A Little Straight Talk

I'm sick of the double-talk emanating from Washington these days.  It's nothing new, but don't you just sometimes reach the point where you want to scream "Enough!!"?

For starters, let's call "revenue" what it really is - taxes.  Some people seem to think that the federal government just has money falling from the heavens  into the national treasury, but make no mistake about it:  the only income the government has is what it confiscates in taxes.  Obama doesn't have a "stash" - that money belongs to we, the people.  

The president told Barbara Walters he doesn't believe Republicans will hold "middle class tax cuts hostage".  Let's be clear here:  no one is getting a tax cut next year.  One of two things is going to happen:  either the current tax rates stay the same, at least for most of us, or taxes will rise.  But there are no cuts being discussed and the language being used is meant to deceive and mislead.  

The political antics on both sides are frustrating and disgusting.  Wouldn't it be refreshing if politicians, for once, stored their egos away and put the interest of the country first?  I won't hold my breath on this one.   

Obama the Foolish

As reported in The Weekly Standard today, President Obama is seeking advice   about taxes from Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.  This is like asking marital advice from someone who's been married and divorced several times.  

When the Simpson-Bowles Commission brought forth their economic plan for dealing with the deficit and reforming the tax code, there was a brief moment of hope that those in power could and would begin to manage our fiscal problems in a responsible manner.  Unfortunately, that was not to be. Obama made a big show of forming the commission and then proceeded to ignore their recommendations.  As noted before, the president is mired in a rigid ideology and he is obsessed with raising taxes on the "wealthy" (a little aside to the president: they have medications now that can help control obsessive/compulsive disorder).  He makes a show of seeking advice, but never seems to take the advice offered.  

Now, he's asking for advice from Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow?!  MSNBC is the most blatantly partisan network on TV and Sharpton and Maddow are certainly not going to offer wise counsel.  

Democrats have been touting Barack Obama's supposed intelligence for years.  He may be intelligent, although that's debatable.  He most certainly, however, is not a wise man, for a wise man knows his limitations.  Obama, on the other hand, seems to believe he knows more than everyone else.

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin said it best:  "Wise men don't need advice.  Fools won't take it." 

Memo to Obama: the Campaign's Over

President Obama has been campaigning for at least the past six years.  He doesn't know how to do anything else; he certainly doesn't have the qualities of a good leader or negotiator.

The president appears to not be serious about the fiscal crisis this country is facing.  He is mired in juvenile stubbornness and rigid ideology.  John Boehner offered him a good compromise that increased revenues through limits on deductions for the wealthy.  How did Mr. Obama respond to this overture?  He made a counter-offer that included raising the top rates and increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends.  Also, the White House wants more spending on a new stimulus, extension of unemployment benefits, new money to refinance underwater mortgages, etc., etc., etc. The icing on the cake is that President Obama wants Congress to give him the authority to increase the debt limit whenever he wants and as much as he wants.  What does Mr. Obama offer? In exchange for all these concessions, Obama says he will "consider" spending cuts next year.  Republicans are absolute fools if they fall for this slimy trick.  

It's obvious that Mr. Obama's idea of "compromise" is that Republicans simply roll over and do exactly as he wants. Whether it's due to his temperament or limited intellectual capacity, Obama is simply inept when it comes to negotiation. This caused Harry Reid to leave him out of the final negotiations about the debt ceiling last year.  

The president is probably not worried about this.  He knows that many of his supporters are not well informed about fiscal matters and they'll believe anything he tells them. So, he'll blame Republicans when everyone's taxes increase and the economy falters and the mainstream media certainly won't tell anyone otherwise.  

5 Questions for Black Voters

In the wake of the November 6 election, some questions continue to come to mind.  Approximately 93% of black voters supported Obama, so with that statistic in mind, I pose the following questions:

1.  Do you honestly believe that Republicans want to take away your right to vote?  
The very idea that Republicans seek to suppress or eliminate the black vote is absurd to reasonable people, yet that's what Barack Obama, Joe Biden and other prominent Democrats were saying publicly, and apparently the more gullible folks believed them.  Using fear and resentment, the Obama campaign shamelessly riled up black voters to ensure their turnout, a tactic that is unconscionable.

2.  Do you really believe that everyone who opposes President Obama does so because of racism?
Racism, the "R word", is thrown about freely by Democrats in regard to anyone who doesn't agree with Obama.  Are there racists out here who don't like the president because of his skin color?  Certainly - I've seen examples of it firsthand.  However, the majority of people who oppose this president do so because of his liberal policies, not because of his racial background.  It's just so easy to throw out the racism charge instead of engaging in a rational debate, isn't it?  

3.  Why aren't you angry about the unholy alliance between Democrats and the teachers' unions that doom many black children to failure and poverty?
Many urban children are stuck in schools that are failing to provide a decent education.  Republicans support charter schools and school vouchers that would give disadvantaged children the option of attending the school of their choice, thus enabling them to get a high quality education. Democrats, beholden to the teachers' unions, oppose school vouchers and charter schools.  These same Democrats send their own children to exclusive private schools, yet want to deny inner city children the same opportunity.  

4.  For decades, blacks have been voting almost exclusively for Democrats, yet more and more black people are falling into poverty.  What are you getting for your vote?
Let's be brutally frank here: Democrats have been bribing people to vote for them with various social programs.  Since the 1960s, the government's welfare policies have been been decimating black families and keeping people mired in poverty and misery.  Furthermore, Democrats have a vested interest in keeping people poor and powerless so they can continue to offer them "goodies" in exchange for their votes.  How does it feel to know your vote is being bought and you're being taken for granted?  

5.  Although you vilify rich people, don't you really want to be wealthy too?
There's nothing wrong with seeking comfort and security; it's human nature to want those things.  The harsh reality is that the only way to achieve financial stability is through a good education or vocational training and hard work.  We must find a way to offer the opportunities that lead to success to as many people as possible, but make no mistake about it:  ultimately, traveling the road to financial security requires taking personal responsibility for your life.  We need a "safety net" for those who truly are unable to take care of themselves and lack family support, but being dependent on government puts you in a very vulnerable position, and as long as you are dependent on government, you will be poor, not prosperous.  

Resisting the Frenzy

As the holidays approach, we're being bombarded with the usual messages: buy, buy, buy.  I don't blame retailers; after all, they're in business to make money so naturally they try every trick in the book in their efforts to convince customers to spend, even if they have little to spare.  

People line up days in advance of sales, even sleeping in front of the store.  Now they're talking about moving "black Friday", creating "black Thursday", Thanksgiving night. Some retailers won't even allow their employees to spend the entire day and evening with their families. This is insanity.  

Driving all of this is an intense materialism that has taken hold of our culture.  We seem to have lost the ability to live simply and make our families and friends our first priority. Instead, many people believe they have to have to the latest gadget or the biggest TV, but this is just "stuff" and it won't bring you happiness or peace because there will always be a newer gadget or a bigger TV to be had. Some people say they enjoy giving to others, and that may be true, but the best gift anyone can give is the gift of self.   

This holiday season, why don't we try to remember the real meaning of this joyous season?  Although many nonbelievers celebrate Christmas, the real purpose of this holy day is to celebrate the birth of Jesus, our Savior. He is the only source of true, and lasting, peace and happiness. 

Casting Stones

Mitt Romney has become the favorite punching bag of many Republicans, as they point the finger of blame for a lost election.  What's the point in that?  It's nonproductive and focused on the past.  

There is nothing Romney could have done differently that would have won this election for him.  Conservative talk show hosts are fond of saying that this is a "center-right" country, but could it be that that is no longer true?  As secularism has grown in this country, increasing numbers of people are shutting God out of their lives and becoming more lax and tolerant of things that used to be frowned upon, if not condemned outright.  

Couple this with the formidable data-gathering machinery of the Obama campaign and you have a nearly insurmountable obstacle.  President Obama has been campaigning the whole time he's been in office and has accumulated a great wealth of information about donors, as well as psychological information about how various groups are likely to respond to different messages.  This has allowed them to tailor different messages to various groups of potential voters.  

Let's give Mitt Romney a well-deserved rest as we look to the future.  Republicans should, of course, learn from past mistakes, but they would also do well to become more technologically savvy about nurturing likely constituents and attracting new voters.  We have much to look forward to, so let's get busy!

Old Dog, Old Tricks

Are you having deja vu yet?  We're hearing the same old lines from President Obama. Those who argued that he would start seriously negotiating with Republicans in an effort to solve our budget problems have to be wondering when this transformation will begin. It appears it's going to be four more years of the same thing.  

Obama is not serious about avoiding the so-called "fiscal cliff".  His policies and tactics are designed to engender anger and resentment between the races and to divide people along economic lines. He is a profoundly immature man who isn't fit to lead this great nation.  

If (when?) we fall deeper into recession, I'm sure he will find a way to blame it all on the Republicans and the mainstream media will be running interference for him, enabling him to get away with his vicious lies. 

Brace yourselves - it's going to be a bumpy four years.     

Should Conservatives Soften Their Views?

In the wake of the Republican defeat this week, the second guessing has begun as expected.  Not only is the Romney strategy being dissected and criticized, there are voices saying the Republicans need to change their principles to fall more in line with contemporary society or abandon social conservatism altogether.  

I would argue that the conservative message is basically a good one, but we've done a poor job of selling our principles. I understand the anger and frustration of many conservatives, as I feel that way too. However, I also believe we must soften our tone, not the principles themselves. We must try to win hearts and minds and that cannot be done by yelling at people or bashing them over the head, figuratively speaking, of course.  

I'm becoming increasingly annoyed and turned off by some of the conservative talk show hosts also.  I am a regular listener of Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh, among others, and the strident, angry tone, particularly of Ingraham, is a turn-off to me, a conservative.  I'm certain she changes no minds among those who call themselves "moderate".  She likes to cite Ronald Reagan, but he had the knack of communicating firmly and clearly without ever sounding harsh.  

We have a different country today than in the day of Reagan.  I believe it's more secularized and I'm not convinced that it's still "right of center".  It's clear we need to reach out to blacks, Hispanics and Asians more effectively if we're to win elections in the future.  

People tend to vote for whatever they perceive to be in their own best interests.  Thus, it is imperative that we demonstrate in a clear, concise manner how conservative policies can help people become more financially stable, secure and independent.   I think that would resonate with a majority of people, because government dependency puts one in a vulnerable position and keeps people poor.   

Are We Mortally Wounded?

No one can deny that the United States has had a history of rocky race relations.  It was my perception, however, that things had improved over the last two decades.  We've had two black Secretaries of State, we have a black president and black attorney general, as well as a black Supreme Court justice.  

In spite of these strides, I believe the relationship between blacks and whites in this country has suffered during the Obama administration and, moreover, I believe this has been deliberate on Obama's part.  He has fostered anger and resentment in a blatantly political effort to turn out his base of support for the election.  How cynical does one have to be to engage in such despicable tactics?

I fear that if Obama wins re-election there will be violent event in cities along the lines of sports celebrations that get out of hand and result in looting and burning.  On the other hand, if Obama loses there may well be violent riots such as the LA riots of a few years ago.  

This country is more divided than any time I can remember. It's whites against blacks, poor vs. rich.  Check out some of the comments that appear after online news stories and on Twitter.  Many of them are vile, including name-calling and threats of violence and even death.  

This attempt to rip this country apart will be part of Barack Obama's legacy.  I just pray that we can put an end to this today, election day, and hopefully get this country on a healing path, although I believe that will be a long and sometimes painful road.  

Why the Chaos?

Having lived on the Texas Gulf Coast all my life, I've experienced several hurricanes.  The people here know that when a hurricane is approaching, you do some common sense things:  put gas in your cars and gas cans because you may not be able to pump gas after the storm, fill up containers and bathtubs with water and stock up on nonperishable food items.  

Apparently, the people on the east coast didn't realize what they should do to prepare.  They're now suffering with lack of electrical power and, in some cases, lack of food.

What I'm wondering is why in the world doesn't the governor or the president call out the National Guard to fly supplies in to these people? Good grief - this is the United States, not Haiti!  

I know the havoc that a hurricane can wreak and how long it can take to get things back in order.  It seems to me, however, that a little advance preparation could have possibly prevented some of this.  

My thoughts and prayers are with the people affected by this storm.  I hope things get back to normal soon for you.  

Taking Offense

President Obama has said several times that he takes offense at the suggestion that he is not telling the truth about the murders of our ambassador and three other people in Benghazi, Libya.  

I'm offended too, Mr. President.  I'm offended by the way your administration leaked sensitive information after the killing of Osama bin Laden, a politically motivated action designed to make you look good.  I'm offended by your tendency to refuse to call Islamic terrorists exactly what they are.  I'm offended by your refusal to say that attacks on our embassies and ambassadors are acts of war.  I'm offended by the way you took off for Las Vegas for fundraising the day after Ambassador Stevens' untimely death, and then went on to hobnob with Beyonce and Jay-Z. I'm offended by your many prevarications and misleading statements.  I'm offended by the fact that you apparently think Americans are as dumb as a box of rocks.  

After having been lied to so many times during your administration and your nasty campaign, Mr. President, if you're offended that we now doubt your word, I'd just have to say "too damn bad".  Put on your big boy pants and start acting like the President of the U.S. for a change.  I for one am sick of your immature whining, as well as your automatic tendency to blame others instead of taking responsibility yourself.  

Dereliction of Duty

It's been six weeks since the attack on the consulate at Benghazi and the president has still not held a press conference to answer questions.  

The "dereliction of duty" from the title of this post refers not to the president (although I do believe he's not doing his duty), but to the press.  It's a journalist's job to ask tough questions and get to the bottom of things.  Yet, when Brian Williams interviewed President Obama, he didn't ask any hard questions or follow-up queries.  Why?

It's obvious that we no longer have a press corps interested in doing anything other than getting Obama re-elected.  I just heard Geraldo Rivera on The O'Reilly Factor asking why Mitt Romney hasn't asked the president questions about Benghazi.  The answer to that, Geraldo, is that it isn't his job to do so!!  It IS the job of "journalists" to do it and clearly they either don't understand their job description or they have their heads so far up Obama's butt that they can't see daylight. Either way, the American people are the losers here.  

Swinging?

I'd like to say a few words to those "undecided" voters, especially those in the so-called "swing states".  

I suspect that some of these voters are like my next door neighbor.  He's a nice guy, a life-long Democrat who finds himself faced with a dilemma.  He doesn't like Obama, but he doesn't care for Romney either.  What to do?

I didn't particularly like John McCain in 2008, but given the choice between him or Obama, I had to weigh which one I thought would be less damaging to the country, if not better for the country.  Sometimes that's the choice we have to make, one in which we don't wholeheartedly agree with or like a candidate, but one who's clearly the better of two mediocre choices.

If you supported Obama in 2008, but feeling disappointed in his performance as president, please consider a few things. Economically, President Obama has failed to cut the deficit as he promised he would, our debt is higher than ever, his policies have stifled energy production, and the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high. This is the weakest "recovery" after a recession that this country has ever experienced. Sadly, Obama has divided this country along economic and racial lines. Obama has shown no inclination to change his policies or his beliefs, so why would another four years of the same thing give us different results?  

I would respectfully ask that you try to keep an open mind and take an objective look at what President Obama has actually done.  Don't listen to his rhetoric - this is a man who often says one thing and does another.  Just watch what he does.  

Isn't it time to give someone else - namely, Mitt Romney - a chance?

A Mystery to Me

I just heard on Fox News that the great majority of people believe Obama will win the debates.  This is one of life's mysteries to me.  I've watched Obama over his presidency and one thing stands out to me:  he stumbles a lot when he doesn't have his teleprompters.  People talk about how eloquent he is.  I beg to differ.  Eloquence is the ability to speak with clarity and conviction without a written script or speech.  When Obama wanders off-script, he tends to put his foot in his mouth.

I believe President Obama's oratorical skills are vastly overrated, as is his intelligence.  I plan to watch the debates and I fully expect that Obama will have certain talking points that he will repeat over and over, while failing to answer the questions. I also expect to hear a lot of lies from Obama.  I hope Mitt Romney calls him on it.  When it comes to Barack Obama, I've never seen anyone who can talk so much while saying so little.   

Polls: True or Skewed?

Many of the current polls are indicating that President Obama is significantly ahead of Mitt Romney.  I wade into the area of polling with great trepidation, but here goes.

Rasmussen, which historically has been the most accurate poll, currently has the candidates tied. They also show that Republicans have a 4 percentage point advantage over Democrats in terms of party affiliation.  

Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, Democratic pollsters, have both expressed the belief that the polls are skewed against Romney.  Pollsters are basing their samples on voter turnout from 2008, when Democratic turnout was greater than Republican.  However, they are ignoring the elections of 2010, when Republicans turned out en masse to repudiate the Obama agenda. Does anyone really believe Democrats will turn out in bigger numbers than Republicans this year?  

It is my belief that pollsters are attempting to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.  It is a pathetic attempt to discourage Republican voters, but it is not going to work.  In fact, I suspect it may actually backfire on them.  It is my hope that people who plan to vote for Obama see these polls and believe that he has it wrapped up and therefore won't feel the need to actually go cast their votes.   

Obama the Bloodless

The violence in Egypt and Libya the last few days that resulted in the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens and others is spreading like a cancer, not only in the Middle East, but also to London and to American college campuses today. Hillary Clinton has continued to try to mollify the fanatics, to no avail.  I wish the administration would get a clue and realize that these guys only understand and respect force. They view tolerance and appeasement as weakness, not virtues. Why does the Secretary of State keep referring to the video that allegedly spawned this situation?  It wasn't the video, Mrs. Clinton.  It's the mindset of the eternally aggrieved that's the problem. The video is merely an excuse.  

As the chaos spreads, the president is out campaigning and fund-raising as if everything were wonderful.  He has always seemed aloof to me, but he now appears to be completely detached from the real danger confronting us.  The day after the ambassador's death, he made a brief, cold announcement that was utterly devoid of passion or anger, then took off for Las Vegas to campaign.  Then came the big announcement yesterday that Obama raised more money than Romney in August, as if that were the most important news of the day. Could he be any less caring?

This country is hungry for real leadership and strength. In these dangerous times, we need a serious, responsible person in the oval office, and I feel that we don't even have a president; we have a campaigner-in-chief.  The United States needs and deserves better.

Weakness = No Respect

Obama's tepid response to the killing of American citizens in Libya and Egypt is shameful.  Is he still nursing this ridiculous fantasy that we can use diplomacy and sanctions to bring order to this part of the world?

Our response to this outrage should be swift and decisive. We need to make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate this and these murders will be punished.  

Last night, Juan Williams defended the president's weak response, in effect saying we shouldn't do anything to further anger the Muslims.  I have a news flash for you, Juan: fanatic Muslims are perpetually pissed off regardless of what we do or don't do.  The only thing they understand is force and strength, both of which are notably absent from this administration.   

AWOL

What are the consequences of electing a weak president?  On this solemn anniversary of the September 11 attacks, one need only take a look at the Middle East to find the answer.

Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.  An American was killed and one injured today in Libya.  Our embassy in Cairo was stormed by a mob and the American flag torn down.  

Yet, in the midst of this Muslim fanaticism, where is our president?  Shouldn't he be out front and center, at least commenting on all these occurrences?  He is, for all intents and purposes, AWOL.  He has yet to say anything to the American people and quite frankly, we deserve better from our president.  

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel requested a meeting with the president in an upcoming visit to the United States.  Astonishingly, the president declined, saying his schedule is full.  Yet, Obama has time to appear on the David Letterman show.  

President Obama needs to draw a line in the sand and make it clear that if Iran, Egypt or any other Muslim country crosses it, there will be dire consequences for them.  

Is this likely to happen?  Not with this spineless president.  

Maddening!!

I'm listening to the Michael Medved show as I work, and I'm both appalled and saddened at the stupidity and willful blindness of some of the callers to the show. 

Some of the things I've heard include the opinion that Obama is the only candidate who can bring us together.  Really??  We're more divided after four years of Barack Obama than we were when he took office.  If he hasn't united us so far, why should we expect anything different for another term?  

That great intellectual, Will.i.am, stated that the purpose of government is to guide us to do the right thing and give us a purpose in life.  I always thought that is the role of religion; I guess government is a religion for some people. 

One more stupid thing I've heard is that Obama will provide leadership for us. Mr. Obama is one of the weakest presidents in my lifetime.  A real leader would make courageous decisions, not just do what's politically expedient as the current president does.  He'd be out front and center, not bringing up the rear.  

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.  Four more years of an Obama presidency would be disastrous on so many levels and I pray every day that the majority of Americans will be wise enough to oust Barack Obama.  

Emotions and the Polls

Obama has gotten a bounce in the  polls since the Democratic convention.  Hopefully, it will be, as Peggy Noonan called it, a "dead-cat bounce", similar to what happened after the Navy SEALS killed bin Laden.  

How can anyone with even half a brain vote for Obama?  According to the polls, Obama is viewed as more empathetic than Romney.  Is that a good reason to vote for someone?  A disturbing number of people appear to believe that Obama really cares more for people than Obama.  Yeah, right.   How can Obama care for people he doesn't know when he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya, who lives in utter poverty?  

I fear that ignorance and downright stupidity will get Obama re-elected.  There are too many people in this country who operate on emotion and willfully ignore facts. There's nothing inherently wrong with emotions - we all have them - but they are a poor foundation on which to base important decisions.

I'm beginning to think that potential voters should have to demonstrate at least some rudimentary knowledge and understanding of current events before they are allowed to vote.  Would that be unconstitutional?

Victim-Palooza!

I promised myself I wouldn't watch any of the DNC, but political junkie that I've become, I had to watch at least a little of it.  It's Wednesday night and I'm watching Elizabeth Warren, who was preceded by Sandra Fluke.  

The Democrats appear to be the party of victimology.  I'm sick and tired of hearing the rhetoric about how women are oppressed and being denied their basic rights.  What a load! To listen to these speakers, you'd think we women are running around in burqas and that Mitt Romney wants to take us back to the 1950s, where we can do nothing but stay home, be barefoot and pregnant.  

I hate to admit it, but I have a hard time thinking of these people as my fellow Americans.  They seem foreign and un-American to me and I cannot identify with their beliefs and where they want to take this country.  I also refuse to think of myself as a victim because I'm a woman.  

Well, Bill Clinton's coming onstage, so I guess I'll go listen to what he has to say and watch and audience swoon.  Talk to you later!

Hatred, Lies and the Media

What on earth is happening to our society and the so-called mainstream media who report on it?  Coverage of the Romney campaign and Republican convention is - surprise! surprise! - horribly biased and sometimes downright dishonest.  It's reported that MSNBC covered the convention in such as way so as to not show the minority speakers.  Also, CNN and MSNBC coincidentally happen to be the only "news" outlets who supposedly witnessed a racist attack on a CNN camerawoman by two Republican delegates.  

The hatred and profanity spewing forth on Twitter from certain individuals is pathetic.  Whatever happened to civil discourse?  I can only conclude that the hatred and vulgar language gushing from the likes of Ellen Barkin and Samuel L. Jackson are due to limited vocabularies and a dearth of intellect that make reasoned discussion impossible.  

Hillary Clinton once said that she didn't see how a Christian could be a Republican.  Clearly, liberals consider themselves morally superior to conservatives, but when you spew lies and hatred, you unquestionably cede the moral high ground.  

Shut Up and Listen!

I listen regularly to Laura Ingraham's radio program.  Lately, however, I'm becoming more and more annoyed with her and I've reached a point where I have to blow off some steam.  

I understand and respect her passion and her increasingly frequent anger, as I share those feelings.  It has become almost a cliche, but it also happens to be true:  this is the most important election of my lifetime.  It will determine whether the United States continues as the "land of the free" or becomes a more repressive country with less individual liberty.  

Laura Ingraham often lets her passion get the better of her. She has developed the maddening habit of interrupting and talking over her guests and callers, even those with whom she agrees.  For example, this morning, a man called and mentioned how the Republicans won in 2010; Laura interrupted him in mid-sentence and the poor man never got another word in.  

I have a message for you, Laura:  your callers just might have something of value to contribute if you'll let them finish a sentence.  They might even bring up a point which you haven't thought of yet.  

Just as you titled your book "Shut Up and Sing", I'd like to say to you "Shut up and listen".  Otherwise, I don't think I can tolerate listening to you anymore.  

Tax Evasions

Should Mitt Romney release several years of his tax returns?  To listen to the Democrats and a few Republicans, you'd think this was a national security issue.

Former press secretary Robert Gibbs says people want to know what's in Romney's returns.  I would not presume to speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't give a rat's patootie about Mr. Romney's tax returns.  With all the information that President Obama has refused to release to the public, it's the height of hypocrisy that he should call for Mr. Romney to be more transparent.  

The people who are insisting that Mr. Romney release his tax returns are the very same people who had no problem with high profile Democrats such as Charlie Rangel, Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner, as well as several nominees of the administration having tax skeletons in the closet.  No wonder Democrats don't mind high taxes - they don't actually pay them themselves!

As for Harry Reid, he is a lying little worm who is beneath contempt, and I pray that in January, 2013, he will no longer be Senate majority leader.   

Why Did He Do It?

As almost everyone knows by now, Mitt Romney spoke to the NAACP yesterday in Houston.  He had a mixed reception and predictably drew some booing when he stated he would repeal Obamacare.  


Some politicians and pundits are wondering aloud why Romney did this, as he had to know what the reaction would be.  Nancy Pelosi, that sage of San Francisco, even voiced the opinion that he did it for the purpose of drawing boos.  


What purpose could Romney possibly have to want to draw boos from a crowd?  For Nancy Pelosi, everything is a political calculation, so this is a total mystery to her.  I have my own opinion about why Romney spoke in such a straightforward manner:  he respected his audience enough to be honest with them instead of lying and pandering like so many other politicians do.  


Mitt Romney deserves our admiration for having the courage to appear before this audience and say the hard truths that they didn't want to hear. The elites of the NAACP won't be swayed, but ordinary black Americans may just decide that Romney said something of value.  

Declaration of Independence vs. the Constitution

Happy 4th of July, everyone!  There was an article in the Houston Chronicle this morning that was written by a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin.  You can see it here:  http://www.chron.com/default/article/Why-Independence-Day-is-more-important-than-3682689.php

Below is a letter that I wrote to the editor of the Chronicle.  Please let me know what you think.


The letter is as follows: 


I seem to remember that in the past, the Chronicle printed the Declaration of Independence in its entirety on the 4th of July.  For some reason, you chose not to do that this year and instead published an article by UT Professor Sanford Levinson about the flaws of our Constitution.

Professor Levinson opines that "the Framers created a system that was fundamentally designed to make it difficult for government to respond effectively to the great issues of the day."  I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that our founders, being acutely aware of the dangers of an over-reaching, intrusive government, sought to limit the government to those things that only government can provide, e.g., national security. The problem is that some people have come to believe that the government should address and solve every problem encountered by the populace.  It's clear that those who politically are left of center view the Constitution not as a protection against aggressive government, but as an impingement on their wish to expand governmental reach.  This was demonstrated clearly with President Obama's remark that he viewed the Constitution as a set of "negative liberties".  That's such an odd phrase to me.

The problem with having a Constitution that is a "living, breathing document" is that it then becomes vulnerable to passing fads and ideologies.  Social and political trends tend to be cyclical:  we go a little to the left, we go a little to the right, back and forth.  Do we constantly want to be reinventing the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment?  

I would compare the Constitution to the foundation of a house.  It might need a little repair once in a while, but if you tinker with it too much, you risk undermining its integrity and the soundness of the structure which it supports.  Thus it is with our Constitution and government.  

Something to Really Look Forward To

I look forward to the day, which hopefully will occur in January, 2013, when Obama is no longer president.  I dream of being free of seeing his face and hearing his voice on a daily basis.  I long to have Michelle Obama retire so I no longer have to see her tacky outfits or hear her preach about our eating habits.    


Mychal Massie is a conservative blogger who also happens to be black.  He has written eloquently about this very thing today and you can see it here:

When He Is No Longer President

Happy reading!

The Blame Game and Ineptitude

President Obama, who, as we all know by now, is responsible for nothing, continues his assault on the "do-nothing" Congress (actually, it would be far more accurate to say "the do-nothing Senate", but I digress).  On the campaign trail, he has berated Congress for failing to act on a number of measures that Obama claims would help the economy and jobs market.


I doubt that Obama will see it this way, but to me this is indicative of the president's lack of leadership.  There have been many presidents who have had to work with a Congress dominated by the other party, but the good presidents manage to get things done anyway.  Obama's constant harping on Congress' inaction in reality highlights his ineptitude in dealing with them.  A better president would know how to work with Congress to get things done.  

Falling or Climbing?

Words have power:  the power to inform and the power to deceive.  The Obama administration is adept at using words to mislead.  Sometimes, they cross the line into outright lies.


As printed in the Wall Street Journal's main editorial today, the Obama campaign is running an ad "blitz" trumpeting that during Romney's tenure as governor, Massachusetts "fell" to 47th place in the country for job creation.  The truth is that when Mr. Romney became governor, Massachusetts was 50th in job creation, at the bottom of the barrel.  So, when Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts actually climbed to 47th place.  This is a distinction the Obama campaign doesn't want to make and, unfortunately, many people won't look any further to discern the truth.


Mr. Obama doesn't want to put his own record out there as justification for a second administration, so he's trying to make his opponent look bad, taking the focus off his own pathetic record.  So far, it hasn't seemed to work.  I think many people now know that Mr. Obama's figures are, at best, half-truths, if that. 

Where are You, Rick?

Newt Gingrich has ended his campaign and endorsed Romney, as he should.  Republicans seem to be coalescing behind Romney, although there are a few pockets of resistance.  

It's time to face reality, folks.  Romney is all but certain to be the Republican nominee and it's imperative that we rally behind him, even if he wasn't your first choice.

My question is:  where are Rick Santorum and Ron Paul?  Ron Paul is kind of like a foot fungus - you just can't seem to get rid of him.  Rick Santorum dropped out awhile ago, but has yet to voice support for Romney.  Still licking his wounds from the primary, I guess.  Hey, Rick - it's time to end your snit and encourage your supporters to get behind Mitt Romney.  The same is true for Ron Paul.  This country is more important than your personal grudges and beliefs and the reality is that Romney is the only one who has a chance to beat Obama in November.  Get off your high horses and encourage your supporters to vote for Romney.  

Utter Hypocrisy

Liberal groups have been vociferously demonizing voter ID laws that have recently been passed in several states.  They agonize that these laws will disenfranchise minority voters and wail that Republicans are trying to suppress voter turnout.  


Would anyone be surprised to find that hypocrisy is rearing its ugly head in this debate?  Turns out that very liberal groups such as Center for American Progress and the Advancement Project actually require photo IDs to enter their buildings!


Aren't they afraid they're going to "disenfranchise" minorities who might want to come in and say hello?  Would someone please notify Eric Holder about this "unnecessary" and discriminatory practice (oh, and if you're planning to go to the Justice Deparment building in person, be sure to bring your photo ID!).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf25pmgR4c&feature=youtu.be

I Don't Like the Obamas Either

I have come to positively loathe both of the Obamas.  I can barely stand to hear his voice, which, unfortunately I hear much too often.  


Mychal Massie wrote a column in February expressing my sentiments perfectly and, I must admit, better than I could ever hope to do.  For that reason, I want to put up a link to his article.

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

Panderer in Chief

After months of publicly and privately pressuring Israel to make unilateral concessions to advance the cause of peace, President Obama is now sounding much more hawkish on the subject of Iran.  In speaking at the policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) this past week, he assured the group that "I have Israel's back."  


As I'm sure Benjamin Netanyahu has noticed, this is a president who habitually says one thing and does another, a man who changes policy positions at the first whiff of criticism.  Many of these criticisms regarding Israel have come from prominent Democrats, among them New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, Representative Steny Hoyer, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Charles Shumer.  To make matters worse, President Obama has yet to set foot in Israel and that is shameful.


In spite of all that the president has done to criticize and bully Israel, he now proclaims "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration", in speaking to a group of Jewish donors last October.  


Surely this is either the most delusional or the most egomaniacal president of my lifetime, or perhaps both.  I believe this is just election year rhetoric for Obama since he recognizes he has lost the support of many American Jews through his treatment of Israel.  He's shown us his true colors and if re-elected will be unencumbered by the need to court Jewish donors. Support for Israel will then fall by the wayside. The question is, however, will Jews vote for him en masse this year, or will they recognize that this is simple pandering?  

The "Unsurprise": Obama rejects Canadian pipeline

The White House is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that Republicans forced him into this decision.  This is what the president wanted to do all along, but he now is trying to say that Congress is rushing it and not allowing adequate review.  I'm under the impression that the State Department has been reviewing this for the past 3 years - how much time does he need?!  


Our president is a spineless wonder who refuses to take responsibility for anything.  Not that this is a surprise; every decision this man makes is politically and ideologically driven. This pipeline would be good for our economy, would provide jobs and make us less dependent on hostile countries for our oil. It's a no-brainer and Obama is either dumb as a box of rocks or he's deliberately trying to hurt our country. God help us if he's re-elected.  

Major League Cynicism

American Atheists are seriously ticked off at Tim Tebow. Why?  Tebow's overt Christianity really rankles these atheists, but it's no skin off their noses.  

They're accusing him of doing it for publicity and personal gain.  They seem unable to grasp the idea that for religious people, faith is not something that's taken out of the closet on Sunday and then put back in for the rest of the week. It's something that should inform and shape daily life. Because they are so empty spiritually, atheists probably can't understand the concept of being aware of God in your everyday life and being thankful for the blessings we have. 

Lacking this spiritual foundation, American Atheists naturally assume that Tebow's displays of devotion are self-serving. How cynical and sad. I almost feel sorry for this group of in-your-face atheists because they will never know the true peace that comes from a close relationship with God.