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.