about what is in it. The bottom line: it's a jobs killer that will decrease the quality and availability of health care at the same time the cost of what care is available will go up.

And it's loaded with the kind of absolute governmental stupidity that only a Democrat could love.

Take this for example: under the new health care law a pizza restaurant will have to post detailed nutritional information for every possible combination of it's menu offerings. To a business like Dominoes Pizza it's calculated to be 34,000,000 nutritional statements. The cost for having this information at each store would be close to $5,000.

Grocery stores, which now offer a range of ready to eat items would also be slapped with new requirements adding a $billion in costs that will have to be passed on to consumers.

This is on top of businesses who are laying off workers or raising prices to avoid the most crippling aspects of ObamaCare's regulatory strangulation.

Bad politics makes bad law. And Nancy Pelosi and Democrats who rushed ObamaCare through without due consideration to the consequences are to blame for the lost jobs, higher costs of food and other products. Not to mention higher taxes and less available health care!

Democrats the Expert on Racist Politics

What started before the Civil War continues today. And blacks are STILL in the chains of poverty and oppression as clients of the Democrat Party!

If you haven't seen the film "Lincoln" you should. It's a good reminder about the racist roots of today's Democrat Party. And who can forget that following the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan was dubbed the "terrorist arm of the Democrat Party!" And of course we cannot forget that not only did Republicans end slavery but we also were the champions of civil rights legislation in the 20th Century.

Not that this stops Democrats from trying to revise their own history and tar Republicans with the racist brush at every available opportunity. Another of those opportunities came this week as MSNBC's Chuck Todd describes how a "very smart White House aide" told him that 'with this Republican, with the way politics of Washington are today, there'd still be slavery.'"

And that racist statement is mild compared to the racebaiting that Democrats do on an almost daily basis. Oppose ObamaCare? You're a racist. Oppose Obama's massive tax increases and runaway spending? You're a racist. The bottom line, if you are an elected Republican and are unwilling to rubberstamp whatever Pharaoh Obama demands, you are racist.

Same with any criticism of the corruption and incompetence of his Administration. Case in point, the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. Victory Davis Hanson picks up the story:
But in the era of Obama, almost everything can be connected to race. So it was not long before the Black Caucus, the Washington Post, and liberal columnists alleged that racism and sexism drove Rice’s neo-Confederate detractors. President Obama, in his now-accustomed Skip Gates/Trayvon Martin posturing mode, also did his best to inflame the tensions, as he dared critics to come after him instead, as if they were bullies out to pick on a vulnerable black woman — and as if the president himself had not hidden behind Rice, throwing her into the public arena in the first place and then refusing to offer any details of his own reaction to the attacks that might have fulfilled his taunt by redirecting scrutiny onto himself.

There is sexism and racism in l’affaire Rice — but sadly it is all originating from the Obama administration and its supporters. First, having a woman or a minority as secretary of state has been accepted as the new normal for over a decade. Indeed, we have not seen a white male in the office since Warren Christopher stepped down in January 1997. Over that period, Bush’s first secretary of state, Colin Powell, was ridiculed by liberal critics for his misleading testimony about weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the Iraq War; I don’t recall him alleging racism. Vocal liberal senators tore into Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, during her confirmation hearings; throughout her tenure, she was subjected to venomous criticism over her role in the Iraq War. Was Senator Barbara Boxer, who mercilessly grilled her, a racist? A disinterested observer over the last decade would conclude that the chief critics of black and female secretaries of state have been liberal Democrats — with no countervailing criticism of them from the Black Caucus, the Washington Post, or the Democratic party. Note in that regard that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left the Bush administration under vicious liberal criticism — although not quite as harsh as the vitriol directed at Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Again, their critics were not tarred with allegations of racism or anti-Latino bias.

For all the president’s condescending talk daring Rice’s critics to come after him instead, we should note that Rice herself apparently welcomes being in the arena. Here is what she undiplomatically remarked about potential critics in an interview for a book earlier this year: “People know not to mess with me. And if they haven’t learned, and they try, then they will learn.”
As Hanson points out, Rice is no wilting wallflower that needs a man, even a white man, to protect her. But if it suits the narrative and the political agenda she is apparently happy to be portrayed as the victim. Should someone of such weak character be Secretary of State?

Hanson also points out, as I have done, that Democrats used very personal and vicious attacks against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Also, judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada were vilified. Never once did the worrywarts currently screaming "RACIST" against Republican criticism of Rice or Obama make a peep when Republicans were the targets. Just the opposite. Many of the same people who now see a Klansman with a burning cross behind every Republican were leading the charge against minorities in the Bush Administration.

And are Democrats who urged defeat of Republican congressional candidates like Allen West and Mia Love racist for doing so? Perhaps not. But then why do these same people accuse Republicans of being racist by pointing to the fewer number of blacks in the GOP congressional delegation?

I suppose it doesn't do much good to point all this out again. Those who are in the know don't need further convincing that Democrats use race for political gain. And racist Democrats who engage in these tactics have no moral principles to be upset by such obvious hypocrisy. But like the other big liberal lies like global warming, this one seems sure to keep coming back for more so document it we must!

Friday, November 30, 2012

Obama Continues to Fail Leadership Test as Fiscal Proposals are Yet Another Political Stunt

UPDATE: Obama rejects GOP $4.6 trillion deficit reduction package! GOP leaders put forward a plan that would have solved the problem without raising taxes. Since Democrats insist on playing class warfare games and would soak the rich (which wouldn't generate enough money to matter) the issue remains at a stalemate. Democrats insist their plan of massive tax increases is "balanced" but with no evidence of any seriousness for real spending reduction.

Once again, Obama's attitude is do it my way or else!

Someone needs to tell him that the campaign is over. It's time to govern; if he knows how!

Here we go again. Another fiscal crisis which is nothing more than the last fiscal crisis kicked down the road past the election. And once again, as in all the other so-called crises, Obama fails to step up to the challenge of presidential leadership. Instead we are entering another round of mendacious campaign speeches in which he paints GOP principles featuring lower spending and job creation as tax cuts for the rich and accuses them of wanting to poison the air and water and let old people and children die. At the start of his latest round of campaigning Obama said that Republicans want to take away Christmas for the Middle Class. He told one group that if the GOP plan is adopted “That’s sort of like the lump of coal you get for Christmas. That’s a Scrooge Christmas.” Does that sound like the kind of presidential leadership that will bring both sides together for a deal?

In the opening salvo of this latest barrage of Obama's continuing divisive and partisan assault he put forward a plan that is so obviously designed to offend good sense that many believe he wants the talks to fail. Obama's plan is loaded with billions in new spending on Democrat goodies with any talk of cuts put off until next year and no guarantee that any will be made. Obama is also demanding the biggest tax increase in American history. But the most obvious non starter is a demand that Congress relinquish power to control the debt ceiling and hand that over to Obama. It would be like giving the bank robber the combination to the vault! If this is the "balanced" approach Obama's aides keep talking about then they are more incompetent than we thought.

Fortunately for Obama he won't have to explain to Americans how a deal to avert fiscal disaster is instead a vehicle for more of the wasteful spending that got us into the mess in the first place. He can count on an affirmative action news media that will be all too happy to ignore the spending and go after Republicans for playing "Scrooge" at Christmas. And if Republicans walk away Obama knows he can paint them as the problem and get away with it.

At the Wall Street Journal Kimberly Strassel made some good observations:

This Unserious White House
The president makes the GOP a fiscal-cliff offer he knows they will refuse.
By Kimberly Strassel
Wall Street Journal
November 29, 2012

...
How to put this tax-and-more-spending offer in perspective? It is far in excess of what the Democrats asked for in last year's debt-limit standoff—when the political configuration in Washington was exactly the same. It is far more than the president's own Democratic Senate has ever been able to pass, even with a filibuster-proof majority. It is far more than the president himself campaigned on this year.

But the president's offer is very much in keeping with his history of insisting that every negotiation consist of the other side giving him everything he wants. That approach has given him the reputation as the modern president least able to forge a consensus.

Mr. Obama's tendency to campaign rather than lead, to speechify rather than negotiate, has already defined this lame-duck session. The president has wasted weeks during which a framework for a deal has been in place.

Within two days of the election, Mr. Boehner had offered an enormous compromise, committing the GOP to provide new tax revenue, through limits on deductions for the wealthy. Mr. Obama campaigned on making "the rich" pay more—and that is exactly what Mr. Boehner agreed to give him.

All that was left for the president to do was accept this peace offering, pair it with necessary spending cuts, and take credit for averting a crisis. Mr. Obama has instead spent the past weeks campaigning for tax-rate hikes. He wants the revenue, but collected only the way he chooses. And on the basis of that ideological insistence alone, the nation is much closer to a crisis.

Talks that had been at a standstill may now crumble, thanks to the Geithner-Nabors proposal. The president is boxing in the Republicans—offering them a deal they cannot accept, a deal they can't even be seen to be treating seriously. Mr. Boehner is legitimately interested in a bargain that will set the country on sounder footing. Yet the most immediate outcome of such an open slap from the White House will be to make even those Republicans who were willing to cut a deal harden their positions. Someone get the White House a copy of "Negotiating Tactics for Dummies."
What Strassel and others have figured out is that Obama really doesn't want a deal. He's unable or unwilling to break free from campaign mode and act as an honest negotiator in the national interest. And since we know the affirmative action media will continue to cover up for his failings, there's no reason he should change. Americans will continue to suffer economically as a result!

Democrats were FOR the Filbuster before they were AGAINST it!


Senate Majority Leader seeks to overturn Senate traditions and weaken constitutional checks and balances!

In late 2007 I was invited to a small house party to meet Sen. John McCain a few months prior to his winning the South Carolina presidential primary which set him on the path to become the GOP nominee for President in 2008. In the question and answer session which followed his remarks I asked him about conservative criticism of some of his actions in the U.S. Senate.

One of the points I raised was criticism of McCain’s participation in the Gang of 14 which offered Democrats a deal on President Bush’s judicial nominations and put off any further talk of the so-called “nuclear option” of doing away with the filibuster of Judicial nominees. Democrats had blocked conservative black and Hispanic nominees (but we can’t call them racist?) and the deal cleared the way for some, but not all, to proceed.

McCain defended his position to me by stating that you wouldn’t want Democrats to do the same to us when they control the Senate and have a Democrat in the White House. Now Democrats do have a Democrat in the White House and retained control of the Senate and guess what? Now that their power is secure they are moving forward to limit the minority power to filibuster. Just what McCain said we would fear had Republicans changed the rules in 2005.

Of course it doesn’t matter that Harry Reid, when he was Minority Leader, called Republican plans for filibuster reform “illegal.” Dems have no problem changing the rules and changing their talking points. No doubt none of their supporters, or media acolytes will remember much less care.

So, here’s a little reminder of what Dems thought of the filibuster reform when they were in the minority. It starts with then Senator Obama talking about how such a plan would only make the partisan bickering in Washington worse. I guess that’s no longer a concern…


I'm tempted to write Senator McCain a letter and remind him of our exchange in 2007 and wonder whether he might wish to revise his earlier remarks in light of what is happening.

Also, for those who suggest that this move is a good thing because the GOP would retain the filibuster ban once we retake the Majority don't fool yourselves. The minute the GOP retakes control of the Senate we can expect a media drumbeat demanding a return to the "fair and democratic" traditions of the Senate. And I'll bet our side falls for it!

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Benghazi Cover Up Continues

UN Ambassador Susan Rice's emergence from the shadows does not quell the mystery of who did what, when, why and how!


Readers will recall that the Obama Administration put UN Ambassador Susan Rice forward as the Administration spokesperson on all five Sunday news programs in the wake of the September 11th attacks that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya. Her selection was a curious choice given that Obama later claimed Ms. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Still, out Rice went and repeated the now debunked fiction that the attack in Libya was a direct result of a protest gone bad and that any claim it was a terrorist act on 9/11 was unfounded.

In the wake of that whooper the Administration has fallen all over itself to either change the story or attack those who dare to ask questions. Particularly obnoxious was the charge by elected Democrats that criticism of Rice was sexist and racist. Funny, but I bet they didn't say the same thing when their side was attacking Condi Rice throughout the Bush Administration.

Ambassador Rice went to Capitol Hill to meet with senior Republicans who would be called on to review her qualifications if Obama nominates her to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The meetings did not go well. Since any comment from white males would be sexist and racist, I point readers only to the comments of Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Sen. Collins said she was "“troubled [Rice] decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of a contentious presidential election campaign."

Both Collins and Ayotte said that many unanswered questions remained about the Administration's handling of this issue. Sen. Ayotte summed what what many GOP leaders, not just white males, believe is the problem when she said "We are disturbed by the Administration's continued inability to answer even the most basic questions about the Benghazi attack and the Administration's response."

But apparently the White House, still in campaign mode, does not share those concerns. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was "not particularly concerned" if Rice's original presentation was misleading. Carney went on to say that "there are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearances on Sunday shows, and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community, those questions have been answered."

Seriously?

And Obama has stated that  "We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information."

Yet with all that information the White House claims to have provided, we still do not know why Ambassador's Chris Stevens' requests for more security were ignored. We don't know whether Obama actually ordered any relief to the besieged consulate as he claimed. And we don't know who changed the intelligence assessment that Susan Rice used for talking points in spreading the myth to the American people that an Internet video was to blame for all this.

That last bit is becoming the biggest farce of all. Fingers keep getting pointed in all directions with the story changing hourly. First it's the CIA's fault. Then the FBI. Then some vague interagency process. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News, in a story that like the rest of the Benghazi cover up won't see much, if any, airtime, describes the sad farce in detail.

Will we ever know the truth about what happened and why in this sad episode? That's unlikely as long as the news media blackout which protects Obama remains in place. It's also a shame that Mitt Romney let the matter drop during the campaign. But then, had he continued to raise the issue he would have been accused of being a racist and a sexist.

 What we do know with absolute certainty is that four Americans, including our Ambassador, are dead and that the Obama Administration is either incompetent, corrupt or both!

Monday, November 26, 2012

Egypt's Morsi Grants Himself Dictatorial Power

Another nail in the coffin as Egypt takes a giant step towards becoming another Iran!

The Obama Administration was so eager to get rid of longtime Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak. As the Arab Spring came to Egypt two years ago hardly a day went by when Obama didn't head to the microphones and demand Mubarak's ouster. When he finally got his wish, he hailed it as a new era of freedom, democracy and peace in the Middle East.

Many warned that the Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings to take over from the democracy activists who gullible journalists presented as the face of a new Egypt. We were told that the Brotherhood were not so bad and that fears of an Islamic dictatorship in the world's largest Arab country were unfounded.

But as the Muslim Brotherhood pushed aside secular democracy activists we've seen one act after another which indicates the true intentions that many warned about all along. Last week, the latest, and perhaps the biggest shoe to drop came when President Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that his decisions were no longer subject to legal challenge. This is a power that Hosni Mubarak could only have dreamed of possessing. Morsi also declared that there could be no challenge to the decisions of a committee drawing up a new constitution.

With no ability to challenge the new constitution, Morsi's power grab lays the foundation for an Islamist dictatorship in Egypt very similar to Iran.

Morsi claims that these powers will be "temporary," but history shows that once a leader grabs absolute power he cannot give it up without also surrendering his life. At least when Hitler declared himself "Fuhrer" in Germany, he didn't  lie about the measure being temporary.

Less than four years after Obama took office we find the Middle East on fire and in political disarray with all indicators pointing to a future that is not in the interests of the United States and peace. Obama's failure of leadership is much to blame. God forbid the damage that he will do in the next four years. Oh well, when that dark future arrives don't say we didn't warn you!


UPDATE: Con Coughlin at the Daily Telegraph (UK) examines the parallels between Morsi's radicalization of Egypt and that of Iran's path to extremism. Only one thing Couglin missed. The parallels between a naïve, weak president named Jimmy Carter and the same in Barack Obama.failed  U.S. policy aided both Iran and Egypt's turn to radicalism.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Study Reveals Massive Favorable Media Coverage for Obama in Last Week Before Election

This won't come as any surprise!

So, Obama's out there making gaffe after gaffe on his post-election tour of Southeast Asia. Did you hear about any of that on the nightly news? No, but you recall that when Mitt Romney made his overseas visit last summer, every misstep was highlighted and amplified.

In the last week of the campaign, this trend continued:
Now for something that will surprise not one bit of the mass of mainstream media critics out there. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism has found that President Obama enjoyed a “surge” in positive coverage over the last week of his campaign against Mitt Romney.

From the study:
During this final week, from October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points. A week earlier, negative coverage of Obama had exceeded positive by 13 points. The final week of the campaign marked only the second time in which positive stories about Obama outnumbered negative dating back to late August.
So how did Romney fare during this period? Negative stories drubbed positive ones, according to the researchers, by a margin of 33 percent to 16 percent.

Not only did Obama edge Romney on the positive-negative front, he was also beating him on volume, kind of like a Multimedia Costco. During that final week, the president tallied an 80 percent mark of news articles in which he had a “significant presence,” according to the study; Romney reached that level in just 62 percent of articles.

The same media blacked out ANY coverage of the Benghazi attack in the final week of the campaign and has been reluctant to cover it since.

We have an affirmative action media that protects Obama and Democrats and trumpets the deficiencies of Republicans. If the playing field of news reporting and cultural transmission were truly equal, there's no question that Republicans would win every time. No wonder Democrats spend so much time attacking Fox News and Talk Radio!

UPDATE: NBC Anchor: "Safe" to talk about jobs now that Obama won.

Want an example of how the news media covers up for Obama? Here's a good one:
Two days after the national election on November 6, Brian Williams — anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News -— made a peculiar comment during that Thursday's edition of Rock Center, the network's prime time news program.

“With the election now over, it is once again safe to talk abut the economy and jobs. Now that it is not a campaign issue, it's back to reality,”
he stated despite the fact that he had regularly discussed the topic during the campaign in a manner that always favored President Obama.
Back to reality? Quite an admission!

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Petraeus Gives Clearer Evidence of White House Coverup on Benghazi

The American people were lied to and intelligence was altered for political motives!

In the wake of the fatal attack on our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans the Administration put forward the following line in a coordinated effort to blunt criticism in the weeks leading up to the election. Pete Wehner summarizes the Administration message:
Five days after the Benghazi massacre, Ambassador Rice went on five Sunday talk shows insisting that (a) we had “substantial security presence” at the consulate before the attack; (b) the attacks were spontaneous, not a pre-planned terrorist attack, and the result of “a small handful of heavily armed mobsters;” and (c) “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rice said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
Just one problem. Not one word of Rice's claims, echoed by every Administration mouthpiece, was right. Defending Ambassador Rice Obama on Thursday said she: "had nothing to do with Benghazi." Why then was she front and center as the Administration spokesperson?

On Friday, General David Petraeus, conveniently taken out of the picture at the Central Intelligence Agency with a sex scandal first uncovered by a woman with links to the Obama White House, testified before Congress that the initial intelligence summary provided to the Administration for talking points DID contain direct references to terrorism and Al Queda involvement in the attacks.

Neither Petraeus, nor anyone else who testified seems to know how the talking points became so distorted in a way that coincidently was less damaging politically to Obama. For instance, who was it that changed the emphasis to the internet video as the source of the attack?

Meanwhile, sources reveal that intelligence briefings for President Obama after the attack made clear references to Al Queda involvement. Yet Obama continued to downplay the terrorist angle, highlight the film and campaign with the slogan "Al Queda is on the run."

The White House coverup of this matter is classic. If they have nothing to hide then why not tell us who it was that briefed Susan Rice, Obama and other Administration officials and gave them this false information? No need to hide behind the fig leaf of an ongoing investigation if you have nothing to hide.

Altering intelligence for political purposes is a serious issue. If a Republican Administration were accused of a similar act in the wake of a terrorist attack Democrats would already be calling for a Special Prosecutor and planning his impeachment. Not so with the affirmative action President.

The sad truth of all the events before, during and after this attack will one day come out. It's just a crime that American voters were not given the full facts before the election when they might have held the Obama Administration accountable for their lies, incompetence and indifference to the growing Al Queda threat!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Kirsten Powers Exposes Obama's Sexist Coverup of Benghazi Disaster

Obama admits UN Ambassador Rice spoke for Administration but uses feigned macho outrage to continue dodging questions of what she was told to say and why!

I'm not a big fan of Kirsten Powers, the Democrat/journalist, but since she is one of the few of her profession who actually takes the Benghazi mess seriously, she's worth listening to.

Wednesday, President Obama bizarrely cast the U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, as some delicate flower the boys should stop picking on for her dissembling claims on five Sunday talk shows following the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi. But, there is no damsel in distress and Obama's paternalistic bravado in defense of a top administration official is going to come back to haunt him.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama intoned to the stenographers worshipping at his feet. The media had gathered for a rare "press conference" where Fox News' Ed Henry and ABC's Jake Tapper are usually the only ones who ever seem to ask a question that elicits anything other than filibustering presidential pabulum. (One "journalist" actually congratulated the president on his win and gushed about how she has never seen him lose an election.) Group hug!

Obviously caught up in his own silly yarn about meanie Senators and helpless U.N. Ambassadors, the President complained, "When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me."

Imagine George Bush saying that people criticized John Bolton because he was an "easy target." He wouldn't.

It's absurd and chauvinistic for Obama to talk about the woman he thinks should be Secretary of State of the United States as if she needs the big strong man to come to her defense because a couple of Senators are criticizing her.
...
But it gets much worse.

As the president expressed outrage over the atrocity of members of Congress holding administration officials accountable, he said, "I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi?"

Feast on those words for a second: The U.N. Ambassador had "nothing to do with Benghazi." At this point, the White House press corps should have flown into a frenzy, demanding to know why a person who had nothing to do with Benghazi was put on five Sunday talk shows as...the face of Benghazi!

This was an issue that had people scratching their heads the day of the Rice interviews, and plenty of questions were asked as to where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was, and why Rice was put out instead. The administration at the time acted as though there was nothing remarkable about it, even though there clearly was.

But now we know -- straight from the lips of the president of the United States -- that they sent out a person who knew "nothing" about Benghazi to explain an atrocious attack against the United States that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans serving their country abroad.

No temper tantrum from the White House on the insult of being questioned about a terror attack against the U.S. abroad would be complete without their perennial favorite: the straw man.

The conceit of Obama's argument is that people are picking on a helpless girl -- a lowly U.N. ambassador -- because they are afraid of the big bad president.

Oh, please.

President Obama, incredibly, claimed that he was "happy to have the discussion" about Benghazi.

Really?

Because every time anyone asks the president about Benghazi he claims he can't say anything because there is an investigation going on. The State Department actually said at one point that they would no longer take questions on the issue from reporters.

Senator Graham's response to the president's revelations and accusations at the press conference was exactly right: He said, "Mr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi."

The president says he is ready to talk about this? Great. We are all ears.
Don't expect any answers from Obama on Benghazi. Easier to play silly games knowing that your equally corrupt allies in what is called the "news" media will continue to cover up for you.

It's only Republican presidents who are held accountable for their mistakes. An affirmative action media will refuse to apply the same standard to Obama. Perhaps because they know he's half the man George Bush was!

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Petraeus Scandal: Obama's Get Out of Libya Free Card. Convenient and NO Coincidence

We know more about who said what in the Petraeus sex scandal than we do about the attack that killed our Ambassador and three Americans in Libya!

What's more important? A sex scandal involving a senior military figure or a foreign policy mess that was so bad that four Americans are dead as a result? It appears that to left wing journalists (are there any other kind?) the Petraeus sex scandal is a bigger threat to national security.

Senator John McCain held a press conference Wednesday in which he and other senators called for a special committee to investigate the mess in Libya. A reporter asked McCain if he didn't think that Petraeus sex scandal was more important than getting to the bottom of what happened in Libya. McCain responded: "that’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard."

PhotobucketBut this kind of willful blindness is typical of a "news" media that refuses to see the incompetence and indifference of the Obama Administration in the Libya story even as it is glaringly obvious to Americans who have been paying attention (granted, a woefully small number).

The Petraeus scandal comes made to order for a corrupt and incompetent Commander in Chief who finds it all too easy to deflect the few questions asked about Libya with this shiny new toy for the media to play with.

A perfect example of that came in Wednesday's press conference with Obama. More mentions of the Petraeus scandal than the attack in Libya. Not that it would matter. Obama avoided answering any of the very few serious questions with his usual campaign canned phrases.

The question arises whether the Petraeus scandal, and particularly the timing of it were not deliberate in a Chicago style brass knuckles attempt to silence or discredit General Petraeus. This wouldn't be the first time this bunch of Chicago thugs has used such tactics.

The corruption surrounding this Administration is as overwhelming as it was in the Watergate scandal in which no one died. The only difference is that during Watergate, the President was a Republican and the "news" media made it their mission to get the truth out. Not so with this affirmative action media protecting Obama!

Monday, November 12, 2012

59 Philadelphia Precincts and ZERO votes for Romney

Imagine the howls of "racism" if there were precincts in which Obama did not get a single vote!

The Philadelphia Inquirer has the story. It's like the stories of some third world tin pot dictatorship where the dictator always wins by a huge margin. In 59 precincts not one single vote for Romney? And you wonder why Democrats continue to oppose voter ID laws?

Maybe it was fraud. Maybe it was all those free Obama Phones that helped to buy off the black vote?

There's also the fact that GOP poll watchers were expelled from various Philly polling places. And in at least one school, an Obama mural with his campaign logo was painted on the wall of the polling place. And of course the Black Panthers were on patrol outside at least one polling place. At least this time they weren't threatening to "kill cracker babies."

Funny how Obama's Department of Justice, so concerned with suppression of the black vote, doesn't seem to bat an eye. Imagine what they would do if the Ku Klux Klan ran a polling place in Alabama!

This is fascism, Obama style. Welcome to the Thugocracy!

UPDATE: MORE FRAUD!

The turnout in those Philly precincts which voted 99% for Obama was 90%. That's 30% higher than the statewide average.

And in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland) similar 99% precinct results for Obama. And in one county, 8% more votes were cast than voter's registered. Oh well!

In both states voter id laws are either non existent or not enforced. Is it any wonder Democrats oppose such laws?

The bottom line: 400,000 votes are all that separated Mitt Romney from victory in key states. Clearly, fraud was a factor in Obama's re-election!

Hypocrisy: 2012 Obama Gets Mandate After Narrow Win. 2004: No Mandate for Bush After Narrow Win

Plus, when Dems lost in 2004 did they abandon their liberal policies? No, they doubled down. The lesson for the GOP moving forward!

It's become a cliché to state that Democrats will say anything and that truth to them is relative to who it is being spoken about. Here's yet another example"

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal found an interesting flip flop on the part of liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne last week. In a column titled "Obama’s victory should settle a bitter argument," Dionne takes the position that Obama won a mandate to do things his way and Republicans will be forced to compromise.

But eight years earlier, when Bush won re-election with a 3 point margin, this same liberal columnist declared that Bush had no mandate and that the close election meant Bush would have to compromise with Democrats.

The only thing consistent about Dionne's position is that no matter what, Republicans should compromise with Democrats. If Republicans win, they must compromise with Democrats. If Republicans lose, they must compromise with Democrats. And never, never, ever, does the same apply to Democrats. How predictable.   It's like global warming. Whether it's hot or cold it's because of global warming and the only answer is to raise taxes!

After 2004 Loss Dems Doubled Down on Liberalism

The usual left leaning handwringers in the punditocracy have been busy for a week telling Republicans they must become more like Democrats if they expect to win another national election. Many in the GOP establishment are falling for this clap trap. But many others understand that some offering this advice don't want Republicans to win and that by becoming Democrat-lite the GOP would simply become a minority party in perpetuity.

Since the 2004 election was brought up by the flip flop of E.J. Dionne, it's interesting to reflect on what Democrats thought and said when John Kerry lost that narrow election. Jonathon Last writing at the Weekly Standard has some perspective:
A week after the election, a group of African-American journalists gathered at Harvard to discuss the implications of Kerry’s loss. Summing up the meeting, the Detroit Free Press’s Rochelle Riley concluded that “it could be the end of civilization as we know it” because “Bush’s next term is not four years. It is 30 years, based on its impact.” In the Baltimore Sun, USC professor Diane Winston worried that Democrats were “ill-prepared for this new, faith-based world.” A Seattle Times columnist wrote, “after three decades of cultural and religious struggle—including a fair amount of concerted, premeditated political exploitation—the religious right is more mainstream in America than once-mainline denominations. This election confirms the influence and clout of those described by scholars as the socially conservative, theologically evangelical. They are our friends and neighbors, and unlike 18-to-29-year-olds, they vote in big numbers.” All of which led columnist Leonard Pitts to wonder, “Maybe this is where America ends. .  .  . Small wonder that everywhere I go, people are talking about moving to Canada. That’s the kind of joke you make when you no longer recognize your country.”

At the New York Times the hysteria was even more pronounced. Garry Wills called Kerry’s defeat “the day the Enlightenment went out.” Democratic operative Andrei Cherny wrote, “On Wednesday morning, Democrats across the country awoke to a situation they have not experienced since before the New Deal: We are now, without a doubt, America’s minority party.” Thomas Frank identified the Democrats’ problem as being one of perpetual weakness on the “values” subject:
Democrats still have no coherent framework for confronting this chronic complaint, much less understanding it. Instead, they “triangulate,” they accommodate, they declare themselves converts to the Republican religion of the market, they sign off on NAFTA and welfare reform, they try to be more hawkish than the Republican militarists. And they lose. And they lose again. Meanwhile, out in Red America, the right-wing populist revolt continues apace, its fury at the “liberal elite” undiminished by the Democrats’ conciliatory gestures or the passage of time.

Thomas Friedman swallowed hard and croaked that “what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don’t just favor different policies than I do—they favor a whole different kind of America. We don’t just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.”
Two years later Democrats took control of the U.S. House of Representatives and in 2008 nominated the most liberal Democrat ever as their presidential candidate and won. They didn't win because they became Republican-lite. Just the opposite.

The lesson the Democrats learned from the 2004 election is that you win by staying true to your values (such as they are). Those suggesting Republicans do the opposite are either misguided or hoping we lose again in 2014 and 2016!

Friday, November 09, 2012

Obama's Re-Election Brings Massive New Layoffs

With re-election behind him, Obama's war on business can continue unabated !

With no end in sight to Obama's business punishing policies companies are preparing to cut their losses and their jobs!

A compilation of layoff notices in the wake of Obma's re-election spells more hardship for America's workers. The list doesn't even begin to count the tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost in defense industries. Boeing is the first to announce thousands of new layoffs.

The last four years were hard enough for Americans out of work. The next four may be worse. Thanks to Obama!

UPDATE: From the Washington Post: "After Obama reelection, Murray Energy CEO reads prayer, announces layoffs:"

For the chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy, an Ohio-based coal company, the reelection of President Obama was no cause for celebration. It was a time for prayer — and layoffs.

Robert E. Murray read a prayer to a group of company staff members on the day after the election, lamenting the direction of the country and asking: “Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build.”

On Wednesday, Murray also laid off 54 people at American Coal, one of his subsidiary companies, and 102 at Utah American Energy, blaming a “war on coal” by the Obama administration.
More victims of Obama's corrupt and incompetent energy policy and his war on coal!

UPDATE 2: Restaurants to cut back worker hours to avoid ObamaCare and charge customers more to pay ObamaCare tax. Presumably many of those workers voted for Obama. Too late they will learn that bad choices have consequences!

Thursday, November 08, 2012

3rd Party Siphoned Enough Votes to Defeat Mia Love in Close Utah Election

Another vote for Obama in the U.S. House thanks to Libertarians!

Next time you hear some third party/ Libertarian type complain about the mess in Washington, remind him or her that they are partly to blame. Here's a good example. Mia Love, a bright new star who had the potential to be the first black female GOP member of Congress was defeated in a close election because a Libertarian siphoned off just enough votes for the Democrat to win.

From the L.A. Times:
With 100% of precincts reporting, 49.3% of the vote went to Matheson and 48.1% went to Love. Libertarian candidate Jim L. Vein took 2.6% of the vote, possibly contributing to Love's loss.
Libertarians have just as much an ego problem as Todd Akin, the hopelessly flawed GOP Senate candidate in Missouri who stayed in the race after making idiotic comments about rape and giving the Democrats a big win in the Senate.

Soviet Leader Josef Stalin called people like Libertarians "useful idiots." They gave the appearance of a democratic process in Soviet Russia. I prefer to call them Third Party fools. They stand on principle only to see everything they believe in overturned by Democrats!

The First Priority for Democrats in New Senate: Clamp Down on Minority Opposition

And they say Republicans would lead us to a one party fascist state?

What is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT-NV)'s fist priority in the new U.S. Senate? Make it harder for the minority to filibuster. That priority is placed above jobs bills or even a budget (the Senate hasn't passed one for more than three years).

Reid doesn't care if he overturns decades of Senate tradition. He just wants the Senate to be a partisan rubberstamp of Obama's failed policies.

Imagine for a moment if a Republican Senate majority tried to pull the same routine. Every major news organization would put critical stories denouncing the move up front. You can even expect that should the GOP retake the Senate there will be calls for the new majority to demonstrate their willingness to be fair and restore the old rules.

But since this is the Obama thugocracy, don't expect to hear much criticism of Senate Democrats.

Welcome to fascism Democrat-style!

The Long National Nightmare Continues

Obama's re-election means that the long slow decline of American greatness and the approach of national socialism continues!

NOTE: I outlined a number of points on election night and then decided to sit on them and reflect 36 hours later. Basically, the points are unchanged.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." That's a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln and it fits here. Obama proved on Tuesday night that he can continue to fool enough people to have them overlook his failures in office.
No Mandate

But by the narrow margin of his victory, he's left with a country deeply divided by his negative campaign, the worst in modern history. [Can we now dispense with the conventional wisdom that negative campaigns don't work or does that still apply to Republicans?] Every modern President who has won re-election has increased his margin of victory. Not so with Obama. More objective pundits than myself readily acknowledge that this leaves Obama with no mandate to continue with his failed experiment in social justice but nearly everyone expects that he will continue to go down this failed path no matter what.

Democrats are calling on Republicans to compromise. But to them, compromise is a one way street. Even after the "shellacking" Democrats got in 2010 they doubled down on failure and gridlock and refused to compromise. Considering the negativity of the race in which Republicans were painted as heartless and wanting to poison the air and water (this from Obama himself) it seems unlikely that Obama or the Democrats will now pivot towards a new policy of listening and cooperation to the other party. Remember also, that Democrat's like Senate Majority Leader, who now calls on Republicans to compromise said that if Romney were elected he would refuse to work with him. As always, Democrats define bipartisanship and compromise as doing it their way. No thanks!

New Leadership from Obama? Not Likely!

It also seems unlikely that Obama, tagged as the Campaigner in Chief will all of  a sudden drop that mode of operation and begin providing the presidential leadership that has been so lacking the last four years. As Bob Woodward writes in his new book, "The Price of Politics", this failure of leadership is a personal character flaw of Obama and one not likely to be overcome.

Corrupt News Media

It's hard to believe that so many of the voters were duped again by the charlatan from Chicago but we have to keep in mind that many millions of voters are willfully ignorant. They turn away from informing themselves on politics and national issues preferring to spend their time in mind dulling idle entertainment or sports programming on television.

What little news these willfully ignorant voters receive is likely to come from elite liberal news media which still has great power to determine which stories are covered and which are not. It's no secret that most of the media hyped every gaffe or stumble by Romney and ignored those by Obama. The best example of this was the Benghazi story. Media stories critical of Mitt Romney's statement in the immediate aftermath of the attacks were widespread. Those seeking answers to why the attacks happened and questions about the White House response were largely muted. Which was more important, a statement by presidential candidate or the failure of an Administration to protect our Ambassador and then lie about the story? Considering the media suppression of this story it's no surprise that many Obama voters never even heard of the Benghazi story.

Perhaps more than any other factor, the corrupt news media that failed to apply the same standard to a sitting President that they did to a presidential candidate is one of the biggest scandals in modern times. It's as if the liberal elites in the news media look on Obama as the affirmative action president and refuse to apply the same rules to him they would to a white candidate.

Some speculate that now that Obama has won a second term that the news media that covered up for him will suddenly change their tune and begin demanding more from him. I doubt it. Obama may not be able to blame George W. Bush for the "mess" he inherits in his second term, but there's every indication that he will continue to scapegoat the GOP congress. It's most likely he will continue to reject their ideas then damn them if they fail to endorse all of his. The lap dog media that has failed to point out the fact that Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in years will continue to blame Republicans for any gridlock.

Mitt Romney: Good Man, Average Campaign

Mitt Romney is a good man who would have been a great President. The media and establishment elites assured us that he was the man to reach middle or moderate voters. So why didn't he win? First, he failed to effectively counter the negative impression in many voter's minds from the barrage of poisonous ads the Obama campaign launched against him in late summer. The debates cleared away much of that but then Hurricane Sandy blew Romney off the radar at a key moment when his momentum was building towards election day. Obama skillfully took advantage of that crisis to appear presidential and hasn't been heard from since in the disaster stricken parts of New Jersey which he used as  a campaign prop.

On the whole Mitt's campaign was well run. But when Mitt felt he was winning he pulled back in the final debate when he could have elevated the Libya issue which exposed Obama's incompetence in foreign policy and indifference to the safety of our Ambassador and personnel. That was a mistake.

But more than any of these issues the failure of Romney and the Republicans to mount an effective ground game and turn out the GOP base. Republicans saw how effective the Democrat machine was in 2008 and had four years to prepare to counter it in 2012.  Since 2008 I have warned repeatedly about this. More on this in a later post.

Bottom Line: Regroup and Defiance

It's a cliché to say that people get the government they deserve. Over the next four years voters who can break through the media haze praising Obama will learn what a mistake they made.

Republicans can and will regroup and find new leaders to carry on. There is every indication that a new crop of younger leaders will have the seasoning and experience it takes to mount a winning fight in the congressional midterm elections of 2014 and the presidential election in 2016. But that is a long way off.

Until then, I look to examples of forebearance from history. Winston Churchill comes to mind. He endured a decade in the political wilderness. Out of power and regarded as irrelevant he never stopped warning of the danger coming from Nazi Germany. When the danger broke Britain turned to him in the critical hour.

As Britain stood on the knife's edge between defeat and a long slog to victory Prime Minister Churchill visited his old school, Harrow. He told the boys: "Never give in. Never, never, never." If there is one message to my conservative friends it would be this:



A second quote from Churchill also fits: "In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill." Our liberal friends have already demonstrated a complete lack of magnanimity and goodwill. We must remain resolute and defiant. Better days are not far off and another liberal shellacking is on the horizon. That meal of liberal crow will be served soon enough!

Monday, November 05, 2012

Win This One for the Gipper

What would Ronald Reagan do? Urge you to vote for Romney/Ryan!

Photo by Mike's America as President Reagan speaks aboard the "Ferdinand Magellan" in Perrysburg, Ohio in 1984. See more Mike's America Reagan photos and recollections here.

The morning after the 1988 presidential election I stood in the White House Rose Garden as President Reagan thanked the staff who had worked so hard to help George H.W. Bush win a resounding victory over Democrat Michael Dukakis.

I remembered on the campaign trail how President Reagan had invoked the dying wish of George Gipp the Notre Dame football player whom Reagan memorialized in the film "Knute Rockne All American." As the President finished speaking and turned to go back into the Oval Office I shouted out, ala ABC’s Sam Donaldson, “That was one for the Gipper.” The President returned to the podium and proceeded to regale us with another of his famous George Gipp stories.

24 years later I’m thinking of that moment and of Reagan’s conservative legacy of smaller taxes and less government that is at the heart of the nationwide movement to restore this country starting November 6th. Romney and Ryan's plan is the natural follow on to Reagan's proven legacy.

If Reagan could be with us now he might say something like this:

"Ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper.
 don't know where I'll be then, but I'll know about it and I'll be happy."
 
It's up to you now. Make sure you vote. Make sure your friends, family and associates vote. Vote for love of country. Vote for love of great patriots like Reagan. Vote for a better America and a brighter future.

VOTE FOR ROMNEY/RYAN!

fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator