Why is Obama's approval in the 40's?

Records are meant to be broken. No president has had approval ratings lower than Obama has within the first year of a presidency. It really does not take much insight to figure out why this has happened:

• His healthcare bill is wildly unpopular. 70% of Seniors don't like it. The vast majority of Independents and all Republicans don't. What you have left is a minority of Independents, and the far left. I bring up Seniors because they vote in higher numbers than any other section of the population.
• Cap and Trade Bill: This bill is also wildly unpopular. This has only passed the House of Representatives and is most likely a non-starter in the Senate. Even so, most voters know this bill is something that will hurt the economy and small business. Lastly, Climate Change legislation is at the bottom of voters minds, with only 2% thinking it should be addressed as the number one issue.
• Partisan Democrats: This happens when the GOP is in full power as well. At any rate, the Democrats run the WH, House, and Senate. The electorate usually likes some type of balance. That shall be on its way in 2010.
• Spending- Obama's spending makes Bush look thrifty. The deficit is ballooning at the highest rate in history under Obama. People know that you cannot fully spend your way out of a recession. Inflation is going to KILL us. That's why the dollar is so weak right now.
• Obama promised the unemployment would not exceed 8% if his so called stimulus would be passed. Well, it's now over 10%. Where are the promises now, Obama?
• Obama ran as a moderate, had a record of a liberal. Those who "hoped" he'd stick with his campaign promises are seeing what the real Obama is like. Couldn't have they just have looked at his record? Being that he was the most liberal senator in the US, shouldn't that have been obvious where he'd be?
  

Colorado Senate Poll

In a new Rasmussen Reports poll, Colorado Senator Michael Bennett (D) has some bad numbers. His approval stands at 37%, while his disapproval is at 49%. Which leads to the obvious conclusion:

• Republican challenger Jane Norton leads Bennett 46-37% in today's poll.

As I said in a previous post, 2010 is going to be a big shift away from Democrats, and toward the GOP. One reason is the public is upset over the Democrats agenda; and secondly and most importantly, the GOP has recruited some outstanding challengers in many states..... like Jane Norton. Norton, the former Lt. Governor of Colorado is extremely liked here.

Election 2010 Senate previews

I know we're 11 months away from the 2010 elections, but the pickings are becoming much more sweet for the GOP.

Here are the top showdowns on my mind:

• Nevada: Harry Reid (D), the Senate Majority Leader looks to be in serious trouble. His approval in the state is only 38%. He trails both GOP possibilities, Sue Lowden 51-41; and Danny Tarkanian 49-43. These polls are consistent with other poll numbers. This would be the crown jewel of the 2010 class, as Reid is the Majority Leader (and very annoying).
• Connecticut: Chris Dodd (D) who chairs many important committees is in serious trouble. He trails all GOP challengers, and likely GOP opponent Rob Simmons is a GOP strength in the region. Simmons leads by 13 in Rasmussen Reports and 11 in Quinnipiac polls. In addition, the vast majority of voters distrust Dodd because of a few scandels, and disapprove of him.
• Delaware: Joe Biden's empty seat is up for grabs. Biden's son is the likely Democrat nominee. The GOP's chance is Mike Castle, who is well known and liked in the state. In fact, all the polls have Castle up by 4-8 points.
  
• Illinois: Roland Burris, who took Obama's Senate seat, is not running for re-election. If he did, he would get pounded. Anyway, the GOP nominee, Mark Kirk, has a 50/50 chance at winning this seat. Most polls have him even with his Democrat challenger.
• North Dakota: Byron Dorgan (D) must be praying that the Governor, John Hoeven (R) doesn't run. If Hoeven runs, Dorgan is Dead on Arrival, as all polls say.
• New York: Kirsten Gillebrand (D) is the fill-in for Hillary Clinton. She is not terribly popular, but has a chance for re-election. Unless a strong GOP candidate, say Rudy Guiliani decides to run. If America's Mayor decides to run, he would be the odds-on favorite to win.
• Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln (D) is probably the most endangered species in the Senate. She is getting beat by any of her GOP challengers. It would take a slight miracle for her to keep her Senate seat.
  
• California: Barbara Boxer (D) has low approval ratings (and is a bitch) but she still might win because this is California after all.
  
• Colorado: Michael Bennett (D) has probably less than 50/50 chance of winning election here. Scott McInnis (R) is the favorite in this matchup.
• Ohio: George Voinovich (R) is retiring. This seat is a toss-up, with the Republican Rob Portman (R) slightly ahead in the polls. The Democrat hasn't been decided yet.
• Missouri: Kit Bond (R) is retiring. His replacement, Roy Blount is about a 50/50 bet to beat Jean Carnahan.
  

One thing to note: Any 50/50 battle in 06 and 08 went to the Democrats. This year is on the GOP side. People are already getting sick of the Democrats. With that being said, many toss ups may in fact be easy GOP victories.

GO GOP!!!!

Climate-gate

So I'm sure everybody is aware of Climate-gate. Oh, except the liberal media. So little has been said on this in the mainstream media. It's almost funny, if it weren't so pathetic. So the lead researchers and defenders of global warming at East Anglia University had their emails hacked into. Many of the lead scientists are questioning what to do with the scientific data that shows that global warming may in fact not be as certain as they say. Of course, in their data all of these facts were not put into account.

So whatever ones mindset on whether global warming is primarily manmade would have to stop and wonder why data from only one side of the argument is being touted. While the other side of the debate is being shut off. If it's true science, then let ALL of the data prove it, not just the data that will make the UN, Al Gore, and these universities enough money to buy a small country.

And by the way, why does Gore still travel by private gulf stream if he is so into this "science"?

The facts on the ground remain-- The Earth goes through warming and cooling periods. Over the previous 12 years, it warmed some. Over the past 12 years, it's cooled some. And over the past century and a half, the temperature has gone up a whopping 1.5 degrees. Not exactly enough for us to deplete our economy with cap and trade legislation.

Obama's hypocrisy on the deficit

Obama is right that the Bush administration let the deficit balloon out of control. However, for Obama to say this is really hypocritical. Obama's deficit is so far beyond the rate at what Bush rose it, he has no place to defend it. And when you add in the estimated 2.25 trillion his new health care plan will cost, he REALLY should just shut his mouth up.

Stimulus

Another word on the Stimulus. Despite White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs and Obama STILL declaring the stimulus a success, here's another factoid that would be hard to defend.... On average per dollar spent thus far, the stimulus has cost an average of 245K per job. It's hard to defend this number. I think most of the unemployed would take the 245K and invest it in gold these days and call it good.

Obama's gift.... to the GOP

This administration has so far delivered :

• 3x yearly average annual deficit spending vs Bush (who was also a big spender).
• A national debt that will increase 2X over the next 8 yrs vs total debt incurred over the previous 8 yrs.
• Unemployment at 10.2%, not including those who have given up looking for a job.
• A $787B "stimulus" which promised to keep unemployment this year at 8%, but is just a slush fund for Democrat interest groups and public sector bailouts.
• Since the stimulus, the US has lost 2M more jobs.
• A Cap and Trade bill (Cap and Tax) that promises to tax every US household over the next couple decades. This despite the public is strongly in opposition to this bill.
• A government takeover of healthcare (yes it is liberals) that is extremely unpopular among the American public. And, it has NO bi-partisan support....and, it includes public taxed funds for abortions.
• No transparency- For an administration who campaigned on transparency, they lack this in every regard. Obama stated on the campaign trail that he would allow bills to be debated for 72 hours, also allowing Americans to view bills online and to watch them on C-Span. Yet on several bills, namely the Cap and Trade and Healthcare bill, they were rammed down, with less than 24 hours of debate.
• Thuggish Chicago tactics- The Saul Alinsky strategy. Instead of agreeing to disagree on issues, they take the hardball tactics of degrading, mis-interrpruting the oppositions point of views. If you don't believe me, just listen to Obama's next speech... it'll be full of, "the other side would like you to believe...." instead of saying there are honest disagreements. Also allowing his coherts to say the Fox News Channel is not a news channel...and not allowing his administration to be interviewed by Fox. Ummm, can you say immature??
• On his third, yes third day of office, he renewed public funds for overseas abortion that Bush outlawed. Nice!!! Way to "understand" both sides of the debate Obama.
• Administration Officials- Saying he would not have lobbyists in his administration---- LIE!!! Do a Google search for these characters, either appointed czars, or cabinet members. Here's a few examples:
• Van Jones (Technology Czar): Fired for believing 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration. Also an admitted Communist.
• Cass Sunstein (Czar of Information): His words: "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government." Also believes animals should be able to sue humans, and believes animals have the same rights as humans.
• Linda Douglass: Saying her favorite philosopher was Communist General Mao Tse Tung.
• Kevin Jennings, Safe School Czar: Openly promotes homosexuality in schools. Didn't report a rape case when a student told him about it when he was a teacher.
• Steve Rattner, (Car Czar): Steve Rattner is one of the most troubled of Obama's many picks thanks to a burgeoning kickbacks scandal.
• John Holdren (Science Czar): Believes life doesn't begin at conception, but at whenever we want it to begin. "They aren't humans until they've been socialized." Also, he promoted the sterilization agent in drinking water.

Healthcare mess passes in House

On Saturday night, the healthcare mess, which includes a public option, passed in the House by a 220-215 vote. All Republicans, sans one, voted against this bill. In addition, 39 Democrats voted against the bill. And there would have been dozens of more Democrats who would have voted against the bill had Democrat Bart Stupak's provision of not including funds for abortions been included in the bill.

Now we learn that the liberals in the House are going to strip away the bill that would not fund taxpayer abortions, therefore allowing our tax dollars to pay for abortions. This will not only lose the 1 Republican in the House, but it will lose Stupak, and many other Democrats.

Don't you just love it when a political party keeps shooting themselves in the foot?

An another thing- Didn't this President promise bipartisanship? How is that working out for us? Well, things will be a changin' when we hit the 2010 elections.. Nighty Night Donky!!

Big GOP Night

The first step to the GOP regaining its footing as the party in power. Gubernatorial candidates Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia) and Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) won decisive matches in this off year election. Here are a few nuggets that can be gained by these elections, leading up to the 2010 elections:

1. Virginia- In a state that Obama won by 7 points, Republican McDonnell won by 18 points. That's a 25 point swing. Although this is not all Obama's fault, the majority in Virginia disapprove of his presidency. This includes such important Virginia issues as Cap and Trade and Card check.
2. New Jersey-In a state Obama won by 15 points, Christie won by 5 points. That's a 20 point swing. For those Obama apologists who say it didn't matter much after the loss, take note that Obama made 6 campaign stops for Democratic loser Jon Corzine. This includes the Sunday before the Tuesday elections. So this DOES matter.

Ethical Investigation leaked to the WA Post

There was an accidental leakage of an ethics investigation into at least 30 lawmakers. Of the 30 mentioned in this brief, there were 28 Democrats and only 2 Republicans.

For a House of Representatives that Speaker Pelosi said would be "the most forthright and ethical"..... Hmmmm, how is that working out for you Madam Speaker?

I hate to play political mudfights with liberals, but they were the ones who claimed the holier than thou attitude going into the 06 and 08 elections.

New Era of politics?

"The time has come to set aside childish things." He promised to bring "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Words spoken by Obama during the campaign for President. Here's a laundry list of contradictions to the above statement during his first 9-10 months:

• accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit.
• demonized bond holders as "speculators".
• produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists.
• attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution.
• ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium.
• dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters.
• maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case.
• launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country's biggest pro-business group.
• publicly declared war on Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce.
• saying that the Republican party is a party of no. How is that constructive? He's the leader of the free world, and all he wants to do is start little fights with his opponents. In fact, Republicans have introduced healthcare legislation that has included such things as medical malpractice reform (rejected by Democrats to protect the trial lawyers), enabling people to cross state lines for insurance for better competition (driven down by Democrats), allowing a health care credit (mainly suggested by McCain during the campaign).

And his inclusion during the campaign of being "the most transparent administration in history". The facts:

• Democrats in Congress are resisting a rules change that would allow the bill to be posted online 72 hours before a vote so the public might have a chance to see exactly what it is their elected representatives are voting on.
• Democrats are writing the Healthcare bill behind closed doors, with no Republican inclusion.

Lastly, how immature is it for a White House to attack Fox News?? Yes, Fox slants right. Especially when comparing it to the rest of the media. When you look at this, you see the outright immaturity of an administration to call out a news outlet. Here's a list of conservative vs. liberal news outlets and organizations in our country:

Conservative:

• Fox News
• Most AM radio (at least the successful ones)
• Wall Street Journal
• New York Post
• Washington Times
• Las Vegas Review
• San Diego Union Tribune
• NRA
• Chamber of Commerce

Liberal:

• MSNBC
• CNN
• ABC
• NBC
• CBS
• National Public Radio
• PBS
• New York Times
• Seattle Times
• LA Times
• Boston Globe
• Star Tribune
• Newsweek
• Miami Herald
• Universities
• Hollywood
• Labor Unions
• Pro Abortion Groups

I could go on for days, but you get the picture. So after reading this, doesn't this make you think the Chicago Thug style politics (search and destroy) is out in full bloom in the White House these days?

With Fox News beating CNN and MSNBC COMBINED on a nightly basis, I guess Fox has nothing to worry about!

Health Care Debate goes on

In the past several months, our country has a lengthy discussion regarding the status of our healthcare. Few will say that we should do nothing in improving our healthcare system. Even so, over 80% of respondants are satisfied with the coverage they currently have. With that being said, is it really necessary to blow up the entire system by including a public government option? This Administration would like us to believe that the government option would simply apply more options to the consumer and therefore drive down costs to us, the consumer. However, with the unlimited support of the government, the public option would soon bury the private insurers with the unlimited resources. Here are a few ways in which the government plan will eventually take over.

The first issue in discussion is the fact that this new bill proposed in both houses of congress would include a mandate for every individual to be covered. This does not respond to a free market system. Using my experiences as this example. From when I went off my parents healthplan at age 18, I did not have, nor see a reason to have myself covered. I just chose simply to not carry health insurance. I'd rather spend those couple hundred dollars a month saving up for something, or even buying something.

The second issue is for small business owners. If they have a choice of insuring their employees, or paying a mandated penalty for not insuring their employees, there is no reason to think they would pay the lesser. In most cases, they would pay the reported 8% penalty of not insuring their employees in order to save money. And when this is done, these employees would then be placed in the government run program. Of course this example wouldn't be the decision of all or even most small businesses necessarily, but it would be a decision they may consider. This would be especially so if a small business was barely surviving. Anything to cut costs.

Going back to the point of the government supporting a program that competes with private companies. Even the evil insurance companies. Look at the Post Office as an example. They are losing money, hand over fist, and yet are still operating. They are getting killed by businesses as UPS and FedEx in shipping, yet they will stay afloat because they are controlled by the Federal Government. In other words, no matter how much the ship is sinking, the government will still throw billions of dollars at it...... this is because this is "their" entity.

Of course there are several likeable solutions that many would consider a great change. The first would have to do with insurers being able to compete across state lines. After all, the more choices, the better rates us, the consumer will be seeing. As it stands now, if a state only has a couple options, there won't be any price wars for your business.

The second is medical malpractice reform, otherwise known as tort reform. The medical liability that Doctors and practices have to spend is out of control. There are so many who will try to sue, no matter if it's the fault of the doctor, or not. The preventive medicine practice costs everybody. It costs the practices huge monthly expenses, which therefore gets passed down to some extent to the insurers, and then on to the consumers. If we can get a handle on this, this would surely help. When the only ones who oppose this with force is the Democrat Wing Trial Lawyers, we know there is a huge problem.

France tells Obama he is weak

Read the following link regarding Sarkosy's disdain for Obama's foreign policy:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/29/sarkozys_contempt_for_obama.html

Europe's Conservative influence

Of all the talk about Europeans hating conservatism, they prove it in an awfully peculiar way. Let's look at these fast facts regarding recent elections:

• Germany-Angela Merkel has been re-elected in Germany. Some see her as the German equivalent of Margaret Thatcher. Merkel has always been a close allay of Bush.
• Germany- In addition to Merkel, the conservative party of Germany has gained a large amount of parliament seats, while the Labor Liberal party has lost seats.
• England- Liberal Gordon Brown of UK is seen as not being able to win re-election, drawing weak poll numbers.
• France- Nicolas Sarkosy is the conservative leader of the country. He's in constant attack of Obama, saying Obama is a weak-waffler.

General McChrystal

In an interview with 60 Minutes, US General leading Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal has spoken with Obama only once in the last 70 days. That's just mind boggling to know that the war Obama "wants" to win hasn't found more time to speak with him. Most supporters of Obama will say that McChrystal speaks with Defense Secretary Gates, who relays them on to Obama to get reports. However, wouldn't it seem logical to talk to your field general first hand? This being Obama's personal pick to lead the Afghanistan fight. So this is his guy! In comparison, in the Bush Administration, VP Cheney spoke with his field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan every other day.

On another note, McChrystal says that we need another 40K troops for a counter-insurgency strategy that will be needed to win this war. Without these extra troops, McChrystal says we cannot win and will continue shedding more blood. McChrystal asked for these extra troops on August 30th. The President has still not responded. And here we are on September 29th. Unfortunately, this is more of a political issue for Obama.

Proof #1- The left base of his party does not want more troops in Afghanistan no matter what. They would rather either go home, or only send special forces and drones in to try to kill the bad guys. If Obama allowed an additional 40K troops, this would tick off his political base.

Proof #2- Obama gave Afghanistan speeches on Jan 22, Jan 27, and two more in March saying our country will deploy a new counter-insurgency strategy. We did add 20K troops at the time. He was adament in saying this was the way to go.

Two final things- McChrystal is known as the country's expert on sending special forces and drones to kill in the dangerous areas. He is the one who ordered these in Iraq before our successful counter-insurgency strategy. Finally, wasn't it Obama who said a counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq would not work? Well, he is basically capitulating with this same strategy in Afghanistan.

Will history repeat itself?

Kings College

Jessica and I were treated to an amazing time in New York last week. This was all made possible by the generous offer of staying in Kings College corporate housing. Without this, the trip would not have been possible.

I was very impressed with the curriculum the college has put together. It offered many core Christian classes, such as the history of the Old Testament. Also, the school teaches a free market system, which doesn't get taught at many mainstream schools.

Polling of Doctors on Obamacare

Interesting findings from a recent Investors Business Daily Polling of Doctors regarding Obamacare:

• 2/3 of Doctors polled do NOT want Obamacare for many different reasons.
• Almost half would leave their practice or consider taking an early retirement.
• The Association of American Medical Colleges estimate that if Obamacare goes through, we'll be short over 150K Doctors by 2025.
• The majority of Doctors polled don't know how they would see an increased amount of daily patients if Obamacare were enacted.

More Universal Healthcare facts and thoughts

With the majority remaining against the so called public option (socializing medicine), here is my assessment as to why the President is getting pummeled on this issue:

• Congressional Budget Office says that we cannot afford this plan.
• Between 80 and 90% of the public have insurance.
• Of the 46 Million who do not have coverage, 9.7 are not US citizens, 17.6 make over 50K, and 14 million qualify for Medicaid. Not to mention some just would rather spend their money elsewhere.
• Democrats have not negotiated with Republicans.... Such ideas that are popular with Republicans and many Independents is the ability to cross state lines to get coverage, having tort reform, etc.
• Most Americans just don't want government so intimently involved with their healthcare.
• I'd imagine all pro-lifers give pause to government run health care when Democrats have refused to take out the revision of their plans funding abortions. To think that my taxes would help fund an abortion is a death blow to me.

Mobs, polls, and Healthcare

Isn't it interesting the way the media likes to portray certain sections of our electorate? For instance, during and after the invasion of Iraq, wasn't it the Democrats and liberals who said that dissent was the finest form of patriotism? Now look at where we are. The White House and its cronies in the mainstream media have dubbed those who dissent in townhall meetings on healthcare as an angry mob... Huh? We see 70 year old men and women obviously angry at their elected leaders, but to call them an orchestrated mob? Give me a break. Wasn't it the Bush haters who would liken W unfavorably to Hitler? And to think that this was ok... Hmmmm.. Finally, the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader wrote an op-ed in USA Today calling these dissenters "un-American". WoW!!!

Staying on the theme healthcare, the more people know about it, the less they like it. But there are several house and senate versions out there, whose to know which one not to like. I guess that would be "all of the above". The debate is getting so one-sided that the Administration is now lashing out at those who are dissenting. And they are also blaming Fox News. Wow, now there's a new one. Geesh! Instead, they should be looking at themselves in the mirror and blaming themselves. Here's some tidbits on why things are going so wrong for Democrats on the healthcare debate:

• Obama doesn't have his own bill. Instead, he's relying on the fringe-left of the House to draft a bill. And instead of bringing all Democrats to the table, he's blaming Republicans. We all know that's a load of BS because if he wants to ram this thing through, he surely has enough Democrats. His problem is the conservative or moderate Dems, who don't like the bill.
• Obama still says it's deficit neutral. This, despite all non-partisan estimates, including the CBO, who say it is NOT deficit neutral. Spinning lies only works if the facts don't get in the way.
• 70-80% think they have good medical coverage.
• 57% thinks their taxes will go up if the plan is passed.
• 71% believe we'll have future debt we cannot absorb if this bill gets passed.
• No polls, but most in our country don't believe this plan should include government funded abortions, but it does.

A few more polls.....

• Republicans are more trusted than Democrats on healthcare for the first time in 2 years: 43%-39%.
• Americans oppose single payer healthcare system (universal) now 53-41.
• (R) Pat Toomey leads (D) Arlen Specter and (D) Joe Sestak in a Pennsylvania 2010 senate matchup. Leads them both by double digits.
• Republicans have a generic congressional lead over Dems, 43-39.
• Two governor matchups in 2009 remain promising for Republicans, with Christie (New Jersey) and McDonnell (Virginia) still leading their Dem opponents by double digits each.
• Obama's approval rating down to 47% in Rasmussen.
• Senate Majority Leader (D) Reid now trails a generic (R) for a 2010 matchup. Nothing but embarrassing when you're behind a "Nobody".

Polls

Here's a few more tidbits to say the trends of Democrat dominance of 2006 and 2008 may be coming to an end. Surely, there are no signs of perfection from Republicans, but it looks far better than the last two election cycles. Here's some evidence of this:

• New Jersey Gubernatorial candidate (R) Chris Christie is thrashing the incumbent (D) Jon Corzine by 51-36 in the most recent poll. His average poll lead is 13 points over the past few months.
• Virginia Gubernatorial candidate (R) Bob McDonnell is beating (D) Creigh Deeds by 51-37, which also looks very promising.
• On the generic ballot, Rasmussen Reports for the past 4 weeks has Republicans ahead of Democrats. It's currently at 43-38 for Republicans. During the last two cycles, Dems were always ahead.
• Obama has a 48% approval rating in Zogby and Rasmussen polls. He's at 51% disapprove (and growing) in both polls.
• 71% of Americans think he's raising our debt to uncontrolled proportions.
• The majority now think he's a partisan liberal (rather than when he portrayed himself as a centrist during the campaign).
• Many Democrat Senators are in trouble for 2010: Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer. What's remarkable about this is Dodd and Boxer are in Liberal states. And Reid is the Senate Majority Leader (and doesn't yet have competition on the Republican side).

Another Obama hypocrisy alert

Obama is being rather hypocritical on allowing the houses of congress time to read the bills:

• On the stimulus, Obama said to congress that we HAVE to vote and sign this bill into law immediately. Republicans wanted time to read the over 1,400 page bill, but Obama and liberals accused Republicans of stalling a much needed bill.
• On the Cap and Trade bill, Obama and Dems again didn't allow this bill to be debated, as Reid and Pelosi and their majorities shot this idea down.
• On the health care reform, Obama said the time for talking is over and the time for passing a bill is "now".

Now look back in 2004, what Obama complained about not having the time to go through a bill:


Obama, Nov 20, 2004: "When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them...... And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration. "

Sotomayor hearings

The hypocrisy that Democrats have regarding Supreme Court nominees is astounding. Let's look at some history:

• ACLU attorney and noted left wing radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg won confirmation on a 96-3 vote. This despite her being on the fringe left of our country. Nonetheless, Republicans voted for her, not because of her ideology, but her qualifications.
• Breyer, another Clinton appointment, won easy confirmation 87-9 vote.
• After these confirmations, Ginsburg noted how fair and civil Republicans were in the process.
• Sotomayor, same thing. There are idealogical differences, but Republicans have promised to be civil, which they have, and for a quick vote, which will come in August.

Now let's take a history lesson back in time:

• Robert Bork. A well qualified appointment by Reagan, was raked over the coals. Within hours of his nomination, Ted Kennedy said that in Bork's world, back alley abortions would be taken place, there would be segregation in our schools, etc... This is coming from a man who drunkenly KILLED a woman by driving his car off into a lake and then running from the scene of the crime. Kennedy is a first rate asshole, always has been.
• Miguel Estrada- Sen. Leahy lied when telling the court this past week that they were the ones who gave Estrada a hearing, and Republicans refused... Little did he mention, Republicans were in majority for 13 days (timeline in 20001 when Sen. Jeffords was a Republican and his switch to caucus with the Dems) and did not have a chance to bring Estrada to hearings in that short span. And Democrats kept his appointment stalled for 480 days before filibustering his appointment.... Finally, in frustration, Estrada withdrew his name. And reports became public that Democrats had memos out to try to stall the nomination because they didn't want a Latino Republican in such a high place on the courts, which could eventually turned into a Supreme Court appointment.
• Sam Alito- Well qualified conservative jurist. No skeletons in his closet. Well recommended by all, including the ABA. Yet, he only won passage by a 58-42 vote. Yet he endured taunts by Democrat Senators saying he's a bigot.
• John Roberts- One of the best legal minds around, observed by liberals and conservatives alike, won passage 78-22. Our dear president voted against him on idealogical grounds. This is a new one.. that senators would vote on these grounds.. Unprecendented and frankly, shameful by Obama. Now Obama says follow what I say not what I done.

Thoughts on government run health care

I wouldn't have to be a conservative to see the massive holes in the government trying to run health care, having a one pay system, or whatever they're trying to construct. Here's some loose thoughts and facts:

• The Congressional Budget office and its director said the House's plan would add over 230 Billion the federal budget over 10 years. This despite the president saying no debt would be added.
• The idea of adding a 5.4% surtax to the rich. Talk about a Robinhood society. I don't care how much people make, why should they be punished for success? When does it stop?
• Small businesses will be raked over the coals with penalties if all of their employees are not ensured. This countries personal freedoms are flying out the window. Now the government gets to control a small businesses benefits plans? Geesh!
• Politicians have the right to opt out of the single payer system. Wonder why? It's good enough for the masses, but not for them. The fact is, our country has far superior health care than any country in the world. Facts can be stubborn.
• Medicare would be rationed, at what point is unknown. Although the Democrat House, Senate, and the Obama Admin. has admitted in some form Medicare would be decreased.
• Overall rationing of coverage. If, for instance, an 80 year old woman needs a hip replaced, there is plenty of evidence to support she may be denied in her circumstances.
• The mortality rates in Canada are higher than the US. This, with "free" healthcare.
• Of those that Obama say can stay on their current plan, over 80 Million Americans will be taken off their current plan and replaced by the government plan. These were estimates made by two non-partisan groups, who said this many employers would dump the coverage of their employees.
• Abortions- At this point, the administration said government funded abortions would be neutral. This means they most likely will be included in our taxes for government run health care. So despite those of us who see abortion as the taking of ones life, we still have to fund this act with our tax money.
• The majority of Americans now disagree with Obama on government run health care! We conservatives knew it would only take time. Once the facts are out about what it actually is, people will decide decisively against it. Of course everyone wants everybody to be covered, but this is NOT the way to do it. The more control government has, the worse anything becomes.

Poll nuggets

Here are some poll numbers that might inspire a conservative:

• Obama's Presidential index is still hovering in the -7 to -8 range, which means more people strongly disapprove of him.
• Universal Health Care has more people believing it's bad policy, than good: 49-46%.
• Virginia Governor: (R) Bob McConnell leads the Democrat in every poll now.
• New Jersey Governor: (R) Chris Christie leads Corzine by an average of 12 points.
• Republicans are now trusted more than Democrats on 8 of the top 10 issues.

Abortion promise

Here's the minority whip, Eric Cantor, in response to Obama's visit to the pope:

"On Friday, President Obama repeated his pledge to try to reduce the numbers of abortions in America, this time to the pope. I hope this time, the president is willing to follow his pledge with direct action. If he is serious about reducing the number of abortions in our country, President Obama should not force taxpayers and private insurance companies to fund them. Abortion groups themselves have made clear that more funding leads to more abortions. I hope that his statement to the pope is evidence that President Obama is willing to join Republicans and Democrats who have expressed their firm commitment to exclude abortion from any health-care plan that moves forward."

Presidential Approval Index

Here's an interesting trend that's taking place:

Just six months into his presidency, Obama's Approval index is souring quickly.

This rating shows those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of his performance.

This week according to Rasmussen, 38% strongly disapprove of his performance, while 30% strongly approve.

This -8% number is not good, especially so early into a presidential term.

Cap and Tax Bill

Many analysts have different views on what the new Cap and Trade (read Tax) bill is going to cost American consumers.

The Heritage Foundation, a economically conservative, yet very fair think tank estimates a family of 4 will see an increase of $1,500 per year. This is on energy costs directly (gas ,heating, electric, gas at the pump). This does not factor in the prices it'll cost those that have to ship goods and services that we are needing; this includes food, supplies, etc.

The unfortunate part of this is Obama does not get held accountable to this. He promised over and over to not raise taxes on a single dime for 95% of Americans. Well, this bill will raise a significant amount of taxes on 100% of Americans. Nonetheless, he gets away with it, being that the puppy dog media is salivating all over him.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/15/the-4300-energy-tax/

Why most Christians are conservative

From a Christian perspective, there are so many outlying reasons as to why the vast majority of those of faith vote the Republican ticket.

Values Gap- According to a recent Gallup poll, 76 percent of Republicans say that religion is an "important part" of their life, compared to 57 percent of Democrats. And 55 percent of Republicans go to religious services at least once per week compared to 34 percent of Democrats.

Accountability and Morality- The aspect of "doing what you want" is an example of what Christianity is not. However, this is the exact thing that we see this day. For instance, take the living with your boyfriend/girlfriend before marriage. In most liberal churches, there is not a word spoken about this in church. It is commonplace for unmarried couples to live together. In conservative churches (churches that take the Bible at it's word), speaks out against this sin. Jesus said that our bodies are a temple, and that they belong to Him. The vast majority of Christian conservatives put this law into practice; liberal Christians seem to forget this rule.

Supporting Gallup Poll- Some 59 percent of Democrats say out of wedlock births are morally acceptable, compared to 39 percent of Republicans.

Acceptance of Abortion- Liberals and most liberal churches believe that it's morally acceptable to end the life of an unborn if the mother chooses to. Whereas most conservatives and all conservative churches believe in the sanctity of life, and the unborn has a plan that God has already planned. Many verses in the Bible back this up, including Jeremiah 1:5- Before I knew you, I formed you in the womb; I had a plan for you..."

Recent Gallup Poll: Abortion is morally acceptable to 51 percent of Democrats compared to 25 percent of Republicans.

Homosexuality- Many liberal churches and the vast majority of liberals think homosexuality is morally acceptable, and not sin. The amazing part is, despite the Bible being black and white on this issue, many of these liberal churches speak in favor of this practice. Whereas the vast majority of mainstream churches speak to what the Bible teaches, and the sin that it is. My pastor in San Diego spoke loudly on this, but at the same time, spoke loudly against heterosexual sin- such as sleeping with a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Support Gallup Poll: Homosexuality is morally acceptable to 55 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans. And 52 percent of Democrats are ready to legalize same sex marriage compared to 22 percent of Republicans.

Teaching in public schools- The public schools that are educating the majority of America's children have been increasingly secularized. This means it has turned toward the teaching of evolution and denied the teaching of Intelligent Design. This is a basic liberal v conservative argument, or Democrat v Republican. In addition, many schools are promoting the teachings of sex education, how to use a condom, etc. to elementary kids. While conservatives want abstinence taught, liberals and Democrats would prefer condom machines in every bathroom and locker room at school. Finally, many California school systems are trying to get into the curriculum the teaching of homosexuality (how gays engage in sex, etc.). This is a fight that conservatives and liberals will be fighting until eternity.

Larry King asked Billy Graham's daughter after the Columbine school attacks why a loving God would allow so many innocent kids to be slaughtered. Her answer? "Our country has been doing everything we can to get the Bible and prayer out of our schools. God may be simply putting his hands back and giving in to our country's wishes."

Tithes and Offerings- Conservatives give FAR more to charity, which includes tithes to churches, than to liberals. An unscientific poll conducted last year said that conservatives give 7.8% of their income, while liberals gave 2.6%. This also includes its leaders: George W. gave well over 10% to charity during his 8 years in office. Dick Cheney gave almost 7 million to the poor and medical research in 2005. That is more than 75% of his income that year. By comparison, Obama has given less than 5% of his income to charity for 4 years running. He made more than twice as much money as W. in 08, yet gave about half of what W. gave to charity. Also, in 1998, the loveable Al Gore gave a whopping $353 to charity... Wow!!!

So when liberals want to start getting preachy about how conservatives are stingy with their money, they should do some fact checking to get the real story.

I spoke with a liberal a few months ago about tithing. This person has been going to church their whole life. The response I heard almost floored me..... Here is what I heard: "Isn't there someplace in the Bible where we are supposed to give a certain amount to charity???" I'm not one to judge, but I will fully defend conservatives honor when it comes to this topic.

Cultural Divide: ACLU vs. Christianity: Basically, the ACLU is fighting like mad to get Christian or Christian symbols out of the public square. This includes prayer in school, pledge of allegiance, the word God on dollar bills, Crosses in memorial parks, etc..

I lived in San Diego for several years. The Mount Soledad Memorial cross has been there since 1913. The overwhelming majority of voters believe the cross should stay there. Yet the fight is still brewing because of the ACLU. This group is doing everything in its power to fight Christianity and every religious tradition our country has had.

The reason why this belongs in the political argument is the ACLU is an armband of liberals, and support all Democrat candidates. In fact, Obama has written several opinion pieces supporting their point of view.

Obama- I know I've written extensively on this, so I'll make it short. This is why many Christians, like myself, don't believe in his rhetoric:

• Belonged to a racist church for over 20 years.
• Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger were his spiritual advisors.
• Obama voted for partial birth abortion, against parental notification, against the Infant Born Alive Act, and nominated Sebelius as his HHS, the most pro-abortion governors in our country.
• If pregnant by accident, Obama stated he didn't want his kids PUNISHED by having a baby.
• Instated the Freedom of Choice Act his first week on the job.

Must Read article

I was thinking about blogging this topic, but found an extremely well written piece on the Cheney v. Obama duel on national security.

One thing is for certain, as the author points out:

1. Cheney is nothing but consistent, and has been for the past 7 1/2 years.
2. Obama is nothing but inconsistent, ranting and raving of the Bush Admin. war crimes and civil liberty stomping on the campaign trail; and now adopting many of these same ideas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124328987165752237.html

War on Terrror continued

The Obama Administration has changed their minds for the better. Although he was pandering to the far left kook liberals on the campaign trail.

The changes:

• Military Tribunals will continue under Obama, despite blistering Bush for constituting the Tribunals. A few changes will be made, such as enhanced interrogations will not be used in the trials.
• Gitmo is still open. The fact is, there is no better place to put these terrorists. Of course, Obama disagreed on the trail. Some things sound good when you're not in power, but when you are, you have to consider the consequences.

Anyway, glad to see Obama is reversing course, albeit being hypocritical because he didn't parse his words on what he thought of these issues leading up to the election.

Pelosi caught in a bald face lie

Well, well, well... Nancy Pelosi has been caught lying about what she knew on the enhanced interrogations of the mastermind behind 9/11, Khalid Shiek Muhammed.

She said on April 26th, and on May 4th: "we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.”

However, According to a CIA document compiled by the Director of National Intelligence summarizing briefings to Congress on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) knew from the very beginning that those techniques -- including waterboarding -- were being used on September 4, 2002.

According to the memo the very first briefing listed is 9/4/02 with then Rep. Porter Goss & Pelosi. The summary of the briefing says:

“Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.”

She is obviously trying to score political points against the Bush Administration, at the behest of the far left lunatics in our country.

Facts are stubborn though: 60 congressmen, many say as much as 30 Democrats, including Senator Jay Rockefeller, knew of the waterboarding techniques that were being used on these terrorists.... And as we all know, NOBODY said a word about not wanting us to use these techniques.

Do judges need empathy?

Comments from the White House over the replacement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Obama explained the next justice will need to show empathy.

Since when is that a qualification for a Supreme Court Justice? As most rational people know, Liberals try to legislate the law from the bench, while Conservatives interpret existing law. And this quote by Obama fits right in with the "legislating from the bench" mantra.

Liberals denounce conservatives to the bench because they say these nominees were tagged as ”insensitive” because they did not find a way to conform the law around a favorable outcome for these groups. These groups being minorities, handicapped, women, gays, etc.

The fact of the matter is, each case should be judged for its own merits. Not so because we have empathy for ones current position in life.

FOX News is King

I think pretty much everybody knew that Fox News was winning the cable wars, but did you know:

1. In April, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined from 6 AM to Midnight straight in ratings?

2. O'Reilly Factor has been #1 for 100 straight months.

3. O'Reilly more than doubles Olbermann EVERY night.

4. The top 11 programs in April for their timeslots were Fox News shows.

5. Olbermann is indeed an idiot. He has said numerous times on his show that he beats O'Reilly in ratings. Ummm, what planet does this guy come from? Numbers don't lie Keith.

Homeland Security Secretary is a joke

This is regarding Janet Napolitano.

1. She still thinks the 9/11 hijackers came across the Canadian border. Here is her response:

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

2. She believes right wing extremists pose a dangerous terrorist threat to our country.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1520295

Releasing CIA classified documents

This is quite remarkable, worth the read. This president is much worse that I could have imagined. What a joke, these are lives we are dealing with. He seems to think it's politics at its best.

1. Dennis Blair, current Director of National Intelligence under Obambi stated the enhanced interrogations used by the Bush Admin. we received the highest of value information from al qaeda.

2. Obambi still thinks these methods are so out of bounds that we will never use them again, even if it would save American lives.

3. Obambi is thinking about prosecuting lawyers and CIA agents who operated these interrogation methods.

4. Eric Holder, current AG said in 2002 the Geneva Convention shouldn't apply to al qaeda terrorists.

5. The waterboarding of terrorist and killer Khalid Sheik Muhammed gave us information which directly foiled a terrorist attack on a skyscraper in Los Angeles.

6. There needs to be a full disclosure declassified from the CIA so the numbskulls who think we do this for the hell of it to see the success it's produced. To hell with liberals, they are freaking clueless.

7. On Sunday, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel said CIA operatives and lawyers would not be prosecuted. Two days later, Obama said they might be.

It is ammature hour at the White House these days.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/politicizing_intelligence_obam.asp

Obama bows to Saudi King

Obama bowed to the Saudi King last week. Did he violate protocol for the president of the United States, bowing to another leader? Yes he did. If he would have just admitted it was a rookie mistake, we would forgive him for it (although further advancing the thought that his handlers are clueless).

But the White House claims it was NOT a bow. Unbelievable. How they can lie and get away with that is absolutely freakin amazing! But this is the media today as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YajKGqXQBdc

Just imagine if Bush would have done that.... Or had he given an ipod to the Queen, or a boxed DVD set to the British PM.... it goes on and on.....

Obama's intimidation

"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

That's what President Barack Obama said to Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press.

Nice! What change!

Salaries

Just a couple thoughts regarding the outrage over the high salaries of coaches, executives, etc..

• If the shareholders of a company, athletic director or president of a school, or owner of a sports team wants to pay someone any salary, they should be entitle to do so. What irks me is the outrage over people who make this money. For instance, John Calapari, Kentucky's new basketball coach, has been hounded about why he was given such a lucrative contract. We've come to a point where he has to defend himself and the person who gave him this contract. This America, let the market decide what people make, not the faux jealousy from people who cannot make this kind of money!!

Long list of 'oops' for Obama

• Insulting President Reagan and his Alzeheimers disease. Had to apologize to Nancy.
• Making fun of the Special Olympics. Had to apologize.
• Nominating tax cheats up the kazoo and defending them.... Daschle, Geithner, etc.
• Said he won't sign a budget with excess pork, but just signed one with over 9,000 earmarks.
• Nominates an Attorney General who calls us a "Nation of cowards" on race relations. He has to apologize.
  
• Hi VP makes fun of the Supreme Court Chief Justice. Obama has to apologize.
• His Commerce secretary is in a scandal play for pay. Has to withdraw.
  
• Says he didn't draw up the AIG bonus mess and not to blame him... The next day, he says "the buck stops with me". Which is it Obama?
• His Treasury Secretary DID help draw up the AIG bonuses after denying that he knew about it, and Democrat Dodd put the amendment into the bill.
• His economic adviser said the "fundamentals of the economy are sound". Isn't this what Obama railed on McCain for saying during the campaign? Of course, McCain said this when the unemployment was 6.2% and the Dow was at 11,000. The Obama team said this with unemployment almost 9% and the Dow around 7,000.

The Charitable thing to do

The soaring rhetoric is so often dispelled by Obama's actions. Take the charitable giving thing for instance. Obama cries that our country needs to give more. Alright, fair enough. But if you look deeper, here are some inconvenient facts:

Charitable giving for 2005: Obama made 1.7 million, Bush made $735,000. They gave the same amount to charity.

Charitable giving for 2006: Obama made 3x more than Bush, yet Bush gave more to charity than did Obama.

For both years, the Obama's gave 5.8 and 6.1 to charity. During 8 years of his presidency, Bush gave over 10%.

Even worse, the Biden's gave .15 and .31 percent to charity these same years.

Democrats can claim they care more about the poor, but they sure don't put their money where their mouths are.

I'm not judging what one seems to give, I'm just pointing out the liberal mantra's hypocrisy on the issue when their "leaders" show such a weak leadership in this area.

As one liberal stated famously..... "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."

Water the lawn, Obama?

The house is on fire!!!! And what does the Obama administration do? They water the lawn!

This is basically what they are proposing in the 2010 budget. They are looking at energy (taxing cap and trade), investing with unions in more education and less chance for school vouchers, and starting the god awful universal healthcare... And yet, absolutely no focus is on the revocovering the economy in the omnibus spending, or the 2010 budget.... And very little attention in the "stimilus" package.

"Never waste the opportunity of a great crisis." That is what the chief of staff for Obama said after the election. That statement says, in spades, how they want to transform our country into Western Europe. This is of course, allowing government to have more affect on our lives, and the private sector have even less.

1. Cap and trade: Obama argues this is part of his plan to change our energy policy. However, all this does is put more money out of the hands of the private sector (small businesses, consumers), and into the hands of the government. This will allow Obama to spend the planned profits on more energy efficient automobiles. And all the while, saving Mother Earth. Pardon me, but all of the global warming conspiracies have been put to bed in my mind. This is basically a religion, not a science. When just as many (probably more) experts in this field have debunked how man has made Earth significantly warmer, this hardly reasons as science. Instead, Al Gore and his Hollywood buddies are just raising millions of dollars for a cause they want to promote.

The fact is, they predicted in 1998 that Earth would become much warmer in the next decade. Well, in fact the Earth has cooled over the past decade. All data points to the ebbs and flows in our climate. This hasn't changed.

2. Education: Reasonable minded people can disagree on how education should be spent. However, isn't it the liberals who say that "choice" is the answer? Well, not so much when it comes to education. The words "school choice" is a potty word in liberal circles. The fact of the matter in politics is you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. And the education unions are a mighty force in liberal circles. Therefore, giving the opportunity for a parent to send their child to a private school, home school, or take advantage of a school voucher is nothing short of a sin to these liberal thinkers.

Imagine- You live in Washington DC, and you want to send your child to a better school, knowing the public schools are bad. W. Bush upped the ante with school vouchers, so these parents who are making around the levels of the poverty line, can send there kids to a better school. And now that a liberal is in the White House? These vouchers in DC are being taken away in high numbers.

3. Healthcare: I don't care what you do with it, put lipstick on it, perfume on it, whatever.. It will still look and smell like a pig. This is government run healthcare. Why on Earth in a time of financial crisis would a government spring one of the biggest social engineering programs on a country? Especially one that the public has chewed and spit out before (Clinton's failed universal healthcare reform circa 1993)? The fact is, if this was something that was so great and had no real issues with it, wouldn't most of Europe and Russia have a consistently thriving economy? The fact is, when you are forced to pay upwards of 50% in taxes for such programs, it will always lead to a depressed economy.

Of course everybody wants people to be covered in healthcare. But to think to trust a government bureacracy to handle this successfully is insane. Look what's happened to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security?? Are these government programs going honky-dory? Nope. They are all on the verge of going under. The fact is, the less control government has on things, the better. Their job is to oversee the private sector in a free market. Instead, they are wanting control over it.

Wouldn't a better alternative be adding health vouchers, as McCain proposed? This would allow a family of 4 to take the proposed 5K, and shop for their own insurance. This would not only allow the free markets to battle for your business with lower costs, it would also keep the decisions where they should be in healthcare, to the family.

One thing is ironic about the healthcare issue: Isn't it interesting how liberals want the government to have full intrusion and control over healthcare, except for when a woman is pregnant? And social conservatives want families to be able to make their healthcare choices..... except for wanting government to protect the life of the unborn? Sorry liberals, but I choose the side of the unborn over abortion!

Stem Cell Ethics

Here is another great article, showing Obama's lack of depth on this issue. This is coming from a real pro in this arena, who happens to believe that more stem cell lines should be produced. However, he points out Obama's very, shall we say morally-questionable defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html

Bizarre speech to joint sessions

Barack Hussein Obama just flat out pisses me off sometimes. Well, most of the time. He constantly speaks about political civility out of one side of his mouth, while demonizing his opponents out of the other side of his mouth.

Now let's take his speech to the joint congress a couple weeks ago. He stated the need for massive government spending. He says he's not for huge government out of one side of his mouth and attacks those who accuse him of this. Then he goes on saying we need a 3.4 trillion dollar budget, deficits higher than the mind can fathom. And, and, he says the way to get out of our mess is to invest heavily in healthcare reform (ie-universal healthcare), education, and energy. No, sorry Obama, those will NOT help an ailing economy. That will help an ultra liberal agenda that wants the government to take more and more control of our daily lives.

At least admit what you're trying to do, don't camoflauge it around a whole bunch of B.S. you've grown accustomed to spewing.

Stem Cell Research

I'm not posting this link for the fight on stem cell research, it's more of the way Obama goes about forming an argument. I think this is classic Obama that the masses eat up. Fortunately for those who think for themselves, we see right through him. He's nothing more than a novice political neophyte.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html

This is not stimulating

The stimulus plan that was approved by the House and Senate this week are far from stimulating. When you look at the word "stimulate", its definition is NOT spending on anything. In my mind, it's incentive for the consumer to be spending; it's for giving tax breaks to small businesses; it's for giving more to potential car and home-buyers.

Yes, there is some of what I mentioned above, but is there enough? The Republican version had $15,000 incentive for first time home-buyers. Democrats reduced that to $8,000. Republicans wanted more tax breaks for the middle class, small businesses, temporary reduction of Capital gains tax. Democrats worked like crazy to make sure these ideas were snuffed out of the water. Instead, 2/3 of the "stimulus" is spending, only 1/3 is geared for tax relief.

Some of these programs may be worthy (many not), but it's not stimulus. It's social spending when you give the states billions of dollars, when you provide money to the poor, when you provide billions to the health industry. The fact is, these spending programs should be brought up and debated in appropriations bills, not for a stimulus package. It flat out is dishonest at worst, and conniving at best.

President's Cabinet nominees

I am writing this post in response to all of the animal liberals who verbally castrated W for some of his nominees... Now, I would agree that some of his nominees left much to be desired in all fairness. First I will mention a few that, as a conservative, I disagreed with:

• Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General- He was chosen because he was close to Bush, plain and simple. Yet, there were several other appointees that would have done better in defending decisions the administration made. But the most glaring mistake in my view, is how he handled the firing of many judges around the nation. The fact is, Presidents fire judges at their pleasure. Clinton fired more than any in history. It was his right. But the Bush firings were made political (which again is fine), but Bush and Gonzales kept digging themselves in a deeper hole by overexplaining everything. Instead, the answer should have been, "because I chose to do so as the President."
• Scott McClellen, Press Secretary- Of course, he is conservatives favorite punching bag since he came out with his book. But the fact remains, he was an AWFUL communicator. He did President Bush no service by his explanations on the war. Worse off, his presence was at a time when the Iraq war was going south. Having the first press secretary, Ari Flescher, or Tony Snow in there at that time would have helped with public opinion tremendously.
• Harriet Myers, Supreme Court- She later withdrew her name because of public pressure, but another choice of cronyism only. She didn't have the qualifications that a John Roberts, or a Sam Alito have. Thank God Bush received a mulligan on these supreme court picks.
• Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense- At first, even the NY Times said he was a defense heavyweight, although they differed on opinions. I say Rumsfeld wasn't a bad pick at the time, he just strategized the Iraq war in an incorrect manner. He believed that a stealth mission (less troops) would do the job in Iraq. Even after 2 years of trouble, course wasn't shifted quickly enough. It wasn't until Bush brought in General David Petreaus, and later Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense, that strategy was completely turned around into success. Bush needed to pull the trigger on Rumsfeld's firing when things weren't working, not after the defeats of the 2006 elections.
  
• Paul O'Neill, Secretatary of the Treasury- Bush's first Treasury Secretary was a Republican, with good qualifications. However, when someone is not fully on board with your biggest economic agenda (sweeping tax cuts), there's a problem. O'Neill became an outspoken critic of some of Bush's economic policy. How can this happen? Did they not get his opinion on Bush's agenda beforehand?

Now, some of BHO's nominees may turn out to be better than expected, there are problems when you nominate people who have such huge issues beforehand:

• Tom Daschle, nominee for HHS- Didn't report 3 years worth of taxes on having a driver and a Cadillac at his disposal. This averaged more than 75K per year. I can except honest mistakes, even by a Democrat. :) But in addition, Daschle didn't pay taxes on a 83K consulting fee in 2006 or 07. And back to the first issue, if he noticed this possible issue in June of last year, why did it take him 8 months to rectify this with the IRS? Especially for a guy whose made over 5MM per year since he was unseated as a Senator in 2004? The answer is, he paid them because he was nominated for Secratary of Health and Human Services. This is a known savvy political man. Does he not have a good accountant? Doubt it. Seems hardly like an honest mistake..... Obama got it right at the end, when he said it was his own mistake. But the fact is, Obama defended Daschle over this issue until he realized this was a ticking time bomb. At only this point did Obama come out and say that we can't have a double standard with nominees and everyday citizens in paying taxes... Oops, too late, damage done.
• Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary- As I mentioned in a previous blog post, he didn't pay self employment taxes for 4 years. When he corrected this, he only fixed the first 2 years. Only after he was starting to get heat of this did he pay the additional 2 years. And he says this was an honest, stupid mistake. In addition, he sent his children to youth camp and used this a writeoff illegally. Also, he's had an issue with hiring an immigrant without proper papers. For someone who wants to head up the IRS, these issues shouldn't be looked at as "honest mistakes". Instead, these should be disqualifiers. But Obama dug his heels in and defended his embattled nominee. Geithner was approved, mostly by Democrats.
• Eric Holder, Attorney General- He was confirmed this week. However, he has NO excuse for the assistance for helping Clinton pardon Marc Rich, a ten most wanted fugitive, back in 2000. Even Holder admits this mistake..... Now just imagine if Alberto Gonzales had made this mistake. He would have been grilled beyond belief.. and beyond repair.
• Nancy Killefer, nominee for Chief Performance Officer- She had to withdraw her name because of........... you guessed it, not paying taxes. Do you see a theme here?
• Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary nominee- Her husband's business had a $6,400 tax lien against it for the past 16 years. On Wednesday of this week, he finally paid it. Wonder why? Does this dis-qualify his wife? Probably not. However, why does the tax issue keep coming up with Democrat appointments?
• Bill Richardson, Commerce Secretary nominee- Richardson withdrew his name in December because he is under a Federal investigation for a pay for play issue. A huge donor of his in CA won a New Mexico contract from Richardson. Wonder why?

Obama's hypocrisy

Am I the only one who thinks BH Obama's whining about Rush Limbaugh to be a tad embarrassing? Seriously, this is a president who is trying to lecture people to stop listening to Rush. The hypocrisy is astounding from Obama. He wants to lecture an UNELECTED citizen on what he says, yet won't take on anyone on his side for being polarizing?

That's fine and dandy that Obama wants bi-partisanship..... But, if he wants this, he should be going after BOTH sides. Such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are about as hyper-partisan as there is in this country. Liberals think of Rush's partisanship just as conservatives think of these two as partisan. But the difference is......... Pelosi and Reid are elected officials. And still, Obama chooses to lecture the Republican congress not to listen to a partisan as Rush.

The fact is, Obama wants to silence his distractors. Isn't it a bit hypocritical? Especially when liberals demonized Republicans and Bush that had never been seen before, all in the good name of free speech?

No Lobbyists allowed, oh really?

Barack Obama’s new lobbying rules are fueling the concerns of senators from both parties regarding the nomination of William Lynn to become deputy defense secretary.

Obama signed an executive order Wednesday strengthening the restrictions on lobbyists and former lobbyists entering his administration.

“If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied, during the previous two years,” Obama said in a press conference.

Lynn lobbied on behalf of defense contractor Raytheon Co. until last year and now stands to be in a position to make decisions on a plethora of the defense giant’s programs as the new manager of the Pentagon.

A bit hypocritical??

The Bush Legacy

The game of politics is a rough and tumble one. It is a place for not the faint of heart. It can be described as a thankless positions many times. It must feel like the one in this position has the weight of the world on its shoulders. And many times, the last statement may actually be true.

What got me to write this blog entry was after reading this article regarding George W. Bush. It can be find here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/bush_and_the_bushhaters.html. Everybody who knows me well knows exactly where I stand in my political beliefs. It's not by chance that I come to these conclusions. I arrive at these through thorough thought, reflection, and how each issue pertains to my everyday way of life, core beliefs, faith, etc.

Putting all political issues aside, I think the author did a great job of describing Bush. Whether you like him or hate him, one has to fully admire his deep convictions. When was the last time any man ever been so unfairly lambasted, ridiculed, beaten down, cursed, treated like garbage? And with that, has any one heard Bush giving it back to those who have treated him this way? (FYI- Clinton publicly became irrate, cursed his adversaries. In my opinion this shows a wide gap in maturity between the two.) I haven't. Instead, all you hear from his staff and from reporters is how upbeat he always is, how his faith sustains him. Once again putting personal politics aside, if one can't admire that, maybe they have the problem.

I fully believe history will vindicate George W. Bush in his prosecution on the war on terror, just the way it did for Harry Truman. History will appreciate the fact that Bush kept us safe from attack. History will show the programs and agencies put in place, like Homeland Security, was the right thing to do. History has already shown the Surveillance Act has already thwarted numerous attacks on us and our allies. History will show that Military Tribunals was the right thing to do with caught terrorists.

Finally, I still believe that most liberals believe there isn't an enemy. Or that they are misunderstood. I'm sick and tired of liberals wanting to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt, and not our 43rd President.

Imagine

Let's just take a moment to imagine the unbelievable outcry that would be taking place if a Republican President elect would have made some of these choices for his cabinet:

Take Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary nominee. He did not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for four straight years. He said it was an honest mistake. Ok, whatever. To seriously say that someone with his background "forgot" to pay taxes for FOUR straight years, you'd need to be quite gullible.

In addition, he counted kids camps as childcare write-offs, which they actually are not. Also, he hired an immigrant that worked for him without legal papers.

The point is, why are the Mainstream Liberal Media so very understanding of this mistake, when they had absolutely no forgiveness to any of President Bush's cabinet appointees? I think we all know the answer. The double standard and hypocrisy is quite astounding.

Now there is Eric Holder, the nominee for Attorney General. He has the baggage of being counsel for Rod Blagojevich a few years ago. Oops!! In addition, he was a part of pardoning one of the FBI's 10 most wanted back in 2000, Marc Rich. What a disgrace!

Now close your eyes and think: If these were Republicans, would they be approved without going through hell??? Didn't think so!