What a wonderful president we have...? You can't be serious!

Some president. Take a look at Iran. Take a look at Iraq. Take a look at what's happening in Syria right now. Our president, drew a red line in the sand a few years ago. It was crossed, then redrawn, then crossed again.

"No, I didn't mean that red line, I meant this one." Frankly, his total ineptitude has caused violence to erupt in the middle-east. His lack of response has enboldened evil-doers worldwide. Now, Russia is creating havoc in Syria, and it looks like they are planning on joining forces with Iran. Israel is getting mighty nervous, and for good reason. The big red machine is on the move again and who is it that will try and stop them? Apparently not us. John Kerry stated 'We agreed on the imperative of as soon as possible, perhaps even as soon as tomorrow, but as soon as possible, having a military to military deconfliction meeting." Yeah right. Today, the bombing of non-ISIS (ISIL for those who give a darn about who or what these slime balls call themselves), America friendly targets continued. This is after the big red line in the sand in regards to Russia's invasion of our NATO ally, Ukraine. War is imminent and his policies of shaking a big stick and doing nothing haven't worked. If we are drawn into a war with Russia, it can be blamed solely on the non-functional policies of this man, a man who considers global warming to be more of a world threat than Islamic terrorism.

Meanwhile on the home front, he stands in front of the camera and blatantly lies about states with more strict gun laws having less murders. Evidently, he failed to include his home state of Illinois on his chart of states with strict gun laws and fewer gun deaths. Sadly, he chose a moment  when people are mourning over their murdered  loved ones at a small community college in Oregon, to put the blame on the weapon, rather than on the killer. But we've come to expect as much. He's basically done the same thing with every mass shooting--except of course those caused by the rampant gangs in Chicago. Mum's the word on those.

The 2016 elections cannot come soon enough. It is hoped that the American public will choose someone worthy of this great nation, someone who will take the lead in throwing down those who wish to harm us. Elections have consequences and if we haven't learned that through this debacle, we never will. We are tired of those who choose to bad mouth a nation that has done more good in the world than any other nation in history. We are sick of those who would deprive us of our 2nd Amendment rights to defend ourselves. We are sick and tired of a president who thinks climate change is the cause de la journée, the cause of the day, and ignores real evil. Conservative radio host and columnist, Dennis Prager has said, "Those who don't fight real evils fight imaginary ones." It's a disease of the left.

My only hope is that by the time this man is removed from office, irreparable harm hasn't occurred. One of the few things he hasn't lied about is fundamentally changing America. That he has done. And not for the better.

When idiocy reigns

We are ruled by a collection of idiots. The latest, Marie Harf's bizarre suggestion that all ISIS needs to calm down is employment. Those of you who believe such nonsense have such a warped sense of good and evil in the world that it's nearly laughable. Harf's amusing if not so dangerous statement is just the tip of the iceberg of the downright stupidity of the Obama administration. From Eric Holder's statements on the recent ruling on Obama's governmental fiat on amnesty for illegals, to the President himself refusing to call a terrorist a terrorist and using moral relativistic remarks during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, we are heading down a dark path from which, if cooler heads do not prevail, we are going to rue the day we took such a path. For a more realistic view of what's transpiring in the world, here's an excellent essay by Graeme Wood: clickety-click

Civil disobedience - we owe it to ourselves

Across the nation, Americans are in revolt. Since the Obama administration has decided that we can't attend our publicly-owned lands like the World War II memorial, Mt. Rushmore, other national parks, we should be up in arms. Numerous reports of civil disobedience regarding this unlawful confiscation of our lands are making their way through the various news media. Here in Utah, a group of hikers did what all of us should be doing if we have the opportunity--they entered a national park. Check it out here.

These are not lands owned by the government. We own them. It's time they learned that.

Obama the same as Bush?

Back about 2001, right after America was attacked, President Bush sent our military to Afghanistan to try and kill Osama bin-Laden and the other terrorists who had planned the attack that took place on 9/11. A couple of years later, an attack was launched against the nightmarish regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Bush administration's justification was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to develop them, and that he was a brutal dictator who had killed thousands of his own people, and that he harbored ill-will against America and perhaps was sympathetic and therefore hiding terrorists that would launch further attacks against the U.S.

Jump to 2013 and President Obama's war-like talk toward Syria. To the best of my knowledge, Syria hasn't attacked us, though there's evidence that they are sympathetic to would-be terrorists, so far, none of those terrorists has attacked the U.S. They've perhaps used WMDs against their own people, but there is doubt about that.

Yet Obama seems ready to go to war.

What, therefore, is the same about the two Presidents? One was representing a nation that had only recently been attacked and was trying to prevent further attacks. The other? Perhaps looking for ways to distract Americans from his failed policies, ala Bill Clinton who launched a few cruise missiles back in the day to distract folks from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This is a dangerous game the administration is playing. A dangerous game indeed.

Why we should not re-elect Barack Obama (part 3)

In the continuing series of reasons not to re-elect Obama, I've previously provided ten. Here are the next five. Though there are many more, most are sub-divisions of reasons I've already listed. Here is Part 1. Here is Part 2.

11. Division. The President promised to be the Great Unifier . That there would be healing between red and blue states. He implied racial healing. Instead he’s driven more wedges between people. He has used race to divide America and to get votes. He called Republicans their “enemies” as he spoke to one Latino group He has pitted the rich against the poor and the middle class. His attempts to pit women against men (especially conservative men)  have largely failed, though he made a valiant effort. Instead of a unified country, we now have a country that is more divided than ever before, but then again, “divide and conquer” wasn’t penned as a strategy for nothing.

12. Hanging out with the stars. You know what I mean. He spends more time hobnobbing with Beyonce, Jay-Z, and a whole host of other stars than he does doing his job. He flits from talk show to talk show, instead of meeting with world leaders. In times of peace and ease in this nation, that wouldn’t be optimal, but with our country in the economic peril that we are currently in, it’s frankly appalling. Hanging out with stars, Mr. President, does not make you one, but it seems that your desire is to win the stupid vote. It looks like you've got that.

13. Golfing. It’s not bad to have an outlet. To let your outlet take more of your time away from your real job, just like hanging out with entertainers, is similar to Roman Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

14. Stimulus. The Obama stimulus program has largely gone up in flames. His plan, costing upwards of 800 billion dollars has shown no results  of significance. Instead, he says that it wasn’t enough to do the job. He’d like to dump more money that belongs to you and me down the drain in his Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy.

15. His vision. On the night of his election, he said he would "fundamentally transform the United States of America." Obama would like nothing more than to redo the Constitution which he considers “deeply flawed”.  He and his associates view America as a place that needs to be torn down and rebuilt in the image of Europe. We’ve seen the fruits of the Euro-style, entitlement rampage that plagues such countries as Greece, Spain, Italy, France et al. Yet open display of the failure of such systems has left little impact on Obama’s philosophy. His has been a failed philosophy all around the world, yet he still plans to transform America in the image of Europe. Don’t let him do it.

Why we should not re-elect Barack Obama (part 2)

6. The “Apology Tour”. Though fact checkers will tell you Obama never went on one because he never used the terms “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”, there are a multitude of sound bites, video clips, and transcripts of Obama condemning American intrusion, arrogance, etc., while speaking to foreign audiences. The fact that Obama is too narcissistic himself to utter the words “I’m sorry” or to include himself as an American in the phrase “We’re sorry,” is beside the point. What he did do was tell the world America was bad and that now that he was in power, all that would change.

7. Investments. To take money from American citizens and cherry pick businesses to “invest” in, such as Solyndra and many other “green energy” companies, isn’t what the government should be doing. Yet, that’s precisely what Obama means when he says the government should invest in green energy and technology. Sure, we should encourage cleaner air and water and the uses of renewable forms of energy, but not put billions of dollars of taxpayer money into individual companies. Offer grants to universities and other public entities for research perhaps.

8. Obamacare. Obama, with the help of his Democratic Congress, railroaded the Affordable Health Care Act through Congress, against the wishes of the American people. The repercussions are already happening with companies such as Olive Garden, Autozone, and many more, reducing their employees hours to below 30 so as to not have to provide prohibitively expensive coverage to them. In the future, the plan will limit health screenings to keep costs down, which ends up being far more repressive of women’s health issues than closing Planned Parenthood ever would be.

9. Coverups. Will we ever know what happened at Benghazi? There’s a whole lot of dishonesty going on there with the administration first telling us it was about a film when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Why the smoke screen? Why did four Americans die when we had the ability to keep it from happening? Why wasn’t the security beefed up when requested by the Ambassador? And of course the other major coverup was the Fast and Furious scandal. Can we afford this kind of dishonesty in a presidency?

10. Classlessness. From Obama calling Romney a B.S.er, to the crass Lena Dunham commercial, these past few weeks have been an endless stream of classlessness. Certainly unpresidential.

(To be continued)

Why we should not re-elect Barack Obama (part 1)

1. Blaming. Obama has blamed Bush for all the financial problems he (Obama) inherited since day one. He refuses to blame himself for anything he has or hasn’t done (such as his failure to reduce the deficit by half as he promised in his 2008 campaign speech). He has blamed America for the woes of the world, but more on that later. In contrast, he has continually patted himself on the back for getting Osama bin-Laden.

2. Leadership. In ‘08 when running for president, Obama promised to work across the aisle. However, instead of doing so, he instead railroaded Obamacare through without a single vote from “across the aisle”. That may have been the first time, but it wasn’t the only time Obama has used a “my way or the highway” approach to getting things through Congress. Since 2010 when the landslide Congressional elections fired by the Tea Party revolt left even less Democrats in Congress, he’s used decrees to make laws when Congress wouldn’t. That’s not leadership. That’s dictatorship. A true leader works with the opposite side to build consensus. A leader has the ability to speak to the American people and to galvanize them to face their future resolutely. Obama has created a sense of hopelessness among many, not optimism.

3. Failure to follow the Constitution. He has disregarded enforcement of immigration laws, used executive privilege for something it was never intended (hiding documents in the Fast and Furious scandal), failed to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, use of drones to spy on U.S. citizens (unconstitutional because we have a right to privacy). He has also tried, through Obamacare to force religious institutions who provide insurance to their employees to pay for contraception, even if their religious tenets expressly forbid it. This is a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.

4. Increased dependency. Obama’s policies have led to the largest increase in food stamps in American history. Instead of encouraging self-reliance, responsibility, and liberty, his administration has crowed about the number of new food stamp recipients, even calling it a good thing. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack said, “If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times." Like those same people wouldn’t buy things from the store if they actually had jobs.

5. The Supreme Court. Whomever is president during the next four years may likely be called upon to choose two new members of the Supreme Court. Obama has leaned toward activist judges who seek to not interpret the law so much as to legislate from the bench. That is not what the courts are intended to be. Likely nominees would be in favor of gun control and a whole host of other things that are not in keeping with Constitutional principles. Obama’s campaign promise was to nominate judges that judge based upon their "deepest values" and what's in their own "heart"(s). These are not what judges should be doing. They should be judging based upon the law. A judge who judges based upon his or her personal feelings, will have a hard time dispensing justice impartially.

(To be continued...)

Thoughts on Monday night's debate

    Monday night’s Presidential debate showed one man who can look you in the face and outright lie, and another man, who though he isn’t perfect, seemed much more capable. Unfortunately, the one who can lie with impunity is the President as many factcheckers have discovered. Not that Romney doesn’t stretch the truth a bit at times. But let me give you some examples of what I’m talking about.

Romney stated that the President went on an “apology tour”. The President denied it. However, from my perspective, though the President didn’t and wouldn’t call it that, it amounted to an apology tour. Rush Limbaugh has done the not so hard work of compiling examples of the world wide tour of American “condemnation”. You can find it here: It wasn't just an apology tour, it was a condemnation tour
In fact that also proves many of the fact checkers wrong. Here’s what factcheck.org had to say: “Romney repeated his claim that the president undertook “an apology tour … criticizing America” after Obama became president. Obama called that “probably the biggest whopper that’s been told” during the entire campaign. And in fact, our own analysis, and that of other fact-checkers, found no “apology” in the president’s speeches.”

Obama also accused Romney of wanting the car makers to go out of business, and that Romney did not say he wanted the government to help them through the reorganization process. The full text of the op-ed that Romney wrote can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1& . And indeed Obama was wrong.

Thoughout the debate, the President used a death stare on Romney, as one viewer put it, perhaps trying Jedi mind tricks on him. At any rate it looked very odd, especially as the camera pulled back to show Obama leaning foward, glaring at Romney anytime he (Romney) was speaking.

The President was childish and scored points on scathing sarcasm when he chided Romney after Romney had said we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. We don’t by the way, but the President’s response was really unpresidential. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did back then,” the President responded. “We have things called aircraft carriers...and submarines now.”

All in all, I think it did Romney no harm with undecided people, and may have swayed more of them to his side. The President, speaking largely to his base, probably persuaded few of the undecideds that he’s the man to continue the job. We’ll find out soon enough.

Are Romney and Obama the same man? Not hardly.

For some people,  making a political decision isn’t easy, and distorting the facts about the candidates to  try and make political points doesn’t do anyone any kind of service at all. For example, Libertarians who are fond of posting on Facebook and other social media sites, what amounts to a visual “sound bite” that attempts to distort records and facts in order to show how Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are one in the same in ideas. While they do have some similarities on some policies, in most ways they are vastly different.  Libertarians will say that it doesn’t matter, that the basic premise that a statist is a statist is what they’re really getting at, and that since both Romney and Obama believe in big government solutions to problems, this makes them equivalent. I’m here today to prove otherwise.

One way of making comparisons is between theories and policies on specific issues. That is what I intend to do here—to compare what the two  candidates have said in regards to specific issues. The first item on the list is abortion. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he apparently came out in favor of a woman’s right to choose. That was true then. In 2002, Romney said "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws." Later on, he changed his position. On August 27, 2012, Romney told a CBS Evening News interviewer, Scott Pelley: "My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother." Clearly, he now has a much more limited view on when abortion should be legal. He has made similar changes (or what anti-Romney folk like to call ‘flip-flops’) on several other issues, including gay rights issues and gun control. However, the flip-flop issue is really a red herring.

A person can have things happen throughout his life that will influence how he feels  about certain things—maybe even change his perspective. For example, someone could be a big partier, drinking, then driving home and feel they are perfectly fine doing so, but when they lose a loved one to a drunk driver they suddenly decide that’s not such a good idea after all. For Obama and abortion, this hasn’t happened. He’s fully in favor of a woman’s absolute right to do anything she wants with her body—even to the point of being in support of partial birth abortion. Notably, he doesn’t support the rights of the females still in the womb to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, only those who have already been born.

Another big item on the list of Romney/Obama sameness is stated on the visual bites that are making the rounds. That is that they are both in favor of the bailouts. That is misleading. It’s true that both were in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), also known as the “bank bailout” which was initiated by President George Bush in 2008. While this writer was against it, it appears to have largely worked and the loans to the banks have been paid back. Subsequent bailouts, such as the auto industry bailout, have been vastly different. Obama led the charge on the auto bailout, while Romney thought that the auto companies should be allowed to go into bankruptcy. In fact, he wrote a rather famous op-ed piece in ’08 called, Let Detroit go Bankrupt. On the other hand, Obama has bragged about the auto industry bailouts he proposed and that were passed by Congress. To this date, GM still owes theAmerican taxpayers a minimum of $25 billion.

There are big differences between the two on other budget items as well. Obama continually presents stimulus plans. He follows the Keynesian philosophy of spending your way out of debt. He has ignored impending signs of doom in the economy. Romney has proposed cut backs and limiting the federal government spending. He has vowed to balance the budget. In his own words from the Tea Party debate held on September 12, 2011, he said: “The key to balancing the budget--having spent 25 years in business, I know something about taking waste out of enterprises--I'd love to do that to the federal government. And there is massive waste. But we're not going to balance the budget just by pretending that all we have to do is take out the [waste]. We're going to have to cut spending. And I'm in favor of cutting spending, capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP, at 20 percent or less, and having a balanced budget amendment. That's essential to rein in the scale of the federal government. And there's a second part to balancing the budget, and that's growing the economy again. The right answer for America is to stop the growth of the federal government and to start the growth of the private sector.”  The bottom line is, that Romney actually has a plan to do something other than to throw money at it, as the President’s plan promotes. Here is what Romney himself says on it: Clickety-click 

As for big government solutions, there has been a comparison made between Obamacare and Romney care. Romney is correct when he says that one is a state plan and one is a federal plan. He opposes the federal plan, though it is worrisome that he continues to use the terminology “repeal and replace”. One wonders what the word replace actually entails. His point though that states have a right to do what they think is best is quite accurate, according to the Constitution. He has publicly stated that he opposes Obamacare and will taking steps to get rid of it his first day in office.

Another claim is that both Romney and Obama are the same on foreign policy. First, I ask you in reference to the Obama administration, what foreign policy? Obama’s foreign policy has included running around from country to country apologizing for American arrogance and promising the moon. Well known is his aside to Medvedev when the President thought he was off mike. This is how the conversation went:

In the comments caught by the mic, Obama urged Medvedev to tell incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin to give him time: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved – but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev replied: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."
Obama then elaborated: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev responded: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Romney has plans to keep the military strong. Obama would like to weaken it. Romney would like to keep the U.S. presence strong in the world. Obama would like to let other nations catch up. Obama has an “it’s not fair” attitude about American strength in the world. Romney believes that American ideals are the best. Obama believes that it’s fine for dictators and rogue nations to possess nuclear weapons. Romney believes that rogue nations (such as Iran under its current regime) should not be allowed to have such weapons. Obama has had a helter-skelter approach to foreign diplomacy—send in the troops to Libya, apologize in Saudi Arabia. Obama has appeared weak in the eyes of our enemies, thus the continued attacks against our embassies. Romney has said he will take a harder stance against China’s unfair trade practices.

What about the premise that both Romney and Obama are beholden to such corporate contributors as Goldman Sachs etc.? According to this article:

 “Wall Street has favored Obama and the Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1 during the 2008 elections. Goldman Sachs has been giving four times more to democrats than republicans since 2006.” The implication is that because a corporation or individual makes a donation that the candidate owes that corporation something in return. Seems logical, but nevertheless doesn’t mean it’s true. For example, you or I might contribute to a candidate, not to buy his or her favor, but because we believe they will do the best job. Since Goldman Sachs and other entities contribute to both campaigns, it is likely that they are trying to buy favor. However, that doesn’t mean they will get it. Obama seems to be very willing to give taxpayer money away to his favorite companies, like Solyndra and Fisker Automotive, among others. I have been unable to find any evidence that Mitt Romney while in public office, has done likewise. Claims that because he has high profile donors, he will give them favors are pure speculation at this point.
The Obama administration is infested with people from Goldman Sachs. Goldman was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor ($994,795) in 2008.
In fact, Mr. Obama, the class warrior, received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in history. It was his largest source of campaign funds."

Other issues in which Obama and Romney are fundamentally different are gun control, government freebies, and gay marriage. Once upon a  time, Romney favored a ban on assault weapons, however, in an interview with Piers Morgan this past July, Romney stated: “I don’t support new gun laws in our country.”
Frankly, there are very few issues upon which Romney and Obama agree. I believe that the thing libertarians dislike about both is the perceived tendency to big government solutions. While Romney certainly did do some of those kinds of things as governor, and some of his proposals for what he will do as president display a tendency toward those things, his apparent dedication to reducing federal government waste and spending will hopefully preclude any attempts to do such. The original intent of the Founders wasn’t to have a weak government—that’s why the Articles of Confederation failed—but to have a strong government. The key is that it needed to be responsive to the will of the people, and to not usurp powers for which it was never given responsibility.

The bottom line is that attempts to paint Romney and Obama with the same brush are ludicrous. While this writer doesn't necessarily agree 100 percent with the Romney approach, he is a vastly superior alternative to the current president, and the only alternative who has a chance of defeating the current president.  

Why I was against Obama from Day One

I've been accused recently of not being willing to give President Obama a chance. And that accusation is basically true. However, I have good, sound reasons for doing so--reasons which I will try to explain in the next few paragraphs. Long before we had President Obama, we had candidate Obama. A bit of research at the time would've shown anyone that believes in liberty and free market values, that we did not want this man as president. I did the research. What I found told me all I needed to know to figure out that this guy would be bad for America. The number one thing was his leftist voting record in Congress. But I had more than that. I had a gut feel for what this man might do to America. And my hunches are nearly always right in these kinds of circumstances. Did I know he would mess up the country so bad? No I did not. I just always felt that it would be a major mistake to elect him. I said so on several forums. I argued with people who wouldn't vote for McCain because he was another big government politician. These folk would rather vote their conscience and vote for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning, than to vote for either of the two major party candidates. I could and do understand that logic.

But I argued vehemently against making that kind of mistake in '08, and yes, I still believe it to be a mistake. We can with our own eyes, and with our own pocketbooks see just exactly what kind of mistake it was to let Obama get elected by refusing to vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain.

Now, back to what Obama has done that has set me off from the very beginning. In his first 100 days, he initiated a vast, sweeping change of government involvement in healthcare. Never mind that the majority of the people of America were against it--he and the Democrats in Congress shoved the Affordable Health Care Act through. I'm not going to go into the intricacies of why this law is so insidious right now. That's for another time and place and if you are paying attention to your own bank accounts and the verified future tax increases that will be paying for it, you will know part of its problems. For now though, my biggest beef is that it was done against the will of the people. That is not what America is about.

Further changes initiated by the President included bail outs of car companies, dumping billions into favorite "green" companies that have filed for bankruptcy, and trillions of dollars in increase in the national debt--a debt that will eventually be paid, probably by our children and grandchildren. That is not what America is about.

He has failed to lead anyone, has failed in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression to provide one ounce of leadership. Instead, he has campaigned, attended functions, and golfed more than any other president. He hasn't spent his time working with Congress to come to solutions, but instead has taken the attitude that if you don't go along with him 100%, you aren't willing to work with him. His idea of compromise is for Congress to blindly go along with everything he recommends. He has continually blamed others instead of manning up and realizing that the buck stops with him. He is supposed to be the leader. He is supposed to be able to convince others of what needs to be done, to forge alliances and make progress in keeping this country strong. Instead, he blames the prior administration for his own failure.

So, since he has offered no solutions, has shown no ability to work well with others, and has not tried to work with members of Congress to come to solutions, but has only denigrated them for not accepting his own plan lock, stock and barrel, I am accused of not giving him a chance. Since he has nearly bankrupted the country with failed policies and crony capitalism, I'm not giving him a chance. Since he has been dishonest about tax increases included in Obamacare, and kept jobs growth minimal because of his failed policies, I am guilty because I have not given him a chance.

I am too conservative, some people say, because I won't give him a chance. Others say I'm racist because I disagree with him. What a lot of hooey. The day he treats America as the great country it is and stops bowing to tyrants and stops giving away American treasure to the undeserving, the day he starts showing that liberty is more important than equality---that a person builds his own life through his own efforts and doesn't get to depend upon the government to give him handouts. The day he actually believes that a man should stand on his own two feet and take responsibility for his own actions, well, that's the day I may give the man a chance.

But alas, that chance is nearly over.

Need any help in deciding whether or not to re-elect Obama?

In the remote case that some of you reading this have departed from reality, have spent too much time reading Twilight and not enough time looking at the world, have indulged in Dancing with the Stars and other programs, instead of reading news reports–here’s how I would analyze whether or not anyone in their right mind would vote to retain Barack Obama as president.

First I would analyze his foreign policy. In order to do so, I’d look at our relations with other countries and see how they’ve progressed, regressed, or remained unchanged during the President’s term of office. Here’s a partial list of what has happened:

Israel: Regressed. With our strongest ally in the Middle-east, Obama has been a scolding stepfather, and has not supported them with rhetoric in any way, shape or form.

Saudi Arabia: Regressed. Though Obama bowed to a Saudi King, they don’t like the fact that we are doing nothing to dissuade Iran in its nuclear acquisition. The bowing itself was a sign of weakness and not respected by Muslims.

Russia: Regressed. Though Bush had a meager relationship with the Russians, their relationship with us has slipped during the Obama administration, causing them to form an alliance with China in the U.N. against us.

China: Regressed. Our relationship with China continues to deteriorate, largely because there are no talks between us and them.

Egypt: Regressed. Though Mubarak was a dictator who the citizens opposed, he kept the zealots in check. Now, under the Arab Spring--which Obama originally said nothing about, but only later when the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be gaining the upper hand did he say anything in support of the movement--we have American hostages.

Iran: Regressed. Though Bush called them part of the “Axis of Evil”, the relationship has continued to deteriorate under the Great Uniter.

Pakistan: Regressed. Once tepid allies, Obama’s lack of skill in dealing with other nations has made a simmering cauldron heat up to the boiling point.

Afghanistan: Regressed. Obama’s policies have made the situation worse in that country, not better.

Venezuela: Progressed: Obama has said nice things about Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Cuba: Progressed: Obama has indicated a willingness to remove travel restrictions on many people who wish to travel to Cuba. His willingness to work with nightmarish regimes should be looked upon with a great degree of suspicion.

That’s just a small sampling of the many countries around the world. If I were to grade the man on his foreign policy decisions, he’d be pretty close to an F.
Now, let’s take a look at domestic issues.  The question one must always ask at election time, is the traditional “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” I think that most of us can breathe out a collective “No!” in response to that query.

Economics: Regressed. Though Obama inherited a recession, we are stuck in a quagmire, largely fueled by the Federal government’s overreach in regulations. Our economy is tanking, largely on the national debt which reached $15 trillion in November. The president has failed to provide leadership to get the government spending in check and to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. He has wasted billions in supporting green energy companies, singling them out for government aid, only to see them go bankrupt. He has failed to act positively in promoting energy in America, keeping the Keystone Pipeline from being built to please his left-wing base, thus keeping an estimated 20,000 new jobs from happening.

He's dedicated though.He has spent countless hours working on his golf game, or world traveling while millions of Americans are out of work and while Congress has failed to come to agreement on policies that would help. He has been out of the loop, decreeing this or that, issuing edicts because his power of working together to come to common agreement is nil. His way of reaching across the aisle, is to expect everyone to agree with him. He has been an ineffectual failure that has done more harm than perhaps any other president in U.S. history. He has alienated our allies, while strengthening our enemies. He has pushed through Obamacare when the majority of Americans were against it. He is an agenda driven idealogue who cares little for the desires of Americans, only enough that he’ll say what he needs to say to get elected. And then there's the little problem with following the Constitution. He hasn't seemed all that favorable towards doing so, and he will have the opportunity in his second term, should we be so stupid, to nominate as many as three Supreme Court Justices. Don't think he won't nominate more people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has no respect for the Constitution--at least the U.S. Constitution. Two peas in a pod--like Ginsburg, Obama doesn't have much respect for it either. (Note: I inadvertently on Facebook said that Ginsburg had be nominated by the second worst president ever, thinking that Jimmy Carter had been the one. I was in error--it was actually Clinton). Anyway, that’s my analysis. You can agree or not, it is after all, one man's opinion.

What the #!%**@ is happening to our country?

I don't know about you, but I'm peeved, frustrated, and wanting a bunch of people impeached. This bailout/stimulus package is horrifying beyond belief for the future of our country. The people in control are sending the future of our children and grandchildren out the window--either through unparalleled debt, run away inflation (perhaps their plan to solve the debt), and socialism. The New Deal never worked when FDR tried it, and throwing the nation into horrendous debt because its citizens are over their heads in debt will not solve any thing either. Better to let people fall, then help them pick up the pieces.
Frankly I can't believe enough people were bamboozled by the Democrats to allow this to happen. But I see it on several fronts. Those who were tired of Bush cutting taxes and at the same time raising expenditures, the unpopularity of the Iraq war (fueled by many, but not all Richard, members of the press) and those who wanted to make history by helping to elect the first black president. Heck, I have no problem with electing a black president, but we should've made sure he wasn't a socialist before doing so. We should've looked at his campaign promises and seen the light, we should have realized that with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House, that a veritable cornucopeia of socialist programs would make it through as a blank check to be signed by President Obama.
Then there are those who wouldn't vote for McCain because he's liberal for a Republican, supposedly. So instead, they voted for a third party candidate, helping to ensure the election of the most liberal regime in American history. I hope you can one day justify this to your grandbabies. Warren Buffet said that the stock market was in a shambles the other day. He was right, but not complete. The country is in a shambles. Hold on to your hats, it's a long ride down. I hope in the next few years we can see this as a wake up call and make the changes necessary before it becomes too late--if it isn't already.

The Puppet President Begins?

Barack Obama's naming of Leon Panetta as CIA director can only be interpreted as a cave in to the extreme left. Why else would the President-Elect name someone with zero experience to head the organization charged with finding out plots against America and Americans? It's not only a huge risk for America, but a huge risk for Obama as well, for if American's are attacked and killed because of an intelligence gaffe, he and Panetta will be squarely to blame. Unbelievable, that at a time when terrorism plots and attacks are at their highest, our new President selects a rookie for the job.