The Right Message

With all the scandals in Washington D. C. -- the IRS probe, Benghazi cover up, HHS Secretary Sebelius' solicitations for Obama care, and the Justice Department's seizure of phone records of AP and FOX reporters -- it's been hard to know what's going on in America's "District" these days.  Wait a few days, and new denials are sure to come out.

One thing you don't have to wait for is President Obama denying any involvement in any of them.  In fact, he's as surprised as the rest of us when someone leaks the latest scandal.  "This is the first I've heard of it" should become his official motto.  How is it possible the most powerful person in America doesn't know what's going on?  And why was he missing in action the night of the Benghazi attack?

As tempting as it would be to harness our energies against President Obama, I think it would be a big mistake to go after him.  With the midterm elections coming up in 2014, conservatives need to focus their message on one thing:  TRUST.

If we can get the American people to lose trust in Obama and other big government types, we might be able to save this county from an early demise.

In my job as a sales professional, trust is the one thing I have to work at everyday.  Every single time. If my clients lose trust in me or what I am saying, I will lose them as a customer.  And getting them back will be harder than ever (if not impossible).  We need to let the public see these scandals for what they are -- arrogance, abuse of power and in some cases, even criminal.

Take the IRS for example.  Nothing embodies BIG government -- and the abusive administrative state -- like the Internal Revenue Service.  They implement much of the country's social policy through a complicated set of tax codes which control every aspect of our personal and business lives.  The limitless power of the IRS makes it easy for them to snoop, harass and destroy lives.  The agency employs three times the number of people who work for the FBI and has detailed information on every taxpayer in the nation -- including your Social Security number and those of your children, every place you work, how much you make, what you invest in, with whom you do business, the cost of your mortgage and your financial account numbers.  And the IRS answers to no one.

People like President Obama -- who want to bring change to America -- use it to mold the fabric of our lives and to influence political decisions, appointments and elections (as was done through the harassment of conservative and Tea party non-profits).

Now that someone has leaked the truth about the IRS, what should we expect out of Washington?  Don't wait for the IRS to correct itself.  This week's hearings have shown the utter contempt and disrespect Steven Miller, Loris Lerner and Sarah Hall Ingram have for us.   These people have so much power that they don't have to offer any answers, apologies or resignations.  That's not right and the average voter needs to know it.  Tying Obama to the IRS scandal would be nice, but shedding light on big government agencies like the IRS is even better.

Another example should be made of the Justice Department and Eric Holder's involvement in the seizure of phone and email records of reporter's at Fox News and the Associated Press.

The Justice Department's investigations involved a Fox News report that described the thinking of U.S. intelligence officials about North Korea, and one about Associated Press stories that the government said compromised a covert agent helping U.S. forces against al Qaeda in Yemen.

On the heels of the failed "Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation, the Justice Department is a prime example of BIG government losing the trust of the American people.  Making this example even better is the concern coming out of the media and some moderate Democrats.

"It seems clear to me that the actions of the department have in fact impaired the First Amendment," Representative Zoe Lefgren, D-Cailforina, said earlier this month.  "Reporters who might have previously believed that a confidential source would speak to them would no longer have that level of confidence."

Holder's reaction is typical of how things are handled in Washington these days.  Initially claim ignorance, then claim it was a misunderstanding, then say it won't happen again.  Holder is typical of this government's refusal to take responsibility while shielding the president from further scrutiny.  As USA Today reported earlier this month, he is a "sin eater" for President Obama, shielding him from controversies involving the Justice Department, CIA and FBI.

Not surprising, the right is furious about this violation of our first amendment rights.  Fox News chief Roger Ailes responded to the Justice Department's investigation by condemning the Obama administration's choices.

Will justice be served?

"We reject the government's efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a "Co-conspirator" in a crime.  I know how concerned you are because you have asked... why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member?"

Again, I wouldn't focus solely on Eric Holder, although he did personally approve of the search of Fox New's  reporter James Rosen.  Conservatives must educate the average voter that this administration's Justice Department represents government without restraint, willing to violate our first amendment rights without apology or regret.

What the Justice Department has done is really one of the biggest threat to journalism in more than 30 years.  With luck, more media types (NY Times, Washington Post, AP) will call them on it.

In the end, the question is whether Americans want to live and prosper in a free society.  What the Obama administration has done is demonstrate that government intervention threatens our liberties in multiple ways.  These scandals seize our resources to pay for his progressive ideology.  We we are able to see -- yet again -- that public officials are tempted to use their power to reward friends and punish enemies like the Tea Party and conservatives.

Most Americans agree that BIG government is not good.  As Obama's former chief of staff,  Rahm Emanuel, is famous for saying, we must not let this crisis (scandal) go to waste.   Those who favor a smaller government must make "trust" the cornerstone of next year's political elections.

Dumb and Dumber

Liberals have been making a big deal about a study last year by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland called "Misinformation and the 2010 Election:  A Study of the U.S. Electorate."  In the study, consisting of 848 New Jersey voters, it was reported that watchers of FOX News were less informed on a number of election issues --  including stimulus, health reform law, climate change, income taxes and TARP.

The left hasn't been this elated since Chaz Bono completed gender reassignment surgery, which means they're having orgasms telling their friends and family on social websites.  Headlines scream:  "Watching FOX NEWS makes you stupid!"  Comments on Face book snicker:  "See I told you so. Sarah Palin really was an idiot and people's decision to vote against Barrack Obama was based on blatant lies and racism."

Rest assured, like all things in partisan politics, the left is only giving you the part that justifies their beliefs.

To start, the study was based on questions asked during an election year, when political ads fill the air waves like mosquitoes  drawn to the scent of blood.  If anyone can find the truth in these ads they deserve a week's vacation in Hawaii.   The possibility that  hot election issues like health care, taxes and the economy could be compromised isn't beyond believing.  Voters should know better than to believe most things coming out of mouths of politicians; perhaps it needs to apply to commentary news channels like FOX, MSNBC, CNN and NPR, as well.

After further review, the study didn't say viewers of FOX NEWS were dumb, just less informed than others.  In other words, the information coming from FOX NEWS was partial, incomplete or less comprehensive.  This suggests that the results are not based on a conservative tilt, as people who voted Democratic and watched FOX NEWS were also more likely to be misinformed.

The study also showed that viewers of MSNBC and CNN news fared only slightly better in many cases.  The second worse source was MSNBC, which was worse than FOX viewers on one of three questions and second worse on another.  Viewers of NPR, the love child of many an informed liberal, were deemed no better or worse than someone who watched no news at all.


World Public Opinion's interpretation of the answers is also interesting.  Take these three sample questions for example:

Will the health reform law increase the deficit?  The correct answer is no, based on President Obama's "assurance " that savings coming from the existing health care plan will offset the cost of the overhaul health bill.  Huh?  Just because the president says savings will offset costs, makes it true?  When was the last time any bill from Washington SAVED money?  Give me a break.

Is the economy getting worse?  Again, the correct answer is no, but since when is 9% unemployment, a looming deficit, increasing inflation and regulatory attacks on small business an indication of a growing economy?  And if you lost your job or know someone who did -- do you feel like things are getting better?

Is climate change occurring?  the study's answer is yes.  But who's to know if the changes occurring now didn't occur 10,000 years ago?  And the real question should be "Is man responsible for climate change?"  There is serious doubt about who's to blame, as recent emails continue to raise questions about global warming.

So this study may raise questions about what we are watching on FOX NEWS, but it doesn't prove anything about the intelligence of the people watching.  And while FOX NEWS does have some work to do, the rest of the mainstream media is not blameless.

So why is it that liberals think they're smarter than everyone else?  Or, why are they so quick to think conservatives are stupid?

Can you think of a recent Republican candidate who wasn't classified as some kind of bumbling fool?  Remember how President Reagan was just an actor, and President Bush couldn't put two coherent sentences together?  How about Sarah Pail, who was relentlessly attacked by the elite news media and comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, David Letterman and Comedy Central.

I can still see ABC's Charlie Gibson (looking over his reading spectacles) condescendingly asking Palin, "When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia.  Are those sufficient credentials?"  Did he ever ask Obama that question?  What were his qualifications?

Or how about CBS's Katie Couric, acting so nice, then stabbing her in the back by asking, "And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this -- to stay informed and to understand the world? ... which ones specifically.  I'm curious.  ... can you name any of them?"  I'm curious, Katie, did you drive CBS' broadcast ratings into the toilet all by yourself or did you have help? 


"Serious" news anchors like Gibson and Couric (both gone), and NBC's Williams and ABC's Sawyer must just pull their hair out when they see the ratings of FOX NEWS.  How is it possible for its viewership to increase, while the three major network news telecasts continue to shrink?  The only answer must be that the viewers are stupid.  A box of bricks.  A teabag short of a pot.  Bright as Alaska in winter.

For the left, the contrast between viewer's intelligence must be attributed to the following:

Broad-mindedness.   Liberals think conservatives are close minded, not open to new ideas and lifestyles, etc.  It's so bad that Dictionary.Com lists three definitions for "narrow-minded":  1) having or showing a prejudiced mind; biased, 2) not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind, and 3) extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.  It also features a list of synonyms, specifically "bigoted, partial, intolerant and illiberal."  No wonder conservatives are viewed as ignorant and stupid.

Ego.  Liberals control education -- many probably wish they were still in college.  This morning I listened to a guest on NPR who was talking about the need to tax the rich.  This guest was 1) liberal, 2) an educator and 3) an expert on economics.  To my way of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to try talking to an actual business owner who has to find the means to pay his employees, provide health insurance and pay taxes?

This academic background, while making liberals educated, doesn't make them smart.  But it does boost their egos.  For axample, look at a potential match up of Newt Gingrich versus Barrack Obama.   West Georgia College teacher vs graduate of Columbia, Harvard Law, and editor of the Law Review Journal.  Which one would you expect to use a tele prompter for help?

Empathy.  Liberals think they are sympathetic and "in tune" to people in need.  That makes them smarter.  The political left looks to validate their "feelings"by appealing to the needs of those who can't take care of themselves without the intervention of big government.  "I'm smart, so I need to help those less fortunate.  For them, our ignorance -- represented by greed, hatred and bigotry-- is a by-product of conservatism because it isn't sympathetic to the problems of minorities, gays, immigrants and the poor.

Conservative certainty.   Many on the right have confidence in things like religion, family values and our military.  Liberals struggle with the concept of believing in God.  Faith without proof conforms to their idea that conservatives are blind to fact or science.  Liberals also have trouble with our positions on abortion, gays and marriage (certainty about life, love and commitment is further proof of our ignorance).  And fighting a necessary war requires honor, dedication and heroism -- foreign concepts to a liberal's gray (not black and white) thinking.

The left hates FOX NEWS because it is popular.  Number one in ratings for cable television, easily beating CNN, MSNBC and considered a rising threat to CBS, NBC and ABC.  Anything they can do to discredit the organization must be done.  The monopoly that these news organizations have had for the last forty years has come to an end.  They can't understand why FOX NEWS continues to succeed.

In conclusion, the left are an intolerant bunch --contrary to being open minded-- who fall back to calling people who disagree with them (especially if they watch FOX NEWS) stupid.

On Being a Democrat: Donkey Hypocrisy

The Democratic Party, has for many years, touted itself as the party of tolerance and open-mindedness.  Look up democratic ideals in some Democrat Party manifesto and you find words like compassionate, progressive and fair.  Based on what I've seen over my lifetime, I'd have to add another word --  hypocritical.

Actually, if I could chose a few more word to describe a democrat, I'd include: parasitic, elitist and destructive.

I don't know if it's the delusional Occupy Wall Street crowd that has me riled up, but I just can't take anything the donkey party says anymore as being truthful. President Obama wants to tax the rich and then takes millions from Wall Street donors, Senator Reed lies about private sector job growth and the media doesn't challenge his assertions, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson gets on the air to talk about black economic injustice, then retires to a thirty-seven thousand square foot mansion worth $15 million.

So it's time we look at these hypocrites for what they really are, social engineers who manipulate our taxes, religion, race and the environment to shape a world of their dreams, while ignoring their own reality.

Courtesy of www.sodahead.com

Taxes.
Always a hot issue, but because of Obama's feverish attack on the rich, it's especially interesting to study the actions (reality) of democrats when it comes to paying higher taxes.  Recently some big time Democrats were saying that "paying taxes is patriotic" or "what you do to be an American."  In donkey speak that means poor children are starving to death and schools are going broke because the rich aren't paying their fair share.

Meanwhile, then-Senator Tom Daschle failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes, Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner also failed to pay taxes he owed, Senator John Kerry tried to avoid taxes on his million dollar yacht by building it in a low-tax state, and Representative Chuck Rangel  (the chairman of the House Ways & Means committee which spends our tax dollars!) was convicted for dodging taxes.  Not surprising, all of them said they had forgotten to pay their taxes until it became public knowledge.  And instead of being in jail like normal tax cheats, they continue to represent their constituents in Congress and the Obama Administration.

Outside of Washington D.C., super rich Democrats like rap producer Russell Simmons, rapper Kayne West and Hollywood millionaires like Bette Midler and Alec Baldwin called for fairness, saying that they would be happy to pay more in taxes.  That is, until someone asks them to send a check to Washington if they want to pay more.  At which point , these boneheads immediately pucker-up and say, "I WON'T SEND THEM A CHECK, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY MONEY TO GO THE THE BIG WAR MACHINE AND OTHER THINGS."  Uh, sorry, guys but you don't get to say where you're money goes and what it gets spent on.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be great if we could decide that our tax money wasn't going to pay for abortions, transgender sex operations and expensive oversea trips by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her entourage?

Hypocrites!

Religion.
Nothing separates dream from reality like the tolerance Democrats plead for when it comes to arts, literature, sexual preferences ... and religion.  You can't throw a brick in Wisconsin without hitting someone who will remind you about separation of church and state, before handing out a democrat registration card.   It's alright to put a crucifix in a glass of urine and call it art, but don't try to include a silent prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.  Every year there are lawsuits filed by atheist groups who say religious monuments can't be left on public land because it violates separation of church and state.

Why are liberals so afraid of religion?  And in particular, why do people who claim to be SO tolerant of things suddenly find it offensive to pray to God?  I'm still in amazement at the list of complaints filed in La Crosse court by members of a local food coop who wanted a monument of the ten commandments moved from a nearby public park.  "Even though I don't look at it, I still get ill thinking about that monument every time I ride my bike by the park," one atheist claimed.  Another moaned, "I can't sleep at night because of that monument.  I'm getting ill."

Is it because liberals refuse to acknowledge right and wrong, or a higher power that condemns their lies and misrepresentations?  I work with someone who said to me once that she was so appreciative of the things a pastor said for her mother's funeral.  I think it's one of the few times she had ever been in church, and it's probably the last time she's been there since.  So with her, religion is a necessity (and something beautiful) when someone dies, but every other day it's just another impediment to her way of life.

About the only time these hypocrites are comfortable with religion is when someone will say "But if Jesus was alive today, he would..."  As an example, I read recently that someone at CNN said that Jesus would be down at Occupy Wall Street because he was always on the side of the poor and disadvantaged.  It may be that Jesus often helped the disabled, needy and simple, but I doubt very much that he would appreciate the sinful lives many of these protesters lead.  In a Democrat's view, Jesus isn't someone to worship -- just someone to use as a roadblock to Republican efforts to promote self reliance.

More hypocrisy!

Cain -- not black enough?

Race.
The election of President Obama should have opened the door to better race relations between Democrats and Republicans, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.  Every time someone is critical of Obama, Democrats bring out the RACE card.  Ignore the failed policies, debt and socialist agenda -- people are just racists, who can't get past Obama's skin color.

I've said it many times before, but the only party that seems obsessed with skin color is the Democrat Party.  That applies to Hispanics, African-American or Muslims.  Some of the most over the top racial comments come from Democrats who are critical of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Juan Williams, Bill Cosby and most recently presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Liberal Harry Belafonte recently criticized Cain's comments about how racism isn't holding black people back:  Belafonte said, "It's very hard to comment on someone who is so denied intelligence.  Someone who has denied such a view of history."   This jackass continued, "Because he happened to have good fortune hit him, he had a moment where he broke through... does not make him the authority of the plight of people with color."

"The Republican party, the Tea Party, all those forces to the extreme right have consistently tried to come up with representations of what they call black, what they call the real Negroes," he said, citing Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell.  "Herman Cain is just the latest incarnation of what is totally false to the needs of our nation.  I think he's a bad apple, and people should look at his hole card, he's not what he says he is."

So a black Republican telling black minorities to pull themselves up and make something of their lives IS NOT what this county needs, huh?  I guess they would prefer to keep them dependent on government handouts and failed minority programs.  Democrats don't believe minority Hispanics and blacks are capable of taking care of themselves (think housing, education and marriage).  Therefore, someone with a positive message must be an impostor.

There is something seriously wrong with Democrats like Harry Belafonte.  And it isn't his skin color.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines hypocrisy as the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.  I can't think of better examples than the actions of Obama, 1/2 of Congress and most of Hollywood.  Democrats, every one.

Occupy Protesters Need a Clue

As I listen to the crowds that are part of Occupy Wall Street, an image comes to mind:   a clip from NFL Films where the legendary Green Bay Packers football coach Vince Lombardi stands on the sidelines shouting, "WHAT THE HELL'S GOIN' ON OUT THERE?"

Who's to blame?

After watching some of the most drug-induced, Woodstock-inspired videos and news reports,  I'm convinced that Occupy (fill in the blank) protesters are clueless to why they are there, much less what makes the working world work.  Statistics indicate that these protesters are mostly under the age of 29.  College drop outs, unemployed youth and students made up the majority of the first Occupy Wall Street sit downs, but it has since been co-oped by labor unions, 1960's Vietnam era protest organizers and celebrity millionaire activists who want to "get down with the people."  Democrats by a wide margin.  Government-dependent, spoiled, and easily controlled through socialist and fascist mind speak.  The Communist Party USA, millionaire film maker Michael Moore, the American Nazi Party, billionaire George Soros and Acorn have put their stamp of approval on these protests.  Of course, the mainstream media are doing their best to make these camp-outs a legitimate news story, unlike the treatment they gave last year's tea party protests.

It's hard to take these people seriously, but someone has to do it:  so what is really behind these protests?  

It seems to me that all of this came to a head after President Obama vilified the rich (1%) by saying that they were not paying their fair share.  Sounds like another attempt to take from someone who has something and give to someone else who doesn't -- be it a job, good benefits, an education, a home or a paycheck.

For those who know President Obama's background, this is part of his plan, advocating a classless society through the removal of economic differences.  As he says in his book, Dreams From My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance -- "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we.. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now... "

University-educated youth have been taught this same drivel by liberal professors and are now acting upon it.  Making matters worse,  these students are graduating from college with no job prospects and big debts, leading to cries of unfairness and economic injustice.  With no concept of how money is earned -- and the amount of hard work needed -- they are asking for their fair share.

The age-old concept of fairness has been a staple of democratic politics forever.  As long as it doesn't apply to them, Democrats love to be seen fighting for the poor, the minority and the helpless.  Obama's JOBS bus tour continues to stir this pot, even to the extent that he recently gave the protesters a shout out at a recent campaign stop.

Responding to President Obama's lead, and feeling unfairly treated by banks, schools and the rest of corporate America, the Occupy Wall Street crowd is doing what it does best:  pitch a tent and wait for a hand out.  "Stop corporate greed!  Stop zombie banks, make financiers pay for the depression!" shouts a young woman in lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park, site of the New York city protests.  Someone next to her holds a sign that reads:  "Democracy, not corporacracy."

Let's look at some of their more "rational" (I know they're hard to find) complaints and put them to the test:

The Wall Street bailout. 
It's interesting that the Occupy crowd has chosen to take their fight to Wall Street rather than the White House.  It was Congress who drafted and passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 that provided $700 billion to failing banks that contributed to the recession and cost an estimated $4,635 per working American.  Despite objections by over 100 cities throughout the United States and by a large margin of Americans, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate voted in favor of bailing out private banking companies with taxpayer's money.  And much to my disappointment, President Bush passed it into law.

I don't mean to pass all of the blame away from Wall Street, because they deserve plenty of it for selling these risky mortgages as safe investments.  But they dug themselves a deep hole by ceding to the demands of Washington to include lower lending standards for minorities.  In addition, it was Washington that proposed the eventual take over of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both central to the sub prime mortgage crisis.

Protesters are also conveniently forgetting that President Obama took more money from Wall Street fat cats than any other candidate in our last presidential election.  More than $15 million in contributions to his 2008 election from Wall Street paved the way to friendly bailouts and financial reforms.

Share and share alike.

Student loans amnesty.
Where to get started on this one?  I think one of the funniest videos I've seen from this Occupy Wall Street crowd was one from a student holding up a sign that said "Pay for my tuition!"  He started the video interview by saying that he was there to fight economic injustice, but when asked about his sign, he said that he really thought government should pay for his education.  When asked why, he could only say, "I don't know, it's what I want."  What he wants?  Why not pay for his apartment and car while you're at it?  When pressed by the interviewer, he concluded by saying, "Hey, I can ask for anything I want, so I'm asking for a free education.  Why not?"

Um, maybe because SOMEONE has to pay for it (chances are, his parents are paying for it anyway).

About the only legitimate argument being made on tuition is a 1% Wall Street tax on all financial transactions (including stocks, bonds and derivatives) that would help pay off these student loans.  Legitimate, but not realistic.  This typical socialist thinking is found in comments like this one from a student who told Reuters Television, "I am going to start my life as an adult in debt and that's not fair.  Millions of teenagers across the country are going to start their futures in debt, while all of these corporations are getting money fed all the time and none of us can get any."  Ergo, tax the corporations that are making money and use it to educate the youth of this country.

What are we teaching these people in school?  Obviously not economics.

Jobs, jobs and more jobs.
A final argument coming from Occupy Wall Street is one complaining about jobs.  And I'm not talking about Steve Jobs, who was as CEO of Apple was as big of a capitalist as there ever was (God rest his soul).  There are people in Zuccotti Park who think our financial system is gutting standards, living wages, and jobs in the interest of earning a buck.

Criticism of something called "neoliberalism" is a staple of Occupy Wall Street protests.  A organizer of Occupy Wall Street had this to say:  "Neoliberalism is everywhere, robbing us of decent labor standards, social contracts, living wages and jobs.  It is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."  I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I think he was saying that we have a system in America that allows the 1% to enrich themselves by impoverishing humanity.  By sacrificing jobs, our standard of living and destroying the environment.

A more realistic focus should be on Washington where Obama and Congress have stifled economic growth -- AND JOBS -- by creating harmful regulations that are making the business of making business impossible.  That's not to say that I am in favor of letting Wall Street and other business owners write their own rules (as President Obama would have you believe).  

For example, I read that a chain of restaurants is leaving California because it takes almost two years to open a new restaurant due to lengthy and restrictive regulations.  In the state of Florida, it only takes six months to start a new business.  Guess where the new jobs and construction are going?

And earlier this month, Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) had this to say, "America's small businesses, the backbone of our economy, are facing a huge challenge when it comes to understanding and complying with labor law.  Small business owners are left to contend with an increasingly punitive landscape of overlapping and sometimes conflicting regulations that even a labor lawyer would have trouble interpreting.  The result is a chilling effect on small business growth and hiring."  If we as a country are serious about creating jobs and boosting our economy, it is time for these Wall Street protesters -- and voters -- to start complaining to Washington about these harmful federal regulations.

These protesters need to put away their Guy Fawkes masks and get a clue about what this nation needs.  That means take a shower, get some decent clothes, get off the streets and get Obama out of Washington.

Turning Green (and Feeling Sick)

This week will be remembered for President Obama's stump speech where he said, "If you love me, you will pass this bill!"  Considering his popularity is in a free fall, it's safe to say this "jobs bill" won't be passing anytime soon.

Also making the news is the announcement that Solyndra, a California-based solar panel manufacturer, will file for bankruptcy and lay off more than 1,000 people.  This despite being promoted by President Obama as the poster child for his administration's push into green technology (to the tune of a $535 million federal loan guarantee). This news might actually be shocking if it had produced the level of electricity originally claimed.  As it is, the only jolt coming from this discovery is the continued belief by the Obama administration (and its supporters in the media) that think heavily subsidized technologies like ethanol and solar/wind will ever be successful alternatives to oil and coal.

Solyndra:  Not so hot

(Alright to be fair, solar and wind energy may someday be a viable alternative, but to what extent?  And why must Team Obama use our money to promote alternatives few people want or can afford today?)

But now the Solyndra news is getting worse.  Uncovered emails indicate that the loan was made after pressure coming from the company itself and the White House.  U.S. Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, suggests that Solyndra's situation represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  He said, "There are billions more of this exact kind of spending that came out of the stimulus that will produce these results we fear.  This is misguided policy and crony capitalism at its worst.  (The U.S. Government) shouldn't be picking winners or losers... we should be setting the conditions for economic growth so that the private sector can create jobs."  Ryan concluded, "Washington is not good at picking winners and losers."

It was just 3 months ago, that Time magazine's Michael Grunwald was saying "As for Solyndra, I can report to the Republicans who seemed so concerned about the company's viability that it no longer seems to be on the verge of a humiliating collapse.  I'm sure they will be relieved."  Yeah.  That's how I'm feeling today.  Relieved of more than $500 million dollars that was pissed down the drain leaving me -- and other American taxpayers -- holding the bill.

And now we're being told that the taxpayer is second in line to get their investment out of this failed experiment, thanks to Obama who worked with private investors to put them first.

Isn't it frustrating to think that Obama is enjoying our misery?

Some of you are thinking that I'm being too harsh.  But think about it -- his environmental policies kick us once by adding to our debt by spending taxpayer money on green technologies, then kick us again by restricting the availability of currently viable resources like oil and natural gas.

No more drilling
AP photo/ The Washington Post

Millions of acres of untapped oil and gas are subject to environmental laws and restrictions that make drilling prohibitive.  Much offshore oil recovery is limited or off-limits to U.S. producers, while foreign countries like Cuba, Brazil, Mexico and Russia are aggressively drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.   Where laws don't prohibit oil drilling, regulations and overly complicated environmental studies make oil production very difficult and unprofitable.  And if producers don't engage in these costly studies, they end up in court being sued by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, a big buddy of the Obama Administration.

The result?  The cost of natural gas and oil is driving the cost of heating our homes, filling up the car and buying groceries through the roof.  The cost of a gallon of gas is more than a dollar more today than it was just last year (about $3.75 here in Wisconsin).  No wonder supporters of alternative energy say solar and wind energy is dropping in price while oil and gas continue to go higher.  Not to be conspiratorial, but Obama did say that he wanted the price of gas to go up, he just wasn't happy with how quickly is got there.

Oh, and our taxes are going up too.  And our kids' taxes, and their kids' taxes....

Another exasperating example is the Volt car, being produced by General Motors.  We all know that the Obama Administration -- sorry, the American taxpayer -- bailed out General Motors at a cost of more than $58 billion dollars.  As a result, Obama has placed himself into the middle of the development of an electric car called the Volt, available to anyone willing (or able) to pay $41,000.  For that amount of money here's what you get:

.  No return on investment in gas savings
.  Very limited production and availability (no one wants it)
.  Not appealing to people with long commutes
.  Big, expensive li-ion battery
.  Can you plug in?
.  Very expensive.  Did I mention $41,000?


Once again, our government is providing subsidies to help American consumers buy these vehicles.  The Volt, like solar energy, wind power and ethanol cannot compete on its own merits.  Without a $7,500 rebate, who could afford to buy it?  For someone in the Obama Administration, affordability isn't a deciding factor.  Is it good for the environment?  Does it encourage conservation?  And does it free us from our dependency of foreign energy?  That's what Washington wants.

Government Motors at work

All good ideas, but is it commercially viable, practical and something that the average consumer can afford?  Not likely.  Once again, I have to ask, why is Washington involved in running an automobile company?  They can't balance their own check book, much less General Motors'.

I can hear my older son saying, "But Dad, these are good ideas.  Someday we will need some kind of alternative.  Our current resources are limited and we need to do something before it's too late."

While I may agree that our resources are limited, I don't agree on how quickly, and I don't understand the reasoning behind a government that forces consumers to abandon perfectly GOOD, AFFORDABLE and WORKABLE solutions to our energy needs.    Are people really ready  to buy mercury-filled light bulbs, solar panels that work only half the time and cars that cost far more than they save?  I don't think so.

Our current energy situation reminds me of a book I'm reading called "The Forever War" by Joe Halderman.  The book won numerous science fiction awards for its futuristic depictions of  fighting and war's effect on the military / bureaucracy involved.   In "The Forever War," Halderman envisions a world dramatically different for his main character, William Mandella, who returns to Earth after years of inter-stellar fighting.    Due to various governments' attempts to control society -- population growth, food production, and energy availability -- home is nothing like the place he left.  Instead, there is high unemployment, dangerous mob attacks and violence, and a hyper-inflated cost for food, habitation and weapons.

I'm not suggesting that Washington is trying to give us the equivalence of "The Forever War," but I am saying that by pushing their environmental agenda, Obama and others in Congress are slowly, but surely taking away our freedoms and liberties. Using words like "eco-friendly," "sustainability" and "organic" doesn't change the fact that our lives are being impacted by these authoritarian and restrictive policies.

Unintentional consequences, perhaps.  But undesired consequences, nonetheless.

The Hollow Men

Say what you will about Donald Trump as a candidate for president, but you must admit that he speaks his mind.  Unlike other candidates, he isn't afraid to give you his opinion and get something done.

If only all politicians could be so endowed.

President Obama was recently overheard on an open microphone taunting Republicans by saying "You want to repeal healthcare?  Go at it.  We'll have that debate.  You're not going to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget.  You think we're stupid?"

Reporters also heard him privately rip Wisconsin's very own Paul Ryan, the GOP's Budget Committee chairman who had proposed cutting federal spending.  "Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he's just being America's accountant, "Obama said.  "This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my healthcare bill, but wasn't paid for.... So he's not on the level."

Lincoln
A man of action

Every so often you get a chance to hear what these politicians really think about each other -- and it's no surprise that they can't get anything done.

The lovable persona that is staged on television (shaking hands and holding babies while the U.S. flag flies in the background) or on Sunday morning talk shows (my good friend, Senator McCain) is one of a concerned politician who is "working hard" for the American people.

Unfortunately, that translates into the American voter, since so many politicians are mostly concerned about being re-elected.  So concerned that Democrats (and for the most part Republicans) will 1) do nothing, 2) say nothing and 3) propose nothing that gives the slightest hint of substance.

Isn't it time we get more out of these fraudulent wind bags?

Take our country's national debt -- estimated at 14.2 trillion.  President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker of the House Boehner made daily headlines trying to avoid a government shutdown over the federal budget.  Each participant let it be known that they had a moral responsibility to reign in out-of-control spending while maintaining critical programs needed by the elderly, disabled and children.

In reality, they were fighting for their constituents who demanded that no action be taken on Planned Parenthood and new Obamacare spending (Democrats), raising taxes (Republicans) and almost anything to do with Social Security and Medicare.  Bottom line, with 2011 spending at $3.87 trillion, our fearless representatives are having orgasms over a measly $28 billion in cuts.  Sounds like business as usual in Washington, where every year since 1969 politicians have spent more than they have taken in.

I'm beginning to think every politician in Washington is nothing but an empty suit filled with nausea-inducing sound bites -- like this one from Mr. Boehner, "The biggest accomplishment of the first 100 days is that the spending debate ...  has turned 180 degrees."  How about that?  It's now a major victory to say that "talk" has changed in Washington.  All politicians DO is talk - how is that an accomplishment?

Truth be told, this country is in big trouble unless we can get politicians to do MORE than talk.

Another example of the "meaningless babble" we get from Washington has to do with the high cost of gasoline.  Everyone is feeling pain at the pumps these days -- from commuters and truckers to anyone heating their homes or buying groceries.  Since 2008, the price of a gallon of gasoline has increased from $1.84 to almost $4.00 in most parts of the county.

Naturally this ties in nicely with the country's overall energy strategy, which since the mid-1970's has produced no new oil refineries, and no new nuclear power plants since Three Mile Island in 1970.  Is doing nothing really a strategy, or is it just cowardice on the part of these politicians to avoid taking a stand against environmentalists who would like to see America riding bicycles and heating their homes with ear wax?

So let's play the blame game -- something else politicians are good at.

Who's responsible?  Local and national media would have you believe one of the following:  1) Obama, whose restrictions on drilling for new oil in the United States means we can't even take advantage of our own resources; 2) Congressional Republicans who refuse to support alternative fuels which would reduce our dependency on foreign oil; 3) market speculators who have bid up the price of oil in order to make a killing; 4) freedom fighters in the Middle East and North Africa who have destabilized major oil producing areas; and 5) supply and demand with the recovering economy and recovering demand.

President Obama -- completing the final trifecta of all good politicians -- calls for an investigation into the high price of oil, thinking this will somehow provide an answer (but not lower prices since he has stated numerous times that he wants higher oil costs to support his alternative energy agenda).  Investigations are like catnip to politicians who would rather discuss the problem, rather than a solution.  Remember the arrogant and condescending Senate hearings into auto companies in 2008, which included testimony from the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors?  What ever came from that charade?  Government Motors and electric cars?

Nonetheless, not to be outdone, the following congressional committees are gearing up to investigate the situation:

May 8th:  House Energy and Commerce Committee
May 9th:  House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming
May 10th:  House Science and Technology Committee
May 15th: Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee
May 16: House Judiciary Committee
May 22nd:  House Oversight Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Can you believe we actually have that many committees?  And that's just energy.

Imagine the political theatre that will follow when politicians -- on television, of course-- tell oil executives to stop price gouging (oh, no!) while taxing those profits to expand wind and solar energy.   And then pass the cost for their political ineptitude onto us through even higher gas prices.

Politicians will continue to play the part of hollow men as long as we allow them to play it.  It's time we put some people with substance in Washington to take care of business.

Whad'Ya Know? Time for Big Bird to Stand on His Own

I've been a follower of National Public Radio for many years.  I'm not a supporter, although I enjoy their Saturday morning shows, "Whad'Ya Know" and "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me!", usually while traveling back and forth to Minnesota, Iowa or Illinois.  Both of my sons have National Public Radio as their home pages on their laptops and listen to their various programs throughout the week.  Occasionally, I'll even listen to "Prairie Home Companion" even though I can't stand Garrison Keillor.  So it's safe to say that there's enough NPR voices coming through the radio to give me a good idea of what they are all about.

This week those voices are about two of their very own:  NPR's president and CEO, Vivian Schiller and NPR senior vice president, Ron Schiller.

On Tuesday, Ron Schiller resigned following controversial statements about Tea Party people, conservatives and the need for taxpayer-funding. Within hours, Vivian Schiller resigned after the Board of News for NPR threatened to oust her after losing confidence in her leadership.  To summarize, Ron Schiller, a major fundraiser for NPR, was caught on tape saying that the GOP had been "hijacked" by groups hostile to Muslims.  He later added that the Tea Party is a "... sort of white, middle-America, gun toting.  I mean, .... they're seriously racist people."  If that wasn't bad enough, Mr. Schiller condescendingly said "there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party..."  Perhaps most damning, however, was his comment on being "better off without government money", which accounts for about 10% of its yearly budget.

His last statement is bad news for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR.  Since the 1970's with Nixon and more recently in 1994, when the Republican-controlled Congress began pushing for the draw down of public funding for PBS and NPR, there has been heated debate about the need for taxpayer money to keep Big Bird and company afloat.  Mr. Schiller's comments puts renewed doubt on the subject, especially now that that Republicans control the nation's spending and are looking for ways to cut fat from Washington's budget.

NPR's and PBS's main argument for continued funding comes from an "elite ideal" that they are too important and too valuable to people who rely on their foreign and domestic departments for news.  An example of this was given by Mark Shield's of PBS who said recently, "There are 934 public radio stations.  A lot of them are in very remote and rural areas and their only source of the kind of information we are talking about.  I mean, really, that factual, worldwide, great reporting...."  Another argument made is that they are the only source of good reporting in an era when newspapers are failing and most cable news channels ( FOX among them) are covering stories like Charlie Sheen.  NPR's Nina Totenberg, of Inside Washington, said the following: "In an era when newspapers are disappearing in droves... and where commercial forces, both in television and radio, have driven out -- you know.  There's a reason that a big story like BP actually broke on NPR.  The Obama Administration was not telling us the truth about the amount of the leak.  I mean -- there, we do the job that news organizations used to do, and really don't anymore..."

It's bad enough that NPR and PBS think so highly of themselves.  It's worse that they think so little of the rest of us.  At least, a large segment of us living somewhere other than the left or east coasts of America.  In a 2004 FAIR study, NPR's target audience was documented to be 1) highly educated, 2) white and 3) liberal.  Their elitist perspective of "the rest of us" falls firmly in line with that of President Obama when he said, " they are bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."  To NPR and PBS, we are the unwashed masses that need to be enlightened to the ways of green environmentalism, gay marriage/adoptions and native American/Black reparations, to name a few.

NPR thrives in liberal college enclaves like Madison, Wisconsin -- which continues to make news by fighting Governor Walker's attempt to neuter public service unions.  I wonder how unbiased their reporting of the situation has been in light of a their usual guest list:  academia, journalists, think tanks, and students?  As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I'm not a big listener of NPR -- but I do wonder how many non-public union employees were interviewed.  Business owners who are able to make payroll by limiting the amount of money going into their own retirement plans?  Employees who pay 75%-100% of their health care benefits , including deductibles and co pays?  The average worker, who is too busy working to spend time in Madison protesting work benefits that are the best in the country?  Maybe their voices were heard, but I suspect it was drowned out by those shouting "Shame!  Shame!"

I'm not saying that I want NPR or PBS to go away.  On the contrary, I want to hear opposing views and opinions.  And as I've said, I like some of the their programs, which are intelligent, musical, humorous and interesting.  Give me more of "Whad'a Know" and "This Old House" and less "Morning Sickness" and "Real Housewives of Atlanta."

If Mr. Ron Schiller and Ms. Vivian Schiller think so highly of their one-of-a-kind product -- tailored to an educated, white,  and democratic base -- they need to pay for it by selling it the same way other radio stations do.  NPR and PBS claim they are growing.  If so, then it's time for Big Bird, Elmo and Ernie to stand on their own.

Without this Wisconsin taxpayer's money.



Update:  This past Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to stop funding NPR for all public sources, including the Corporation of Public Broadcasting by a vote of 228-192.  The bill cuts off all federal taxpayer money from being used to support NPR,  as well as the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and the national Endowment for the Arts.  Not a single Democrat voted in favor of this bill.