The Most Dangerous Liberal Question: "Why Does Anyone Need...?"

A recent conversation I had with a liberal reminded me of the biggest problem I have with liberal thinking. As a result of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, we started out discussing gun control but as we chatted, the topic went from one subject to the next; each of us expressed our differing views and that was great. That is why I enjoy talking politics because I like to consider different points of view and perspectives. However, one troubling phrase kept coming up as my liberal friend spoke: "Why does anyone need...?" It started out as "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" This was followed by the usual, "You don't hunt with an AR-15." Etc, etc, etc. - all the usual arguments demonstrating the liberal misunderstanding of the purpose of our right to bear arms. Later, when the conversation turned to taxes and the wealthy paying their 'fair share", I heard the phrase again: "Why does anyone need more than a million dollars?" The problem as I see it is, where does this end and who gets to decide? If we allow the premise that we have the right to ask the question, then we also need to be willing to provide the answer to the questions, "Where does it end and who gets to decide?" Is it at, "Who needs 10 pairs of shoes? Or "Who needs two cars?" Or maybe it is even "Who needs their own car?" Clearly, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes it extends to "Who needs more than a 16 oz soda? and as mayor, "I get to decide." I've never been a big fan of the slippery slope argument but in the case of liberals armed with the right to ask the "Why does anyone need...?" question, I can see a clear danger to our individual freedom. How about you?

Thoughts of the Week

Had you asked the Secular Progressives in our government, media, and the entertainment crowd on December 14th if we need more prayer in American, I don't think there is any doubt they would have said, "Don't push your religious beliefs on us. We have a right to freedom from religion." Why then do they all call for our thoughts and prayers for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and their families? Perhaps our prayers would be more useful before tragedy strikes.

Amidst all the calls by liberals for more gun control laws, we learn that a Mexican Beauty Queen was killed by a gun connected to the Obama Administration's botched Fast and Furious gun running program. Wow!

Vice President Biden has been put in charge of finding answers to the gun violence. I guess that is what he gets for doing such a good job overseeing the stimulus spending.

Today President Obama revealed what Democrats mean when they call for compromise. In a press conference, the president said Speaker Boehner conceded to raising taxes. A synonym for concede is capitulate which is defined as: 1. to surrender unconditionally or on stipulated terms 2. to give up resistance. Not exactly my understanding of compromise.

Could the rash of murder-suicides committed by young Americans be at all connected to the belief promoted by secular progressives that there is no accountability beyond our earthly existence?

Are liberals calling for more restrictions on law abiding citizens' 2nd Amendment rights also open to more restrictions on their 1st Amendment rights such as restrictions on violence in movies and video games or their 4th Amendment "right" to abortion which arguably contribute to our "culture of death." Obviously a rhetorical question.

Apologists for Petraeus Are Getting It Wrong!

I admire General Petraeus and thought he might even make a good president someday. However, unlike some in the media and the "talking heads" (both on the Left and the Right) who lament about how this shouldn't have caused him to resign, I think he did indeed need to resign. Like those who said the Clinton-Lewinsky thing was no big deal - it was just sex - the apologists for Petraeus are wrong! Those who think this didn't need to be brought to the attention of the President and Congress as soon as it was discovered are wrong! And those who think this didn't threaten national security are wrong!!! This isn't about David Petraeus' personal life. This isn't just about sex. It's not just between he and his wife or he and his Maker. I don't care about that. Those are his problems. This is fundamental to security because an extramarital affair makes someone vulnerable to blackmail. General Petraeus had to know that, yet he did it anyway which also calls into question his judgement. Further, even if he apparently did the right thing by resigning, look at the enormous distraction and disruption this has become and at a time when we can ill afford it. We have a looming fiscal crisis and serious questions about Benghazi that require the government's full attention. In the end, I think we should take comfort in the fact that, had he been threatened with blackmail, General Petraeus' resignation demonstrates that he would have been willing to put country ahead of self in that situation too. Or maybe this has already happened? We automatically assume that the blackmail would come from some hostile foreign country. With all the controversy surrounding this incident and the many questions still to be answered about what really happened in Benghazi, General Petraeus' testimony was and is going to be crucial. Could the blackmailer be closer to home than we think? Could someone or some group have been trying to influence his upcoming testimony and never dreamed he would resign and accept humiliation rather than toe the line? Eventually we will know for sure.

Now General Allen?

"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice.

Attention Liberal Thinkers: Help Me Out Here!

Okay my liberal friends, I need your help. I guess I just don't remember what I learned in the undergraduate degree in Economics that I earned 27 years ago. Exactly how is raising taxes right now going to help the economy? Except for the obvious 100,000 new teachers, how will more money for hiring 100,000 new teachers, help reduce unemployment in the short-term which is when we need it? Will more revenue in the government coffers really be used to pay down the debt or help keep Social Security or Medicare solvent? I'm serious folks! Weigh in and explain it to me. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Obama's Watergate

What is the difference between Watergate and Benghazigate? No one died in Watergate.

Obama/Biden Math or Romney/Ryan Math? Which Do You Trust?

Are you kidding me? Romney and Ryan are being allowed to be criticized on their math by one guy who says, "...the label will once again have that three word phrase 'Made in the USA'" and the other guy who said, "It's like Barack Obama says, 'It's about a three letter word, jobs - J..O..B..S!'" I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can at least count to three!

Obama's Labor Department Encourages Breaking Law

I've read the letters sent to federal contractors myself. The Department of Labor and later, reiterated by the Department of Defense, advised federal contractors to ignore the WARN Act. Labor even pledged to cover any legal costs expenses incurred by companies who ignore the law - with taxpayers' money of course. For those unfamiliar with this law, it is intended to give employees 60 days notice from their companies if a major lay-off or plant closing is anticipated. With sequestration looming, one would think that this is exactly the situation that the law was intended to address - thousands of middle-class employees losing their jobs unexpectedly.  But not according to the Labor Department. Paraphrasing from the DOL guidance letter, WARN Act notices are neither necessary or appropriate because it is uncertain whether sequestration will occur or if it does, what effects it will have on existing contracts. Then what is an appropriate circumstance? I guess one that doesn't involve giving "pink slips" just before a presidential election to thousands of folks in battleground states like Virginia .

Obama's lack of leadership and lack of respect for the "rule of law" have brought the country to this point. So much for President Obama caring for the middle-class! Pathetic!!!

Obama's Actionless Empathy

Recent polls show that a greater number of Americans feel as though President Obama has greater empathy for the middle-class than Gov. Romney.

As far as I'm concern, lacking empathy is not nearly as bad as having empathy but not doing anything to help. By that standard, Obama's empathy isn't anything to cheer about!

"Mr Netanyahu? Mr Obama is on the line."

I hope this conversation never takes place!

Sometime in the not too distant future.

PM Netanyahu's secretary: "Mr. Prime Minister? Mr Obama is on the line for you."

PM Netanyahu: "Okay, Sarah, I have it. Hello? Mr. Obama?"

President Obama: "Yeah, Bebe, it's me Barrack! What the hell is wrong with you?"

PM Netanyahu: "Excuse me, Mr President. What are you talking about?"

President Obama: "You know darn well what I am talking about! You attacked Iran's nuclear and   
                                missile facilities last night and didn't have the decency to give me a heads-up!"

PM Netanyahu: "Well Mr President, remember a few weeks ago when I requested to meet with you?
                            My intention was to let you know in person then but if you recall, you said you
                            were too busy. You had some important business to take care of. Wasn't that the
                            night you appeared on the Letterman Show?" CLICK!

President Obama: "Yeah, I was great wasn't I? That was so cool. I a ....  Hold on a minute! You mean
                               to tell me that.... Bebe? Bebe? Hey, get Netanyahu back on the line! I think we
                               were cut off!"

The Latest News About General Motors

I heard some good news this morning about General Motors aka Government Motors. ABC News reported that sales of the Chevy Volt hit a new record in August. But then came the bad news: the number sold was only 2500 cars. Then came even more bad news: GM lost $49,000 on each Volt it sold.

On my evening commute home, ABC News reported a spokesman for GM as saying that the company is committed to bringing down the cost of production of the Volt because it is so important to the future of GM and the country.

Once again our government backs a company whose business model is selling goods for less than they cost to produce. If you remember, the federal government gave billions of dollars in guaranteed loans to Solyndra which sold solar cells for $3 that cost $6 to produce. To the amazement of liberal Democrats, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, shut down production and laid off all its employees.

My advice to the Obama Administration and liberals who like to claim credit for Osama bin Laden being dead and GM being alive: crow while you still can because if the Volt is the future of GM as their spokesman claims, that future won't be very long-lived.

A Big Problem in America Replaced by an Even Bigger One - Literally!

Before we had banks too big to fail. Bad!

Now we have government too big to succeed! Much worse!!!

Politics, Math and Logic

First, Politics. Until this week during their convention, the liberal Democrats ridiculed Conservatives over their traditional concept of patriotism: pride in our country, support for the military, honoring our flag and our history, and our belief that America is an exceptional nation. In fact, until this past week, liberals labelled these notions antiquated and frankly stupid. According to Vice President Biden, paying more in taxes is patriotic.

Now the math: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. Got it?

Finally, logic combining the two: If paying more taxes = patriotism  and patriotism = stupid then paying more taxes = stupid.

What I Learned From Last Night's Democrat Convention Speeches

Last night's speeches were very enlightening for me. Who knew the liberals/Democrats loved the Troops and small business? I guess I must have missed that amongst all the crapping they were doing on these 2 groups in particular over the last 12 years. Oh and God. The Dems were God Blessing everyone and everything and even quoting Scripture. You'd think they were "crazy" Evangelicals. Meanwhile, behind the scenes they were eliminating the last references to God in their 2012 platform. Then they were shamed into putting it back in along with the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Didn't I read somewhere (NY Times?) something about this administration being the best friend Israel has ever had? Really? When did President Obama make an official visit? Answer - he hasn't yet. Our closest ally in the Middle East! Treated their Prime Minister like crap every time he visited Washington. Dems also let us know they don't begrudge the success of others. What a laugh! Lucky I wasn't drinking anything when I heard that or I would have done a spit take! They have done nothing but vilify the successful. Remember, "You didn't build that!" and the whole 1% versus 99% thing? Last but certainly not least, in a video shown to the delegates we learned that we all belong to the government! I know that wasn't meant the way it sounded but given their socialist proclivities and penchant for removing God from all things, I can just as easily attribute it to a Freudian slip. Unlike Conservatives who believe the government belongs to "We the People" and our rights are God-given, liberal Democrats (the only brand of Democrats in existence today) believe we are subjects not citizens and that government gives us our rights instead of just protecting them!

3 Quick Thoughts on the State of the Obama Presidency

First, when asked by a Colorado reporter to give himself a grade on his first term, President Obama said he would have to give himself an incomplete. Let's see:

                47,000,000 Americans on food stamps
                The country $16 trillion in debt - $5 trillion more than when he took office
                1 in 6 Americans living in poverty
                8.2% unemployment
                Average household income dropped nearly 5% from $53,508 in June 2009 to $50,964 in   
                      June of this year - a larger percentage than during the recession!
                Average price of a gallon of gasoline: $1.79 when he took office; $3.82 today
                US credit rating downgraded to below AAA status for the first time in history

                So if we had:

                     94,000,000 Americans on food stamps
                     The country $32 trillion in debt
                     1 in 4 Americans living in poverty
                     10% unemployment
                     Average household income dropped nearly 10%
                     Average price of a gallon of gasoline $6.82
                     US credit rating downgraded to junk bond status

               will he have completed his goal and feel free to give himself an A+?

Second, isn't it just like Mister "Voted Present 147 times" to not give a real definitive answer? Nuance anyone? Certainly not the mark of a leader!

Lastly, the Democrats are considering moving President Obama's acceptance speech from the 70,000 seat Bank of America Stadium outdoor venue, to the 20,000 seat indoor Time-Warner Arena because "it might rain." Hey aren't these the same folks who were going to start lowering the level of the ocean and begin healing the planet? Why don't they just change the weather to clear skies? That shouldn't be too tough. What a difference 4 years can make!

Democratic Convention: Banking Heavily on the "War on Women"

       Whether you liked or hated the Republican Convention, one thing is for certain, the Democrat Convention will be much different. Expect it to be angry, negative, shrill, and have little for the middle class to connect with. Chief among things the middle class won't connect with is the attempt to perpetuate the phony "War on Women" and continue to try to scare American women by telling them they will have less access to health care under a Romney Administration. In fact, look at their convention speaker line-up and you will find the President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Nancy Keenan, the President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards, and Sandra Fluke 30-something Georgetown University law school student (graduate) who could afford $70,000 a year in tuition but thinks the rest of the country should be required to pay for her birth control.
       What Democrats fail to recognize however is that if there is a war on women, the real casualties are the hundreds of thousands of women who are now out of work since Obama became president. Furthermore, far from being one issue voters, women have many and varied issues that they are concerned with. Right now the economy is at the top of the list; free birth control is not even in the top 10. Lastly, if Democrats truly believe that American women are willing to sell the future of their  children and grandchildren (not to mention their country) down the river for the sake of $9 a month in free birth control, they are as clueless as they appear.

U.S. Government Agencies Stockpiling Ammo

The website businessinsider.com posted the following report today.

"First the DHS needed 450 million rounds of ammunition, then the NOAA requested 46,000 rounds, now we've discovered an online request at FBO.Gov calling for 174,000 rounds of ammunition for the Social Security Administration.

The request actually calls for 174K .357 hollow points that arguably have as much stopping power as any bullet out there, and hollow points do as much damage to soft tissue as possible on top of that.
R.K. Campbel at Gun Blast mentions his experience with .357 rounds:

I observed the effect of the .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP once over the top of my own sights. The effect was gruesome. A solid hit that produced a severe blood flow AND dramatic effect from the rear, including lung tissue thrown perhaps three feet.

The 125 grain and JHP (jacketed rounds) are exactly the ones requested by the SSA and their offices of Inspector General and Investigation.
The FBO has a link that lists all locations slated to receive the batches of bullets. Offices like Greensboro, NC are getting a mere 1,000 rounds while offices like Iselin, NJ are getting 10 times that number.
Alex Jones' InfoWars is quick to point out that this acquisition jibes with a DHS operation in January where the agency swarmed a Leesburg, FL social security office and posted armed guards outside the doors."

Is our government expecting trouble? Is anybody else uncomfortable with the idea of non-law enforcement agencies stockpiling ammunition? It doesn't give me a "warm and fuzzy" feeling.
A few months ago the Washington Post reported that heavily armed special agents of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General raided a home in Stockton, CA. While it wasn't a S.W.A.T team as originally reported, the concept of "heavily armed Education Department employees" still leaves a bit unnerved. I think I would have preferred that they turn cases like this over to the FBI.

I guess the next time someone opposed to the 2nd Amendment asks, "Why would an ordinary American citizen need an AK-47?" Maybe one answer might be "Because apparently NOAA and the Social Security Administration have .357 magnums with hollow point ammunition!"  

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-does-the-social-security-administration-need-174000-rounds-of-ammunition-2012-8#ixzz23fcypIYM

Romney Announces Paul Ryan as VP Choice: Democrats Latest New Catch Phrase

THIS IS A CATCH PHRASE/BUZZWORD/SLOGAN ALERT!

Yesterday Mitt Romney announced that he has chosen Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as his running mate. Over the next several weeks or so there will be a great deal of analysis from both ends of the political spectrum as to the wisdom of this choice. Personally, I think it was a good pick because Ryan is an expert on the federal budget and he will be invaluable to Romney in helping to articulate the difference between the Democrat "Tax the Rich" and "Continue to Spend" approach that has clearly failed and a Republican economic growth agenda. There is a danger of course in choosing Ryan because his budget plan gives the Democrats specific items to attack and snipe at. However, I would argue that having a plan is preferable to President Obama and the liberals' non-plan. Romney will need to stick to the basic tenants of Ryan's budget proposal while demonstrating a willingness to be flexible on the individual parts. Now for the new catch phrase part.

Like Madison Avenue advertising executives trying to find the next CLIO award winning ad slogan, I think I have detected the next Democrat catch phrase attempt - "the Deserving Wealthy." I heard it used in rapid succession by two different panel guests on "This Week with George Stephanopolis." Apparently, the Left's teleconference/phone tree of political hacks, "journalists" and spinmeisters was busy last night or early this morning coordinating the "message" which is just a new twist on the old liberal charge that Republicans are only for the rich. So watch over the next several day as the mainstream media, the Debbie Wasserman Schultz's of the world, and the Obama Administration try to insert "deserving wealthy" everywhere from newspaper stories, TV news casts and prime time shows, commercials, Saturday morning kids cartoons, sports coverage, etc. It should be a hoot but it won't turn around the economy now will it?

In Romney Tax Returns, Democrats Find Their "Birther" Issue ...With One Major Difference

       In their never ending quest to distract the voters from the Obama Administration's dismal performance on the economy, the Democrats have been throwing everything they can at the wall to see if something will stick. The usual suspects - Harry Reid, Nancy Peloci, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jay Carney, David Axelrod, et al - have been trotted out, hit the Sunday Morning Talk Show circuit and in well rehearsed lines, floated one trial balloon after another to try to find that "Gotcha Issue." A few have gained a bit of traction for a time but ultimately all have failed to deliver. Some topics such as Seamus the Dog and overseas investments outright backfired because the Democrat accusers didn't have enough common sense to do the due diligence to check their own vulnerability on these issues: President Obama had actually eaten dog and most of the accusers had some amount of overseas investments in their portfolios.
       Over the last several weeks, the Democrat mantra has been "Governor Romney release your tax returns." and "If you have nothing to hide, why not just release your tax returns?" In their desperation, they have even gone so far as to accuse Mr. Romney of committing a felony and also not paying any taxes for the last ten years. Absolutely no evidence of course but when Harry Reid tells us "The word is out." that should be enough for us, right? It is for his "associates" back in Vegas. Hearing all this, it began to sound vaguely familiar to me. "Where had I heard this before?" It wasn't until I saw part of an interview with that titan of intellect, Robert Gibbs, that it occurred to me. This sounds like the same argument the "birthers" were making! Gibbs said he couldn't remember anyone refusing to do something so simple and that this is easy enough to settle: just release the tax returns. Once I regained my composure after witnessing Gibbs' apparent acute attack of amnesia, I thought to myself, I bet the Democrats are seeing an equivalence between the two issues. "You demanded to see Barack Obama's birth certificate and we are demanding to see Mitt Romney's tax returns. It's the same thing." Of course, for anyone who has read and understands the Constitution, the difference couldn't be more obvious.

The Latest Gun Tragedy Brings Same Tired Liberal Response

Well we have had another gun massacre and the Left's response was as predictable as the tides. First, of course without any information, the Left tried to blame the shooting in Aurora, Colorado on the most recent statements by Rush Limbaugh. Then in a brilliant piece of investigative journalism, ABC's Brian Ross did a Google search on the apparent shooter's name, James Holmes, found one of the forty plus names that came up was a Tea Party member and logically assumed that this was the same James Holmes. ABC has subsequently had to apologize. Wasn't Jared Loughner - the shooter in the Gabby Giffords shooting - also originally misidentified by the media as a Right-wing Tea Party guy? Wow! Oops! Turned out in that case the guy was actually a manifesto-writing, Left-winger, kook. A mistake anyone could make, right? The next step of course will be the demands for more gun control laws. The liberal theory is that adding more laws to the thousands of existing laws is bound to do the trick because more gun laws means fewer guns in the general population which means fewer horrific crimes like this. But why do these massacres always seem to occur where there aren't supposed to be any guns anyway - a school, a college campus, a summer camp for teenagers in Norway (a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world), a place of business, and now a midnight showing at a movie theatre? Hmmm? I wonder why something like this has never happened at a 24 hour pistol range? What if an armed off-duty policeman or several trained, licensed and armed citizens had been present at the theatre? Could the carnage have been stopped? I guess we will never know.

Do Liberals Have Security Tourette Syndrome?

Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics. The disorder is named for Dr. Georges Gilles de la Tourette, the pioneering French neurologist who in 1885 first described the condition in an 86-year-old French noblewoman. ...Tics are classified as either simple or complex. ...Perhaps the most dramatic and disabling tics include motor movements that result in self-harm such as punching oneself in the face or vocal tics including coprolalia (uttering socially inappropriate words such as swearing). - National Institutes of Health

When it comes to operational security, I can't help but wonder if  liberals have a form of Tourette Syndrome. I am reminded again of the damage liberal Democrats have done by today's newspaper reports that the Pakistani doctor who help the US locate Osama bin Laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison for helping the CIA. You may remember that it was the Obama administration's public "end zone dance and locker room interviews" that helped identify Dr. Shakil Afridi. Liberals need to learn to keep information regarding methods and sources to themselves. If you recall, shortly after the Bin Laden raid, 25 members of SEAL Team Six were killed when their helo was shot down during a similar mission. The bad guys DO learn from our "loose lips." 

Other liberal security "give aways" were the NSA's warrantless intercepts of phone calls to known terrorist, our ability to track terrorist cellphone calls, and revealing that if Israel is going to attack Iranian nuclear sites, it would have to happen in the next couple of months. All of these incidents resulted in grave damage to our ability to combat terrorism.

Then there was the recent revelation by a high-level US intelligence official (read intel agency or Obama administration official) of the double agent that penetrated al Qaeda and helped thwart the latest underwear bombing attempt. Forgetting for a moment that the credit grab by the US was entirely un-deserved, it completely compromised the agent, placed his family in danger, revealed critical information about our counter-terrorism capabilities and made the possibility of future cooperation by foreign agents and governments unlikely. Who would trust us?  

So liberals need to seek professional help for their Tourettes. In the meantime, I wish their TS would manifest itself in "self-harm such as punching oneself in the face..." rather than vocalizing national secrets that harm our security.

Obama's John Kerry Moment and Then Some

Amidst all the liberal media's fawning over Barack Obama's "historic" announcement that he is now in favor of same-sex marriage, I couldn't help but remember the words of Senator John Kerry during his 2004 presidential bid, "I actually voted for the war before I voted against it." President Obama went one better: He was actually for same-sex marriage, before he was against it, before he was for it.

For Kerry, his poor choice of words notwithstanding, there were actually extenuating circumstances behind the flip-flop. In President Obama's case, it is clearly more of a matter of political expediency than core belief. This of course will be overlooked by Obama's liberal base, won't do anything to help him with moderates and will motivate conservatives even more to turn out on election day. Time will ultimately tell if this will have the same effect on Obama in 2012 as it did for Kerry in 2004.

Forward: What's Old is New

The new slogan for President Obama's 2012 presidential campaign, "Forward", is pretty revealing. The word "forward" has long been associated with communism and socialism. Given the president's apparent philosophy and his administration's previous tone deafness and history of gaffs, it is just as easy to believe that the choice was made in an information vacuum or it actually reflects the true ideology of Barack Obama. However, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the president's campaign staff didn't do even a Google search of the word "forward" which would have enlightened them as to the history of the word's association with communism and socialism. Remember this is the administration that gave Queen Elizabeth a set of CDs in a format that isn't usable in the UK, gave the Dalai Lama cuff links (if you don't get this, find a picture of the Dalai Lama), announced the cancellation of the plan to deploy anti-ballistic missiles in Poland on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 which was an opening step to World War II and the list goes on. One must also consider the fact that Mr. Obama named Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, as his Green Energy Czar, the White House Christmas tree had an ornament that pictured Chairman Mao, and numerous other statements made by Obama associates, such as Anita Dunn's expression of admiration for Mao Zedong. Then there is the non-stop class warfare language used by Mr. Obama and his advisors. What you believe is up to you but either explanation is pretty alarming.

America's Next Bubble - College Education

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's like deja vu all over again." Our government is making the exact same mistake with higher education that it made with housing. Congress is encouraging students to pursue  college degrees by offering low interest rates for student loans which is resulting in students borrowing huge amounts of money to fund their college educations only to find that there is no demand for their newly acquired credentials. There is a surplus of college graduates chasing too few jobs. This coupled with President Obama and the Democrats' relentless assault on American business and no plan to jump start the economy is rapidly building to the next bubble.

As usual, Mr. Obama's timing is impeccable. Yesterday, it was reported in the press that 50% of recent college graduates either can't find a job or are underemployed i.e. accepting jobs that traditionally don't require a college degree. However, today the President gave a speech to students at the University of North Carolina about the importance of getting an education and keeping student loan rates low. Governor Romney appears to be singing a similar tune.

I am pretty well traveled as a result of my Navy career. I lived in a developing country for nearly four years and visited many others. One of my observations has been that there is a common thread in nations like Tunisia and Egypt that has caused unrest - an educated, young population, without opportunity. The lack of opportunity is a direct consequence of bad government policy. Is it any wonder that the frustration built and culminated in the Arab Spring?

Housing prices in the US collapsed when the government induced bubble burst and we are heading for a similar situation with education. We are struggling with historically high unemployment and unprecedented debt. Are our leaders oblivious to this "prefect storm" of unrest just over the horizon?

A President Romney Would Make Americans Ride on the Roof of His Car

Back during the 2008 election, the mainstream media couldn't be bothered with asking then Senator Obama about his radial associations or socialist views because of course he would never force them on the American People or compel them to say, purchase a product against their will. Don't be silly! Why waste valuable interview questions on something like that?

Based on the current panic amongst liberal journalists and talking-head types over Mitt Romney placing the family dog, Seamus, in his kennel and strapping it to the top of the car in order for them to take him on a family trip to Canada, one would have to assume that liberals apparently believe he intends to do the same thing with them if elected president.

No. Don't ask him, "How would you fix the economy?" Don't ask about his ideas regarding policy towards Iran or North Korea. No. Don't ask "What are your ideas to reduce gas prices or what would be your national energy policy?" What about ideas to get the unemployed back to work. No. What is really on the minds of most Americans is: "What about Seamus the damn dog on the roof of your car?" Come on! Really?

The journalists and the people aren't that stupid. We all see these questions for what they are: a distraction from President Obama's all around miserable record during his first term in office and a feeble attempt to get an opposition candidate to trip up while answering an irrelevant question. They did this with Santorum and Gingrich too.

Romney needs to push back by answering stupid questions like these with questions. In the case of Solidad Obrien and the Seamus the dog question, he needs to say, "Solidad, can you please tell me how this is a presidential-level question? Do you really believe the American People are lying awake at night wondering about Seamus? Is this really something you consider important because I believe the people are more interested in the economy, unemployment, gas prices, the national debt, etc." If he does this, then maybe we would hear some actual ideas from the candidates.

There was a time when folks put their dogs in the bed of the pickup and off they went! Heck, come to think of it, they did the same with the kids. How about serious journalists asking both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney some real, relevant, and tough questions and leave the fluff to People and US Magazines. We will all be better off for it.

GSA Scandal: Just in the Nick of Time

Sometimes the stars align just perfectly to help make a point. This is one of those times. Just as President Obama was renewing his call for the ridiculous Buffett Rule, the story about the outrageous GSA boondoggle in Las Vegas broke. It seems that civil servants from one of the GSA regional offices thought is was perfectly fine to spend over $800,000 to hold a conference in Las Vegas complete with a fortune teller, $1000 a night hotel rooms for some of the big wigs, and a team building exercise that used taxpayer money to buy 70 bicycles for the attendees to assemble which they then gave away to needy local kids. Although giving the bikes to poor kids was a nice gesture, they didn't have the right or the authority to do it. And as for the top officials treating themselves to $1000 a night hotel suites, I think that as a taxpayer what burns me the most is I don't even know when the last time I stayed in a $1000 a night hotel room. Oh yeah, that's because I HAVE NEVER STAYED IN A $1000 A NIGHT HOTEL ROOM!

According to the GSA official website:
"Our Mission
The GSA mission is to use expertise to provide innovative solutions for our customers in support of their missions, and by so doing, foster an effective, sustainable, and transparent government for the American people."
"Our Vision
The GSA vision is a government that works ever better for the American people."

If these folks are wasting our money, is there any doubt about other federal agencies and departments?

So when Mr. Obama talks about millionaires and billionaires paying a little bit more in taxes because they can afford it and it is only fair, I say not another penny from another American citizen, regardless of their income, until we get control of this runaway government beast! When the President accuses Republicans of proposing budget reforms that would tell those with Downs Syndrome and Autism to fend for themselves, I ask who is really taking money from those in need?

Finally, I offer this thought. When I was a newly commissioned naval officer, our Navy had big problems with ships spilling fuel while in port. The clean-up cost the government thousands of dollars each time it happened. Then, new regulations were established that held the commanding officers personally responsible for paying for the clean-up if there was a spill from their ships. The problem went away almost over night. How about holding the government managers personally financially liable, if their organizations grossly mismanage the "People's" money. I bet they would think twice before authorizing any more $1000 a night hotel rooms.

Unemployed Obama Voters: Don't Count on the President's Help

       Back in January, Jennifer Wedel asked President Obama in a televised online chat why we are letting foreign workers in the US when her software engineer husband has been out of a job for 3 years. President Obama said, "We need software engineers. It shouldn't be hard to find him a job. Tell you what. Send me his resume." Guess what. It is April and the guy is still unemployed!

       So if President Obama can't put a highly skilled, software engineer back to work, how is he going to get the rest of the 8.2% unemployed Americans back to work? And the 8.2% unemployment figures don't even count all those who have given up even looking for a job.

       If you are unemployed and plan on voting for Obama in November 2012, that might be something you ought to think about before Election Day. I'm just saying...

Israel: Who's Got Your Back?

Yesterday, President Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that when it comes to Iran, "We've got your back." However, based on the relationship between Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu over the last three years, I'd be careful if I were Netanyahu. After Mr Obama refused to allow his picture to be taken with Netanyahu during his first visit, leaving him to dine alone in the White House, and demanding that Israel return to the pre-1969 borders, if President Obama is behind him watching his back, Mr Netanyahu better look over his left and right shoulders to make sure he doesn't see Obama's hands resting there. Ya know what I'm sayin'?

Marriage No Business of Government

       

       So Maryland is now the eighth State to allow same-sex marriage. I know this will probably shock both my conservative and liberal friends but I don't think the government at any level should prohibit gay marriage. That being said, I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage at all. I have a difficult time finding any compelling reason why government has a stake in marriage whatsoever. Can someone explain it to me?

       Marriage isn't necessary to live together; homosexual behavior is not illegal or if it is in some States, those laws are no longer enforced; fornication laws are no longer enforced; adultery is no longer criminal behavior; marriage is no longer a requirement for having or raising children and marriage alone is not enough to guarantee things like inherence rights, so what is the purpose of marriage from a State's point of view? It certainly can't be to promote any moral standards because we have a secular government and morality is the purview of religion. I also see a logical dilemma that has now been introduced when marriage is no longer defined as between one man and one woman. Why is plural marriage not permitted? And what about marriage between adult close relatives? So my question remains, what stake does any State or the federal government have in marriage? It seems to me, none!

       We have a very sophisticated legal system in America where you can legally arrange any agreement you want: next of kin issues, legal guardianship, shared property rights, custody rights issues, inheritance rights, etc. So why is State or state involvement in marriage necessary at all? It seems to me that State laws regarding marriage are more about things like taxation rather than individual rights or promoting any sort of societal stability.

       The real irony in Maryland - a State that is facing profound fiscal problems - is that the day before same-sex marriage was passed by the State Senate, that same body failed to pass a State budget. So is the budget now the next item on the list of things to do for liberal Maryland legislators? No of course not! The next item on the liberal legislative docket is the death penalty. Unfortunately, like same-sex marriage, this isn't a high priority to Maryland voters either.

Readers' Sound-off Board

Dear Readers,

       I have added this post as a way for you to sound-off. If you want to suggest topics, ask my opinion, challenge me to discuss or defend a conservative position, feel free to post it here. I will do my best to reply with my thoughts as soon as possible.

Cheers!

The Carnivore

The Take Away from the South Carolina Primary

I haven't yet made up my mind who I would like to see get the Republican nomination. There are aspects of each of the remaining candidates that I find appealing but I also have reservations about each of them as well. Of one thing I am absolutely certain - any of them would be better than our current president. Regardless of who ultimately wins the nomination, there is one "take away" from the South Carolina primary that the candidates had better understand: Having a winning argument doesn't matter if you don't win the argument!

I don't believe Gingrich's victory is as much of an endorsement of Newt as it is an indication of what Republican and conservative voters want. They want a fighter; someone who has the conviction and nerve to stand up to the inevitable attacks that will be leveled against them in the general election by Democrats and their propagandists in the media. The cheer of the crowd following Newt's rebuke of John King during the debate for leading off with a question about a statement made by the former House Speaker's ex-wife says it all. We are tired of the "John Boehner's" who go in with the winning argument only to lose heart and come out, tail between their legs having lost the argument.

No one is in a better position to benefit from this lesson than Governor Mitt Romney. Unlike Newt, who has, quite frankly, argued some very unconservative ideas, Mitt has often had the winning argument but couldn't seal the deal. He has allowed himself to be put on the defensive over his business success and capitalism.

The conservative ideals of individual liberty, the free market and limited government are the winning argument. We have the benefit of over two hundred years of evidence on our side. By refusing to allow the media or an opponent to frame a false narrative and having the courage of their convictions to stand by our ideals, any of the Republican candidates can focus on winning the argument and ultimately the White House in November.

What Are the President's Priorities?

What are President Obama's priorities? One thing is for sure, American jobs, prosperity or energy independence are not among them. A few days after the Iranian government threatened to shut the Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world's oil must pass and on the same day that forecasters predicted gasoline to reach $5 a gallon by May, President Obama denied a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The question is why?

This must have been a gut wrenching decision for the president to have to choose between two of his big constituents - Big Labor and the Radical Environmentalists. "Should I grant the permit to TransCanada for the pipeline which would mean tens of thousands of well paying union jobs or should I bow to the demands of the radical environmentalists?" No voting present here! Clearly the overriding concern for Mr. Obama was throwing a bone to the rabid green crowd. Unfortunately, when called upon to make a decision, President Obama has a knack for coming down on the wrong side.

On the one hand, the pipeline would mean thousands of jobs at a time when we are in a period of prolonged high unemployment. And these jobs would be skilled, high-paying jobs. Furthermore, it would not just create jobs during the construction phase but once completed, it would create many long-term jobs in the way of maintenance, monitoring, and operation of the pipeline in addition to all the jobs in the refineries on the US Gulf Coast that would process the oil into gasoline and other important products. Moreover, it would decrease our dependence on Middle East oil while at the same time further strengthen our economic ties to our good neighbor to the north.

On the other hand, the environmentalists argue that there needs to be further environmental impact studies and that we should not help exploit Canada's tar sands oil, encourage the continued use of fossil fuels, risk harming the delicate ecosystems along the path of the pipeline, and add to greenhouse gases by refining the oil in our refineries. However, these are very weak arguments indeed.

The US Department of State (not known to be a particularly pro-business, conservative, bunch) conducted an extensive, three year environmental impact study that concluded the pipeline would have little, negative impact on the environment including the Ogalla aquifer and the Sandhills region of Nebraska. Furthermore, TransCanada agreed to work with the State of Nebraska to re-route the pipeline to avoid critical wildlife areas and add many more safety features such as additional monitoring systems and shutdown valves. Apparently this isn't good enough.

Additionally, the decision to not allow the pipeline to be build across the US will do nothing to prevent the continued use of fossil fuels or the development of Canadian tar sands oil. Shortly after learning of President Obama's decision, the Canadian government announced it would build the pipeline through Canadian territory in order to sell the oil to China so it will do nothing to lessen the potential for harm to the environment or reduce the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere. As a matter of fact, I can almost assure you that oil refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than it would be in the US. I would also argue that transporting the crude oil from the west coast of Canada by Chinese tanker is far more likely to present a hazard to our environment than a pipeline as an oil spill at sea has a higher probability of occurrence and would be much more difficult to clean up than a leak from a land-based pipeline.

So to recap, President Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline has damaged our relationship with Canada, will hurt our economy, and does nothing to safeguard the environment. To think this decision is in the best interest of American and reflects the right priorities from our president, requires what Hillary Clinton once called "A willing suspension of disbelief."

The Good News/Bad News Regarding Unemployment

Since November we have been given encouraging news regarding the unemployment rate. First we learned from the Labor Department that unemployment had dropped below 9%. Then we learned that it dropped to 8.5% in December which was good news indeed especially for President Obama and his re-election chances in 2012. The major newspapers and television stations eagerly reported and then repeated these numbers. Liberal media cheerleading notwithstanding, the bad news is that the numbers are bogus.

The first thing one should notice is that the term "seasonally adjusted" was not used in the reports.
Ordinarily this might not be a problem but in the lead up to the Christmas shopping season large numbers of temporary employees are hired which has only a temporary impact on unemployment. Once the post-holiday returns are made, most of these temporary hires are also "returned" to the ranks of the unemployed. The government and media always adjust their statistics. However, they never give these revisions the same level of coverage. While the good news is reported on page one, "above the fold" of the Washington Post and New York Times, the revised numbers end up weeks later on page A23 beside the story about the dog that swallowed a plastic spoon. Coincidence? I can't say for sure but I believe liberal strategist and commentator Bob Beckel made a very revealing admission on the Sean Hannity Show. According to Beckel, the inflated numbers don't matter. The news has been splashed all over the TV and newspapers and that will be all that Americans will remember come November. I guess the truth isn't all that important as long as what is reported helps President Obama get re-elected.

The other big lie associated with the lower unemployment numbers that were reported is how the numbers were determined. In order to make the numbers look more encouraging, the reports were based on the U-6 instead of the U-3 statistics. The difference is that, unlike the U-3 statistics which are usually reported, the U-6 numbers were reported which includes part-time workers who are underemployed and doesn't count those who need employment but are no longer actively looking for jobs because they have given up in despair. Additionally, on Friday we learned that for the first time, those accepting positions as unpaid interns were no longer counted as unemployed. In the interest of full disclosure, I learned about the unpaid interns on Fox News (gasp from liberal readers!) Did it get reported anywhere else?

Liberals will retort that the economy is recovering. They will admit that it is a slow recovery but it is a recovery which given the mess left by Bush, that is understandable. The problem with this is that it is also not correct. Typically, the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery is both in terms of growth and employment. But this "recovery" remains anemic with only about 1.5% growth instead of the 5-plus percent one would expect following such a significant downturn. When considering the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, unemployment has been estimated to be as high as 17%. Given the Obama Administration's anti-business rhetoric, unwillingness to adopt policies that help promote certainty to reassure employers (think temporary tax incentives, threats of tax hikes and no federal budget in nearly 1000 days), and its insistence on restrictive regulations and government interference that kill job creation (remember the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and Boeing opening a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina?) should anyone put much credence in the employment figures? Or could it be that the economy is improving despite President Obama's policies? I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Violent Crime Down in DC in 2011 - Experts Have Difficulty Explaining Why

A few days ago, I saw an article in the news with the above title. I'm not an "expert" but I do follow the news and I can put two and two together. There is an obvious connection but the so called experts are blinded to it by their ideology. Every time a State or city repeals gun bans or allows their law abiding citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits and thus exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, the liberal left makes dire predictions of a resulting "blood bath." And every time, they are proven wrong.

In 2010, the US Supreme Court overturned DC's strict gun ban and suddenly, law abiding citizens of the District could no longer be guaranteed to be defenseless prey for the city's criminal predators. You see, criminals being, well criminals, amazingly didn't comply with the gun ban law. After all, they needed their weapons; call them their tools of the trade. However, they also needed the reasonable assumption that their potential victims would be unarmed. This made the "work" much safer, more productive and I'm sure a lot more enjoyable. Then that pesky Supreme Court had to go and ruin a good thing.

I'm sure eventually the "experts"  will determine the "true" cause of the drop in violent crime. They will probably cite their extensive research that shows that, global warming, the thinning of the ozone layer,  Wall Street greed, racism, "Big Oil"...blah, blah, blah caused the economically disadvantaged to just give up on their chosen profession. Fortunately, the rest of us have a far better grasp of the obvious.