Clinton's Lie Forgivable- Obama's Is Not

When Bill Clinton finally had to admit he lied about Monica Lewinsky, most of America was willing to forgive him. After all, it was just about sex and a CYA lie to avoid personal embarrassment. I don't personally subscribe to that rationalization but many did. With President Obama's healthcare lie, I don't think Americans will be as forgiving as they were with Clinton. The reason is simple: Mr. Obama deceived the American people and his lie fooled them into voting for him over something that they wouldn't have otherwise agreed to. Furthermore, it is causing huge swaths of them personal harm. Tens of millions of Americans who previously had healthcare coverage that they were perfectly happy with may ultimately lose that coverage because of the new Obamacare insurance requirements. The polls are bearing this assertion out. The president's approval rating has dropped to 37% and some polls even show that many of those who voted for him would vote for Mitt Romney if they held the election today. Ouch! Talk about buyer's remorse. Can you blame them? If LT Dan were a real person instead of a fictional character, he would probably lose his healthcare because it doesn't cover podiatry care.

"But you ain't got no legs Lieutenant Dan."

[Sigh] "Yes, I know that.[Forrest]"

And Obamacare is No Exception

Modern liberalism or progressivism or whatever one choses to call it is nothing more than Utopian socialism. This philosophy has its roots in Plato's Republic and was later described in 1516 by Sir Thomas More in his book, Utopia, and still later it was the basis for Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Each of these works openly admit that Utopianism must be predicated on an initial "necessary" or "benevolent" lie - the idea that, if you can just overlook the initial falsehood of the premise, the result is everything that follows will be better. Unfortunately, we have to learn time and time again that something that has an untruth as its foundation will never bring about some ultimate greater good.

Margarette Thatcher once famously said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. While this may be true from a purely practical sense, from a moral and logical standpoint, the "necessary" or "benevolent" lie required in order for socialism to work is its true fatal flaw.  Further, socialism is a philosophy that tries to force itself on reality as opposed to capitalism which is a philosophy that attempts to describe reality.

If one begins a mathematical proof with the false premise that 2+2 = 5, everything else that follows is doomed to failure. Regardless of the hoped for ultimate good, any program built on a lie cannot succeed and President Obama's "benevolent" lie, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your plan, etc...." and Obamacare is no exception.

"If" is the New "Period"

Before I get started on explaining the title of this post, I'd like to clarify some terms and provide examples.

A mistake is when you say something you believe is true but that turns out not to be. Example: George W. Bush and WMDs in Iraq. I'm not saying that invading Iraq was a good idea, especially in hindsight, but I'm saying it was a mistake. Everyone believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction including the U.N., the CIA, the NSA, the British intelligence services, the Germans, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush knew beforehand that there were no WMDs. Therefore, he didn't lie; it was a mistake.

A lie is when you say something you know to be untrue to deceive someone. Examples: When Bill Clinton claimed he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky, splitting hairs over the meaning of sex not withstanding, he knew he had and therefore what he said was a lie. When Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice et al, claimed that the attack in Benghazi that killed the American Ambassador and three other Americans was the result of some YouTube video that no one had seen, they knew that wasn't the case yet they repeated it over and over again. That was also a lie - pure and simple. I know Obama apologists would like the public to believe otherwise, but the fact is they lied.

On the other hand, when George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." and then raised taxes, that was a broken promise not a lie unless someone can provide proof that he confided to someone that he intended to raise taxes after he was elected in spite of his pledge.

When the Obama Administration calls Major Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood "workplace violence", well that is just plain delusional.

Now for the explanation of the title. When Barack Obama claimed over and over and over again, "If you like your current plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor - period." he and his advisors were lying. The media has discovered that the Administration knew full well that this wasn't going to be the case. There are emails and memos documenting this. Since this has come to light, the President and his mouthpiece, Jay Carney, have tried to spin this as, "What we said was, ‘You could keep it [your plan] if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.'" So unless "If" is the new "period", this too is a lie and what a whooper of a lie it is!

Send for Dr. Van Helsing

If Hillary Clinton's career can rise up from the political grave that the Benghazi Scandal should be, then someone needs to summon Professor Van Helsing, the vampire slayer from Bram Stoker's classic horror novel Dracula, before she can claim any more victims.

No Lifeline for the Democrats Over Healthcare

After being called all sorts of terrible names over the gov't shutdown asking for the very same thing the Dumocrats have now realized is necessary with regard to Obamacare, the Republicans should now sit on their hands. No way should they throw them the lifeline they are now groping for. This ugly baby is 100% the spawn of liberal Democrats' (I guess liberal is unnecessary) ideological loins and they need to pay the political child-support (in 2014 and 2016). The media, unwittingly, created a 2 week x 24/7 video documentary of the fact Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with this disaster. Working with them now is stupid, foolish, self-defeating, etc. Expect Sens McCain, Graham, and the other "Gang of Whatevers" to run out in their usual "battered political spouse"/Stockholm Syndrome manner to support their tormentors. Crazy!!!

Now Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Fresh off his "success" with comprehensive healthcare reform, now President Obama is pressing for "comprehensive" immigration reform. The liberal Democrat and RINO plan will necessarily demand a path to citizenship for those who have come to the United States illegally. Republicans (the law and order party)will naturally oppose any plan for amnesty but they will be demonized by the liberal media as mean-spirited, racist, blah, blah, blah, etc. until they give in. You know the drill.

I have a suggestion for Republicans. Insist on only one provision.

Any path to citizenship must be accessed through a government website.

Fox Business's Cavuto Tells It Like It Is

As opposed to all the hyperbole, screaming and name calling for the liberal media, Fox Business anchor and commentator, Neil Cavuto, provides some measured criticism of President Obama and the new healthcare law. Liberals will hate this...because it is undenialable and the truth hurts.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdmtJCEWPA&feature=youtu.be

The Shutdown's Silver Lining

One thing is for certain, Dems, liberals, RINOs and the media scored a major victory over the shutdown. However, all sides better observe caution. Repubs, Tea Party, and conservatives should avoid too much self-flagellation and the left would be well-advised to resist the urge to gloat or perform too many end-zone dances. Remember 1992? Geo H.W. Bush had a 89% approval rating in 1991 following the Gulf War and went on to lose less than a year later. People tend to over analyze the importance of political victory and confuse winning battles for winning the war. Timing will mean a lot here. Repubs and conservative might actually benefit from these short-term set-backs in the following way:

1. Had the Repubs been able to roll-back Obamacare, liberals could have said, “Well it would have worked but those mean-spirited, racist, bigoted, homophobe Republicans kept us from being able to give you your free healthcare.” It might actually be better to allow the train wreck and then be legitimately be able to say “See we told you so. We tried to prevent this but we weren’t successful. Don’t blame us.”

2. All politics is local especially with regard to Congressional Representatives. Those who think that the Tea Party candidates will be voted out by the very constituents who sent them to Washington to do exactly what they did are kidding themselves. Purple district candidates might be vulnerable but then again, they always are.

3. Unlike with the economy where liberals were able to make a convincing but in my opinion false argument that this bad economy is still all Bush’s fault, there is no way that if Obamacare turns out to be the disaster conservative predict (and so far is on track to be) it can be blamed on the Republicans. Dems and liberals own this one “Lock, stock and barrel” and they spent the last 2 weeks providing a 24/7 video record of it. When people become truly pissed because they lose their jobs, are forced to go part-time, have their health insurance premiums skyrocket, deductible shoot up to $5000+, employer coverage is dropped, etc, etc, etc. Democrats will be politically bludgeoned to death like baby fur seals by their own words captured on video by their media lackeys.

Time will tell but the future is anything but certain. Upcoming milestones: 01Jan 14 mandatory enrollment begins; 15 Apr 14 first impacts of tax penalties hit; 04 Nov 2014 mid-term elections; 08 Nov 2016 next Presidential election!

Reader comments are encouraged. Be the first to comment by clicking on "No Comments" and add your thoughts.

Liberal In a Lifeboat - An Analogy

Our country is like a lifeboat. If you were in an open lifeboat with a liberal in the middle of the ocean with the sun beating down on you and you complained about being hot, the liberal would drill a hole in the bottom of the boat, splash you with cold seawater and expect you to thank him.

Should Have Used GoDaddy

First impressions are important and I think it is safe to say that www.healthcare.gov blew it. Whether or not you are a fan of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the roll out of the government health insurance exchange website certainly gives one reason for concern. So far, America's initial contact with the system via the website has been an unmitigated disaster. The ability to use the site has been very frustrating even to the numerous liberal TV journalists who have tried to access the system on air! In interviews yesterday and today, John McAfee, the founder of McAfee, Inc (the big software security company) said, "The site is hacker's wet dream!" He went on to predict that thousands of Americans may have their identities stolen due to security vulnerabilities in the www.healthcare.gov website. Another interview I heard with a software designer, said the site appears to be poorly designed, badly implemented, and apparently not tested prior to launch. In fairness, the government only had 3 years to have the site built. All this for the incredibly low price of only $394 million according to this morning's Washington Post. Maybe they should have just used GoDaddy.com?

Obama Administration and Dems Can't Do Nothing Right

Before you jump on me for using improper English, permit me to explain myself. I'm not saying that the Obama Administration and the Democrats can't do anything right. With the exception of killing terrorists using drones, that's true of course but that isn't what I mean. My point is that with the government shutdown, they are supposed to be doing nothing and they are even screwing that up. Let's look at a few examples.

Once the government shutdown went into effect, the first thing the Administration did was deploy its "flying monkeys" better known as its cabinet secretaries to use their departments to inflict additional pain on the American citizenry. They went about shutting down facilities and services that cost the government nothing (at least in the short run) - things like the National Mall (that big open grassy area in downtown DC), the open air monuments such as the WWII Memorial, and the small parking spaces at the scenic overlooks along the George Washington Parkway which runs along the Potomac River. They even went to the trouble of closing bike paths, turning off the drinking fountains around the Mall, and turning off the "Panda Cam" at the National Zoo! Seriously? These actions actually cost additional money to prevent Americans from enjoying things that cost nothing to remain open!

Listening to the president and the Democrats talking about those "holding guns to heads", "terrorists", "holding hostages", "strapping bombs to their chests"and vows to not negotiate with terrorists, I thought for sure they were talking about Al Qaeda, the Iranians, President Asad of Syria, or President Putin of Russia. Imagine my astonishment when I found out that they were talking about their fellow Americans in the other political party and as a matter of fact they refused to even talk to them. The president however had no problem calling the new Iranian president, Rouhani. Apparently, Republicans are the real terrorists and they won't talk to them even to help end the government funding impasse. I would think that would be one of the few things they should have on their plate during the shutdown if they are truly interested in getting the government up and running again.

The Democrats began looking for examples of people were being hurt by the shutdown. They found that about 200 people were unable to take part in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) because it was shut down. This includes about 30 children being prevented from receiving their treatments for cancer. The joke was on them though because the Republican House sent an appropriation bill over to the Democrat Senate to fund the NIH but Sen Harry Reid (D- NV) refused to allow it to come to a vote. When asked about this by Dana Bash of CNN (a highly regarded member of the liberal media elite), Reid had a "Did I just say that out loud?" moment. Bash asked, "But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?" Reid replied "Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own." He then went on to insult Bash saying, "This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you're irresponsible and reckless …" He spent the next several days backtracking. This wasn't the only funding bill that the Democrat Senate refused to approve. Reid led the Senate in blocking funding to keep open the national parks, pay for veterans benefits, and pay the National Guard. The Democrats would have you believe that the 12 federal appropriations bills have always been rolled up into a single omnibus bill. However this is only a relatively recent phenomenon so their complaint about being asked to vote on funding the government piecemeal is a bit disingenuous.

I think most everyone agrees that there is a lot of blame to go around for the government shutdown. But just as with the sequestration when the unguided tours ( read zero cost to the government) of the White House were stopped, President Obama and his minions in the Democrat controlled Senate once again demonstrate they can't do "nothing" right and are looking increasingly petty, mean, vindictive and spiteful doing it.
Reader comments are invited. Click on "No comments" below to be the first to reply.

Democrat Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 is a GOP Dream!

I don’t care how brilliant you may think she is. Or how qualified you might consider her to be. You can claim she has had many successes as First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State – the mountain of evidence to the contrary. It is hard to deny that Hillary is the darling of the liberal media and they are already hard at work trying to rehabilitate her tarnished image following the Benghazi scandal. They would love to have her as the Democrat Presidential nominee for 2016 and so would I! This woman is lugging around more baggage than a skycap at BWI but listing her numerous disasters as a public servant, her involvement in countless personal and professional scandals, and her significant list of non-accomplishment won’t be enough to keep her from being elected our next president. No, there are enough low information voters in New York and California, dead people in Chicago, non-Ohio resident voters in Ohio and illegal aliens … well everywhere else to steal the election for her. But to them and anyone else who might consider voting for her, I offer the following. If you are a mother or father, brother, sister, friend or neighbor to anyone, would you really want someone who could say this about somebody else’s loved ones to be your next president?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfg
If I was Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the run-up to the 2016 election, this would be my ad campaign against Hillary and I’d pay to have it run on a continuous loop! If she still managed to get elected, then America is in far worse shape then even I imagined.

Reader comments and thoughts are welcome! Click on comments below the post.

Who Will Liberals Blame Healthcare Problems on Then?

The Republican House sent a bill over to the Senate that funded the entire government but contained language that defunded Obamacare. The Senate could vote to approve the bill and avoid a government shutdown but instead they most likely will strip out the defunding portion of the bill and send it back to the House. This would force the House to either accept funding of a disastrous program that 70% of Americans are firmly against, most of those in Congress who voted for it hadn't read (and probably still haven't) and could only get jammed through using a parliamentary procedure trick or can allow the government to shut down. If this happens, of course the Republicans will be blamed. Obamacare is universally acknowledged to be a train wreck in the making. It is already causing people to lose their current coverage, pay more for coverage, and work fewer hours as employers make them go part-time to avoid having to pay for the very expensive government mandated coverage. Except for a handful of States, health insurance premiums are expected to increase an average of 24%. The graph below by the Society of Actuaries gives another revealing view of the coming increases.

So much for the president’s promise that the average family will save $2500 a year!

When this legislation was passed, not a single Republican voted for it because no one was given an opportunity to read, let alone try to understand the 2800+ page behemoth. This program is riddled with problems that are causing all sorts of unforeseen negative consequences. It is a jobs killer. It is going to cost billions more than what we were promised. It is going to cause a doctor shortage as doctors retire or leave the field of medicine in order to not have to deal with the government bureaucracy. The system will be bogged down as thousands of new patients flood the system for their free healthcare for every sneeze or sniffle. "Why not? Don't cost nothin'?" The president has already (and illegally I might add) delayed implementation for his pals in "Big Labor" because the program isn't ready. Before it has even been fully implemented, Obamacare has missed 41 of its 82 legally required deadlines according to the Library of Congress’s Congressional Research Service. And yet, liberals insist on pushing forward with this ill-conceived law. So liberals, I ask you: When your medical insurance premiums skyrocket; when you have to wait months for routine procedures; when your 401K tanks because the economy is in ruins; when you lose your job because your employer can’t make a decent return on their operations because of the high cost of their mandated employer provided healthcare; when your kid can’t get the operation or medicine she needs because the government has decided her chances of survival doesn’t merit the expense or when you have to figure out how to live on a part-time salary because your hours get cut back to below 30 hours a week, who are you going to be able to blame? You won’t be able to blame the Republicans!

Rep Nancy Pelosi - Majority Liar of the House

Nancy Pelosi is a shameless liar. In her typical hyperbolic way, she claims that Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children, seniors, veterans, etc. by cutting the budget for food stamps. The Republicans have proposed cutting $40 billion over the next ten years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP which sounds like a lot of money until you consider that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the program will cost $746 billion between 2013 and 2024. That is less than a 5% cut and just as with any government program, we know that there is plenty of waste, fraud and abuse. Why not try to target that? Cutting the budget forces the government to be better stewards of these funds to make sure those truly deserving get the help they need.

Now that food stamps are given in the form of funds on an Electronic Benefits Transfer card, abusing the system is much easier. We have all either seen for ourselves or heard from others about people buying tobacco, alcohol, cosmetics and many other non-nutritional or non-essential items or using the cards properly but them paying cash for lottery tickets. These people aren't taking food out of the mouths of children, seniors, veterans, etc.? Apparently not in Pelosi's addled mind. Or maybe she just doesn't want to upset one of her big constituencies - food stamp cheats. The rest - illegal alien voters,  welfare recipients and cheats, the dead, and miscreants of every description might not be enough to keep getting her reelected. Given that she represents the 12th district in California which covers much of the area in and around San Francisco, I really don't think she need worry!

In Defense of American Exceptionalism

The concept of American Exceptionalism is back in the news again and as usual it is creating a stir. For many non-Americans and especially Europeans, it raises hackles. "How dare those braggarts declare themselves superior. Those young upstarts!" While it is true, many of my fellow countrymen believe American Exceptionalism does mean that we are better than the rest of the world, they are mistaken just as are those citizens of other countries that view the phrase as a demonstration of Yankee conceit. Even President Obama got it wrong when he said in his speech outlining the case for attacking Syria,

“But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. ... That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional.” This was met with the following, rather ironic quote by Russian President Putin in a September 12, 2013 Op-Ed in the New York Times. Putin wrote:

"...I would rather disagree with a case he (President Obama) made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

It is easy to forgive Mr. Obama's mistake - after all, he is a relative newcomer when it comes to believing in American Exceptionalism. It was not too long ago when he declared that “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Putin's mistake, piggy-backing off of Obama's, is also understandable (though I find it strange to hear references to God, the Lord and democracy coming from a former Soviet KGB officer.) If Putin, Obama and so many others keep getting it wrong, then what is American Exceptionalism?

American Exceptionalism is the notion that the United States of America (not Americans themselves) is special; unique. Our Founding Fathers codified in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that the rights of man come from God and the rights of government come from the governed. This led to America’s unique ideology that, according to Seymour Martin Lipset (late political sociologist and recognized expert on the subject) is based upon the ideas of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez faire. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison et al didn't invent these ideas. They learned them from reading the writings of the great European philosophers John Locke, Adam Smith and Montesquieu among others and applying them. The result was a new country with an economic and political environment that allowed ordinary citizens from every corner of the world to come and create, achieve and prosper to levels that were impossible for them in their native lands. Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the exceptional nature of America is that a little boy, who only 150 years might have been consider someone else's property based on the color of his skin; essentially abandoned by his hippie mother and foreign Kenyan father, could grow up to become president. If that isn't exceptional, I don't know what is!

Putin Saves Obama's Political Bacon Over Syria

I don't know if President Obama has one or not but if he doesn't, I nominate Vladimir Putin for Obama's BFF after Vlad saved his political bacon this week over Syria. To say that Obama mismanaged the situation with Syria is a mistake because it suggests he tried to manage the situation with Syria. He did not. What happened was a series of missteps that has become the trademark of the Obama Administration - this inept team of amateurs. Fortunately for them and everyone else, it is often better to be lucky than to be good. Here is what I mean.

What started the sequence of events that had the Administration careening toward what appeared to be yet another blunder was President Obama's statement back in 2012 that if Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons that would be crossing a "red line." The off-handed and off-teleprompter remark placed the United States in the position of having to either take action against Syria or losing credibility when on August 21st of this year, someone (allegedly the Assad regime) fired rockets armed with chemical warheads into eleven neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs killing 1500 civilians - 400 of which were children. Over the next several days, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry tried to make the case for attacking Syria to let Assad know there are consequences to violating international law regarding the use of gas. Initially, Mr. Obama claimed he didn’t need the approval of Congress in order to strike Syria but as his efforts to build the support of the international community failed, he pivoted and said he would ask for Congressional approval. As the Administration tried to convince lawmakers and the American public that attacking Syria was in our national interest, the president began to receive criticism for “drawing the red line.” True to form, Mr. Obama denied drawing the red line and tried to blame everyone else - the world and Congress - despite the video of him clearly using the words “red line.” It was soon very apparent that this effort was also doomed to failure.

While answering the question, ‘Is there anything that Syria can do to avoid being attacked?’ during a CNN interview, Sec. Kerry made his own off-handed remark. Kerry flippantly replied, ‘Well of course they could give up all their chemical weapons within the week but that’s not going to happen.’ Kerry made this remark never dreaming anyone would take it seriously. However, when Russia and Syria indicated that they might be willing to discuss this proposal, he soon began backtracking and even the liberal press recognized this to be a major screw-up. With an address to the nation scheduled to take place within two days, things were looking pretty bleak for Team Barry. Suddenly it must have occurred to Obama and Company, that they had just been thrown a “life line.” What had initially been universally seen as a blunder was now being hailed by Kerry, Obama, and liberals everywhere as a great secret plan that had been weeks in the making. You know what they say, ‘Success has many parents; failure is an orphan.’ In his Tuesday night address, the president said he would delay asking for Congressional approval to strike Syria and that he would allow time to see if diplomacy might still lead to a peaceful solution. The president did however say that a military strike was not off the table if the weapons turnover proposal failed. President Obama was ‘off the hook.’

Since his speech, Mr. Obama and his administration have been patting themselves on the back for getting Russia to take the lead on Syria. Barack Obama has slipped comfortably back into his preferred leading from behind mode. In his new role as world leader, Mr. Putin wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times that chastised President Obama for his handling of the crisis in Syria and warned him not to take military action. Not fully recovered from having so narrowly dodged a bullet, Obama and the gang that can’t shoot straight hasn’t had time to realized that they should be humiliated.

There is a saying, “There are three kinds of people in the world: Those that make things happen; those that watch things happen and those who say, ‘What just happened?’ I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself which one is Obama; which one is Putin and which one is Kerry.

Pelosi and the Advice of Five Year Olds

Is it any wonder our country and so many of our children are such a mess? Consider the following. Apparently Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s five year old grandson took valuable time away from his daily perusal of the San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times, and the Washington Post (liberal rags all) to see his grandmother off on her return trip to DC and chat about geo-politics. According to the Congresswoman, the following conversation took place: REP. NANCY PELOSI: …My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.' I said, 'Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they've killed hundreds of children there. ' And he said, five years old, 'Were these children in the United States?' And I said, 'No, but they're children wherever they are.' (www.realclearpolitics.com, 3 Sep 13). Pelosi then went on to ramble something about our interests which was completely incoherent. Ironically, it seems to me that the five year old gets it whereas grandma doesn’t. More importantly though is, “What kind of adult engages in a conversation like this with a child?” The answer is a liberal Democrat of course! Whatever happened to talking to little boys about their pets, dinosaurs, turtles; Batman, Spiderman and Superman, cars and trucks, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc.? Lord willing, a five year old boy in America can currently expect to live to be 79. So that means he has 71 years of being an adult. Can’t liberals allow a kid even 5 years to be, well, a kid, before they begin the, ‘It Takes a Village’, socialist, global consciousness, multiculturalism, ‘make a difference’, blah, blah, blah, clap trap indoctrination? After all, you have them as a captive audience from K-12 in our public school system. Isn’t that enough? Maybe next time, Ms. Pelosi might try saying something to her little grandson like, “Sweetie you don’t need to worry about that. We grownups in Washington are going to take care of that. Listen to your Mommy and Daddy and be a good boy while I’m gone. Love you!” Perhaps with regard to the “We grownups in Washington..” she might be a little reluctant to say that for fear of lying.

Syria: Heads the Bad Guys Win; Tails America Loses

30 months and 100,000 deaths into the civil war, there are no good choices for the US regarding Syria. Instead of supporting the original, pro-American, moderate opposition in the beginning, the United States stayed on the sidelines while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted 'Bashar al-Assad is a reformer.' This from the woman President Obama called, "... one of the finest secretary of states we've had."[sic] (I guess proper English wasn't stressed at Punahou, Occidental College, Columbia University or Harvard Law School!) But I digress. While the Obama Administration hung on to the notion that Assad was a reformer, Assad went about destroying the moderate opposition which was soon replaced by a collection of radical, al Qaeda affiliated, extremists. To make matters worse, President Obama, in order to appear tough during his re-election campaign, painted the US into a corner with his "red line" regarding the use of chemical weapons. Now we are faced with having to choose between the brutal dictator, Assad, and the America-hating Islamists but choose we must. Further complicating our decision is the fact that it isn't completely clear exactly who used the gas against the mostly civilian victims. Most likely it was Assad but there is also the possibility that it was the extremists. Assad clearly had the greater capability to use chemical weapons but he also had the least to gain. He is winning his fight against the opposition without using chemical weapons and using them would only draw the ire of America. On the other hand, the rebels are far less capable of deploying chemical weapons but the Islamists have demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians if it leads to their ultimate goals. If Assad gets the blame and the US attacks his military capability, it just might turn the tide of the war in favor of the extremists. All this has the makings of a "good Democrat" war - one in which the US has very little national interest, has little to gain, has little support from our allies and is opposed by the United Nations. Unlike the case for war against Iraq (ADMITTEDLY IT PROVED TO BE A BAD DECISION) which had the support of a coalition of over 40 countries, 17 UN resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein and his regime, the support of the UN, authorization from the Congress to use force, and the belief by nearly every world intelligence service that Iraq possessed WMDs, the case for attacking Syria is far weaker. While not insignificant, Assad allegedly killed about 1500 people with chemical weapons as opposed to the thousands of Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War and thousands of his own citizens during the Kurdish uprisings known to have been killed by Saddam using chemical weapons. Further, unlike the build-up to the Iraq War, Obama has managed to assemble a coalition of only 5 countries - France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. These are good allies but certainly not without their own motivation which is probably vastly different from ours. As a result of his failed effort to gain wide international support, the US was embarrassed when British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was denied authority to use force against Syria by the British House of Commons after pledging to help. Humiliation loves company! Lastly, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned that any military strikes against Syria would be illegal unless in self-defense under the UN charter or if approved by the UN Security Council. Since Syria is unlikely to attack the US directly and Security Council members, Russia and China, are opposed to any military action against Syria, these criteria will not likely be met. Congress may ultimately approve the president's use of force but only because the country has been put into a position where unless we act, its credibility will be damaged by yet another inept Obama Administration foreign policy blunder. So this is where things currently stand: Heads the Bad Guys Win; Tails America Loses!

The Curious Case of PFC Manning

Slowly but surely we learned the real reason PFC Bradley Manning betrayed his country by providing highly sensitive classified information to the Wikileaks website. It started out that Manning was distraught after his female impersonator boyfriend broke up with him. Perfectly understandable! Divulging secrets that damage national security and jeopardize people's lives is the natural response to a failed personal relationship. As time went on, we also learned that there was more to the story. The Army wasn't sensitive to Manning's gender identity issues and didn't help him with his feelings of not belonging. It is shocking that the military didn't jump to transform itself to make a maladjusted soldier more comfortable. After all, the military is well known for being accepting of those who don’t or can’t fit in, right? After being sentenced to 35 years in prison for providing classified information to the Wikileaks website, Manning’s attorney began to discuss the possibility that his client may appeal to President Obama for a pardon. Really? On what grounds? Apparently, Manning and his lawyer quickly realized that, even under this Administration that never ceases to amaze by making decisions contrary to what the average American would consider reasonable, a pardon was unlikely. Suddenly, Manning declared that he is a woman and wants to be called Chelsea. His/”her” lawyer says that “Chelsea” wants to begin hormone therapy paid for by, you guessed it, the military! A military spokesman released a statement almost immediately saying that the US military does not pay for hormone therapy or gender re-assignment surgery to treat sexual identity issues. If you think that is the end of the story, I predict you will be proven wrong. Expect Manning and his lawyer to take legal action to force the military to pay for his/”her” sex-change operation that will cost the very citizens he/”she” betrayed as much as $100,000. And if you think that the chances that a judge would rule in Manning’s favor are unlikely, consider the following. In 2012, a federal judge in Boston ruled that Massachusetts prison officials must provide a publicly funded sex reassignment surgery to an inmate serving a life sentence for killing his wife. This is what things have come to in America in the 21st century! Madness I tell you! Madness!!!

If Obamacare is so good...

If Obamacare is so good, why:

    Did the president delay implementing it - oh but only the employer mandate - the average "Joe
    Smo" has to buy health insurance which in most cases has gone way up in price;

    Is everyone is calling it a "train wreck" even Democrat members of the House and Senate;

    Did members of Congress quietly exempted themselves and their staffers before going on August
    recess;

   Did presidents of 3 of the largest unions - the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the United
   Food and Commercial Workers International Union and UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel,
   airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers - write President Obama a letter urging him to
   delay implementing it;

  Does the non-partisan CBO (the Congressional Budget Office) continue to estimate the cost of the
  program will skyrocket, and

  Did they have to change the wording on the official Affordable Healthcare Act website from "if you
  like your current doctor, you can keep your current doctor" to "if you like your current doctor, you 
  may be able to keep your current doctor." and "if you like your current healthcare plan, you can
  keep your current healthcare plan" to "if you like your current healthcare plan, you may be able to
  keep your current healthcare plan".

If this is only a train wreck, America will be very lucky!

Too Many Unasked Questions Surround Edward Snowden

       The Guardian published a letter by Dr Agnes Callamard (Executive director, Article 19) on August 6th arguing on behalf of more than 150 civil society organizations that the US should leave Edward Snowden, the NSA Whistleblower, alone. While I'm not thrilled by the NSA's intrusion into the private communications of American citizens, I think it is extraordinarily dangerous to just accept at face value that Snowden is some noble whistleblower as Callamard and many others appear to have.
       There are so many unanswered questions surrounding Snowden. More importantly, there are a lot of unasked questions. Specifically, I think the following questions that I don't think I have heard asked need to be asked and answers need to be obtained. How did this guy get jobs (either as a government employee or contractor) with the CIA, NSA and defense contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton? Positions with these organizations are extremely competitive. Snowden is a high school dropout! There were rumors he got his GED at Anne Arundel Community College but a college spokesman was quoted in The Capital as saying that the school has no record of him receiving a GED from them. Likewise for the cyber-security coursework he supposedly completed. How did he get a security clearance - especially in positions that usually require passing a polygraph examination? Did no one verify claims on his resume regarding his education? Did those performing his background checks not do their job? Or did they falsify information? These questions allude to a far more sinister situation. Was Snowden's access to all this highly classified information and sensitive programs the result of those charged with checking his background failing to do their job or was it a case of some person or persons who have infiltrated our security community, paving the way for a spy?
       We need to know these answers. That is why Snowden doesn't deserve to be "left alone".

Everything Wrong with the Zimmerman Case ...but the Verdict!

       I probably followed the George Zimmerman case closer than most people. Not because I was particularly interested in it but because the CNN coverage of the case blared on the TV in the break room across from my office all day. As a result, I think I have a very good understanding of the case.
       From the beginning, everything about the George Zimmerman case was wrong but in the end, the jury got the verdict right. I realize that many of you might disagree with me but please hear me out.  First of course, Trayvon Martin shouldn't be dead. That goes without saying. However, this case should have never been a national news story. Not because Trayvon isn't important (he is every bit as important as any other young American whose life ended too soon) but because it gained national attention for all the wrong reasons. Before they had their story straight, our corrupt and yes I'll say it, evil media began a campaign to stir up trouble. If there was any racism at all involved in this incident, it was completely the doing of the media. Without checking their facts, they latched on to this story as "White Man Kills Unarmed Black Teen." They saw the name Zimmerman and assumed, "Has to be a white guy with that German name! Maybe even...wait for it...a Jew!" Yes good ole fashioned anti-Semitism is alive and well in the hearts of our mainstream media. When it turned out to be completely wrong, instead of correcting the story, they worked hard to 'adjust the facts' to make the story work. George Zimmerman became a white Hispanic! What? Never heard that term before? Neither had anyone else. To sell advertising and support an unsustainable 24/7 news cycle, the media was willing to create a story, even at the expense of the Martin family, the African American community, public safety, George Zimmerman, race relations in the U.S. and the American justice system. NBC news skillfully edited the 911 tape to remove the operator's question asking Zimmerman is the person is white, black or Hispanic which made it appear as if Zimmerman just volunteered the information that Trayvon was black and that Zimmerman was profiling him because of his race. Then to continue to keep tensions high, the media showed old pictures of Trayvon; ones that made him look like a particularly young, vulnerable and innocent little boy. It wasn't until much later that they showed current pictures of Trayvon as he really was - a much taller, mature young man. None of this was in the best interest of justice for Trayvon or George Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the media weren't they only ones 'poisoning the well.'
       Buying into the false picture painted by the media, the usual suspects - the race hustlers, left-wing pundits, the "America is an awful place" crowd, to name a few - jumped on the bandwagon and began demanding Zimmerman be charged with murder even though the initial investigation determined it to be an apparent case of self-defense. The President of the United States weighed in and declared that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon and the civil rights division of the Justice Department dispatched investigators to Sanford, Florida to look for evidence that Zimmerman or the Sanford Police Department were racists - they found no evidence. Political pressure led to the firing of the Sanford Police Chief for refusing to charge Zimmerman with murder because he believed there was a lack of evidence. A special prosecutor, Angela Corey, was then appointed and made the decision to skip the usual grand jury hearing, immediately arrest Zimmerman and charge him with second degree murder. This would turn out to be an overreach on Corey's part and was the first of a series of mistakes by the prosecution that ultimately led to Zimmerman's acquittal. Had the charges initially included some potential lesser charges, there is a good chance Zimmerman may have been convicted of one of them but that was not to be.
       For reasons known only to her, Corey went for the big charge, swung for the fence and struck out. All the witnesses for the prosecution, proved to support the defense's case rather than build the case for second degree murder against Zimmerman. The star witness,  Rachel Jeantel, actually struck me as mentally challenged. Her monotone responses to the defense lawyer's cross-examination questions made her sound more like a 1950's era lobotomy patient than a credible witness and her inability to read her "own" written statement because it was written in cursive led to the revelation that she dictated it to a friend. Lastly, her refusal to acknowledge Trayvon's characterization of Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" as racist threw any credibility she had out the window. How the prosecution didn't see how bad a witness she would make is truly unbelievable. The prosecutions other witnesses proved no better. 
       Under questioning by the defense attorney, the policeman, Officer Serino, who did the initial questioning of Zimmerman admitted that he believed he was telling the truth after initially saying he thought he was lying. The only eyewitness,  Jonathan Good, claimed he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman giving him an "MMA-style ground and pound". Lastly, Zimmerman's testimony... "Wait you say, Zimmerman never took the stand in his own defense!" Technically, you are correct but for all intents and purposes he did when the prosecution played the police video of Zimmerman's statements and re-enactment of the event. By doing so, the prosecution allowed Zimmerman to "testified" without being able to cross-examine him and pick this "testimony" apart. The jury got to hear Zimmerman's side of the story in his own words and essentially was able to take it at face value - a devastatingly bad decision by the prosecution! As bad as these mistakes were, they weren't the only prosecutorial missteps.
       In addition to the prosecution's witnesses ending up being better defense witnesses, there were also instances of misconduct on their part - the most egregious of which was the withholding of evidence from the defense. This was only disclosed when a whistle-blower reported it and I'm sure this left the jury thinking it was being withheld by the prosecution because it proved the defense's case. Even if Zimmerman had been convicted, this would have been immediate grounds for appeal. Shortly after filing the charges, Corey called a press conference and began smiling, preening and "showboating" for the cameras which, along with the many other instances of improper handling of the case, may have resulted in tainting the jury pool. Regardless, six jurors acceptable to both the defense and prosecution were found but even with these 'impartial' jurors, it was apparent that the case for second degree murder was very weak.
       Lastly, in the "eleventh hour" the prosecution sensing it had lost the case for second degree murder ask the judge to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. In my opinion, this was a bad move because the prosecution hadn't made a case for the lower charges, the defense hadn't defended against the lesser charges, and I'm sure the jury saw this for the "straw grab" that it was. When the jury returned with their verdict, they found Zimmerman not guilty of all the charges as they should have because the prosecution failed to prove its case.
       Everything about the Zimmerman case was wrong except for the verdict. The prosecution made mistake after mistake and the media pushed a weak case against Zimmerman by distorting the facts. Certainly not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome but our justice system did its job. Since the verdict, there have been those that have tried to stir up trouble but fortunately most Americans, even those who were deeply disappointed in the final results of the trial, resisted the temptation to resort to violence. There are also calls to charge Zimmerman with federal charges. Heeding any calls for trying George Zimmerman for federal civil rights or hate crimes now would be a grave mistake and wouldn't be right. It would be giving into lynch mob justice that isn't in the best interest of anyone. History gives us ample evidence of this.

Sebelius Delivers First Obamacare Death Panel Ruling

Sarah Murnaghan is the 10 year old Pennsylvania girl who is dying of cystic fibrosis because there are no child organs available for transplant. She needs a lung or she will die in 3-5 weeks but government regulations say she must be 12 years old in order to be placed on the adult transplant list. At a Congressional hearing yesterday, legislators from Pennsylvania pleaded, no literally begged, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to use her authority to grant an exception. She refused. It may have only been a panel of one but in the case of Sarah, Kathleen Sebelius gave the first "death panel" ruling.

Liberals wince and claim to hate to have to make life and death decisions such as this but in reality, they relish the power and control. And they love to be able to do this under the cover of government bureaucracy. "Sorry, rules are rules, you know. Nothing I can do about it."

Is this a vision of things to come under the Affordable Care Act? Did it make any difference that the Senators and Congressmen speaking on behalf of Sarah, were Republicans? Cynical of me to ask I know, but in this current scandal-rich environment, one has to wonder. I heard a radio talk show caller ask a very interesting question - something to the effect of "Why does the president with his 'If we can save just one child, we need to act.' when it comes to gun control, not apply the same reasoning when it comes to saving this one child?"

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Democrats and the media derided Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin for calling the rationing boards that would be instituted under Obamacare "death panels." You may not like the language but the results are the same regardless of what they are called.

I think Shakespeare expressed it best when he wrote:

                        "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                          By any other name would smell as sweet."

The IRS Debacle Widens and My Paranoia Grows

I'm sure many readers of my last posting where I closed by raising a concern that the IRS will be the agency enforcing parts of the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare were thinking, "Mac has gone paranoid on us. There's no reason to think anyone will be treated differently." However, today we learned that Sarah Hall Ingram, the same IRS official who was in charge of the IRS division responsible for vetting tax exempt status applications during the period when it improperly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups for unfair, unusual, and illegal additional scrutiny has since moved on to be the head of the IRS division responsible for enforcing the individual mandate of Obamacare. Those under her will determine, among other things, who gets fined for not buying health insurance. I kid you not! Now who's paranoid?

IRS Scandal Just Another Example of Lack of Leadership

The IRS scandal which we are learning more and more about despite the best efforts of the Obama Administration to downplay it and blame 'low-level' employees is yet another window into Barrack Obama's lack of leadership ability. IRS employees in the Cleveland, Ohio office reportedly were delaying the approval of tax exempt status for groups they believed to be Conservative. It is also alleged that they passed confidential tax return information on to liberal groups to use as political ammunition. The story itself is significant and I will opine on that as well as the other major scandals that have all come to light in the last week soon but for now, the leadership implications are what I would like to address.

What was our first clue that our president and his fellow travelers don't understand what leadership is all about? For me, it was their claim that the president was 'leading from behind'. Unless one is a dogsled musher in the Iditarod, there is no such thing as leading from behind. Another indicator that Obama and those around him know little about leadership is their 'go to' response whenever they are faced with a problem: "We just learned about (insert the name of the latest scandal here) from news reports and it appears to be the actions of a few low-level employees." They say this as if it somehow absolves them from responsibility or accountability. I can only assume their logic is 'We can't be held accountable for every single person in our charge and you can't expect us to know everything that goes on in such a large organization.' Unfortunately that isn't how leadership works. As many a commanding officer in the Navy have found out much to their chagrin, the leader is responsible for the actions of subordinates, not only as a result of the direct orders they are given by their commander, but also for the implied direction that results from the 'command climate' established by the person in charge. If the leader has made their opinion on a matter clear to their subordinates or presented a position of indifference on a subject and a problem occurs as a result of an underling acting on the superior's perceived desires, then it is indeed the leader's fault - period!

From the minute he emerged onto the national political stage, Barrack Obama has demonized those who disagree with him politically. He has referred to political opponents as enemies and has falsely accused Republicans, Tea Party members, Conservatives and those for smaller government of wanting to starve children, throw granny over the cliff, let kids with autism fend for themselves - not to mention wanting dirty air and dirty water. When coupled with liberals' propensity for an 'Ends Justifies the Means' approach to governance based on their sense of moral superiority, it is easy to imagine an entrenched 'true believer' bureaucrat confusing the command attitude for policy and singling out 'enemies' for special attention. That may very well be what happened in this case but as one can see, the leader is responsible just as sure as if a direct order was given. This may also explain but not forgive the second part of their standard excuse. Since subordinates believe they are doing the bidding of their leader, when there is a problem, it never gets reported up the chain of command. Why would it? It is policy from the top, right? Or perhaps is doesn't get reported out of fear of being thrown 'under the bus' by those in charge. There are certainly enough examples of this to make it a legitimate concern.

If the scope of the problem remained confined to just those few employees in Cleveland and the president accepted responsibility and took action right away instead of trying the pass the blame, this incident wouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately, as we learn more, we are finding out this isn't the case. Hundreds of people and organizations are now reporting that they received similar unfair treatment, making the Administration's low-level employee claim appear to be not only the result of poor leadership but also the intentional actions of scores of leftist at multiple levels in the IRS 'doing the right thing.'

Is it any wonder why Conservatives are concerned that the IRS is the government's enforcement agency for Obamacare? Could information from your tax return (e.g. what charities you donate to - an indicator of your politics) determine whether you get treatment or that pain pill candidate Obama talked about?

Benghazi: Oh What a Tangled Web Liberals Weave...

The scandal developing over the Benghazi cover-up has the potential to be one of the most damaging events in modern American history because it involves the deaths of 4 Americans including the US Ambassador, the Executive Branch, cabinet-level officials, major government departments and agencies, the outcome of a presidential election, international relations, and the wrongful detention of a man for exercising his right to free speech.

If the full story about what really happened at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, 2012 is ever known, the political and historical fallout will be unprecedented. The Obama Administration has made this a political issue from the beginning, aided and abetted of course by its allies in the main stream media, so it is a bit ironic that Democrats are accusing Republicans of making this political. Of course this is political but it is certainly not one-sided. There are also those who are predicting that even if this does lead to political ramifications, this will only amount to a Democrat Watergate. This is a gross underestimation of the significance of what has transpired and those involved will be lucky if this is only a "Watergate."

There can be no doubt that this is bigger than a Democrat Watergate. There are similarities to be sure: the Executive Branch involvement, the cover-up and a presidential election but that is where the similarities end and even these are only superficial. In the case of presidential involvement, Obama is a more active participant than was Nixon. President Obama personally perpetuated the lie as to the cause for the Benghazi attack. As to the election, nothing gained from the Watergate break in would have changed the outcome of the election - Nixon still would have won by a landslide. The same can't be said about Benghazi. Had the depth of the Obama Administration's negligence and incompetence been allowed to become an issue during the election, it could have enabled Romney to maintain the momentum he had following the first presidential debate which may have led to a different result. The real differences lie in the remaining issues.

First, 4 Americans, including the American Ambassador, died as a result of the attack in Benghazi and if the actions or inactions of those in charge enabled it to happen, they need to be held accountable. Further, the intentional perpetuation of the lie that the attack was the result of a reaction to an obscure YouTube video disrespectful to Islam actually brought the video to the world's attention and sparked subsequent violent protests that led to dozens of additional deaths and injuries. There were no deaths as a result of Watergate.

Second, this scandal, unlike Watergate, involves more than just the president and his inner circle. Benghazi appears to involve other high-level government officials, departments and agencies. There now appears to be little doubt that Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Panetta both played important roles in the failures that resulted in the attack, the deaths of the Americans or both. The lapses in security, judgement, and procedures, the refusal to provide additional security despite repeated requests, and the failure to provide assistance during the attack all demand answers. Additionally, the shenanigans that have taken place to advance the YouTube video lie has damaged the integrity of the US Intelligence community specifically the CIA which was apparently directed to rewrite their input to the now infamous "Susan Rice Sunday morning talk show talking points." It has now been revealed that at least 12 rewrites were ordered to remove wording that called the attack an act of terrorism or remove references to Islamic extremists. The 'then' CIA director, Gen. Petraeus, resigned out of the blue in November supposedly over an extra-marital affair. At the time I thought to myself, how could this not have been discovered during his confirmation? It has since been reported that Gen Petraeus was opposed to changing the wording in the talking points. Coincidence or retribution for not playing along? As the old National Enquirer advertisement used to say, "Enquiring minds want to know."

Third, had this been allowed to fully come to light during the presidential campaign, the revelations of poor judgement, inaction, and complete indifference on the part of the president and his administration would most likely changed the outcome of the election. What took place would undoubtedly have called into question President Obama's fitness for office. A complete timeline which the American people have yet to see would most likely reveal a very damning sequence of events on the part of Mr. Obama and his administration including an indifferent attitude toward the fate of Americans in harms way that allowed the president to simply "Call it a night" and get no additional updates on the developing situation. Americans were fighting for their lives and a US Consulate - sovereign US territory - was under attack, and the president was literally asleep!  Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty would have to admit this is more important than Mitt Romney's tax returns, Sandra Fluke and the phony 'War on Women' and gay marriage.

Fourth, the lies surrounding Benghazi have caused enormous damage to US international relations. The public contradiction by the Obama Administration of the Libyan President Mohammed Magarief's statements that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack unrelated to any video embarrassed an important ally in the region - a truly moderate, pro-American, Muslim leader who is for free elections, women's rights, and freedom. This humiliation and loss of face has damaged our relationship with the kind of leader we were hoping would emerge in Libya as a result of the removal of Gadaffi and in the broader middle east as a result of the Arab Spring. Now Libya's beleaguered president's situation is far less secure, his feelings toward the US are reportedly (and understandably) sour, and the notion in the rest of the Arab world that the US is not to be trusted has most certainly been reinforced. As a side note, President Magarief was so angry that he refused to let FBI investigators into his country for 3 weeks which hindered the investigation. To date, no one responsible for the attack has been brought to justice as President Obama promised and they are presumably at-large planning new attacks. Maybe OJ can take time off from finding Nicole and Ron Goldman's real killers to help Mr Obama find those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Lastly, the Benghazi lies and cover-up have led to the detention of the man who made the YouTube video. But what was his crime? Doesn't the 1st Amendment protect his right to make a video - even one that some might find offense? Apparently not one that offends Muslims. At the funeral of one of the victims, Secretary of State Clinton promised the father that, "We will get the man who made that video." I guess Hillary Clinton is more interested in enforcing Sharia law than protecting someone's rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

The Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats, their apologists in the main stream media, and liberals everywhere would have you believe that Benghazi has been fully investigated. In the words of Presidential Press Secretary, Jay Carney, "... Benghazi happened a long time ago." and he implied we need to move on. This morning on Face the Nation Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the hearings and renewed efforts to get to the truth a "Witch Hunt".  These people continue to attempt to obscure what happened  and demand that we put this behind us but there is no time limit on determining the truth. The failures, the lies, the cover-up and the violation of the publics trust have had such serious consequences that those responsible for this scandal have to be held accountable.  Sir Walter Scott expressed it best when he wrote in his epic poem, Marmion, The Battle of Flodden -  "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." It's time this web is fully untangled.

Liberal Thinking 101 (Part 2 of n): Liberals - The Picassos of Analysis

I would say that one way to define analysis is:  Analysis is the art of gathering facts, piecing them together in a logical manner and drawing conclusions from the picture they paint. If that painting resembles the work of Pablo Picasso, you can bet the analysis was done by a liberal. Take for example the issue of children's nutrition and obesity.

Fact 1: Unlike when I was in school and only about 15% of kids took part in the free or reduced lunch program, today nearly 60% of children in our public schools receive meals under this program. (Sources: National Center for Education Statistics; 2008 Digest of Education Statistics; US Agriculture Dept.)

Additionally, some school districts provide breakfast and dinner as well. Amazingly, some even open their doors during vacation periods to provide free meals.

Fact 2: Today, over one third of all American school children are obese. (Source: Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999-2010. Journal of the American Medical Association2012;307(5):483-490.)

Fact 3: "...Only six percent of schools in the United States offer daily physical education classes, reports The Early Show's Debbye Turner....the number of quality physical education programs nationwide has been on a decline for 20 years....the number of overweight kids in the United States has tripled in the last two decades." (Source: www.cbsnews.com, Dakss B, Obesity Up, Phys Ed Down, February 11, 2009)

The obvious conclusion at least to liberals like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: sugary sodas are the culprit - especially those sold in 16 oz or larger cups. 

Now multi-billionaire lefties like Michael Bloomberg aren't stupid. I guess they just exercise artistic license with the facts.

What Must Our Wounded Warriors Be Thinking?

Tuesday marked the 10th anniversary of start of the Iraq War and this morning as I was checking out MSN.com, I stumbled across a story about botched celebrity plastic surgeries.  Actually it was a link to a story on a Hollywood Tabloid site. It showed pictures of 23 celebrities (movie stars, singers, athletes, etc.) - people like Mickey Rourke, Carrot Top, Tara Reid, Joan Rivers, Donatella Versace, Bruce Jenner, and Lisa Rinna who had plastic surgery that went wrong. It showed the before and after pictures but for the most part, these people aren't disfigured, they are now just odd looking.

The anniversary of the war and this site made me think about all our servicemen and women who have required plastic surgery to repair horrific burns and other injuries they received during combat and how their before and after photographs differ so dramatically from those of the celebrities.  Most of the military folks were average Americans - not the "beautiful people" from stage and screen. And unlike the celebrities, many of our wounded warriors will bear physical scars for the rest of their lives despite the best efforts of our government to repair the damage.

What must it be like to be one of these heroes, see these "beautiful people" and know that they did this to themselves? I would imagine that the celebrities are very distraught over the poor results of their surgeries. However, compared to the injured Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, how fortunate these Hollywood-types are.

Many of the Hollywood left were very critical of the war especially during the Bush presidency. They were careful to not appear to be unsupportive of the Troops but I personally can't help but wonder if, with their deep seated rage over the war, some of their anger transfers over to those who served? When the lefties in LA and New York see those injured, do they say to themselves, "You volunteered. You were enabling that illegal war. You got what you deserve." I know that statement is going to make some angry but I think if you are honest with yourself, you would have to at least admit to the possibility.

From what I have seen, most of our wounded appear to be dealing with their situation with a great deal of grace and dignity. There doesn't seem to be a lot of room in their lives for self-pity. If they are feeling pity for anyone, odds are it is when they see these vain, shallow and self-absorbed celebrities and their botched surgeries. They have to be thinking, "I can't believe these attractive people did that to themselves." and then the pity they feel for them must be on many levels.

You Can Be Sure Congressional Liberals Are Watching Cyprus

Over the weekend, the Cypriot Parliament announced it was considering imposing a 10% tax on all bank deposits held in that nation's banks as part of an agreement for an EU and IMF-backed bailout plan. The panic that ensued sent shock waves through European financial markets and led to a run on banks forcing the country to impose a bank closure to prevent the further withdraw of deposits. The banks remain closed. It now looks as if the proposal has been rejected but this is an ominous precedent especially since we know American liberals love to look to Europe as a source for "good" ideas.

To borrow from my Navy past, Cyprus finds herself "In Extremis" which is a term that means in grave circumstances that require significant action to avert disaster - with ships this refers to a collision at sea. When collisions occur, the accident investigations almost always find that the captains of the two vessels fail to recognize (or deny) the danger, make a series of small course and speed corrections that don't change the eventual outcome, and ultimately are forced to take drastic steps in their futile effort to avoid calamity. Sound familiar?

Deny: "There's no immediate debt crisis." - Pres. Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner

A series of small course and speed corrections: Continuing Resolutions, Debt Ceiling increases, and sequestration.

In Extremis maneuver: Seizing assets from private citizens.

That would never happen here you say? I wouldn't be so sure.

With our out of control government's insatiable appetite for revenues and seemingly endless ability to squander money, Congressional liberals might consider a European-style levy, penalty or tax on bank assets a "good" idea when facing a fiscal In Extremis situation. Even though their Cypriot counterparts came to their senses and rejected the idea, are you confident our Congress would? Cypriot citizens even rejected their Parliament's counter proposal to only impose the tax on "the rich". What would our current "Politics of Envy" generation Americans do? The answers to these questions are anything but certain.

Will Biden Lecture Pope Francis?

I saw where Vice President Biden just arrived in Rome for Pope Francis' inaugural Mass. My guess is he will get an audience with the new pontiff. Knowing the hubris of the Obama Administration and Democrat leadership, I'm sure he will feel compelled to lecture the Pope on Church doctrine and argue for a change in the Church's position on gay marriage, abortion, and ordaining women as priests. He needs to be careful however, since this didn't go very well for Nancy Peloci when, as House Speaker, she attempted to lecture Pope Benedict. Rumor has it that Benedict gave her "what fer." I wonder if VP Biden is capable of benefitting from her experience. Learning from the past would be a first.

Under Martin O'Malley, Maryland Open for Business to Violent Criminals

With only 5 criminals currently on Maryland's death row and the last execution back in 2005, Governor O'Malley intends to sign into law the repeal of the State's death penalty law which was recently approved by the State Senate and General Assembly. O'Malley has also been pushing stricter  gun control laws in the State. If history is any indication, these measures won't have the intended effect.

What is clear is that since the District of Columbia's strict gun laws that infrindged upon law abiding citizens' right to keep and bear arms was overturned in the Heller decision, violent crime in DC has gone down, not up like liberals predicted.

My prediction is given the choice between plying their trade in Virginia where the people can defend themselves and convicted murders face the real possibility of a death sentence,  DC where the citizens at least can lawfully bear arms or Maryland where the people can't defend themselves and if convicted, murderers won't face the executioner, violent criminals will choose Maryland.

Under Gov. Martin O'Malley and the State's liberal legislature, Maryland is open for business for violent criminals from Virginia and DC.

'Calling' All Liberals: Explain The Government Lifeline 'Obama Phone' Program to Me

So on the eve of the sequestration, can a liberal please explain to me how it makes sense to require thousands of government employees to take one unpaid Friday off per pay period but continue to fund what we Conservatives call the Obama Phone program? In what 'Fringe' alternative universe does that even compute?

For those unfamiliar with this program, the Lifeline Program provides free cell phones and 250 free minutes of service to the poor. What began under President Reagan as a small program to provide landline phone service to the poor living in rural areas has exploded under President Obama to a program that provides 4G cell phones and now costs the American taxpayers $1.6 billion a year. No proof of eligibility is required and one doesn't even have to be a U.S. citizen: even illegal aliens can get one of these phones. Is it any wonder that average citizens like myself who pay $100 a month for our 3G phones and cellular phone service are upset that there are some in this country who receive a better phone and service for free? Is that fair?

President Obama has spent the last week out on the road telling the country of all the terrible cuts that will have to be made as a result of the sequestration. He talked about teachers, firefighters, military service members and police officers getting 'pink slips' and as president, him having to chose between cuts to programs for poor kids or disabled kids. Military readiness, border security, air travel safety, food safety, healthcare, etc will all be severely impacted.

How can free cell phones for anyone who wants one, including non-US citizens, be such a high priority for our government that it can't be cut - at least some? I could certainly use the help of a liberal to explain how this makes sense.

Sec Def Hagel; Sec State Kerry - Obama's Amateur Hour Continues

Even after his incredibly inept performance at his confirmation hearings that showed he doesn't even understand the position he was being nominated for, as I predicted in my 8 Jan entry, Republicans gave in and Chuck Hagel, incompetent as he is, now is Secretary of Defense. At about the same time, Sec State Kerry made a major gaff in his first official speech as our head diplomat by mixing up the names of two countries - Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The State Department denies the error but the audio tape of the event is evidently pretty clear that he combined the 2 names into some new county. The Obama Administration's Amateur Hour continues! God help us and the world!!!

Lawyer O'Malley, Liberal O'Malley

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has proposed a $100 qualification licensing fee in order to own a handgun in the State as part of his tougher new gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy. If passed into law, it will most certainly be challenged in court and almost as certainly be ruled unconstitutional. I base this opinion on the same logic that ultimately led to the 24th Amendment which made Southern poll taxes unconstitutional.

In order to get around  Section 1 of the 15th Amendment which says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Southern States imposed poll taxes to deny freed slaves the right to vote by making it prohibitively expensive. O'Malley's qualification licensing fee would have the same effect on the 2nd Amendment by abridging the right to bear arms - one cannot be require to purchase a license or pay a fee in order to enjoy their rights. The lawyer in Gov. O'Malley knows this too, of course, but the liberal in him can't help itself. As with most on the far left, liberalism trumps all for Martin O'Malley - the law, natural rights, religious faith, etc.

In a related item, O'Malley argued in his appeal to the State legislature for stricter guns laws that the State should require a mandatory gun safety course as a condition for owning a firearm. He said we require training to operate a motor vehicle on our highways, why wouldn't we require training to own a gun? High school driver's education students know the answer to the governor's question and as a law school graduate, one would hope he does too. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege not a constitutionally protected right! But never let the facts dissuade a committed lefty from making a liberal 'we know what's best' argument.  

President Barrack Obama, Distractor-in-Chief

On 18 Feb 2011, I wrote a blog entry stating my opinion that fiscal conservatism should be the focus for American Conservatives especially in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. I argued that the economy was what is most important and if Conservatives could regain control of the White House and the US Senate, social goals could be achieved through control of the the purse strings.

As the election unfolded however, liberal Democrats successfully shifted the discussion from the Obama Administration's disastrous economic record to social issues such as the bogus 'war on women', Sandra Fluke and birth control, abortion, gay marriage, health care, the rich paying 'their fair share', etc. and to my dismay, Republicans allowed themselves to be drawn into these distractions. This was a winning formula for Democrats as they went on to keeping control of both the presidency and the Senate.

Since his second inaugural address to the nation, President Obama has continued to try to keep the American public's attention focused on social issues and away from the economy. In an unbelievable bit of irony, the President disbanded his jobs council on the very same day that the country learned that the GDP growth for the previous quarter was again anemic and unemployment numbers creeped up a tenth of percent to 7.9%. Not that it makes much difference since the council hadn't met in a year. And for the fourth time since becoming president, Mr. Obama failed to submit his budget proposal by the February deadline and the Democrat controlled Senate have not passed a budget in four years. Instead of tackling our pressing economic problems, the President and the Democrats have added gun control and gays in the Boy Scouts of America as top agenda items for Mr Obama's second term. We can expect the willing press to move this agenda forward by continuing to question Republicans about these issues and neglecting to challenge the President on the economy.

At this point, what Conservatives must do is redirect any questions posed to them back in terms of the economy. They should say things like, "We are very interested in the president's ideas on gun control and how they are going to help reduce unemployment." or "We look forward to hearing the president's thoughts on the Boy Scouts and gays especially how he anticipates this will help get government spending under control." These responses of course are blatantly back in your face but that has to be the point. The media has to be forced to acknowledge that what the Obama Administration and the liberal Democrats are focusing on are not priorities. They continue to manufacture crises and respond to sensational headlines instead of addressing the 800 pound gorillas in the room - the debt crisis, sequestration, and our unsustainable growth in entitlement spending. The only way to get these issues back in front of the American people so they can demand answers is to force them into every conversation. Otherwise, liberals will continue shape the debate through distraction and the critical issues facing the nation will never receive any serious attention or solutions.

Advice from Bad, Liberal Financial Planners

Would you pay for this financial advice?
A man goes to see a financial advisor because he is in trouble. He tells the expert his income and expenses.
       "I make $54,000 a year and my expenses amount to $100,000 a year. I have been putting the shortfall of $46,000 a year on credit cards for about four years now and I'm really in debt. Please help me figure out how to reducing my spending and develop a budget so I can get myself back on track."
       "Mr. Boehner" said Mr. Obama, "You don't have a spending problem. You have an income problem. You just need to figure out how to make an extra $46,000 a year!"
       "Um, I dunno." said a befuddled Boehner, "I don't think that's right. Besides, how am I supposed to nearly double my salary?"
       "Listen! Let me be clear. Spending isn't the problem. If you don't believe me ask my associate. Hey, Mary can you come in here a minute? Mary, Mr Boehner. Mr. Boehner, my associate Ms. Landrieu. Mary is a financial genius!"
Mr Boehner proceeds to explain his current spending situation to Mary who immediately exclaims,
       "No! No! You're talking about a revenue problem. We need to come up with a balanced approach to increasing your income."
       "You see, she agrees with me! I told you she is brilliant.", said Mr. Obama.
Rubbing his temples, Mr Boehner mumbles seemingly to himself, "Increase my income by $46,000." He doesn't buy this nonsense and needless to say, Mr. Boehner doesn't become a client of REDIST Wealth Financial.
Most of us wouldn't either. If we wouldn't buy their advice, why should America?

Beware of Obama's 'Fundamental Transformation' of America

When then candidate, Sen Barrack Obama, began calling for "fundamentally transforming America" I immediately began to wonder, "Exactly what does that mean?" If that question didn't occur to you, you demonstrate an alarming lack of intellectual curiosity and have a reckless disregard for your individual liberty! This is a direct threat to our Constitution.

To my mind, the main fundamental of the United States is our Constitution and it is what makes America exceptional so when President Obama says he wants to fundamentally transform America, naturally I considered the possibility that perhaps Mr. Obama isn't exactly a huge fan of the U.S. Constitution. In interviews, he hinted as much when he described it as 'a charter of negative rights' meaning in his opinion a constitution should say what you are required or obliged to do rather than say what you aren't compelled to do. His unwillingness to acknowledge the exceptional nature of our country that the Constitution has made possible would seem to support my suspicion.  President Obama isn't the only liberal democrat who isn't that dedicated to the Constitution. In 2012, Democrat North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue suggested that maybe the election should be postponed due to the serious economic situation the country was facing. More recently,  Rep. José Serrano (D- NY15) introduced a resolution to repeal the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms one can be elected president to two. The goal I can only assume is Barrack Obama - president for life - like some Third World Banana Republic. About a year ago in an interview with an Egyptian TV station, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee, said if she were drafting a constitution in 2012, she would look to the new South African constitution as a model rather than the US Constitution. In another recent incident, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, Louis Michael Seidman, wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times and suggested it is time to give up on our outdated constitution. These are some pretty mainstream liberals who are adding to the chorus from the left suggesting that the US Constitution is antiquated and should be abandoned. They blame the Constitution for our dysfunctional political situation and the inability to get things done in Washington. I would suggest that the problem isn't the Constitution but rather the disregard for the Constitution by our political elites that is the problem. The Constitution wasn't intended to make it easy to 'get things done.' It was meant to provide a framework for a deliberative, repeatable process for governance. Increasingly, we hear the liberal media refer to President Obama as a "a post-Constitutional president."

Elites - especially liberal elites - love to suggest changes that threaten our institutional protections again tyranny. They advocate hate speech laws that directly chip away at our 1st Amendment right of free speech. They argue for restrictions on our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms that gives us the ability to resist an abusive federal government. They manufacture meaning in the 4th Amendment guarantee to the right "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." to include an unrestricted right to abortion. These are just a few examples. There are numerous others.

For any of several reasons, elitist somehow feel they are insulated from oppression and tyranny in ways that make our Constitution unnecessary. Perhaps it is their personal wealth. Or maybe it is their political connections. It may even be their perceived intellectual, moral, or ideological  superiority. Regardless of their 'reasoning', they are placing themselves and the rest of us in grave danger. These 'protections' are anything but secure and history is full of examples of groups who believed themselves to be 'safe' only to find out how truly mistaken they are.