When you try to manufacture a campaign issue it requires some deception and in the more extreme cases outright lies. This is because the truth doesn’t have to be manufactured. It stands tall on its own.

As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” That’s what the left is banking on. So let’s dig a little deeper into the hearings at the center of the controversy.

House Oversight Committee Hearing

Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa, scheduled a hearing on religious liberty in the face of the ObamaCare mandate requiring the purchase of contraceptives by all employers regardless of their own religious beliefs. It is customary for the minority party (Democrats at this time) to choose one witness. The Democrats chose Barry Lynn and Sandra Fluke. Byron York of the Examiner provides some detail.

“The Democrats played games with us the day before [the hearing],” says a Republican committee source.  “After days of asking for a witness, they waited until the last-minute, the afternoon before the hearing.  They asked us to invite Rev. Barry Lynn [head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State] and Ms. Fluke.  We said we’ll invite one, per standard procedure.  We formally invited Rev. Lynn, and the Democrats, at 4:30 pm, changed their mind and said they wanted Fluke.  We said too late.  They told Rev. Lynn not to show up the next day.”

Issa explained that Democrats had requested Barry Lynn, that Lynn was invited, and that Democrats then retracted the Lynn request.  As for Fluke, Issa said Republicans had never heard of the Democrats’ last-minute choice.  “I asked our staff what is her background, what has she done,” Issa said at the hearing.  “They did the usual that we do when we’re not provided the three days and the forms to go with it. They did a Google search. They looked and found that she was, in fact, and is a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue and participated in approximately a 45-minute press conference…I cannot and will not arbitrarily take a majority or minority witness if they do not have the appropriate credentials, both for a hearing at the full committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and if we cannot vet them in a timely fashion.”

Barry Lynn is both a lawyer and holds a degree in theology. He is an author, radio host, frequent television commentator, and he has held senior positions at the national level for the United Church and the ACLU. I would probably agree little with Rev. Lynn, but you can’t argue he has credentials. Who is Sandra Fluke? She is a law student, not a lawyer; she was president of a college club that advocated “reproductive justice.” How does that fit in with a hearing on religious liberty. It doesn’t and the Democrats don’t care.

When the hearing began, the Democrats attacked the Republicans. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked, “Where are the women?” There were two panels that day, which according to my sources is typical when more than four people testifying. The second panel had two women on it. My source also tells me that the witness list was released a week before the hearing so either Rep. Maloney was deceitful or she doesn’t know what is going on in the committee she is a member of.  I am sure if pressed, Rep. Maloney would say, there were no women on the panel in front of me. But it is all part of the big lie, it was done for the cameras and the sound bite.

Since their plan to put on Sandra Fluke failed, they staged their own show.

Steering and Policy Committee

The Steering and Policy Committee is the committee that actually had Sandra Fluke address them on February 23. The purpose of the Steering and Policy Committee is to assign fellow party members to other House committees, and it also advises party leaders on policy. It is chaired by Nancy Pelosi. What does anything that Sandra Fluke has to say have to do with assigning party members to other committees or advising party leaders on policy. Nancy Pelosi policy on ObamaCare was clear, “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.” She didn’t do any fact-finding then, and she isn’t interested in facts now. It was all a show, and it was all for what is popularly called the “optics”.

Who Is Sandra Fluke?

Sandra Fluke is an attractive, clean-cut, woman who is poised in this setting. She is thirty years old, and she has been a left-wing advocate, so she provides the right look for the ensuing sound bites. She provides the right optics.

Before going to Georgetown Ms. Fluke researched the University’s health care policies and learned that they did not provide contraceptive coverage. She enrolled anyway and started working to overturn that policy. In her opening remarks she confidently states that President Obama’s policy “adjustment” of paying out of the left pocket instead of the right “addresses any potential conflict.” That’s another lie. It does not address large institutions that are also self insured, but that doesn’t matter, the narrative must go on; the campaign issue must be built. Just steamroll any real concerns of the other side.

While trying to defend ObamaCare her opening exposes the major problem with it when she says contraception can cost $3,000 during law school. President Obama and the woman sitting in front of Ms. Fluke, Nancy Pelosi, told us how ObamaCare was going to control costs. A quick check on the internet reveals that contraception can be purchased for about half of what Fluke says, but if someone else is paying for it, why would you bother to check? It was probably unintentional but she blew a hole in the theory that ObamaCare will save money. It won’t.

She scrupulously avoids talking about her personal behavior but talks about other women and friends. That is the trap Rush Limbaugh fell into by characterizing a behavior to her that she didn’t discuss. It was out-of-bounds for him to do so, and the Democrats, ever anxious to keep the discussion away from the real issues have made this a major focus.

Why didn’t she talk about herself? I don’t care about her activities, but everything she said was hearsay. Who were these other women? She didn’t give their names. How can we verify their stories? Do they really exist? Why didn’t they come and testify themselves? Wouldn’t it be more compelling to have a first hand account. Yes, but consider the optics. What if they were not as polished? What if they felt foolish trying to go in front of Congress to discuss a $10 item?

She talked about the financial burden of buying contraceptives, but said nothing about the financial burden of college tuition which is thirty times more. What do you think is causing these students a financial strain, tuition or contraception?

She talked about clinics being unable to meet the “crushing demand” for contraceptives. Why not set up a charity that progressives can contribute to that would provide more funds? If given a choice if they would underwrite what Ms. Fluke is advocating, would they? Nancy Pelosi is a multi-millionaire. Wouldn’t it help her cause if she wrote a big six figure check to kick it off?

She then brought out the campaign theme that any restrictions on what is decided between a woman and her doctor is “policing her body.” She said that 65% of students were “interrogated” about the need for contraceptives for non-birth control purposes. Maybe it’s time for a brief recap. We are talking about a $10-$15 item. One story she relates is about a woman who finds out at the pharmacy counter that her health plan doesn’t cover her contraceptives and has to turn away. Really? How about not having two cups of Starbucks this week so you have contraceptives for a month? For a $10 item you are going to sit through an interrogation? How about giving up your iPhone for a cheaper model? These are law students she is talking about at a prestigious university and they can’t figure out how to come up with $10? How about asking your boyfriend to help? Why not ask mom and dad? Why raise taxes on some poor guy who is not going to Georgetown law to pay for your $10 contraceptive while he is trying to live from paycheck to paycheck and take care of his own family?

There is no free lunch, Sandra. If you don’t pay someone else has to. You can say Georgetown can afford it! Maybe so, but they have to find a way. What do you suggest? Raise tuition? Lay off a maintenance worker or a receptionist? Cut back on scholarships, so that you don’t have to come up with $10 on your climb to the 1% club once you get out of Georgetown.

Fair and Balanced?

Where are the other women, Leader Pelosi, who don’t agree with Sandra Fluke. Why didn’t you ask fellow Georgetown student Angela Morabito testify? Because lies don’t like sunshine and fresh air.

The lie has been crafted. It’s about policing a woman’s body. It is being packaged. It is being taken on the road at The View, she has been on NBC news three times, and she received a phone call from President Obama. Are you going to be taken by the lie?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Sandra Fluke is a Georgetown Law student for whom Nancy Pelosi set up a media event to try to propagate the lie that conservatives want to block women’s access to contraceptives, rather than the truth that this would be forcing American taxpayers to pay for other’s recreational sex. Rush Limbaugh put it in much stronger terms and later apologized for those remarks. Advertisers like Carbonite pulled their advertising from Limbaugh’s radio program and Carbonite’s CEO  David Friend encouraged others to do the same.

My friend Ben Howe goes into more detail here and points out the hypocrisy that the left gets a pass no matter how ugly they get with their discourse. The following is a letter sent to Mr. Friend. If you agree, feel free to tweet, Facebook, copy, to anyone you know who uses Carbonite. If you disagree, feel free to comment below.

March 4, 2012

David Friend

Co-Founder and CEO

Carbonite

177 Huntington Avenue

Boston, MA 02115

 

Dear Mr. Friend,

 

I read about your intention to pull your advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show due to his remarks about Sandra Fluke while lobbying for free contraceptives.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the primary reason for a woman to use contraceptives is so that she can have sex without getting pregnant. To need $3,000 worth of contraceptives would suggest that the individual plans on having a lot of sex. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Slut n. 1.a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.

Was Mr. Limbaugh’s choice of words excessive? I would say so. However the subject was sex and contraception. Could he have used words more artfully to make the same point? I would say yes.

That brings me to another program that you sponsor, The Ed Schultz Show. On Schultz’s show he called conservative commentator Laura Ingraham a right wing slut. Let me quote Mr. Schultz. “But you know what they’re talking about: Like this right wing slut. What’s her name Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut…”

Where’s the outrage there Mr. Friend? Is it acceptable to you to call a professional woman a slut if it is merely a pejorative? How is it overstepping any reasonable bounds of decency to refer to a woman who is lobbying for free contraceptives, a woman considered sexually promiscuous, but perfectly fine as a smear for someone’s opinion you disagree with?

Why haven’t you pulled your advertising from that cretin’s show? As I am a strong believer in liberty, I say you have a right to purchase advertising time anywhere you wish. Similarly, I can buy whatever products that I wish and when my Carbonite subscription expires, I will not be renewing it if you place on the same playing field a somewhat crude but not inaccurate term to describe one woman with a baseless slur of another.

As you have encouraged your fellow advertisers to withdraw their ads, I will encourage my network of contacts to dump your product “to contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

 

Sincerely yours,

William R. O’Connell

What do you do when you can’t run on your record? If you watch the Democrats you will find out. The answer is to manufacture bogus issues out of thin air and try to anger and scare people into voting against dismal Democrat policies.

It was just a short while ago that New York Congressman Tim Bishop introduced a bill called the U.S. Call Center and Consumer Protection Act. Never mind that there are no significant call centers in Bishop’s Congressional district on the east end of Long Island. Never mind that his district is still losing jobs that are unrelated to call centers. This is a top priority of his. Why? Because he thinks that if he can get the topic of outsourcing on the table, he might have a fighting chance of holding his seat, because his opponent doesn’t hold a fourteenth century world view that our economy is confined to our borders. We live in a global economy like it or not and we are able to buy affordable products because some of them are made or serviced in other countries. In a similar vein our economy is able to grow and add jobs because we sell high-end products like Boeing jets to their economies.

The Birth Control Brouhaha

Now we have the national Democrat party trying to manufacture an issue over birth control. For those who have been watching the Republican presidential debates, who wasn’t scratching their heads over George Stephanopoulos’ questions and persistent follow-ups about states regulating contraception. Huh? Where did that come from? Dick Morris seems to have figured it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcBLSp0RScE

It will not be long before the ads start rolling out that the Republican nominee, whoever that may be, favors states banning contraception. With enough lies and distortion, the Democrats hope to make an issue where none exists. There is no movement to ban contraceptives in this country. But under the Constitution could a state ban them? Yes. (Note that I say under the Constitution, not under an activist Supreme Court that likes to rewrite the Constitution as they go along). So the question asked, will be a Constitutional one, the ad that will follow will be that the Republican candidate favors what the Constitution merely allows. I think the Constitution also allows states to pass laws banning silly hats in public, that doesn’t mean that everyone who believe in the Constitution believes in such laws. It is the electorate’s job to police that nonsense.

The Real Issue

What  is being missed here is the real issue. If contraceptives should be required to be provided and free under ObamaCare, why not toothpaste? Why not soap or deodorant? Band-Aids? Tums? Kleenex? Birth control pills cost about $15-$50 per month, according to Planned Parenthood. For this you need insurance? That is the cost of 2-3 packs of cigarettes, 2-3 gallon jugs of milk. Perhaps if you can’t afford to come up with that much cash, you should learn to play Pinochle until you can. How about splitting the cost with the other partner? Hell, a bottle of wine to get the festivities started will get you half way there.

The real problem is we have lost the concept of insurance. Insurance is designed to prevent a financial catastrophe from striking due to an unforeseen event. Heart attack, cancer, something that is very expensive and very unwelcome. The brouhaha over birth control is like lobbying for your auto insurance to cover your gas purchases, or your life insurance to cover your groceries. It is beyond ridiculous and it will guarantee that health care costs will not be curtailed by ObamaCare but accelerate until either the cost is astronomical or we will have to wait weeks, months, or years for service. There is a reason that you have to wait about three months to get a CT can in Canada today, but if you want to get one for your dog, it will be about three weeks. The CT scan for you is free through government health insurance. The CT scan for your dog is out of your pocket.  It is simple economics; supply and demand. If you fix the price then you have to wait. It may be free, but you could die waiting. Perhaps that’s how ObamaCare plans to save money.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As the Occupy Wall Street movement starts to sputter and annoy people, a recent announcement by New York University pretty much sums it up.

New York University is introducing two classes for credit studying the Occupy Wall Street movement. The undergraduate course will be offered through the Department of Social and Cultural Analysis. The course will be titled, “Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance.” Another professor will offer a graduate level seminar on the demonstration.

In a previous post, I wrote about Charles Murray’s speech on the state of post-secondary education. His main thesis was that employer’s have no idea the value of a degree today, because of all the nonsensical courses that are being offered. So having a degree is often meaningless. He pointedly remarked that the attractiveness of a Yale degree has nothing to do with what the student learned at Yale, but rather that as an eighteen-year old he was able to get into Yale, meaning that there had to be some raw material there to work with.

So the protestors take to the street to complain that they can’t get a job and blame it on Wall Street. They leave college with tens of thousands of dollars in debt and no way to pay it off. When a potential employer looks at the applicant’s transcript and sees two courses on Occupy Wall Street, what conclusions does the employer draw with regard to hiring that employee? Couldn’t the applicant have taken Advanced Statistics instead? You decide. Oh, by the way, there aren’t any courses that I am aware of that teach about the Tea Party Movement. Maybe it’s because most Tea Party protestors already have jobs.

 
That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by Neil T

I had no idea. I thought that runaway spending was a bad thing. I know that in business as well as in our personal lives when we borrow and spend far beyond the amount of money we take in, trouble comes calling. How did I get it so mixed up?

What did I do? I spoke up along with my Tea Party brethren. I should have kept my mouth shut. After all, John Kerry said so, and John Kerry went to Harvard. This is what he said,

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, the Massachusetts Democrat called Standard & Poor’s lowering of the nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA+ as “without question, tea party downgrade.”

“A minority of people in the House of Representative countered even the will of many Republicans in the United States Senate, who were prepared to do a bigger deal,” he said.

Kerry defended President Barack Obama’s repeated efforts to put a grand bargain deal on the table, which would have cut upwards of $4 trillion from the deficit over a decade, rather than the final debt ceiling deal that cuts between $2.1 to $2.4 trillion.

It makes perfect sense. John Kerry was for out of control spending before he was against it. He makes it crystal clear. The Tea Party which sprang up like the grass roots movement that it is, after TARP and the stimulus spending passed the Democrat controlled Congress and was signed by the Democrat President Barack Obama, spoke out against the spending and made it a front and center issue and then demanded a smaller amount of spending cuts? How could that be? (Hint: John Kerry likes taxes; lots of them).

Since becoming a Tea Party activist, I have visited Washington several times. It looks like a normal city. I guess you have to live there or work there a long time before you realize that up is down and down is up. It takes a lot of imagination to grasp that spending a little more money than spending a lot more money is a cut in spending, even though you are spending more. We rubes who don’t live in Washington don’t get it and the politicians keep rolling their eyes to let us know they are tired of explaining it to someone who didn’t go to Harvard. The real estate market in Washington is doing fine, but the real estate market in the rest of the country is in the tank. How does that happen? (Hint: all those additional federal government workers have to live somewhere).

How could I be so foolish? I guess I needed another lecture from David Axelrod to ‘splain it to me. And, hey, here he is:

“If we had defaulted on our debt, the consequences would have been dramatic and lasting,” Axelrod said. “It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point. It was something that should never have happened that clearly is on the backs of those who were willing the see the country default, those very strident voices in the tea party.”

I need to work on lowering my strident voice. I should have shut my mouth so that the debt limit could have been raised without a peep and the spending binge could have continued. I didn’t realize that I was jeopardizing Barack Obama’s chances for a second term. How could I possibly expect the dear man to fix “the mess” he inherited in less than eight years? After all, Roosevelt couldn’t get us out of the Great Depression in eight years until he hired all of those unemployed men into the Army, Navy and Marines. Obama is following Roosevelt’s playbook and it is not working today either. If Roosevelt could get elected four times, why not Obama? (We’ll get around to that Constitutional Amendment problem later).

Defaulting on our debt means not paying the interest or principle on our debt not on the failure to subsidize ethanol or Chevy Volt cars. As President Obama holds the checkbook, he could always make those payments on time with the tax revenue coming in, but somehow default, default, default is all we heard. I guess the “devil would make him do it,” the Tea Party being said devil.

The Tea Party supported strong fiscal conservatives in the 2010 election. How dare we?! Those we elected put together a budget in the House of Representatives shortly after taking control. How reckless! The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over 800 days. John Kerry ,call your office. The Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a plan called Cut, Cap, and Balance that would actually bring down the spending and toward a balanced budget. When that bill arrived in the Senate, it was immediately stuffed in a drawer. John? Rand Paul, a freshman member of the Senate who has not yet breathed enough of the rarefied air there to understand that spending is cutting, put together his own plan to cut $500 billion from the deficit immediately and balance the budget in four years. Does John Kerry know who Rand Paul is?  John, look him up, you can probably find him easily enough on the floor of the Senate when you are not out wind surfing or figuring out how not to pay sales tax on your multimillion dollar yacht.

So, I apologize for causing the downgrade of America’s debt. I didn’t mean to cause so much trouble for the ruling class. After all, they are very busy meeting at the Harvard Club deciding how to run our lives, so that we don’t screw that job up, with all that Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness crap. I will try very hard to mind my peas and cues, or is it, mind my cues and eat my peas? Whatever. I will try very hard…but don’t bet the ranch on it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

This is a story you are not likely to hear about from the mainstream media. As previously reported on this site the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton, came down hard on the sovereign country of Honduras for upholding their constitution and fighting against a Chavez style, “leader for life” power grab by their president Manuel Zelaya.

To summarize, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was coming up against term limits. His buddies, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the Castro brothers in Cuba, wanted to help Zelaya transform Honduras into another socialist enclave.  The Honduran legislature and Supreme Court blocked his efforts as unconstitutional. When the head of the army tried to enforce the ruling of the Supreme Court, Zelaya fired him and then with his thugs stole referendum ballots from an air force base where they were being held after the Supreme Court ruling.

Zelaya was removed from office and exiled. The presidential elections proceeded on schedule, a new president was elected and democracy was preserved. As a result of the commotion an inquiry panel of the Organization of American States (OAS) was formed to investigate what happened. Here are some of the conclusions they reached.

“the political crisis was set off” in January 2009. That’s when officials from the president’s office met with congressional members of his own Liberal Party and “threatened them with the rupture of the constitutional order if they did not choose—as supreme court justices—lawyers who were not on the list of 45 supreme court candidates” officially nominated through a legal selection process. According to the full report, Mr. Micheletti testified that U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens was party to this pressure on Congress to break the law.

Why is American Ambassador Hugo Llorens pressuring legislators in Honduras  to break the law and to pack the Honduran Supreme Courts with Zelaya puppets?

The report also says that ahead of the crisis, the international community did nothing to help defend the democracy. On the contrary, the OAS decided to send a mission for the referendum, “despite the fact that every state institution with competency in the matter had issued resolutions that it was illegal and that it should not take place.”

When the Honduran government acted against its rogue president, Hillary Clinton immediately labeled it a coup d’etat and pulled the visas of the fifteen members of the Honduran Supreme Court so they could not travel to the U.S. So why does the United States immediately come to the defense of Manuel Zelaya who is backed by Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers instead of the rule of law? Everyone who has looked into this has come down on the side of the Honduran government and democracy.

There are many people who are bending over backwards to claim Barack Obama is not a socialist merely because he hasn’t taken over all of the means of production. When it starts to rain, I don’t need to wait until I am drenched to head for cover. This is just one more piece of the puzzle that this is someone we have to get out of office in November of 2012, before he does more damage than we can recover from in our lifetime.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Two-faced can be such an overused term, but on the other hand two doesn’t seem to be enough to capture Harry Reid.

“Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default on the full faith and credit of the United States,” Mr. Reid said of Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader who also attended the session. “We have run out of time for politics. Now is the time for cooperation.

That’s how Harry Reid characterizes the Republican position in an article in today’s New York Times. They are stubborn, they won’t compromise, they have left poor President Obama standing at the alter, etc., etc. But just a little further on in the same article we have these gems.

Democrats, who have dug in against anything they see as a short-term extension that would require multiple votes on the debt increase before the end of next year, said they accepted the two-stage plan but wanted the full increase in the debt limit now.

“I will not support any short-term agreement, and neither will President Obama nor Leader Pelosi,” Mr. Reid said in a written statement earlier on Saturday. “We seek an extension of the debt ceiling through at least the end of 2012. We will not send a message of uncertainty to the world.”

“Dug in,” “not support,” sounds somewhat stubborn to me. So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama “will not send a message of uncertainty to the world.” Really? How certain is not passing a budget for the past two years? How certain is not having any plan of your own other than to shoot down every proposal the Republicans put forth? How certain is not letting Cut, Cap, and Balance, which passed the House and according to a CNN poll is supported by two-thirds of Americans, even come up for a floor vote?

So how is the Republican demand that this is a spending problem best solved by cutting back on the $5 trillion that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid added to the debt since they took control of Congress in 2006, being stubborn, but Harry, Nancy and Obama’s insistent on taxing Americans more and more so that this trio can spend and spend, not unreasonable? The other demand that the debt be raised high enough not to be discussed again before 2013 is pure politics. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama want to bury this until after the next elections.

The Republicans are drawing a line in the sand, because they told the voters that they would get our fiscal house in order. The voters agreed and put Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker’s chair and cut back on Reid’s power. They are standing up and honoring their campaign promise and in many cases saying they don’t care about the election of 2012. They came to Washington not to get reelected as their number one priority but to fix the problem. How refreshing is that?

But the Republicans have a tough fight as they are outgunned 3:1. The Republicans only hold the House of Representatives, while the recklessly spending Democrats hold the Senate, the White House, and the Main Stream Media who pump out whatever propaganda is fed to them by the White House. Hint: that’s why after months of no press conferences, Obama is holding daily press briefings.

The Republicans showed the courage to tackle the tough issues, put forth a budget, pass Cut, Cap and Balance in the House and are fighting to stop the runaway spending. All the Democrats have to say is No. We want to spend more. What do you say?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Mommy! Johnny Boehner didn’t return my phone call! Waaaah! Seriously? Is this what a president says in a press briefing? Good Grief!

Peggy Noonan wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, that captures the character of this president quite nicely.

For the longest time he wouldn’t engage, and now he’s engaged. For the longest time he didn’t care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television cameras with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his “ownership” of any final agreement. He’s trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

That’s all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it’s not helping. He’s becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt-ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he’d lose, that his job-approval numbers are “worse than they appear,” and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.

And if you’ve watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In two and a half years he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren’t listening anymore.

The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: “I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making.” We’re. He has “continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together.” What would those little devils do without Papa? “The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.” I’ve urged. Me, me, me.

The Republicans have put forward plan after plan, the Democrats acting alone, none. Yes there is that gang of six or seven or whatever, but you will notice that the Democrats will not take a step into that minefield without a Republican at their side. But what have the Democrats done by themselves? President Obama puts forth a budget and when that is laughed off the air, he comes back a couple of weeks later with a new one. It’s unheard of for a president to do that, and then his budget is put up for a vote and it goes down 97-0. He couldn’t even find a single Democrat to vote for it? Do the Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid vote for anything other than to block it?

Let’s recap the plans on the table:

While Obama, who shunned press conferences and briefings for months, now seems to hold one like Grace before meals, is all posturing all the time. He is also trying to paint the Tea Party patriots as unreasonably stubborn. Well, let’s revisit that one.

Do you remember a negotiation a few short months ago, after the 2010 election. The Republicans ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and were rewarded with the overwhelming support of the American people. So they set about to work cutting $100 billion from the current fiscal year. Through intense negotiations with the president, the $100 billion became $30 billion (it’s okay, because it’s less than a full year). Then when that onion got peeled back there were only about $300 million in real immediate spending cuts. Snookered?

It is a time honored Democrat tradition to negotiate a deal and then welsh on it if they can. Ronald Reagan negotiated with Tip O’Neill to raise $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts. The tax increase was immediate, the spending cuts never came. George H. W. Bush, negotiated spending cuts and the Democrats insisted on tax increases. Bush went along and then the Democrats ran on a platform that Bush broke his “Read my lips…” pledge. Let’s see, you get what you want and then you beat up the other guy for giving it to you?

So does anyone wonder why the Republicans might be digging in their heels. I have a suggestion for Speaker Boehner. Go play golf. Start the August recess early. Send everyone home. When the Democrats and the president find enough of a spine to put their plan on paper and present it to the Republicans to accept or reject, then perhaps we can consider this a negotiation among adults. But for right now it is the Democrats who are blocking every effort to put our fiscal house in order.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As the brinksmanship over the debt limit heats up, we can still hear the progressives saying that we are in this fix because we cut taxes without “paying” them. Let’s drive a stake through the heart of that one.

First of all, nobody “pays” for tax cuts.  A tax cut means that the taxpayer gets to keep more of his money. Period. It doesn’t have to be budgeted or paid for. Let me make it simple enough that a nine year old child could understand it. When you were a child and your father cut your allowance, how did you pay for it? Huh? Exactly. You don’t pay for something you never received.

Okay, now that we have that squared away, let’s look at the total amount of revenue taken in by the federal government.

Federal Government Revenue over Time

You will notice a sharp drop off beginning around 2000, that is the dot-com bubble and recession. The Bush tax cuts took place in 2003, just about in the valley on the graph, and as you can see revenues not only recoverd but hit an all time high. That means we are not in the fix we are in because of the Bush tax cuts. We are in this jam because of spending and the anemic Obama recovery, which is buried under the stimulus debt, bailouts, ObamaCare, mult-thousand page bills and tens of thousands of pages of regulations. It’s the spending. We don’t need any recovery killing tax increases.

By the way, when the Bush tax cuts passed, and as you can clearly see increased revenues, only seven Democrats in the House and two in the Senate voted for them. These are the same people today who are telling us they must be repealed.

Stop the spending. Any questions?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

How many times are we going to hear asinine comments like the following from Zack Burgess at the Philadelphia Tribune?

After Monday’s debates it seemed at times as if the GOP was focused on bashing the president vs. dealing with the problems that face the country. At this point I would like to hear from  presidential scholars, people within the GOP and the Democratic party about how the next nominee from the GOP will run their campaign. Does the GOP have a plan? Or will their platform be solely based on bashing the president? It really didn’t look as if they had an answer for high unemployment, a stalled economy  and soldiers bogged down in Afghanistan. And believe me, I’m not taking the president off the hook, but I want to know about the  GOP and where they seem to be going, because right now it doesn’t look like they have a clear strategy or answer…besides bashing the president. Is this strategy going to work? Most times it doesn’t. Your thoughts. Zack Burgess Enterprise Writer The Philadelphia Tribune

Let me try to explain it so that even Zack Burgess can understand it. The problem, my friend, is in Washington not out among the everyday folks. The Republicans, unlike your fellow travelers, do not think they are smarter than 340 million of their fellow Americans such that they can command and control the economy, like some Soviet politburo which, by the way, couldn’t do it either. This economy is recovering, far more slowly than it should, not because of Obama’s policies but in spite of them.

This administration has thrown more monkey wrenches into the economy than I thought existed. The housing market? It is still in the tank because the administration is trying to micromanage everyone’s mortgage. Get the hell out of the way, let the market find a natural bottom and it will resume its historical 3.5% per year growth rate. Unemployment? Stop throwing program after program on small and medium businesses so that they have no idea what it will cost to hire the next employee. That includes ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, cap and trade, card check, QE2, subsidies for green energy, Chevy Volts. Stop throwing away money on stimulus that did not work, and if you don’t believe me, ask your president what a shovel ready project is. The stimulus was one big, massive, porkulus bill to pay off supporters with taxpayer dollars, e.g., public sector unions. Remember, in selling the stimulus program we were warned that if nothing was done, unemployment would rise to 9%. So, by that very definition the stimulus program made the problem worse than if we did nothing.

President Obama is the most inexperienced person ever elected to the office. He is so clueless he thinks ATM machines are the reason we have high unemployment. Shall we return to to using quill pens?

So here is what the Republicans stand for. We are spending too much money. Stop it. We are putting too many programs on small and medium businesses such that they cannot calculate the cost of hiring, so they are not hiring. Stop it. We have public sector unions who are bankrupting state and local governments and it cannot continue. Stop it. Businesses have trillions of dollars overseas that they don’t want to bring back because if they do, a very large chunk of it will go right into the government spending machine. Stop it. We have program after program in Washington that has no basis of authority in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 8). Stop them.

Mr. Burgess seems to believe that if you don’t like his massive government program, you have to show him your massive government program. He doesn’t seem to grasp the idea that massive government programs are the cause the problem. It wasn’t deregulation that caused the financial crisis, it was everyone following the government’s lead to have every Tom, Dick and Harry own a home whether they could afford it or not, and if you stood in the way, the government was going to steamroll you, paint you as racist, or otherwise destroy you. The government took the lead and Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and others dutifully followed along.

The plan and the strategy of the Republicans is to cut government down to size. Limit it to the authority granted by the Constitution, stop running ponzi schemes that would make Bernie Madoff blush, and get spending under control (see Paul Ryan plan). I guess what confuses people like Mr. Burgess was that all seven candidates at the debate seemed to agree on this. The idea is to grow this great economy, not try to micromanage it by picking winners and losers.

As former New York City mayor Ed Koch once famously said to a reporter who kept asking him the same question, “I can explain it to you. I can’t comprehend it for you.”

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.