Close to Home!


Considering I have personal ties to the area, this feature story from The American Spectator was definitely worth sharing. Wetumpka, Alabama’s (a small town northeast of Montgomery) Becky Gerritson slices through all of the crap and gives the federal government a piece of her mind…and surely the sentiments of millions of other Americans!….


“Becky Gerritson and other IRS victims put the federal government in its place.

The IRS has called its targeting of conservative groups “horrible customer service”—a cold and trivializing apology befitting a federal government that sees itself as a corporate Leviathan. Officials who understood that they serve a government of, by, and for the people would never speak in such odd terms. What happened was not poor customer service but tyranny.

Appearing on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Becky Gerritson of Alabama’s Wetumpka Tea Party, along with other targets of the IRS, gave the federal government a well-deserved shafting along those lines. Gerritson effectively put her finger on the central issue underpinning the scandal:

"In Wetumpka, we are patriotic Americans; we peacefully assemble; we petition our government; we exercise our right to free speech. We don’t understand why the government tried to stop us. I’m not here as a serf or a vassal. I’m not begging my lord for mercy. I’m a born-free American woman, wife, mother, and citizen, and I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place..."

“In Wetumpka, we are patriotic Americans; we peacefully assemble; we petition our government; we exercise our right to free speech. We don’t understand why the government tried to stop us. I’m not here as a serf or a vassal. I’m not begging my lord for mercy. I’m a born-free American woman, wife, mother, and citizen, and I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place…..

I’m not interested in scoring political points,” she added. “I want to preserve and protect the America that I grew up in. The America that people crossed oceans and risked their lives to become a part of, and I’m terrified it’s slipping away.”

“I’m not interested in scoring political points….I want to preserve and protect the America that I grew up in. The America that people crossed oceans and risked their lives to become a part of, and I’m terrified it’s slipping away.”

Others at the hearing testified to the perversity of the IRS’s abuse: absurd delays, outrageous and intrusive questions, imperious demands.

Sue Martinek of the Coalition for Life of Iowa said that her group was asked to furnish the IRS with the “contents” of its prayers.  Under Obama’s government-as-God model, such questions apparently become thinkable. She also said that an IRS agent wanted an assurance from her that the group wouldn’t be picketing outside of any Planned Parenthood clinics.

John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, said that the IRS leaked confidential information about his donors to gay activists with ties to Obama.  Kevin Kookogey, the founder of Linchpins of Liberty (which hasn’t received tax-exempt status yet), said that he was told to detail his political views and associations.

In one form or another, members of the groups were all asked: Are you now or have you ever been a conservative?

Naturally, Obama is working hard to make sure that the scandal is framed in terms of isolated, individualistic error. But it goes beyond a handful of IRS employees. It goes at the very least to the bad judgment of his appointees (who have known about it since 2011) and to the tone his ideological biases set in government agencies.  His repeated denunciations of the tea party as extremist, his view of “campaign finance reform” as a justification for inhibiting political speech, and his hyper-statist conception of taxation (where the burden always falls on the taxpayer, not the government) all ripened the IRS up for his kind of scandal. Indeed, much of his rhetoric turns on the contention that conservatism is “political” while liberalism embodies “social welfare.” Double standards at the IRS surely fed off that bogus contrast.


Washington state's embarrassment..Rep. Jim McDermott (D) makes a fool of himself...

Washington state’s embarrassment..Rep. Jim McDermott (D) makes a fool of himself…

Such a raw abuse of power won’t happen again, vows Obama. Anyone who believes that should pay attention to Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott’s remarks at Tuesday’s hearing. “None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We’re talking about whether or not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work. We’re talking about a tax break,” McDermott told the witnesses. “Without oversight, a status meant for charity becomes a machine for political money laundering.” He added that “each of your groups are highly political.”

Obama can’t afford politically to agree with McDermott at the moment, but he shares that sentiment. Left to his own devices, Obama would vaporize these groups in the name of campaign finance reform. He also holds the same perverse view of a public subsidy, which is defined not by giving these groups money but by allowing them the high honor of keeping their own. Under such warped thinking it becomes possible to force groups into contortions in order to prove their worthiness for a “public benefit.”

It is the unlimited conception of the federal government built into this arrangement that Gerritson was decrying. Under the Constitution, the people are masters, not servants. But under the anti-Constitution of liberalism, the people are servants, not masters, or at best hapless customers of a monopoly that gives “horrible customer service” from time to time while still holding a contract on their freedom.”



Circling the wagons….DESPERATE Democrats!


Just a sampling of some of the remarks made by Congressional Democrats during the Benghazi hearings yesterday….Typical of such spineless behavior, they attempt to deny and deflect so as to shield the Obama administration…

"Congress has been cheap on the cheap of providing protection to our personnel."

“Congress has been cheap on the cheap of providing protection to our personnel.”

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) attempting to blame budget restraints for the fiasco in Libya…

"And, as I listen to your testimony I could not help but think of something that I said very recently -- two years ago now -- in a eulogy for a relative. I said that death is a part of life, so often we have to find a way to make life a part of death. And, I guess the reason why I'm saying that, going back to something Mr. Nordstrom said, he wanted, I guess all of you said this, he wanted to make sure we learn from this.."

“And, as I listen to your testimony I could not help but think of something that I said very recently — two years ago now — in a eulogy for a relative. I said that death is a part of life, so often we have to find a way to make life a part of death. And, I guess the reason why I’m saying that, going back to something Mr. Nordstrom said, he wanted, I guess all of you said this, he wanted to make sure we learn from this..”

The embarrassing Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) more or less saying sh*t happens….deal with it….

“I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack, the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans,” she said. “Attack the military; attack the president; attack the State Department; attack the former senator from the great state of New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

“I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack, the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans,” …. “Attack the military; attack the president; attack the State Department; attack the former senator from the great state of New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

The MORONIC Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) going out of her way with little C.Y.A. for Mrs. Clinton….

Of course, as to be expected, the media is doing ALL it can to diminish and discredit the hearings… a couple of examples:


@washingtonpost Who’s tweeting about Benghazi? Rich middle-aged men, and Chick-fil-a lovers

"I make sure to discredit the subject of my story if I don't agree with them politically..It's just part of my job as an "objective" it is with most reporters today..."

“I make sure to discredit the subject of my story if I don’t agree with them politically..It’s just part of my job as an “objective” journalist…as it is with most reporters today…”

From Kasie Hunt, NBC News

“So would there be so much coverage of this Benghazi hearing if John Kerry had been SecState at the time? #doubtful #hillary 2016”

It was clear as it could possibly be what was going on with the Democrats on the committee. The objective is to protect President Obama at all costs! Never mind that four Americans died, likely needlessly. Never mind that the administration was and is mired in incompetence and indifference when it comes to the national interests of the nation. The TOP priority of today’s Democratic party is to excuse and impugn. It’s shameless, gutless, and disgusting. And it was on display for the nation to see in these hearings.

"You bet I can lie!...And I'm pretty fu**ing good at it, too!"

“You bet I can lie!…And I’m pretty fu**ing good at it, too!”




FROM BIMBOS TO BENGHAZI – Jeffrey Lord @ American Spectator







Is ANYONE ‘present’ out there?…ANYONE?…..

A question we should be asking everyday. I know I do!.

One of my favorite ‘teachers’, Ben Stein, has a take on the present state of affairs in our nation…He offers some thoughts on Hillary Clinton, ‘Bush 43’, and the current occupier of the White House….

DREAM SEQUENCES from The American Spectator

And Bush 43 looked great. Not so Mrs. Clinton.

“Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley….where does that come from? Some famous movie. Rebecca? I think that’s it. Rebecca.

Anyway, last night I dreamed I was in Miami Beach, helping Tom and Kitty move out of a small house in South Beach. My father was still alive and he was helping, too. There were immense tropical insects, just monstrous crickets who breathed fog onto the windows where they landed. Now that I think of it, maybe I was in Palm Desert, California.

We had our dog, Susie, deceased, but alive in the dream, and she ran away. I chased after her and came to an immense department store, a bit like the Istanbul Grand Bazaar in Skyfall and a tiny bit like the Jelleff’s Department Store on Colesville Road next to the Silver Theater, where my sister Rachel used to shop in the 1950s.

There were woman fortunetellers and snake charmers and a whole host of glamorous looking people, sort of like the Beverly Hills Hotel when Phil DeMuth and I go there for brunch. It was wildly technicolored and gorgeous and lush with immense palm trees inside like the courtyard of the Pan-American Union long ago. Now it’s called the OAS.

I caught up with Susie and brought her out to our car, a pale blue 1955 Chevrolet 210 four-door sedan, which had been my family car through much of my youth.

(Finally, I persuaded my father to buy V-8 Fords, Chevies, and a Dodge — that was pure kindness on his thrifty part. He was a kind man.)

Then Phil DeMuth appeared to tell me I was not going broke after all, despite my fears and worries, and that I need not live in fear of poverty. He had charts and graphs to back up his claims.

As I talked to him, I noticed that Tom Cruise had pulled up next to him in a pickup truck. He talked to me in a friendly way, thanking me for the kindness I had shown him by writing so well about him in his role in Tropic Thunder. He told me he had been a fan for a long time. I was happy and walked with him as he walked into the huge store… maybe it was the Saks in Palm Desert… and then I told him I would stop following him and he walked away.

When I got back to our car, I saw that now Dustin Hoffman had pulled up next to our poor old Chevy, and he was in a pickup truck, too. He smiled and waved at me, and I felt happy.

I went back into our son’s former home and realized my father had left his sport jacket there. But my father was gone and that was when I woke up.

I cannot tell you how excited that dream made me. It was mostly the immense, gaudy store that did it. Also somehow, somewhere in the back of my mind was the thought that my father was there to help me.

Also, it was exciting to be friends with movie stars.

But I knew it was not real and so, back to sleep. When I awakened, to my shock there was Bush 43 speaking at the dedication of his library at SMU. He looked great, sounded great, deeply unpretentious, just a fine figure of a man. I felt deeply sad that he’s not in the White House any longer, although he made some horrible mistakes that he should have seen coming: mostly ignoring Afghanistan while he pursued a futile course in a sideshow in Iraq. Far worse that a mistake… a blunder. Who said that? Talleyrand? He also should not have allowed Lehman to fail. That had catastrophe all over it.

Still, it happened and it’s history now. Eventually, he bailed out Wall Street and saved the economy. So kudos for that. And mainly, he’s just a super likeable guy.


Bush Library Dedication  _DSC0450-0-0-550-528*304

Mrs. Hillary Clinton looks decidedly unwell. I wonder how her health is. I hope she is all right. She needs a long rest, dry out her weary brain.



How brave Bush 41 is. Just looking at him is deeply moving. Hero in so many ways.


As to Jimmy Carter… well, he’s gotten the face he deserves.



The weather here in D.C. is perfect today. Alex and I sat out on our deck and watched the clouds go by and the planes land at DCA.

Relaxing. Almost too good to be true.

I came inside and watched the news. Chemical weapons in Syria. But the rebels are worse than Assad. He’s a killer and a butcher, but not totally out of control like the fanatical Islamists. What a nightmare Arab Spring has become. IT WAS SO AMAZINGLY EASY TO SEE IT COMING. Who did we think would replace Mubarak? Mohammed Thomas Jefferson and Ahmed James Madison? And the media was praising the rebels as if they were John Adams and Tom Paine. THE REBELS SAID THEY WANTED TO KILL ISRAEL AND AMERICA! What did we think they would be like in office?

Now, it’s all turned to mud and it’s going to get a lot worse.

And there is poor Obama. He drew a “red line” for Iran. They evacuated their bowels on him. He warned North Korea and laughed. He was going to “reset” relations with Russia. They are in a total mess. Honor the Russians’ incredible courage, but they are not our pals.

Have we ever had a more pusillanimous foreign policy? Have we ever shown ourselves to be weaker?

When in history did weakness win the day? What kind of dream world does Mr. Obama live in?



I heard Senator McCain on the C-Span network say that we could no longer defend the nation. This is serious business. Is Mr. Obama listening? And what a cruel blow that Sen. McCain lost in 2008. What a different country this would be if he had won. Does Mr. Obama even bother to listen to his generals and admirals? Or is his goal to end America?

“Nothing matters now but Obama’s subconscious,” said Phil DeMuth in 2008. What is the subconscious of a man abandoned by both father and mother? Actually, maybe that was a good thing given who they were. And this country has turned itself inside out for Mr. Obama for his whole life. Maybe he likes America. But should we have a President about whom we say “maybe”?”


"I either don't have a clue...or I don't decide!"

“I either don’t have a clue…or I don’t care…you decide!”

I’d pay money to see THIS!






As sort of a follow up on yesterday’s post, The American Spectator’s Aaron Goldstein has a fantasy about what he’d LOVE to see from the Republicans! Have to say, I agree with him whole heartedly! Check it out!….


…I have no illusions that the Republicans will walk out on Obama any more than Obama will stop his demagoguery against the GOP. The Republican party is too darn polite. The Republicans will just sit there and take it.”

“He’ll probably give them no choice tonight.

President Obama is expected to eviscerate Republicans during tonight’s State of the Union address tonight. It will be a speech that builds on his second inaugural address last month. As Charles Krauthammer put it during an appearance on FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier:

In fact, if the inaugural address was this sort of extraordinarily ideological address, I think the State of the Union is going to be extremely aggressive and partisan. Obama is still campaigning. He hasn’t stopped. Part one was to re-win the presidency, which he did. But now he is continuing it.

Indeed, President Obama will be embarking on a tour in support of his SOTU address traveling to Asheville, North Carolina, Atlanta, and his political home base in Chicago. Back to Mr. Krauthammer:

His idea — the objective, the political objective — now is to reduce, to fracture, to marginalize the Republicans in the House who were the ones that stopped the agenda in years three and four of his presidency, and who he has to marginalize if he wants to enact his agenda in the second term.

Remember when Obama dissed the Supreme Court over the Citizens United decision during the 2010 SOTU address? The Supremes had to sit there and take it save for Justice Samuel Alito who was seen saying, “Not true!” Having no desire to be subjected to Obama’s demagoguery, Alito subsequently skipped the following SOTU nor was he present last year.

Unlike Supreme Court justices, senators and congressmen like to be seen on TV by their constituents. But senators and congressmen don’t like being insulted on TV especially on their turf. If President Obama plans to spend a better part of an hour heaping scorn towards the Republican side of the aisle, the GOP shouldn’t sit there and take it. Instead, they should stand up and walk out on President Obama. It would be a SOTU address no one would ever forget.

Of course, Republicans would be excoriated in all the usual circles. The GOP would be accused of being divisive, disrespectful, eroding civility, and, no doubt, racism. But Republicans are accused of these things every day of the week and twice on Sunday. How will it be any different if they don’t walk out on Obama?

There are several reasons why this gesture will be advantageous to the GOP. First and foremost, it would be a sign of unity amongst Republicans. It’s no secret there are hard feelings amongst GOP since Obama’s re-election victory in November. Walking out on the SOTU address would demonstrate a resolve not only against Obama’s agenda but against his imperial manner.

Smug Obama


Yes, Republicans will be called rude. But the GOP can simply say, “We are giving him the same level of respect he has given us. If the President wants to address as adults, then we are willing to listen. But as long as he insists on demonizing us with petulant behavior, then we will have no part of it.”

It also must be remembered that politics is theater. Why shouldn’t Republicans engage in it? Why shouldn’t the GOP write the script? Walking out on Obama would be the ultimate act of political theater. It would send the dramatic message that Obama is losing his audience. He may still be president but it doesn’t mean the country accepts his agenda in its entirety. Barack Obama is the president of all Americans, not just those Americans who voted for him. Barack Obama is at the service of all Americans including those who bitterly cling to guns and religion and it’s time he started governing that way.

Of course, I have no illusions that Obama would do an about face if Republicans were to walk out on him tonight. If anything, Obama would dig in his heels. But at least the GOP would put him on notice that they won’t roll over and play dead.



However, I also have no illusions that Republicans will walk out on Obama any more than Obama will stop his demagoguery against the GOP. The Republican Party is just too darn polite. Republicans will just sit there and take it.”



What Lies Ahead






With the dereliction of duty absorbing mainstream media these days, it’s important to get the message out there when they absolutely refuse to do their job. I take pride in that task.

We all know how enamored the press is of Obama and how their turning a blind eye to the reality of this dangerous man in the White House is detrimental to the country. The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord offers an unnerving take on the second term of the most divisive, un-American President the nation has entrusted…


“An Orwellian inaugural address and a backwards march to another failed utopia.

Backwards, march!

Yesterday’s declaration by President Obama, signaling with his inaugural address that he intends to turn America around and march it backwards to the glory days of failed leftism — making of America one gigantic society of beggars — raises the central and obvious point.

It’s the damage, stupid.

So how much damage can the American left do over the next four years?

Really. Seriously.

How much damage can the far-left-wing do with a re-elected Obama presidency?

A lot. When one hears the President of the United States use his inaugural address to favorably cite the most infamous phrase associated with the disastrous Neville Chamberlain — that would be “peace in our time” — there can only be trouble ahead.

The mechanics for this march backwards to failure are already in place.

First and foremost is the Orwellian use of his language. Tyranny is freedom. Collectivism is liberty. “Together” is shorthand for government control.

Second is the renewal of campaign warfare — with a new target.

Remember Kill Romney? You remember this, right? The moment back there in the 2012 campaign when it was said by an Obama strategist that the president’s team, politically speaking, intended “to kill Romney.”

And so they did. Mitt Romney was magically transformed from the reality of solid American citizen and accomplished businessman to murderer and thief. In the political nano-second of a presidential campaign cycle mere months long.

Move over Mitt.

There is a bigger target in left-wing sights now. A much bigger target: The Constitution of the United States.



Yet again, the people whose ancestors so hated the Constitution they have repeatedly tried to eliminate or severely restrict the guarantees of liberty it provides, believe their moment has arrived.

These are the political descendants of those who tried to write slavery into the Constitution — the Dred Scott decision, written by the liberal Andrew Jackson appointee, the slave-owning Chief Justice Roger Taney. In which a liberal court declared blacks were not human beings and thus their right to anything other than literal chains simply did not — and never would — exist. Then there was the brainchild of segregation, ruthlessly enforced for decades by a long succession of liberal Democrats at the federal, state, and local level, in which blacks were denied their liberty to vote, eat in restaurants, sit in the front of a bus or even marry outside of their race. Lynching? Democrats made a specialty of this one, refusing repeatedly to outlaw the denial of a basic right to life to black Americans, instead empowering the Ku Klux Klan — the Klan in turn a pillar of support for a big government.

The modern versions of all this? The modern restrictors of liberty and freedom who in the past were slave owners, segregationists, lynchers, and Klansmen — all key components of the Democrats and the progressive movement?

How and who specifically will manage this backwards march?

How specifically will the Constitution be assaulted? And what are the envisioned results?

This time the targets will be the First and Second Amendments… free speech, religious liberty, and the right to bear arms.

And the allies arrayed to strip these?

Can you say the National Education Association? The Sierra Club? Greenpeace? The Communications Workers of America? The NAACP?

Can you say the Obama campaign team turned into the post-election Organizing for America?

Can you say MSNBC? Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews? How about CBS and Bob Schieffer…and CBS political director John Dickerson? More on the latter in a moment…






Let’s start with the president’s liberal allies.

Over at the Washington Free Beacon Matthew Continetti has put the spotlight on a significant story.

Continetti zeroes in on a little noticed report in the far-left Mother Jones magazine by writer Andy Kroll. What was Kroll’s headline:


Revealed: The Massive New Liberal Plan to Remake American Politics

Have you ever heard of the “Democracy Initiative”? Continetti brings us up to date about the results from two progressive “retreats” held in June and December of last year.


the AFL-CIO, the Center for American Progress, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Color of Change, Common Cause, Demos, the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Mother Jones (in a “non-editorial” capacity!), National People’s Action, the National Wildlife Federation, People for the American Way, the Piper Fund, Public Campaign, the Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, and Voto Latino…

And these progressives, who, according to the Center for American Freedom have a collective revenue base of $1.69 billion at their disposal, are about what?

A full-fledged assault on the Constitution of the United States.

Oh, they don’t phrase it that way. They aren’t stupid. They will couch their point the way White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer did when making it to the Washington Post (as noted here by the Weekly Standard ). Said Pfeiffer:

“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important. What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”

And what “political system” is so not “worthy” in the view of this senior Obma aide? Why, the American political system based on the Constitution, of course.

Make no mistake: peeling away liberty is what these progressives are all about.

According to Kroll, the first targets will be to “get big money out of politics.” Hey, no irony there. These groups with $1.69 billion at their disposal want to restrict — that is take away…the First Amendment rights of Chevron (for donating to House Republicans), Google (“for its continued membership with the generally pro-Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce”) and ALEC — the American Legislative Exchange Council — for daring to promote conservative legislation in states around the country. To do-in ALEC’s First Amendment rights the Democracy Initiative will use its resources to intimidate the group’s donors into silence — forcing them to give up their First Amendment rights and withdraw their support.

All this on the heels of two important First Amendment battles already held: the decision to force the Catholic Church through Obamacare to relinquish its First Amendment right to not fund abortions and contraceptives. And the concerted attack by the Obama White House and its allies on conservative media and its personalities from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, in the case of the latter —along with Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan — openly seeking to remove them from the radio or television airwaves.

But that’s only the First Amendment.

Moving on to the Second Amendment the decision is to take away the right to bear arms. The GOP’s Senator Marco Rubio (FL) has said to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly:

“I think that the President — and he doesn’t have the guts to admit it — is not a believer in the Second Amendment, although he states that he is. I didn’t write the Constitution. Neither did you — neither did he. If he doesn’t want it in the Constitution or he wants to reform the Second Amendment, then have the guts to admit that.”

So while the President won’t have, in Rubio’s words, “the guts” to openly state his real goal — there are all those Democrats in Red States to worry about in 2014 — his allies will go about Romneyizing supporters of the Second Amendment.

How will it be done? It will be done in the same fashion the Kill Romney campaign turned Romney from a considerable man of achievement into a murderer and a thief.

Take a look at this TV commercial made by Congressman John Barrow, in which Barrow proclaims his steadfast support for the Second Amendment.

Now take a look at the very same commercial — except this time it has been re-cut and selectively edited by the anti-Constitution group “Stop the Gun Violence” to cast the Congressman as a recipient of “blood money” from the NRA.

The irony? Congressman Barrow, from Georgia — is a Democrat.

No matter. When it comes to the Kill the Constitution campaign, either you get in line — or you get run over.

Which is where the mainstream media comes in. Take a look at this from Breitbart about this outburst from one John Dickerson, the political director for CBS. Dickerson, who used to work at Time with Obama spokesman Jay Carney, took to the cyberpages of the left wing Slate in an article titled — really:



Go for the Throat!

Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

Ranted Dickerson:

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.…

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

Nice, yes? This is shorthand that tells you the campaign to destroy the Constitution will have important allies in the liberal media.

One could go and on here with the list of the liberal assaults on the Constitution and the Orwellian fashion in which they are presented. Voter corruption becomes “Voter ID.” Attacks on the free market and capitalism are all about a mythical “fair share” — in which the real game is to protect liberal elites while punishing the hated middle class. The most destructive game in all this, of course, is the blockheaded belief that massive government spending to endless degree will bring a halt to the growth of the national debt.

But why? Why all this?

What is it that drives this determination to reverse 200-plus years of American progress and march the nation backwards ?

Why wreck the Constitution with this vast confection of Orwellian language and straw men, both of which Obama indulges in on a regular basis?

Our friend Mark Levin has captured the core reason: the eternal leftist drive for utopia. As Obama phrased it yesterday, the drive “to complete our journey”.

Or, as Levin phrased it in the title of his last book, AmeritopiaThe Unmaking of America This is the reason for all this. To quote Levin:

Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology. There are, of course, unlimited utopian constructs, for the mind is capable of infinite fantasies. But there are common themes. The fantasies take the form of grand social plans or experiments, the impracticability and impossibility of which, in small ways and large, lead to the individual’s subjugation.

What we are living through, what the Obama inaugural and the campaign that preceded it was all about, is creating utopia in America.

That is the goal of Barack Obama. That is the goal of his campaign-operatives-turned-agenda-operatives calling themselves “Organizing for Action.” That is the goal of the humorously named “Democracy Initiative” and it’s $1.69 billion pool of special interest money.

And they cannot accomplish this utopia — surprise, surprise — by using the Constitution of the United States. The rights of others — i.e., you — stand in their way. They must be either restricted if not abolished outright.

There is no Orwellian language too far-fetched, no straw man big enough that cannot and will not be pressed into the service of wrecking the Constitution.

CBS’s John Dickerson put it well.

When it comes to the survival of the Constitution of the United States, the American Left is going to “go for the throat.”

If you think the campaign to “Kill Romney” was a political dogfight — you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The best advice for Republicans?

Wake up.”




The Money Pit…and short sightedness…


With all of the usual Washington posturing, double talk, and finger pointing currently raging over our ‘fiscal crisis’, a hard, simple, truth is consistently overlooked. The fact is our national debt is so unfathomable it will NEVER be paid down by any significant level. If the federal government ceased spending…and I’m referring to those expenditures that are all a part of budget that’s at the center of discourse…and applied income from taxes, etc., any significant debt reduction would take an eternity. That’s how bad it is. Reducing spending is always part of a “plan”, yet it never seems to come to fruition. Agreeing to discuss reductions in the amount of spending years down the road is NOT the same thing. However, that’s all we seem to get.

I realize the government cannot cease spending. The effects would be…well, who knows?…it’s never happened. That being said, continuing to operate as if there’s an infinite amount of money to be had is living in a fool’s paradise. With the national economic situation being what it is, you’d think sane heads would prevail here. Unfortunately, President Obama prefers to set his sights on “the rich” and place the blame on our mishandling of finances solely on their shoulders. All the while, promising a blank check to more and more Americans who see his lies as their only hope. Rather than focusing on expansion and growth of the private sector, Mr. Obama would rather cast it as the villain here. This empowers him..sustains his reasoning for the government’s existence. Sure, the feds can print money. But, more and more money flooding the economy with less and less to back it up devalues our currency. Major world players are gradually moving away from the dollar as the currency of choice. Not to mention those who own our debt are probably not too keen on getting payed back with dollars that are worth less and less…or eventually worthless.

I know it’s tough out there. Yet, common sense approaches…distasteful medicine…and hard choices are all part of the picture now. The foolishness of those in power has come home to roost. Nevertheless, they will always refuse to accept a shred of blame for their part in our situation.

I came across this from Ben Stein at the American Spectator

“So, Let’s be honest: the ultra-rich do not need ultra-low taxes. The poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation if they are genuinely in need. Might we just try to align ourselves with the morally right position for fiscal policy?”

Have to say I’m a bit disappointed in Mr. Stein’s take on matters. First of all, I doubt or poor…deals with “ultra-low taxes”! All you have to do is ASK anyone that actually PAYS taxes. Secondly..”the poor have a moral claim on the generosity of the nation..”???? A MORAL CLAIM?????  I can’t seem to figure that one out. So I guess, depending upon how dire your situation is, you have a moral right to go out in the streets and DEMAND that you be given money, food, shelter..what have you!  No, Mr. Stein. NO ONE has a CLAIM on generosity! Generosity comes from the individual. The individual decides how, when, and if they are willing to give and share with others less fortunate. There is NO CLAIM to their behavior…their emotions. People make choices in life. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. However, no one has a right..moral or expect someone else to step forward and rectify their situation. THAT is where we are today with millions of Americans. They EXPECT the government to provide…because…DAMN IT!…they have a “moral right” to someone else’s stuff!

Mr. Stein goes on to fault the Republicans for their stance on matters…

“How did we ever get into the position of fighting like madmen to keep taxes low on billionaires? How can we possibly win if our position is to sacrifice the welfare of poor and lower middle class people to make sure we keep the taxes of very wealthy people low? Let’s see: Obama is for keeping almost all entitlements and raising taxes on the rich (his definition of rich is insane but that’s another story). Our GOP position is low taxes on the rich and cut entitlements and medical care for the poor. Hmmm, which is a winning position?”

You will note the he points out Mr. Obama’s “definition of rich is insane but that’s another story”. Another story?…I think it is central to THIS story! That’s just it. Obama and the Democrats would raise taxes across the board, if they could. No doubt about it! And I’m sure Mr. Stein knows better when he claims the GOP position is to “cut entitlements and medical care for the poor”. He knows that entitlements are in deep do do in this country. Sure, reforming them will include cuts. But that brings us back to where we are. There are fewer and fewer Americans working to provide the government with money to give to those who are not. Whether it’s medical care or something else.

So what do we do? You would think, as mentioned previously, the obvious solution would be to get the country working again…More and more Americans providing for themselves. But that is NOT in the best interest of Barack Obama and the Democrats. That scenario would jeopardize their existence. I’m afraid we have more of our countrymen blind to that fact. The media continues to perpetrate the lies. It’s all very incestuous.

The holiday season is upon us now. Some advice if you’re considering charitable givings. Do it because you want to…not because it’s expected. That mindset is what we used to be about as a nation. Hopefully, it will someday return.


PLANTING THE SEEDS OF HIS OWN DEMISE – Peter Ferrara @ The American Spectator


BARGAINING AND ITS LIMITS – Yuval Levin @ National Review

THE BUDGET BASELINE CON – The Wall Street Journal


The Exhausting Obama….



Barack Obama




I think one of the most disconcerting aspects of the Obama presidency is the fact that crisis after crisis, conflict after conflict, seems to go on FOREVER. With NO resolution. NO problem resolved. The only “ending” arrives because we move on to ANOTHER event!…

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, sums it up PERFECTLY….


The President seems to prefer frustration to good-faith negotiation.

The president’s inviting Mitt Romney for lunch is a small thing but a brilliant move. It makes Mr. Obama look big, gracious. It implies the weakened, battered former GOP nominee is the leader of the Republican Party—and if the other party has to have a leader, the weakened, battered one is the one you want.

Mr. Romney is not the leader of the party; he left no footprints in the sand. There is no such thing as Romneyism, no movement of which he’s the standard-bearer. Nor is he a Washington figure with followers. Party leaders already view him as a kind of accident, the best of a bad 2012 lot, a hiccup. The bottom-line attitude of Republican political pros: Look, this is a man who’s lived a good life and would have been a heck of a lot better than Obama, and I backed him. But to be a successful Republican president now requires a kind of political genius, and he didn’t have it and wasn’t going to develop it. His flaws as a candidate would have been his flaws as president. We dodged a bullet.

Republicans may be the stupid party, but they’re not the sentimental one. Democrats often like their losers. Republicans like winners, and they find reasons to be moved by them after they’ve won.

To the extent the GOP has an elected face, it is that of Speaker John Boehner. And he is precisely the man with whom Mr. Obama should be having friendly lunches. In fact, the meal with Mitt just may be a clever attempt to obscure the fact that the president isn’t really meeting with those with whom he’s supposed to be thrashing out the fiscal cliff.

At a news conference Thursday, Mr. Boehner looked frustrated. In fact, he looked exactly the way he looked at the end of the debt-ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011—like someone who wanted a deal, was willing to gamble to get it, and failed. There has been “no substantive progress” toward an agreement, he said. In a meeting with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and in a Wednesday night phone call with the president, he saw no willingness to reform or cut entitlement spending. What about an increase in tax rates? “Revenues are on the table.”

In fact the Democratic position on entitlements seems to have hardened.

In a way Mr. Boehner’s press conference was the usual, but in a way it was sad, because it harkened back to the protracted, harum-scarum and unsatisfying fiscal negotiations of the recent past.

The election is over, a new era begins—and it looks just like the old one. A crisis is declared. Confusion, frustration, and a more embittered process follow. This is . . . the Obama Way. Nothing has changed, even after a yearlong campaign that must, at times, have looked to him like a near-death experience. He still doesn’t want to forestall jittery, gloom-laden headlines and make an early deal with the other guy. He wants to beat the other guy.

You watch and wonder: Why does it always have to be cliffs with this president? Why is it always a high-stakes battle? Why doesn’t he shrewdly re-enact Ronald Reagan, meeting, arguing and negotiating in good faith with Speaker Tip O’Neill, who respected very little of what the president stood for and yet, at the end of the day and with the country in mind, could shake hands and get it done? Why is there never a sense with Mr. Obama that he understands the other guys’ real position?

It’s not as if Mr. Boehner and the Republicans wouldn’t deal. They’ve been weakened and they know it. A year ago they hoped winning the Senate and the presidency would break the stasis. They won neither. Mr. Obama not only was re-elected, it wasn’t that close, it was a clean win. If the president was clear about anything throughout the campaign, it was that he wanted to raise taxes on those he calls the rich. So you might say that a majority of the American people just endorsed that move.

No one would know this better than Mr. Boehner, who has risen to where he is in part because he’s good at seeing the lay of the land and admitting what’s there.

The president would only benefit from showing he has the command and capability to meet, argue, press and come to agreement. It would be heartening to the country to see this, and would impress the world. And the Republicans would like to get it done.

In narrow, purely political terms, they need two things quickly. One is that it now looks to everyone—even to them!—like the entire domestic agenda of the Republican Party is tax-cutting, and any party’s agenda has to be bigger than that. The other is that when they try to protect people from higher tax rates they always look like Diamond Jim Brady enjoying the company of the wealthy and not noticing anybody else. Republicans need time to work through, within their party, their own larger economic stands.

So they’re weakened, they want this particular crisis to end, and they badly need to win entitlement reforms that would, in the end, buttress the president’s historical standing—and the president isn’t working with them every day and making a deal?


Here’s just one thing they should be discussing. Mr. Obama wants to raise tax rates on those earning $250,000 or more, as we know, on the assumption that they are “the rich.” But if you are a man with a wife and two kids making that salary and living in Westfield, N.J., in no way do you experience yourself to be rich, because you’re not. You pay federal payroll and income taxes, state income and sales taxes and local property taxes, and after the mortgage, food and commuting costs you don’t have much to spare.

Tighten the squeeze on that couple, and they’ll change how they live. They’ll stop sending the struggling son to a neighborhood tutor, they’ll stop going out to dinner once a week, they’ll cut off the baby sitter, fire the guy who once a month does yard work, and hold back on new clothes. Also the guy will peruse employment ads in Florida and Texas, potentially removing from blue-state New Jersey his heartening, taxpaying presence.

It really is worth a discussion, isn’t it? A closer look at the numbers? Shared thoughts on how Americans really live?


In an interview last year, shortly after the debt-ceiling debate, Mr. Boehner spoke of how much he’d wanted a deal. He wanted entitlement reforms, cuts in spending, was happy to increase revenues through tax reform. He thought our fiscal realities the great issue of his speakership, said he meant it when he told staffers if it resulted in the end of his speakership then so be it. He’d have walked out of Congress knowing “I did the right thing.”

That’s who Obama should be negotiating with—in good faith, and with his eye not on ideology but on the country.

Instead, it’s going to be a long four weeks. Scratch that, it’s going to be a long four years.

SAVE THE COUNTRY! TAX THE RICH! – William Tucker @ The American Spectator