All posts by DC Gilbert

I am an author, blogger and an un-apologetically patriotic American. I enjoy martial arts, shooting sports and writing. I currently live in Asheville, NC with my German Shepherd named Sophie.

The Left Aready “Hard at Work” Vilifying Paul Ryan!

Official portrait of Congressman .
Official portrait of Congressman . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You can tell when liberals are worried!  They start arrogantly pontificating about that which scares them and proceed to attack it with all the vicious smear tactics available to them.  Look at what they did to Sarah Palin!  Judging by the vicious smear campaign waged against Governor Palin, they must really be scared to death of Paul Ryan!  Obama’s liberal media lap-dogs, left-wing blogs, Bill Maher, etc; are all jumping on the “murder Paul Ryan” bandwagon!  And … we haven’t even gotten to Joy Baher, Rosanne Barr, or the View yet!

I found this great article by Charles C.W. Cook, who writes for the National Review.  I enjoyed reading it and I believe he has a very accurate grasp of the situation at hand.  I included the article here in its entirety.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

The American songwriter and comedian Tom Lehrer once wrote that he didn’t “want to satirize George Bush,” but instead “to vaporize him.” Given Lehrer’s talent for satire, this represented something of a regression. Nonetheless, he was in good company, for, in the world of politics, “vaporization” is a popular choice.

The preference for annihilation over disapprobation has rarely been so luminously on display as during this week. Since Mitt Romney announced his nomination of Paul Ryan for the vice presidency, the House Budget Committee chairman has been metamorphosed into the devil, and a phalanx of those freshly diagnosed with Ryan Derangement Syndrome has been released into the unsuspecting public.

Chief among this merry band of hysterics is Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce. Pierce has led the charge against Ryan since Saturday morning’s disclosure, christening the congressman the “zombie-eyed granny-starver,” a “murderer of opportunity,” a “political coward,” and, sarcastically, one presumes, the “Pericles of Janesville.” As Pierce breathlessly explains, Ryan is not merely a man with a differing view of the role of the federal government and a good-faith, if controversial, plan to secure the future, but

an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn’t believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth: our government.

As well there should be, there will be criticism as long as there is politics; and, certainly, one would not expect the Left to like Paul Ryan very much. For starters, Ryan has long had the gauche temerity to observe — in public, no less — that all is not rosy in America’s fiscal future. In doing so, he seems determined to play Senator Seneca to President Obama’s Nero, and it is for this, as much as anything else, that he has carved out his role as Enemy No. 1 of the progressive Left. Those who believe that entitlements run on good intentions will always hate men who come armed with spreadsheets, especially when those spreadsheets neatly explode the myth that all of America’s problems can be solved by increasing taxes on the rich. But Pierce’s hyperbole transcends mere disagreement, as does his dismissal of all those who dissent as “gobshites.” Instead, he seeks to remove Paul Ryan — and his ideas — from polite conversation.

Language such as this is not new, even if Pierce’s is saltier than usual. Descriptions of impending “dystopias” are trotted out every time that a long-term conservative plan is posited. Thanks to Joe Biden’s plagiarism, Neil Kinnock’s famous warning was played on both sides of the Atlantic:

If Margaret Thatcheris re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain — when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance — when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty — when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay. I warn you that you will be cold — when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.

As a rule, delirious warnings such as these typically represent better literature than prognostication. In reality, the tough choices made by Mrs. Thatcher in England and the Reagan/Bush administrations in the United States did not create an “economy that can’t pay,” but one that did. As a result of the tough love of conservatives in the 1980s, the very social programs that Kinnock and Biden warned were threatened with extinction were provided with the revenues on which they rely — for a time, at least. On the left, this is the truth that dare not speak its name.

For good measure, Pierce has also exploited Ryan’s lack of foreign-policy experience, deftly linking Paul Ryan to Ronald Reagan, Elliott Abrams, and other “zombie-eyed nun-killers” — all of whom, he claims, “winked at the rape and murder of American churchwomen in Central America.” Maybe, Pierce suggests,

during a break at his next foreign-policy briefing, Paul Ryan, devout Catholic, can ask his primary foreign-policy mentor whether the guy’s feelings about gunning down archbishops in the middle of mass have evolved over the years.

The not-so-subtle implication: Ryan’s Catholicism is dangerous.

Not to be outdone on the religion front, in Time, Erika Christakis spent her two cents knocking Ryan’s piety. “Jesus’ teachings regarding wealth are nowhere to be found in Ryan’s budget proposal,” she averred. Why? Because,

as near as we can tell, Jesus would advocate a tax rate somewhere between 50% (in the vein of “If you have two coats, give one to the man who has none”) and 100% (if you want to get into heaven, be poor). Mostly, he suggested giving all your money up for the benefit of others. And Jesus made no distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor; his love and generosity applied to all.

Aha! Paul Ryan believes in low taxes; ergo, Paul Ryan is not a good Christian. Theology is a complex matter, and complex matters are subject to much legitimate debate. What tax rate Jesus would have advocate eludes minds greater than Christakis’s. But it is somewhat remarkable that at no point in her piece does she cite anything Jesus said about government to back up her argument. Many Christians — Paul Ryan included — would presumably argue that they are not permitted to subcontract their personal obligations to their fellow man to the government, let alone force others to uphold such obligations. Many non-religious people would agree with this conception of virtue, too. But this is an irrelevance. The purpose of Christakis’s column is to provide a vehicle that allows her to reach her conclusion, that the Ryan plan is “not noblesse oblige,” but “cruelty.”

Over at Salon, Joan Walsh spent 1,000 words contriving an argument that, amazingly enough, concurs with her upcoming book, What’s the Matter with White People — Paul Ryan is white and hates “the other”! — and simultaneously slams Ryan for “fakery”:

The man who wants to make the world safe for swashbuckling, risk-taking capitalists hasn’t spent a day at economic risk in his entire life.

Walsh goes on to allege that Ryan is the “pampered scion of a construction empire.” To anyone familiar with Ryan’s biography, this is absurd enough on its face, but, arguendo, let’s pretend that it’s true for a moment and also take into account the corresponding complaint that Ryan has spent his entire adult life in government. Does this automatically render him incorrect on federal budgeting matters as Walsh implies? Milton Friedman used to ask members of his audiences who accused him of never having been poor whether there was anyone among them “who is going to say that you don’t want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer”? Walsh’s cheap tu quoque deserves to be dismissed to the sound of the laughter that used to greet Friedman’s rejoinder.

In fact, her whole piece does. To get an impression of how deep the derangement against Paul Ryan runs, consider that the first grievance Walsh includes is that as a young man Ryan chose to go “to Miami University of Ohio, paying twice as much tuition as an Ohio resident would have,” the problem apparently being that “the in-state University of Wisconsin system (which I attended) apparently wasn’t good enough for Ryan.” In-state tuition wasn’t good enough for President Obama either, and in-country tuition didn’t satisfy Bill Clinton, but neither of those appear to vex Walsh. Why?

At The Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky interpreted the pick as evidence that he was correct about Mitt Romney being a “wimp” all along:

Paul Ryan? Really? It’s a stunning choice. A terrible one too. By making it, Mitt Romney tells America that he is not his own man and hasn’t even the remotest fleeting desire to be his own man. He is owned by the right wing. Did I write a couple of weeks ago that Romney was insecure? Well — Q.E.D.

That’s convenient, then.

If we remain on this course, the wheelchair will reach the cliff without any need for Paul Ryan’s involvement. Sure, Ryan’s plan is not the only way of dealing with the looming crisis. But, as Timothy Geithner admitted, the administration does not have one at all. “What we do know,” he told Ryan in February, “is we don’t like yours.” With this statement, Geithner confirmed what many had long suspected: The administration is terrified of reality.

Paul Ryan has volunteered himself as the face of that reality, and he is going to suffer a bright spotlight as a result, especially having been pushed even further into national prominence. The Left has evidently concluded that if it can vaporize Paul Ryan, it can vaporize his ideas. Time will tell if they are correct, but, regardless, economic gravity — and not hyperbole — will have the last laugh.

I would just ask voters to get beyond the media hype and hate-speech delivered up in heaping helpings by the progressive liberal left.

Instead … think for yourself!  Get the facts.   Do some honest research yourself!  Check voting records!  Read ObamaCare!  Actually read Ryan’s budget proposal …  it does not “murder” medicare.  It saves it.  It changes nothing for those already on Medicare!  It just gives younger folks severl options in the future … including continuing with the plan as it stands right now!  On the contrary … Obama has already cut $750 million from Medicare to fund ObamaCare.  How is he saving it?   Maintaining the status quo will certainly cause medicare and social security to fail … with no help from anyone!   Even Tim Geithner admitted Obama’s administration does not have any plan!!  They just do not like Ryan’s plan … because it preserves individual choice.

“Hope and Change” has turned into “Attack and Blame!”   Obama and his cronies live in some sort of utopian fantasy land where they live like kings while everyone else is happily living lives of mediocrity … suckling at the teat of a bloated central government! It is time for some real change … based on common sense, sound economic principles, and the ability to make the needed tough decisions … rather than pandering to bundlers and buying votes with new unsustainable entitlement programs.

Great blog! Very humorous look at a serious situation (at least in my opinion)!

Adaptive Curmudgeon

Given the choice, there are places I’d rather visit than Chicago.  For example, Chernobyl or Marquis De Sade’s basement.  Sadly, I was forced to travel through Chicago; or as I like to call it Modor in the Midwest.

Fortunately I can limit my exposure to Chicago by rocketing through in my big redneck truck.  Aside from an economy based entirely on tollbooths and traffic jams it’s tolerable if I just keep moving.  In fact I’ve made it a game.  I never set foot in Chicago itself and go out of my way to spend as little money as possible (i.e. nothing but tolls) in the entire state.  (One has time to think of such games when they’re crawling along in Chicago traffic.)

The worst part is a feeling that I’m in enemy territory.  The place makes a libertarian’s skin crawl.  I know that gun control and taxes can’t leap…

View original post 801 more words

Some folks need to wake up!

Black Unemployment Soars Under Obama

A recent Rasmussen poll shows that:

61% of blacks think country headed in right direction.
25% of whites think country headed in right direction.

These poll numbers occur is in spite of the fact that :

Black unemployment rate is at 14.4%.
White unemployment rate is at 7.4%.

All I can say is, “Hoh Lee Schitt!”

Eat More Chicken? … Can I get an Amen!

All we have heard about from the liberal-left for years is the intolerance of Christians.   Really?

I know not all Christians are perfect.  In fact, some fringe churches, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, pervert the Christian faith for their own political gain or for the accumulation of power.  But, true Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus; and Jesus taught his followers to love one another.  He did not, however, teach that we would always (or even had to) agree with each other.

Jesus simply taught the following:

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith.

THOU shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Being a cradle-Episcopalian, this was taken from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.  Doesn’t sound very intolerant to me … if you actually live by these teachings.

We have also always heard how tolerant these enlightened liberals are supposed to be.  Why then, is it that, if a Christian states his or her belief, he or she is viciously attacked by liberals?  Freedom of speech is not only guaranteed to the LGBT community.  It is for everyone.  Dan Cathy did not speak disparagingly of gas, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgenders.  He has never refused them employment or service in his restaurants.   Several Chic-Fil-A employes have come forward and testified that there is not a better fast food employer to work for … no matter your race, religion, creed, or sexual preference.  They also serve good food.  So, what exactly was done to deserve this vicious attack?  Dan Cathy only stated his personal beliefs … beliefs he has every right to hold in this country; and that statement was given in the privacy of a Baptist gathering.  I heard no hate spew forth from his lips!

I am a conservative.  I have gay friends.  I don’t discriminate against them … or hate them.  I don’t attack them.  I try to understand their issues and the need for legal status in the community.  Acceptance, insurance issues, estate planning, hospital visitation … these are real concerns.   If I, as a conservative, can be open to calm discussion and be willing to take an introspective look at my personal beliefs, and try to understand the needs of other members of my community … you would think the “tolerant” liberal left would be able to do that as well!  It seems, however, that is not the case.  These liberals yell, “Stop the hate!”  Most of the hate I see is coming from them!

In fact, these limousine liberals are the most intolerant people I have ever seen.  The attack on Chic-Fil-A really amounts to nothing more than liberal bullying.  These oh-so-tolerant limousine liberals are essentially saying that Christians have no right to hold their beliefs, much less speak them in the privacy of their own gatherings.  If Christians, or I guess anyone, thinks or speaks anything other than the “approved” liberal politically correct soundbites … limousine liberals will attack with all the viciousness and hate they can muster.

This explains why Rosanne Barr tweeted:

Anyone who eats Sh*t-Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4 Christ.

This came after she told the restaurant chain to suck a particular  appendage she doesn’t have.  Shortly after her enlighten get-cancer tweet, Rosanne Barr  proceeded to double down (as these oh-so-enlightened liberals often seem to do), tweeting:

Off to grab a Sh*t Fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting AIPAC,  and war in Iran.

The tolerance of this enlightened, shining example of liberal exceptionalism is quite an extraordinary thing to behold!

Jon Stewart, the host of “The Daily Show”, went on a profanity laced rant against Chick-Fil-A during a taping of his cable television program. Click here to watch the video.

Open your eyes owner of Chick-Fil-A  … you’re being such an a**hole, not even Boston will tolerate you.

Raham Emanual says:

Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values!

Somehow I am not surprised that Christian values are not “Chicago” values.  Almost sounds a bit Hitler-esque to me!  Maybe that is why Emanuel has no problem alienating any Christians that happen to live there.  How long before Mayor Rahm rounds up the Christians and sends them to “re-education camps” … I wonder?

Apparently, Louis Farrakahn’s values are more in line with Emanuel’s thinking.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel welcomed an army of men from the Nation of Islam … dispatched to the streets by Farrakhan to “stop the violence” in Chicago neighborhoods.  Does anybody besides me see the irony here?  You would think the LGBT community would be more afraid of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam army than Chick-Fil-A …. given the Islamic position on homosexuality.  It is something akin to kill them all.  Remember Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.”  That was right after they executed two gay men ….

I understand GLAAD is telling same-sex couples to go to Chic-Fil-A locations today and take pictures of public displays of affection and post them on FaceBook.  I guess we can only hope it is just “kissing” … or, this could get pretty ugly.  I really don’t want to see gross displays of heterosexual affection while I am eating my lunch either!

Given the sheer ignorance of intolerant Christians, how could any ignorant, hateful, racist, bitter conservative write an article that could possible compete with the enlightened literary examples illustrated above.  Somehow, despite the obvious handicap;  Cal Thomas (Townhall.com) wrote an excellent article about the current Chic-Fil-A uproar and he  really hits the nail squarely on the head.  I have included his piece in its entirety in this post:

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy is in hot water with the LGBT community because he committed the cardinal sin in an age of political correctness: Thou must not speak ill of anything gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders wish to do.

In an interview with the Baptist Press and later on a Christian radio program, Cathy, whose father, the philanthropist Truett Cathy, founded the company, defended marriage between a man and a woman and when asked about the company’s support of traditional marriage said, “Guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.” Cathy believes American society is rotting (and where is evidence to the contrary?) because the country has turned away from God.

That was it. Cathy did not say he would deny someone with a different view than his the right to eat in or work at any of his fast-food restaurants, which would violate the law. He did not say anything hateful about them. He simply expressed a deeply held conviction rooted in his Christian faith.

The reaction tells you everything you need to know about certain liberals who believe every sort of speech, activity and expression should be protected, except the speech, activity and expression of evangelical Christians.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he would try to deny Chick-fil-A’s application for permits to open restaurants in that city. Now that’s discrimination. Menino wants to ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, not for discriminating against customers or employees, but because of its owner’s beliefs, a threat he has since backed away from. Does Boston have “thought police” who might be ordered to investigate whether other business owners already operating in the city hold similar views? I’ll bet there’s someone at Durgin-Park who holds similar views. What about a player for the Boston Red Sox? Better follow them to see if any of them go to church.

Maybe Mayor Menino would like to force business owners in the city to testify before an official panel of grand inquisitors and then deny operating licenses to anyone who believes traditional marriage should be the norm?

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values.” Are Chicago values represented by the anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan with whom Emanuel is going to partner in hopes of reducing the number of homicides in his city? Are Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic and anti-gay sentiments somehow more palatable, more of value, than Dan Cathy’s support of marriage and family?

The Weekly Standard found a video posted on the Nation of Islam’s website of a Farrakhan speech two months ago in which he blasted President Obama for endorsing same-sex marriage. Farrakhan said Obama is “the first president that sanctioned what the scriptures forbid.” He added, “…sin is sin according to the standard of God” and “the Bible forbids it.”

That goes a lot further than Dan Cathy.

The Jim Henson Company has decided to pull its Creature Shop toys from Chick-fil-A and donate profits already made to GLAAD, the media-monitoring group that promotes the image of LGBT people. I knew Jim Henson when we both worked at the NBC-TV station in Washington in the mid-1960s. While we never discussed politics, I don’t think at the time, at least, he would have wanted his characters, which appeal to everyone, involved in a cultural and political battle.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Senator Rick Santorum, both also former presidential candidates, have called for a show of support for Cathy. They want people to eat at Chick-fil-A restaurants on August 1.

This is more than an economic battle. It is a First Amendment issue. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Dan Cathy has a right to his opinion, so does Farrakhan, so do we all.

The real “war” in this country is not only against the supposed civil right of nontraditional marriage. It is a war against conservative Christians and a denial of the same rights the LGBT community claims for itself. Free speech is an American value. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.

Remember that Jesus stated:

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

I guess we are seeing, in the examples of these enlightened, tolerant liberals, the truth and accuracy of his words.

3 Years and 8 Months: Still George Bush’s Fault!!

Blame George Bush
Another original Obama supporter’s idea: Blame George Bush …

walthe310 says:

George W. Bush did what you accuse the Obamas of doing and he did it first.

So …. what is your point? Is it that two wrongs make a right?  Sorry Dude.  That just does not wash!

George W. Bush was not a conservative Republican.  He would probably be considered a moderate, or maybe even a liberal, Republican.  Did he spend too much money?  Absolutely he did!  That is not an excuse for Obama’s tripling down on the same bad fiscal policies!  Especially after attacking Bush for excessive spending … even calling it unpatriotic (Obama’s words; not mine)!

And, by the way, the Tea Party is fighting for  “Fiscal Responsibility”  for the whole government!  That includes all Americans: African-AmericansWhite-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Indian-Americans, Iraqi-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Greek-Americans, American-Americans, Martian invader-Americans, Swedish Swimsuit Model-Americans, Conservative-Americans, and yes, even Liberal-Americans … which, according to Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and Debbie Wasserman-SHULTZ, etc;  makes the Tea Party racist!  Can you follow the logic in that?

Did George Bush use Executive Orders a bit too often.  He did!  Again, that does not excuse Obama’s tripling down on the same … or Obama’s creating a shadow government of radical Czars (his mostly communist cronies who answer to nobody), or Obama’s repeatedly by-passing the Congress to inflict increased regulation or bad economic policy by imperial fiat, or sneaking through legislation that the majority of people of this country had already rejected on principle.  Again … after attacking Bush … and calling Bush’s presidency imperialistic!  Bush’s imperialism pales on comparison to Obama’s!

So by your logic, we should excuse James Eagan Holmes who killed 12 and wounded 58 in Aurora, Co; because Jame Edward Plough killed 11 and wounded 6 in Jacksonville, Fl.

And finally, a major difference … George W. Bush did not actively seek to ignore or even destroy the U.S. Constitution, or to eliminate American’s individual rights by putting American citizens under the control of the United Nations, or to create an unsustainable socialist nanny-state by promising “free Bush money” to anyone foolish enough to drink the cool aid and vote for him.  Obama has done all those things and more.

So I ask you, when our country goes bankrupt … and you don’t actually get the “free Obama money” you have been promised by Our Anointed Emporer, Barack Hussein Obama; because he simply hasn’t got it … are you going to riot in the streets, smash windows, and burn small businesses and private property … like the entitlement-zombies did in Greece?  Are you still going to chant the same tired old mantra “Blame George Bush” because Obama did not keep his foolish and irresponsible promises to you?

You know …  I bet you will!

Do I Hate Barack Obama?

Do I hate Obama?
Obama! Chief Communist-In-Charge

Do I seem to hate Barack Obama? I don’t think hate is really the right word.  I do, however, think I despise him and everything he stands for! Am I racist? I would be accused of being racist by many.  Obama is half-black after all!

But, no … I am not racist!

It never ceases to amaze me that a man, without any professional accomplishments whatsoever, could deceive so many voters into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, lead the world’s most powerful military, and otherwise successfully take on the world’s most important job.

Let’s take off the cool-aid tinted glasses for just a minute, shall we … and take an honest look at Obama’s pre-presidential career.  What did he actually achieve?  Obama partied his way through Ivy League schools (snorting coke and smoking marijuana) with unremarkable grades and test scores. He landed a cushy non-job as a “community organizer.”   He had a brief career as a state legislator … remarkable only because of how often he voted “present.” And, finally an amateurish single term in the United States Senate, the vast majority of which was devoted to his presidential election campaign.  Obama left no notable academic legacy behind (or he would have bragged about it) and he sponsored no significant legislation as a legislator (or he would have bragged about it).  In short, Barack Hussein Obama accomplished nothing to even remotely qualify him for the job of President of the United States.

That simple fact is that, while I respect the Office of the President, I do not respect Barack Obama at all.  I consider him an enemy of the state. And before liberals all start screaming racism … it has nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with his skin color.  I do not like what Obama represents … his ideology, his policies, or his legislation.  I also do like not him because he is ideologically committed to fundamentally transforming this country that I love into what (once you strip away all the left-wing, liberal-progressive, politically correct terminology) can only be described as a Socialist/Communist state. And, I have nothing but complete contempt for how the Obamas play their race card!

In fact, I think the Obamas are, perhaps, the worst kind of racists; they are elitist socialists with nothing but contempt for American values and traditions.   Michelle Obama’s contempt for white America is very obvious.  The Obamas have no respect for the American people, the laws of this nation, the U.S. Constitution, or the authority of the Congress (granted … at this time Congress deserves little in the way of respect).

Michelle Obama treats being the First Lady as some kind of “carte blanche” to jet around the world, spending millions and millions of tax payer dollars showing off her rich life of entitlement while her husband goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.  Michelle takes $4 million vacations while Americans are unemployed, hungry, or homeless.  She eats lobster dinners while telling parents that their children have to eat the school provided chicken nuggets for lunch … rather than the turkey sandwich the student’s mother lovingly made at home for him.

The liberal drive-by media sold itself out completely to the Obamas.  Journalistic integrity is right out the door. Chris Matthews gets a “chill up his leg” when Barack Obama descends from “on high” to save us all from ourselves. Therefore, no vetting of Barack Obama was done whatsoever!  The left-wing drive-by media refused to even consider investigating Barack Obama like they investigated both President George Bush and President Bill Clinton, but they certainly rush to blame the Tea Party and other conservatives for every horrific criminal act that occurs.  Do they actually believe that conservatives want to drink dirty water, radiate the planet, kill off autistic or special needs children, revoke Medicare, and push little old grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair?  They sure repeat that message often enough!  Hitler pulled that very same tactic off only too well. Repeat a falsehood loudly, vehemently, and long enough …and the unthinking masses start to believe!

And Obama lies time and time again! The only reason a person hides things is because he has something to hide.  Is there an example of another President who has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past secret?  He broke every one of his campaign promises! He has lied about how he met his wife, his mother’s death and insurance issues, he and Michelle lied about nearly $500, 000 in bank stock they inherited from his family, he has lied about his father’s military service, and he has lied about the civil rights movement (actually, all black liberals conveniently forget about that particular period of Democratic Party history).

Do you think it is even remotely possible that a white president and his wife could ignore our laws, endless and openly lie to America, flaunt their position, and arrogantly lord it over American citizens like the Obamas have done? How do the Obamas get away with their imperialistic manipulations?  It’s easy … because to question anything at all about the Obamas or their actions would be immediately condemned as being motivated by “racism” by their mass media lap-dogs!

And so, as a result of this lack of vetting and this liberal messianic Obama worship… we have, as a nation, never discussed the matter of Obama’s many troubling associations:

  • The white-hating, America-loathing preacher, Jeremiah Wright (who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”);
  • A real-life, actual anti-American terrorist, William Ayers (who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor),
  • Another real-life anti-American terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn (who also helped launch Obama’s career).
  • Then there is Obama’s good friend and teacher, Frank Marshall Davis (a full-fledged member of the communist party in both Hawaii and Chicago),
  • Radical Harvard law professor, Charles Ogletree,
  • Democratic Socialists of America member, Cornel West.
  • We have Obama’s shady real estate deals with criminal Tony Rezko.
  • 9/11 Truther, former Green Jobs Czar, and avowed communist, Van Jones
  • Last-but-not-least, Obama’s constant support for members of various socialist groups such as Saul Mendelson of the Socialist Party USA,
  • As well as, Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Socialists of America’s Democratic Left.

This is only a short list!  We also have all his other Czars and their radical leanings.  Just good-old American-type folks such as Anita Dunn (Communist White House Communications Director), Leon Panetta (Communist Secretary of Defense), Donald Berwick (Communist Health Rationer-in-Chief), Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s Communist Right Hand Woman), Elizabeth Warren (Communist Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & “Eat the Rich” proponent), Carol Browner (Communist Energy and Environment Czar), Ron Bloom (Communist Obama appointed Czar), John Holdren (Communist Science and Technology Czar), Cass Sunstein (Communist Regulatory Czar), Samantha Power (Wife of Cass Sunstein, Israel hater, promoter of “open Society”), and Kevin Jennings (Drug using gay pedophile and NAMBLA supporter) to name just a few!

Despite all these radical associations, his total lack of experience, and the Obamas disdain for all things American, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.  Why?  Would you believe maybe … racism?

Norman Podhoretz addressed this issue recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day.  But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of all liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in. Ponder the possibility for a few minutes.  Is it really that far-fetched?  Could Obama have been given a pass and held to a lower standard … because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz goes on to write:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz argues that the mystery behind the Obama phenomenon is: affirmative action.

What we are discussing here is the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are primarily designed to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, the truth is that minorities often suffer simply so that white liberals can feel good about themselves.  For example, as Podhoretz says, liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not properly prepared, yet somehow they seem to take no responsibility for the poor performance and high drop-out rate that follows.  Liberals don’t mind that these minority students too often fail, because these liberals aren’t around to see the emotional devastation and loss of self-esteem that often results from their “entitlement-minded policy … a policy based on a racist idea known to most as affirmative action.

Yes, let me repeat that … racist.  As I have pointed out in previous posts, holding someone to a separate standard merely because of their skin color … is the very definition of racism!

According to Podhoretz, that is exactly what got Obama elected to the Office of the President of the United States.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?  As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.  All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this kind of preferential treatment combined with lower standards create if not the sort of entitlement minded, arrogant, empty narcissism we see and hear every time Obama speaks?

  • I got Osama Bin Laden!
  • I created this … I did that!
  • I am 4th best President!
  • You can achieve nothing without government [meaning “my”] help!

During the 2008 campaign, many so-called “experts” agreed that Obama lacked executive qualifications … but nonetheless raved on and on about Obama’s wonderful oratory skills, great intellect, and unflappable character.  Those same people (including some conservatives) should be pretty damned embarrassed now.

Obama bloviates endlessly (and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him)!  Yet … not one original thought or new idea has come from his mouth … it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed throughout its history … in China, Cuba, the former USSR,  and many Eastern European countries.  And … when the teleprompter is absent … Obama stumbles on; often revealing his true ideologically-driven, extreem radical thoughts and motivations … much to the dismay of his handlers!

And what about Obama’s immaculate and unflappable character?  All I ever hear is Obama constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.  It’s all Bush’s fault; Republicans did it; it was bad luck; ATMs; Kiosks caused this; it was the Arab Spring; I have a do-nothing Congress; it’s the Tea Party’s fault; the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars; and … I inherited this mess!  He gets petulant when disagreed with … stomping off the stage like a little child.  He flip-flops more than John Kerry every thought of flip-flopping! He lashes out at Americans who do not accept his socialism-based utopian plan for America … accusing them of “bitterly clinging to their Bible and their guns!”  Obama buys votes by promising more entitlements (more free “Obama Money” he does not even have) and then attacks the very driving force behind the once great American economy to fund his voter bribes.

Actually, it is really kind of embarrassing to see an American President so willing to advertise his own powerlessness and so comfortable with his own incompetence.  But, looking at things honestly and truthfully, what else could we have expected?  Obama was never been responsible for anything in his entire life, so why in the world would anyone expect him to behave responsibly now?

The reality is that our president is an ideology-driven, small-minded man; with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.  When Americans finaly understand that … the current erosion of liberty and prosperity begin to make any sense.  This is the only result possible with this kind of man sitting at the President’s desk.

Romney v. Obama: A Comparison and Contrast!

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...
Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaign rallies. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You can’t do anything without the government’s help?  Really??

Obama’s campaign team and all the cool-aid drinking, uber-loyal Obama-zombies are crying foul; claiming Romney and his campaign are taking Obama’s ridiculous comments from last Friday out of context. That’s fine!  They actually sound even worse “in context!”  They clearly show Obama’s disdain for hard working Americans, entrepreneurship, and a free society!   They reveal Obama true thoughts, his motivation, and establish his identity as the communist/socialist ideologue he truly is!  Obama’s anti-American comments were wrong, no matter how you look at them.

Let’s take a look at Obama’s words … in full context:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Americans have always argued, fought, and WORKED together.  Because we wanted to … as free men and women … not by government decree!  And, we all certainly appreciate the essential services provided by the government.  Things like roads, bridges, dams, and protection from our enemies are all essential to the quality of life in America.  The questions that need to be asked and honestly answered are:

How much of that does the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT actually provide?

How well do they do it?

How is all of this paid for?

This liberal leftist mantra that business owners (aka “the rich”) aren’t paying their fair share for all this essential stuff we taxpayers pay for ( like roads, bridges, dams, <ummm … Obama seems to be eliminating the “common defense” part>, etc.) is another Obama lie designed to solidify and energize his power base – the true free-loaders in our society.  Contrary to leftist dogma, the “rich” pay a good deal more than their fair share.

(This graphic was made by the great @PoliticalMath who you should all be following on Twitter.)

According to a post on The Right Sphere, this is why we never actually hear Obama or any of his leftwing cronies put an actual number on what they think is a “fair share.” This is because to free-loaders, “fair share” simply means “more than they’re already paying”  because free-loaders like someone else paying for their stuff.

Based on the CBO’s own numbers, the people paying the lion’s share for all these things Obama claims the government did … are actually the very people Obama is blaming.  So truthfully, Mr. Obama, Americans did, in fact, “build that” too.  The real free-loaders are the folks who drive on those roads, cross those bridges, go to those schools, swim in those lakes, enjoy that air conditioning; and then demand a free check every month, free education, free health care, free food, free cell phones, and who then … do not have to even be looking for a job, receiving job training, or drug or alcohol rehab to qualify for their free “Obama” money!

Obama has, at last, revealed his government-centric view of the world.  In Obama’s world view, the government is the innovator and people simply do what the government instructs them to do. It’s profoundly un-American. This country became a great nation because of the ideals upon which it was founded: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  And I mean the true happiness that results from successfully fulfilling oneself as a free individual … and not the amassing of material stuff!  Obama world view sees everyone dutifully performing their assigned task and being happy with the reward distributed to them by their benevolent rulers.   THAT IS NOT MY AMERICA!!  America is free people, free thinking, and free enterprise.  I will fight to protect my America … Obama only apologizes for it!

Let’s contrast that with some “in context” quotes from Mitt Romney’s recent speech in Pennsylvania:

And so I see that entrepreneurial spirit and that innovativeness of the American people and our willingness to work hard in whatever role we have and to lift and to improve our lot and to improve the lot of the enterprises we work in—I see that as driving this economy to be the most powerful in the history of the Earth. It has already; it will again. The course we’re on right now [Obama’s course] is foreign to us. It changes America. This is a vote for what kind of America we’re going to have, and for me I vote for freedom and free people.

Let me just end with this thought: this is an important choice. This is a defining choice. This is a choice about what America’s going to be. Not just for the next few years but for a century. This is a choice which will determine what kind of future our kids are going to have. And, in fact, it also determines what kind of future the world’s going to have. America plays an unusual role in the world—I think we understand that. Some in some circles tend to brush that aside. But those that have fought in world wars and other conflicts recognize the greatness of America and our unique role in the history of the earth.

We call them heroes. I want to express appreciation to heroes proved in liberating strife; who more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life. Could our veterans please raise their hands and members of the active duty armed services? Thank you.

I was in Great Britain some months ago and met with Tony Blair, and then with David Cameron, and with other leaders of the government there, and one said this to me: he said, “You know Mitt, if you’re lucky enough to be elected President of the United States and you travel around from country to country, and to their capitals; you will undoubtedly have rehearsed for you all the things they think America is doing wrong. But please don’t ever forget this: the one thing we all fear the most is a weak America.”

American strength, strength in our values, strength in our homes, strength in our economy, strength in our military is essential to the world.  It is the best ally for peace.

And let me assure you that dividing America, and attacking success and minimizing the achievement and accomplishment of entrepreneurs of all kinds—that does not make a stronger America. Believing in America, meaning believing in those principles upon which this nation was founded; and I do. I will keep those principles aloft. We will fight for them. We will keep America the hope of the earth. Together we will bring back the strength that provides a bright future for us and for our children. Thank you so very much.

Nuff said!