Where Too Much of Our Taxpayer Dollars Go

I have two thoughts after seeing this video.  First, I strongly suspect that the gentleman being questioned by Judge Judy is not an atypical abberation of those receiving tax payer dollars, or "stipends" as he calls it, but rather makes up a significant proportion of those that we tax payers are supporting.

Second, I think Judge Judy should be on a short list for consideration for filling the next Supreme Court vacancy. 

...Says the Big Huge Hypocritical Pot to the Kettle

Does Barack Obama have absolutely no sense of shame whatsoever?  Wait!  No need to answer that question!  Just watch the video below that left me flabbergasted. 

Once again, Obama was right with some of his critical rhetoric when he was campaigning as Senator Obama.  Evidently when we elected him to be president, he forgot those principles upon which he ran and actually decided to try to trump all of the egregious governmental spending of his predecessor of whom he correctly chastised for having done so. 

I am sure glad that he was going to change Washington D.C.  I think we all just assumed that he meant in the opposite direction, instead of deeper into irresponsibility and fiscal insanity.  Indeed if by President Obama's accounting, George W. Bush was unpatriotic for his borrowing and spending, then does that make Obama's even greater spending in half of the time "treasonous"?

Breaking News

President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line apparently known as "Bush's Fault". 

The President also announced that Maxine Waters along with the Secret Service are conducting an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the Tea Party.

Conservatives have responded suggesting it was caused by the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

Farrakhan Says American Soldiers Are Terrorists, Not Fort Hood Shooter

The vile, despicable, and frankly just flat-out evil Louis Farrakhan has really outdone himself this time.  While never being a bulwark of sanity or tolerance, this anti-Semitic, anti-military, anti-American has reached new depths.

In his latest diatribe he claims how, according to an old NPR report, female American soldiers are often the targets of rape and sexual harassment in astonishing percentages by their male counterparts.  Never mind the suspect numbers from the reliably progressive tax-payer-funded National Politburo Radio don't even come close to being on par with Department of Defense statistics, the execrable Farrakhan continues on to postulate that if male American soldiers are willing to rape female American soldiers, then they must just be having a field day in their capacity as an occupying army with the Muslim women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He further goes on to say that the soldiers that returned home to Fort Hood Texas had pangs of guilt for their actions and thus confessed these crimes to Muslim army major and psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan.  It was the constant and continuous confessions from these American soldiers of their wanton rape and abuse of Muslim women that caused Major Hasan to lash out in righteous rage against these terrorists and go on his murderous shooting rampage that killed 14 people and wounded 29 others in November of 2009, so says "Minister" Farrakhan.

Now, I imagine that there are indeed American soldiers that are guilty of such horrendous crimes, but they are extremely rare and punishment of such crimes when discovered is exceptionally severe under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  If anything is true it is that our brave American troops typically put themselves in great danger of losing life or limb in adhering to very restrictive rules of engagement specifically in order to protect civilian life. Our military is comprised of professional soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen.  They are not the hordes of Genghis Khan that Senator John Kerry accused them of being in Vietnam.  Having served in the first gulf war, I was very proud of the conduct and professionalism of the men I served with there.  The duty of the American military is to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to make war.  It is not to rape and plunder, nor has it ever been in our history. 

Atrocities occur, and when they do, they should be and are harshly dealt with accordingly.  Louis Farrakhan's implication that murder and rape are the standard operating procedure of the United States armed forces is disgusting and unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever. Woe to him who calls good, evil and evil, good, "Minister" Farrakhan.  

Now I am all for free speech, even of such falsehoods and outrageous and despicable fabrications as what Louis Farrakhan has just spewed forth here.  That said, how does this fool have any credibility with anybody other than those that want to believe these lies based on their faith in such things and an abject hatred of all things American?

.

Ranking the G.O.P. Nominees

Last evening, eight G.O.P. presidential hopefuls took part in the Republican primary debate in Ames Iowa, just ahead of the crucial-for-some Iowa poll.  This debate was a decided contrast to the previous one in that the questions asked by the moderators were tough and the candidate tried to better differentiate themselves from their opponents, sometimes by verbally attacking each other.  That said, following is my own interpretation and opinions on who I thought were the winners, who were the losers, and how I currently would rank them in my own order of preference for president.

 #1 Michele Bachmann – Bachmann struck me once again that she is a fighter.  She isn’t timid or worried about political correctness, while still coming across as a gentle lady.  She was the one that struck me as perhaps being the most principled on all topics, especially regarding our economy.  She has always been at the forefront of every fight on major issues in congress, and on the right side of those fights.  She is smart, savvy, and doesn’t come across as a “politician” in the usual connotation of the word.  Because of her fighting spirit and her uncompromising principled stand on the issues, she is currently my first choice for president.

#2 Rick Santorum – Santorum impressed me last night.  I have always admired him, particularly his strong pro-life stance, but last night he came across as more energetic and charismatic than the typical vanilla personality he has displayed in the past.  Santorum is right on all of the issues, particularly regarding his strong view of supporting states rights while still acknowledging that there are definitely core principles that should be enforced on a federal level for all states.  Rick doesn’t have a chance at winning the nomination, as even he admitted that he typically gets scant media coverage, however his performance last night rooted in principle makes him sky-rocket to 2^nd place on my list.  He would make a good V.P. nomination, especially coming from the crucial swing-state of Pennsylvania.

#3 Herman Cain – Mr. Cain brings something to the debate that has been sorely lacking in the past.  He is a non-politician.  He is a no-nonsense businessman with a record of success.  He rightly points out, especially with economic matters, that we cannot fix the problem until we have identified and are working on the right danged problem.  I also am impressed with the fact that he is not afraid to rely on experts that know more than he does on subjects, particularly the generals when it comes to fighting in the Middle East.  Instead of BS’ing his way through some answer to make one believe he is a subject matter expert, he tells the truth.  That is refreshing and typically very un-politician like.  I think we could do far worse in fixing our economic ills than to elect this savvy straight talking businessman to the White House.

#4 Newt Gingrich – When it comes to issues, over-all knowledge, and proper historical context, nobody surpasses Gingrich.  His answers impressed me most and proved that he has the specific ideas and fire in the belly to be an excellent president.  He stated in the post-debate interview that the House should return to work on Monday and repeal the Dodd-Frank Bill that day, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley on Tuesday, and remove restrictions on energy exploration on Wednesday and then ask the Senate if they are going to remain on vacation until November or come back to work and fix the economy now.  Newt would be my first choice for president and would do an excellent job except for one major thing.  His personal life and political baggage are a mess and make him unelectable.  His poor choices and seeming lack of integrity in his personal life make him a non-starter.  Too bad, because things would get done and for the better, if only Gingrich would live by the values he espoused.  Nevertheless, Gingrich was the winner of the debate last night.

#5 Mitt Romney – I know it is conventional wisdom that the nomination for president is Mitt’s to lose.  I am not a fan of conventional wisdom in this case.  I thought Romney did a good job in the debate, looked, sounded, and acted very presidential and for the most part had good answers.  Unfortunately, I do not trust him.  Romney would even embarrass John Kerry in the flip flopping department, and on core principles (abortion and government health care for instance).  This makes Romney look like a slick used-car salesman that will say anything to get the sale.  A lot of conservatives aren’t buying his line.  Unfortunately, a lot of the establishment is and that is likely why he will end up being our nominee.  If Romney holds fast to his latest version of his truth, then things will likely work out fine for our country.  If he goes searching for approval in the polls and doing what is politically expedient, then we are hosed with a Romney presidency.

#6 Tim Pawlenty – I was never very fond of Pawlenty right from the start.  He strikes me as the consummate smarmy politician.  His attacks on Michele Bachmann in the debate last night only solidified my opinion.  He criticized Bachmann for not getting results despite her being at the forefront of every major political fight.  While Pawlenty is right about her lack of results, his implied solution is that she needs to learn to compromise.  Now compromise can be okay if it advances one’s important agenda without sacrificing one’s core values; however, political compromise simply to get “results” of some legislation passed in which to show that you have done “something” is exactly how we end up with horrible legislation like the recent debt-ceiling bill.  Pawlenty is more about having something tangible to point towards, rather than standing on certain core principles.  Pawlenty didn’t help his cause last night and is hopefully done accordingly.

#7 Jon Huntsman – Huntsman is the former governor of my current home state of Utah.  While he did some good things economically for Utah and did create jobs here, he is a big-government Republican of the worst type.  His support for TARP and for cap & trade are examples of this.  I don’t have a problem with his having served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China.  I do have a problem with the fact that he seems to think like Obama in that the answer to all of our problems can usually be taken care of with a government program.  Huntsman also did little to help his cause in the debate last night and hopefully can return to relative national obscurity soon.  Besides, he sounded as if he was going to cry last night as he repeatedly said how he was “proud to stand on his record”.

#8 Ron Paul – First, I was surprised at the vocal support that Paul received from the crowd last night, and indeed he is doing well in the Iowa polls.  Paul is a walking contradiction to me though.  He understands the economy and the systemic changes needed to fix it probably better than anybody else.  The problem is that his foreign policy is horrible and dangerous.  He “understands” why Iran wants nuclear weapons and evidently doesn’t think it is a big deal, despite the fact that their President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.  I understand and can appreciate not wanting to get involved in foreign entanglements, but Paul’s call to neo-isolationism in this world of jihadists today is foolish and dangerous to America, not to mention an existential threat to the very existence of our only stable democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Well, there you have it.  T. Paine’s analysis of where the candidates stand for the Republican nomination in my own personal opinion.  I doubt seriously that this will fall in line with the media’s rankings or thoughts on who won the debate last night, and frankly I could care less.  I did come away last night feeling better about some of the top candidates in the field though.  I think any of my top four would do a good job as president.

 I am irritated that Rick Perry, who is going to run now, decided he didn’t need to jump in the race in time to partake in last night’s debate.  Perhaps that is a smart move politically, but it cost him points in my book.  It will be interesting to see who is left standing after the group gets whittled down in the next month or two.  Hopefully this isn’t merely an exercise of going through the motions because Romney has already been pre-determined to be the nominee.  We do not need another moderate politician.  We tried that with Dole, Bush, and McCain.  None of them were successful overall.  The left managed to nominate and get elected the most liberal senator in the nation to the White House.  After his incompetence and aloofness towards the handling of vital issues, I think a true conservative candidate is what is needed to repair the mess created by the man-child-in-chief accordingly.

Thought of the Day

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.

Obama Caught in the Dragnet

Progressives Redefining Civility

It was only a mere seven months back, and yet it seems like a lifetime ago, that on January 8th of this year a mentally deranged young man named Jared Loughner killed six people and injured several others in Tucson Arizona. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seemingly his primary target, but thankfully she survived. A federal judge and a nine year old girl were among the victims that did not survive.


Many of the pundits, politicians, and various talking heads from the left immediately received the DNC talking points memo on what their take should be on the event. Okay, not really, but the solidarity from the left immediately in the aftermath of the murderous rampage was definitely impressive. This heinous act was attributed to the right’s incivility in its political discourse. We need to stop with the hate speech, especially from the right side of the political spectrum, we were all subsequently lectured. We need to disagree in an agreeable manner. We all need to be civil. Are you hateful Republicans (I realize that 'hateful' and 'Republican' is redundant to the left) and various conservatives listening? They were talking to YOU!

Fast forward a little over half a year and evidently those appeals to civility in the political process can all be completely abandoned, at least for our brothers and sisters on the left.

President Obama made a beautiful speech right after that horrific event in Tucson last January. He eloquently stated, “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

One can only assume the Obama’s Vice President must not have been listening, or at least did not take to heart the soaring rhetoric towards civility as championed by President Obama that day. Indeed during the fractious debate over the recent debt ceiling situation, Vice President Joe Biden agreed with the vitriolic words spewed from Congressman Mike Doyle’s mouth at a two-hour closed door Democratic caucus meeting the other day when he proclaimed that the Tea Party was nothing more than “terrorists”. So much for civility towards those that think differently than we do.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room. Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals. So evidently in Representative Doyle’s (D) honorable opinion, a terrorist is someone that won’t let him spend any of the tax-payers' money! Amazing.

One can only imagine the outrage from the statist media and all good folks on the left had Vice President Cheney ever said such things about his political adversaries, and understandably and deservedly so. Indeed they likely would be calling for his resignation, again rightly so. Biden’s latest “gaffe” hardly attracts notice for even a day in contrast. Once again the double standards between the two parties is rather stark in comparison.

Aside from this disgraceful lack of civility, evidently the left has also changed the definition of one of the words in the English language yet again too. Now, according to our Vice President, various other elected Democratic officials, and many in the statist media, a terrorist also has the alternate definition of someone that believes in governing by the dictates of the Constitution, the curtailing of spending money we do not have, and the stopping of the creation of money out of thin air. Indeed, I think we should create a Progressive dictionary to which we could add this entry:

terrorist (noun): 1) a person who supports responsible government, especially regarding budget and debt issues. 2) someone who supports a balanced budget. 3) a Tea Party member. 4) a Republican that is not willing to negotiate their principles. 5) someone who is conservative. 6) anyone who does not support the Obama / Reid / Pelosi liberal agenda.

It is ironic that Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s return and first vote since being shot back in January occurred in the midst of this swirling storm of hateful and uncivil speech from some of her own Democratic colleagues. I guess civility is only a word denoting a tactic intended to silence opposition and dissent from the right and not actually something of which the left actually agrees with in practice. I guess that is another re-defined term that we can add to the Progressive dictionary too.

A Picture Instead of a Thousand Words

H/T: Carrie