President Obama is providing us all with a clear indication of his views on the use of military power, our relationship with Israel, and his weak response to the threat Iran poses by nominating former Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.
Senator Hagel has repeatedly indicated his unwillingness to put military action on the table when dealing with the threat from Iran, which would continue to demonstrate the US position of weakness to the Iranians. Why should they consider the demands of the US and other nations if they already disregard sanctions and continue to move forward with their nuclear program, unless they know the US is prepared to back up talk with action? A nuclear Iran is a grave threat to the entire world and we need a Secretary of Defense who understands the gravity of the situation and is ready to do what is required to defend this country from that threat.
Sen. Hagel may or may not be an anti-semite, but he has demonstrated his disdain for Israel over and over while in Congress, and we cannot afford to further damage the relationship with our one true ally in the Middle East Region. President Obama campaigned on his promise to remain a strong supporter of Israel, and while I did not believe him for a minute based on his actions during his last term, I'm sure many voters bought his message. This nomination has clearly shown where he loyalties actually lie. Unfortunately many pro-Israel organizations, including AIPAC, have decided to remain quiet on this nomination. That means the rest of us need to step up and press Congress to act where the President will not.
Although I disagree with many of the positions he has held, I do believe that Sen. Hagel served his country honorably both in war and in Congress, but that does not mean he is the right man for this job. Those of you who agree should write their Senator and ask that they vote No when asked to confirm Chuck Hagel's nomination for Defense Secretary.
Ok, I will admit that I am deriving some level of enjoyment from the fact that so many Obama supporters are shocked to see a cut in their paychecks as a result of the expired payroll tax cut. I mean gee, what did they think would happen? That he would really only support tax increases for "the rich"?
Joseph Curl shares a number of amusingly ill-informed comments in his Washington Times article Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes"
Part of me wonders how people can be so clueless about the workings of government in Washington - don't they read the news? - but I guess the fact that a majority of people did not even know what the fiscal cliff is, means I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe this small tax increase will act as a wake up call to what will happen across the board in the not-to-distant future if the current spending track continues. But I'm not holding my breath.
All of us should be absolutely terrified by this graph below. Why? Because it so clearly illustrates what kind of crazy mess we are already in, and what horrific magnification of this mess we will see in the next four years if President Obama and the rest of the Keynesian redistributionists get their way.
The most pressing question for Americans in 2013 is: are we a nation of free enterprise or of government intervention? Case in point - almost 75% of the recovery jobs in the past 2 years are with the government or government funded entities (hint: propped up "green energy" companies don't count as private enterprise). We are looking at record levels of revenues but exponentially higher levels of government spending. Obama and most of the democrats are perfectly happy to continue on with this strategy, thinking that they will be able to tax "the rich" into submission, not really caring that even forcibly taking every cent of income from the rich will barely make a dent in the deficit spending and that we are mortgaging away our children's future to China. Ultimately, Obama would like as many people as possible dependent on the government, because that's what makes his redistribution plan possible, but the balance is tipping and soon private sector people won't be able to support everyone in made up government jobs.
How long can we keep going at this rate before there are not enough people to redistribute from? If the current course is not changed, at some point we'll reach a point where no productive people will work in this country. It will become either Animal Farm or Atlas Shrugged.
And frankly the Republicans are little better than Democrats when it comes to spending. Fortunately Tea Party Republicans are forcing the conversation in both houses, and now all Republicans are at least giving lip service to reducing spending. It remains to be seen if they will actually follow through. The debt ceiling discussions will be the perfect opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate that they are actually serious about massive cuts to spending and aren't just all talk. They have already been embarrassingly willing to give in to Obama's "I won the election, so we'll do what I want" posturing. Let's see if they are able to man up and grow a pair. If not, then in 2014 it will be the rest of us that will be to blame if we don't elect representatives actually willing to stand up for the future of this country. In the meanwhile, since all our elected representatives have shown themselves incapable of closing the checkbook (with the notable exception of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America congress under Clinton), American's need to actively lobby for a balanced budget amendment.
I would hate to think that anyone was secretly wishing for the horrific tragedy last week in Sandy Hook, but the immediate response by a faithful cadre on the left leaves me wondering. The reaction from liberals from the moments we first heard the story, has been to gleefully shriek that we must turn to the position they have been hoping for for decades - seize all firearms from private citizens. Immediately! For the children, of course. The 2nd amendment be damned. Their arguments go like this: our founding fathers could not possibly have intended for Americans to have handguns or assault rifles, they lived in the age of muskets and surely would want us limited to that option; madmen and criminals are able to get their hands on guns, so private citizens should not have them to "get them off the streets". Some even claim we need to take them from the police as well. Not only should we move quickly for a ban on the mysterious "assault weapons", we should seize them from every registered gun owner. It's really been a disgusting display!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution
The framers of the Bill of Rights saw the 2nd amendment as a basic right of a free citizenry and even as an obligation in order to defend against a oppressive government or external invasion. The intent was not to just provide for people defending their homes against burglars Remember. the Constitution was written for a newly free United States after a revolution against British rule. An armed citizenry was responsible for the American Revolution. That's what a militia is. Would we be able to fight against a military insurrection or oppressive government using single-shot hunting rifles or shotguns? Yes, but not very effectively given the state of today's military arsenals. Citizens need to be able to have at least close-to-comparable firepower to that of the government. That is the entire point of the 2nd amendment. On the political talk shows we've heard the response, from conservatives even, that even with AR-15s we couldn't defend against the US military. Really? That's exactly what the British government thought about some farmers and merchants in the territories taking up arms against the renowned British army. Every uprising against oppressive, tyrannical governments across the globe have been residents taking up arms against a much more powerful army.
But what about the "public safety"? Doesn't it trump our 2nd amendment rights? Absolutely not! The fact is that these incidents have been become less frequent, though with immediate, round-the-clock access to anything happening anywhere on earth it does not appear so. While that does not in the least lessen the gravity of the act, we need to instead consider what contributed to the situation. Why did the gunman's mother allow access to her legally obtained firearms by her mentally unstable son? Why hadn't she received the support she needed to ensure he was properly treated?
Haven't we already given away too many of our rights in the name of "public safety"? The government can tap our phones, indefinitely detain us, monitor our email, and assassinate us on foreign soil with no due process. Presidents Obama has signed more "secret" Presidential Orders into effect than all other previous presidents combined, taking away more of our liberties with every stroke of the pen. Haven't we given away enough without actually re-writing the Constitution? As Benjamin Franklin so famously said,
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I think we deserve both.
I think almost everyone out there can agree that the killing of children is one of the worst things that can ever happen in a civilized society, and the killing of 20 kids at a the Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday is one of the most heinous crimes this country has ever seen. The question now is: what are we going to do about it?
It is extremely important to note that mass shootings occur almost exclusively in locations where guns are prohibited. The Colorado movie theater shooter chose not the closest or largest theater to attack, he chose the one out of the four local theaters that specifically banned guns from the premises. From schools to other "Gun free zone" locations, students and patrons are like fish in a barrel and easy marks.
The Michigan legislature, in response to the mass murders in Connecticut Friday, passed a bill allowing conceal carry in schools that was vetoed by Governor Snyder today. While the legislature was on the right track, I do not think that teachers or administrators should have to carry weapons if they are not comfortable doing so. The best way we could protect our children is to provide each school with controlled entry and an armed guard. Our children would no longer be sitting ducks, unarmed and defenseless, and cowardly madmen would not have the easy targets they have today. The Connecticut shooter committed suicide as soon as he heard law enforcement responding to the scene. Had there been a trained, armed guard at the door of the school, he would most likely not have even attempted the attack or would have been stopped before he could enter and do damage.
We pay to provide armed guards for Federal and State run facilities: courthouses, office buildings, even the Department of Motor Vehicles. Don't our children deserve the same level of protection? No matter what we do to law-abiding citizens, criminals and crazies are going to find away to get weapons, whether firearms or explosives or incendiary devices (the worst US school killings was in 1927 when 45 people were killed in a school bombing), so we need to have trained people on the ground able to address these situations if and when they arise. We should all be contacting our state, local and federal government representatives and demand that every primary and secondary school building have an experienced, armed guard.
Where is the outrage from the American people over these ridiculous Fiscal Cliff "negotiations"? Every conservative-leaning person in America should be writing their Senators and Representatives demanding that they cut spending and extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Or, we can continue to rack up even more massive debt than we have already. When our public debt has outpaced the growth of the private economy, we have a major problem. We have not been at this level of spending since WWII, and that spending immediately dropped post-war. For us, there is no end in sight, for the next four years at least, and the result is truly frightening.
President Obama won't meet with Republican congressional members and we're not sure he's even been meeting with his own party members. He has met with Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton however, so we know he's getting good advice on the economy. It's also interesting to note that in the Obama budget proposal Geitner was sent out to sell, Obama is freely spending the "savings" from bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and has proposed billions in new "stimulus" spending.
The fact that people on the street are either unaware of these issues or think the government needs to "do more" http://bit.ly/YAjhtP is a sad commentary on the Republican party's inability to promote free market principles. Republicans need to get their act together and inform the American people about the coming bankrupting of the country and why the current course is unsustainable. This crisis is also a test for the current Republican members of congress. They need to understand that they will be held accountable come 2014 or 2016 election time for the positions they take during the fiscal cliff negotiations their votes on the budget ultimately put forward.
Obama is still holding steadfast to his demand that tax rates be raised on the "rich" (and again I point out that "rich" in his mind means families earning $250K). Why? Republicans have given in and are open to raising the same level of revenue through the closing of loopholes rather than straight up changes in rates. Because he wants to punish success. Obama wants to clearly label successful people as evil and not deserving of their wealth - they didn't build that!
This is a fundamental difference in philosophy from the country our founding fathers envisioned. It is the same view that enabled the administration to portray Mitt Romney as explicitly morally inferior, and implicitly guilty of some crime or wrongdoing, because he is a successful man. This has been accepted and embraced by the Democratic congress in stark contrast to how John Kerry was received as the party's nominee for President, and his net worth was significantly higher. Of course John Kerry wasn't guilty of earning his money, he married into it. Maybe that's a forgivable sin.
And the liberal guilt for making money must not be assuaged by voluntary charitable works, as the pitiable philanthropic efforts of the Obamas and Bidens can attest, they prefer to take wealth by force.
