Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective

"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." ~ Bethania McKenstry

I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.

First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.

It was a self defeating prediction.

If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?

Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.

Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."

It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".

I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.

Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.

I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.

Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:


In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.

Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.

At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.

Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.

Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:

96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.

Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.

But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.

So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.

They will vote according to race.

He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.

It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.

Enter Herman Cain. A black man.

If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.

They will have to choose between two black men for president.

And therefore, a dilemma.

The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:

1. A Democrat black candidate.

2. A Republican black candidate.

3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.

4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..

5. Vote for a third party candidate.

6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or

7. Don't vote at all.

Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.

This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.

However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.

If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.

Excited by power, Obama ignores legal restraints

(in other words, he's forsaken his oath as president; choosing to rule rather than govern)

--by Timothy P. Carney, May 22, 2011
The Washington Examiner

Excerpts:

President Obama launched a U.S. war in Libya two months ago with no congressional approval. Under the Constitution and under the War Powers Act, which allows the president to wage defensive wars for up to 60 days without prior approval, Obama probably broke the law.

Now that 60 days have passed since the United States joined the hostilities, Obama's war is more clearly illegal. But nobody should expect this to matter to a president with a long record of disregarding legal and constitutional limits on presidential and federal power.

The same media that pulled out every stop to vilify President Bush, bends over contortionist-like to condone his every flouting and affront to the constitution.

Obama in 2009 threw out bankruptcy law and precedent when he handed ownership of Chrysler to his political patrons, the United Auto Workers, publicly and privately threatening the creditors who objected.

Obama's National Labor Relations Board has gotten in the game by blocking Boeing from making its jets at its new factory in South Carolina.

This administration regularly flouts and bends its own ethics rules. Lobbyists fresh from Google and Goldman Sachs came to the White House and helped craft policies directly affecting their former employers -- sometimes in concert with their old lobbyist colleagues. H&R Block's chief executive officer joined the administration and drafted tax-preparation regulations that help H&R Block.

More importantly, Obama seems to regard the Constitution's limits as quaint. We see it in his rhetoric and his actions.

...

Obamacare's linchpin -- a federal requirement that every person buy and hold health insurance -- is a fine example of Obama's disdain for the notion of enumerated powers. The administration's lawyers have their constitutional defenses in court, but those arguments are more semantical than sincere. The telltale is the blatant contradiction between the politicians' claims (it's not a tax!) and the lawyers' claims (it's only a tax!).

This list is just the tip of the iceberg. What's worse is the glaring hypocrisy of the Left...

It's not just the administration. Disdain for constitutional limits on federal power is widespread on the Left. The derogatory term "Tenther" was coined in 2009 (invoking the "birther" conspiracy theory that Obama is not an American citizen) to mock those conservatives and libertarians who want more deference to the 10th Amendment's declaration that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Advocating stricter adherence of the Constitution will get you called racist. Al Gore once said, in effect, that a "strict constructionist" is someone who sees blacks as three-fifths of a person.

This is the tool most often used by the Left; mock the opposition as being unreasonable or uncaring, and generate negative public opinion against it based on perception; in short, apply Alinksy Rule 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

The truth, however, is that the only way liberals can build themselves up (and their desire for a "just" society) is by tearing others down. See Liberal Truth #21.

A liberal can't consistently argue fact. A few will fall into his lap on occasion, but he will swiftly turn to personal attacks the moment his arguments give way beneath him. A liberal cannot see any truth that goes against his ideological grain. Such truths are swiftly absorbed, focus-grouped, polled, and reshaped to their own vision, design, and purpose.

Which is why the media, the Left, and Liberals in general can't see the truth of Obama. To repudiate Obama, on even so small a thing as the War Powers Act, would be to admit they are not the paragons of virtue they'd have us believe. They would have to admit that they are tainted. And no liberal can tolerate his ersatz halo to be seen as anything other than the real deal.

Obama is the worst president in modern history. Period. The most brazenly anti-constitutional, the most unapologetically anti-America.

No true-blue liberal will ever admit the truth of this. Say hello to Liberal Truth #2.

Afterthought... Reconsideration

For Obama to say Israel must retreat to pre-67 borders... it's the same as supporting the Palestinians' stated goal of destroying Israel. If Obama wants Israel to retreat to such an indefensible position then Obama desires the destruction of Israel. Either that, or Obama is the most naive commander in chief this nation has ever seated.

Obama's Imbecilic Foray Into Middle East Peace

I went to Drudge just now. In the top left corner was a picture of Obama making kissy-face with who appears to be Hillary. Beneath the pic were the following headlines:

• OBAMA SIDES WITH THE PALESTINIANS
• U.S. must 'change approach' to bridge division with Muslims
• Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders
• Abbas calls emergency Palestinian Authority meeting
• Knesset member: Obama is the new Arafat
• Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel

Without bothering to quote the articles, here's my say:

One. Obama should be smart enough to see that any return to pre-1967 borders would spell the end of Israel.

Two. Obama said today that it is the US's position to promote reform, and to support transitions to democracy in the middle east. Great! Israel is at present the only real democracy, yet Obama seeks to give a regime with NO democratic credentials, with stated and demonstrated antipathy toward this Israel's real democracy, a toe-hold in the destruction of said real democracy. In short, Obama supports the wrong side, and defining the US's policy goals as he did shows him to be clueless. It is the Palestinian Authority that's in need of democratic reforms.

Three. Netanyahu is correct in stating that the 1967 lines are indefensible. More than 300,000 Israelis would be left, essentially, behind enemy lines. And why the 1967 lines? What's so special about those lines? How about the lines that were promised Israel in 1920 via the British Mandate (1920-1946)? Why ask the only democratic nation in the middle east to surrender large swaths of land that make the defense of it's resultant borders indefensible? If Israel were given what they were promised, they possess ALL of Jordan as well as the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza. Obama is not concerned with Israeli security. He is only concerned with enabling the terrorists.

Four. Mahmoud Abbas, for his part, appears to want to continue the peace process, while Hamas is distrustful of Obama's motives. Be that as it may, Abbas still insists Jerusalem must be the capital of any Palestinian state, and this is an untenable demand for Israelis. The biblical implication of dividing Jerusalem is one thing, but the reality on the ground is another; Israel will not... en, oh, tee, NOT surrender any part of Jerusalem-- it would be too great a psychological blow to their national identity. How do I know this? Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple. Why would they make the staggering amount of preparation they already have if giving up Jerusalem were even a remote possibility?

Five. Obama cares more about his own ideological positions than any real stated foreign policy. He says he wants to support reforms in the middle east and establish democracies, but his insistence upon surrendering (or even dividing) Jerusalem, as well as an impractical return to previous lines belies his stated goals. Bush was criticized for his support of Israel; some criticism going so far as to brand his policy as overtly Christian. On the flip-side, Obama claims to be Christian but bends over backward in insisting the Jewish state sacrifice its very existence for the illusory promise of a democratic Palestinian state.

Proof: San Franciso Populated by Nut Cases

Circumcision Ban to Appear on San Francisco Ballot

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.

"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.

That's right, Schofield said, "It's his body. It's his choice."

Since circumcision is performed on the eighth day of life (Jewish Law), the child has a choice because... why? He's eight days beyond the birth canal. According to a certain segment of liberal bastion San Francisco's population any male child on the eighth day of his life has the right of choice because it is his body. It's a shame they don't afford the same "choice" on the other side of the birth canal.

What hypocrites!

So what does this prove? To my mind it proves that "Freedom" is a concept that only encompasses their ideological brand; they're unconcerned with the constitutional rights of others, namely, those with whom they disagree. In fact, it appears they're not entirely concerned with anyone's constitutional rights but their own! Some they like, others they don't. And since San Francisco lies within the boundaries of the United States of America, these people feel they have the right to choose which rights others should have, and not have.

From where I sit-- 2,100 miles away --I can't imagine this ballot initiative ever passing. But this is California we're talking about; worse yet, San Francisco!

More Proof That Obamacare is a Very Bad Idea

HHS approves 200 more new healthcare reform waivers

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats' healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves. Still, Republicans have assailed the waivers as a sign of both favoritism and of major problems with the law.

"The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in March. Upton is one of three House committee chairmen who has used new oversight powers to investigate the annual limit waivers.

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

"A transparent process..." they say. Well, it is transparently clear that the process sucks, and needs to be done away with. We can reform healthcare in this country without Obamacare.

If Government Employees Aren't Safe... No One Is

If government can steal from the pension funds of government employees, how long before it decides to "borrow" from private retirement funds?

Treasury To Tap Pensions To Help Fund Government
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post, May 15, 2011

The Obama administration will begin to tap federal retiree programs to help fund operations after the government loses its ability Monday to borrow more money from the public, adding urgency to efforts in Washington to fashion a compromise over the debt.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has warned for months that the government would soon hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling — a legal limit on how much it can borrow. With the government poised to reach that limit Monday, Geithner is undertaking special measures in an effort to postpone the day when he will no longer have enough funds to pay all of the government’s bills.

Geithner, who has already suspended a program that helps state and local government manage their finances, will begin to borrow from retirement funds for federal workers.

Apparently neither Obama nor Geithner understand that many recipients (if not most), present and future, either were or are members of government unions. Does he think he can do this and still retain their votes?

Will current recipients not receive their benefits? Not hardly. The administration is not that stupid. But what about the recipients? What will they think? Will they think the administration capable of taking more if it chooses? Will Obama plant in their minds a fear of government? If government can, at any time, dip into your pension fund, do you mean to tell me you wouldn't feel the slightest bit frightened, or concerned... even offended?

If Washington can do this, dip into pension funds to fund their irresponsibility, how soon before it believes it has the right to do the same with private pension funds? There were talks of doing just that in 2008... doing away with the 401k in favor of a government plan (which they could then tap). Who's to say such an idea cannot resurface (if it has ever truly died)? Who's to say such an idea cannot be implemented?

If Washington would simply bite the bullet and take SERIOUS steps toward balancing this nations budget and paying off our ever increasing debt. If government would simply stop spending beyond its obligations... perhaps we could save this country.

It appears our leaders can't stand to see a single dollar unspent. Every idle dollar is a token to be offered for more personal power and influence. Those idle dollars belong to us, the taxpayers. Not government. Our pensions belong to us. Not government.

If these assholes would simply stop spending.

This "Paper Tiger" Has Teeth

"America is a paper tiger" ~ Osama bin Laden

I've been too busy to comment on the termination of Osama bin Laden, and, as it turns out, that may have been a blessing.

Now that further information has surfaced, I can make a more informed comment.

Stop! Don't shoot!

Upon first hearing that Osama was dead, my first thought was, "Big deal. Someone else will just step in and take his place. It's not over." I still think that, except, his death is a big deal.

Then, I heard that Obama "authorized" the operation. He gave the "Kill" order.

Now, I admit I have little to no knowledge of military operations, and certainly less knowledge of covert military operations, but I seem to remember President George W. Bush authorized the military to capture and kill bin Laden a decade ago.

Was this authorization ever rescinded?

If not, Obama did not need to authorize the operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Taking out bin Laden was the armed forces' mission, and has been their mission for the last ten years.

Mission accomplished.

Now, Obama is taking credit for this victory. This is the same man who campaigned on getting the U.S. out of the war by surrendering. He is also the same man who promised to close GITMO, and aggressively pushed for the prosecution of the CIA operatives who interrogated the Muslim terrorist detainees, calling our techniques "torture".

And yet, it was those very "techniques" that gave us the information that, in turn, led to Osama bin Laden's demise.

So, apparently, Obama gets the credit in spite of himself.

Two things bother me about the subsequent burial of Osama at sea:

I understand the stated reasons for burying him at sea, but they don't pass muster with me.

1. The first reason stated was they buried him at sea to prevent Osama's rabid followers from building a shrine at the site of Osama's grave. OK. So they have prevented Muslim extremists from creating a shrine to Osama on his gravesite. But, nevertheless, shrines can, and likely will, be created at his place of birth, place of death, and any of thousands of sites scattered in between.

So, what, if anything, did burial at sea accomplish, other than generate speculation that Osama might not really be dead? You know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

Remember the theories that Hitler was still alive somewhere and plotting his revenge?

At least there was never any doubt that Mussolini was dead.

2. The second stated reason for burial at sea was because Obama (apparently, since he had the responsibility of making such decisions) insisted we give bin Laden a proper Muslim send-off out of respect for the Islamic traditions and customs.

This offends me. How does this vermin deserve respect from us? From anyone? In my opinion, his body should have been placed in some very public place and left there with 24 hour video surveillance until his body decays into dust.

To hell with respect for Muslim tradition and customs. They are a false religion in the first place.

In my opinion, he shouldn't have been killed at all. Rather, he should have been captured and incarcerated for the rest of his life in a prison with no other inmates and no outside contact at all, ala Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison. No newspapers. No TV. No DVD's, No computers. No visitors. At all. Until his lonely, anonymous death.

In this way, he becomes virtually ineffective as a leader of terrorists. He cannot be a martyr because he has not died a martyr's death. He becomes his own worst nightmare:

He becomes insignificant.

Osama bin Laden once famously said, "America is a paper tiger".

Evidently, this "paper tiger" has some pretty sharp teeth.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

Congratulations President Obama

  And to President Bush as well.

Convincing Proof: Obama Is A Phony

You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. ~ Abraham Lincoln

At long last, Barack Hussein Obama has released his birth certificate, and now the issue of his citizenship and subsequent eligibility to be President is finally put to rest, right?

Of course, who could argue with this solid proof?

Click to enlarge.

Seriously, folks. This astounds me. Who, besides the willfully ignorant, could accept this obvious forgery as legitimate?

I won't lie. I have thought this issue a mere distraction for a long time. There has been no question in my mind that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Of that, I had no doubt. All the suppositions and assumptions and convincing arguments could not convince me that Obama is not a legal natural born citizen of the United States.

Now that he has released his "actual birth certificate", I'm no longer so sure. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the obvious problems with this "document".

Look at the upper left hand corner. And then, compare the left border with the right border. See anything strange?

The so-called birth certificate was obviously and poorly cut and pasted onto a background with a nearly identical pattern. My God, the forger didn't even bother to trim the edges to complete the illusion of authenticity. He simply cut the forgery out and pasted it onto a nearly identical background pattern.

One would think in three years the forger could have perfected his art.

My 7-year old grandson could do a better, more convincing job.

Next, and probably most damning, look at the box labeled, "Race" beside his father's name.

African?

Since when is Africa a race?

There are white people native to Africa. I'll bet there are Asians who are native to Africa. Is the continent of birth their race?

Obama was presumably born in 1961. (I say "presumably", because after this fallacy, nothing about the origins of Obama is certain) No one has ever disputed that fact.

But, I digress. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the proper and accepted term for a black person was in 1961? I'll spoil the fun for you.

It was "Negro".

Or, if that box on the document were to be consistent with the mother's race (which is recorded to be, "Caucasian") the race should read, "Negroid". Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be "African".

See, back in 1961, there were three sub races within the all encompassing human race:

Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although the third was sometimes called Asian instead. I have never heard of a fourth race called "African".

I really don't know what to think about Obama's intent here.

I can't decide whether I think Obama is stupid or he thinks we are stupid, or if he is simply so arrogant and narcissistic, he doesn't really care if we buy his flim-flam or not.

At any rate, I am no longer convinced he is legitimate.

And, I know I am not alone.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

A Not-So-Pithy Review...

I typically offer pithy reviews on personal blog. But as the book from which this film is drawn still finds relevance in the hearts and minds millions, here then is a not-so-pithy review of the low-budget Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

The Continued Relevance of Ayn Rand’s Villains

On Saturday, my parents called to report they had driven an hour into Reno, Nevada, to see Paul Johansson’s adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. Despite the film’s strongly negative reviews, the theater was full. Curiously, this scene was true across the nation this weekend, as the film brought in more than 1.6 million despite only opening in 300 theaters: an average of $5,600 per theater, leaving it behind only the heavily advertised films Rio and Scream 4.

Unfortunately, the quality of this adaptation is representative of its low budget and brief production time. The film meticulously retains the original plot of Rand’s opus, going so far as to lift much of the dialogue directly out of the novel. However, due to the large amount of material being covered, the result leaps through the original plot line in a somewhat disjointed portrayal, which can be difficult to follow. While Johansson is to be commended for finally bringing Atlas Shrugged to cinema after almost 40 years of negotiations, delays, and difficulties, it is disappointing that the end result is not more impressive.

Despite the film’s mediocre quality, its end was met by a surprising response in Reno on Saturday. As the main character, Dagny Taggart, climbs a flame-engulfed hill to be confronted with the destruction of petroleum magnate Ellis Wyatt’s oil fields — the lifeblood of what little remained of the American economy — she screams in terror. The camera pulls away, revealing Wyatt’s parting farewell: “I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It’s yours.”

The crowded theater began to applaud.

While some people of all ideological persuasions, including libertarians, find Ayn Rand’s rather idiosyncratic beliefs and obscure moral code distasteful, the theater’s reaction captures the hidden resonance of her greatest work on grounds she would not have completely anticipated. Indeed, many of the film’s difficulties are less the fault of the director, and more of Rand herself. The primary protagonists of the book are emotionless industrialists, stilted and one-dimensional in their behaviors, thinking only of metal, railroads, and factories.

Atlas Shrugged is compelling, not for its heroes, but for its villains. Published in 1957, Rand’s description of politicians and lobbyists in a time of economic crisis is almost prophetic. These Washington insiders scheme behind closed doors to retain and expand their power. In elaborate press conferences, they attempt to convince the unsuspecting populace of their legislation’s necessity by vilifying productive companies and portraying their own destructive, self-serving designs as being in the interests of the advancement of equality, stability, and progress.

For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, the lobbyist Wesley Mouch decries the capitalist Hank Rearden’s invention of a wonderful alloy that is stronger than steel. And last week, in the real world, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs’s iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness.

Jackson decried Congress for failing to foster “protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work.” It’s as if he wanted us to believe the printing press was harmful to the economy because it decreased the demand for scribes. Such a condemnation of a successful business and a demand for protection of failing industries could easily have been lifted directly from Rand’s novel.

However, the similarities are not restricted to a lone Democratic congressman. Similar absurd arguments were bountiful on both sides of the aisle in debates about policies ranging from Obamacare to the bailouts. Americans are directed to believe that if they would just allow the federal government to act in order to prevent further change in the economy, then stability could be restored.

It is this paltry masquerade of politicians feigning action and granting themselves greater power in the name of equality and economic stability that leads Americans to Rand’s story. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats both put on a charade of activity last week, claiming to remedy our nation’s budget woes. Both parties threatened to shut down the government over a series of austerity measures amounting to a final savings of $352 million this fiscal year. That’s $352 million out of budget deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion, or .02 percent of what would be required to actually balance the budget. Politicians bickered over funding for relatively low-cost line items like NPR and Planned Parenthood, all the while ignoring the harsh reality that our public debt is on track to surpass our GDP.

In other words, Republicans and Democrats have managed to mortgage the entire household worth of the United States. Their remedy for this self-imposed tragedy? Grant themselves greater power through increased regulations and rising taxes.

With each repeated failure of federal action to remedy our economic situation, politicians reveal themselves more fully to the American people as nothing but self-serving villains. Their strategy relies on the appearance of action coupled with soaring rhetoric to convince Americans of their good deeds. Meanwhile, these politicians are gambling with our lives and prosperity, risking the well-being of hard-working individuals in thoughtless policies designed merely to secure reelection.

It is due to her apt depiction of these self-serving villains that Ayn Rand’s novel has climbed to number four on the top-sellers list on Amazon and that the film is likely to do far better than its mediocre quality would merit. Americans are growing tired of politicians gambling away their prosperity to preserve their own power. The crowd in Reno applauded as Ellis Wyatt walked away, not because he was some great hero, but because they understood the pain of working tirelessly while a reckless and unproductive government needlessly spends away the results of your labor and rewards your hard work with mounting regulations.

The idea of walking away has become attractive — and indeed, Americans are increasingly leaving the United States for opportunities abroad, with record numbers emigrating to Australia and East Asia.

So long as Ayn Rand’s villains continue to resemble the reality in Washington, the story of Atlas Shrugged will remain popular. The average American may not be a powerful railroad executive or steel magnate, but most believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Many are beginning to realize that their future is being gambled away by politicians whose only risk is losing the votes of the individuals who have lost everything.

Regards,
J. Patrick Rhamey, Jr
April 22, 2011

------------------------

Wow! that last paragraph! Imagine that! A review which, like the book itself, closely resembles the truth of our present day to day struggle.

For anyone interested in where this article came from, follow the link below and register for the free email newsletter, or just bookmark the website. There's good financial news and perspective for one and all...

Whiskey and Gunpowder
Fostering Economic and Independent Thought

It Depends Upon Which Side of the Cockpit You Sit

...but no one is served if we choose only to see what is outside our own window.















Do they suffer from fatal optimism? Or do they simply want what they want no matter who gets killed? ...metaphorically speaking

Scream if you want to go faster...

Standard & Poor: Heck Of a Job, Obama
The outlook for U.S. debt is not good.
--by John Hayward
April 18, 2011

If you've noticed a bit of a dip in the stock market today, one of the reasons is the new report from Standard & Poor's debt rating service, which downgraded the outlook for United States government debt from "Stable" to "Negative."

This isn't an actual downgrading of our debt rating – you'll know right away when that happens, because you’ll see toads, blood, and stockbrokers raining outside your window. Rather, it's meant as a warning – to both investors and the U.S. government. It means there is a one-in-three chance the United States will lose its AAA credit rating in the next two years.

Although S&P believe America's economic strengths "currently outweigh what we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal risks and large external debtor position," they have begun to doubt those strengths will "full offset the credit risks over the next two years." They're worried about our high level of debt, and while they appreciate the beginning of a serious conversation between the parties about deficit reduction, they "see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide." They probably were not reassured when President Obama threw a temper tantrum on stage at George Washington University and insisted that uncontrolled government spending is the key to patriotism.

Naturally, the clueless crowd at the White House – the people who brought you a "new normal" of high unemployment and soaring gas prices – dismissed the report as so much balloon juice. Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, is quoted by MSNBC as saying Standard & Poor is "making a political judgment, and it's one we don’t agree with." Oh, good, so our credit rating is safe as long as Austan Goolsbee protects us by sneering at the "political judgment" of the guys who actually issue that credit rating.

The loss of our AAA credit rating would deal profound damage to an already rickety federal budget. We're paying hundreds of billions in interest every year on over $14 trillion of debt. A lower credit rating would raise the interest on that debt by billions of dollars, as well as making foreign buyers less eager to purchase American dollars. If the government responded by printing more money, it could trigger the kind of hyperinflation spiral that ends with hundred-dollar loaves of bread. No one should be under any illusions about the ability of the current Administration to resist the temptation of printing money to escape a fiscal crisis.

Liberal Democrats won't pay a moment's heed to the dire warnings from Standard & Poor. Instead, they'll draw the exact opposite of the proper conclusion, and use the report as a club to beat anyone who resists raising the debt ceiling next month. They should read S&P's statement more carefully. The analysts don't think our problem is that we're not borrowing enough money.

America, and its liberal elite, will learn the meaning of the word "unsustainable" when Standard & Poor chooses to advise the investors of the world to stop sustaining them. That decision will not be subject to the approval of Barack Obama or any of his advisors.

--------------

From the S&P report:

"On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his Administration’s medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the Administration’s strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this target..."

What really leaped out at me was the text I emphasized. I thought Obama produced a new budget? But this report appears to back up what others have been saying... there is no plan. Obama went out, and in a petulant, classless speech told everyone what he wants to see in "his" new budget, but now it's up to the "Gang of Six" in the senate to come to an agreement-- they appear to be holding all the cards.

Talk has been, if the US doesn't increase oil production soon we're looking at $5 a gallon gasoline. If the conflicts in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, etc., spill over into Saudi Arabia, we're looking at further decreases in oil production.

Can we afford to await clean renewable technologies to save us from the very likely events that could cripple our economy? No, even if we start drilling tomorrow morning we wouldn't have oil filling barrels for at least a year, but every moment we wait for clean technologies to save our environmentally conscious souls the specter of economic disaster looms closer.

Sometimes what we want has to take a back seat to what we really need. If only our president understood this.

More from the S&P report:

"Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

"We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible."

Can the US economy wait until after the 2012 elections? If democrats retain the senate and Obama the White House, we're at a stalemate, and the problem worsens. Both parties are intractable in their ideologies.

I find it interesting that Standard & Poor sees BOTH plans as a foundation for a good start, and that good things "could result." The problem, again, is two diametrically opposed political forces which will work their positions to the detriment of the country. It's not about the future of this nation-- except as lip-service --for either, but for one more than the other. What it's really about is the consolidation of political power.

[Naturally I believe there's less of this in the republican party, but who reading this is surprised to hear it?]

If Obama loses-- as many expect --and democrats retain power in the senate, and republicans in the house, there's a greater chance of moving fiscal sanity forward. But from where I sit, the biggest obstacle to genuine, responsible, fiscal change is the democrat-led senate.

This country is barreling pell-mell toward an uncertain future, and one party appears hell-bent on maintaining a status quo that is no longer sustainable. Scream if you want to go faster. Make hay while you can. Rock till you drop... Or bite the bullet, and step back from the edge.

The choice should be apparent to all. But apparently it's not.

Questions to Consider

  [Something to truly be proud of...]

Reports indicate abortion is the leading cause of death within the African-American community in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973 -- the year of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade -- 13 million African-American lives have been lost to abortion.

"Between abortion and black-on-black crime, as a people group we're exterminating ourselves. We're not loving our children in the womb or outside of the womb... So I have to do whatever it is that I can do to help save babies' lives and to make an impact on our culture.

"We've become a culture of death -- and I want to be one of those used by God to move us from a culture of death to a culture of life.

"Less than two percent of the African-American population is involved actively in the pro-life movement... So any of the babies who have been saved -- our babies -- have been because there's been people who aren't concerned about the color. So [while] I say thank you to that... I also say it's time for my culture to wake up and to become involved."

Currently in Congress, every member of the Congressional Black Caucus identifies himself or herself as "pro-choice." Elliott laments that fact.

Elliott, who is a minister, author, and conference speaker, says she is devoted to helping men and women in becoming who God created them to become. "We are the head of every criminal activity. We have more babies die from [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] -- there's something wrong," says the ministry leader. "And I believe the something that's wrong is we've moved away from our first love, which is Jesus Christ."

--Dr. Peggy Elliot on Genocide Within the African-American Community

Can anyone answer me why the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are more concerned with promoting the Democrat platform to the expense of the needs of their own people? Are they blinded to what's happening within their own community and culture by a granted role and promise of power? Why doesn't the African-American community itself (not it's so-called leaders) see what is being done to them? Is it a spiritual fault within the community or is the fault of governmental interference?

What is it about liberal policy positions that make otherwise bright-minded individuals stumble about in the dark? Do they prefer the darkness I would characterize as an institutionalized 'lack of personal responsibility' offered them in place of the light of truth-- a scales falling from the eyes' kind of understanding?

Do some liberal policies, however well-meaning, promote the abandonment of deeper spiritual truths? How do conservative policies compare? Is there a moral difference between the two camps stated and defended general policies?

If genuine truth is the desired outcome of any public discussion, which side, conservative, liberal, (or neither), is closer to that 'scales falling from the eyes' variety?

Promote the general welfare...

What does it mean?

Here's what various places on the web (with no effort to pick and choose on my part) have to say:

From Answers.com:

"Welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity or well-being.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that nothing in the preamble grants legislative power.

"Welfare" should not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole preamble - the idea of the preamble is simply that the founders of our nation think that the proposed system of governance would naturally result in the items listed in the preamble. Be very cautious to not confuse result and causation.

"General welfare" is one of the ostensible results of our system of governance.

Turning the tables around and saying that "general welfare" is a legislative goal is entirely corrupt and against what the founders were saying.

The founders defined "welfare" as a result - a natural consequence. Those who would incorrectly have you believe that it is a legislative objective try to rewrite history by making a consequential result into an active cause.

From CUSDI.org:

The Preamble declares that: "We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning is clear that all authority originates from the People.

The meaning of the word Welfare in the Constitution is different from its current usage. The constitutional meaning of welfare is: 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [ME wel faren, to fare well]

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

From Lawandliberty.org:

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.

Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

There are, I know, other sites with far different takes. Seems to me, however, that this much is true: The Preamble gives an overview of what the Constitution, as an outline of rights, and sundry duties granted to the states and federal government, ultimately amounts to for the United States of America. As such, it further makes sense that the Preamble does not contain any legislative mandates to either the States or the Federal government. The 10th amendment therefore defines what is and is not allowed to the federal government. The commerce clause is a bit murkier, and has grown murkier since it's inclusion.

Another thing. It should be undeniable that the meaning of words change over time-- 'Queer' used to mean 'strange.' 'Gay' used to mean 'happy.' What did the words 'general welfare' mean in context of 17th century understanding? I can tell you what it didn't mean. What it didn't mean was near half the populace on the public dole, in some form or fashion. The meaning and expected performance of our Constitution has been bastardized over long decades of misinterpretation (intentional or ignorantly, makes no difference), however well-meaning by men and women on both sides of the aisle. We are in this mess because of discretionary and entitlement spending... areas in our budget this president is ignoring in his non-budget fix.

There IS No Plan!

He punted. Biden slept.

I can't take this shit-for-brains president seriously.

Where's the plan? All he did was give a speech. And a partisan, 'hey! I'm back on the campaign trail,' one at that! His plan, from all I've heard, doesn't even exist on paper... yet. Ryan's budget is real. Obama's is a phantom, a hat trick. It raises the deficit by twelve trillion in spite of it's 4 trillion in cuts?

WTF!?

This man is supposed to be smart! That's what they all tell us. But I see no evidence of it. What I do see is the worst president in American history. The biggest liar. A racist. And a man with a lot to hide.

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, if this man wins reelection, this country will cease to be the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. America will be shat out the dark puckered hole of history, and Obama will have been the catalyst-- that final grunt and push, if you will --if not the direct cause. And I say, 'if not' because we too share culpability in this nation's coming demise. If we do not get a hold of our finances, cut spending, reform entitlements, and simplify as well as plug up the loops holes in the tax code the United States of America I grew up to respect and adore will be gone.

Obama is not so stupid he can't see this. He see's it, and doesn't care. It sickens me to know that this country has so successfully been undermined-- primarily by public education --that near half the nation would sooner drink piss and eat shit rather than vote this buffoon out of office.

This is one reason senators make poor presidents! What is wrong with America if it thinks a man with less than 60 days in-house experience in the Senate prior to declaring his candidacy has what it takes to run this nation? Is America so F\[*ed in the head stupid that this sounded like a good idea?

I firmly believe that Obama will be remembered-- assuming there is an America TO remember --as the worst president in American history.

I'm too angry right now to be rational. So take this post for what it is... the rantings of an extremely pissed conservative who has been slapped in the face by president Obama one too many times.

MAYDAY!

Read this article.

This is the audiotape to which the article refers:


I leave this here without comment for the readers. What do you think?

A Headline & Righteous Anger, and Indignation

President Obama to Enslave US Military in Order to Protect Abortion Funding
Planned Parenthood protected. Armed Forces go unpaid.

"Jesse Jackson says the government shutdown would be a return to the Civil War. If today's troops still engage in battle -- if they go to war and execute the orders -- but are not paid by their commander-in-chief, are they his slaves? It sure sounds like Obama has more in common with President Jefferson Davis than he does with President Lincoln."

[...]

"What's a few dead babies between friends? President Obama has no problem ordering a moratorium on drilling for oil, but he will not support a moratorium on drilling for babies."

--Rush, April 8, 2011

The best way to beat Liberals, in ANY election, is to play them at their own game. Hit first, hit hard, do not ease your attack, keep them on the defensive, give them no opportunity to establish a beach head. In other words, Alinsky rule no. 13

"Identify, isolate, freeze and escalate."

Prime example. When Boener and Reid appear at a microphone together Boener should make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that we are in this position because democrats; Reid, Pelosi, AND president Obama failed to provide or pass a budget for two years. Call them out every time they attempt to blame a stiff-necked GOP by pointing out, repeatedly, in the microphone, at every opportunity, that Democrats have failed to do their job; that all their tears spill from crocodile eyes; for if they truly cared about their precious government and the people it purports to help they would have ensured it was funded when it was their job to do so.

Democrats are not interested in returning to fiscal sanity. All they want to do is spend. And tax. They have no desire to cut. They want everyone on some form of government assistance. They want a populace enslaved by government, for the purpose of empowering government, to the detriment of the very people the government is supposed to protect. Democrats are pushing a fascist ideological world-view; they are not interested in personal responsibility, for themselves especially. They view the American people as piggy-banks to be upended and shook till every last penny spills from their pockets. They will not be happy until everyone is miserable. Except for themselves, of course. Didn't Orwell kind of presage this day at the end of Animal Farm? I think he did!

The more I hear them bemoaning the shutdown of this, that or the other, I can only think that this was deliberate on their part. They wanted a shutdown, this year, because they believe that, just like the shutdowns in 1994-5, the GOP will be blamed. And if this is what they have really done; that they really planned this crisis for just this reason, they don't deserve to be in office. They don't deserve to be called American. Not one single conservative or member of the GOP should feel the slightest compunction toward civility with democrats. If they are deliberately spending this nation into insolvency and collapse while cynically staging a shutdown scenario to blame their opponents, the fires of hell are not hot enough for this collection of rat dropping we "affectionately" call democrats. If the democratic leadership has actually done this on purpose, the gloves are off! It's time to blacken their eyes, kick them in the proverbial nuts, and kick and spit on them while they're down. They'll deserve nothing better. I'm talking destruction here. I mean utterly destroy them. Not physically, mind you, but politically, financially, personally. Give them nothing to turn to but God... where they can beg forgiveness and a reprieve from the Hell they so richly deserve.

For the record, I do not believe the GOP will take the fall for this. The American people know where the blame lies, even if democrats do not. Every time they open their misbegotten pie-holes I have to fight the urge to puke. And there's nothing I hate worse than puking...

Obama - Lost in the Grass.

Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012
--John Phillips, Los Angeles Times

Hillary voters weren't swooned by Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries and many are abandoning him in public opinion surveys today. But are they mad enough to ride the elephant in 2012?

Get out the saddle, because that's exactly what they did in 2010.

In the midterm elections, while it's true the Democrats were routed everywhere, they got especially creamed in states where Hillary did well. In House races, the Democrats lost four seats in Florida, six in New York, five in Ohio, four in Pennsylvania and three in Texas –- all states Hillary carried in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Meanwhile, the Democrats strengthened their hand in places that went heavily for Obama in 2008 –- with pickups in Hawaii, Delaware and the MSNBC prime-time lineup.

The lesson: Hillary voters aren't only willing to pull the plug on their fellow Democrats -– they're willing to yank it like they're starting a lawn mower.

I would love to see hillary pushing that mower.

The Emperors New Clothes

It's all about appearances...

...cause there certainly isn't any substance to liberal fear-mongering.