Just when you thought Joe Biden couldn’t get any lower he finds a new bottom to scrape. In an act of desperation to save the sorry state of this administration Joe Biden introduces rape and murder as justification to pass their latest job bill and implies that if you oppose the jobs bill you are in favor of more rape and murder.

First of all, police, firefighters and teachers are not employees of the federal government. They are employees of and paid for by local government. So any money that comes from Washington to help pay their salaries will at some point end and then what? Either the state or locality comes up with the funding to maintain those positions or they have to lay them off. The Republicans accurately called that measure temporary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxxotkX9ZOo

So Biden says increases in crime that have happened in Flint, Michigan, specifically rape and murder will increase if the Republicans continue to oppose this second stimulus package. It is not temporary to the crime victim, Biden says.

Let me provide Vice President Biden some scenarios, not hypothetical, but a true stories.

Sherry Rives, of Bear Creek, North Carolina, emerged from her shower to see a knife-wielding man coming towards her. When he threatened to rape her, she ran into her bedroom and got her 9 mm pistol. The two wrestled for the pistol and Rives was wounded in the thigh. She then gained control of the pistol and shot her tormentor several times, forcing him to flee. She then locked herself in the bathroom and called police. When police arrived, they found the would-be rapist dead with four bullet wounds to the chest. The woman’s father said she kept the pistol in the house for protection and she knew how to use it.– The Herald, Sanford, NC, November 12, 1997

The burglar ransacked 81-year-old Alberta Nicles’ Muskegon, Michigan, home before waking her up and ordering her around the house to search for money. Ending up back in her bedroom, the intruder–a suspected crack addict with a long history of criminal activity–removed the widow’s pajama bottoms and was preparing to rape her when she informed him that she knew where there was some money. Her assailant let her up and followed her to a closet where the woman instead retrieved her late husband’s .38. She turned and shot her tormentor to death. Nicles then went to a neighbor’s home to call police because her own lines had been severed by the intruder prior to his breaking in. “This was not just a random breaking and entering. …He was planning on taking advantage of the vulnerability of an elderly person. …She was clearly acting in self-defense,” Muskegon County Prosecutor Tony Tague said.– The Chronicle, Muskegon, MI, January 2, 1997

A Stockton, California, real estate agent put an end to an attempted rape, after a man posing as a potential home buyer attacked her in a model home. Crumpling to the floor, the realtor drew a .380 from her purse, forcing the man to flee. Pursuing him outside, the woman fired several shots at the man, missing him as he jumped in his car. She halted his escape by shooting out one of his tires and with the help of some nearby construction workers, held the thug for police. The would-be rapist is being investigated in connection with a similar 1993 attack on a female real estate agent. — The Record, Stockton, CA, February 18, 1995

Those of us who defend the Second Amendment have a saying, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” I would like to ask Vice President Joe Biden where in each of the scenarios above the victim, or potential victim, could stop the action, call 911, and then wait patiently with their attacker until the police arrive? I would guess that Vice President Biden would say, gee that’s a tough situation, you should probably submit to the rape so that you are not killed, of which there is no guarantee, and then call 911 as soon as you can afterward.

Joe Biden has been an outspoken supporter of gun control. He doesn’t grasp the fact that police rarely stop crimes, they investigate crimes. It is the deterrent effect of certain punishment that may prevent crimes. What can stop a crime in progress is a citizen with the right to carry a gun. Other than that it is picking up the pieces. So to come full circle in the analogy, by his advocacy of gun control Joe Biden is responsible for more rapes and murders than anyone who votes for this new round of stimulus. I could, once again, say shame on Joe Biden, but what would be the point?

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

Photo by Ted Abbott

Can we now drop any pretense that Joe Biden is anything but a CINO (Catholic in Name Only)? On his latest state visit to China, Biden gave a speech that should be characterized as other than “just Joe being Joe.”

We already know that Joe Biden is cheaper than dirt when it comes to his own money and sharing it with the least of his brothers. His financial disclosure records are proof enough of that. Recently Vice President Biden attended Sunday mass at a church in Southampton on Long Island. A friend of mine reported that when the collection plate was passed around, Biden kept his hands a safe distance away from his pockets, but he is quick to preach that the government is entitled to as much of your money as it needs.

Biden is also pro-abortion, something that goes against basic Catholic teaching. But if that were not enough to hide behind the fig leaf of “I’m personally opposed to abortion but I shouldn’t impose my views, yada, yada, yada,” he gives a speech in China saying he understands their one child per family policy. This is a policy where the government of China will force families to abort any pregnancies if that family already has a child. As American he should strongly protest such an intrusion on human rights. As a Catholic he should condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

So the next time the main stream media wants to hang a shred of decency on some immoral practice because Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi supports it, just leave out the part that they claim to be Catholics.

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

Photo by BlueRobot

A contentious battle has concluded today with the passage of the debt limit deal. It was a hard fought battle where no one is entirely happy with the outcome. Before we leave this field of battle, we should take stock of the accomplishments and the players involved.

President Obama

President Obama is damaged goods. His poll numbers have been falling due to the economy and he was disengaged in the debt limit debate until the very end. He has angered the left, the right, and the center. According to Scott Rasmussen, the only reason his approval rating is not lower is that he still has strong, albeit reluctant, support from Democrats. The economy is not likely to improve with him at the helm and the silver lining of the flaws in the debt deal, is it won’t help him on the economy although he managed to push another round of this past the election.

Vice President Joe Biden

Gaffe machine Joe Biden went beyond the gaffe by saying the Tea Party was a band of terrorists. Terrorists? Biden and the main stream media get all clutched up when it comes to calling real terrorists, terrorists, but easily call patriots and a large percentage of Americans, terrorists. It is a badge of dishonor he will carry for a long time.

Senator Harry Reid

Senator Harry Reid has proved, that while an adept parliamentarian in using procedures to try to play Goliath against “David” John Boehner, he just can’t get it done. He couldn’t or chose not to pass a budget for over 800 days. President Obama’s own budget went down to ignominious defeat 97-0 in his chamber. He didn’t bring Cut, Cap, and Balance up for a vote in the Senate because to do so would be lose-lose. If he brought it up he would have to defeat it. If he defeated it, many of the  twenty-three Democrat senators up for election in 2012, would  be on record for more spending and against sound fiscal policy and against two-thirds of Americans who support it. When he and President Obama hit that ball back over the net by saying Boehner walked out of the talks, that Obama has been left at the alter, etc., Boehner couldn’t just ignore it, from a political perspective, he had to respond. And so he prepared another round to put the ball back in the Democrats court. Reid tried to gut that proposal to stuff it with his own and send it back to the House but Boehner outflanked him by copying Reid’s bill and put it up for a vote, the result being it went down in flames. Reid could not even get his own version passed in the Senate. In the end the negotiations proceeded with Obama, McConnell, and Boehner; Reid was sidelined.

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi was Obama’s right hand legislator slamming through ObamaCare, stimulus, TARP, etc. She has been essentially muzzled. When the final deal was negotiated she agreed with one of her members that this was a “Satan sandwich with a side of Satan fries.” Satan? Write that one down folks, it will come in handy along with , “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.” She voted for the deal, but told her members to “vote your conscience.” Sounds like “every man for himself.”

John Boehner

Sell out. Traitor. He got rolled. He is done. Not strong praise for playing the role of David, controlling one-third of the legislative power against two-thirds. But he must be doing something right when the New York Times editorial board screams

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

Terrorists, hostage taking, brinkmanship. One need only look back to where this started: just raise the debt limit without condition just like every other debt limit increase. The taxes that Obama and the left wanted, were declared a non-starter; cuts equal to or greater than the amount of the debt limit increase were held firm; a vote on a balanced budget amendment in both houses and although it is not likely to pass, every member of Congress will have to go on record where they stand on it. Would this have even seen the light of day in Reid’s Senate without this deal?

There is a lot not to like in the deal, but it is a lot better than where it started. Most important is that it has brought the debt and the consequences of dealing with it into laser focus. It is up to the Tea Party to keep it there over the next fourteen months with a simple question, “If you want the spending to continue, elect Democrats; if you want to get our fiscal house in order, elect Republicans.”

 Mitch McConnell

McConnell also gets scorched for selling out, making deals to undermine real reform, etc. McConnell is the equal if not the superior parliamentarian to Reid. Many of us do not understand how the “sausage” is made in Congress and do not like it when we see it, but McConnell does. Remember when there were only forty Republican senators in the Senate it was McConnell who held them all together, even the RINOs, until Scott Brown was elected to be able to block legislation. It was McConnell who checked Harry Reid’s maneuver to sneak through his version of a deal with a simple majority. It prompted the news conference with Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer to chant, filibuster, filibuster! But McConnell and his deft maneuvering has been holding down the fort until reinforcements arrive.

The Tea Party

The Tea Party was not in complete agreement on this deal but everyone should take something positive out of this. This debate would not have happened at all without them. This would have passed quietly with no strings attached without the efforts of the Tea Party. Some members took a hard line that there should be no increase in the debt limit at all. Others argued caution that the political reality of only controlling one-third of the legislative process meant fighting for the best deal possible, without seeking a “bridge too far,” and triggering Treasury not sending out some checks. If that happened, which checks those would be is anyone’s guess. If the most political damage could be done and tagged to the Tea Party through that process, the left could turn a big defeat into a big victory. With seventy percent of the public disgusted with the process in Congress, if the blame could be hung on those “stubborn, inflexible, terrorist” Tea Party members, instead of having momentum to pick up more seats in November 2012, it could be turned around to “get those crazies out of there,” which would mean electing more RINOs and more Democrats and the disaster that would follow. The spirited debate in  the Tea Party was a good thing, one side kept pulling for a better deal, the other provided enough resistance to keep it from going over the edge. The goal is to get as close to the edge as possible without going over.

Where We Go From Here

Some are saying the deal will allow tax increases when the joint committee convenes. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Boehner and McConnell, if they are smart, will appoint hardliners to the committee. My suggestions: Paul Ryan, Allen West, Connie Mack from the House and Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Jim DeMint from the Senate. I believe there is zero chance that they would vote for a tax increase, regardless of what the Democrats want. Even if such a calamity would come to pass, it would still have to get through the House and I don’t see that happening.

Where do we go from here? We need to get more like minded people elected to Congress and the White House. This deal was by no means a great deal, but it was far better than no deal. We often lament that many people in America are just not focused on what is going on in Washington and what it means to us. This debt debate was front and center on the national news for weeks. This is something we need to leverage and expand on. We have come a long was since the fall of 2008 in getting people involved, getting them interested, and getting them educated. This event is an opportunity to get more people enraged and engaged. We must seize the opportunity, formulate the message, and drive it home as we close in on November 2012.

Consider if we had a great budget deal, everything we wanted. The stock market would rebound, the economy would start to recover with some uncertainty lifted, and if the employment picture improved, who do you think would take credit for it? It would be Obama crowing all day, every day, how it was a tough struggle, but he alone saved the day. Everything bad was Bush’s fault, but everything good was his doing. Therefore American must obviously give him four more years. A imperfect deal is a gift. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth; ride it to the finish line.

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



Vice President Joe Biden, the man President Barack Obama put in charge of the stimulus spending because, “nobody messes around with Joe,” met with Congressional leaders to talk about the budget for the remainder of this fiscal year. Jingling in his pocket was an additional $6.1 billion in change as all the Democrats had to offer, after the Republicans forced them to agree to $4 billion in cuts to get a two week extension from shutting down the government.

It is not serious, it is even hard to be generous in calling it ridiculous. Why are we in this situation? Because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid didn’t even bother to put together a budget in their last year in total control of the government. So the Democrats are willing to cut current year expenditures by $10.1 billion while the Republicans put $61 billion in cuts on the table. The Democrats say that is far too drastic. Really? $10.1 billion amounts to 0.28% of federal outlays. Get serious! I have been in many situations in business where the word comes down from the top to find and cut 10% from the budget and do it now. If the federal government was being run like a business that would mean finding $355 billion in cuts and still let the federal government spend 90% of what they originally planned.

The difference is that if the business is up against the wall, they either cut or go out of business. They will cut expenses, sell unneeded assets, or assets that they can get more money for than they can produce themselves. If the government doesn’t cut what will happen? The taxpayers get screwed either way. Either they pay more in taxes or they pay when the economy collapses, but what Obama and Biden think we really need is a faster train to get Joe Biden back and forth to Delaware.

The Democrats say that if we cut the budget it will cost jobs. Even Ben Bernanke in testifying before Congress this week said will slow the economy and cost an estimated 200,000 jobs. Did he use the same model that said if we spend a trillion in stimulus money that the unemployment rate will not rise above 8%? Now, two and a quarter years after the stimulus money was squandered the unemployment rate finally dipped below 9%. It failed. The projections failed, Meanwhile Bernanke keeps printing money and devaluing our currency. It’s time to take a different approach before the government owes more than it is possible to cover the interest on, let alone the principle.

This is a very, very serious problem, that requires serious people to stop playing with half measures and games of chicken around shutting down the government as a political ploy. We keep hearing that the American people don’t want to cut programs, but at the same time the American people know how bad the spending is out of control. That leads me to believe they are not being asked the right questions, but rather the questions a clever pollster formulates to get the response he is looking for.

Real cuts, serious cuts are needed to bring the budget into balance and start shrinking the debt not just the deficit. And it needs to be done now.

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

When the unions and their progressive supporters hit the streets in Madison, Wisconsin the news cameras didn’t have to look high and low to find the Hitler posters, they could probably spot them from a hundred yards off, but honestly, who didn’t think there would be Hitler posters at a left wing rally? But in a effort to modernize, somebody found a newspaper and saw there was some unrest in the Middle East and voila, we had comparisons to Hosni Mubarak and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So Governor Scott Walker, we are to believe, is acting like a dictator not a democratically elected governor working through a democratically elected legislature? Hmmm, I wonder how the public sector unions got the “rights” they ferociously cling to?

Wagner and Kennedy

In 1958, New York City mayor Robert F. Wagner was running for reelection. He had a little problem, though, and that was the fact that all five Democratic county leaders were opposed to him. Not only did that make getting reelected an uphill fight, he realized that he might not even be the nominee of the Democrat party. He needed a bold stroke of political genius. He found his stroke with the point of a pen. He penned an executive order giving public sector employees the ability to unionize. Were the public sector employees in some sort of danger that they needed additional protections? No. They were already protected under civil service provisions. This was purely a political power play designed for the sole purpose of getting Mayor Wagner reelected against the wishes of the leaders of his own party. Sounds a little bit dictatorial, no? One man creates the first public sector unions for the purpose of getting himself reelected. Let the public be damned with the long term consequences. He would be long retired before that piper had to be paid.

President John F. Kennedy won the presidency by the slimmest of margins. Some have reasonably argued that voting shenanigans in Chicago threw the election his way. President Kennedy saw how well things were going for the Democrats in New York after Wagner’s executive order. He also didn’t want to face another tough election. What could he do to put a thumb on the scale? In 1962, President Kennedy picked up his pen and wrote Executive Order 10988, that gave federal workers the right to organize. Again, no public outcry that public sector unions were needed, no act of Congress; one man, exercising executive power, dramatically changed the direction of public worker compensation that we are now buried under. Sounds somewhat dictatorial, no?

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker is trying to use the democratic legislative process to pass a law, changing the scope of the collective bargaining abilities, not eliminating them, and somehow that earns him the comparisons to Middle East dictators. What does that tell you about the intellectual honesty of the left? Likes the states, it’s bankrupt.

The Unspoken Truth

The unions in Wisconsin have said they agree to the health care contributions that the governor has demanded, they have agreed to the retirement contributions that the governor has demanded, so it is not about the money it is about breaking the unions. I wish that Governor Walker would come clean and explain exactly what the goals are.

 Without the changes in collective bargaining, sure the unions will give in now, but they will still have all their political power. Meaning that in the next election, they can once again come out in force to elect their future bosses and then negotiate to restore everything they gave up. It is not only about the money today, it is about the money in the future as well. As long as unions can take money from their members, use it to elect politicians who will give away the store to them as payback, any concessions today are only a short term fix. Governor Walker is trying to effect a permanent fix. He wants to bend the cost curve downward so that Wisconsin can attract businesses to the state and jobs. With jobs and a growing economy the states fiscal health will be restored. With the changes in collective bargaining, compensation in the public sector will not continue to outgrow private sector compensation that pays the salaries and benefits of the public sector. Is that fair? Ask a taxpayer and then ask a union member.

Right to Work

If the place of unions is so glorious in the tradition and success of the American economy, why are unions so desperately afraid of Right to Work laws? Why do unions need the coercive power of the state to force people to join unions in some states? Sounds more like Iran than America, no?

When I was in college I took a summer job with UPS. UPS was a union shop, which means they can hire union or non-union workers but after a set period of time the non-union workers have to join the union or lose their jobs. In the period that I was there, I and the guy I was teamed with developed a reputation as hard workers. Whenever a tractor trailer came in with just a few minutes left before the transfer point closed for the night, we were typically asked to be the ones to unload it because we could to it faster than anyone else. My work performance got me a raise in the short time I was there. But after about two months the foreman came to me and said it was time to join the union. Again, this was a summer job that I would be leaving to go back to college regardless. But there was no give. Rather than join, I quit, and finished out my summer at another job that appreciated a hard worker.

Where Right to Work laws are in play, an individual cannot be forced to join a union. If unions are the mother’s milk that the left claims they are why does the left oppose Right to Work laws? Why should an individual be forced to join a union as a condition of their employment?  If unions are so wonderful, why is union membership in the private sector plummeting? What happened to our steel industry? Our ship building industry? Our auto industry? Tell me again where the dictators are and where the democracy lies.

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

It didn’t take long for President Barack Obama to get set back on his heels and hastily call a press conference to talk about his budget. Throughout his term we have seen his inexperience show as he jerks back and forth from position to position, unless it involves pushing his progressive agenda, where he is laser focused.

However, in listening to the president it makes you wonder if we occupy the same time-space continuum that he does. His budget plan projects that in 2015, the deficit will be down to $607 billion, a level that he alone among all presidents has reached or exceeded, and he says of that projection, “will not be running up the credit card anymore.” Say what? He is planning to overspend revenues by $607 billion and that is not running up the credit card anymore. Has there been another language overhaul that I missed like the one that changed spending to investing?

His plan also will add $7.2 trillion to the debt. It took every president from George Washington until Nancy Pelosi took over the purse strings half way through George W. Bush’s second term to borrow $8 trillion. From Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House until now, another $5 trillion was added and President Obama wants to add another $7.2 trillion to that! One president, Barack Obama, has set a course to borrow more money during his term in office that all other presidents combined and he calls that “not running up the credit card.” Is he delusional? If Joe Biden weren’t the Vice President I might start pushing to invoke the twenty-fifth amendment.

Everything has to be on the table. Entitlements have to be re-designed and re-designed out of existence so that these previously private responsibilities, no where authorized in the Constitution, are once again the private responsibilities of all Americans and not the incompetent nanny state that knows no limit to fraud and mismanagement of such programs.

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

First it was that Bush spent all eight years of his presidency (and was reelected after four of those years) destroying the economy and so we need to give Obama, what, eight years to fix it?  Then it was blame Boehner.  That didn’t work, because not many people know who John Boehner is.  Then it was “the Republicans want to go back to the same old ways that got us into this mess.”  Tell that to Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson.  Same old, same old?  I don’t think so.

Now it is time to go negative.  No, I don’t mean campaign ads.  That was to be expected as the Democrats do not, repeat, do not want to run on their record, lest it get as ugly on November 2 as a town hall meeting.  No, they are going negative on their base.  The Democrat heavies are coming out and mocking their base to shame them into coming out and voting for them.  Consider some of these gems.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” – John Kerry

“Stop whining” and “buck up,” – Vice President Joe Biden

“If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.” – President Obama

The President demanded that his supporters “shake off this lethargy,” warning that it would be “inexcusable” for liberals to stay home on Election Day.

Well if that doesn’t work, there is always that Tea Party gang to demonize.  Now, if only the statists could find the leader of the Tea Party and destroy them, the movement would collapse.  Sorry, there is no such person.  There are numerous Tea Party groups with numerous leaders.

[T]he tea party movement is financed and directed by “powerful, special-interest lobbies.” – President Obama

“There are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the President.” – President Obama

Thomas Friedman wrote a piece in the New York Times today, “The Tea Kettle Movement,” as in just blowing off steam.  In it he makes several points that prove how ignorant the statists are regarding the Tea Party movement and will continue to be so as long as they get all their information from the main stream media, like the Times.

Democratic Pollster Stan Greenberg told me that when he does focus groups today this is what he hears: “People think the country is in trouble and that countries like China have a strategy for success and we don’t. They will follow someone who convinces them that they have a plan to make America great again. That is what they want to hear. It cuts across Republicans and Democrats.”

Yes China has a strategy, but don’t be fooled because it is a communist country into thinking that the answer is centralized control over all economic activity.  China’s success is because they realize that communism doesn’t work and they are moving more and more toward capitalism.  For example, China’s corporate tax rate is 16% while the U.S. rate is 35%.  Obama wants to move America to be more like the old, failed, socialist regimes but because he is smarter than everyone else, he will get it right.

To me [Friedman], that is a plan that starts by asking: what is America’s core competency and strategic advantage, and how do we nurture it? Answer: It is our ability to attract, develop and unleash creative talent. That means men and women who invent, build and sell more goods and services that make people’s lives more productive, healthy, comfortable, secure and entertained than any other country.

He seems to get the answer right but then progressives support policies that do just the opposite.  You don’t nurture the ability to attract, develop and unleash creative talent through bigger government, oppressive taxes, and burdensome regulation.  The progressives, in the midst of a feeble recovery, want to slam these very people with $700 billion in additional taxes.

Friedman, to his credit is not as out of touch as President Obama.  He suggests:

Actually raise some taxes — on, say, gasoline — and cut others — like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services — like Social Security — while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy.

Increasing the cost of energy through gasoline taxes is not the solution.  Perhaps that is a way to fund fixing the highways and bridges, but not unleash our productivity.  His immigration suggestion is not unlike the Tea Party movement and as he doesn’t mention illegals there might be a difference there, maybe not.  As far as reducing some service like Social Security, that is a result of a bad idea (ponzi scheme) put in place at the start.  If the same amount of money that is put into Social Security was put into private savings, there would be no need for a discussion.  The reason this is a big problem is the age old nanny state mentality, that people are too stupid to take care of themselves (put away for retirement) and that if the government doesn’t step in and take care of them now (payroll taxes), it will have to step in later to fix the lives they have screwed up.

No matter how you cut it, it is hardly a motivating message for either the base or anyone else to vote for the Democrats.  With little over thirty days left until the election, the Democrats are still throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything will stick.  This could be a bigger rout than we thought.

You don’t have to go too far to find a story about people suffering in these tough economic times, and your heart goes out to them.  Some have lost houses, are living in cars, really tough stuff.  But there is another story under the surface that reflects common attitudes developed growing up in the nanny state kicked into high gear by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In the midst of these tough economic times, instead of getting out of the way by cutting taxes and red tape, the Obama administration is focused on piling on more government programs.  Worthless stimulus packages, health care reform, and efforts to push cap and trade have not moved the unemployment needle a whit.  They extend unemployment benefits and keep whistling past the graveyard hoping they won’t get swallowed up.

Personal Responsibility

Since the Great Depression and the growth of the nanny state, more and more people have bought into the myth that the government can provide all, and our responsibility is to enjoy the ride.  An article in today’s New York Times writes about people benefitting from a government program to keep them in their houses if they face becoming homeless.  But there are some subtleties in the hard luck stories that give me pause.

There is the case of Antonio Moore who lost his job as a mortgage consultant that paid him $75,000 per year.  He lost his 3-bedroom house with a Jacuzzi and his Lexus sedan.  He is now faced with eviction from his apartment.  The article doesn’t go into details, but in most cases you don’t lose your house and car if they are all paid for.  Again, it doesn’t say if Mr. Moore bought his car new or used, but when I think of a car like a Lexus I usually don’t think that fitting in the budget of someone making $75,000 living in the San Francisco Bay area.  Had Mr. Moore purchased a Toyota Corolla instead of the Lexus would he be in better shape?  Again, I don’t know the details.  I am just wondering.

Then there is the case of Dawn Martin.

Ms. Martin is mortified to be asking for help. She grew up wealthy, with vacations spent on Caribbean cruises. “I had everything I ever wanted,” she says.

She and her husband have a painting business that until 2008 was grossing $100,000 per year, but in this tough economy it dropped to $38,000.  That’s hard.  But then here is the between the lines story:

Her father has money to help if it really comes down to it, she acknowledges.

“I don’t see him letting his grandkids land on the street,” she says, “but he’d hold it over our heads for a long time. That would lower me to a level that I wouldn’t want to go.”

So she is here, at Samaritan House, filling out the paperwork for the homeless prevention program.

So because of her pride, she turns to your family and mine, through higher taxes to fund a government program, to help her through her rough spot before she will turn to her own family.  But don’t worry.  When our money is gone, she will turn to Dad.  The painting business is picking up so Ms. Martin is confident they will be able to sustain themselves.  She is able to take our money to tide her over and still maintain her pride. 

But what did Ms. Martin learn about money when “growing up wealthy”?  Is Dad responsible for not teaching her or was she a rebellious child who ignored him and perhaps that is why he would hold it over her head for a long time.  Will she do something different this time around or hope for another government program?

Perhaps I was a little torqued before reading this story by another in the Wall Street Journal that wrote about the homes underlying the Goldman Sachs fraud case.  This article talks about a Ms. Onyeukwu, a 43-year old nursing home assistant with pre-tax income of $9,000 per month.  She is having trouble paying her $688,000 mortgage at $5,000 per month which is 56% of her pre-tax income.  Her solution?  Refinance it with a $786,250 mortgage.  But hey, the interest rate is lower so her payments of $5,000 per month will stay the same.  What is she thinking?  I could be way off base here but I’ll bet she could get a nice apartment for significantly less than $5,000 per month.  Sell the house, live within your means.

Government as Savior or Government as Pusher?

This is a tale of two government programs and personal responsibility.  We had or still have a massive government program that uses threats, goals, and sleight of hand to help millions achieve the American dream of home ownership.  This is not through thrift, like our parents did it, but by the government threatening banks with charges of racism (there’s the race card again) if the banks didn’t lower their lending standards.  As the housing market took off, the feeding frenzy intensified and everyone was trying to buy houses or finance them with less and less money down.  The Community Reinvestment Act, HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac were all players in this debacle, but don’t expect our elected officials to wade into that swamp to see what happened.  No, they will pile the blame on the banks and Wall Street, while they take Wall Street’s massive donations and do nothing but pass meaningless “reform legislation”.  Now we need new government programs to keep these people hanging on.  How similar is this to the drug pusher who gives you your first hit for free to get you hooked and dependent on them forever.

What About Personal Responsibility?

Unlike the people in the articles, I believe I have responsibility first and foremost for my actions.  If I need help beyond myself I turn to my family and then the charity of my church.  I believe many conservatives share my views, which is why on average conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberals.  It is why I gave the moniker “Buck a Day Biden” to Vice President Joe Biden because in his financial disclosure forms he reported give only about $300 a year to charity.  Here is a man who has been drawing six figure salaries from the taxpayers for years, is a millionaire, but will not reach very deep into his own pocket to help his fellow man, but has no problem reaching into your pocket and mine to create some government program to give your tax dollars to someone else.

There is a man named Dave Ramsey, who was a millionaire in his mid-twenties but later lost it all and declared bankruptcy.  He now teaches others how to live without debt and take responsibility for their financial lives.  It is a lesson all of us should learn and if we do, I’ll have to find something else to write about that sets me off.  But in the mean time we have a lot of work to do.  First we have to stop the federal government’s runaway train.  Next, we have to shrink government.  Then we have to go back to being responsible for ourselves and wean ourselves off the government.

Democrats think they have a winner.  They want to lather on some more financial regulations because regulators dropped the ball on enforcing what already exists.  So as conservatives point out that what they are proposing is unnecessary or won’t work, they can gleefully say, “Republicans are for the fat cats, while we’re for the little guy.”

Broken Regulations

Harry Markopolos recognized within “minutes” that Bernie Madoff was a fraud.  He took his case to the SEC and was promptly ignored.  He took it to Forbes magazine…not interested.  Bernie Madoff himself was surprised how long it took to be found out. 

So what does the SEC do now?  It initiates a case against Goldman Sachs where professionals on both sides of a transaction knew what they were getting into.  One side bet on housing prices continuing to rise, the other betting the bubble would burst.  The decision on pursuing this was voted 3-2, with three Democrats voting in favor of pursuing the case, and two Republicans voting against.  It must be the Democrats looking out for the little guys and the Republicans looking out for evil Wall Street, right?

John Paulson is the investor who allegedly played unfairly by being able to choose the securities that went into the investment that Goldman Sachs allegedly didn’t disclose to the other party.  Mr. Paulson hasn’t been charged with anything.  Mr. Paulson also contributed $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last June.  If you recall Jon Corzine, former Democratic Senator and Governor of New Jersey, used to be the chairman of Goldman Sachs.  The new head of the SEC enforcement division in the Obama Administration, Adam Storch, is a former Goldman Sachs Vice President.  So who’s in bed with Wall Street? 

Democrats Need a Diversion

With almost every measure of public opinion on government appointment sinking to all time lows, the Democrats need to ramp up the class warfare machine to find anything that will gain traction with the public.  They know they can’t fight on the facts so they have to start the fog machine.  Typical Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals stuff.

Conservatives must focus the debate on the issues and not shrink from the fight.  It is far too easy to show that Big Government (Obama) and Big Business (GE, et al) are really partners in dividing up the spoils amongst themselves and telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Remembering Reagan

Ronald Reagan famously said that the statists believe:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

There is currently no more telling example of this than Senator Chuck Schumer bloviating about Spirit Air Lines charging passengers for carry on baggage.  He wants to introduce legislation prohibiting this.  Hey, Chuck, if you don’t like Spirit charging you for your carryon bags, pick another airline!  That’s how markets work.  But the genius that is Washington is, NO we have to regulate that!  So the idiots would pass a law prohibiting charging for carryon bags and the airlines will respond by raising ALL ticket prices to compensate.  So instead of my having a choice of carrying a bag on board or saving the money, or choosing another airline altogether, the government will make everything equal and more expensive.

So, Chuck, how are you and your pals doing as far as growing the economy and getting the unemployment rate down?   Maybe you should spend some time on that, no?

From being the foregone conclusion as the first woman President of the United States in 2008 to a marginalized, snarky misrepresentative of the United States, it time for her to realize, the band stopped playing and everyone has gone home but her.  It’s time to call it a day and resign.

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer

Proving, once again, he is the master of hardball politics, Barack Obama dangled the Secretary of State job in front of his vanquished rival.  She took the bait.  No more would she be a force in the Senate able to challenge Obama at the first stumble.  She was now part of the problem, not a potential solution.  Once ensconced at Foggy Bottom, she thought she enhance her image by holding the most prestigious post in the Cabinet.  But she again underestimated Barack Obama.

He proceeded to divvy up foreign policy among many advisers, undercutting Hillary every step of the way.  She’s no fool, she can see it and it is eating away at her, to the point where she is becoming a gaffe machine to rival Joe Biden.

She’s No Condoleezza Rice

Upstaged by her husband in North Korea, negotiating the release of the journalist hostages, she was asked what her husband thought about another matter while in Africa.  In a similar situation, Condoleezza Rice, would have handled that with aplomb and not become rattled. But here is Hillary’s response.  Hillary Snaps.  Smacking down a questioner on the world stage?  Well that will surely “correct” our image as the Ugly Americans.

The Apology Tour Continues

She goes on to make a speech in Nigeria and wants to emphasize that there is no place in the world for corrupt elections.  A very good point to make, that few could argue with.  But what does she use as an analogy?  She openly suggests that Jeb Bush fixed the 2000 Presidential election for his brother.  Of all the analogies of corrupt elections that she could have used, let’s see, Iran?  Cuba?  the old Soviet Union? she points to the oldest democracy in history and suggest that we are as corrupt as any third world dictator.  Hillary Compares U.S. Elections to Third World Corruption.  Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who endorsed Hillary to take his Senate seat, must be turning over in his grave.  He used to staunchly defend the United States at the UN and here his protege is saying we are no better than the worst of them.

In Honduras, the rule of law is being followed to prevent a Chavez style dictator from taking over that country, and who does Hillary and the Obama administration support?  The Chavez puppet.  What about standing up for democracy in our Hemisphere?  It is time for her to go.

The Gore Thing in 2000

Let’s get this straight one more time.  On election night 2000, Gore lost Florida.  He lost the recount.  He lost the re-recount.  He lost the re-re-recount.  He lost the official recount.  He lost the private recount sponsored by newspapers.

Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

“In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States,” said Mark Seibel, the paper’s managing editor. “I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.” — CNN

If Democrats and their radical supporters want to salve their wounds with this myth, live the fantasy.  But don’t smear this country with these lies while acting as our chief diplomat.