Thursday, November 1, 2012

Lybia: The Answered Questions--Obvious Conclusions

Democrats and the Obama Administration insist that the rising tide of questions, revelations, leaks and speculation surrounding the tragic Benghazi terrorist attack that killed a US Ambassador and three other Americans are nothing more than a shallow political ploy. Meanwhile they politicize what the American people have a right to know about the worst paramilitary islamo-terrorist assault on America since 911 2001--in real the facts emerge!

Who perpetrated the attack? What motivated the assault? What were the warning signs? Why was there inadequate security? Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi? What has been and is being done to bring the perpetrators to justice? Who failed to defend and/or rescue the victims? Why are four Americans dead and who will be held accountable?

Instead, the only thing that's transparent about this incident is the Administration's bumbling cover up, stalls, distortions and deceptions. Almost eight weeks after the event, the President has yet to give a news conference, speech, or any explanation to the American people for this serious aggression against our nation. No investigation is required to reveal the main facts for which the President is and should be held to account--election or no election. Most of this information had to have been known by high officials inside the Administration prior to and during the attack.
  1. An American consulate and CIA safe house were successfully attacked and essentially destroyed by  an organized contingent of jihadists claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda on September 11th, 2012.
  2. An American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in the attack.
  3. Video surveillance from a US military or intelligence agency drone fed real-time video to the White House situation room as the 7-hour battle was taking place.
  4. A previous mortar attack had been made on the consulate earlier in the summer. 
  5. Specific requests for increased security were made by the Ambassador and others as many as three weeks prior to the assault. Said requests were denied.
  6. Ambassador Stevens and others made multiple requests for increased US Security forces at the consulate from at least 3 days prior to the event, up to, and on the day of the attack. All were denied.
  7. The British Embassy was vacated days prior to the attack because of security concerns and the threat of violence. 
  8. No "street mob" was present or protesting at the consulate on the day of the attack.
  9. After the attack began, at least three requests were made by Navy Seals for permission to aid personnel under siege at the consulate. They were commanded to stand down.
  10. US Military and intelligence assets were in range of Benghazi and could have given aid.
  11. Navy Seals eventually defied their commanders and mounted a rescue attempt which was in part, successful but ultimately led to their tragic demise.
  12. President Obama claims to have given the order to "do whatever is necessary" to protect and/or rescue those under assault.
  13. No military or security personnel were deployed to the scene.
  14. President Obama continued his election campaign without interruption immediately after the attack.
  15. For two solid weeks following the bloody rampage, the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and Amabassador Rice insisted that the attack was a spontaneous uprising sparked by an anti-muslim video propagated on the Internet.
  16. To this date, the Obama Administration has offered no official comment, clarity, or cogent explanation to the American people for this devastating act of war or its own actions before, during, and after the event. 
Four Americans are dead. At the very least, their murders are a clear indictment against the US Government for their failure to carry out its most basic and essential function--to protect the lives of Americans--and in particular its own emissaries on "American soil" abroad. Mistakes and failures happen and are forgivable. But they are far more serious than "bumps in the road." The people of the United States deserve transparency from their elected and appointed officials and a timely explanation of at least the basic known facts about so significant an international incident.

Instead, Stonewall Obama, his opaque administration, and his willing accomplices in the mainstream media have deliberately misdirected, avoided, and evaded any real disclosure related to the event forcing inside whistle-blowers to leak both classified and unclassified information to the public in order to shed timely light on the breadth and depth of the US government's failures related to this event.

Such an occurrence is, by its very nature, political. It is geo-political. So the Administration's hollow cry that Republicans are "playing politics" with the tragedy is redundant, disingenuous, and hypocritical. Of course the GOP will use the President's failures against him in an election year--as well they should! If said failures reveal the incumbent's unworthiness to continue to lead, it is their right and obligation to do so. Wouldn't the Democrats do the same?

But it's the President, his Administration and his media supporters that are playing politics. Instead of acting Presidential, communicating the truth, and taking appropriate responsibility and command of an international incident of this magnitude, this President has chosen to hide, obfuscate, deflect, and deceive. And the derelict mainstream press have enabled him in an unprecedented act of betrayal of the American people.

The Administration claims that an investigation is ongoing and it's too early to ask for answers or draw conclusions. But it's not the unanswered questions that should concern us. It's the answered ones. And some conclusions are quite clear. The Benghazi attack represents a devastating failure of this Administration's foreign policy specifically as it relates to the global Islamo-terrorist threat. The reasons for the breakdown are as yet unclear. But the fact that there was a breakdown and that it may be systemic, is undeniable.

Whether its a failure to understand the enemy, a neglect of or inability to recognize a volatile situation, a conspiracy to hang the Ambassador out to dry, or a mere lack of cooperation and communication between the White House, State Department, and Intelligence community is almost irrelevant. Any scenario you can paint reveals gross incompetence and a failure of policy and/or leadership on the part of the Obama Administration.

Though it may be too early, politically, for the Administration to reveal what they know, it's too late for America to choose a President who doesn't know or claims not to. Voters should seriously consider both the known facts about this incident and their implications when judging the fitness of this President to continue to serve as Commander in Chief. That's the responsible, rational, and patriotic thing to do when casting your vote in this election.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Obama Outscores but Romney Wins Debate

Obama was a transformed candidate in last night's 2nd of 3 presidential debates. The President came out swinging and with the aid of yet another liberal moderator, turned in an "aggressive" performance that at least tied the Governor's less dominant appearance, and may have even edged him out; at least in the eyes of pundits and committed voters. It may have been enough to stem the tide, but was it enough to turn it?

I don't think so. President Obama, like Joe Biden, shored up his demoralized base, but it's doubtful that he won over any independents or undecided voters. To the contrary, what remains of the "mass in the middle" are seeing a president who is inconsistent, often unpresidential, and offers no vision as to why one should expect the next four years to be any different--any better than the years just passed.

Governor Romney, on the other hand, again showed himself as a serious, competent, experienced executive with an actual plan to turn the tide of decline in the US. Independents looking for a viable alternative to the failed policies of BHO, saw that possibility in Mitt. His reassuring declaration that, "we don't have to settle for what we have today" will have resonated with these swing voters, while Obama's deflecting of economic challenges, excuse-making, and hollow assaults on Romney's plan and character will continue to be a turn off among the undecided.

Obama further damaged his own credibility--perhaps beyond repair--with respect to the Lybian crisis by suddenly claiming to have identified the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi as "an act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after a US Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a likely Al Queada military assault. While the President took great delight in how the audacity of the shocking claim struck Governor Romney, and the support he gained from "neutral" moderator, Crowley, this could prove fatal to the President's re-election bid in the coming days. His Clintonesque parsing of his own speech to change its meaning, and his disingenuous offense at the "politicizing" of the Benghazi attack, while great political theatrics, itself, will not stand scrutiny.

So while liberal pundits and Obama supporters revel in the "points scored" by their guy, I would expect the quiet shift toward Romney to continue as the governor is seen as a bona fide US Presidential leader. Romney will likely add to his gains after this debate, mirroring the direction of change demonstrated in the Frank Luntz focus group in Las Vegas where former Obama supporters felt confident that Romney offered a better alternative for the future of America. That's rational. And that's a Romney WIN!

If you saw it differently, please comment and explain why.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

"Trouble" is Obama's Middle Name

Barack "TROUBLE" Obama
Barack Obama should never have been elected President. His election in 2008 was the perfect storm of a destabilizing economy, Chicagoland politics, Bush hate, and America's desire to make history by crowning the first black President. All this in a context of media malpractice, willing ignorance, and misinformation.

As a result, the nation is now saddled with the least experienced, least qualified, least competent, least vetted, and therefore least prepared Chief Executive perhaps ever to have occupied the Oval Office. He has created far more problems than he has solved and his supporters are now in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible.

President Obama's abysmal record speaks for itself. After almost 48 months of his regime--2 years of which he was buttressed by control of the entire government--America is actually worse off than it was when he took office.
  • Unemployment is now ostensibly at the same level as when Obama was inaugurated after TRILLIONS in deficit "stimulus" spending. Except it's not. Real unemployment stands at about 14% and growth is SLOWING.
  • Unemployment among blacks and younger Americans, those who were supposed to benefit disproportionally from Obama's policies, stands at record highs. Where's the beef? 
  • The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare was wrangled and rustled to passage in the most shameless display of hardball partisan politics ever witnessed by the American public--this despite the bill's continued unpopularity among voters. Even with some of the bill's most popular provisions in place 52% of Americans still want it repealed. It has also proven to be a job killer.
  • Gas prices have more than doubled since Obama's election. Drilling permits on public lands are at 30-year lows, the job-creating Keystone Pipeline has been denied, and hundreds, if not thousands of jobs died when Obama spoke and the drills in the Gulf were stilled.
  • Simultaneously, Obama's corrupt and misguided public "investments" in alternative "green" energy have withered on the vine, costing taxpayers over 90 billion dollars. 
  • GM and Chrysler still languish after their $50 billion bailout. The federally mandated Volt has no juice whatsoever and since GM's fundamentals are still bad with the Unions in charge, there's no there, there.
  • Obama promised to be above politics, a great uniter, post-racial, transparent. Even the rising seas would begin to fall. His administration, so far, has been the most divisive, partisan, and least transparent in modern times. And I don't know about the seas, but the world's supply of BS has done anything but fall since Obama took office. The manufactured wars on women, the middle class, and constant wolf-cries of "racism" are cases in point.
  • The President's flip-flop on traditional marriage won him the support of social liberals, but cost him the support of some socially conservative blacks, Hispanics, and others. Gays may feel more free, but the faithful feel far more oppressed.
  • Despite his reluctant elimination of Osama bin Laden, Obama's Middle East policy is a disaster. Though he imagined he had "burnished" America's image abroad, it's actually never been more tarnished. The Commander-In-Chief has spurned our allies while emboldening our enemies sending mixed signals that have fundamentally weakened our posture, prestige and positive influence around the world.
  • The Obama Administration is riddled with scandal--you just don't hear much about it. From ACORN to Solyndra; the passage of ACA to the fight with Arizona on Immigration enforcement; from the death of a border control agent and Mexican Nationals via Fast & Furious to the terrorist killings of a US Ambassador and his compatriots in Lybia; from the appointment of the card-carrying communist, Van Jones, to the deliberate refusal of the justice department to prosecute voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers and the coddling of big union bosses, Obama showers favor on his cronies and brings the weight of Federal force and intimidation down upon his foes with near reckless abandon. 
  • Energy, food, and commodity prices rise on the falling value of the dollar. After 3 episodes of "Quantitative Easing" designed to stimulate the economy, little stimulus has resulted. Though the stock market has been propped up, its fundamentals are weak and experts expect another corrective fall. Meanwhile, inflation, the cruelest tax on the middle class, robs Americans of their buying power even as household incomes tumble. 
The bullets could continue to fly but you get my point. Obama appoints commissions then ignores their advice. He skips his security briefings, but makes his Tee-times. He's absent on policy debates, but omnipresent with executive orders and regulatory Czars. He can't produce a budget, but scoffs at those who do. He has no time for world leaders but has plenty for his pals on The View, Letterman, and a host of puffy talk shows. He blames everyone but the family dog for his failures but takes immediate and full credit for others' achievements. He barks from the head, but leads from behind.

It's understandable that Americans want him to succeed. He IS after all the first black President. As historically important as that is, he is also a man, a politician, and a partisan. He's an ideologue who is out of sync with American ideals--even the ideals of many who support him. In only one sense is BO truly non-partisan: The misery he and his policies inflict affect all of us; regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status or political persuasion.

Barack Hussein Obama is simply not up to the task. Inadequately prepared, insufficiently vetted, unwittingly supported and unwisely elected, however noble the intent, Obama is trouble. And America is in trouble with this unfortunately incompetent governor at the helm. It's time to see him for who he isn't and vote for the kind of honest change that could just help us turn the corner and restore America and her people to the place of leadership, strength, and greatness that is both the example and the envy of the world. That's rational!

Friday, October 12, 2012

Biden vs. Ryan or He Who Laughs Last...

"When a wise man debates with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet." ~Proverbs 29:9

It's fair to say that Joe Biden got the first laugh in his 90-minute confrontation with his would-be successor, Congressman Paul Ryan in last Wednesday;s debate. The Vice President managed to escape without any major gaffes besides his odd demeanor. The gas-bag-in-veep appeared as something of a cross between Alfred E. Neuman and Archie Bunker in what was possibly the most obnoxious display of condescension and pure rudeness ever witnessed in a Vice-Presidential debate. In fact, had it not been for his non-verbal antics, the Democrat might have scored a solid victory over his Republican rival.

That said, conservatives who expected Paul Ryan to walk all over the Prince of Gaffes were sorely disappointed. Biden's penchant for blowhardmanship against Ryan's reputation for policy acumen set some conservatives up for the fall. While Ryan comported himself well and displayed the kind of seriousness and command of the issues one would expect in a Vice President, he spent most of the evening on defense and was not overly forceful in either his criticisms of the current administration or in selling his alternatives.

In fairness, debate moderator and Obama BFF, Martha Raddatz helped stack the deck against the VP hopeful. She conveniently steered the conversation away from Obama/Biden's monstrous Achilles heel, THE ECONOMY in favor of the more tedious and less differentiating details of foreign affairs. This played to Biden's limited strengths, and narrowed Ryan's target. Raddatz provided additional cover for Biden by allowing his 82 interruptions in 90 minutes and by shifting topics whenever Ryan began to take off.

At the end of the day, this debate wasn't a game changer. But if I had to pick a winner, I'd give it to Biden by a sneer--at least on Wednesday night. Despite his obnoxious and condescending style, "Old Joe" did an effective job of shoring up his base. He polished up the old collectivist vision about as pretty as it gets and advocated passionately and almost convincingly for the campaign's meaningless slogan about "growing the economy from the middle out." Try explaining that one after a beer or two.

By brute force, Biden controlled the debate, frequently interrupting Congressman Ryan, and putting the Republicans' agenda on defense according to plan. He struck all the familiar chords; class warfare and the 47% and the assault on Romney's lack of specifics. Meanwhile, he offered NO PLAN OF HIS OWN to address the mounting debt, deficits, the approaching insolvency of social programs, or the sustained high unemployment that has left millions of Americans--particularly the minorities and young folks that put Obama in the White House--broken down on the shoulder of the nation's economic bridge to nowhere. Despite the size of the target, Ryan failed to strike a forceful blow.

On foreign policy, Biden seemed vastly more in command of the issues as a matter of debate than his administration obviously is in command as a matter of practice. He spoke in familiar, if tedious detail about international policies and personalities, including his old pal "Bebe" (Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli PM) and reassured the nation that, in effect, "despite what you see, we've got this! Don't sweat the small stuff!" While his confidence was strangely reassuring, his "facts" don't seem to be standing the test of post-debate scrutiny. So this may come back to bite him.

His greatest FAIL of the evening was his inability to explain the current scandal surrounding the assassination of Ambasador Stevens in Lybia. Although she opened the debate forcefully on this topic, Raddatz clipped Ryan's onslaught multiple times and let Biden off fairly easily on this devastating issue. Score: Biden--for now. But as the debate deconstruction has commenced in the media, Biden may not be laughing anymore.

Still, Biden did effectively challenge the challenger saying "what would you do differently?" Other than a few uninspiring talking points about not slashing the military budget (most Americans think could stand some judicious cuts), supporting our more traditional allies, and bringing tougher sanctions against Iran, Ryan's rhetorical dip-stick came up pretty dry.

On the downside for VP Biden, his incongruous Cheshire grin, obnoxious laughter, and constant interruptions may have pumped up his deflated base but they're unlikely to win many converts from among undecideds. Joe's disingenuous "my friend" and genuine disrespect for his opponent made it clear that the senior statesman was not the grown-up in the room. In fact, if the winner were decided solely on "Who do you think is more equal to the dignity of the office?" Ryan takes it in a landslide!

For his part, Paul Ryan showed Presidential gravitas. He was poised, dignified and articulate. The Congressman demonstrated that he had a strong grasp of issues facing the nation, both foreign and domestic. He effectively underscored the fact that this election represents a clear choice between top-down collectivism ("trickle-down government") under an increasingly oppressive federal bureaucracy, versus a return to more traditional American ideals of individual rights, responsibility, and opportunity under a smaller, less intrusive federal government. Ryan wasn't the forceful or feisty champion of these ideals that we had hoped for (I found myself wishing the Mittster were in the room to speak for himself), but you can chalk that up to youth and inexperience. Of the two, however, he was the guy most Americans would probably rather have sitting in the Oval Office chair should it unexpectedly be found even emptier than it is today.

Biden had a few laughs Wednesday night. But he may not want to take them to the bank. In a digital world of fact-checkers and Monday morning quarterbacks, the twinkle in Joes manic eyes could turn to tears on November 7th. We'll see who's laughing then!

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Has America Crossed Over?

In my recent article The Truth About Romney's 47%, I acknowledged that in his remarks, however indelicately made, Romney touched on an issue that is at the very heart of this election and a critical pivot point that will define the future of America for generations to come.

Here's the question: With 49% of our citizens paying no federal income tax, and a similar number dependent on direct cash payments from the Treasury for their very sustenance, are there simply too many Americans so dependent on the largesse of their fellow citizens (aka the government), to ever hope for a return to the smaller, more sensible, more efficient confederacy of states envisioned by the Founders and preferred by Mr. Romney and Republicans? Or "has America crossed over?"

I'm beginning to fear that it has! While I don't believe that everyone in the 47% is either a Democrat, a willing dependent, a victim, or entitled, (and neither does Romney if you listen to his words) most of them, and indeed, many, many of those in the 53% are actual victims of Washinton's overreach and federal excess.

While some of us are overtaxed, many are also overly benefited by the taxes (or debt) carried by our neighbors. Too many companies are favored by government contracts. Too many organizations and individuals benefit from lobbied exemptions. Too many profit from legislative favor. Too many of us are looking for that next government handout or simply take too much for too long when our turn comes. This creates attitudes of dependence, weakness, and entitlement that are eventually actuallized in the populace as a whole. We expect more from government, therefore we do less for ourselves and each other.

Both major political parties engage in the "candyman" syndrome of redistribution; giving away all they can to favored constituents while taking all they can from others. But in so doing, the GOP establishment is at odds  with its fundamental ideals and many of its grassroots constituents. The Democrats, however, do so with philosophical "integrity" and reckless abandon, in the name of fairness, proudly claiming the prize as the party of all good gifts. And because they control the media, too, the donkeys even win the PR battle convincing many that their ideals are more generous, more responsible, more moral and more fair when nothing could be further from the truth.

Additionally, while, from the Constitutional perspective, liberals represent the most extreme and radical departure from the uniquely American ideals and the principles that built our singular success as a nation, conservatives who seek only to restore and maintain those values, are painted as the extremists--ready to abandon the poor and disadvantaged while forcing a theocratic chastity belt on the loins of the body politic--also a liberal lie.

Unfortunately, the philosophy has become institutionalized. Redistribution is the present reality and has been for quite some time. But the perception that it's a good idea in the minds of either a large minority or even a majority of Americans is relatively new. And it's why I think we may have "crossed over."

The ideals of individual liberty, responsibility, achievement, and charity, have been the bedrock of American success and prosperity from our founding. Though diminished by encroaching socialism, these ideals remained a hedge against it. But the dam has been breeched and the floodwaters are pouring in dousing the flames of freedom and self-determination. Americans now almost universally acknowledge a federal power and responsibility, not simply to secure them in thier individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but to insure the material outcomes that define our perception thereof--a satisfactory job, a college degree, medical care, a three-bedroom home with a late-model car for each driver, a big screen TV, internet connection, cell phone,  burgers on the barby and a beer in the fridge--whether we've pursued them successfully or not. All this despite the truth that no Constitutional authority exists for a government with such materialistic powers.

If Americans continue to see the fruits of liberty in their own lives to be the result of their persoal responsibility, effort, and achievement, America will survive and thrive. But if, as signs portend, the nation has shifted to a collective mentality where each believes s/he deserves a "share" in the wealth created by all, as subtly, but unmistakeably articulated by Mr. Obama, the Democrat party, and their willing accomplices in the popular media, then America as we have known her, has indeed "crossed over" with all that those words imply.

Friday, September 21, 2012


nO Executive Experience
nO Budget
nO BiPartisanship
nO Cohesive Foreign Policy
nO Limit on Executive Power
nO States Rights
nO Restraint on Spending
nO Immigration Reform
nO Jobs
nO Presence in Iraq
nO More Capitalism
nO National Unity
nO National Pride
nO Jobs
nO Transparency
nO Accountability
nO Shovel Ready Jobs
nO Work Requirement for Welfare
nO Consequence for illegal immigration
nO Protection for the Unborn
nO Limits on Entitlements
nO Jobs
nO Allegiance to Allies
nO Respect for Israel
nO Energy Policy
nO More Drilling
nO Keystone Pipeline
nO Jobs
nO Economic Game Plan
nO Leadership
nO Respect for Religious Rights
nO Solutions
nO Meetings with Jobs Council
nO Positive Change
nO Jobs
nO Hope

No Rationale to Re-elect!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

The Truth About Romney's 47%

To divert attention from recent disastrous economic news and more especially, the blowing up of the Middle East and Obama's policy of appeasement along with it, the Obama campaign with their willing accomplices in the media chose to divert attention to a 4-month old video of an off-the-cuff comment made by then Primary candidate Mitt Romney at a fund-raising event. How conveniently distracting that the video should be leaked to the lamestreet media on Monday at the apex of Mr. Obama's government's implosion of incompetence and deception. But that's another article.

In this unspectacular Q&A session, the Governor had the audacity to make an honest observation about where his attention as a candidate needs to be focused. He observed simply that Barack Obama has a relatively entrenched base of support of about 47% of voters, bought and paid for largely, by Democrat inspired entitlement programs. These voters are largely made up of American households that pay no taxes or have one or more persons living within them that are dependent on some entitlement program or other for their support (the number is actually 49%).

As the candidate who proposes to cut taxes, Romney points out, these voters think they have nothing to gain by supporting him. And as tax dependents and others who believe in cradle to grave government security, they're far more likely to support Mr. Obama, the benevolent giver of other people's things, who promises to maintain and/or expand the government's support while he, simultaneously insures the ultimate demise of these programs with his policies .

Romney characterized these voters in a variety of ways--to some degree, carelessly, though not  entirely inaccurately--but in the context of a closed door fundraiser, that's normal. Those are the meetings on the Democrat side, where they defame the entrenched constituency that opposes them as tea baggers, racists, bigots, homophobes, bible and gun totin' whackos, and greedy, selfish, eeeeeevil capitalists. (Oh, wait! they do that in public!) By comparison, Romney's remarks were really rather tepid.

Perhaps the governor overstated his case, but if you simply listen to what he said, it's quite obvious that he was not casting aspersions on these Obama supporters. Instead, in the context of breaking down the Obama support into generalized factions, he was simply arguing that, to win, he'll have to appeal, not to them, but to the people in the middle--so-called "independent" voters who are NOT living on the dole, who believe in American exceptionalism, and who don't want to see our nation turned into the European style entitlement state Barack Obama and his policies are creating. What he was NOT doing in his off-handed comments, was presenting a studied analysis of the 47%.

The press, of course, has held Romney's "shocking" remarks up to a level of scrutiny to which they never hold Mr. Obama's frequently divisive, insensitive, and often irresponsible comments. In fact, the disingenuousness of the critiques would be laughable were they not so successful in misleading public opinion. The comment, however misinterpreted, definitely plays into the Democrat and liberal media's distorted portrait of Romney as an uncaring, insensitive, evil, rich elitist.That's unfortunate.

But the substance of the argument is one Romney should not run away from. The outrage is, that 49% of Americans pay no income tax! The outrage is that 46 million are on food stamps--up 44% since Obama took office! The outrage that millions more depend on the federal government for their healthcare, housing, college education and food--and that the number is growing, not shrinking under Obama policies--is the topic we should be discussing. Obama is the King of Entitlement, advertising on the radio and TV to increase participation in these programs in order to justify their expansion and the creation of a permanent dependent class who will, in their own self-interest, continue to support the party that feeds them, primarily--the Democrat party.

Unfortunately, what the Democrats have created to lock-in their power, can only be maintained by unsustainable levels of debt, taxation, or Keynesian currency manipulation (i.e. QE3).  Eventually, and in the not too distant future if left unchecked, the house of cards will fall. When it does, the welfare checks will stop, the food stamps will cease, the free medical care will dry up, the loan payments will end and retirement checks will disappear. Those who depend on them most will be left entirely without cover--destitute. Unless Romney and the Republicans can right the ship in time.

Ironically, in his criticism of Romney's remarks, Obama congratulated himself by noting that 47% of voters cast their ballot for John McCain but in his inaugural address (note, after the election!) he promised to be President of "all the people." Yet another FAIL! Barack Obama has proven to be the most divisive, partisan, unyielding, autocratic chief executive in memory, making no effort to be bi-partisan in his policy making.

While Romney dismisses 47% whom he presumes won't vote for him for economic reasons while advocating policies that will actually improve their lot, Obama disses the 75+ percent of Americans who believe in God or "cling to their bibles and guns," the 51% who DO pay taxes by suggesting they're not paying enough, the 100% who are paying more for gas, food, and other commodities due to his policies, the millions who DID build that, and the 23 million who are out of work. Meanwhile, he and his collectivist programs FAIL to do anything effective to genuinely help his loyal 47%; instead, ensnaring them further in the web of dependency. Today, according to Gallup, President Obama enjoys 47% support in his bid for re-election. Hmmm.... Who is President of the other 53%, I wonder.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Dems Keep Voters Eyes Off the Ball with Politics of Division

What's the real issue in this election? If you didn't answer, "It's the economy, stupid." You're probably living in the Democrats' world.

In my previous article "Mitt Romney--A Man For Our Times" I put it this way: "Today is a singular time in America. Six years of Democrat dominance in Washington and an even longer trail of failed progressive policies has left a country wallowing in debt, reeling from the most prolonged high unemployment in history, divided by an Administration that pits rich against poor, black against white, labor against management, and the faithful against the secular."

"America is in a downward spiral on a course that, left unaltered, can only lead to disaster. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all on a crash course with insolvency. Tens of trillions in unfunded pensions and other long-term liabilities dwarf the already incomprehensible national debt."

"A bloated, corrupt, and inefficient federal bureaucracy is sapping the strength of our once-great nation. Burdensome regulations and unpredictable tax policies have paralyzed capital and chilled small business development. A convoluted, corrupted tax code leaves too few Americans carrying the load for too many while almost half have no skin in the game at all. And a behemoth new healthcare law brings a sixth of the entire US economy under the direct control of the federal government while limiting consumer choice and self-determination--abridging freedom for all."

The litany of America's economic woes could go on for pages. Yet despite Obama's abject failure to even address the economic crisis (when did he last meet with his Economic Council, again?)--much less actually make it better, the Incompetent-in-Chief holds the edge over the Republican contender. In an election where a failed President should be run out of town on a rail for his abysmal let down of the electorate, he's not only holding his own, but continues to lead in the polls.

Why? Well, there are a lot of reasons. But the most conspicuous is that the Democrats are doing a superb job of  focusing voters attention on anything BUT the economy. Which is no small task since the news keeps going from bad to worse!

But, of course, Obama has the lion's share of the news media deeply in his pocket. The Democrat propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN) spews a steady stream of non-stories about the campaigns and bald-faced lies about Romney; painting the Republican as a cartoon capitalist without an empathetic bone in his body. 'He's completely out of touch with average Americans,' they cry 'and hostile to women, blacks, gays, and hispanics!' And, oh yes! 'Completely inept in matters of state.' 

None of this Romney bashing could be further from the truth and it, frankly, smacks of desperation.
Any fair evaluation of Romney's public record and personal life shows him to be, not flawless by any means, but an honorable man of strong conviction and deep compassion who is driven to serve, as well as a remarkably effective and thoughtful organizational leader. But, it's all the Democrats have got and they're playing it to the hilt. Unfortunately for the country, it's least for now.
Although Romney's numerous
virtues are the very strengths America needs in a President at present, the political conversation is about anything but. We're constantly hearing about the GOP's imaginary war on women or about Romney's supposed missteps of diplomacy (they said that about Reagan, too). Obama's never-ending chain of policy failures are ignored while the news cycle is filled with non-issues like abortion, contraception, gay marriage, immigration, and religious rights. Meanwhile, over 400,000 more Americans give up on employment, Moody's threatens another credit downgrade, America is attacked overseas, home foreclosures rise, and Obama splits for Vegas to bolster his odds in the upcoming election, snubbing both his own Jobs Council and the Israeli Prime Minister.

I say non issues, not because these social issues are unimportant, but because if the nation falls economically, they simply won't matter.  Social issues are NOT in the primary wheelhouse of the President of the United States. At least, they shouldn't be. Sure the President can use the bully pulpit to champion the social ideals he believes in, but these are legislative issues that, Constitutionally, should be decided, primarily, at the state and local levels. 

Especially in an era when the United States is speeding towards the economic abyss, there's ONE ISSUE that looms--the ECONOMY! And two questions Americans should be fixated on: 'Have Obama's policies made the economy better or worse?' And 'Which candidate is best prepared and able to turn it around?' And on these questions, Romney wins by a landslide every time!

Instead, millions will be voting against their own self-interest because they've been bludgeoned by a battering ram of lies and distractions from the Democrat machine. They may "feel good" supporting the guy who panders shamelessly to every emotional appeal, but they'll be among the first to fall following him mindlessly over the financial cliff. And that's NOT rational!

Monday, September 3, 2012

Same Ole, Same Ole Obama: Time to "Let him go"

I think Obama needs a new nickname. "Same Ole, Same Ole Obama." This ad nails the reason Barack Obama is in trouble this election. In a nutshell, there's worldwide proof positive that his policies don't work--they never have anywhere they've been tried--and he's got nothin' new up his sleeve that can offer the American people any meaningful "hope" that four more years of doing the same things will "change" the result.

The litany of Obama's failures is endless. From bailouts to buyouts; cash-4-clukers to corrupt healthcare; fast 'n furious to leaker-gate; energy bets (Solyndra, to energy busts (Gulf drilling and Keystone pipleline); over-budget to no budget; shovel-ready (NOT!) to socialism ready-or-not; Obama has but one answer for it all: "More Government!" Which automatically means more debt and less deliverance for the American people. Less LIBERTY FOR ALL. Less liberty means less prosperity. And less liberty and prosperity mean Obama and the statists will always be out of step with the red, white, and blue blood of the independent American patriot.

In any "normal" context, Obama's flame would have been doused by now. Drenched by a keen sense of the obvious on the part of the electorate--both Democrat and Republican. Because by any objective measure this politician has failed. The opinion polls confirm that reality. By margins of 2-to-1 (who exactly, are the one?!) Americans say the country is heading afoul under Obama's "leadership." They know instinctively that the ticking time bomb of the national debt is a disaster beginning to happen. They understand that the new normal is abnormal for the greatest nation on earth. They get that the burden of government in Washington, DC, at some point, probably long past, outspent its value by TRILLIONS, and is now dragging the nation down into the quicksand of soft tyranny among the ruins of the also-rans. But all Obama can say is "Trust me! This is all the other guy's fault. Give me more time and more money and I promise, I'll spend you to the prosperity you seek."

We all know it's a lie. But Obama has a few key factors going for him that cause many to remain in the trance of denial.

1. He's likable. At least more likeable that the guy he paints as a rich, eeeeevil, capitalist corporate raider concerned for no one but himself. He's cocky, charismatic, and he can sing! Besides, he has a nice family. And except for his elephantine ears, he's reasonably good looking. What a smile!
2. The press. They prop up this politician like none we've ever seen. No honest vetting. No significant criticism. The presumed arbiters of truth in the political process are so in the tank for Obama that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC combined are the effective PR firm and cheer-leading squad for Team Obama. The state media. And those who dine on nothing else have no appetite for the truth about Obama.
3. The blight of dependency. With damn near half of Americans dependent on the Federal government for their very survival, and nearly all the rest of us in some way entangled in the web of government largesse, many are simply afraid to abandon Obama's ship of dreams. And with the President and his media minions playing on those fears, many are trapped in the false hope that somehow, they'll remain afloat when the sinking ship of state begins, finally, to dive.
4. He's black. This is controversial, I know. But I'm convinced it's true. Obama's racial heritage gives him a significant advantage! And he knows it. (See "2016.") How many Americans bought Obama's vacuous promise of hope and change because of the color of his skin? I know of several who purchased the dream because they wanted to be counted among those who cast their vote for the first African-American President. And worthily so! For the same reason, they're reluctant to acknowledge and punish his failure as they might a more Caucasian Chief Exec. We're loathe to have the first black presidency be a failed presidency. It speaks to the nobility and optimism of the American people. We want ALL our people--and particularly our minority communities to succeed as full partners in the promise of America. In this case, many seem willing to invest again in spite of their better instincts--just to give him the chance to turn it around. It's like a stockholder investing good money after bad because he's emotionally tied to the company. It's understandable, even laudable. But ultimately self-destructive.

Unfortunately, it's Obama's policies that betray him--and us. Not the color of his skin. These are the same ole principles he borrowed from his fathers. Principles foreign to the American experience most of us share. Principles of collectivism, anti-colonialism, redistribution, anti-capitalism, elitism, and globalism. He either believes the Keynesian myth that you can spend your way to prosperity through fiat currency manipulation, or he's deliberately using it to bring America back down to size. He either thinks big government is better able to provide for the people than the people are to provide for themselves, or he's willing to use the utopian allure to tempt ever more people into the statist's tyrannical web. Any way you slice it, it's Obama's ideas that are so desperately wrong. Nothing more or less.

These are old ideas with dismal records of failure and enslavement; not new ones that lead to greater liberty, prosperity or equality. They're the collectivist infections of Greece, Spain, China, Russia and much of Western Europe. They never can and never will produce the prosperity and goodness of the libertarian American Experiment of Washington, Jefferson, and Locke. It is to those "old" and proven ideals that we must return for a restoration of American greatness. For as we lift ourselves, we lift the world.

Romney and Ryan may not be the perfect articulation of the Washingtonian ideal, but they are light years closer than Obama. Our fear of these men is irrational because it's unfounded in truth. When we look to their records as opposed to "Same Ole Same Ole," both reason and patriotic passion will remind us that the seeds of our future greatness fell from the oak of our Constitution and lie in the fertile sod of American rugged individualism and liberty. Our nation simply awaits the nurturing rains of a government friendly to those values--a new reality that Romney and Ryan can help to bring about. We have but to have the courage to abandon "Same Ole, Same Ole," however reluctantly, and re-invest, instead, in the potent fundamentals of our nation's founding. In them we will find the power to revive and rise yet again.


Thursday, August 30, 2012

Santorum, Paul Still Think It's About Them

I've watched with interest, recent interviews with Ron Paul and Rick Santorum at the GOP National Convention. It's been both telling and confirming. Neither of these guys would have been the right choice for the current American crisis.

Ron Paul still refuses to endorse the GOP ticket and suggests he may never do so. OK. We get it. Romney isn't likely to throw the ship of state into full reverse on his first day in office. His menu of reforms is probably not radical enough to return us to the days of Jefferson and Madison or even Bill Clinton's balanced budget overnight. But he will bend our course away from the iceberg that's threatening our bulging hull and he'll do it without throwing half the ship's passengers and crew into the deep.

For Ron Paul, however, that's simply not enough. And perhaps it shouldn't be. Though Paul's Republican campaign has unquestionably catapulted him and his ideals to a level of national prominence that neither he nor his Libertarian compatriots could ever have attained independently, Paul won't be satisfied with a candidate who is less than fully immersed in his particular brand of the libertarian ideal.

That's both laudable and unfortunate. Laudable, because it shows his uncompromising commitment to the founding principles upon which the greatness of our nation rests. Unfortunate, because even the Founders had to find compromise in order to move forward in an imperfect world.

Paul's unwillingness to support his own party's choice of candidates for the Presidency is a betrayal of the very voters and party that have given voice to his ideas. Ron Paul has influenced this election. He has influenced the party platform ('audit the Fed' He has, with the help of his enthusiastic supporters and the broader base of Tea Party Patriots, reframed and refocused  the debate on the aforementioned founding principles and how they might be reasserted in a global egalitarian context and against a domestic tidal wave of entitlement.

Congressman Paul's contribution has been behemoth. Which is why his endorsement would be so significant. But the laser focus that has made him such an effective advocate for "real liberty" amid the rising tide of soft tyranny in Washington is simply not broad enough to encompass "real America" right now. The nation needs a principled, yet patient and pragmatic problem-solver to address present issues; not another radical ideologue. But by not attaching his ideals to the success of the Romney-Ryan ticket, Ron runs the risk of diminishing them yet again. He will almost certainly diminish himself and his influence in the future. Instead, he would be wise to take a page from his son, Rand's playbook.

While Ron Paul's reticence, however misguided, is at least principled, Rick Santorum's is only self-serving. In his tacit, disingenuous endorsement of Romney-Ryan, Santorum displayed his sour grapes and revealed his selfish agenda. Both in his speech and in the interview I saw, it was clear that Ricky still thinks it's about him; about his uncompromising moral courage, about his articulation of the social conservative voice, his near victory (not even close), and his superior fitness to be the man! This plastic patriot who bubbled up at the last minute only by standing on the submerged wreckage of his far more worthy opponents' campaigns, still has the audacity to question the metal of Romney's integrity and resolve. This is why Santorum could never have won, nor is likely ever to emerge as a viable Presidential candidate. He lacks humility and is therefore unable to acknowledge reality or to be trusted with the levers of power.

Don't get me wrong. I thought the Rickster gave an excellent speech. I love his focus on the family as the most essential unit of a successful and prosperous civil society. He's right on when he suggests that the greatest threat to America isn't strictly financial or political--it's spiritual and exposed in the disrespect and dissolution of the American family. But his correctness on that core principle does not, alone, make Sanctimonious Santorum worthy or able to lead.

I'm breathing a super-sized sigh of relief that neither of these patriots, their virtues notwithstanding, are the party's nominee for President. They're simply not up to the task. I believe...I hope...that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are. And that's rational!

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Romney & Ryan: The Ticket to Ride!

Mitt Romney's pick of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate has demonstrated, once again, that the GOP Candidate is a contemplative, serious, intelligent executive and statesman who is committed to the outcome of his presidency and not merely to the task of getting elected. Would that the same could be said of his opponent.

The Mittster could have, and I'm sure many thought, should have sought a more strategic demographic expander. Marco Rubio might have delivered more of the Latino vote and could have made Florida a lock. Condie Rice would have sent a positive message to blacks and women. Governor Christie's dynamic, confrontative style might have further energized the base.  Others may have been "safer" and less prone to criticism than Paul Ryan whose economic reform plan, aimed at steering America away from the approaching financial abyss, has been at the center of Washington debate and the butt of brutal, often disingenuous criticism by the rabid left.

But Mitt Romney is apparently committed to one mission: turning the nation around by reinvigorating the private economy through responsible fiscal and sound regulatory policies including debt reduction, energy independence, healthcare reform, and tax reform.

In picking Ryan, Romney has gone all-in with this vision giving Americans a clear, distinct, choice between the failed Obamanomics of class envy, central command and control, entitlement, deficit spending, and wealth redistribution; and the empowering economics of expansion, job creation, entrepreneurship, and private capital investment coupled with limited government and fiscal restraint.  More importantly, by this choice Mitt has demonstrated his integrity in being willing to lose; to accept the will of the American people on this critical, state-changing matter. I've heard Mitt say it on a number of occasions (and I paraphrase), "If you want more big government, deficit spending, debt, and entitlements, I'm not your guy. But if you want to turn this economy around to create more jobs, opportunity, and less debt for your children and grandchildren, I know how to do that."

Unlike his adversary, Romney won't say 'anything' to get elected. He will not pander to special interest groups, whether black, female, Latino, gay, Brit, or Palestinian. He won't change his accent or syntax whether he's talking to city slickers or southern red-necks. Mitt believes his plan for economic expansion will benefit all together. It won't discriminate. It won't pick favorites. It will empower capital without favoring the rich. It will lift all boats together. It will be fair, transparent, and effective. It will not expand the power and reach of government; rather it will unleash the power and reach of American ingenuity, self-interest, and drive.

Perhaps most impressive of all, in choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt has simultaneously reaffirmed his commitment to bi-partisanship and invested his Presidency more deeply in solid conservative ideology.  Ryan's conservative values have won him the undying support of the Tea Party patriots. But his genuine commitment to creating a better, stronger America, and his command of policy issues and principles of good government have also earned him the 7-term support of Democrats in one of the most left-leaning states in America. Even Ryan's political adversaries agree that this is a man of sound understanding, bold initiative, uncompromising integrity, and genuine personal appeal. Romney is cut from the same cloth. He successfully governed conservatively in a Democrat stronghold with an 85% liberal legislature. His personal and business reputations are impeccable. In every context, Romney is a demonstrated problem-solver, an effective leader, and one dedicated to making life better for all he serves.

As America's come-back team, Romney and Ryan are the principled antithesis of Obama-Biden. The former believe in the power of the individual; the latter in the power of the state. The former in freedom; the latter in bureaucratic control. The former in private investment; the latter in public stimulus. The former in personal charity; the latter in collective largesse. The former in American exceptionalism; the latter in managed decline. Yes, the choice is really quite clear. Hopefully, the American people can see through the smoke created by the media fog machine to make the only rational choice: Romney-Ryan 2012!

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Romney's Global Gravitas

I've been more than a little amused at the media coverage of Mitt Romney's overseas exploits recently. Everything from the hollow harangues over the Mittster's so-called Olympic gaffe, to his politically incorrect Israeli/Palestinian positioning, to the outcry over Mrs. Romney's participation in Equestrian elitism.

Ironically, the trip reveals far more about a leftist media's desperation to find anything Romney to hate than it does about the Presidential hopeful's agility on the world stage. So let's put Romney's performance in some rational perspective.

The Great British Gaffe: This is perhaps the most ado about nothing we've seen since the broo-ha-ha over Ann Romney's $900 blouse. Although it can fairly be said that the former Olympic Executive said a little too much, you'd think, based on the liberal media coverage, that Romney had personally hand-slapped the Queen and started a second revolution!

The reality: In an interview with ABC News, Mitt echoed security concerns that were being noised abroad in the British press that very day. He also questioned Britain's unity over the games--an open question in the media as well! His fault, ironically, is that he answered the question candidly rather than blowing diplomatic smoke up the collective posterior of the body politic. Something we say we want in our politicians. Even liberal British-American entertainment Apprentice, Piers Morgan defended Mitt's comments in a rare moment of fair-minded punditry.

But the real story here is in the press' underwhelming over-reaction. The sniping from the far left British press in a classic case of "we can say it, but you can't," was then amplified a thousand times by the lefty loud-mouths in the American media who are all too happy to pile on. Make no mistake about it: ideology is the issue in this shameless display, not Romney's diplomatic acumen. I give Romney a C+ on his Olympic diplomacy--he could have been more generous, though his candor is refreshing--but, honestly, who besides the convicted anti-Romneys really cares? The press, on the other hand, gets yet another F.

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict:  Once again, the weaselly whiners from the American left find offense in Romney's unabashed solidarity with the Israeli state when they prefer pandering to Palestinian terrorists. In a context of Barack Obama's on-again, off-again Israel "policy" Romney's forthright support of our first, best, Middle Eastern ally must be comforting to her politicians as well as her people; a sentiment reflected in Prime Minister Netanyahu's all-but-endorsement of the candidate. The Palestinians may be a little P.O.'d in wake of Obama's apology tours, but this was a solid home-run for Romney and will undoubtedly strengthen his support at home and abroad.

Remember, the same political pundits that are castigating Romney for his "politically incorrect" observations about Palestine, were equally outraged at Reagan's "Evil Empire" comments, were hysterical when he refused to compromise with Gorby over the issue of  missile defense, and were apoplectic at the Gipper's call to "tear down this wall!" Romney's diplomacy may not yet be Reaganesque, as may be expected from, primarily, a private sector businessman, and he would benefit from the addition of a quorum of foreign policy experts among his chief advisers, but it's already a helluva lot more coherent than Obama's. And the clarity of policy that is likely to emerge in a Romney administration will undoubtedly more resemble Reagan's and offer a breath of fresh air to US allies around the globe.

Props from Poland: Even the liberal media has had a hard time denigrating Mitt's triumphant visit to Poland and the enthusiastic endorsement he received from the internationally popular liberty and labor champion and former head of the Polish state, Lech Walesa. Romney was warmly received by the Polish people as he promised strengthened ties with the American ally under a Romney Presidency and a restored focus on limited government and economic freedom in the post-communist state.

In short, with the possible exception of the Olympic "gaffe," (a matter so trivial as to be laughable) Romney demonstrated deft statesmanship, a command of the issues, and a commitment to America's traditional and proven allies, the like of which they have not seen in 43 months of Obama dis-plomacy. For a little more substantive analysis, I recommend Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column on the subject.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Nothing Good Happens 'Til Something Gets Sold

In his marketing seminars, my big brother Jim, the Marketing Wizard, often finds himself buttressing the much maligned industry of sales and the noble professionals who engage in that challenging occupation by saying, "Nothing good happens 'til something gets sold." Mr. Obama should attend one of Jim's seminars!

Last week, the President of the United States of America; the elected leader of the greatest, most productive, most powerful nation on earth and by extension, the leader of the free world, said that if you're successful in America, you have your government to thank. You owe your success, your standing, your prosperity to bureaucrats in Washington DC and elsewhere who provided for you, the context, the structure, and the resources to make happen whatever success you've achieved.

It's an engaging viewpoint, and at first blush, it sounds reasonable enough. Government provides the infrastructure and support for your prosperity by virtue of the public education system, roads, a monetary system, police protection, and other services upon which we all rely for a well-ordered, civil society.

But think just a little deeper and you'll quickly see that the President is wrong. Dead wrong! And it's actually rather shocking that a US president would be so utterly devoid of understanding of the design and genius of the nation he leads. Stunning that he would characterize the unique American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people in terms so imperialistic.

In fact, Obama is 180 degrees out of phase. He has it exactly backwards. He could not be more incorrect (or more disingenuous). And therefore, he and those who think like him could not be more dangerous to the America we have been blessed to know.

In the United States, government is not the source of power, of wealth, or even of the social order. Government is not the master. It is neither the conveyor of rights nor the purveyor of goods! In America, by divine Constitutional design, the only power the government has comes from the consent of the governed. It is not the bureaucracy that provides for the industry of the people, it is the industry of we, the people, that provides for the government we require. And when we turn that equation on it's ear as the President has done, we say 'AMEN' to the freedom given us by our Maker, and secured to us by our sacred Constitution.

No, it is NOT the government that builds roads or schools, pays police, or manages natural resources. It is you and me. We, the people. OUR industry produces the wealth that pays the bureaucrats that organize the resources to build the schools, roads, and bridges and to pay the teachers, police, and firemen. It is they that do our bidding and that serve at our pleasure; not the other way around. They very much owe their existence to us. Not we to them!

The government produces NOTHING on it's own; not one thin dime of wealth--whether schools, roads, firehouses, or the EPA. Every penny of wealth that it has, it must first receive from us--either by consent or by constraint. All of the wealth of a free society comes from the industry of the people creating vibrant markets of goods and services by pursuing their individual dreams and by fulfilling  each others' wants and needs.

Does the businessman or woman benefit from the public infrastructure and services? Of course! But do they owe their living or their success to any government? HELL NO! In fact, the success of most enterprises in America comes in spite of, not because of government. We all stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before us. In that sense, and to the degree that we value and build upon that foundation, we all should be thankful. And it is part of the reason we're willing to "pay our fair share."

But let's keep first things first. Nothing good happens 'til something gets sold. No teacher enters a classroom, no fireman climbs a ladder, and no cop walks a beat. No public road, bridge or buttress gets built, and no politician authors another unnecessary bill. All these things happen because someone took a risk to build the very first mousetrap or a better one to follow; someone spotted a need or desire and figured out a way to fill it. Only then was wealth created. Only then did a job begin. And only when that activity became PROFITABLE was there something in it for the risk-taker or entrepreneur--despite the fact that the taxman had already taken his toll!

No, Mr. President! While the entrepreneur, investor, tycoon and even the common laborer acknowledge the value of the social order and the government that keeps it intact, none owes obeisance to it. For it is WE that created IT--not the other way around!

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Where is the Racism in Presidential Politics?

After Mitt Romney's forthright speech (I'm not willing to call it remarkably bold or courageous--it was politically expedient) before the NAACP on Wednesday, where the Presidential hopeful was booed discourteously by his mostly-black audience, Nancy Pelosi had the audacity to suggest that Romney strategized to incite the reaction in order to energize his racist base. If the charge itself isn't preposterous enough, I wonder what "intelligence" (and I use the term loosely) the former Speaker had to make it. Is she now clairvoyant? Can she read Romney's mind? Or does she have operatives inside the Romney campaign who can substantiate the outrageous claim. Because if she can't we are left to no other conclusion than that it is Pelosi, not Romney, who is race baiting here. What other explanation can there be? Produce your evidence Ms. Pelosi...or apologize for your insane, offensive, inflammatory remark!

I'm continuously amazed and disgusted by the never-ending parade of leftists seeking to turn Tea Party patriots and other conservatives into racists despite the conspicuous lack of evidence to support their ridiculous charges.

For my part and that of every conservative I know (and I know a few!) race is an absolute non-issue. I would be every bit as happy to see a black Constitutional Conservative in the White House or any other political office, as I would a similarly principled white one--male or female, by the way. And although I can't prove that they don't exist, I don't personally know of a single conservative soul that doesn't feel the same--despite the unending, unsubstantiated accusations to the contrary from the left. 

In fact, the liberal establishment is the only constituency in America that has anything to gain by race baiting. The Democrat establishment needs to keep black Americans in tow. Hence, they continue to use this disingenuous, divisive, and destructive tactic to preserve their power. Because if Obama loses even a few percentage points of support among this group, it's AMEN to his Presidency and to the liberal takeover of America. And isn't it ironic that this would be the story in the day of Barack Obama--the first non-white President to be elected by the predominantly Caucasian American electorate. 

All that said, don't you find the almost-universal support of the President among blacks to be a bit peculiar? Fully 96% of African-Americans say they support President Obama over the GOP challenger. Really?! Who gets 96% support of anything among anybody in a pluralistic, secular society?

Are 96% of blacks as liberal as President Obama? Do 96% of them support Obamacare--the now 2.6 TRILLION dollar millstone hanging around the neck of the American economy? Do 96% of blacks really believe the President has improved their economic lot? On what grounds?! Are black Americans really sold on the virtues of welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, Medicaid, and disability insurance over a robust economy and expanding opportunity? Is that honestly the lifestyle to which this vast, united majority of them aspire? I simply don't believe it!

Do 96% of blacks agree with Obama's imperial edict adding 1.2 million illegal immigrants to the workforce to compete directly with the most disadvantaged in their own community? I don't think so. Are only 4% of blacks opposed to same sex marriage, or supportive of the compulsory infringement of religious rights, or the ever-increasing, if well-hidden taxes on the middle class? And do 96% of these Americans really agree that choice in education is a bad idea?  Do almost all blacks support Mr. Obama's "right war" in Afghanistan? Do they, like Obama, see no threat in the Muslim Brotherhood? Do they wish to see more open borders with Mexico and favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in America today?  I'd be amazed if that were true.

So, if among this 96% are many whose views Mr. Obama clearly does not represent, why do they continue to support him? Is it merely because of the color of his skin? If so, that's racism and that's NOT rational.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Obama Strategy: Divide To Conquer

Barack Obama has but one arrow in his quiver, one double edged blade in his sheath; divide and conquer. In the complete absence of any meaningful positive policy achievements, the President has only one course to victory: Divide the nation more sharply than it already is and frighten the populace into believing that his political adversaries will make matters even worse. We see evidence of this on every front:

Class Envy - the 1% against the 99%
War on Women - The great contraception scare of 2012
War on Religion - the faithful vs. the secular and specters of theocracy - forced contraception
Black vs. White - The weigh-in on Treyvon Martin and more
Education Envy - The new right to a free college education
War on Wall Street - The takeover of the greedy capitalists
Big Oil vs. Alternative Energy - If you support fossil fuels you hate the environment
Welfare vs. Jobs - Perpetuating the dependent class instead of moving people to work
Union collectivists against "BIG" business - the nationalized Wisconsin recall election
GLBT vs. Christian Conservatives - Obama's "evolved-again" view on marriage

Illegal Immigrants vs. Border Security Advocates  (aka Latino vs. White) Undocumented Youth Amnesty

Obama's strategy involves a wide variety of scares like Republicans throwing granny off a cliff, and ending an array of government benefits including care for mentally handicapped children, food for the poor, contraception for college co-eds, and healthcare for the financially disadvantaged.

Ironically, it's Obama and the Democrats' policies that will seal the fate of those benefits if the course remains unchanged, where Republicans' plans are devised to rein them in and restore them to solvency--along with the rest of the national government.

Obama is unquestionably the most divisive partisan President in my lifetime--bar none! That could be forgivable if his policies weren't so disastrous for the country. Here are the facts:

Unemployment has remained above 8% for over 3 years and is arguably higher since the number of workers in the workforce has shrunken to record lows. When those who have given up or withdrawn from the workforce are counted, the rate is upwards of 15%.

Budget deficits have exploded placing the nation in financial peril. With TRILLION dollar deficits 4 years in a row and a national debt approaching 16 TRILLION the nation is facing insolvency. These harrowing calculations ignore another $50 TRILLION or more in "unfunded liabilities" such as pensions and other retirement bene's for government workers--which the President is content to ignore. And, as a direct result of the endless TRILLION dollar deficits under Obama's budgetless fiscal "management" the nation's credit status has been downgraded once with the potential of further falls to come.

Speaking of divisiveness, the GOP controlled House of Representatives has passed numerous budgets and jobs bills that the Democrats under the President's and Harry Reid's leadership have refused to take up in the Senate. Who are the obstructionists?!

Dependency programs have continued to expand to unprecedented levels under Obama. The "food stamp president" now has almost 46 million Americans dependent on the federal government for their very survival. But that's just the beginning. Tens of millions more rely on extended unemployment benefits to compensate for the fact that the Obama regime's economic policies are prolonging the recession and portend a sluggish recovery, if not a double dip recession, in coming months and years.

But even this, is just the tip of the iceberg. With Obama's takeover of almost all of education funding another loan bubble is threatening to burst. The loose money policy of the United States Government in collusion with the Federal Reserve sees the dollar falling in value on world markets and the threat of inflation looms.

While Obama seeks to take credit for gains in the energy sector, those gains have taken place in spite of his Administration, not because of it. In addition to the President's disastrous over-reaction to the BP oil spill shutting down US oil production in the Gulf (most of those jobs have still not been recovered), he rejected the Keystone pipeline that would have created tens of thousands of jobs and put downward pressure on global prices. Obama continues to keep a lock on domestic production by approving drilling on federal lands and waterways at the slowest rate in decades.

The energy sector alone has the potential to go a long, long way towards pulling the nation out of the slow recovery without endangering the planet, by the way, but for political reasons he refuses to take the brakes off this powerful engine of jobs, economic growth, energy independence, and national security.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ackerman on Obamacare

Since the Affordable Healthcare Act has been thrust front and center onto the public stage by Judge Roberts and the Supreme Court decision, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share my always-rational observations.

First, I have to chuckle at the name of this behemoth legislative juggernaut. Affordable for who, exactly? The Act, which Obama and his surrogates "sold" (or force-fed) to America with a $900 BILLION price tag is now projected to cost over $1.7 TRILLION over 10 years--more than 10% of today's "funded" national debt--for ONE program alone! We have no comprehension of that kind of a number. But it's really big! And who gets to pick up the tab? Everyone under the American sun, believe you, me!

Obamacare will be paid for on the back of no less than 21 new taxes--all of which ultimately come out of the pockets of the middle class--the very souls Mr. Obama swore to protect. Why do these costs come from the middle class primarily? Because we have the lion's share of the money. No matter how much you tax the rich, it won't cover the cost of this federal government. But the money has to come from somewhere.

If you tax corporations, they'll raise prices to consumers--the middle class--to protect their margins and their shareholders--or move elsewhere. (That's both good business and self-preservation. They have little choice.) If you try to suppress their market pricing, you'll reduce choice, value, quality, or supply--which of course, has its costs, as well--to us, the middle class consumers. If you tax the rich even more (they already pay MOST of the income taxes received by the Treasury) they'll invest less in business growth resulting in fewer jobs and less opportunity...for who? The middle class! You simply can't kill the goose and still expect to harvest the golden eggs.

The alternative, if taxation isn't sufficient, is to borrow the money from the rising generation. In other words, go into debt. This is the hallmark of the Obama administration. Currently, the federal government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends plunging us deeper and deeper into debt every hour. Someone will eventually have to pay the bill. This will "tax" your children and their children after them, robbing them of the product of their toil and the rewards of their industry. Is that fair? Is it what you want for them? To say nothing of who we owe the money to. America is weaker, less independent, and less secure because of our debt to foreign powers.

But wait! There IS one way out...just print the money! Pay off the debt with worthless dollars! Sounds good, but it's the cruelest tax of all--inflation, the hidden tax--robbing the people of their buying power to pay the bills of an excessive and overreaching government; to pay for the illusory "FREE LUNCH." And, of course, those to whom we are indebted will resist this option with all the means at their disposal.

So you see, there are no winners in this game (except perhaps the ruling elite). We all lose together--the middle class most of all.

But there is yet another option. Scrap this 2700 page "comprehensive" Federal takeover that attempts to micro-manage virtually every aspect of healthcare, inserting the government between the provider and the patient; and replace it with a series of common sense, market reforms that address important issues like the role of insurance, portability of coverage, pre-existing conditions, cost, competition, liability and tort reform, availability and access. There are numerous solid and workable proposals on the table to address these issues and expand both access and quality of care for individuals while lowering costs, without a federal takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy. That's the best, most efficient, effective, and Constitutional way to address the needs of the roughly 10% of Americans who lack access to affordable care. And that's rational!

Friday, May 4, 2012

Is This the Future of America?

I'm not a big fan of Sean Hannity, but he definitely ate this guy's lunch. What's more important, however, is the mentality of too many of our youth; aka the "leaders of tomorrow." If this mentality prevails in the rising generation, is there anything but anarchy in our future? The "free love" hippies of the 60s and 70s are the Progressive bureaucrats and international corporatists that are "transforming" America today. Left unchecked, their misguided and entitlement-minded progeny will "lead" the nation "forward" into outright anarchy or social justice and economic tyranny tomorrow. Have a look

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

"Romney Effect" Boosts Economic Outlook

The very prospect of Mitt Romney assuming the helm of the largest, strongest economy in the solar system is already causing the sun to shine a little brighter!  New claims for unemployment benefits are in decline. Hiring appears to be on the rise. Consumers are feeling moderately more confident and hence, are spending more. And businesses, anticipating the demise of Obamacare, are beginning to feel a little more optimistic about their long term prospects and plans. Way to go Mitt!

Of course, Obamanites will protest: "Wait a minute, if you're going to blame Obama for the recession (which of course was ALL Dubya's fault) then you've got to give him credit for the mean turn-around!"

WRONG-O DONKEY BREATH! We Americans are a resilient bunch. The recovery was inevitable from the day the Federal Government lost their grip and screwed the pooch in the first place. We ALWAYS pick ourselves up and move on. No thanks necessary to FDR, GW Bush, BH Obama, or anyone else. It's just a matter of how we do it and how long it takes. And for that, the Washington frat boys deserve far more of the blame!

"Okay!" they bray, "Then what the crap has Romney done to deserve any credit? He's just a candidate, and a lousy one, at that!"

Excellent question! To which I answer, 'Absolutely nothing...yet. Which is far more than Obama has done to help the situation.'

But here's the truth. Obama and Democrats, with a fair dose of help from big government Republicans have done just about everything wrong since Obama took office. Even before that, both the growth and explosion of the housing bubble which precipitated the recession, can be laid squarely at their feet. Dating back to Jimmy Carter and accelerated by William Jeff, the affordable housing initiatives forced lenders (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) to extend copious amounts of credit to people who clearly, were unqualified. Of course, the banks resisted at first, but with Uncle Sam holding out an open checkbook and promising to back the risky loans, they figured, "what the hell?" That's kinda like handing a shot of whiskey to an alcoholic and acting surprised when he drinks it! So the party was on.

Washington is notorious for making all the wrong decisions when it comes to "managing the economy" which they have no business doing in the first place. That's why the best results accrue when they DE-manage; like Reagan deregulation, de-taxation, and de-federalization (aka privitization) or Gingrich/GOP style welfare reform and budget reform.

The prospect of de-management or UN-federalizing the economy via the repeal of Obamacare, reduction of federal agencies and programs and constructive tax reform as is portended by the prospect of a conservative administration under President Romney, has markets hoping for better future outcomes and hence, beginning to move again. It is, indeed, the Romney Effect!

A Shameless Plea for Followers

Bruce Ackerman, Blogger
In this critical election year, there is an unprecedented need for libertarian citizen voices who can help UNITE Americans around the Constitutional principles that bind us, without falling into the vitriolic partisan bickering so prevalent in the media and the blogosphere, generally.

Read a few of my articles and if you agree that, whether or not you agree with my conclusions, the expressions are at least civil, rational, fair-minded, and engaging, please follow my blog and share both my commentary and your own thoughts about it with those in your online circles.

Your participation will encourage my commentary, which will in turn, hopefully, stimulate ever more constructive dialog and ultimately, influence. Let us reason together!

In Liberty!

Bruce Ackerman
The Rational Conservative

Thursday, April 5, 2012

The Irony of Santorum's "Success"

Rick Santorum has enjoyed an almost incomprehensible wave of support in the GOP Primary over the last 2 or 3 months. But the bloom is clearly off the rose and Rick's popularity is going the way of so many of his predecessors in the on-again/off-again fight for front-runner status against the indomitable Mitt Romney.

"Sweater Man" Sinks in Recent Polls
In hindsight, the Santorum factor isn't as inexplicable as it first appears. Santorum's strength came not from his own conservative virtues, but from the "vices" of his competitor anti-Mitts. Rick Perry torched himself with poor debate performances and a serious illegal immigration faux pas. Herman Caine became embroiled in allegations of sexual scandal. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann fell to ridicule from the left and a lack of personal gravitas, and late-comer Jon Huntsman never got off the ground. Ron Paul doesn't play ball in the Mitt/not-Mitt tournament and stands apart with a loyal, but too-small constituency to factor in the contest.

Newt Gingrich, alone, offered voters a quasi-viable not-Mitt alternative to Ricky. With the appeal of "big ideas" (code for big government solutions) and a big mouth for debate, Newt captured the imagination of the anti-Mitts and flared into front-runner status for a fleeting moment. But he soon withered under the heat of scrutiny when his big negatives were exposed as well. And yes, you can credit Romney for shining the light on the dark side of Gingrich's moon in a great practice expedition for the Obama contest.

So Santorum rose again; like a Phoenix out of the ashes of his self-destructed brethren (and sister). But it was only after all the other options burned out. Let's face it, where else were the anti-Mitts to go? Ricky has made the egocentric assumption that it was a warm pro-Santorum wind that blew him into contention, and not the chilly anti-establishment backdraft. But he is wrong! Santorum is now the victim of the very voters he courted so successfully. Having campaigned as the quintessential "Not Mitt" candidate, that's now ALL he has going for him, and the voters are beginning to see that it's a a few thousand straws short of a bale.

Former Senator Santorum is now sinking fast even in his home state of Pennsylvania where some polls have him trailing the Gov. Pundits are pushing him to get out, if only to save himself for a future Presidential bid. But I predict that in or out; win or lose in PA, Santorum is a sunken dinghy.  He's a candidate with limited appeal; mostly to those who care ONLY about social issues and the trappings of moral courage, but who lack the courage themselves to take a close look under the hood. Santorum is the real faux conservative in the race. Just look at his voting record.

In a future contest, if you stack Santorum up against likely GOP rivals like Marco Rubio, Governor Christy, or even Rand Paul, Santorum doesn't stand a chance. No, Santorum's days as a national candidate are numbered. And that's probably pretty rational, as well.