Let’s take a short quiz. This little query is designed specifically to determine if the taker of this test is a Brain Dead Liberal. First, let’s define “brain dead liberal”, which will hence be referred to as BDL. A BDL is a person who is so committed to the liberal ideology that he/she justifies or excuses any transgression by any Democrat. A BDL believes that no matter what a Democrat does it is

A)    No worse that what a Republican would do

B)    OK, because the alternative is to have a Republican in that office

C)    Exaggerated, made up, or taken out of context by the Republicans

Okay, here we go. Question #1:

Were you embarrassed that you voted for Barack Obama after you learned that his administration misdirected money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to GM and Chrysler to bail them out of bankruptcy, while ignoring bankruptcy laws to insure that the unions were protected and the secured creditors got screwed?

 

Question #2

Were you embarrassed that you voted for Barak Obama (WYETUVFO) after his Attorney General failed to prosecute Samir Shabazz , who was video taped in military style garb, with a club, in front of a Philadelphia polling place, harassing white voters, for voter intimidation?

 

Question #3

WYETUVFO after he announced that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, because he did not believe it to be constitutional, in effect making himself the Supreme Court?

 

Question #4

WYETUVFO after he announce that his administration would stop deporting illegal aliens who would have been allowed to stay in the United States  HAD the Dream Act been passed, in effect making himself Congress?

 

Question #5

WYETUVFO after his National Labor Relations Board filed suit against Boeing Aircraft for the unpardonable sin of trying to manufacture the new 757 Dreamliner in the non-union state of South Carolina, instead of the unionized plant in Seattle?

 

Question #6

WYETUVFO after it was learned that Obama gave a government backed load of half a billion dollar to Solyndra, a troubled solar energy company, which was headed by 

While I do predict that Mitt Romney will become the next president of the United States, and I do not think this race is anywhere near decided, after watching this first 2012 Presidential debate, this was the first time that the words “President Romney” actually formed in my mind.

I know that is an odd thing to think this late in the race.  But up until now, I really only considered Romney as the Republican nominee. He was just the face I was attaching to the job of removing Obama from office. But, about the time Mitt was interrupting Jim Lehrer, and preventing Obama from ending the segment by mis-stating (polite word for lying) about his tax plan, the words “President Romney” came to me.

Mitt Romney looked presidential. He took control of the debate. He refused to be buffaloed by the moderator. In the first segment, Romney had to remind Lehrer that since Obama started it he got the last word. Then realizing he was not going to get an even hand from the liberal Jim Lehrer, he took control of this situation. That is the attitude I want in a President. That is the kind of tenacity and passion I want to see from the Leader of the Free World.

Then Romney also came across as the man who could bring people together. He touted his record as Massachusetts’ governor; working with the opposition majority (87% Democrat he repeated several times) in getting things done. He painted Obama as a dictator shoving his ideas and ways down the American people’s throat, and then watching as Obama feebly attempted to claim that ObamaCare was a bipartisan effort and that he listened to ideas from all sides.

Obama looked ill prepared and out of his league.  I chalk this up to Obama's own arrogance, narcissism, as well as his coddling by the leftstream media. Romney has had a dogfight for the last eight years to get to where he is. He has had to face down and debate the likes of Newt Gingrich and a constant hostile media. Obama has been treated with kit gloves by most of the press since it was evident that he would beat Hillary for the nomination in 2008. He had no primaries to temper him and his debates with John McCain were against a man who had decided certain topics were hands off. Couple that with Obama’s narcissistic attitude that he always the smartest man in the room and this is the result you get.

It was evident how much Obama missed his teleprompter. Without it to feed him his words, he was constantly fumbling around for the right thing to say, stalling with pauses and uh-ums and looking down to either hide his dislike for being there or his contempt of Romney. He came across as petulant and untrustworthy.  Obama was on his heals virtually the whole time, defending and parrying. Even when he tired to go on the offensive he sound like a campaign ad and not a man qualified to lead America to the bathroom, let alone out of this economic malaise. 

How about RomneyCare? I was dreading that part. Obama was going to shred Romney on passing a bill that many argue is the same as ObamaCare. Romney turned it into a story of bipartisan camaraderie and had Obama wondering what the hell just happened.

 Romney, on the other hand, looked calm, cool, level headed and had his facts. He belted out stat after stat, and challenged Obama at every turn. Obama says “tax breaks for corporations to move companies overseas” and Romney calls him on it, (‘I have 25 years of business experience and I have no idea what 

I read the entire transcript of Mitt Romney’s supposed gaffe. You know the one that has spawned several Obama political ads quoting Mitt saying some portion of the following:

“All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Mitt got the 47% number from a study that says that percent of American pay no income tax and while he is oversimplifying by saying those people won’t be voting for him, the just of his argument is correct. Mitt is saying that there is a percentage of Americans who are going to vote for Obama no mater what. Mitt’s “gaffe” is speaking the unvarnished truth. I like a politician who speaks the truth, even if it’s painful. His stock just went up in my book.

“He insulted all those 47%” some Obama supporter yells out.

He did nothing of the sort. While I think he overstated the amount of people who are going to vote for Obama no matter what. It’s more like 40%.  All he said was that there is a percent that are unreachable and he needs to focus on those who might change their mind. Here are Mitt’s own words, just a few seconds later:

“What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other..”

Mitt is saying he will focus of that percentage of American’s who were swayed in 2008, by the thought of voting for the first black president, who thought that Obama’s Hope and Change message sounded good, or those who just could not stomach voting for someone of the same party currently in power.

Mitt has written off the vote of a certain segment of the population, just as Obama has done the same. Obama is in Colorado more than he is in his own bed in the White House. Why? Because the electoral votes in Colorado are up for grabs. Romney is matching him visit for visit. It’s the same for Florida and Ohio. These are the states where enough voters could be swayed to give the state to one side or another. That’s just the numbers game both sides have to play.

This election will be won by trying to convince those who are not heavily ideological, that Obama is still in way over his head. Mitt is speaking to those people who in their hearts believed that Obama’s 2008 message was correct. That he was not just another politician. That Obama would make all the difference. Now they ask “Has he?”

Mitt is trying to reach those people who thought that Obama would bring to peace to the Middle East with his hand of friendship. Obama naively wanted and still wants to show 

When I was eight years old I saw a made for TV movie called The Norliss Tapes. It was a zombie-vampire thing that scared the hell out of me, kept me up that night, and induced bad dreams for several days. Based on how it made me feel, it was, even up to yesterday, the scariest movie I had every seen.

But, I was a naïve child then; unexposed to the real and imagined evils of the world. When I saw the The Exorcist a few years later, I just thought it was cool. I thought I was well past the point where a movie could scare me. Then last night I went to see 2016: Obama’s America. I don’t feel so good.

This is a documentary about Barrack Obama. I had some preconceived notions about what I expected to be. I expected it to be anti-Obama. I had expected it to be factual. And I expected it to mercilessly attack Obama on everything he has done to America in the last four years.

This movie was by “Dnesh D’souza, an Indian born, American-by-choice, intellectual, not prone to dogma, bombastics, or half-truths.  I’ve read one of his books, What’s So Great About America, and I was impressed with his intelligence and thought process. I had high expectations concerning integrity. I thought that it would be out of character for a movie from him to be a political ad. I made up my mind I wanted to see this documentary. I almost wish I hadn’t. Almost.

This is not an Obama hit piece, where the producers dissect and deconstruct what Obama has done. No, it is worse. They tell Obama’s story, often in his own words, from his own books. They tell you about all of the influences he has had since he was a child. His mother was an America-hater (my conclusion, not the documentary’s); his absent biological father was an Anti-Colonial Marxist, who his mother placed on a pedestal for young Barrack. There was his grandfather, who when his daughter sent Barrack to live with him (from Indonesia), thought Barrack needed a mentor. So he chose a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA; Frank Marshall Davis. You are introduced, because Lord knows the leftstream media did everything they could to hide them from the American people four years ago, to Israel hating Columbia professor, Edward Said (SAW-eed), and Brazilian, socialist, Harvard professor Roberto Unger. They were two of Obama’s more influential teachers in college. And, who can forget Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, the racist Chicago preacher, who even the liberal media couldn’t hide.

The conclusion D’souza drew from all of this (& I agree) was the Barrack Obama was molded and created by these men and woman, into a man, who at his soul really doesn’t like America. He thinks America has an original sin-like stain, in which only a firm economic spanking will erase. He believes that we, and all Western nations, have exploited the 3rd world nations for years and we must be held accountable.

He is a product of his environment. He has spent his entire life looking for people to reinforce the beliefs that were force fed him from the cradle. He can’t help what he has become. I still don’t think he is any great thinker. He has no original ideas, nor any plans to build anything; economic, social, or racial. He only knows that Western society, and 

Recently I have embarked upon a project that in a very clear way drove home the point of how wrong President Obama is when he made his “you didn’t build that” speech. Before I go on, first the quote and some explanation:

“Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

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

The complete disconnect that it takes to say this blows me away every time I read it.

Those defending President Obama claim he is being taken out of context. They say that the “you didn’t build that” part referred to the roads and bridges. Personally, I don’t think so. I think the way he phased it makes it clear he was referring to the business. If he was talking about roads and bridges, then why not say “you didn’t build that” right after mentioning them, instead of moving on to another subject.

But, let’s assume for a minute he really meant you didn’t build the roads and bridges. Well, Duh. Of course not. But, we did fund them. It was our blood and sweat that generated the tax base that paid to have them built. We paid to create the level playing field that everyone lives and works on. Everyone has access to those roads, bridges, internet, and teachers. This is the point that Obama does not grasp. It is the individual initiative, creativity, and effort that goes into to creating a small business, which grows into a large business, that is far and away the most important part of the equation. A road, a bridge, or the internet does nothing, without the power of the individual. It’s not a partnership. Everyone is sitting on “Go”, but the power of our system comes from the ones who travel around the board and take chances. They create the jobs that far too many take for granted.

About five weeks ago I made a decision to start a website that would memorialize all of the people who went to my local high school, and who are no longer with us. It is called FallenBulldogs.com. I used the internet, which I did not create, but is available to everyone. A small business man would rent or buy a building that anyone else could rent or buy. He uses the roads and bridges that everyone else does on a daily basis. He makes use of the internet, which everyone else could have. He attended the same classes, with that same special teacher. But, he takes the chance on his idea.

I, not Barrack Obama, came up with the idea to create this site. Certainly I was inspired by something. Every business and every idea that has ever happened was inspired by something. But, the small business owner makes the very conscience and deliberate 

Barrack Obama does not want the job of President of the United States. It’s true. He has discovered that the Presidency is not a job suited to his strong points, as he sees them. Barrack Obama believes that he is the smartest person in the room, that he sees the big picture, and that, he, and he alone, has the vision to guide America to a place where we all will live in harmony and prosperity. Barrack Obama has found that Congress is a hindrance and the Supreme Court a nuisance. So what is a smart, vision-endowed man like Obama to do? Become king of course.

Being king is soooooo much easier. Kings give orders, and then people follow them. There is no messy legislative branch that must first pass a law, that the President would have to give his OK to, and then enforce. He would not have to worry about if a thing he wants to do is constitutional. The King says what is constitutional, because he changes what the constitution says at his whim.

I submit the following as proof

On June 15, 2012 Obama announced that his administration would no longer pursue deportation of “the children” of illegal aliens as long as they weren’t criminals and came to this country before age 16. Those children can be as old as 30 and there is no mechanism to check when they came to America. So in effect this is an amnesty program. Making this declaration even more egregious is the fact that just a year earlier, while addressing a Univision town hall, Obama said he specifically did not have the authority to do what he is now doing.

On April 2, 2012, Obama was very concerned that the Supreme Court would rule his signature piece of legislation, ObamaCare, unconstitutional. So he made a public statement that it

 “……would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

That of course is crap. It passed by 7 votes in the House, and parliamentary procedures were misused to pass by a single vote in the Senate. Not one Republican voted for it. Then, of course, there the 200 plus year president of the Supreme Court hearing arguments on legislation and then, yes, maybe overturning them.  Obama knows all about Marbury vs. Madison, which established that president. Obama used to lecture on constitutional law. So either he thinks he is king and is above Supreme Court oversight, or he really sucked as a lecturer.

I was stunned when I heard President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” speech. Here is the pertinent part.

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

My first thought was that Obama is vastly out of touch with the American people and what has made America great. Now, I will give Obama his due, he is a very good campaigner. Much better than anyone since Bill Clinton, so a gaff of this size is out of character.  I decided to read the whole speech, being as the president’s supporters claims he was taken out of context, and draw my own conclusion. I learned, well, actually reaffirmed, many things from this speech. All of them reveal a lot about Obama’s strategy to get re-elected and the character of this man.

“In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didn’t go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  That’s the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.”

Two lies for the price of one, right here. Obama did not cut anyone’s taxes. Haven’t you heard the media decrying the evil “Bush Tax Cuts”? Take the word “Bush” out of that and what do you have?  You have the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which actually cut the tax rates of every single taxpayer in America. The only thing Obama did was sign a piece of legislation that left those tax rate cuts alone. He gave no one any tax relief. As for the “big tax guy” comment; Obamacare is the single biggest tax increase in the history of this nation. Did you hear me? Single biggest. Ever. But, Bush was evil and caused this whole mess, because he decreased tax rates for everyone, and Obama signed the bill leaving them alone?  Moving on.

“And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because we’re not Democrats or Republicans first, we’re Americans first.” 

Later in the speech he says

“Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime. “

The first point here is obvious; first he confirms what I just said about the tax rate cuts. The second is a big hint into his philosophy. Part one “we’re American’s first” Part Two he makes a clear division between Americans. That is the overriding theme of the Obama campaign; divide America and bribe them, one segment at a time. 

President Obama and his sycophants in Congress are again on their rant about raising the taxes on the millionaires (defined as a family making $250,000 or more) and other people who need to pay their fair share. Here’s something he and the leftstream media are not going to tell you. It doesn’t matter, not one iota, if Obama gets the tax rate increase he wants. It won’t fix the problem. It will be barely noticeable. It will likely do harm.

The President does not come right out and say it, but it is implied that if only we raise taxes on the rich all of our budgetary problems would disappear. Listen to this clip.

http://www.hark.com/clips/hmtzzhwlcw-raise-taxes-on-the-rich

He says if we take money from the rich and give it the poor the economy will be back in balance. The word ‘balance’ is in there for a reason. People hear that and they think “balanced budget”. Then they make the leap from “balance budget’ to “Tax the rich and we balance the budget”. Again, the President doesn’t say this. But, it is clear he wants you to infer this.

So, first let’s shoot that down right now. The Clinton Tax Rate Increases, that President Obama wants Congress to reinstitute on families making above $250,000 and individuals making above $200,000 (millionaires?) are projected to raise annual revenue from as little as 65 billion per year to as much as 400 billion per year. Other sources say revenues will actually go down as those “rich’ people shelter their income more efficiently.

For argument’s sake let’s say that we will be rolling in the dough and bringing in 400 billion more each year. In 2011 the budget deficit, the amount money we need to bring in so we have as much as we spend each year, was 1.6 trillion. That’s trillion with a capital ‘T”. That’s trillion, as in 1000 billion. The 400 billion of additional revenue is a big maybe. The 1.6 trillion shortfall is a carved-in-stone fact. We are talking a pie-in-the sky- best-case scenario of reducing the deficit by 25%.

You say “Great! That’s a good start”. I say “Weren’t you listening?” Maybe we will raise 400 billion. We might get even less money. But, we are definitely planning on spending every dime and then some to create the deficit.

“Yeah, but we can try it and maybe at the same time reduce spending in areas where we can afford it; like Defense. You know we spend more than every other country in that area.”  comes your reply.

We have played this game before. If we cut out every single dollar going to Defense, every single dollar, our deficit drops from 1.6 trillion to 700 billion. So if we tax the rich, cut out all defense (throwing a few million people out of work in the process, and turning our Recession into a full fledged Depression) we are still 300 billion short, IF things play out in the best case scenario. But, we also get invaded by a foreign country (other than Mexico), and must learn to speak Russian, Chinese, or Farsi. 

Fast and Furious was patterned from a Bush era operation called Wide Receiver. The purpose of Wide Receiver was to identify arrest and convict gun runners who would buy weapons on behalf of Mexican drug lords and then smuggle them across the border. Under Wide Receiver the US and Mexican Attorney Generals worked together and formed a plan of attack to try to snare these people via a coordinated sting. The guns had Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags placed in them, and either Mexican or American law enforcement agencies would arrest the gun runners shortly after making the purchase. Efforts were made to keep the weapons under surveillance at all times. There were 1400 arrests made, but guns ended up being lost despite these surveillance measures, so the project was dissolved in 2007.

In 2009 the Obama administration, for reasons and an end I can only make a guess at, rekindled this program and renamed it Operation Fast and Furious. But, they made a few changes. They decided the Mexican government did not need to know about it. The methods used for keeping the guns under surveillance were poorly thought out and were an abject failure. They made little or no effort to arrest the gun runners after the sales from legitimate gun sellers happened. So predictably most of those guns were lost, presumably to the drug lords. Finally instead of just 400 guns from Wide Receiver, 1765 guns were sold under Fast and Furious.

As a result, hundreds of Mexican citizens, ICE agent Jaime Zapata, and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry were killed with weapons that had been sold under Fast and Furious. The Dec 2010 murder of Brian Terry brought the program to attention of the American public. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder denied in March 2011 that he knew about Fast and Furious, even though e-mails released by his Department of Justice (DOJ) say otherwise. There has been an ongoing Congressional investigation almost since F/F blew up. The DOJ has dragged their feet in providing documents to Congress concerning F/F. Eric Holder is about to be held in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over those documents pertaining to the operation. Obama has invoked Executive Privilege to thwart the investigation.

Here are my questions on this whole mess;

In my last blog I explain what the Buffett Rule (a minimum 30% tax on those making a million or more) and why it is nothing but a ploy from our president to pit everyone else against the millionaires. His plan is to convince everyone that Obama the Great is looking out for them and only he will make the millionaires pay their fair share. I also pointed out that the top 1% of taxpayers pays 37% of the total taxes collected. Those 1% encompass taxpayers who make $344,000 and above. 

Assume for a minute that Obama gets his way and he gets the Buffett Rule through Congress (he won’t; it won’t pass either house), and he signs it. Then what? Well, let’s start with what Obama said it would do when he introduced it back in September

“and that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs bill but we would stabilize our debt and deficit for the next decade. And as I said when I made the announcement, this is not politics, this is math.

The italics in the quote are mine. So this would stabilize our debt and deficit for the next decade and this is math, not politics. So why don’t we apply a little math to the Buffett Rule. First, how
much money is this 30% tax rate going to bring in? 

Well according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation it will raise 5.1 billion dollars in 2013.Now if that was my lottery winnings I would think it a lot of money. But, compare it first to the 2013 project budget (3800 billion) and more importantly the deficit, which is the amount of
money we need to somehow find to make how much we spend and how much we take in
balance (1300 billion)

So let’s do the math. We need 1300 billion. The Buffett Rule would raise 5 billion. Does this sound like it will stabilize our debt and deficit? 

This like your spouse telling you that we need to buy a $1000 refrigerator. You know that you have $660 dollars in savings. But, your spouse knows a great way to get the rest of it; we check the couch for change. You do and glory be, you find exactly $1.32; problem solved.