President or King?

Our President has decided he doesn't like being President; he would rather be king.

He disdains all those pesky constitutional limits, because he alone knows what is best.  He is a frightening man.

Media spin

The Mainstream Media is trying hard to make sure Barack Obama wins the 2012 election.  There is very little written or spoken on the major networks that is not glowing about him.  On the other hand, the microscope never wavers from Mitt Romney.  Things he says--no matter what the subject--are dissected, criticized, and enlarged for days.  President Obama can say whatever, even things that are proven false or misleading and he is almost never called on it.  He's golden.

Mitt Romney can say nothing that is positively reported by the major networks or national press.

Kathleen Parker provided an excellent example from a couple of months ago:

 I left out her entertaining account of how that make-believe strategy session may have sounded.

Romney said he would repeal Obamacare because he has always says that.  How would the pundits have described his speech if he had modified it to fit what he thought his audience wanted to hear?  They would have pilloried him as a deceiver.

I'll conclude with more of Kathleen Parker's words about the use of the word Obamacare:

I agree.

One more example from the newspaper today:

It's not just me who has noticed.

War on Women?

A short time ago, an old acquaintance wanted my support on a social site against what she called the Republican War on Women.  I respectfully declined, saying that there was no such "war," and it was just another attempt by the left to divide us.  I was supported by comments of others who I didn't even know.  This acquaintance had fallen victim to the media sound bites without doing any fact checking.  I'm afraid that happens to lots of people.


Soon thereafter, I read a piece by Charles Krauthammer that explained this divisive strategy.  It is too well-written to pick apart, so I'm posting almost all of it.  

The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.

What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and a forest of straw men.

Why else would the Justice Department challenge the photo ID law in Texas? To charge Republicans with seeking to disenfranchise Hispanics and blacks, of course. But in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a similar law from Indiana. And it wasn’t close: 6-3, the majority including that venerated liberal, John Paul Stevens.

Moreover, photo IDs were recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, cochaired by Jimmy Carter. And you surely can’t get into the attorney general’s building without one. Are Stevens, Carter and Eric Holder anti-Hispanic and anti-black?

The ethnic bases covered, we proceed to the “war on women.”

It sprang to public notice when a 30-year-old student at an elite law school (starting private-sector salary upon graduation: $160,000) was denied the inalienable right to have the rest of the citizenry (as coinsured and/or taxpayers — median household income: $52,000) pay for her contraception.

Despite a temporary setback — Hilary Rosen’s hastily surrendered war on moms — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will resume the battle with a Paycheck Fairness Act that practically encourages frivolous lawsuits and has zero chance of passage.No matter. Its sole purpose is to keep the war-on-women theme going, while the equally just-for-show Buffett Rule, nicely pitting the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, is a clever bit of class warfare designed to let Democrats play tribune of the middle class.

Ethnicity, race, gender, class. One more box to check: the young. Just four years ago, they swooned in the aisles for Obama. No longer. Not when 54 percent of college graduates under 25 are unemployed or underemployed.

How to shake them from their lethargy? Fear again. Tell them, as Obama repeatedly does, that Paul Ryan’s budget would cut Pell Grants by $1,000 each, if his domestic cuts were evenly distributed. (They are not evenly distributed, making the charge a fabrication. But a great applause line.) Then warn that Republicans would double the interest rate on student loans. Well, first, Mitt Romney has said he would keep them right where they are. Second, as The Washington Post points out, this is nothing but a recycled campaign gimmick from 2006 when Democrats advocated (and later passed) a 50 percent rate cut that gratuitously squanders student aid by subsidizing the wealthy as well as the needy. For Obama, what’s not to like?

More beneficiaries, more votes.

What else to run on with 1.7 percent GDP growth (2011), record long-term joblessness and record 8 percent-plus unemployment (38 consecutive months, as of this writing)? Slice and dice, group against group.

There is a problem, however. It makes a mockery of Obama’s pose as the great transcender, uniter, healer of divisions. This is the man who sprang from nowhere with that thrilling 2004 convention speech declaring that there is “not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

That was then. Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage. And Obama is just the man to fulfill Al Gore’s famous mistranslation of our national motto: Out of one, many. 

Hating the coming year

In a way, I wish the elections were tomorrow. I think another year is going to be torturous! The Republican candidates will be trying to be conservative enough, while explaining that they can be moderate and work with Democrats. Democrats seem to want to seed fear, envy, and name-calling without giving any indication they are willing to work with anyone for a solution to the impending melt-down.

Charles Krauthammer describes President Obama's strategy:

"What do you do if you can't run on your record--on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn't noticed that you've been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains."

A couple of months ago Obama tried excuses: blaming Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt, and various acts of God. Those didn't work. So the new strategy, as stated by Mr. Krauthammer is: "Don't whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich--and their Republican protectors--for wrecking America."

"In Obama's telling, it's the refusal of the rich to 'pay their fair share' that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don't pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It's crude. It's Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it's ridiculous."

I've blogged before about the weakness of that argument. Charles Krauthammer raises several more examples of Obama's taking the low road. "...this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It's dangerous. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation's leader."

Oh I'm going to dislike the games being played before November 2012.

Disregard reality

The main stream media's reporting about the on-going budget "talks" in Washington is canted toward the left, so it is important to find articles that lean the other direction. Thomas Sowell makes some valuable points:

So much of the political candidates are about the quick and easy slogans, whether or not the candidate even means or believes them. President Obama himself was a master in 2008. Let's try and find some truth.

Wait, the government got less tax money when the top income tax bracket was 73 percent? Why confuse the voters with truth? Talking points are used in discussions of government-controlled health care, gun control, rent control, welfare, and many other programs while reality is ignored.

Election Day!

With increasing concern about the upcoming election results, the liberal Democrats have tried some of the very tactics they have for years accused the Right of using: paranoia, conspiracies, big corporation influence, etc. When these ideas haven't worked, Charles Krauthammer has noticed a new theory.

Faced with the fact that the electorate has not been excited about his more regulated, socially engineered, humane society, President Obama is befuddled.

President Obama does not want to understand that this country does not skew to the far left--it never has. Many of the European countries that Obama would like to emulate are in danger of collapse. What makes him think that the very same thing could not happen here?

Beyond the President's obvious lack of understanding, is his blatant (and frequent) disregard for honesty or integrity. In a more recent piece, Mr. Krauthammer exposes the President's true nature.

Mr. Krauthammer, I'm with you.

Elections are important!

I think the upcoming election is vitally important. I doubt that our founding fathers ever envisioned career politicians. The author of a novel I read explained it so well and I thought I had marked and saved the place. Unfortunately, I'm not very proficient with my newest Kindle yet. As I remember, his premise was that the country's ideal leaders were statesmen, temporary volunteers doing their duty as needed by the public--and only as needed.

I have also noticed lately the truth of this comic. Many of the liberal candidates are avoiding that title, as well as the credit for the extremely unpopular bills they have helped pass. What is truly frightening is that so many will say whatever they need to in order to get elected, then disregard their campaign promises. I guess if the President can get away with it.....

Unjust laws affect us all?

One of those causes that doesn't have a political "side." Groups which are normally on opposite sides of the table are working together. Their battle is a bit frightening to read about.

Morning Bell: Fighting Back Against Arbitrary Government Rule | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Media Bias, oh yeah.

It is illuminating to pay attention to the differences in the way the general, mainstream media treats President Obama compared to its treatment of President Bush. Every time President Bush made a verbal slip (like everyone does) the major newspapers and television networks made fun, derided, and generally fileted him. Not so President Obama.

The differences, naturally, apply to the rest of us. Those who seem to be in agreement with this administration and supportive of its fiscal policies--or lack thereof--are off limits for taunting or deprecation. On the other hand, those who raise questions, voice concerns or displeasure, or seem to lack the appropriate awe at the liberals' greatness have targets on their foreheads.

One more for today. See if you don't find the truth in this too.

You Tube Video

By Hook or by Crook...

I continue to be astonished by the arrogance and deception of President Obama and the liberal leadership. The "health care" bill (and I used the description only to make a point, because that is not really what it is), would have failed in the Senate except for a few legislators who allowed themselves to be bribed--bought.

The House bill could not pass so Speaker Pelosi fell back on tricks, sleight-of-hand, and parliamentary chicanery to "deem" the Senate bill passed, and used a reconciliation tactic that has never been used for such an enormous government program. At the heart of this under-handed dealing is, as George F. Will puts it, a liberal desperation.

"Liberals are deeply disappointed with the public, which fails to fathom the excellence of their agenda. But their real complaint is with the government's structure. Liberals have met their enemy, and he is the diminutive 'father of the Constitution,' James Madison."

President Obama would very much like to change the Constitution, giving government far more power and control.

As Thomas Sowell stated:

Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized--or even recognized--before it becomes a fait accompli and the "law of the land."

Mysteries of Liberal Thought

I am often in awe of people who know just the right words to effectively state their beliefs. It is so frustrating to try to explain something and not have the words you want on your tongue. I suppose that is the benefit of writing; one can spend a little time trying to get the explanations clear and understandable.

When I try to comprehend the liberal mind set, I am befuddled by their reasoning. Why do they have such little respect for individual responsibility? Why do they want people depending on government for so much? Why do they think they are entitled to take money from those of us who worked for it and give it to those who didn't (taking a percentage for government along the way)?

Fortunately, there are very articulate writers who say things so well. Writers who understand the strange thought processes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodds, Rangel (who didn't even know who paid for his trips to the Caribbean--he claims).

Thomas Sowell explains:

A couple of good examples he explores:

Liberal intelligensia would also like us to believe that wealthy people somehow got that way accidentally, while also preventing others from doing the same. That is ridiculous.

Taxes are always good, according to the far left, and there is never enough (not that they are dedicated about paying their own). But what companies pay employees, by mutual agreement, should be of no concern to the government. As soon as government sets rules for how much money we are allowed to earn, we are doomed. Our so-called public servants become our masters.

We're just too darn dumb to understand.

I find it truly frightening that people who are in positions of "public service" actually don't care much about serving constituents. This last year has been astonishing because of the persistence of the few to force debt, restrictions, and control onto people they are purporting to represent.

It is all because they are so much better and smarter than the rest of us.

Charles Krauthaammer puts it:

Everyone except the elite, all-knowing, ever-wise liberal leaders is dim and emotionally immature, and those leaders just don't understand why we're not thrilled about their enlightened view of how our lives can be. Guess what, we want some control over our lives, our choices, and--heaven forbid--the money we rightfully earn.

Global Warming??

I saw an article in the newspaper a day or so ago about our little disowned planet, Pluto. The article was about how its climate was changing. Whoa! There aren't any people there to drive SUVs or heat houses. How can that be? Surely humans are the universal planet destroyers. What did we do to poor Pluto? What atmosphere it had seems to be drifting away. Was that our use of spray deodorant, our pastures of dairy cows, or our careless disposal of plastic?

I think we need to be careful and thoughtful, recognizing that we want humankind to have a home in years to come. However, the furor over global warming has resulted in vested interests that groups are not going to give up easily--regardless of their true merit. That belief made Al Gore a billionaire. Why would he want that to change? Automobile companies have invested huge amounts in development of "greener" cars. They would be foolish to backtrack now, even if they recognize the science is flawed.

Walter E. Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, shared the following: