Quote of the Day President Obama Edition Part 11

As already indicated, we have asked for it back.  We will see how the Iranians respond.

President Obama on the drone that Iran has.  


I am sure the Iranians will get right on that.

Quote of the Day - Rev. Dr. Luis Leon Edition

"Many unfairly expected a messiah that could cure the U.S. of all its problems, and now we see it's not that easy.  This is not a political diatribe by the way.  It is simply stating the obvious."

A tidbit of the sermon heard by the Obama's today.  Yes, they actually attended church this fine Sunday morning.  


Gee, I wonder where people ever got the idea that Obama was a Messiah?  

 ....then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when began to provide care for the sick and good job to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; 

Barack Obama on June 3, 2008 


Oh, I am still waiting on that job, and so are millions of others come to think of it.   

Supporting Newt is Racism?

So says Glenn Beck.  It is no secret that Beck doesn't like Newt; no, it is more like he can't stand him.  That is fine, he has the right to his opinion.  Beck doesn't think that there is a big difference between Newt and President Obama.  He feels that they are so much alike that if a tea party member supports Newt it must mean that they don't like Obama due to racism.  

“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”

The stretch in logic that one must make to come to this conclusion must mean that Beck is a contortionist.  Look Newt has issues.  He has done many things that upset social conservatives, he has upset the republican establishment (not to say to that is bad thing), he has upset moderates, and he certainly has upset the left (again, not a bad thing).  

But, to think that Newt would have done the things that Obama has done over the past three years is simply ludicrous.  Would we have Obamacare?  Would we have had almost a trillion dollar in stimulus that really only stimulated friends of the far left?  Would he have signed Dodd/Frank?  I don't think any of these things would have happened.  

Does he really want me to believe that Newt's supporters are racist?  Newt also has done some very good things in his career.  He led the first republican comeback of the House of Representatives in four decades.  When others said it couldn't be done, he did it anyway.  Many of the things that are traditionally credited to President Clinton; such as welfare reform and a balanced federal budget, were done under his watch. 

So let me ask you a question Mr. Beck, why should I believe that you are a conservative when you pulling the race card from the bottom of the deck?  How is what you just said any different than what the left does anytime you criticize President Obama?  

This is not the first time that Beck has played the race card.  Let's hope it is his last.  

Dutch Architects See No Resemblance to 9/11 Attacks

“It was not our intention to create an image resembling the attacks nor did we see the resemblance during the design process. We sincerely apologize to anyone whose feelings we have hurt, it was not our intention.”

Really?  You didn't see a resemblance, are you blind?  

However the Weekly Standard reports that Jan Knikker of MVRDV told a Dutch language newspaper, “I have to admit that we also thought of the 9/11 attacks.”

Sick.  Why would someone want to live in a building like this?  

Paris Jackson headed to the Silver Screen

Paris Jackson, the 13-year-old daughter of the late Michael Jackson, has landed a role in a series of movies.  She has been committed to a five movie deal for Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys.  Paris is scheduled to star as the young girl who becomes brainwashed by the jellyfish queen.

Michael Jackson with all of his oddities, and there were many, was very protective of his children.  He talked often about his childhood was stolen from him by his overly aggressive stage father who pushed the entire family into show business as a way to support himself.

Now that Michael is gone the children are being raised by the grandparents.  One must ask themselves are they just repeating history and putting this child out there to exploited all in vain to make more money for themselves.

I hope that for this young lady's sake that she is doing this by her volition and she is not being pushed into a life of fame that she may not be mature enough to handle.

Child stars don't generally fare very well later in life.  I hope that her guardians keep a look out for the pitfalls of fame that they were obviously unable to keep Micheal out of.

Quote of the Day - Eric Holder Edition Part 2

“If you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind, and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie, the information that was provided in that February 4^th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”

Eric Holder's defense of the letter given to congress that contained wrong and misleading information.  


Hmm, it would seem that they never gave this kind of benefit of the doubt to President Bush on the Iraq war.  They just insist that he lied.  

Obama's America, A Place Divided

I sincerely don't like calling the president a communist, a traitor, or any of the other names that some have come up with about him.  I figure he can't possibly be all the things he is accused of being.  I don't agree with his vision of what this country is (or what he wants it to be).  I also feel that it is important to have dialogue, otherwise things will never change.  


But I have reached a point that it can no longer be denied.  The man is a socialist.  He wasn't kidding when he said he wanted to fundamentally change America (not that I thought he was kidding, I just am surprised by the speed).  He and his minions are doing so much harm to this country that we are truly reaching a breaking point.  


We were attacked by Muslim terrorists more than 10 years ago.  Very few people in the country deny that.  Since that time we have been unable to have an honest dialogue of what happened on that fateful day.  Let alone on the days since when we have had other attempted and successful attacks.  One such day was November 5, 2009 and it took place in Fort Hood, Texas.  A Muslim man who was corresponding over the internet with known terrorists walked onto his military base with a gun, started yelling Allah Akbar and killed 13 people and injured 29 more.  He carried a business card with the initials SOA (Soldiers of Allah) commonly used by Muslim terrorists.  Today we are told again, that this man committed an act of workplace violence, not an act of terrorism.  He is just some guy who shot up an Army base.  The reasons for it all point to terrorism, but we can't call it that.  


There are people in this country who feel very strongly about the threats of terrorism in this country, who honestly believe that Islam is a danger to our way of life and to the Western world.  By telling us that we can't call what Hassan did an act of terrorism all they are accomplishing is further fueling that fire with more distrust.  


Today Congresswoman Barbara Lee stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and said that the GOP is trying to deny blacks the right to vote.  Why?  Because we want people to show ID when they vote.  People have to show ID to get on airplane, cash a check, to have a job, open a bank account, enter many federal buildings, in many states to collect welfare or food stamps, to pick up a registered letter at the post office, and to collect unemployment.  But the simple act of wanting to add voting to that list makes me a racist.  Why?  Because they say so.  There is no proof that in the states that already require that ID be shown (I live in one) that minority voters are suppressed.  But that doesn't stop them.  

“Having been born and raised in Texas, this certainly looks like a poll tax to me, which those of us remember as a way to prevent African Americans from voting. These voter ID laws have a partisan agenda: seeking to disenfranchise and deny specific populations of voters before they have the opportunity to elect their representatives in government.”She also said the laws are meant to change election outcomes by “turning the clock back to the days of Jim Crow.”

Because I want free and fair elections, I am racist.  The NAACP has gone as far as to petition the United Nations saying there is an effort to suppress minority votes.  No, we are trying to have only the people who are qualified to vote voting and get rid of voter fraud.  


Here is Obama talking about Capitalism

It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

.  What he doesn't seem to understand is that when the likes of Barney Franks and Chris Dodd meddled in the way banks gave mortgages it is no longer free market or capitalism.  It isn't capitalism that failed.  It was the government interference in said capitalism that failed.  Before the Community Reinvestment Act you couldn't get a mortgage unless you had a good paying job, a healthy down payment, and a good credit score.  It wasn't the market that changed that.  It was organizations like Acorn saying things like home ownership is a right.  It was people like former President Carter who thought it was a good idea for the banks to lower the standards.  Now, had we kept with the original intent of the CRA, we may not have had these problems.  The original intent was to stop banks from turning down otherwise qualified candidates simply based on the zip code of where the home was being purchased.  They were predominantly lower income areas and predominately minority applicants.  But, the left got greedy and forced more and more banks to make risky loans.  There is no denying that there was money to be made when they were bundled and that was taken advantaged of.  But the reality is that it wasn't the greedy capitalist that started down the slope of giving risky mortgages.  They were forced down that slope by our government.  Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are directly responsible for the financial mess we find ourselves in today.  The Bush administration asked the congress to look at the worthiness of Sallie and Freddie.  Barney Frank, who was having a sexual relationship with someone at Frannie, refused to do it and publicly stated over and over again that Freddie and Fannie were perfectly fine.  He belongs in jail.  


But the Obama administration feels that they can use this to stoke the fires in this country.  The left uses the word racism at the drop of a hat to describe anyone that doesn't feel that this country is going in the right direction. Which is almost two thirds of the country as this point.  So I guess some democrats are racists too.  We are living in a time when our own government is seeking to divide us more and more.  They do this to gain more power for themselves by not allowing rational discussion of the real issues we are facing in this country.  The mounting debt that is quickly becoming insurmountable and could topple this economy once and for all.  


Has this man read a history book?  Capitalism is exactly what led to the boom of the 50's and 60's and allowed the middle class to flourish.  Allowed them to buy homes, to purchases cars, and to move to the suburbs.  This entire country was founded upon capitalism.  Capitalism, with all of its faults, has made our middle class grow.  Back in the day we were a nation of land owners and the rest of the peons.  The Gold Rush, the oil boom, the industrial era allowed this country to become what it is today.  While we had our share of robber barons, and greedy people, it did trickle down to the rest of us.  We have all benefited from the capitalistic nature of this country.  Even our poor are very rich when you compare to the rest of the world's poor.  We have the most vibrant economy in the world, and if we just leave it alone it will make the proper corrections so the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs will come along reinvent the way we live our lives and provide millions of jobs as well some great little gadgets.  


Pick up a damn history book Mr. President and get your head out of your ass.  We are not Europe. We don't have, nor do we want, a stagnant economy for the long term.  For the love of Pete, please stop stoking the fires of discontent in this country.  We need to stand together to solve our problems.  


Is it election day yet?  

Do You Talk to Your 8-Year-Old about Your Sex Life?

I didn't think so.  I don't have one, but I can guarantee you if I did I wouldn't be talking about it with them.  Michele Bachmann is currently promoting her new book Core of Conviction - My Story.  During a book signing a young boy leaned over to her and said:

"My mommy's gay, but she doesn't need fixing."

I realize that gay is something that young children through around when they have nothing better to say when they are trying to hurt someone else's feelings.  But, the reality is an 8 year old doesn't really understand what that means.  Children are curious and ask questions.  But a child that age will usually be fine with a simple explanation, some families have two mommy's or two daddy's whatever the case may be, and they don't require any further information. 


This is how this is being characterized in the media:

The candidate, who is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, met her match with the soft-spoken, pint-sized activist

 Pint-sized activist?  You really expect me to believe that an 8 year old went up and said to his mom, hey mom, I heard that Michele Bachmann is in town for a book signing.  Could you please drive me over there so I can tell her that there is nothing wrong with you, even though you are gay?  


This is a woman who decided to use her own child to score cheap political points against a woman who believes that gay marriage is wrong.  The same gay marriage that has been voted down every time it has been put on a ballot, including in very progressive leaning California.  


Oh, and they just happened to have someone video tape it for them too.  





I could care less that this women is gay.  What I do care about is the fact that she is willing to exploit her own child for her own self interests.  Shocker, she is part of the occupy movement.  Remind me to add her name to the Mother of the Year award.

Quote of the Day - Ron Paul Edition

“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity. Mr. Trump’s participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere."

I agree with this 100%.  I can't believe that NewsMax is sponsoring this joke of a debate.  Since when do the republican candidates have to go to New York to meet with The Donald?  Simply an embarrassment.  

Christmas Comes to the White House

Michelle Obama unveiled the Christmas decorations today at the White House with military families.  The theme this year is Shine, Give, Share.  The military has been put front and center on many of the decorations.  There are medals and symbols from every branch of the military.  

There is also a Gold Star tree.  A Gold Star mom looks on.  

Bo the first dog has a prominent presence, he appears in some form or another in almost every room. Here he is in licorice, recycled plastic bags, and felt.  

Michelle Obama also hosted military children in a crafts and cookie decorating session.

This is the official tree in the Blue Room that features handmade cards from military children.  

The trees are lovely.  I am glad to see that the main theme is designed around military families, to say thanks for the sacrifices that not just our soldiers make, but what their entire families make.  


I guess they put the Mao and Lenin ornaments in the residence this year.  So, I got snarky.  Sue me.

The End of the Cain Train

Herman Cain suspended his campaign yesterday afternoon in Atlanta.  It was the strangest end to a campaign that anyone has ever seen.  It was a brand spanking new office that the press conference was held at.  It is said that staff and volunteers were working until the wee hours of the morning getting the office ready, it seems he kept his cards close to his vest and virtually no one in his campaign knew this was his decision.  There were people outside collecting donations for the campaign just before the announcement.  


As my regular readers know, I was a big Cain fan from early on.  Many didn't even know his name when I jumped on the Cain train.  He lost his luster for me once it became apparent that he was not qualified for the position.  He has many good attributes, but the ability to be in the big seat was just no one of them.  His lack of knowledge in foreign policy was so apparent that it became downright embarrassing.  He gave the appearance of not understanding even the most basic of issues; such as right of return.  That is Mid East Peace 101.  


Then all of these accusations of sexual impropriety came to light.  Two settlements on harassment charges while working at The National Restaurant Association, a charge of sexual assault, and a long-term affair.  The settlements on harassment don't necessarily mean anything.  The sexual harassment laws are written so vaguely that many companies get caught in their web.  Sadly, many people are overly sensitive and are more than willing to file a suit that isn't truly harassment.  The woman who made the assault charge with Gloria Allred in  tow is totally unbelievable.  While she never uses the word assault, that is what she described.  As a woman I find her story insulting.  When a man is trying to assault your reaction to him is not "I have a boyfriend".  Your reaction is get me out of this car and away from this man.  She was in the middle of downtown D.C..  She could have easily found a taxi to take her back to her hotel.  Speaking of her hotel, she didn't think anything when he upgraded her to a suite?  That would have been a big red flag and make you not want to get in a car alone with him.  You would want to meet in a public place.  As far as the Ginger Rodgers story, the only two people who truly know what exactly what their relationship entailed is them.  The fact that he gave her money that his wife didn't know about gives the illusion that something was not right about that relationship.  But, since we don't know how the Cain's handle money issues, we can't be sure of that.  But, as I said, it gives people pause.  


There are some who firmly believe that Mr. Cain never really expected to be taken seriously and was in it to raise his own profile and sell books.  I am not willing to go that far.  I think he truly wants to see this country change course.  The problem is he should have known that there was a chance that relationship and the money changing hands would come out, and put him in a negative light.  He came out with a bold plan about changing the tax code in this country.  He forced many other candidates to do the same.  No matter where you fall on Herman Cain's candidacy, conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude for tacking the debate to the right and getting people to have a serious discussion about it.  

Huckabee's Candidate Forum

I just watched the re-run of the forum and I enjoyed it.  States rights is a big issue for me, so the answers that they gave were of great interest to me.  


Rick Santorum stuck up of for the Patriot Act.  He says that it doesn't affect our civil rights.  Huh?  Ok, I don't make many oversees calls and when I do the people I speak to are not well known terrorists.  But to say that the federal government should have this type of power is scary to me.  


Rick Perry is a 10th amendment purist.  I really appreciate that and that makes me want to vote for him.  That is until he opens his mouth about executive orders.  Very troubling.  He seems to think he can solve problems in this fashion.  Does he really believe that he should be outlawing legally passed laws by executive orders?  If so, I find that very troubling.  How is that different than what Obama is doing with the EPA?  This is no different than Romney saying he would give waivers to Obamacare.  Obamacare will not go away unless it is repealed.  That is the only answer.  Is he willing to sign a repeal?  If not, I don't know why any conservative would vote for him.  


Michele Bachmann dodged questions and is championing a national solution to tort reform.  I want tort reform. But she is willing to bypass the states in order to do it.  Uh, no.  Tort reform is a state issue and the federal government has no role in it at all.  It is hypocrisy for her talk about the constitution then make a statement like that.  Her answer on the EPA was confusing.  She seems to be championing legislation for individual instances of issues between the states.  Huh?  How would that work?  She isn't going to win any fans with her performance last night.  


Mitt Romney did his usual by standing by Romneycare.  He didn't mention the facts that insurance premiums have risen for them.  He didn't mention that hospitals in the state are going broke because of the mandates.  He didn't mention that half of the uninsured are still uninsured.  He also talked about NCLB.  Huh?  No Child Left Behind is yet another federal boondoggle.  Just because it was done by a republican president doesn't make it right.  


Newt Gingrich handled it well.  I think he got some of the toughest questions.  Which, as one of the front runners, that was fair.  I really liked his point of the how the president can lead without passing legislation that forces states to do things.  Wouldn't that be refreshing?  


Ron Paul seems to believe that terrorism needs to be handled as criminal matter.  I suppose there is an argument for that, but I am not fully on board with it.  I did really like his answer on getting rid of unconstitutional mandates, such as medicare and social security.  He is 100% correct, it cannot be done in one fell swoop.  It has be done in steps to make it easier for the people who have become far too dependent on them.  We can't just get rid of things quickly.  This is going to be a process that is going to take time.  


I enjoyed the format.  I think we learned a few things about the world views of the candidates when it comes to the constitution and the rights of the states.  If you are looking purely on the issues of states rights, Rick Perry came out on top with the big exception of the executive orders.  

Open Letter to President Obama from Leon Cooperman, A Dirty, Rich Capitalist

Dear Mr. President,

It is with a great sense of disappointment that I write this. Like many others, I hoped that your election would bring a salutary change of direction to the country, despite what more than a few feared was an overly aggressive social agenda. And I cannot credibly blame you for the economic mess that you inherited, even if the policy response on your watch has been profligate and largely ineffectual. (You did not, after all, invent TARP.) I understand that when surrounded by cries of "the end of the world as we know it is nigh", even the strongest of minds may have a tendency to shoot first and aim later in a well-intended effort to stave off the predicted apocalypse.

But what I can justifiably hold you accountable for is your and your minions' role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us that smacks of what so many have characterized as "class warfare". Whether this reflects your principled belief that the eternal divide between the haves and have-nots is at the root of all the evils that afflict our society or just a cynical, populist appeal to his base by a president struggling in the polls is of little importance. What does matter is that the divisive, polarizing tone of your rhetoric is cleaving a widening gulf, at this point as much visceral as philosophical, between the downtrodden and those best positioned to help them. It is a gulf that is at once counterproductive and freighted with dangerous historical precedents. And it is an approach to governing that owes more to desperate demagoguery than your Administration should feel comfortable with.

Just to be clear, while I have been richly rewarded by a life of hard work (and a great deal of luck), I was not to-the-manor-born. My father was a plumber who practiced his trade in the South Bronx after he and my mother emigrated from Poland. I was the first member of my family to earn a college degree. I benefited from both a good public education system (P.S. 75, Morris High School and Hunter College, all in the Bronx) and my parents' constant prodding. When I joined Goldman Sachs following graduation from Columbia University's business school, I had no money in the bank, a negative net worth, a National Defense Education Act student loan to repay, and a six-month-old child (not to mention his mother, my wife of now 47 years) to support. I had a successful, near-25-year run at Goldman, which I left 20 years ago to start a private investment firm. As a result of my good fortune, I have been able to give away to those less blessed far more than I have spent on myself and my family over a lifetime, and last year I subscribed to Warren Buffet's Giving Pledge to ensure that my money, properly stewarded, continues to do some good after I'm gone.

My story is anything but unique. I know many people who are similarly situated, by both humble family history and hard-won accomplishment, whose greatest joy in life is to use their resources to sustain their communities. Some have achieved a level of wealth where philanthropy is no longer a by-product of their work but its primary impetus. This is as it should be. We feel privileged to be in a position to give back, and we do. My parents would have expected nothing less of me.
I am not, by training or disposition, a policy wonk, polemicist or pamphleteer. I confess admiration for those who, with greater clarity of expression and command of the relevant statistical details, make these same points with more eloquence and authoritativeness than I can hope to muster. For recent examples, I would point you to "Hunting the Rich" (Leaders, The Economist, September 24, 2011), "The Divider vs. the Thinker" (Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2011), "Wall Street Occupiers Misdirect Anger" (Christine Todd Whitman, Bloomberg, October 31, 2011), and "Beyond Occupy" (Bill Keller, The New York Times, October 31, 2011) - all, if you haven't read them, making estimable work of the subject.

But as a taxpaying businessman with a weekly payroll to meet and more than a passing familiarity with the ways of both Wall Street and Washington, I do feel justified in asking you: is the tone of the current debate really constructive?

People of differing political persuasions can (and do) reasonably argue about whether, and how high, tax rates should be hiked for upper-income earners; whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended or permitted to expire, and for whom; whether various deductions and exclusions under the federal tax code that benefit principally the wealthy and multinational corporations should be curtailed or eliminated; whether unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut should be extended; whether the burdens of paying for the nation's bloated entitlement programs are being fairly spread around, and whether those programs themselves should be reconfigured in light of current and projected budgetary constraints; whether financial institutions deemed "too big to fail" should be serially bailed out or broken up first, like an earlier era's trusts, because they pose a systemic risk and their size benefits no one but their owners; whether the solution to what ails us as a nation is an amalgam of more regulation, wealth redistribution, and a greater concentration of power in a central government that has proven no more (I'm being charitable here) adept than the private sector in reining in the excesses that brought us to this pass - the list goes on and on, and the dialectic is admirably American. Even though, as a high-income taxpayer, I might be considered one of its targets, I find this reassessment of so many entrenched economic premises healthy and long overdue. Anyone who could survey today's challenging fiscal landscape, with an un- and underemployment rate of nearly 20 percent and roughly 40 percent of the country on public assistance, and not acknowledge an imperative for change is either heartless, brainless, or running for office on a very parochial agenda. And if I end up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. The alternatives are all worse.

But what I do find objectionable is the highly politicized idiom in which this debate is being conducted. Now, I am not naive. I understand that in today's America, this is how the business of governing typically gets done - a situation that, given the gravity of our problems, is as deplorable as it is seemingly ineluctable. But as President first and foremost and leader of your party second, you should endeavor to rise above the partisan fray and raise the level of discourse to one that is both more civil and more conciliatory, that seeks collaboration over confrontation. That is what "leading by example" means to most people.

Capitalism is not the source of our problems, as an economy or as a society, and capitalists are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be. As a group, we employ many millions of taxpaying people, pay their salaries, provide them with healthcare coverage, start new companies, found new industries, create new products, fill store shelves at Christmas, and keep the wheels of commerce and progress (and indeed of government, by generating the income whose taxation funds it) moving. To frame the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and-dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment. It is also a naked, political pander to some of the basest human emotions - a strategy, as history teaches, that never ends well for anyone but totalitarians and anarchists.

With due respect, Mr. President, it's time for you to throttle-down the partisan rhetoric and appeal to people's better instincts, not their worst. Rather than assume that the wealthy are a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot who must be subjugated by the force of the state, set a tone that encourages people of good will to meet in the middle. When you were a community organizer in Chicago, you learned the art of waging a guerilla campaign against a far superior force. But you've graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force. You might do well at this point to eschew the polarizing vernacular of political militancy and become the transcendent leader you were elected to be. You are likely to be far more effective, and history is likely to treat you far more kindly for it.

Sincerely,

Leon G. Cooperman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Ignorance and Government Dependency

Several small studies have been completed by The University of Waterloo, Ontario and Duke University, the finding show that more ignorant a person is on a complicated issue the more likely they are to allow the government handle it. I would think that Global Warming would be one of these issues, as trying to read some of the scientific data on it is a mind numbing experience.

But, I have to wonder would the results be similar if they studied less complicated issues?  We live in a society where government dependency is becoming more and more commonplace. One has to look no further on the record numbers on food stamps at the moment. While there is an economic reason why so many have found themselves in a position to take help from the government at this point in time in our history, can we say that this is not going to lead to more government dependency as time goes on? I don't think that will be clear for quite some time, but it should be a growing concern in this country.

We are seeing Europe going through austerity measures and in Greece the people are not reacting well to having to retire later and getting fewer benefits.  Isn't this sort of the same type of thing?  Is the average person living in Greece looking at the numbers and looking at the not so healthy world economy?  One would think that if they were paying even the least little bit of attention they would realize that the changes are quite literally vital to their country's economic well-being.  

Uncertainty brings anxiety, Shepherd and Kay explain, and one way to deal with that anxiety is to “simply outsource personal responsibility to supposed qualified others.”

Do we really have "qualified others" in our government at present?  I am sure that some are, but just take a look at the failure of the "Super Committee", a committee that was formed that never had a chance of anything but failure.  These are the people we should be looking at as qualified?  


But here is the money item:

 “Being actively critical of something one is dependent on is thought to be psychologically uncomfortable, and therefore avoided in favor of increased perceptions of legitimacy, trust, and desirability. System justification theory posits that people are motivated to justify and legitimize the status quo and the system in which one lives.”

Once you have turned over the control to the government you are basically giving them unlimited power to do whatever they want to your life.  You become complacent and no longer feel the need or the desire to pay close attention to what is going on around you.  You become almost slave like to the whims of people who you have never met, who don't understand your real needs or desires, nor do they care to know.  You have given them unbridled power to behave as they so choose.  They then become addicted to the power and will say and do anything to hold onto that power.  


I have been saying for years that we have no one to blame but ourselves for the mess that we are currently facing.  We have the government that we deserve.  We expected it work just fine on auto-pilot.  Clearly, with trillions of dollars worth of debt, public schools that are failing our children, and public officials that are out of control, we were wrong.  


The one bright spot of the research was the following on the Tea Party:

“Generally I think of those movements as representing instances where people are not following our model, possibly because these are people who feel a) a sense of personal control/efficacy, and b) feel like their behavior can create change. This sense of personal control and ability to create change may make people feel less dependent on the government, or change how they respond to perceived dependence. Either way, it means that the individual may be less inclined to truth authority and avoid the issues.”

It is clear that we must become more involved in our government and the issues facing this country or we face a life of dependency and outsourcing any sort of control over our own lives. 

Marco Rubio on Presidential Politics and Newt's Immigration Stance

 I have this feeling Marco is going to be raked over the coals for his stance on immigration.  I happen to agree with him on most of what he says.  There are some cold hard realities to face; we do not have the political will to deport 11 million people.  The visa system is broken and doesn't work for the needs of the country.  If you are a low skilled worker from Mexico or South America and willing to come and work as migrant farm worker, the visa process is next to impossible.  That must be fixed.  The  borders must be secured.  We then need to figure out what to do with the otherwise law abiding people who have made a home in this country.  He is right, they shouldn't not get citizenship, but a worker's visa is a humane way of handling the problem.

Some Questions that I Wish Liberals Would Answer Honestly

I have some questions that I really would like someone on the left to answer honestly.  I don't want to hear things thrown back about conservatives, just honest answers.  

1. Progressives, women especially, talk about having safe and affordable access to birth control and reproductive rights.  This is one of the talking points used when discussing tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood.  My question is why have so many objections been raised when states, such as Virginia, are trying to pass laws that would require Planned Parenthood to have the same medical standards as a hospital?  If it is truly about "safe" then shouldn't they be the first in line to demand that the environment be as safe and sterile as a hospital must be?  Or do they prefer that women end up in a Kermit Gosnell's House of Horrors?  
2. Why can't black people be republicans or conservatives?  No one with an ounce of honesty can say that the left thinks it is OK.  While I am sure that some could care less, but the over the top rhetoric about race traitors, Oreos, Uncle Tom, images and talk are everywhere when come to a black person that happens to believe in limited government.  Michael Eric Dyson was challenged about it today and refused to answer the question and then went on to talk about how Herman Cain is racist.  
3. If the goal is to make abortion safe and rare, why do they oppose laws that will give the mom to be a waiting period to think it over or to have an ultrasound so she can she for herself what she is about to kill?  
4. Why are people on the far left trying to normalize sex with children?  
5. If homosexuality is something that you are born with and cannot be changed, why isn't pedophilia?  
6. Where is the scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic?  Because there are cases of identical twins being of different orientations.  How can it be genetic if this is true?  
7. Why is widely believed that homeschooled children are somehow less educated than their public school peers?  
8. Why do liberals always bring up Hispanics when the conversation turns to illegal immigration?  Don't they realize that illegal immigrants come from all over the world and are not all Hispanic?  The vast majority of illegal immigrants that I have known in my lifetime have been from the UK (many nannies where I grew up). I want them to get legal status and start paying taxes too.  
9. How does having a Christmas tree in a town square force someone to be Christian?  
10. What other holiday uses an evergreen tree?  
11. Why am I less a woman because I am not a liberal?  
12. Why don't feminists speak out more about the mistreatment of women in Islamic countries?  Where are they about this woman who is a rape victim who is currently in jail and upon her release will be forced to marry her rapist?  Are they really that afraid to say anything negative about Islam?  If so, why?  

A Special Day

Quote of the Day - Matthew Staver Edition

"People either censor Christmas out of ignorance concerning religious law or they worry they may offend someone else, retailers, meanwhile, should not profit off Christmas while pretending it doesn't exist."


Matthew Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel

Something to be Thankful For - Life from Conception to Birth Visualized

Christmas Friendly Retailers

Companies FOR "Christmas"  AFA Online Store ACE Hardware Amazon.com Bass Pro Shops Bed Bath & Beyond Belk Best Buy Big Lots Books-A-Million Cabella's Collective Brands Costco CVS Pharmacy Dick's Sporting Goods Dilliards Dollar General Family Dollar H.E.B. Stores HSN.com Hallmark Hancock Fabrics Harris Teeter Stores Hobby Lobby Home Shopping Network JC Penney JoAnn Fabrics & Crafts Stores Kmart Kohl's Kroger Lowe's Macy's Marshals Meijer Menard's Michael's Stores Neiman Marcus Nordstrom Office Max Petsmart Pier One Imports ProFlowers.com Publix QVC.com Rite Aid Sears Scheels Sporting Goods Super D Drug Stores Target TJ Maxx Toys R Us True Value Walgreens Wal-Mart/Sam's Club Zappos.com

Companies marginal on "Christmas" 

1-800-Flowers.com
Bath & Body Works
Cooking.com
Dollar Tree
Hy-Vee Stores
Limited Brands
Safeway
Starbucks

Companies AGAINST "Christmas" 

Banana Republic
Barnes & Noble
Foot Locker
Gap Stores
L.L. Bean
Limited Brands
Office Depot
Old Navy
Radio Shack
Staples
Supervalu
Victoria's Secret
UncommonGoods.com
Whole Foods