Obama Spiked the Football on Bin Laden, Caused Arab Unrest?

The Drive-By Media would love you to believe the problems in Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Middle East is over a video made and published on You Tube...or a radical Christian pastor (that even Christians abhor as wrong)...but the one very obvious question is not being asked: is the problem Obama "spiking the football" after killing Osama Bin Laden?

Before you start in on me and how it's Bush's fault...(or Mitt Romney's for reacting or global warming or killer bees or whatever silly excuse liberals choose today), remember how Obama was going to make the world love us just by being him? Yeah, about that...hasn't happened, has it?

Oh, and by the way, there's this:

We also have the intelligence to suggest that this attack was planned and well in place before any videos or any other baloney that it's being blamed on occurred.

Now, please tell me, Mr. Obama Apologist: If the problem is this video, please explain to me why it's Osama Bin Laden that the protestors are screaming about?

Could it be that the real problem is Obama policies? Do you think maybe, just maybe it's because Obama's shown himself weak to terrorists? Or maybe, just maybe it's because Obama went and "spiked the football" and bragged over and over and over again about killing Bin Laden?

Or maybe, just maybe, we could surmise it's both. Because I lived through 7 anniversaries of 9/11 under President Bush. Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Islamic extremists didn't pull this sort of attack.

So today we've got the Drive-By Media focused on something Mitt Romney said TWO MONTHS AGO to donors talking about strategy. THAT'S the focus because apparently that's the important thing (not the fact that Obama spiking the football on the Bin Laden killing caused riots). Yep. That's the Media's priority. We must not let them do it! This is the news story!

Obama's (Lack of) Response to Libyan Attack was Disgraceful, Romney's was Presidential

As I'm sure you are aware, the United States Embassy in Cairo, Libya was attacked and our ambassador was killed.

So here's what the US Embassy said shortly before the attacks:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Wow. Friends, WE apologized BEFORE we were attacked. We're apologizing for "hurting the religious feelings of Muslims?" Well apparently it wasn't a good enough apology, because then they attacked.

I know we're going to hear how "It wasn't Obama!" but friends, the administration absolutely cleared this statement. Americans were attacked overseas.  Frankly if the President DIDN'T know about this that says what a weak leader we have elected President.

Now let me ask you a question: Do "hurt feelings" justify violence? Do "hurt feelings" justify murder? OF COURSE NOT! I don't care how badly your politically correct feelings are hurt...you do not get to kill Americans (or anyone else, frankly).

One man was Presidential yesterday in the wake of this. No, it wasn't the actual President of the United States. It was the man who I believe will be President in a mere four months, Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney had a chance yesterday to look Presidential, and he nailed it. (President Obama had an opportunity to be weak and pandering...and he nailed that opportunity as well as Governor Romney nailed the opportunity to look Presidential.)  It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan when Americans held hostage in Iran boarded a plane to go home as Reagan was sworn in as President.

Here's what Governor Romney said in the wake of the attack:

It wasn't until far later in the statement that Romney condemned the liberal attempt to apologize.  Of course that's what the liberal media is focused on...and not how weak Obama was in a difficult moment. How dare Governor Romney criticize poor Obama...he's had it so tough!  Friends, I'd like to remind the Drive-By Media of something important: Mitt Romney, in addition to being a candidate for President, is also a citizen. That means, for four months more anyway, Barack Obama is Mitt's President too...and in this country it is not only our right to question our leaders it is our responsibility. Even if that President has thin skin.

My friends, we need a real leader. President Obama has clearly refused to be that. Mitt Romney I am convinced will lead. And that's the kind of President this nation deserves.

To my regular readers: Have you liked Biblical Conservatism on Facebook yet? YOU ARE MISSING OUT on the news I read to prepare this blog and the political and political cartoons and memes that make me laugh! Click here to see the page and ,like us!

This ad was not paid for by any political candidate, party or PAC. It has been posted as part of this Blogger's personal endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time laws.

Dissecting Obama's Talking Points: Taxes (Pt 1)

Since the election is in full swing, I wanted to expand my sporadic series of "Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points" and do a more specific analysis of President Obama's rhetoric. Specifically, I'd like to analyze one well repeated talking point of the President's: "We're simply asking the wealthiest among us to give up their tax cuts."

I have two issues with this attitude. First and foremost, referring to these as "tax cuts" is a fallacy. The current tax rates were passed into law in June of 2001. That means these rates have been in place now for eleven years. Compare that to the Clinton Tax Rates, passed into law in August of 1993, which stood as law for not quite eight years. Yet according to most liberals, these are the "correct" tax rates...the ones we should return to by "repealing the tax cuts." Now friends, I'm no mathematician, but seeing as how the Bush rates have been the law of the land now for eleven years, changing the rates to a higher rate cannot honestly be considered "repealing a tax cut." Rather, they must be considered raising taxes.

What makes this even more preposterous of a claim is the fact that President Obama claims that raising payroll tax rates back up to the standard 6.2% from the active holiday rate of 4.2% equates "raising taxes." Here's a shock: Obama's trying to ride two horses with one rear end. Didn't see that one coming. So, if we return tax rates to where they were a year and a half ago is "raising taxes" but returning rates to where they were ELEVEN YEARS AGO is simply "repealing a tax cut?" Raise your hand if your head hurts after that logic? (My hand is in the air.)

Fact is the tax rates are what they have been since 2001. They are the official tax rates. Any increase in taxes above those rates is not repealing a tax cut. It is raising taxes. Period.

(Monday we will deal with the second part of this falicious claim by the President.)

Shock of Shocks - Obama Wants to Raise Taxes

Picking up my sarcasm, friends? Good, because I'm laying it on pretty thick.  Of course President Obama wants to raise taxes...he's a liberal! His mentality is that all your money really belongs to the government anyway, whatever isn't taxed is government benevolence, and you should be happy with whatever government leaves for you. That's why he thinks that tax cuts "cost money." It makes about as much sense as me saying "If I choose not to buy Eggo Waffles, I'm costing the Kellogg Company money."  Actually, that money didn't belong to Kellogg in the first place. Same goes with tax dollars. The money doesn't belong to government in the first place.

Now let's talk about the theoretical logic behind Obama's tax increase...one would assume it's to close the budget deficit. So let's look at some numbers, shall we? The 2012 Federal Budget had a deficit of $1.327 Trillion. Now, over ten years, the Obama tax increases would raise $700 Billion. That translates into only $70 Billion in additional revenue per year (and that's assuming businesses don't adjust their spending accordingly, which they most likely will do). But let's put on our Happy Imagination Hats and make pretend that businesses won't adjust their spending and will just bend over, grab the ankles, and pay the taxes. (Why not, since we're living in Happy Imagination Land anyway.)

So even assuming a static budgeting projection, the deficit drops from $1.327 Trillion to $1.257 Trillion. Wow. Huge difference, right? Wrong. It's a drop in the bucket. We're still more than one and a quarter trillion dollars in debt FOR ONE YEAR.  So basically, this tax increase is pointless. It's ignoring the real problem entirely. Which is Obama's favorite thing to do: Pretend the problem is insufficient revenue and not excessive spending.

It's typical liberal rhetoric: just pretend we can spend and spend and spend. Just tell people we're raising taxes on somebody else. That way they'll vote for you, because apparently Americans are so selfish that they're fine with taking somebody else's money. It's not going to work, friends. Just ask Walter Mondale...I mean he beat Reagan, right? Oh wait...

Bottom line, Obama is grasping at straws. Only Mitt Romney can defeat Mitt Romney. Once Mitt fires up the conservative base, it's all over for Obama. We just need to fire up that base. Then, instead of raising taxes on somebody else, or taking somebody else's money, we can simply elect Somebody Else as our President.

Obama's Being Lauded for Doing Nothing on Gay Marriage

Last week, President Obama gave his "decision" on the gay marriage issue.  In short, he said, "I believe we should extend marriage to homosexual couples, however, I do not believe this is a Federal issue and should be handled by the states."  Translation: The President wants to be thought of as progressive on the gay marriage issue, but doesn't have the juevos to support doing anything about it.

I don't intend to talk about feelings on this issue.  To quickly rehash my previous statements:  I believe the word marriage has a specific meaning, that it is a faith based institution and that it is between a man and a woman.  Also you should know that I respect the Constiutions equal protection clause enough to say that the best solution is to either a) create a separate institution with similar rights for gay couples or b) simply remove the word marriage entirely from the legal license and make all legal unions "Civil Unions."

What President Obama knows...what everyone should know really...is that this nation is not in favor of extending the meaning of marriage beyond one man and one woman.   Yes, I realize that polls recently are showing a shift in this debate...but there's just one problem: This never bears out any time the subject of gay marriage goes on a state wide ballot!  Even in California, one of if not the most liberal state in this country, voted to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2008.  The states where some form of gay marriage has been legalized

My best conjecture on this is that people are not willing to say "no I do not believe marriage should be extended to everyone" in a poll, where another person is listening to their response and quite possibly judging that statement...but when they get into that polling booth, just them and their conscience and faith, they vote their conscience and vote no.

So what the President has done, in essence, is say "All you people who agree with gay marriage, I'm with you, but all you people who disagree with gay marriage, I'm not going to go against your wishes with any legislation."  Translation: President Obama hasn't done a darn thing. He's not supporting gay marriage in anything but words. He's not advancing legislation in any way. He's not making any decision. He's wimping out.

So to those of you who are applauding President Obama's decision, please hear me: President Obama did nothing.  He expressed his support and then promised not to back that support with any of his Presidential authority. The President is trying to ride two horses with one rear end, yet again. I hope you will wisely not be swayed by it.

Reactions to Obama’s Non-Compromise on Abortion

One of the more difficult things about writing a daily political blog is trying to discuss all pertinent issues in a timely fashion.  Sometimes, when the President tries to pull the wool over our eyes the day before a Republican Primary, something gets pushed off to the side.  For a day.

Last week, the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations went to the wall with President Obama on one of those lovely hidden rules in the Obamacare law (you know, the ones we had to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it” hidden rules), this time requiring all hospitals and other medical practices to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization (for the record, this usually means vasectomy or tubal ligation aka tube tying) services or not receive any federal funding. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to quickly outline my personal views on this subject.  I have no moral objection to contraception.  Contraception means methods of preventing pregnancy through either a barrier that stops the male genetic material from fertilizing the female genetic material. (For the record, I consider vasectomy and tubal ligation as contraception, albeit permanent…they keep one or both sets of genetic material in their respective biological storehouses.)  I have huge moral objections to abortion.  Abortion is the process of destroying a fertilized human embryo.  I believe that life begins at conception, and that all human life is precious because it is created in the image of God. 

To give a crude analogy, let’s consider the male genetic material a lit match and the female genetic material as a bucket of gasoline.  Contraception would be the process of keeping the match away from the gasoline.  Abortion is extinguishing the fire after the match hits the gasoline.  My belief according to my faith is that it is ok to stop the fire from happening (preventing pregnancy), but not to extinguish the fire (aka destroying the human life).

I am not alone.  The Roman Catholic Church, most traditional Protestant denominations and pretty much all Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations are opposed to abortion.  In those groups the beliefs on contraception are not so universal.  Many of those are also opposed to contraception.  I believe that human life begins at conception; not at some point after conception, but also not at some point before conception.  Simply stated, it’s not a human until the genetic material combines. 

The President, however, has decided to take for himself a power that does not belong to him: the power to force individuals of faith to fund procedures their faith says is murder.  Now the Constitution is clear, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  You know why it says “Congress shall make no law”? Because the President DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS!  Period.  The President may either sign off on laws or veto them, but he has no right to pass them on his own.  Period.  But we’ll get back to that.  Congress has no right to force any individual to go against their religion.  (The only exception is that one man’s liberty ends at another person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.)

So the President’s attempt to force individuals and hospitals and organizations to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization services is absolutely, 100% Unconstitutional.  Period.  But there is more to this problem.  The Obamacare law and the President wanted to force these organizations not only to provide these services but to PAY FOR THEM! He wants to force organizations with moral objections to not only provide these services but pay for them for their employees, free of charge.

So then, last week, the President came out with a “compromise.”  Instead of requiring the organizations to provide these services to their employees free of charge, now, out of the goodness of his heart, he’s telling the Insurance Company that THEY must pay for these services.  Oh, and by the way, do you know who is forced to provide Insurance to their employees due to the Obamacare law?  Employers!  So the same conscientious objecting employers are being forced to provide the Insurance which is forced to provide the objectionable services.  Translation:  Obama is still requiring those groups to pay for services they find morally objectionable!

One last thing:  The President calls these new services that insurance companies are required to cover “free of charge.”  Baloney.  Does the President HONESTLY believe that Insurance companies are going to just provide these services, which by the way are far more expensive than the co-pay that we shell out as consumers, letting that cut into their profit margins?  OF COURSE NOT!  You know how insurance companies will recoup that loss?  I’ll tell you how:  Raise premiums.  But Obamacare will lower costs, right?

Bottom line, this is just another liberal social program being forced on people against their will because Obama and the liberals know better than we do what’s best for us.  So let’s do our nation a favor and elect ourselves a new President.

A Dose of Reality on Obama's Student Loan Forgiveness

The President's latest Socialist plan to gain votes has hit the scene:  Student Loan Debt Relief aka Obama's Student Loan Bailout.  It's an irresponsible plan that is devoid of personal responsibility that, by the way, is going to cost a whole lot of money.  There are so many questions to ask about it, so let's dive in.

First and foremost, it's pure entitlement mentality.  Let's talk about what a loan is, student or otherwise.  A loan is a bank giving an individual money to purchase something, like an education, for example.  The bank then is paid back with interest for that loan.  You see, the bank doesn't give loans to be nice or to help you out. If they give you a loan without charging interest, they have no reason to be in business, plus no revenue stream to pay their employees, pay interest on their depositors money and still make a significant enough profit to make the risk of giving you a loan worthwhile.

So you have people who have taken out loans to purchase a college education, have then proceeded to purchase that college education, and are now protesting saying "DON'T MAKE ME PAY YOU!  DON'T MAKE ME PAY YOU!"  I'm sorry, but that mentality is as preposterous as going out to dinner, ordering a meal, having the meal you ordered served to you correctly with fresh ingredients and finding the meal delicious, then protesting the manager for asking you to pay the bill.  In short, you're seeking to rationalize and legalizing YOU breeching your end of contract after the other party in the contract, the bank, has fulfilled their end of the contract.

Secondly, with Obama's proposal to forgive all unpaid loans after 20 years.  So why pay it back?  Rework your student loan payments to pay minimal amounts, set it on a 30-40 year term, pay $50 or $100 per month instead of what you genuinely should owe on a standard 10 year repayment plan, and then see a huge part of it forgiven because it's outstanding after 20 years.  I don't need to break out my Delorean Time Machine to figure out how THAT is going to end. It's going to end with either a) Banks only allowing an absolute maximum of 20 years to pay back loans to protect themselves and not allowing defferments, etc for any reason, thus meaning failure to pay will crush your credit score OR b) A massive crash from banks and government departments giving student loans in 20 years when people don't pay them back (and not giving new capital to give loans to the next generation).

Thirdly, and I cannot stress this enough:  WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?  I can guarantee you Obama's answer, at least as it pertains to government loans, is raise taxes.  Are you with me in the 53% of Americans who pay taxes?  We're going to get the bill so Obama can make life "fair" or in reality so he can get the college vote strong for him in 2012.  Obama is going to tell you the wealthiest amongst us must "pay their fair share."  It's a lie, of course, again the top 1% pays 38% of the taxes already.  The reality of the claim is that Obama is telling you you're entitled to someone else's money, this time for college.

Look, I have a student loan.  I'm paying for it too...you know why?  Because I legitimately owe that money back.  The fine folks at Direct Loans gave me a loan to go to college.  I used that money to go to college.  Now I am paying for that education I received.  I am fulfilling my end of the contract, Direct Loans finished fulfilling theirs back in 2005 when I received my degree.  Now it was up to me to complete my end of the bargain.

I also can tell you that I know very few people with socially useful college degrees who can't find a job and owe thousands upon thousands of dollars.  The people who have degrees in Business, or Communications, or Computers, or Accounting, or Engineering all have jobs in their field.  The ones who don't are the ones who have degrees in Art or Philosophy or some other such thing.  Those of us who made the decision to get a marketable degree are now dealing with the positive consequences of our decision, those who made the decision to get a degree in their hobby are experiencing the negative consequences of their decision.  That's the reality.

But this generation doesn't WANT to take responsibility.  It's somebody else's fault.  Somebody is supposed to make their problems go away.  They don't want to deal with the consequences of their decision to take out a loan and to get a degree that isn't marketable.  And now President Obama is coddling this to get votes.  Shame on you, Mr. Obama.  Shame on you.

Is Obama Even Trying?

Seriously, friends.  The President has proposed the same bad bill again in the Jobs Bill that failed when it was called the Stimulus Package.  He's proposed a deficit reduction that is predicated on raising taxes on the very people that create jobs, something that is guaranteed to be in direct contradiction to his desire for jobs in the Jobs Bill.  Essentially he's proposed two bills have have about as much chance of being passed as the approval for the Football with Puppies in Place of Balls League of America* being granted. 

The Jobs Bill is so very bad that the Democrat Senate won't even take up the measure.  His deficit reduction bill calls for tax increases, which we all know won't pass the Republican House (nor should it) because we cannot trust government to spend those new revenues on paying down debt.  We need to starve government by refusing to feed it's addiction. 

By the way, it turns out the American people ARE paying attention, by the way, because according to a new Rassmussen poll, 62% of Americans believe tax increases would be spent on new programs, only 23% believe that new revenue would be used to pay down debt. (1)

The question must be begged: Is Obama even trying at this point?  He has no reason to believe these policies will work as advertised...or else they would have worked the first time Obama tried it.  He also knows the bill won't be passed.  He knows he can't get his policies enacted, and despite his "getting things done" argument he won't get the things done that a) the people want and b) will get passed (see: Balanced Budget Amendment).

My conclusion must be that no...Obama is not trying...to fix the nation's problems.  What he is trying to do is precisely what we on the Right told you he was trying to do: remake America into a socialist nation.  He wants to redistribute wealth not because it will help the economy but because he thinks it's the best thing to do.  So this jobs bill is all about blaming the GOP for his own failures...that way he can get another four years to do more "changing." 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) If Taxes Hiked to Reduce Deficit, 62% Think It Will Be Spent on New Programs
*The FPPBLA is a completely made up league.  Also, I love dogs so I wouldn't watch if it was real.

Obama has Nothing Positive to Run on in 2012

Election season has officially begun in America. The Republican field is in full swing and even the President has started his campaigning (although he calls it other things).  So many conservatives are excited for 2012, and a few are concerned that the American people might make the same mistake twice and re-elect Obama.

Here is my question: What is Obama going to campaign on, "Yes we can?" Really?  We can?  Why haven't you done it if we can?  Oh wait, we've tried your ideas and it's failed.  Stimulus?  Failed, twice.  Obamacare?  Nobody wants it.  Unemployment won't go past 8%?  What's unemployment again? (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it's 9.1% and 18.2% under employment according to Gallup)  Shovel ready jobs?  Weren't so shovel ready, now where they, Mr. President? 

Here's my point:  President Obama cannot go to the American people and say "give me four years more and I'll do more of what I've been doing and bring you similar results," at least not if he wants to win. He can't run ads like this:

A lot of people would LOVE to go back to where things were four years ago. Under the leadership of President Obama, people feel like this:

               

That doesn't speak well for Obama. President Obama can only say "Yes we can...blame everyone but my administration."  He'll say it's Bush's fault, he'll blame earthquakes, killer bees, whatever he has to do to deceive Americans.  But he can't run on his record, because his record is awful.  The President is in trouble in 2012, because he has failed to do what he promised.  We aren't better off.  The only promise he kept was "change"...unfortunately he changed in his bad policies.

Obama Has No Plan, Just Liberal Rhetoric

The President keeps demanding more compromise from Republicans in this Debt Limit Debate, and yet he has still not submitted a plan.  Yet the Republican Party is called "the Party of No."  The GOP is the only side that has given a plan.  Obama said the big sounding number "$4 Trillion in cuts" without submitting a plan in writing.  The only plan Obama has is "raise the debt limit, do nothing else."  It's akin to giving a new credit card to a person whose credit score is in the 400s due to his running up debt and never cutting spending.

Obama keeps at the same lines that haven't convinced the American people to begin with: 

Blah blah blah millionaires and billionaires blah blah blah private jet owners blah blah blah pay their fair share blah blah blah balanced approach blah blah blah revenue increases blah blah blah Bush's fault blah.

I'm tired of it.  The American people are tired of it. Obama's approval rating has dropped in the last weeks, and also has seen an increase in the President's "strongly disapprove" numbers.  There is no solution from Obama proposed except for naming a big sounding number and threatening to veto anything that doesn't let him tax the rich more, even though those increases will not even dent the debt and will certainly delay businesses from hiring if not cost jobs.

The only proposal Obama put in writing was his proposed 2012 budget.  That was voted down in the Senate 0-97.  Not only did zero Republicans vote for it, neither did a single Democrat.  Nobody voted yes on it.  Not one.  That was Obama's only proposal.  The rest has been a the same recycled rhetoric I listed above.

Obama keeps calling for network television time to tell us the same recycled lines.  I for one am tired of it.  Here's the point, and there is no two ways about it:  We are out of money.  We cannot keep spending to this level.  Failure to take our medicine now will mean legitimately huge cuts in the future.  The choice is yours, Mr. President.  We can take one bitter pill now or a bottle later.  But sooner or later we're going to have to take our medicine and cut our spending.

Obama's Poll Numbers Keep Dropping in Debt Limit Debate

More bad news for President Obama in this Debt Limit debate:  His poll numbers are dropping.  In the latest series of Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll on Wednesday (1), Obama's job approval is down to 45% with likely voters.  It's stayed in that low to mid 40s place, by the way, for the past week or so. 

Further, and this is very important:  42% of Americans STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of the job Obama is doing.  That translates to mean that 42% of Americans will almost certainly not vote for Obama in 2012.  A further 11% somewhat disapprove of Obama's job performance.  Meanwhile, the total approval for Obama is only 45%.  You see what I'm saying here?  The number of people who are saying "I don't like anything Obama is doing" nearly matches the total number of people who think Obama's doing even a moderately okay job.

Do the math, friends.  This means that as much as 20% of the voting public can be persuaded to vote against Obama (depending on the day's fluctuations).  From this standpoint, we only need to persuade 1/3 of those people to vote Republican.  Just 1/3.  If half of those people vote Republican in 2012, Obama would lose 55% to 35%.  That's a nice victory. 

While we're at it, the two most reliable polls out there, Gallup (2) and Rasmussen (3), showed in July that a generic Republican beats Obama.  Gallup's poll of registered voters showed a Republican beating Obama 47% to 39%.  Rasmussen's poll of likely voters shows a Republican beating Obama 47% to 41%.  Obama keeps beating every candidate not named Romney in these polls, but those who are familiar with polls will tell you that this is a matter of the other Republican candidates not being well known by the public yet.  (Many people choose the known quantity over the unknown automatically.) 

Obama is losing support quickly. It's precisely what conservatives have been predicting for years now: Once Obama has a record. He cannot continue to speak in platitudes and claim a moral high ground that doesn't belong to him. The American public is becoming wise to Obama's game, and they don't want it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rasmussen Obama Approval Index History

(2) Gallup: "Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%

(3) Rasmussen Poll: Generic Presidential Ballot

Senator Marco Rubio Hits it Out of the Park on Debt Ceiling

On Tuesday, Senator Marco Rubio took to the floor of the United States Senate to respond to President Obama’s desires to “raise revenue” as it pertains to the debt ceiling. Senator Rubio flat out hit it out of the park on this issue. Senator Rubio gets it to a degree so many Republicans are failing to understand thus far. I could explain more, but rather, let’s let the Senator speak for himself.  For the record, Senator Rubio hits the stage just after the 3 minute mark:




I won't dive into the entire speech, but I do recommend it. One important note, however, that he makes.  The math doesn't add up on Obama's "revenue generation."  With all the proposed taxes, we would only deal with less than ten days of current deficit spending.  That's a drop in the bucket folks.

Here's a few excerpts from the speech with my thoughts:

Here's the bottom line: These tax increases they're talking about. These so-called revenue enhancers, they don't solve the problem. So what do we do then?


One, we have to hold the line on spending, if you keep digging yourself in the hole, the hole is going to bury you, the other thing is how do you start generating revenue for government so you can start paying down this debt? That’s what the debate should be about.

Senator Rubio is saying precisely what I’ve been saying for the past months: We have a spending problem. If we spend more and more, we’re just digging the hole deeper. We need to spend less money, not raise more revenue. Liberals have tried to raise more revenue and it doesn’t balance the budget. Don’t give me the Clinton argument, folks. Clinton cut spending heavily and that’s what balanced the budget, not raising taxes.

We already know these taxes don't work. Here is what I suggest works in a balanced approach, using the President's terminology. Let's stop talking about new taxes and start talking about creating new taxpayers, which basically means jobs.

Here in Washington, this debt is the number-one issue on everyone's mind, and rightfully so. It is a major issue. But everywhere else in the real world, the number one issue on everyone's minds is jobs. …


We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. That's what we should be focused on, and that's what we're not focused on.

Bingo. Unemployment is over 9%. We don’t need new stimulus and new spending or even continued spending. We need JOBS. Government spending didn’t work. If it had worked, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation. We need to spend less, have the discipline to not spend more than we have. Raising the debt ceiling is saying “I know we’ve been spending far too much, but we need to spend more than that, so give us more money to burn.”

You look at all these taxes being proposed, and here's what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they're proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax I heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?


I’ll answer Senator Rubio’s rhetorical question: Zero. The removal of oil company subsidies will cause oil companies to have to cut costs. That means they will at least not be hiring new workers if not laying off some of the workers so they can maintain their necessary margins to make the risk of their investment worthwhile. Same goes for those private jets. Do you think millionaires and billionaires build those planes? Heck no. It’s done by blue collar American workers. So their jobs are in jeopardy if the cost of those planes goes up thus meaning fewer people are buying them because the price has risen.

That’s the real issue at hand. The President is going to hurt the job market by raising taxes. Those attempts to “raise revenue” won’t have static results. Raising taxes 10% on a particular product won’t automatically result in a net 10% gain. The price rises and less will be purchased, for one. For two, such measures inevitably cost jobs, which will mean fewer taxpayers, which leads to lower than projected tax revenue. It’s a negative cycle that continues when you keep raising taxes.

No, we have spent too much. We have reached a point where we cannot spend further. It is time to stop spending more money than we have in the bank. You know, American families have to do? It’s time to live within our means. Get the spending down to the just over $2 Trillion that we take in.

Cut taxes, by the way, and you will raise more revenue. History proves that when you cut marginal rates business owners tend to reinvest in their businesses and that means more people paying taxes. For a responsible change, when we do bring in more revenue than we need, reduce taxes further rather than rushing to spend that money. Capitalism is the solution to this economy, not more Keynesian redistribution and government spending. That plan has failed. It’s been given two and a half years to work. It’s gotten us more of the same.

Senator Rubio is right: We need to create an economic climate that will be positive for business growth. Government doesn’t create jobs. The same millionaires and billionaires, who Obama wants to soak for every cent he can to continue his irresponsible spending, are the ones who create jobs. Right now they are on defense. They are afraid to hire because they quite frankly don’t know what that new job will cost thanks to Obama’s confiscatory tax plans. The cost of doing business might go up if Obama has his way, so business owners aren’t hiring. Remove that doubt and businesses will hire and we will create taxpayers.

Senator Rubio hit the nail on the head in this speech. None of Obama’s plans will create jobs. They will cost jobs. It’s time for the government to stop spending 50% more than they take in. It’s irresponsible. I can’t do that. Neither can you. Time to live within our means, Mr. President. Your party’s years of spending billions and even trillions more than we have so you can secure votes are over. Same goes for the Republicans who have chosen to spend like Liberals. (You’re staring down the barrel of a Tea Party primary in your next election, by the way.) Time to live within our means.

On a final note, I want to say that every time I hear Senator Rubio speak I get chills. He gets it. The young Conservatives on the national stage get it, and Marco Rubio is one of the most prevalent among them. I wasn’t alive in 1964 to hear Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech, but I imagine this is what it felt like to hear a once in a lifetime Conservative leader step onto the national stage and take the mike and lead. I’ve made a few political predictions in my time, and there are a couple still out there waiting to be seen. I think we’re going to see President Rubio one of these days. Not in 2012, mind you, but someday. He’s a man who gets it, and boy we need people like him to lead.

Senator Rubio, I commend you. You’ve said what needs to be said. Thank you for leading while those who are officially in leadership are trying to wimp out. Keep fighting the good fight for America. It’s not going unnoticed.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Overall Source:

Dissecting Obama Lies - $200k does not Make a Millionaire

The Left and Obama have stepped up the class warfare rhetoric lately, talking about wanting to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Setting aside the fact that the President continues to neglect the simple truth that the money isn’t his to begin with, there is a major fact that is undeniable: $200,000 per year in salary does not a millionaire make. Deep within Obama’s usual treasure trove of lies is this sleight of hand, calling people who make only 1/5 of the “millionaire” level, at least what most of us think when we hear millionaire.


I’ll be honest, math wasn’t always my strongest suit, but I do know that $200,000 is not the same amount as $1,000,000, nor does that salary plus a house and a couple of cars equal $1,000,000 in net worth. When I hear “millionaire” I think of a person who lives in a mansion, owns a yacht, owns several cars, and has two or three vacation houses. That’s who Obama wants you to think of when he says “millionaires and billionaires.” That’s a legit statement for all billionaires, but not for the people Obama is calling millionaires. If you listen to what Obama says, he says he wants to raise taxes on individuals who make $200,000 per year or more.

The person who makes $200,000 per year is often someone of middle class beginnings who went to college, got a business degree, and worked their way up the corporate ladder with hard work. They own a nice house, maybe a four bedroom, two and a half bath colonial and a couple of nice cars. I know somebody like this, because he’s my uncle. He worked his way up the corporate ladder to own his own stock brokerage firm. He took a big risk and succeeded. The President wants you to think he’s a “millionaire.” When I look at him, I see a man who employs about a dozen people at his small firm and earns a good living for himself. He’s a man who has achieved the American dream through his own hard work.

This is the “evil, selfish” millionaire Obama is lying to you about: a hard working American success story. These are the people who the left keeps telling you won’t “pay their fair share.” The truth be told, 10% of Americans pay 50% of the tax burden, while another 51% of Americans pay zero taxes at all. They are paying more than five times their fair share. My uncle, for example, already pays over half of every dollar he makes in taxes in one form or another, whether it be the 35% he pays to the federal government, the 10% he pays to New York state, or his property taxes (I didn’t ask how much that is, seemed rude, to be honest…unlike federal and state taxes they aren’t public knowledge).

Do you know what he’d be doing with that money if he wasn’t paying it in taxes? He’d be spending it, or putting it in the bank where it would be used by the bank to give loans to others to buy homes, cars, or invest in businesses, or investing it in the stock market (he is a stock broker after all) or investing it into his own business, by hiring more people to expand his businesses productivity. He’d have more to give to charity as well. Instead, he’s giving over half his income to the government so $.65 on every dollar can be spent on bureaucracy. Aside from that little detail, it’s his money to begin with, not the government’s money.

This is the person Obama wants to soak to be able to continue his irresponsible spending. Let’s put aside the fact that if you confiscate every single dollar earned in America over $250,000 per year you’d still only be able to run the federal government for 5 months, not to mention the fact that you wouldn’t have left any money for the states or local governments and are completely squashing any desire to make a single penny over $250,000. The numbers don’t lie: There aren’t enough “millionaires and billionaires” in the country to pay for Liberal overspending. Its class warfare and it’s a lie. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. The government spends too much. It’s time to stop spending, Mr. President. Your spending desires are out of control and must be stopped. No more lies, no more class warfare. It’s not your money, and even if it was there isn’t enough to support your spending habits. There’s no more of other people’s money for you to spend to buy votes.

There is greed in play right now. It’s on the part of government. Government is greedy. Government doesn’t want to make do with its fair share. The government receives more than enough money in taxes if it was spent efficiently. It’s not. It’s time to be responsible, Mr. President, and stop being greedy for other people’s money.

Finally, Mr. President, a person who earns $200,000 per year is not a millionaire. Stop lying to the American people. Stop making them think you’re trying to tax Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. You’re trying to overtax hard working Americans like my uncle so you can maintain your own greed. He’s not the greedy one. You are the greedy one. It’s not your money, so make do with what you already have. Stop borrowing; stop spending more than you have. Live within the same budget that American families live within now. Stop the lies, and govern responsibly.

Why Is Obama Releasing Strategic Oil Reserves Now?

It's a question I've wanted to tackle for a week or so now, but other topics have overshadowed until now.  President Obama has decided to release some of the strategic petroleum reserves at a time when a) there is no actual threat to oil supply (note: high costs aren't a threat to supply) and b) when the price per barrel has been dropping.  As a matter of fact, the Financial Forecast Center predicts crude will drop by more than 30% in the next six months. (1)

No, releasing 30 million barrels is NOT going to cause that drop.  It's not enough to make a difference for more than a few weeks.  What is causing the drop is a couple of things:  One, the economy is tanking.  The stock market has begun to trail off, and oil is traded on the stock market.  Two, over the past few months, between the House voting to repeal Obama's moratorium on deep water drilling and the mere promise of issuing more permits has caused the "evil" oil speculators to speculate the price down rather than up.  It's basic supply and demand. 

When supply is expected to be lower, businesses go into protective mode and begin to prepare to pay higher prices, selling their product at a higher rate to compensate for expected future costs of doing business.  When supply is expected to be higher, businesses start trying to undercut their competition and price wars begin which leads to reduced prices.  Businesses get off defense (finding ways to maintain their current market share) and go on offense (finding ways to provide their products at a lower price than their competitor to gain market share by either taking customers from their competitors or growing the market). 

So why is Obama choosing right now to release the oil reserves?  It's not needed...the benefit sought (prices dropping) has already started to happen without the release.  Besides, since our country consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day, it's only releasing enough supply to cover our needs for a day and a half. Why is Obama doing this?

The answer is I believe he is playing politics and preying on the fact that the average American doesn't have a clue about how economics work to say "Look what I did, I released strategic oil reserves and the price dropped.  Vote for me."  Mark my words, this will happen.  Obama will try to claim credit for what market forces are doing through the expectations of higher supply in the future thanks to increased deep water drilling and by the fact that the entire stock market is dropping, oil included.

This is Obama's modus operandi.  He enacts something that has no effect on anything (see releasing oil reserves) or makes a super easy decision and somebody else does all the work (see killing Bin Laden) and then he trumpets his own success.  Mark my words on two things: 1) Obama's releasing 1 1/2 days worth of oil will have zero effect on prices and 2) Obama and the Drive-By Media will claim Obama deserves credit for falling prices.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Crude Oil Price Forecast

Carville Says 2012 Could Be Rough for Obama

The recent news regarding 2012 is now showing my predictions about Obama to be accurate. Drive-By Media rats are starting to leave the SS Obama. Monday, James Carville stood up and said precisely what I’ve been saying (in different words, of course).


“If 54,000 new jobs is the new standard, it’s going to be a very, very rough 2012 for President Obama.” – James Carville in the Daily Caller (1)

Carville, Mr. “It’s the economy, stupid,” is saying what national Conservative voices like Limbaugh and Hannity as well as lowly bloggers like yours truly have been saying for months. Obama is in a heap of political trouble.

Why wouldn’t he be? As I’ve said over and over again, 9.1% unemployment should be Obama’s middle name to whomever the GOP ultimately nominates. Gas prices have recently dipped a bit, but that’s on the back of the rest of the commodities market, scratch that, the rest of the stock market, crashing. (Also, the GOP voting to end Obama’s moratorium on deep water drilling caused the speculators to speculate down.)

It’s not just Carville, by the way. Remember a few weeks ago I trashed a bad CNN poll? Another frequent perpetrator of such poll fixing, ABC/Washington Post, has shown Obama’s fortune dropping. In a new ABC/Washington Post poll, has issued a new with Obama at 47% approval and 49% disapproval, a drop of 9%. With “adults,” by the way, Democrats tend to gain points. Polls of “likely voters” generally correct to the right, as the typical right wing voter is more likely to show up to vote than the typical left wing voter. (2)

Also, as dealt with last week, Obama’s approval ratings on the important issues like the Economy are in the tank. He’s currently at 40% approval and 59% disapproval in the aforementioned ABC/Washington Post Poll on the question of his handling of the economy. Only 32% say the country is on the right track with 66% saying the country is on the wrong track. only 42% say the recovery has begun from the recession that is supposedly over, 57% say it has not begun. Of the 42% who inexplicably say that the economy has begun its recovery, 81% say it is a weak recovery.

Carville is dead right. Obama is in deep trouble in 2012. I predict that Carville is the first of many rats to leave this sinking ship. Oh, one more number from that poll: 45% of those polled say they will definitely not vote for Obama. Only 24% said they will definitely vote for him. 29% said they would consider it. Think about that for a moment. If say, 1/3 of those people who say they will consider voting for Obama don’t, that would equal 54% of people voting against him, and Obama is electorally toast. (Don’t forget, once we drop those who are not likely to vote, Obama’s numbers will probably get worse.)

I’m beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of a primary challenge to Obama. Maybe Hillary Clinton…after all, Carville is a big Clintonista. The Drive-By Media, while publicly maintaining the Obama-mania, also have a far bigger goal of pushing Liberalism on the American public, and that’s just not going to happen if the most Liberal President in history goes down in flames in 2012. This narrative may be the first sign that the Media is dropping Obama.

At any rate, if I can borrow a line from Rush Limbaugh (as if this was the first time), see, I told you so. Obama’s in trouble. Now even the Democrats and Liberal Media are getting the message. Time to ramp up for a great 2012 opportunity, and that opportunity is a real Conservative President who can knock the Democratic Party back to 1984 in national electoral politics. Game on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Daily Caller - Carville: 2012 could be ‘very rough’ for Obama, says civil unrest ‘imminently possible’

(2) Newsweek - How to Read a Political Poll

On Israel: Obama's Rules Don't Apply to Obama?

Israel has dominated the headlines for the last week or so, thanks to a tone-deaf speech by Barrack Obama telling Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. On Monday, I took the occasion to discuss the absolute ridiculousness of that statement. Today I want to point out something entirely different. Anybody else remember President Obama and other Liberals talking about how America has no right to tell the rest of the world how to live? That was what Liberals said about Iraq and Afghanistan, when America was fighting wars for the sake of our own security, and while we were already deposing their despot governments, we also gave those nations the ability to choose their own government (trusting that those individuals would not vote themselves into rape rooms and torture chambers). That was said to be wrong by Liberals, including President Obama.

Yet now Obama is telling another sovereign nation…A DEMOCRACY…that they should forfeit part of their land as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Come again? So basically, it’s okay for Obama to tell other nations what to do because…what…because he’s Obama? I know Obama does not like having standards applied to him, especially his own, but since Liberals love to wait for people to fail and pounce, turnabout is fair play, I’m calling the President to the carpet on this one.

This was pure Obama narcissism at its most obvious. This is Obama thinking the he can solve the Israel/Palestine problem with a speech. This is Obama thinking that he and his fellow academics have figured out how to simply and quickly solve the Middle East problems over coffee in the faculty lounge at Harvard. It shows all the signs of Liberal problem solving on a world scale: Do one thing, call it easy (even though it’s clearly hard if not impossible), tell the people who have done most of the compromising to compromise already, treat the bad people like they’re victims and treat the good people like they’re the evil ones, and don’t forget to sound arrogant, as if you can’t believe the two sides haven’t already thought of this oh-so-simple solution.

This solution can’t work, it won’t work. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it immediately after Obama’s speech, that the 1967 lines are indefensible. That’s not just a rhetorical point. At certain points of the 1967 borders, Israel would be a mere 8 miles wide and surrounded by hostile nations. It’s pretty darn difficult to defend, which is one of those pesky nuances I mentioned moments ago that don’t come up in teachers lounges thousands of miles away between Liberals who are living in an overly ideal world where nothing ever goes wrong. If Obama was a tithe as smart as we’re told he is, he would understand the reality of the situation in which Israel finds itself. Israel isn’t surrounded to its north by a highly friendly nation like Canada and a nation to our south, Mexico, who, although not particularly wonderfully safe to its own people, the U.S. Navy could defeat the Mexican Army in a land war. Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by nations who desperately want to wipe them off the face of the Earth and are perfectly willing to suicide bomb not just soldiers but the women and children to achieve that goal.
This is just another example of Obama’s arrogance and narcissism, thinking that he could solve a centuries old problem that dates back to the book of Genesis and the feud between the brothers Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham. It’s going to be solved only if Palestine comes to the bargaining table for real, not just with unrealistic requirements. As a Christian I’ve read the Bible, I’ve read the book of Ezekiel (1), and I know how this will end. It says nothing about a speech being given by a foreign leader that solves all the problems.

So here we see the narcissistic Obama on display. Whether it be in the fact that he told his predecessor that the U.S. shouldn’t interfere in other nation’s businesses as it pertained to tin-pot dictators who oppressed their people and then told a Democracy how to protect itself, or the fact that Obama seems to genuinely believe he can give a speech and solve a centuries old problem, Obama is showing us his arrogance. This is who Barrack Obama believes himself to be, a “chosen one” who can solve the world’s problems with his voice. Of course, he can’t. He didn’t do a darn thing in Israel but tick off our ally. This is who our President is…an intellectual, overly educated fool who doesn’t understand the world works.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Ezekiel 38 and 39
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,

Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

On Israel, Obama Takes Side of Enemies Instead of Friends

On Thursday of last week, President Obama gave a reprehensible foreign policy speech wherein he called for Israel to return to its borders from before 1967's Six Days War. Unsurprisingly, Obama showed himself to be tone-deaf on this issue at best. Israel has been a strong ally of the United States since its formation in 1948. In a Middle East that is fraught with nations who range from uneasy co-existence (see Saudi Arabia) with the United States to nations that are outright dangerous to the United States (see Iran), Israel has remained our only true friend in that region. Yet the President, in an effort to claim for himself a major foreign policy victory (or to at least claim great efforts to that end) has now thrown one of our strongest allies under the bus. Quote Prime Minister Netanyahu:

We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. ... For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities -- the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible. (1)

For those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that's what happens when an adult on the political stage like Prime Minister Netanyahu gives a dose of reality to our unrealistically idealistic man-child President. Israel is not going to pull back their borders in an effort to appease Palestine. Nor should they. Palestine as a nation and Hamas, its leading political party. The reason is because Hamas has, in its charter, a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map. (2) The idea that peace can be achieved through sufficient compromise and pandering is one that has always been a favorite of the Left, and it’s one that has never worked.
How well did it work to appease Hitler? Did he stop attempting to conquer the land he had already conquered when Europe let him proceed to occupy the territories that he had already invaded? Absolutely not! Hitler proceeded to conquer France, one of the appeasing nations, and attempt to conquer Great Britain, another appeasing nation. Yet Obama, like so many other Liberals, believes that he can appease enough to make evil people be nice.

Here’s the problem with Obama’s foolish plan: He’s telling the reasonable party to compromise more instead of telling the unreasonable party to start compromising. Hamas and Palestine are unrepentant and bent on the destruction of Israel. How precisely does Obama expect them to compromise on that? Should they let Palestine destroy half of Israel? That’s pretty much the only meeting halfway that can be done between Israel and Palestine. It’s like the old adage, “How do you compromise with poison?” Do you compromise and allow enough poison into your food to make you sick but not enough to kill you? Of course you don’t! You refuse to ingest the poison. The same stands for Israel. There is no compromising with people who want to wipe you off the map. You can only defend yourself against them, and, if possible, defeat those enemies. That is the only real option.

I recommend you read the history of the Six Days War. You will find that Israel was facing an imminent attack from Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, among other Arab nations, and defended itself. Israel won that war, and, as part of the peace treaty that ended that conflict. The very same Palestinians to whom Obama wants Israel to give away their land was one of those nations which attacked Israel. To give an American example, for Obama to tell Israel to give back part of their territory which they were ceded as part of a treaty at the end of a war is similar to the Prime Minister of Great Britain insisting that the United States return Texas to Mexico.

For those of you who aren’t familiar, Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 in a war. For nine years, Texas was an independent nation. The people of Texas, which consisted largely of emigrants from the United States, desired to cede itself to the United States as a state. Mexico denied Texas’ independence but largely ignored it until it attempted to cede itself to the United States. Once the United States and Texas had joined together mutually, it lead to a war with Mexico, which the United States won.

To say that Israel should return part of its territory to the Palestinians is pure sophistry. Obama has precisely zero right to tell Israel to do so. It is a sign of Obama’s narcissism that he would even think he had the right to tell Israel to give that land to the Palestinians as a peace offering. Clearly it was not something even discussed with Israel. Obama was trying to throw his weight around and Prime Minister Netanyahu told Obama, politely but in no uncertain terms, to mind his own darn business.

As a Christian, I know what it would mean if the United States would turn its back on Israel. I do not want to see my country be a goat nation. Right now, and since Israel was founded, the United States has been a sheep nation. (3) A past mentor of mine once told me that the moment the United States becomes a goat nation, he was moving to Israel. Part of me would be similarly inclined. However, I also know the Bible that God protects His children even when they are residing in goat nations. Consider Lot. God protected Lot even before He destroyed Sodom.

Here’s the reality of the situation, in a nutshell. One, Obama had no right to tell Israel to return land to the Palestinians, who have done nothing but attack Israel and threaten its existence. It’s yet another “who do you think you are” moment from Obama. Secondly, it is pure foolishness to think that appeasing Hamas will cause them to be nice. It’s another idealistic dream from Obama and the rest of the Activist Liberals who live in a fantasy world where, if you’re just nice enough to your enemies who are bent on your destruction, those enemies become as sweet as honey to you and respect your right to exist. It doesn’t work, and it never has worked.

Israel is our friend. They have every right to defend themselves against the attacks of the Palestinians as well as all others. Palestine has attacked Israel countless times, whether through Hamas or directly. Israel is perfectly willing to let Palestine be and to co-exist. Palestine is not. It is Palestine that needs to compromise. Israel has compromised enough. If Obama was half as smart as the Drive-By Media tells us he is, he would get this. Yet Obama is a rigid Activist Liberal ideologue feels the need to assert himself in a situation that is not his business and tell the good guy in the conflict that they should compromise with the bad guy. To invoke a metaphor from my childhood, Obama just told the Ninja Turtles to compromise with Shredder so they could stop fighting.

Netanyahu gets it. Obama doesn’t. Anyone surprised? If you are, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Ohio to sell you at a rock bottom price. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(1) Netanyahu Rejects Obama Statehood Demand After Oval Office Meeting



(2) Hamas – Wikipedia Page



(3) Matthew 25:31-46

House Passes Ban on Abortion Funding: Thank You Tea Party

In the "Buried by Bin Laden" files today we've got the story of how the House of Representatives passed House Resolution H.R. 3, entitled the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. (1) (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it eliminated all taxpayer funding for abortion.)   The vote tally was 251-175 in favor of it.  All 235 Republicans were joined by 16 Democrats to pass the bill.  It now heads to the Senate.  For the record, we would only need four members of the Democrat caucus to jump ship to pass this in the Senate.  That's not insurmountable by any stretch.

Getting Obama to sign perhaps will be.  That said, let him veto it!  Dare him to veto it!  Put him on record as wanting taxpayer dollars to fund the state sanctioned murder of unborn innocent humans.  Let him have that attached to his name as we move forward toward the 2012 Election.

I have said on previous occasions that we must not only criticize the Republican Party for failures but that we must also credit them for doing what we elected them to do.  The House Republicans have come through this time. Whether or not the bill is ever made law, it is still a stance on Christian values made by the GOP.  They have stood up against the unholy sin that is abortion.

For those of you from Palm Beach, here's some biblical backing for those statements:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.  Jeremiah 1:5

Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written, 
The days fashioned for me, 
When as yet there were none of them. 
 Psalm 139:15-16 

Indeed, there are very many more, but the Bible is clear that God chose us to be conceived and born when were conceived and born.  Even if you were unplanned by your parents, you were planned by God!

Those of you who read Biblical Conservatism know that I’m frequently peeved that the things the government spends my tax dollars on, whether that be on Cowboy Poetry festivals, whether that be on subsidizing “green energy” that is not only decades away from being able to fulfill our needs but is also is highly impractical, whether that be paying for the United Nations to reside in our country so they can lambast us or “Stimulus packages” that amount to nothing more than a slush fund for Obama.  Yet there is nothing that sickens me more that the money I work hard to earn is spent to murder innocent unborn children. 

You see, unlike Liberals, I recognize that every cent of the taxes I pay is really my money.  While I base my budget on my net income, I also realize my employers consider my labor is worth about 22% MORE than I actually see in my paycheck.  And at this point of my career I’m in the lower end of the middle class.  Other people are losing as much as 50-60% of their hard earned income to the Federal and state government and Liberals explain it as acceptable because “they can afford it.”  But that’s a different issue for another day.  The point is, once again, it is my money and your money that the government spends.  Every single cent of it.  It belongs to you and to me.  It doesn’t belong to the government.  It’s our money.

So when I stop and consider that money that is taken from me without a choice is being used to fund the murder of human lives. God said in the Bible that He knew us before we were even conceived.  Each unborn human that is conceived is intended to be born.  Those who God recognizes in His omnipotence are not viable are miscarried.  Only God in his omnipotence should be deciding if an innocent should be born. 

For the record, I recognize one exception.  That exception is in a life threatening situation where only one of the mother and child will survive.  In that case the doctor should follow the Hippocratic Oath and save the more viable life.  Since the Bible teaches that a child should not be punished for the sins of the father and the unborn child has not sinned if it was conceived as a result of a rape.  Therefore I believe that unborn child’s life still should be protected.

Liberals don’t want abortions to be harder to get.  They want it to be easy to be selfish.  They want it to be simple to murder an unborn child in the womb so that the parents can continue to live as they choose.  The Right to Life of the unborn child supersedes that mother’s Right to Pursue Happiness.  Liberals want policies of selfishness above all else.  Yet the same people want to eliminate capital punishment.  Think about that for a moment.  They believe it is a matter of privacy to murder an innocent unborn child but that it is wrong to exact a Biblically supported capital punishment (carried out in a humane way as 8^th Amendment to the Constitution requires).  This is the mindset of Liberalism: it's ok to murder the unborn but to carry out justice on a convicted murder is not ok.

The Tea Party has stood up for what they said they would stand up for by voting in the House of Representatives to repeal all taxpayer funding of abortion.  They have stood up for morality and the protection of innocents.  I hope and pray that this becomes a law so that my tax dollars will no longer be spent on legal murder of innocents.  So today I stand up and salute the House Republicans.  On Tuesday, they did the right thing. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) House Passes Complete Ban on Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

 Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
   Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Obama No Less Beatable with Bin Laden Dead

It’s as predictable as the tides.  When Osama Bin Laden was finally killed under Barrack Obama’s watch, you just knew they would start telling us Obama was now unbeatable in 2012.  The Media is just full of this sort of baloney and this next couple of weeks will be no different.  Before long CNN, MSNBC and the like will start taking polls of likely voters…no, registered voters…no, American adults, which will show just how huge of a bump Obama has gotten (ignoring that half of those people couldn’t vote if they showed up and 2/3 won’t vote). 

Just as certain Conservatives will start panicking.  We know how terrible Obama has been for this country and we’re afraid of the demonstrated foolishness of the American public.  Also as certain, the Republican “Old Guard” will start looking for a “moderate” candidate that won’t offend the sensitivities of “moderates.”  (Of course we know how successful that was when we got President Dole, President McCain and a full term for President Ford, right?)

As always, I’m here to be a calming voice in the din.  Time for a two scoops of reality with a cherry on top.  Let me ask you a question:  Were Obama’s poll numbers in a free fall before Bin Laden was captured?  They were?  Good.  Were they dropping BECAUSE Obama hadn’t caught Bin Laden yet?  Answer: No, they were dropping because we still have 10% unemployment, rising food prices, and $4/gallon gas.  Do we still have those things?  Yes. 

The pain isn’t gone from Obama’s policies.   People will be distracted from it for about ten minutes, but the next tank of gas or the next trip to the grocery store is never far away.  People are going to be reminded that their budget is squeezed tighter and tighter.  Also, it’s not 1995 anymore.  There isn’t just the networks and CNN for TV news.  There are choices beyond the local paper for news.  You can read a paper that isn’t left leaning like the New York Post online daily, plus many other great internet sources like the Heritage Foundation not to mention millions of blogs.  Don’t forget that we now have the ability to share articles from thousands of people across Twitter and to be aware of them constantly.  There’s Fox News.  There’s not just Rush Limbaugh anymore for talk radio.  There’s Sean Hannity, Laura  Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and many more nationally plus local hosts all over.   And as far as the usual panic from the old guard GOP, there’s the Tea Party.

The point is the Drive-By Media is not going to get away with the type of spin they could get away with fifteen years ago.  They can’t lie to the American people anymore unchecked.  Fox, the internet options I listed, and talk radio WILL call them on it and tell the truth.  The Tea Party is not going to let the GOP put up a wimpy middle of the road candidate.  We will get a REAL Conservative in 2012.  I firmly believe that.  (Here’s hoping its Sarah Palin, personally.)

Bin Laden being dead doesn’t mean a thing regarding Obama’s failures as a President.  As Rush Limbaugh put it today, and I’m paraphrasing here, “People can’t put Bin Laden’s blood in their gas tank.  They can’t take his turban to the supermarket and trade it for a box of cereal.”  Nothing about Bin Laden being dead changes the reason people feel Obama is a failure.   Obama is a failed President because he has spent 50% more than he had available.  (Yes, I know Bush spent in deficits too.  But Bush's deficits were about 16%, Obama's are 50%.  Not excusing Bush, but Obama is exponentially worse.)  Obama has failed as a President because he has created an economic climate that means $4 gas prices by refusing to allow companies to increase our oil supply with drilling.  We still have 10% unemployment and 17% underemployment, even though Obama spent trillions in “stimulus” that failed miserably.  (And no, Liberals, you can’t get away with “it would’ve been much worse if he hadn’t.”  That’s a straw man argument with no backing.  No dice.) 

Nothing about Bin Laden’s body being in the ocean changes that a lick.  The Drive-By Media wants us to buy that Obama will be tough to beat.  He’s not one bit tougher to beat than he was five days ago.  And five days ago Obama wasn’t tough to beat. 

Liberals try to use Bin Laden's Death to Plug Obama

Yesterday, I talked about the real heroes of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Navy SEALS.  Now it's time to do what I do best: rhetorically light into Liberal politicians and Media for trying to make it about Obama.

Listen to Obama's speech from Sunday night again. (1)  Please take a moment to rewatch that speech. Obama says that he directed the CIA director to make killing or capturing Bin Laden a priority.  He makes it sound like it wasn't our longstanding policy since 9/11 (even though it most definitely was).  He insinuated that he was changing course. As a matter of fact, he was simply continuing the policies of President George W. Bush. He says that HE put together the team that killed Bin Laden. Yep, it was all Obama.  The Navy SEALS were formed in 1962 (2).  That detail is of course ignored by the Drive-By Media.  The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was formed in 1947. Again, that detail is ignored by the Media in an attempt to make Obama look like a big hero.

If you listen to Obama's speech, you hear a lot of "I" and "me."  The President wants you to know he is personally responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  Anyone who understands in the inner-workings of the military, and by that I mean if you have an uncle who was in the Air Force twenty years ago, you understand that while the President is indeed the Commander in Chief, you also recognize the President's job in a situation like this is extremely open and shut. You found Bin Laden? Gee, let me think, ummm, kill or capture him?  This isn't a difficult strategy or a hard decision. It's extremely simple.

The truth is when President Obama called the CIA director to tell him to focus on finding Bin Laden, I'd bet my right arm that the Director at least thought, if not said, "Of course, sir.  We've been doing that to the best of our ability and we will continue to do so."  It's just another rhetorical ploy from Obama.  Of course the CIA was looking for Bin Laden!  Anyone who honestly believes that there was a greater level of seriousness or quality of tactic used under the Obama Administration is of questionable wisdom, and that's me being generous.

Do you want to see what a speech of similar subject that ISN'T packed with narcissism would sound like? Watch George W. Bush's speech announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein. (3)  President Bush says that "United States Military forces" captured Saddam. He said this is "a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq," and "the superb work of intelligence analysts," and how "the operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force."

He spoke about Hussein facing justice. He spoke to citizens of Iraq.  He does not reference himself AT ALL as the impetus for this action.  He doesn't say "I instructed our forces to make the capture of Saddam their top priority."  Of course it was a top priority.  He didn't need to say it! He credited the soldiers and the intelligence analysts.  That's what Obama should have done, but instead he chose to thump his own chest.

How about the media? Let's pretend for a moment that Bin Laden was killed while George W. Bush was President. Do you think the Drive-By Media would consider this such a great success?  Or do you think reports would've sounded like this:

Late Sunday night, President Bush reported to the nation that U.S. forces have killed Osama Bin Laden at a compound in Pakistan.  At first glance, many considered this to be a great success in the War on Terror. However, many believe that Bin Laden's death is largely symbolic, because Bin Laden has been unable to be more than a figurehead for Al Qaeda since being forced out of Afghanistan in 2002.  Additionally, reports that the methods used to ascertain Bin Laden’s location were not in line with the Geneva Accords.  Congressman Dick Durban (D) said Monday, 

“No one wanted to see Bin Laden face justice more than me.  But if we stoop to such deplorable levels to do it, we’re no better than the Al Qaeda.”

When asked to comment, the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said,

“We have operated within the boundaries of military procedure to ascertain the whereabouts of Bin Laden.”

Does that fictional news report sound at all off base?  Or does it sound a lot like the sort of reports we saw when a Republican was President?  I didn’t think so.

The Liberal spin machine is cranked up to 11 on this one.  They want to paint Obama as somehow unbeatable in 2012.  I have a newsflash for you: President George H.W. Bush was supposed to be unbeatable in 1992 after the Gulf War.  How’d that work out?  The reality is Liberal “conventional wisdom” isn’t wisdom at all.  It’s spin.  They are trying to convince the solid Conservative Republicans who would mop the floor with Obama in a head to head election to stay out and wait until 2016.  This group can be compiled by looking at who the Left has attacked with great veracity (see: Sarah Palin) and those who they claim aren't ready (see: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie).

This is another attempt by the Drive-By Media to convince the old guard Republican Party and additionally themselves that Obama is going to be unbeatable.  He won't be at all, and I will delve into that more tomorrow.  We have 10% unemployment and $4/gallon gas. Obama is no less beatable today than he was Saturday.  There will be a few point bump for a month or so, but the election is eighteen months away.  As Conservatives, lets just stay on topic against Obama and keep crediting the people who REALLY deserve credit:  the intelligence analysts and the Navy SEALs.  They are the heroes.  Don't forget it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) President Obama's Speech Announcing the Death of Osama Bin Laden

(2) United States Navy SEALs

(3) George W. Bush: Saddam Captured