Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Obama's tanking

And the media and punditry, many of our own in fact, go on and on about our candidates?  Obama's numbers are below Carter's for crying out loud!  U.S. News reports:

President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.

What's more, Gallup finds that Obama's overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama's team is using as a model.

Gallup show Obama stuck at 43%, but as the Washington Examiner points out, "buried down in the report is this nugget on trends since January 2011 when Obama had a much higher 49% approval rating."

Obama's approval rating has decreased among all six partisan/ideology groups Gallup tracks on a regular basis since January, but it has dropped the most -- 10 percentage points, from 40% to 30% -- among pure independents. These are the roughly 14% of national adults who neither identify with one of the two major parties nor indicate a leaning. Obama's approval rating has declined by nearly as much -- eight points -- among moderate/liberal Republicans, from 29% to 21%.

Keep it up, Mr. President...or should I say down.  When you constantly engage in class envy, riling up one citizen against another, divide and segregate Americans for any reason, much less for shear political gain and power, as with your re-election campaign's latest decision to abandon white working-class voters, emphasis on 'working', then it should come to no shock that you're losing support.  Yes, too many will fall victim to this conquest, but there's still enough Americans who see through the veil, who want the republic, its economy & its core principles to be revitalized & succeed, and who reject your Big Government one-size-fits-all statism.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Now is not the time to settle

Reflecting on Levin’s discussion last evening on Colin Powell’s latest comments regarding the moderate notion of compromise

...and in light of renewed attacks on one particularly threatening conservative candidate, in which socio-political humorist AlfonZo Rachel discusses the broader implications of Republicans these days in their lack of stamina to defend conservatives who are being attacked, instead opting to throw their own under the proverbial train…yes, the ruling class chuckles are audible from on high.

This gives one cause to really pause for a moment and assess what’s currently going on in the GOP, particularly in regards to a potential leader.

Within the current top tier, many conservatives are finding themselves willing to forgive & forget much of Gengrich's past errs due to his solid debate performances and perceived aptitude, in some sense, reminiscent of much of Romney’s base and the way he’s proceeded thoughout the race. And while there’s perhaps some merit to garner from such reluctant acceptance, something else is occurring among the conservative electorate.

Disheartening skepticism, pragmatism, 'settling', call it what you will, pervades conservative sensibilities in response to the flaws, gaffes, myths, associations, etc., of many of the truly 'conservative' candidates, who don't come off as polished or 'perfect', but are inarguably more genuine or authentic. This 'imperfection', if you will, has been seized upon and exploited beyond what could have been imagined by the trumped up, distorted and overblown coverage of the mainstream media, acutely atune of course to the ruling class status quo. It has left many conservative voters scratching their heads in doubt and just ready to say 'yeah, Newt's the option to Mitt', thus giving us 'this-establishment-or-that-establishment' choice. The Beltway elite, pundits and media alike, are doing just as they've aimed to do all the while: guide the electorate towards the most polished insider orators of the bunch, then say, 'we've given you options, now pick one!'

I've been thinking long and hard about it, and while my frustration in the process brews, I'm finding it to be most unsatisfactory and unacceptable. In all honesty, I'd much rather have a Bachmann, a Perry, a Cain, an imperfect, yet principled-driven conservative at the helm, over the timidity that's certain to come with an establishment candidate's shifting into a lower gear when heading towards the cliff...yet still careening towards that inevitable ledge. So what else is driving this settling sentiment?

Impatience is the order of the day. I think many conservatives believed that at this perceived late date, we'd have a clearly defined, concise, and defiantly conservative leader to emerge by now. The strong head of the pack, if you will, not a 25-percenter. Add that atop the many unabashed conservatives who did NOT enter the race, and I think the impatience, while premature, becomes a little more understandable. I didn't say agreeable, but understandable.  Then also add our statist-enabling Orwellian media and some of the ineptness of campaign staff, advisers and sure, even instances of the candidates themselves, and you've got desperation on top of impatience for far too many. This is what conservatives cannot allow to permeate.

Mistakes or mishandlings will occur, imperfections exist. I’m guilty of being tempted to allow the frustration to overcome my sensibilities, but sensible we must remain, and a renewed resolve is what we must attain. Else, the establishment wins by default, and America, not just the Republican Party yet again, is at risk of defeat. We mustn’t allow that to happen, for ourselves, for our future or that of generations to come.

Don't allow that settling sense to win out, and don't allow the commentators, no matter how conservative they claim to be to deter you from supporting and defending 'conservative' victory!

"Compromise, compromise. No, damn it! Victory, victory and victory!" ~ Mark Levin

ADDENDUM: Here's some further thoughts that I had on this topic...

There's no doubt that Gengrich is capable of out-debate Obama, nor Romney either for that matter. But I can't help thinking that this election should be about not only ousting a statist like Obama, but also rejecting the status quo of establishment insiders...that is, if we really want to conserve the Republic.  I'm not so much questioning motives or loyalties, as I am dedication to rolling back both the statists Left & the all-too-common statist-enabling Right. I'd argue that the record of both of these top tier candidates demonstrate more establishment tendencies than some of the other contenders. Could this be why their candor and oratory appear better equipped to so many? Perhaps. Can they move beyond the establishment ties into a more conservative arena as their rhetoric implies? It's possible. But before we get desperate and impatient enough to only consider beating Obama with perceived 'perfection', might we also consider the consequences of settling for something less than authentic conservative principle to guide the Republic back to a prosperous path.

We were lucky to have had Reagan in the 20th century. He had both an air of confidence & competence, while remaining a staunch principled conservative...which I might remind folks, the establishment cared little for this particular statesman's qualities back then; instead, much like today, pointing out any and every infinitesimal flaw. Now we've seen this character splinter between either charasmatic establishment types who say they wish to return to conservative principles and then the less-than-perfect candidates who've maintained more principled conservative histories & experiences. Considering the lackluster and falling support for Obama, I'd say either is quite capable of defeating the current occupier. So, I guess with the abscence of a Reaganesque figure, it's up to Republicans to decide this primary season which record they choose to follow: a more moderate path or the bold colors of conservatism. I'd prefer to follow that which might lead us back to a more principled conservative Republic.

Monday, November 28, 2011

9-9-9 The Movie (UPDATE: Cain status)

I've argued for it in past posts and among friends & foes alike, particularly since I'm both a flat taxer & a Fair Tax advocate and a supporter of the inherent transparency & accountability that's built into both concepts, which leads me to promote Herman Cain's latest endeavor to succinctly explain in the clearest of terms (complete with visuals this time around) his bold 9-9-9 Plan:

(Here's a link to the movie site as well)

ADDENDUM: Funny how these things seems to happen like clockwork.  Just as Cain launches this most important push for his plan, as well as his campaign, a new allegation, dwindling poll numbers and a rabid media push back at the candidate; and according to staffers, Cain is reassessing his decision to remain in the race.  Unfortunately, and yet again, the fate of the Fair Tax might once again find itself up against the old stone wall of the Washington establishment, where the status quo continues to falter.  Personally, I hope this movie is not an epilogue.

UPDATE: Looks like the potential epilogue is only the next chapter!  Herman Cain will stay in the race.  Now WATCH the movie!

Back in the saddle...for the working man

Back from the Thanksgiving holiday, and I hope everyone had an opportunity to hear & enjoy the real story of Thanksgiving on Wednesday's Rush Limbaugh program (it's an annual favorite!).

Then I get back this morning to hear the rather joyous news that yet another Washington crook, and joke of a congress member, Barney Frank is retiring. I guess if we can't jail him, at least we'll be rid of him on Capitol Hill. Hip Hip Hooray!

But moving on to more analytical news, a story from the UK's Daily Mail illustrates the deceptively divisive re-election campaign tactics of our so-called post-racial president:

President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign will be the first in modern political history to abandon white working-class voters, strategists claim.

For decades, Democrats have been losing more and more blue collar whites. Their alienation helped lead to the massive Republican wave in 2010, when the GOP wooed 30 percent more of them than the Democrats could.

Democratic strategists say President Obama is focusing his attention, instead, on poor black and Hispanic voters and educated white professionals.

For all the talk, year after year, of how Republicans are racist and the Democrats are the champions of minorities, we yet again get a glimpse of the same old Democrat segregrationists, dividing Americans up according to class and ethnicity. The strategy seems to dictate that working whites (or those working, period!) aren't buying it, so they'll focus on manipulating the poor minority masses as have been for decades, and likewise run with the white impressionable elitists, who have more education than experience & common sense...

The new coalition President Obama is putting together potentially relies less on middle Americans than either Sen Kerry or Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

Instead, as two Democratic strategists lay out, the president's 2012 re-election campaign will likely rely on winning over new 'young people, Hispanics, unmarried women and affluent suburbanites.'

Emphasis on 'new', pointing to all those susceptible minds that have accumulated over the past 3 years, with the hope and change of joblessness and dependency. However, considering the results of the 2010 mid-term elections, one would think there'd be a less impressionable sense than the hopelessness of '08.

Bigger government and less working class of any color or creed is what Obama has on the horizon for this country.  The working man must decide if that's the course he'd allow for his country's demise.  Liberty or servitude?  It's time to get back to work, because there's much ahead of us.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving!

I know there was a debate Tuesday night, but the Thanksgiving holiday is upon us, and I've simply run out of time to blog about it! What I will do is refer you to the CNN highlight reel here, as well as a host of different takes on the debate, from live-blogs to open threads to post-mortems (and there will be plenty analysis tomorrow, rest assured!).  Also, be sure to check out the Heritage Foundation blog to check for additional analysis to come.  Likewise, I'm certain El Rushbo will have a few comments to add tomorrow (I'll have the radio tuned in with you!).  

Now it is family time!  An Ebb and Flow wishes everyone a safe, happy and Blessed Thanksgiving, and we'll see you after the holiday.

MOST gracious God, by whose knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew; We yield thee unfeigned thanks and praise for the return of seed-time and harvest, for the increase of the ground and the gathering in of the fruits thereof, and for all the other blessings of thy merciful providence bestowed upon this nation and people. And, we beseech thee, give us a just sense of these great mercies; such as may appear in our lives by an humble, holy, and obedient walking before thee all our days; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all glory and honour, world without end. Amen. 
~ A Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the Fruits of the Earth and all the other Blessings of his merciful Providence from the Book of Common Prayer

Tuesday, November 22, 2011


Well, the Thanksgiving holiday is almost upon us, so thought I'd wrap up the comedic ridiculousness of the latest from the usual suspects before everyone ventures out to enjoy time giving thanks to the Almighty for what we've been provided (not necessarily what we desire) and feasting with family and friends. Here goes in rapid succession...

While conversing with a very intelligent, concerned & old school Democrat, Mark Levin discussed how it'd be over already but for the tea party, in which the caller praisefully agreed. And in discussing the tea party's disdain for the establishment, Levin presented a great punchline for one of FNC's regular establishment guests (listen here at 59:38)

"I heard Karl Rove today say he doesn't understand what the establishment is. Uh, look in the mirror, pal, that's one place to start!"

Amen, brother Mark!

"The only thing missing was a waitress lying down on the grave with Chris Dodd then laying down on top of the waitress. Sort of a postmortem Dodd-Kennedy waitress sandwich."

That was Rush's hilarious response to a Politico story addressing Harry Reid's odd, dementia-riddled tale of the Senate Majority Leader and Chris Dodd's visit to Ted Kennedy's grave "in the thick of negotiations" by the now-defunct Super Committee.

In the thick of the negotiations, Reid...recalled the days when deal makers could bridge the partisan divide. He visited Ted Kennedy’s grave in Arlington National Cemetery with former Sen. Chris Dodd. Dodd poured some whiskey on Kennedy’s grave while Reid recited a prayer, the majority leader told lobbyists at a meeting, according to attendees. He told the group that he missed both men.

Whiskey...grave...lobbyists...gangstas in every sense.  If this is what passes for the leadership that "could bridge the partisan divide," then damn we're doomed.

She's at it again. Via LifeNews, the supposedly devout Catholic, who adamently promotes abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teachings, is bashing the pro-life position of Catholic bishops in opposition to a potential Obama administration decision that forces insurance providers, which certain religious groups may not be exempted from, to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions, thus violating their moral and religious views. Once again Pelosi demagogues with straw man arguments, then goes one step further...

Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post. “Those who dispute that characterization may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing...”

Shame on all of us who have a conscience when it comes to snuffing out the innocent life of the unborn!  No, Nancy, shame on you for processing about as a Catholic in Name Only simply by gracing the Church with your presence.

Alright, I'm done...from RINOs to DINOs to CINOs!

ADDENDUM: Well, I guess we can throw this blitz into the mashup as well!

From Rush: "We got another Republican debate tonight. It's sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. It's gonna be moderated by Wolf Blitzer, CNN. It's gonna be broadcast by CNN... Wolf is prepping. Wolf is rehearsing. From what I'm being told, Wolf Blitzer is rehearsing various retorts to Newt Gingrich, and he and his staff are trying to think of various things that Newt might say to insult them. It's sort of like preparing for hecklers. That's what Wolf is doing to get ready..."

Monday, November 21, 2011

Destined to fail (UPDATE)

"There's no spending cuts here, zilch, zero, nada." ~ El Rushbo

One headline from the BBC says "Super-committee failure was not supposed to happen." I would turn that around and say, "Super-committee success was never supposed to happen!"  There was never going to be a deal, thus it was never intended to succeed.

When you give your political opponents a double-edged sword, and you leave yourself with a stick to shake at them, it's not going to fair well.  That's precisely what the Republicans did a few months back by setting up a makeshift politburo for Republicans to propose spending cuts that Democrats would never go along with, even when ready to sell out.  And why would Democrats, when they could just allow the clock to run out and automatic 'cuts' primarily hit Defense?  What did they have to lose?  Not a thing...they actually gained something. They actually diverted the debate from spending cuts to the fear of tax increases.

Then to boot, those triggered 'cuts' heading towards Defense (as well as some non-entitlement discretionary domestic spending) will never happen.  Sen. Rand Paul explains, "we're only cutting proposed increases." Paul succinctly explains, as Rush repeated this morning, due to baseline budgeting, spending would automatically go up by 23% over the next 10 years.  So even with sequestration, spending will still go up 16%!  The only thing that's been cut is the baseline by 7%...spending is still being increased!

More on baseline budgeting here.

So now the blame games begin with Republicans blaming Democrats, Democrats blaming Republicans, and a few folks actually blaming Obama.  Unfortunately, Democrats understood early on that they'd put no meaningful domestic/entitlement cuts on the chopping block, even when some Republicans were ready to sellout their principles towards compromise. Likewise, they knew Republicans would freak out over any cuts in Defense and attempt to stop them, which is what's now happening.  So in other words, everything is occurring as Democrats anticipated: absolutely no real restraints on spending will occur.  Some have even speculated that this may present Obama with an opportune line to run on as the antithesis of a due nothing Congress, particularly since he can't run on his own failed record.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir expounded on the blame game and the reasons for the super committee failure with this conclusion:

The real cause of the failure of the supercommittee was the idea that a supercommittee would act any differently than the Congress at large. Instead of using the normal process of having each chamber pass their own bills and using a conference committee to reconcile them, the debt-ceiling deal assumed that a dozen eminences grises could hand down a solution from on high that would significantly depart from the months and years of debate that had already taken place over the debt and deficit problem. The members of this committee were a part of that debate, which means they took the same issues into their chamber that everyone else had to handle outside of it.

Instead of using the proper procedure, we’ve just wasted three months in pursuit of a Deus ex machina rescue that was never going to materialize. While that’s bad news in the short run, it’s probably good news in the long run. Anyone proposing blue-ribbon supercommittees in the future will be laughed out of town – which is what should have happened the first time.

UPDATE: Here's the official 'failure' announcement.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Fight the real problem...the answers have been provided!

I've thought about this one for over a day now, so just had to post this noteworthy message from El Rushbo during Friday's program: "Whoever fights and says Obama is the problem, will win the GOP nomination."

Newt Gingrich, top of the heap now. The Republican Party is still vetting their candidates, and despite what anybody tells you, we do not know who the nominee will be. But we do know what he or she should be saying. We do know, I know, so do you, what that nominee should be saying in order to secure the nomination. And that is, Barack Obama is the problem, not fellow Republicans. The problem is Barack Obama. The problem is the Democrat Party. The problem is the American left. America's greatness is not behind us. America's greatness is here. It's on the horizon. Our nominee must say we will be great again and the first step in the process is getting rid of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party and moving them out of the way.

Whichever of these people seeking the nomination makes that case the most consistently and the most believably and the most sincerely, not as phony sales type presentation but genuinely means it, that's who's gonna get this nomination in the end. And it is still up for grabs. The media is also a problem, not fellow Republicans. In the big scheme of things the problems this country faces are not Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, any of these people. The problem, the obstacles that we all face in returning this to a great nation, Barack Obama, his acolytes, his regime, the Democrat Party, and, truth be told, the media, they are an obstacle as well because they are part of the opposition, they are part of what must be defeated.

First principles are the answer. First principles, first conservative constitutional principles are the answer. Articulating that as fact with depth and conviction is what the people of this country want. We and the rest of the people of this country are sick and tired of careful politicians, business as usual politicians. We are fed up and exhausted with people who measure their comments. The blueprint for rebuilding America has been written. Ronaldus Magnus wrote it; Barry Goldwater wrote it; William F. Buckley Jr. wrote it; Burke wrote it, any number. Friedrich Von Hayek wrote it; Milton Friedman wrote it. Market capitalism is the answer. Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer.

It all starts with the individual. Private property rights is the foundation because without private property rights there are no rights for people anywhere else. The Republican nominating process is a competition of ideas and the ability to communicate how can we get back to our pursuit of happiness? How can we get back to our pursuit of excellence? How can we get back to the trusted institutions that have defined this nation and its greatness for hundreds of years? How can the individual be empowered? How can liberalism be stopped, repealed, and rolled back? What Newt's doing is no secret. Newt is tapping into the American mind-set. He has the ability to do it. He also has the ability to blow it. Which is what gives people pause, but at this point they're looking past that, they're looking past the baggage, and this is my point.

The press, the media, the Democrats are trying to focus on the baggage, trying to focus on Cain's baggage and whatever they can manufacture, or Michele Bachmann's baggage, and even Romney's baggage with his Romneycare. We don't hear any reports of the baggage that Barack Obama brings to the table, but it takes a C5A cargo jet to hold it all. Newt Gingrich is making it clear that he is proud of this country and its history, of our culture, the idea of American exceptionalism. My point is here, nobody ought to be shocked to learn that a Republican who is articulating conservatism proudly, competently, confidently, articulately, nobody should be surprised that that person is nearing the top of the heap. It has been our point all along, ladies and gentlemen, has it not?

And expanding on this dare I say profound proclamation, Rush points the cannons at the liberal media among the statist travelers, and with the the American People confidently behind him, FIRES!

Nobody should be shocked, I don't believe, to learn that a Republican articulating conservatism fearlessly who is also pointing out the media's partisanship, who schools the media in their own malpractice, and the media attempts to shut that down, the establishment attempts to shut that down by saying, "Hey, that's very, very, very beneath us to attack the media. Why, the media is who they are, it's gonna be seen as whining and complaining. You can't go after the media." The American people, the vast majority of them want the media defeated every bit as much as they want Barack Obama defeated because the American people understand that they're one and the same. The American people understand that American decline is being happily presided over by Barack Obama and the acolytes and stenographers and the fellow travelers in the media who build Obama up facilitate America's decline. It doesn't matter where that would be found, the American people are gonna oppose it.

If the media happen to stand for and represent support of someone happily presiding over the decline of the country, the American media are going to be considered an obstacle which must be defeated as well. Newt Gingrich points it out, despite what the warnings are from the establishment types. No, this is not an endorsement. This is analysis, pure and simple analysis. Nothing more. The media applauds Obama for running against Congress. Congress has a higher approval rating than the media does. Why shouldn't the Republican run against the media? It's well known the media is not our friend and it's about time -- I'll tell you something else. And this is very subtle. But Newt, or whoever, in the Republican primary field, this field of nominees, when they go after the media, they are signaling to the American people that they understand and are fearless and are willing to buck the establishment.

Republican voters are fed up with establishment Washington Republicans kowtowing to the media, trying to use the media to get their message out, worrying about what the media says or thinks about them. The American people don't want somebody who's afraid of the media. The American people, the voters on our side particularly want somebody who will take 'em on, just like we want somebody who will take Obama on fearlessly and not be worried about what's going to be said about it. We don't want somebody who's gonna be reluctant because of the color of Obama's skin. That doesn't matter. The country's in decline. He's presiding over it. He's president of the United States. He's accountable. Somebody who's not gonna hold him accountable is not gonna get our nomination.

Right on, right on...two thumbs way UP!

Friday, November 18, 2011

Sham BBA failed passage

The House has rejected the rather weak excuse for a Balanced Budget Amendment, 261 to 165. Voting on a BBA was one of the stipulations in the Budget Control Act of 2011, as was the Super 'Duper' Committee, both of which were supposed to serve as tools for fighting the deficit. However, wavering Republican leadership approved of a symbolic BBA containing less restraints in hopes that more Democrats would be attracted to help pass it...they were wrong, again. A Human Events report gives us a good snapshot of the differing perspectives between the parties:

The amendment defeated today was the kind of Balanced Budget Amendment that could easily become a cudgel for extracting massive tax increases from the American public (“Hey, we gotta balance the budget! It’s the law! Now make with your “fair share” and give us another trillion bucks!”) That’s why fiscal hawk Paul Ryan​ (R-WI), along with David Dreier​ (R-CA), Louie Gohmert​ (R-TX), and Justin Amash (R-MI), voted against it, as reported by MSNBC:

"I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes," Ryan said in a statement. "Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished. Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this Amendment."

This, of course, was not a concern for tax-hungry Democrats, who had other reasons for voting against the measure:

"A Constitutional amendment that cannot easily be enforced to balance the budget is a hollow gesture that at the very least will be ineffective," Rep. Van Hollen said in the letter, "At the very worst, a balanced budget amendment enshrined within the Constitution could generate a Constitutional impasse with catastrophic consequences."

That would be Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who sits on the farcical Super Committee, charged with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the national debt only increases by 80% over the next 10 years. When he talks about “hollow, ineffective gestures,” he means “horrible embarrassments to Congressional spendaholics, who have no intention of restraining themselves until the economy suffers a complete breakdown.”

Perhaps it's understandable that some Republicans voted for this because it was the only thing in the form of a BBA sitting on the table, and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared to be one of those; however in his case, he proclaimed that the GOP missed a significant opportunity by not standing firm on Cut, Cap & Balance earlier this year:

Today’s vote provided yet one more reason why the House should have stood firm for ‘Cut, Cap, Balance.' It is purely political theater to require that the House and Senate simply take a vote on – rather than actually pass – a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just another symbolic exercise for the history books. Time and again, Washington has failed to enact structural reforms that would force politicians to get spending under control. ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ was the opportunity of a lifetime to actually force Washington to balance its budget like 49 of the 50 states are required to do.

We were told to abandon ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ because default was supposedly looming. But, on the day of supposed default, there were billions of dollars in the Treasury to cover our obligations. And, weeks later even Vice President Biden admitted that default would never happen. But what did happen, though, was a credit downgrade, due in large part to Washington’s failure to implement structural reforms to end to the out-of-control spending and borrowing – reforms like a Balanced Budget Amendment and real spending caps.

It’s disappointing that when we had $14.3 trillion in debt this summer the House did not stand its ground and force the Democratic Senate to take up ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ to reverse Washington’s addition of spending. But, it’s even more disappointing that in the same week that America surpasses the $15 trillion debt threshold, Democrats still continue to balk at the idea of requiring Washington to balance its budget.

Hear that, Speaker Boehner?  Hear that, Sen. McConnell?  He's right about that...WE were right when we were yelling CUT, CAP & BALANCE! We can't get out of this economic debacle hopscotching from one sham after another. Have some guts, man, and produce an authentic balanced budget amendment with real caps on spending and a required 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes.  Real restraint, real solutions, that all Republicans can get behind.  Let the Dems attempt to vote that down in an election year.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Gengrich takes the lead

A new Rasmussen shock poll shows Gengrich taking the Republican presidential lead:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has already picked up steam among Republican primary voters nationwide, and now he jumps to the front of the GOP pack among caucus-goers in Iowa.

Romney comes in at 19% and after weeks of media smears and attacks, along with the Libyan gaffe that the media has played up as hard as Perry's forgotten third agency, Cain returns to Iowa in third at 13%. And with Newt now leading Mitt, the media have already turned their sights and adjusted their aim at the former Speaker with a linkage to Freddie Mac, which on the surface appears to be much ado about nothing; however, the mere mention of the failed mortage finance agency sends the mainstream press salivating at the prospects of tying to a Republican.  I think they'll find breaking Newt is not so easy.

Likewise, results in yesterday's Fox News poll garnered the same results, with Newt gaining the lead in the GOP presidential race.

I thought of posting this last night, but now seems a much more opportune time to do so.  At the end of Wednesday's show, Mark Levin conducted a brief interviewed with the former Speaker and dug for answers on some of the host's bigger concerns with the candidate.  See what you think...

In any regards, it looks like the witty debate performances have finally produced results for the former Speaker.

ADDENDUM: It certainly doesn't hurt to make these kind of points either...

Also, I think Rush asked a very important question during Friday's show, "Now it's Newt's turn for an anal exam, but how come it's never Mitt Romney's?" For real.

another mentally ill occupier (UPDATES)

A common denominator seems to be missing from all the reports of yesterday's White House shooting suspect: he spent time among the Occupiers.  NewsBusters reports:

NBC, ABC, and CBS left that fact out of their evening and morning coverage of his arrest.

All three network evening news programs made the Wednesday afternoon arrest of Ortega-Hernandez their lead story. NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams proclaimed: "Shots fired at the White House, prompting an urgent manhunt for the gunman, now under arrest amid questions about his motive." ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer declared: "Caught. The man accused of tiring an AK-47 at the White House, apprehended." On CBS's Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley reported: "Bullets strike the White House. Bob Orr on the man in custody."

On Wednesday's Special Report on Fox News, anchor Bret Baier took note of the shooter's reported connection to the Washington D.C. Occupy protest: "Hernandez reportedly spent time with the Occupy D.C. protesters and may be mentally ill, according to officials."

You got it right, Bret: another mentally ill occupier!

UPDATE: Looney Toons! Come one, come all...

'Occupy San Diego' honors suspected White House shooter with moment of silence

Honor this guy?!  "You see, Oprah...I am the modern-day Jesus Christ that you all have been waiting for."

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Levin: "these damn cowards"

Wednesday's Mark Levin Show was chalked full of great topics, and the Great One was on FIRE, so here's another I felt the need to share.  In this one, Levin gave the latest updates on this sham of a BBA proposal, the latest with the Super Committee politburo's decision to continue spending, and the cowardly, defeatist Republicans that appear ready to cave again (surprise).  Now is not the time to settle...

What the Republican leadership has shown us throughout the vast majority of 2011 is that they not only used conservatives to regain power only to sink back into their establishment, statist-enabling ways, but they fear the beltway punditry something fierce.  How they fear these useful idiots more than their own constituents, is astounding.  One thing is clear, though: next year we MUST elect not only a president who's capable of adhering to some notion of conservative principles, but equally important, we MUST reinforce the ranks of the House and Senate with conservative statesmen if we want to see any balls in Levin would say, "That's right, I said it!"

ADDENDUM: Rush also mentioned the Super Committee sham in Wednesday's program.

A stroll down memory lane

They say 'conservatives can't win' or 'they can't beat Obama'.  They said the same about Reagan.  Levin took us on a little stroll down memory lane in Wednesday evening's monologue.  Funny how things repeat themselves.  This one's for conservatives to take heart, and Washington beltway elites of both persuasions to take note!

Sound familiar?  Remember how that one ended? Landslide.

And while the establishment is taking note, in conjunction with Levin's message, and supplying additional perspective on the run-up to the Republican primaries involving our candidates, Rush felt compelled to respond to one caller to expand on the larger issues of where the country is at, the condition of the Republican Party, the primary process, and where conservatism should be playing a crucial role in all...(as the clip is entitled, "Here is Rush Limbaugh at his best talking about conservatism")

of Biblical proportions...

A couple of historic items to mention today, one that's graciously praiseworthy, while the other...well, let's just say it might be worth praying over.

First, Queen Elizabeth was joined by the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury at a ceremony in Westminster Abbey to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible. Praise be to God!

Not to dampen that glorious event, but I also have to mention the other historic occurrence...

Today, November 16, 2011, the U.S. national debt exceeded $15 TRILLION with our debt-to-GDP ratio closing in on 100%! Historically, we've seen where nations proceed after crossing that threshold.  Not pretty.  And with the incompetence we're observing in every branch of the federal government, who's to say what the future holds.

Besides the continued efforts to demand responsible governance from our so-called leaders, I couldn't think of a more critical moment in time to turn towards THE ONE who endowed us with certain inalienable rights...

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of thy favour and glad to do thy will. Bless our land with honourable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to thy law, we may show forth thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in thee to fail; all which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
~ A Prayer For Our Country from The Book of Common Prayer

Obama's energy agenda

An interesting piece by Kenneth Green in the Daily Caller sheds more light on Obama's energy agenda, and quite succinctly explains the way many of us see it: symbolic environmentalism at the cost of significant economic ramifications. It's well worth the read, but the conclusion hits the nail on the head:

The White House, of course, tells us not to worry. With his usual Orwellian dishonesty, President Obama assures us that “my administration will build on the unprecedented progress we’ve made towards strengthening our nation’s energy security, from responsibly expanding domestic oil and gas production to nearly doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, to continued progress in the development of a clean energy economy.” But the Keystone decision shows the reality of the Obama energy agenda: stifling all forms of fossil fuel production, acquisition and use in favor of replacing a small fraction of that energy with expensive, intermittent renewables constructed by crony corporations like Solyndra, General Motors and General Electric.

Reinforcing that sentiment, as well as adding another layer to this insidious agenda, just take a look at the latest in the Solyndra scandal, via Fox News:

As the White House rejects charges that the Obama administration was motivated by politics in its decisions on green energy loans, scrutiny is increasing over the preference given to Democratic donors seeking federal loans.

Recent emails suggest that politics did play a role in administration decisions regarding its energy loan guarantee programs. But beyond the timing of political announcements, the Solyndra investigation has churned up questions about the White House's overall strategy of doling out taxpayer money.

The rolls of green energy subsidies show that beyond a few headline-grabbing cases, several well-connected Democrats obtained taxpayer assistance for environmentally friendly projects.

And that, my friends, ties directly into an earlier post on congressional insider trading, which we're learning also occurred with non-elected, non-congressional administration members.  No wonder the White House is lashing out at Congress for investigating.  How dare anyone seek transparency!  Especially after emails show that the Obama Administration pressured Solyndra to delay layoffs until after the 2010 midterm elections (but Rahm doesn't recall anything about that).  Oops.

See how it's just one big bundle of cronyism at the most corrupt levels?  Change?  Riiiight.  Obama's energy agenda is a disaster for America.

Obama thinks Hawaii is in Asia

In one of Obama's "spread out the sacrifice" responses to a reporter's question while in Hawaii a few days ago, Joseph Lawler at the American Spectator points out, "This is the kind of thing to keep in mind as Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and others stumble over their words." Indeed...

...kinda like "I've now been in 57 states, I think one left to go" or one of my personal favorites that outlives any Cain pause or Perry memory lapse, Obama's "Treatment" speech. Yep, we know it makes no sense, Barry.

ADDENDUM: Here's something to reference when your liberal friends say, 'he was tired', 'he's only human', or 'he only makes mistakes from time to time, not that often'.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Congressional insider trading: who's 'the rich' again? (UPDATE)

Damnable, from Pelosi to Boehner. This 60 Minutes piece that aired on Sunday night hits the Washington Establishment of both political parties hard, and deservedly so...

Since this piece aired, investigative reporter and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, author of the new book Throw Them All Out, has further elaborated on others benefiting from such insider deals: Sen. Feinstein loaded up on biotech stock just before the company received a $24 million government grant, Obama-backer Warren Buffett helped shape the bailout rules and then made massive profits from them, and the list goes on and on.

How ironic, particularly with these rich Democrats, who are strategically and politically targeting the successful in America and determining whether you're a friend or foe of the all-powerful State. You can call it crony capitalism, you can call it venture socialism; whatever the case, it is corrupt and unethical. And now the underlying hierarchy that's not supposed to exist in their utopia is revealed through the true greed partaken by Washington's Political Class.

Mark Levin weighed in on the latest revelations with his unique insight and candor...

UPDATE: Here's another one: Robert Kennedy, Jr's 'green' company scored a $1.4 billion taxpayer bailout. It's quite peculiar how that Stock Act that no one seemed to know about in the 60 Minutes piece, which bans congressional insider trading, has suddenly gathered steam, from 4 co-sponsors to 35 in just two days!  Congressional undergarment check, perhaps?

9% unemployment through 2012

The inevitable prediction: more uncertainty & discomfort for American employment as long as Obama's in office. Today, the CBO Director, Douglas Elmendorf, said that unemployment “under current law” will remain at 9% through 2012…

Folks, after witnessing all the excessive regulations, deferments, obstruction and cronyism of this administration, if that's not a good enough reason to toss Obama out on his keister, then what is?!

A bad BBA is no balance at all

Seriously, GOP?! A Balanced Budget Amendment that would allow unlimited federal spending, and also wouldn’t require a supermajority in both houses of Congress to raise taxes? Then what’s the freakin’ point?!

CNSNews reported on this Thursday, saying that “many conservatives have argued that such an amendment--that does not cap spending as a percentage of GDP--is a formula for bigger government and higher taxes.” Absolutely! But Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) says he “supports the strongest balanced budget amendment that can pass the Congress.” Notice the language of the weak.  Do Democrats EVER precede ANYTHING they intend to push through Congress with such limitations? HELL NO! Why are so-called conservatives so easily willing to accept a minority position and unwilling to fight on the basis of Principle? Because perhaps they’re not really conservatives in the first place, nor are they able to follow through on the courage of what should be their conviction in everything that they endorse legislatively.

The conservative electorate, and I’d contend that a vast majority of independents as well, are sick of this consistent weakness. It’s reared its ugly head time and time again throughout the year within our leadership, it’s rearing up in the Super Committee, and we see it whittling away at this integral piece of legislation that could indeed help the People gain control of its government.

It’s refreshing to see a young Senator, Mike Lee of Utah, author of The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government, stand up and call out these weak shenanigans, as well as remind the House that his BBA contains both the necessary caps and the 2/3 vote requirement, while continuing to garner all 47 Republican senators (from a follow up interview with CNSNews on Monday).

“All 47 members of the Republican caucus in the Senate are behind a single proposal. And I’ll tell you, we could not have gotten that type of unanimity within the Republican caucus in the Senate without those provisions--without requiring a super majority to raise taxes and without a percentage-of-GDP cap.

So, I think it would be unwise, given that unanimous support that we’ve got there, for us to back away from those. We don’t want as Republicans to negotiate against ourselves.

Currently, this is the only one in the senate that has garnered a significant number of votes anywhere close to 47. So this needs to come up for a vote, this version of this bill. If people want to vote against that and then face their constituents, they’ll do it at their own peril.

I suspect we’ll get some Democrats as well because those Democrats will not want to face their constituents and say, ‘Sorry, I just can’t require Congress to spend no more than it takes in each year.’”

That is precisely the pressure that must be applied, that demonstrates conservative strength and principle. Why in the world would any member of the majority party in the House of Representatives feel the need to lend a defeating hand to their own party under the misleading assumption that it’s the only thing ‘that can pass the Congress’? A weak amendment emboldens the government to continue its irresponsible spending practices and only assists our political adversaries in the Senate. It just doesn’t make sense to waver on this.

Stand firm, GOP, and if Democrats continue to solidly oppose this in the Senate, make them own that irresponsibility in an election year, because a bad BBA is no balance at all, and will only come back to haunt the Republican Party.

Obama stops real ‘shovel-ready’ jobs

Most heard about Obama’s decision towards the end of last week to defer the extension of the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline further into the U.S., creating more job opportunities (even when many would have been unionized). He once again proves to put the most radical constituency first, as CNSNews reported:

At a time when President Barack Obama insists he is focused on job creation, why would he skip the opportunity to create 20,000 new jobs – many of them union jobs -- next year, the oil industry is asking.

Labor unions -- a key Obama constituency -- support the pipeline extension because of the union jobs it would create, but environmental activists and anti-'Big Oil' groups -- also among Obama's supporters -- strongly oppose it.

But somehow the hypothetical interests of the environmentalists outweigh the benefits to thousands of skilled Americans seeking employment, as TransCanada’s CEO explains:

"We remain confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved," said Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer. "This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed."

“Keystone XL is shovel-ready,” Girling said. “TransCanada is poised to put 20,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline - pipe fitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, the list goes on. Local businesses along the pipeline route will benefit from the 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL will create through increased business for local restaurants, hotels and suppliers.

“Five billion dollars in property taxes paid by TransCanada over the lifetime of the project will allow counties in States along the pipeline route to invest in new schools, roads and hospitals.

"If Keystone XL dies, Americans will still wake up the next morning and continue to import 10 million barrels of oil from repressive nations, without the benefit of thousands of jobs and long term energy security," concluded Girling. "That would be a tragedy."

Well, today brought more fallout over Obama’s decision to renege on the project, as the headlines say it all: Obama Forces Canada’s Oil to China:

Delays in building the $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline project will force Canada to sell its huge oil reserves to China instead of the United States, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has bluntly warned President Barack Obama.

The White House has put off a decision on the 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta to Texas until after the 2012 election so a study can be carried out into its impact on an environmentally sensitive area in Nebraska.

The bolded statement says it all. The man’s playing shear politics to placate his radical base (at least up until the election), while hanging thousands of unemployed, skilled Americans out to dry.  This is progress?!

Washington negligence

Anyone checked out the U.S. Debt Clock lately? As we teeter on the threshold of a $15T national debt, which we’ll inevitably reach very soon, one might take note of a couple of things: spending outpacing revenues, most taxes and expenditures increasing as payroll taxes and income securities decrease (unemployment comes to mind), spending-to-GDP ratio is at 46.5%, while debt-to-GDP ratio is at 99.8%! So where am I going with this? Well, let’s head in the direction of that so-called Super Committee.

When observing the largest budget items, one will notice that Medicare/Medicaid take the top prize as the largest driver of our debt. Next comes Social Security, and then we get to Defense spending. Currently, as well as traditionally, Democrats are playing the same legislative games as they always have, protect the sacred cow of entitlement dependency, while attacking national defense. From the Washington Times:

The congressional supercommittee was supposed to make all of the hard budgetary choices that representatives couldn’t be trusted to make on their own. As the final deadline looms, it’s looking like the end result will be the imposition of fake spending cuts and real tax hikes.

The debt-ceiling deal struck earlier this year gave this extraordinary panel until Nov. 23 to submit its decisions to the Congressional Budget Office and avoid triggering $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts - half from defense. The committee is supposed to find that amount in deficit reduction over 10 years in order to compensate for the next bump up in the debt ceiling.

A meeting of the minds isn’t likely because, even behind closed doors, Democrats refuse to address the real drivers of our debt: Medicare and Medicaid. Real discretionary spending cuts are just as unlikely.

Both sides will be saying the sky is falling if the supercommittee doesn’t reach a deal, but the drama is contrived. The supercommittee will come to an agreement in time, with smoke-and-mirror spending “cuts” in the out years. There will be no change to entitlement programs. Republicans will fall for empty promises and trade tax hikes for future tax reform that will never happen.

It’s business as usual in Washington, and that’s why our $15 trillion national debt continues to grow.

So, as it stands, there will likely be no cuts, no changes, no reform in any of the entitlement programs, so the automatic triggers will be aimed directly at Defense spending. I wouldn’t argue that there can’t be considerable cuts there, but to skip the leading drivers for political ease is irresponsible governance.

Rush elaborated on this topic in today’s program, explaining the latest on how “Democrats are trying to play a trick on the super committee by taking the savings from all the money that we're spending on the wars that we didn't expect to spend and we're now gonna save that money by spending it on other things.” What?!  Exactly, follow this...

The money that we don't have that we're spending on wars would be saved and spent on other things. That's the Democrat plan here, the super committee to avoid $500 billion in Medicare cuts and defense cuts. So we're gonna take money that we don't have, that we're spending on the wars, and then spend it on other things. And it appears from one source that I looked at today that the Republicans might go along with this.

But it's smoke and mirrors to the max. Taking money that we don't have that we're spending on the wars? The theory is, "Yeah, these wars have gone on much longer than anybody thought. So we're gonna stop those wars, and then we're gonna take that money that would otherwise have been spent and we'll spend that on other things." We don't have the money we're spending on the wars, period. We're in hock. So it's a smoke and mirrors trick, typical of Washington, where there won't be any cuts. They'll just reallocate the money that we don't have that we're spending on wars that will mythically now end and not need the money, then we'll spend that money on other things. It's just convoluted as it can be.

Once again, Congress, whether all 535 members or a committee of 12, allow these deadlines to run down to the wire, and present Obama with the opportunity to appear as the big man in the room, turning the screws tighter, and using the media wing to push his will:

“My hope is that over the next several days, the congressional leadership on the supercommittee go ahead and bite the bullet and do what needs to be done because the math won’t change,” Obama told reporters at a press conference. “There’s no magic formula. There are no magic beans that you can toss in the ground and suddenly a bunch of money grows on trees. We’ve got to just go ahead and do the responsible thing.”

The responsible thing? That would be to CUT SPENDING NOW, sir. Yes, that includes your precious.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Mark Levin: "Ameritopia" (UPDATES)

Last week, I posted a discussion about Levin's keynote address at AFP's Defending the American Dream summit.  It was speculation then, and I believed he confirmed it on his radio program, that much of what he discussed might be a chapter in his new book.  Well, tonight Levin revealed the title of his new book, as well as a preview of its topic in the broadest of terms permissible by his publishers at this early date!  The book is called Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America and is set to release on January 7th, 2012.  Be sure to click the Amazon link and reserve your copy today (available for preorder)!

Here's the revealing monologue from Monday evening's program...

UPDATES: The following Monday (11/21), Mark decided to dig into the introduction of his new book, considering where America and its government currently reside...

Also to note, Amazon has reduced the price of the's now 40% off!  Pre-order yours today.

CBS/National Journal debate highlights

Anybody watch this one?  Yeah, me neither; it was Saturday for crying out loud!  However, I've caught most of the highlights and have since gone back and watched a good portion of it.  As with the last debate that specifically focused on a particular topic (the economy), this one resembled the same, focusing solely on foreign policy.  I seldom agree with any of the pundits, but this time I'll let'em have one: the strong suit goes to Gengrich and Romney (experienced and learned, respectively); however, even those with less foreign policy knowledge, like Cain and Perry, held their own.  Almost all the candidates made this one about the failed policies of Obama (I use 'almost' to differentiate Ron Paul's limited rants on American isolationism, as well as referring to a practice that's subjected to our military members as 'torture' when used as an interrogation tool against terrorists).

The evening kicked off with Iran and the bomb

Pakistan: Friend or Foe?

Perry: All countries start at zero foreign aid

Bachmann on increasing military spending

Cain on dealing with the Arab Spring

Full debate can be viewed here.

This morning, Rush pointed out this memorable moment between Newt and the all too familiar combative liberal moderator...

Scott Pelley at this debate Saturday night was amazing to watch. This is the anchor of the CBS Evening News, and he thought he had Newt Gingrich twisted in circles over foreign policy. At one point, Pelley got this contorted, smug, all full-of-himself smile on his face while he could not have been more wrong about something. Newt slapped him down and put him in his place, but Pelley to this moment doesn't know that that's what happened!

But with Big Media, most of whom I'm uncertain even realize anymore just how blatantly biased they are (e.g., like this guy, or a major news outlet pulling this crap), it's not surprising that they'd be so misguided.  Nonetheless, debate performances like these, I'm certain, give rise to Gengrich's poll numbers.

However, I can't complete this post without making one noticable observation. If Gengrich becomes the anti-Romney candidate, then the political establishment on the Right certainly has nothing to fear of its status-quo future. My biggest fear is that with nominees like either, the acceleration of statism carried out by our current president will only be shifted into a lower gear, and not ratched down & fully reversed.  America's economy can't withstand that, and perhaps that's why it supercedes hypotheticals on foreign policy in the coming election.