California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics

United States

Kevin Hassett’s article is funny and sad. Sad becuse it’s true; funny because of his observations. Sample of funny:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

Sample of sad:

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

To get into our current financial mess, we started with the idea that banks should loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back. When banks balked, the US government bought the worthless loans. Now banks are happy, they can loan money to everybody.

This system flourished under George Bush, and collectively we happily spent our children’s future. When the system started to collapse in 2008, we spent more money to try and make it through the election cycle. It didn’t work.

Now our children are broke. Obama’s solution, then, is to also spend our grandchildren’s future. This is also unsustainable. We are spending money we have not earned, and selling IOU’s to China to pay for it. Eventually, China will not want to buy our IOU’s, and the value of the dollar will collapse. The Fed will be forced to raise interest rates to try to entice people to buy our IOUs.

Do we want the US to become a third world country? Is that our goal? At this point, I don’t care what the government wants to spend money on, I’m against it. I don’t want to pay for abortions in Africa or studying the drinking behavior of Chinese prostitutes. And I don’t want to spend so-called “Stimulus Package” money or pay for universal healthcare or credits to by housing or cars or energy efficient appliances. I don’t want the US government to suck money from our wallets via cap-and-trade or “taxing the wealthy.” I would be happy if Washington would just put the pens down and sat on their thumbs for a few years and did absolutely nothing.

Remember this: government does not grant freedom. Liberty is given to us by our Creator. Government can only pass laws which limit freedom.

I want to be free.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements

What Did We Learn?

Obama beat McCain handily, 349 to 163 electoral votes.

What we should have learned, I don’t know that we did. What we should have learned is that we have principles and ideals and we should stick to them.

Ronald Reagan knew it, and we gave him victories. The 1994 Republican House knew that, and we gave them victories.

Ever since then, our leaders have been trying to reach across the isles. And we get trounced, every time.

George Bush Sr, “No New Taxes.” Until he reached across the isle, and we voted him out of office.

Republicans spent money in 2004-2006 like, well, like they were Democrats. And we voted them out of office.

What was McCain except a big reach across the isle? Part of the Gang of 14 that chose to work with Democrats instead of pushing for the judicial appointees which we will never get. Not in my lifetime. The Democrats will fill each and every one of those posts with liberal activist judges that should have been filled by conservative strict constructionists. Reaching across the isle hurt the conservative cause. Wait till Obama appoints 4 new judges in his first term to the Supreme Court, and then see if reaching across the isle helped us in any way.

McCain promised to take hatchet to the government spending and cut our earmarks, but when it came time for the $700 billion bailout of our economy, not only did he vote for it, but he also voted for an additional $150 billion in pork. That’s when he lost the election for sure.

Lesson learned. Stick to your principles.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Loss of Conservatism

WASHINGTON - APRIL 18:   Republican presidenti...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

If the major news media has succeeded today in discouraging conservatives from voting, the trifecta will be complete – Legislative, Executive, and Media.

The blame for such a loss can be spread to many people. Let’s start at the top.

I like President Bush, and I threw my entire support behind him for the Iraq War. I think he is a good, honest President. But as a communicator, he failed. The left managed to brand him with a paint of hate, and Bush stoically didn’t respond. Terrible mistake. He also mistakenly believed he could appease the left with vastly expanded programs; Medicare, prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind, etc. Soon the spending of the Republicans put the spending of the Liberals to shame.

McCain reflects that belief that if we’re more liberal, liberals will like us. They don’t. And they can out-liberal us any day of the week. The real reason Republicans are losing is that once in power, they forgot they were the party of limited government. Just like the elder George Bush losing office because of his broken “No new taxes” pledge, the Republicans are being voted out of office because they are too liberal.

Americans won’t stand for the ultra-liberal policies about to be imposed on us, but by the time the Democrats are tossed out, the next incremental step toward a socialist nanny-state will be firmly in place. We’re about to lurch to the left

But much of their agenda — the “card check” proposal to end secret ballots in union elections, the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio, liberal judicial nominees, trade restrictions, retreat from Iraq, talks with Iran — doesn’t require spending. And after 14 years of Republican control of Congress, the presidency, or both, Democrats are impatient. They want to move quickly.

They’ll be able to do this because they hold nearly fillibuster-proof majorities, a far left puppet president who will vote “present” rather than tackle hard issues, and an ecstatic liberal news media. Toss in the liberal court system they will immediately appoint, and conservatism will be a little-remembered philosophy confined to the flyover states.

Conservatives, we did this to ourselves by trying to out-liberal the liberals. I sure hope we learn the lesson this time. We only win when we hold to our conservative principles. We didn’t do that thel ast 4 years, and we’re about to pay heavily for it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

One Less Bad Candidate to Vote For

I think I keep hoping for some unknown conservative candidate to suddenly appear and give me somebody to vote for. Like the ghost of Ronald Reagan, perhaps.

What I want is a candidate that is socially and fiscally conservative. Socially conservative because, like it or not, the President sets an example for the morals of this country. Bill Clinton taught millions of middle schoolers that oral sex isn’t really sex, and an outbreak of oral sexual diseases broke out. He taught us that it’s ok to stretch the truth, it’s ok to lie by omission. I think a generation of dishonest youngsters are on the way. George Bush didn’t do that, but I feel misled; I thought “compassionate conservatism” was still conservatism. Under his leadership, Republicans spent money like drunken sailors. Whee!

When the Republican National Committe send their fundraising letters, I trash them. If they were conservative, I’d support them.

Duncan Hunter was my early favorite, but his campaign never got traction, and he’s dropped out. That left me choosing between Huckabee and Romney.

Huckabee is socially conservative. But is he fiscally conservative? His record as Arkansas governor doesn’t appear so. He’s all for mandating health goals. I don’t want the government involved to that level in my life. I also don’t think he has enough international experience. But I like him socially. I just can’t figure out why the second choice of Huckabee supporters is McCain.

And Romney is socially conservative. But fiscally, he too spends more than I’d like. But now he’s dropped out.

That leaves McCain, an unstable “maverick” that has done significant harm to conservatives. He dislikes evangelicals, he’s soft on border control, he co-sponsored that McCain-Feingold usurping of the First Amendment, he voted against tax cuts, and he was part of that group that unblocked the stalemate on judicial nominees. I *wanted* the stalemate; I disliked the fact the judicial committee could derail a nomimation and keep the full Senate from voting. McCain is a pain.

Look, a campaign slogan. McCain is a pain.

As of now, I don’t think Huckabee can make a comeback, and I’m not sure I’m sold out for him anyway. That leaves McCain.

Will I support him? McCain’s strongest suit is he is very strong on defense. To me, he’s weak on everything else. But compared to the socialist, defeatest Democrats, McCain looks comparitively good. Comparitively.

So when Romney dropped out earlier this week, there’s one less bad candidate to vote for. Now I only have to choose between three bad candidates: McCain, Clinton, Obama. With that poor selection, I’ll go with McCain.

I’m going to have to hold my nose and remember the alternatives are worse.

Free Country! Come and Get It! (ding ding ding)

My country doesn’t understand me.

Whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, this bill should make you suspicious. It was negotiated behind closed doors for 3 months by George Bush and Ted Kennedy. Regardless of your political viewpoint, I know you don’t agree with both of those guys. Nobody can.

The Senate is poised to grant ammnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. If your house was on fire, would you be rebuilding while it was still burning? No, of course not. You’d put the fire out first. If your house was flooding, would you be trying to lay down new carpet? Of course not, there’s still water pouring into your house.

If illegal aliens were streaming into your country because of free schooling, free health care, and free government services, would you grant them amnesty and eventual citizenship in an effort to stop the problem? Or is it possible that free U.S. citizenship might be an incentive to come here illegally?

The bill promises that maybe someday we’ll have a secure border. Sort of like last year’s bill that promised us a fence. Before we do anything about the existing illegal aliens, don’t you think it makes sense to stop the problem from reoccurring first?

CONGRESS: SECURE OUR BORDERS *FIRST!*

Update:
What’s funny about this so far is who’s for and against the bill the first day –

Democrats for it:
Kennedy
Feinstein
Martinez
Chambliss
Isaakson
Salazar

Democrats against it:
Pelosi
Reid
Becerra
Sweeney (AL-CIO President)
Dorgan

Republicans for it:
Bush
McCain
Cornyn (maybe)
Hutchinson (maybe)
Chertoff
Kyl

Republicans against it:
Tancredo
Romney
Lamar Smith

Straddling the Fence:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards

Oddly enough, Mexicans oppose the plan, too.

Democrats Misplay "God Card"

I wrote last July that I fully expected the liberal Democrat party to try and claim Christianity for themselves under the name of “progressive Christianity.”

A prime example is in USAToday recently that tries to show that “playing the God card” isn’t working for George Bush and the Republicans. Even if, as the author admits, “Bush, for his part, at times has invoked religion appropriately and even eloquently” and that even while overall support for Bush may be dropping, evangelicals still overwhelmingly support Bush.

I am not surprised that both Republicans and Democrats will attempt to invoke religion to win elections in 2006 and 2008. But the USAToday article misses a key point – Christian conservatives vote Republican because the Republicans support their ideals. Democrats do too, but only occasionally and when politically expedient, then come off as hypocritical when they do. Townhall’s Patrick Hynes discusses that playing the “God Card” has actually hurt the Democrat Party. Before the 2004 election, 40% of Americans viewed the Democratic Party as “friendly toward religion.” After trying clumsily to gain support for their policies by calling on God, this fell to 29% by August 2005.

Democrats have some serious decisions to make about the future of their party and its message. The Democrat Party cannot long stand as one that demands separation of church and state in all — even symbolic — matters while at the same time claiming Biblical substantiation for liberal public policies. They cannot imply John Roberts’ queasiness about Roe v. Wade breaches the “impregnable wall,” as Sen. Dianne Feinstein did during Roberts’ confirmation hearings, while at the same time urge income redistribution because “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). They cannot call Republicans “theocrats” for trying to save Terri Schiavo while they also claim John the Baptist endorsed their welfare state when he said, “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none …” (Luke 3:11).

Just as Democrats are telling voters they are unserious about national security through their over-the-top rhetoric about Iraq, the Democrats’ “God card” gambit demonstrates to the American public that they are not serious about matters of faith in public life.

The big problem the Democrats have is a) much of their party is composed of people not just passive about God, but actively opposed to God. They support removing “under God” from the pledge of allegiance and prohibit the free expression of Christianity in schools, then the other half tries to undo that perception by claiming the liberal “give to the poor” philosophy is something Jesus would want. The Democrats won’t be able to have it both ways; it comes off as way too insincere, even for politicians.