Archive for December, 2011

You Can’t Fix Stupid

 

 

My blogging friend, Rutherford Lawson, is a flaming liberal with zero intellectual integrity.

 

He’s a nice guy, and I like to debate him, but he has no mental backbone whatsoever. A recent exchange at his place has forced me to whip out the paddle and lay on a smackdown.

 

In a recent exchange at his place, I pointed out yet another clear demonstration of this Administration’s Epic Failure.

 

Michelle “Let-them-Eat-Cake” Obama- affectionately known as ‘Mooch’- has decided to fly off to Hawaii ahead of her husband because, well, she doesn’t want to wait. I pointed out to R the following White House press conference exchange:

 

QUESTION: The First Lady is going to be leaving in a few hours for Hawaii, obviously she isn’t able to go with the President. But I wanted to ask you, isn’t it quite an extravagence? Four people to go in two jets to Hawaii, particularly given, the state of the economy the state of the budget, and also given the directive that was just put out about limiting air travel by the adminstration?

Carney’s responce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zLMh9JJ8OiU

 

 Rutherford’s response- hilarious denial.

 

Oh please Gorilla … give me a f*cking break. If Obama flew off to HI with his family you’d be crying foul that he’s vacationing when he should be governing. Now you want the First Family grounded to save money. There’s no winning with you.

Stop tossing the petty sh*t out there and focus on something meaningful like whether or not you think the payroll tax reduction should be extended.

Hmmmmmm, an interesting deflection, considering that the two-month extension passed by the Senate won’t work. What’s worse, it is this mentality that Obama is entitled to a nice vacation because he is, well, Obama. I pointed out the obligation Obama has to manage the resources of the government wisely, and the fact that this is not the first time Mooch has vacationed on our dime, to which R opines:

 

So Gorilla, you don’t buy Jay Carney’s assertion that previous First families have flown to their destinations on military jets without the President?

I’m still wondering … if Obama doesn’t get to Hawaii at all because of congressional masturbation, is the First Family supposed to cancel their vacation plans?

I suffer under no illusion that the First Family and my family get to live the same lifestyle. Being President carries some perks. It always has in recent history.

 

Some perks. Indeed. 

 

What R doesn’t seem to understand is that those perks come with some responsibility. Like Michelle Obama leaving early to go to Martha’s Vineyard because she didn’t want to wait four hours. Four hours! Separate aircraft, separate crews, separate security details- is it really too much to ask for Mooch to cool her heals for four hours? She has reportedly spent more than $10 million dollars in the last year alone on vacation. Vail. Colorado? Spain? Really, is this woman worked that hard?

 

And how much do you think all those concerts at the White House cost? Even if you managed to get Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder or Paul Simon to play for free, these are black tie affairs and there are plenty of entertainment costs, like food and beverages, security, staff support, etc. How much does this cost?

 

And this doesn’t even account for the 88 rounds of golf so far. But this is all in the face of the fact that Obama just signed an Executive Order titled Promoting Efficient Spending that says:

 

 Sec. 3.  Travel.  (a)  Agency travel is important to the effective functioning of Government and certain activities can be performed only by traveling to a different location.  However, to ensure efficient travel spending, agencies are encouraged to devise strategic alternatives to Government travel, including local or technological alternatives, such as teleconferencing and video conferencing.  Agencies should make all appropriate efforts to conduct business and host or sponsor conferences in space controlled by the Federal Government, wherever practicable and cost effective.  Lastly, each agency should review its policies associated with domestic civilian permanent change of duty station travel (relocations), including eligibility rules, to identify ways to reduce costs and ensure appropriate controls are in place.

 

(b)  Each agency, agency component, and office of inspector general should designate a senior level official to be responsible for developing and implementing policies and controls to ensure efficient spending on travel and conference related activities, consistent with subsection (a) of this section.

 

 

Now Rutherford will go on and call this “bad optics”. That all White House’s entertain and that all President’s vacation. But there has never been a bigger lie wrapped in a thread truth than this. Does it matter whether previous President’s held concerts or traveled on extravagant vacations? We’re talking about this pResident, who is asking the people to vote for him a second term. Obama has gone on and on about how he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, yet he has been by far the worst custodian of the people’s money in the history of the nation.

 

  • ·         $5 trillion dollars worth of deficits since Obama took office, accounting for 1/3 of the $15 trillion dollar national debt.
  • ·         8.6% Unemployment with 20+% Underemployment millions exhausting 99 weeks- nearly two years- worth of unemployment.
  • ·         No National Budget since 2008.

 

This Administration has been the poster child for incompetency. Even when wasteful spending has been identified- by government agencies no less- this Administration has failed to address it. For instance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified $125 billion in improper payments. Remember when we needed to find a trillion dollars over the next ten years to prevent sequestration? Well here it is: $125 billion x 10 years = $1.25 trillion dollars. Or how about the $200 billion identified on duplicate federal programs? $200 billion x 10 years = $2 trillion dollars.

 

Hmmmmm, in about three minutes, I just found $3.25 trillion dollars in savings over the next ten years.

 

But this requires a simple recognition that the money of the people actually belongs to the people and that it is a finite resource. Obama and Dems in general have demonstrated absolutely zero ability to recognize that fact, which is why you see them blow $500 billion on failing pet projects like Solyndra, or just the total disregard that comes with flying two presidential aircraft four hours apart because someone can’t wait. How can Obama make the argument that he cares about fiscal responsibility when he has been anything but fiscally responsible?

 

But back to the more important issue here- Rutherford.

 

I said this on December 13th:

 

 

Instead, Obama and the left are focused on deflecting the election away from the Administration’s record and towards ‘ideas’. The reasoning is obvious, Obama- contrary to his own narcissistic analysis of himself- cannot defend his record, so he needs to focus on rhetoric and platitudes. Just like 2008, Obama is going to focus on nebulous ideas that vilifies one segment of our society while victimizing the other.

 

And Rutherford, right on cue, is proving me exactly right. Can’t defend Mooch, so he attacks me for expecting Obama to… save money? OH MY GOD!!! The horror! The travesty! How DARE one have such expectations!

 

Rutherford, pull you head out of your ass, scrape the shit from your eyes, and look at what you hold up as an example. Clearly, you can’t fix stupid.

 

Crucifying Tim Tebow

Now, if some haven’t figured it out yet, I’m a Denver Broncos fan, so right now I’m pretty excited about what’s happening to my team. Tim Tebow is 7-1 since replacing Kyle Orton at QB, and it has been an exciting ride. Tebow is completely dominating sports media and a lot of nay-sayers are beginning to come round to Tebow. But what is concerning me is the politicization of Tebow. A couple cases in point:

 

  Last I checked, Bill Press is not known for his in-depth football analysis. But he’s not the only one trying to make money on the Tebow moment:

  

A pro-abortion activist is using pro-life Denver Broncos quarterback to urge her friends to raise funds for pro-abortions groups — and pro-life advocates might want to do the opposite.

 

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek noticed a pro-abortion activist named Sophia who blogs at The Abortion Gang, promoting the idea.

 

So here is my solution, and if you’re a sports fan that also thinks women should be able to do what they want, when they want, and how they want it with their uteri, you can join in this too.

 

For every touchdown Tebow throws next week (when the Broncos play against another famous QB, Tom Brady) , donate $5 or $10 to your local pro-choice organization…

 

I figure this is indeed the best way to enjoy football, support Tim Tebow (more touchdowns, mannn!!!), and give, give, give to pro-choice organizations earning little to no glory, yet desperately in need of funds.

  

Tebow is pro-life and has been the subject of much discussion due to his mother’s decision to give birth while confronted with  a crisis pregnancy situation in the Philippines when she contracted a potentially deadly medical condition while pregnant. When she was on a missions trip in the Philippines, Tebow fought amoebic dysentery while pregnant. Doctors advised her to abort, saying she would die if she didn’t. She refused, gave birth, and son Tim led the Florida Gators to a national championship and won the Heisman Trophy and now is the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. Christian group Focus on the Family approached the Tebows about their story, and she has since spoken at events across the country.

 

Tebow’s story and birth- against the advice of doctors- is testament to his mother’s convictions. I can understand how pro-abortionists would be dismayed by Tebow’s success, since it is refutes their position. This is frankly beyond the pale and is pretty tacky. But here is the one that has really gotten my skin crawling:

 

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

 

This was said by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman at The Jewish Week in an article title ‘My Problem with Tim Tebow’. Aside from being incredibly inaccurate, it was nonsensical, extrapolating completely unrelated issues together so as to juxtapose a biased political agenda. It was excoriated in the comments section of the website, which resulted in the following:

 

We apologize for posting an Opinion column on Dec. 14 by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman entitled “My Problem With Tim Tebow,” the Denver Broncos quarterback who is an Evangelical Christian. The column, in fact, violated our own standards calling for civility in posting comments on our website. The policy statement notes that “name calling in any form will not be tolerated, and comments that denigrate any religion or Jewish religious stream will always be rejected.”

 

 

I congratulate the Jewish Week for pulling the column, but it still demonstrates a new derangement among liberals- TDS (Tebow Derangement Syndrome). The kid has character, a lot of character. You’d think in a world of sports with steroids, Pacman Jones, and cocaine distribution networks, there would be open arms to a player who is of high character. But therein lies the problem for the left- character. You cannot have a person of character, let alone a successful person of character, not be targeted by the left.

 

He’s a great role model. He’s a great athlete. We can debate his ability to be a great quarterback, but to politicize Tebow as the catalyst for Christian violence, or abortion fundraising, or just because he stands for something other than you believe demonstrates the rampant lack of tolerance that exists in the left.

 

 

ABO

Sometimes I sit back and say, “what the hell are you thinking?”

Like when Ann Coulter- who I like- says, “what I am saying now is of the available candidates, Romney is by far the most conservative, tied with Michele Bachmann. And he has the proven ability to win in a state like Massachusetts.” What? What exactly has Mitt Romney done that demonstrates “conservative” values? Romneycare? And to say he is as Conservative as Michele Bachmann- what? Whether you like Bachmann or not, Romney’s clearly not as conservative as Bachmann… or Rick Santorum… or Rick Perry. Tied? Me thinks Coulter has spent a wee bit too much time in the land of Republican establishment/RINOs, which was pretty clear in her support to Chris Christy. Yeah, I like Christy too and I especially like it when he goes after Obama and the unions, but he is not the most conservative of Republicans.

Of course there is Romney himself, who has had the audacity to claim that Newt Gingrich is an, “extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world.” What? Compared to who, himself? Is it really necessary to trot out the multiple videos and statements made by Romney over the years where he specifically denounces conservatism and instead calls himself a moderate with progressive values? See, it is comments like this that boggle the mind because Romney has NEVER been a leader in the conservative world, which is the primary reason why he cannot muster popular support to put the primary away. Romney has always been viewed by conservatives- the base of the Republican party, much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment- as a last resort. He’s the emergency cord, only to be pulled in the event that ALL other candidates self implode.

Even Glenn Beck, known more for his libertarian views, is falling off of the wagon. He has recently stated that if Gingrich gets the Republican nomination that he will seriously consider supporting Ron Paul if he runs third party. Now, I like Beck- tears and all- but supporting any third party candidate, especially Ron Paul- guarantees Obama’s re-election, which last I checked was not what Beck wanted.

So why the mental breakdown? Newt Gingrich was not my first choice, though I have longed to see a debate between him and Obama. Bachmann made a push and had an early showing, but she has showed she’s just not ready. Santorum is as conservative as they come, but he just doesn’t connect with people. Perry is by far the most conservative of the mainstream candidates, but poor debate performances have lead to folks questioning his ability to communicate conservative principles. Herman Cain sounded good as well, but he had nothing to offer in foreign policy and his domestic ideas sounded good, but had considerable holes. Of course the accusations didn’t help. Through all of this, Romney has not budged in the polls. His inability to pull supporters from the other flameouts is quite telling- Republicans are looking for something else. Even Paul has had a difficult time capitalizing on the mistakes and carnage of the other candidates, and whatever gains he has made has been because he has gotten almost no scrutiny. A dose of sunlight would probably hurt him more than any other candidate.

That leaves us with Newt. Does he have baggage? Of course, but it is well known, so no surprises (Surprise: Cain’s kryptonite).

Has he worked with liberals and Dems before? Of course, but he’s made compromises where it has worked towards conservative principles (Compromise: Bachmann’s kryptonite).

Is he a good debater? Damn skippy. His ability to instantly recall historical facts, national statistics and policy, and then articulate them in ways that average Americans can understand is without equal (Debating/Communication: Perry’s kryptonite).

Newt isn’t perfect- no candidate is- but he surpasses the current Administration by leaps and bounds. Let us not forget that it was Newt’s Congress that balanced the budget and reformed the welfare state- no easy tasks. Newt has apologized for his past failings, and I think that is something commendable. At least he will admit that he has done wrong, as opposed to the current narcissist-in-chief. In a decision between Romney and Gingrich, Newt is clearly the most conservative, but regardless of which wins the nomination process, the most important thing remains the dethroning of Barak Obama.

Let’s get through the process, but ABO (Anybody But Obama) remains the end goal.

 

UPDATE!!! 12-16-2011

 

New poll from Gallup on the breakdown of Republican voters.

 

 

Romney does best with those on the East coast- no surprise- and the 18-34 year old demographic. But that’s not all rosey considering that they’re not paying as much attention. So much for the youth vote…

 

I’m still ABO, but these numbers show that Republicans have issues with Romney as a conservative- and that’s all over the nation.

Let the Schooling Begin

 

One thing I will always do- if not begrudgingly so- is respect a liberal who stands on their principles. They’re still idiots, but I respect their integrity to stand by their moronic positions. Through thick and thin, good and bad, or feast and famine, having the integrity to defend your ideological principles is a character trait far too many undervalue.

However, in order to do this, one has to be willing to stand tall and proud in the face of both criticism and praise. Unfortunately, most liberals have neither the intellectual integrity nor the testicular fortitude to admit their true ideological positions, let alone defend them.

 

Case in point, Barak Obama. The greatest example of political smoke and mirrors is without question the current pResident. From “cutting” the deficit, to political transparency and accountability, this Regime has demonstrated an eerie panache for talking out of both sides of their head. This is well documented and efforts to debate this point fail miserably… which is why the left NEVER attempts to debate this point.

 Instead, Obama and the left are focused on deflecting the election away from the Administration’s record and towards ‘ideas’. The reasoning is obvious, Obama- contrary to his own narcissistic analysis of himself- cannot defend his record, so he needs to focus on rhetoric and platitudes. Just like 2008, Obama is going to focus on nebulous ideas that vilifies one segment of our society while victimizing the other.

 

Yes, victimizing.

 

Convincing people that there is some substance to the class warfare meme victimizes them. Getting people to buy into an ideology that subjects their financial- and thus mental, physical, familial and societal- future to government benevolence is the antithesis of what this nation and the American people stand for.

 

 

 

 

In a state-run society the government promises you security.  But it’s a false promise predicated on the idea that the opposite of security is risk.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The opposite of security is insecurity, and the only way to overcome insecurity is to take risks.  The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side.  ~Theodore Forstmann

 

But Obama’s plan to force the national debate to ideas is his greatest mistake, a mistake we as Conservatives should not fret or run from. In fact, quite the opposite, for now we can directly confront the intellectual vacancy that is liberalism. And the people continue to be on our side. For the left, some inconvenient truths:

 

Overwhelmingly, the government- not big business or labor- is the thing Americans fear most.

 

 

And the breakdown of political party fears is even more telling.

 

 

 The left should take notice of independents. 64% of independents- that vaulted class critical to any election- fear big government more than big business. How hollow do you think that class warfare rhetoric sounds now? And there is plenty of evidence supporting the American populaces rejection of big government. Just look at the Obamacare. The law has never enjoyed popular support. In fact, it is quite the opposite, as it has been a consistent majority position of the American populace that the law be overturned.

 

A CBS News poll found that a majority- 54%- do not believe that Obama deserves to be re-elected. But it also found some more fundamental issues that the pResident is going to have a very difficult time glossing over. The survey found that the overwhelming general view on the direction of the economy is that it has not improved or is in fact worse from a year ago, 40% and 39% respectively. When asked, “Has President Obama made real progress fixing the economy?,” a resounding NO- 68%- rings true. But the more important aspect of this question is that 72% of independents say no. And things don’t get better for the Administration because the question, “Did President  Obama’s policies prevent a deeper recession?,” comes back with 49% in general, but 50% of independents specifically, saying no. This becomes critical because a majority have already made up their minds on the success of the Administrations financial acumen, and they’ve found it wanting.

 

But the survey continues to provide great news… for Conservatives. When asked, “Does President Obama share your priorities for the country?,” the survey found 54% saying no. That 54% is an all-time high. It is these next two questions in particular that I find the most telling and informative though:

 

 

“Who do the policies of the Obama Administration favor most?”

 

  • Wall Street                       Total- 42%                  GOP- 56%      Dems- 25%     Inds- 44%
  • Average Americans      Total- 38%                  GOP- 16%      Dems- 64%     Inds- 33%
  • Neither                              Total- 9%                    GOP- 18%      Dems- 1           Inds- 9%

 

And…

 

 

“Blame for the Condition of the Economy?”

 

  • Bush Administration                            Now- 22%                  9/20/11- 22%                 6/20/11- 26%                      9/20/10- 37%
  • Congress                                                               16%                                    15%                                   11%                                         11%
  • Wall Street                                                           12%                                    16%                                   25%                                         21%
  • Obama Administration                                    12%                                    12%                                     8%                                           5%
  • Someone else                                                       7%                                      8%                                     8%                                           8%
  • All of them/combination                                24%                                    23%                                   19%                                         15%

 

 

These two questions are incredibly important because Obama’s entire economic argument is based on who is to blame for the economy and who are the beneficiaries of Obama’s policies. Obama’s class warfare rhetoric is focused on blaming Wall Street for the woes of the country, however a near majority believe that Obama’s own policies benefit Wall Street more than any other. And frankly there should be little wonder in why America would feel that way, especially since Obama gets more money from Wall Street than any other candidate. And while Obama continues to deflect blame for his economy, he is becoming ever more entangled with a general sense that he is as much culpable for the general mess as any other scapegoat he’d like to blame.

 

All of this amounts to an environment that is not receptive to an Administration that over promised and under delivered. I welcome Obama’s effort to play the game of ideas because in the arena of ideas, the Emperor has no clothes- or armor. Obama feels that his Administration has been one of the greatest Administrations ever, when an approval rating of 41% says quite the opposite. The intellectual fraud that is Barak Hussein Obama is about to be schooled.