If the ineptness of the “Great Communicator” was ever in full display, it was on Friday, when the declarer of “a new era of government” brought back a fixture from the old era to scold his own party into supporting the tax compromise between the president and congressional Republicans. President Bill Clinton was back behind the microphone at the White House acting like it’s 1996 all over again, taking questions from the press and answering them with ease and aggressiveness, unlike the current president, who decided to leave the press conference entirely to attend a Christmas party. And if you don’t think Clinton was salivating once Obama walked away, I have some waterfront property to sell you in Vegas.

There’s nobody in politics that craves the limelight than Bill Clinton, whether it’s touring the country in support of his foundation, taking up most of the campaign trail in support of Hillary’s candidacy, and now his new role as “acting” president. Bill looked cool as a cucumber the podium, explaining why the Dems had to accept the current plan and how negotiating would only worsen once the new Congress is sworn in January.

I feel for Obama though (OK not really), just when everybody figured the Clinton mob was dead and buried, Bill looks stronger than ever because Obama will need him to reach out to his fellow Democrats, as well as independents that remember how great life was under Clinton (and a GOP House), but how miserable its become under Obama and a Dem controlled Congress. There’s no risk for Clinton to help Obama because he’s not in office and his legacy is already cemented, if anything it will only embolden his legacy as a common sense Dem that wants to move the country forward instead of nowhere due to working across the aisle. If he fails, who cares, he goes back to living life, reputation still intact. As for Obama, this is a huge risk, I mean he literally walked out on the negotiation to put Clinton in charge for the moment, making him look weak, and if this strategy fails, I believe it will be the downfall for the party in general come 2012.

My question to the president is why stop at Clinton? There are a couple of issues facing the president that his communication skills have not solved; Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and North Korea-South Korea battling. If he’s willing to bring the past to the present, I have a couple names from the past that could solve these pressing issues.

Regarding Israel-Palestinian talks, this is a 2000 year old issue that will never end. Carter solved the Egyptian aspect, Reagan would never bow to Palestinian demands, Clinton should have solved it, and Bush had other issues to attend to. Currently, Israeli PM Netanyahu disregards Obama’s pleads to freeze settlement building in East Jerusalem, where many Arabs live, so much for his foreign affairs prowess. As the Iranians and other world leaders witness the weakness of Obama’s rhetoric when dealing with foreign issues, it will be taken advantage of by our enemies. He needs to appoint someone who has expert knowledge of the issue and who really has nothing else to do. Jimmy Carter fits both those characteristics. He’ll hold Israel accountable and hopefully establish a two state agreement with a cease-fire agreement that will keep the two parties at bay. Worse case scenario: Carter fails and the two continue their 2000 year old squabble under the current conditions or even under the two party state solution.

North and South Korea: That Kim Jong-Il is always looking for attention and he’s gotten it by shelling a South Korean island. As a violation of the armistice that “stopped” the Korean War, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea are wondering how to respond to such an attack, yet again, because we can’t forget about the sinking of the South Korean warship last March. As China awaits our move, there’s only one person who can engage the Chinese and come up with the solution to solve the North Korean childish appetite for attention: Henry Kissinger. As Nixon’s Secretary of State, he opened the lines of communication to communist China and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to end the Vietnam War. I chose Kissinger because of his history with the Chinese, along with his understanding of war between two neighboring parties that share a peninsula and have two different systems of government. Kissinger, along with our allies explain to China on what the ramifications of an additional attack on South Korea are; complete chaos of the region, increased U.S. influence, and the elimination of their ally. The Chinese should understand the effects and push for serious six party talks that should explicitly explain to North Korea that this will not be tolerated and any additional attack will mean complete isolation from China and the remaining world, as well as destruction. Worse case scenario: China ignores us, North Korea continues to attack, full on war ensues, and could be Vietnam all over again.

Now is it really this simple? Of course not, that’s why I’m writing a satirical blog about these issues as they stand. I’m not a big supporter of the Obama agenda, however, his actions are of concern because as the leader of the free world, aka the most powerful man in the world, a lack of persuasiveness towards allies and adversaries, both here and abroad, will embolden those adversaries abroad to further test the mettle of his words and wait on his reactions. As for domestically, his own party has already dumped him and Republicans are already following the above strategy to our gain, let’s just hope countries like Iran and North Korea don’t follow through completely on the same idea.

Crossposted at TheBostonConservative.com

Read most liberal newspapers and you’ll discover that since Barack Obama has become POTUS, the world has embraced America with open arms again. But dig a little deeper and you’ll see international relations may have not improved, but actually worsened, because of the nature of Obama.

It began with an apology tour in Europe and Egypt regarding America’s actions in securing freedom for millions of people across the world. Obama’s words illustrated a message that America is not the beacon of light that shines democracy, but just a member of a larger collection of nations that must act in accordance to each other. It told the world that without people like President George W. Bush leading America, the world will be a unified and safer place (cue the rainbows and pixie dust).

During his Cairo University speech:

“Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible… I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other… America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.” (emphasis mine)

Although his presidency and rhetoric was supposed to initiate healing among the world and within America, as we’ve all seen, failed diplomacy has led to emboldening our enemies to expand dangerous programs (Iran, Venezuela), disregard for our allies (UK, Israel, and Poland), which leaves them questioning what happened to America’s leadership, and lastly bashing Arizona.

More importantly, the emboldening of our enemies has lead to increased oppression onto their citizenry, attempting to reverse the effect President Bush’s freedom agenda had on citizens under rule of tyrants. Under a month ago, a column in the Wall Street Journal discussed the changes that have occurred since Obama took over the Presidency.

“In 2006, Mr. Hendi was browsing pro-democracy Web sites in a Damascus Internet café when plainclothes cops carrying automatic guns swooped in, cuffed him, and threw him into the trunk of a car. He’s now living in Maryland as a political refugee where he works for an organization called Cyberdissidents.org. He also got to meet the 43rd president. Mr. Hendi’s message to the former president was simple: ‘We miss you.’ There have been ‘a lot of changes’ under the current administration, he added, and not for the better… ‘In Syria, when a single dissident was arrested during the administration of George W. Bush, at the very least the White House spokesman would condemn it. Under the Obama administration: nothing.’”

The column also discusses a Chinese dissident that helped North Koreans escape Kim Jong-Il’s grasps and was arrested; “’When I was released [after 10 days] I was told it was because of very strong messaging from the White House and the culture you set,’ he told Mr. Bush.”

So while brave dissidents challenged the tyrannical leaders, believing they had a supporter in the President, as they just did with his predecessor, their struggle is now falling on deaf ears, ears that are more concerned with denouncing the progress America’s made in securing freedoms for people rather than announcing support for those that seek freedom.

When Iran’s corrupt and fraud ridden election declared Ahmadinejad winner, it was clear that Iranians had enough. They had enough of the oppression taking place under the regime, and were sick of being manipulated under a power thirsty theocracy. What they craved was occurring in their neighboring country of Iraq, which disposed a rule under dictatorship because of America. Iranians were dying the in streets because they could feel that freedom was almost at their fingertips and they needed recognition by the world’s preeminent democracy to help secure it. But all they got was; “We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran.” Needless to say, the uprising was silenced, and it’s a wait and see on what’s next for the people of Iran.

On Monday, another op-ed published in the WSJ, by an Egyptian democracy advocate, discussed the issue of Arab democracy activists are being discouraged due to the current administration’s actions.

“George W. Bush is missed by activists in Cairo and elsewhere who—despite possible misgivings about his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan—benefited from his firm stance on democratic progress. During the time he kept up pressure on dictators, there were openings for a democratic opposition to flourish. The current Obama policy seems weak and inconsistent by contrast.”

With elections occurring across the Arab world, the citizens are engaged in the current direction of their respective countries. Engagement is high in Egypt, who got funding towards democratic development cut by the current administration, and now is left teetering on the edge of falling into an extended autocratic rule. Without aid and attentive vigilance on the part of U.S and our allies towards Egypt’s elections, democracy may be an afterthought within Egypt.

While words can be reported by media as actions towards spreading democracy, real action is few and far between, which will not eventually spell well for our great country. With Israel left alone to defend itself against intolerable declarations from the UN, Palestinians, and Iran, it seems that the world is yearning for a leader to take on these challenges, whether popular or not, and based on the notion of freedom for all, rather than useless rhetoric that appears caring and sparks hope, but lacks desire for results.

So does the world miss George W. Bush as a statesman who believed all people deserve to live in a democratic society? I’ll let Henry Kissinger answer that: “The great statesmen of the past saw themselves as heroes who took on the burden of their societies’ painful journey from the familiar to the as yet unknown. The modern politician is less interested in being a hero than a superstar. Heroes walk alone; stars derive their status from approbation. Heroes are defined by inner values; stars by consensus.”

You’ve seen the Cars for Clunkers program dished out by the Obama administration. Turn in your “gas guzzler” and get a rebate up to $4500 towards a new fuel efficient vehicle. While it is a worthy goal, it illustrates the ineptness of the government provided programs.

In today’s WSJ, it was reported that officials are trying to find additional funding for the program because consumer demand has already exhausted the $1 billion budget, even considering tapping into the TARP program.

This cars program is a microcosm of what would occur if Democrats passed the universal health care bill including the public option. How is the cars program a microcosm you may ask? Say if a insurance policy will cost you $15000 for the year from a private company, but in comparison, the same insurance policy is provided to you from the government, with a $4500 subsidy, which would most Americans choose? This demand would outstrip what funding was provided for it, and thus we would end up with another Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid disaster on our hands, where we’re robbing Peter and his kids to pay Paul, Mary, and whoever else.

The House passed an additional $2 billion for the program today. Where is that to come from? Apparently, the porkulus bill according to Hoyer (D-MD), which is our money. Is this a precursor to what will happen when the public option runs out of funding for doctors, hospitals, etc?

Also the demand would overwhelm suppliers of health care. Today, car dealers are turning away buyers, pretty incredible for a struggling industry, because they’re afraid they might not get paid for their taking in the clunkers.

“Adam Lee, owner of Lee Auto Group in southern Maine, had stopped accepting clunkers at four of his dealerships because he was concerned the funds would run out. Mr. Lee said his firm accepted 100 clunker trades and is owed $450,000 from the government, none of which has been disbursed.”

Much like Mr. Lee, Why would a doctor continue to accept government sponsored patients, if the government is having trouble paying for the service.

This situation has already occurred in Massachusetts, where I reside, where RomneyCare has turned into a $1.3 billion moneysucking nightmare, from what started off with a $630 million budget, and where I must wait 40 days to see a dermatologist then another 70 for a follow up visit.

So let this serve as a prior notice to those that long for a public health care option or let car salesman Rob Bojaryn say it perfectly: “If they can’t administer a program like this, I’d be a little concerned about my health insurance.”

When will the New York Times not report “all the news that’s fit to print”? When it involves one of their own. Over the weekend, it was revealed that the Times withheld the publishing of a report that one of their reporters, David Rohde, was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan. What is even more amazing is that they held the information privately for seven months.

It may have been the correct decision to keep quiet because if the report did go public, it could have caused a ransom situation or a ruthless murder that would have used as Taliban propaganda. Said executive editor Bill Keller; “All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet.”

Obviously, the reporter’s safety is important to his family and friends at the Times, and to compassionate human beings, however, this situation illustrates a double standard that only liberals could adhere to.

As the executive editor, Keller is the ultimate authority on decision making and what news is published. I find it ironic, actually outrageous, that as “leader” of the newspaper, he found it appropriate to conceal information to protect one of his staff, however, it was his decision to reveal secret information regarding the NSA warrantless surveillance and the terrorist finance tracking program because his job is “to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf and at what price.”

Reading Keller’s quotes I wish he felt this way before publishing information that is detrimental to our government’s job to keep our country safe. “It was an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again, but I also have a responsibility for the people who work for me. I send a lot of people out into dangerous places and their security is also part of my job.”

It was agonizing for Mr. Bush to try and keep information private for the security for our country, because like Mr. Keller, he had a responsibility too, an even bigger one, to keep our citizens and soldiers safe in those same dangerous places while battling critics, such as the Times, who tried in vain to ruin him.

“Rohde was abducted Nov. 10… The Times kept the kidnapping quiet out of concern for the men’s safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, followed suit at the Times’ request.” Seeing that this first occurred while President Bush was still in office, would it have provided him the same morose joy, that it provided the Times, to release this information as retribution for their betrayals? Of course not.

For the future, I hope Keller practices what he preaches because the release of sensitive information allows terrorists to be more aware of what our government is doing to protect us and ways of circumventing those measures. “The more you talk about who did what … the more you’re writing a playbook for the next kidnapping.” Couldn’t say it any better myself, Mr. Keller.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanian Senator Arlen Specter decided to take the coward’s way out by ditching the Republican Party to “run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary” or what I call riding the coattails of Obamafever.

He released a statement on why he decided to ditch the GOP because of the right, how most Republicans hate him now, and how he represents the people not the party, all of which made no sense whatsoever. There’s only one thing Specter represents and that is himself.

The best quote of the statement is; “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.” The Republican Party couldn’t move more right than where it was during the Reagan presidency. The “Reagan Big Tent” attracted Democrats and Independents because it was based on conservative solutions that people, not government, should dictate how this country prospers.

Since Reagan, the Republican Party hasn’t moved to the right and when they did they got back in power. Bush 41 blew it for the party with his country club liberalism, and then the GOP didn’t get it together until 1995-96, which they ruled until 2006 because they decided to act like Democrats and got thrown out of the majority. Was Bush 43 conservative? Maybe socially, but damn well not fiscally. So don’t give us “this party has moved so far to the right” nonsense because it hasn’t and if it did you would be riding our coattails.

This coward’s act is based on convenience and fear because he knows that he will not win the Republican primary in the 2010 election. He would have faced challenger Pat Toomey, who’s a conservative and has major support from party officials. Back in the 2004 primary, Toomey got screwed by Bush and former Senator Santorum because they threw their support behind Specter last minute as a favor. If they only knew how he would return the favor.

He has every right to fear losing his seat. Republicans are pissed at him for voting with the Dems on the stimulus act. He acknowledges the dismay in his statement: “When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable.”

While I’m never one to begrudge people for being independent thinkers, actually I support it, but what did he think was going to happen to him for voting for the biggest spending bill in the country’s history? His party is the one who wants smaller government and individual freedom and responsibility, not the other way around. Its one thing to not follow party lines on some issues, see: McCain, John, but the bill represented what being a Republican is all about.

While Obama may be “thrilled to have” him, it’s going to make for an interesting caucus. Specter is a classic northeast Republican, who will support Democrat ideals such as increased government growth, higher taxation, and pro-choice, but he may hold the line when it comes to protecting businesses from Big Labor. When the Employee Free Choice Act arises for debate, Specter’s vote will be crucial to either side that will be battling for it with whatever Arlen decides is the best offer.

So I say to the Democrats of the Senate, enjoy the new old guy until January 2011 and now your filibuster-proof majority, once Al Franken arrives. But be wary of Specter because he’ll use the party for his own gain. To Mr. Specter, thanks for angering me with your threats of investigating the Patriots for Spygate and don’t let the door hit you on your way out, jackass.

While the economic distress captures our minds, the founding principles of America are being destroyed by the Obama administration and liberalism. America’s founding was based on independence from an almighty monarchy that oppressed its citizens through reduced freedoms and taxation.

I challenge any of the readers to take a look at the Declaration of Independence and read what our country was founded upon. “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Simple yet powerful statement that does not dissect people into different classes and it states that we are guaranteed a right to life and freedoms, to not be intruded upon by government, to attain our own success.

Throughout the Declaration, America lists the “facts” against King George of England that attributed to their yearning for freedom. The facts relate relevantly to today’s environment of King Obama. “Facts” include: Eliminating the ability to trade with other nations, imposing taxation on citizens without our consent, and creating offices of “czars”. All of the “facts” I’ll discuss below, and illustrate how the King is beginning to harass the operations of our country and creating more bureaucratic waste that will cause government to tax the substance out of America.

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world” King Obama’s protectionist rhetoric is a kiss back to the unions that put him in office. They want Americans to pay top dollar to fund their corruption and illegal activities, all in the name of “Buy American.” What this does is it makes us poorer as a nation because we thrive from buying goods worldwide that are cheaper and allow us to stretch our dollars. Unions are cartels that strangle companies into paying too high of wages, which are passed down to the consumer through prices. Look at the health of Toyota and Honda versus the American car companies, the quality of products each company provides and you’ll find why unions are garbage. The King wants to revisit NAFTA, saying it must be fair for all sides, whatever that means. He won’t promote the free trade agreement with Colombia because of the high union related violence rates. During President Uribe’s first term, union targeted violence had fell 20%. If it was all about human rights, as liberals say it is with Colombia, then what’s the excuse for China?

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”, this is a nod to the fair Prince Deval Patrick of the Commonwealth. He wants to raise the gas tax an additional 19 cents to approximately 42.5 cents per gallon. The Prince wants to do this because of the Big Dig debt and he figures the costs should be spread throughout the state. This angers many people that live outside of route 128 because they don’t use the Big Dig, but feel like they’re getting screwed. To offset the gas tax, the Prince directed the transportation authority to raise toll prices for tolls along the Mass Pike to 128 and Logan Airport. The repercussions would be significant to the citizens that live and commute within the metro area. The Prince also wants to raise a $2 “carbon fee” on vehicles traveling to Logan and parking there. Is he serious? The cars are parked, thus emitting no carbon. Combine that with the $7 tolls and higher garage rates and who’s gonna fly out of Logan. You’ll save money by driving to Providence to fly. The funny part is that the Prince promised to remove either the tolls or the gas tax if one of them was implemented. When has the government promised to remove a revenue stream? Trick question because it never happened. Just like the promise that the Pike tolls were only used to pay for the bonds then would be taken down.

Back to the King, who stated he will raise taxes upon people who make over $250,000. The King doesn’t know that soaking the rich will not create the funding he needs for his socialist agenda. Government data shows that as taxes decreased for the higher income brackets, their share of federal tax payments increased. He’s decreased the percentage the wealthy can deduct from charitable contributions, which has angered nonprofits everywhere. He also decreased the percentage they can deduct from their home interest payments. Why spend the money to buy a house when you can’t write off the loan interest. The markets have tanked because higher taxation will lead to less private spending and investment, which will keep the economy in the tank. He can tax their income 100% and it still won’t be enough, so you know what that means; he’s coming after the middle class.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Due to the appointing of “czars” that wastefully oversee different aspects of society and skirt the Constitution, the King has even inspired fear within his underlings. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is fearful of the monarchy completely disregarding the Senate’s constitutional power of confirming appointments. “The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances… As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.” And liberals called George Bush a tyrant.

Even trivial trampling of the Constitution was done by the administration due to the confirmations of Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, and Hilda Solis. Article 1 Section 6 states: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments (compensation) whereof shall have been increased during such time…” Prior to the appointments, there was an increase of salary for the cabinet positions during the time these members were renewing their congressional terms. According to this constitutional statute, they are ineligible for the positions. It may not matter because there is a loophole that allows appointees to bypass the statute. The loophole is called the “Saxbe fix” which allows Congress to reduce the increased salary back to its original sum prior to the renewed term of a member of Congress. This loophole has been used in the past, so minor circumvention of the Constitution is, I guess, acceptable to those once in power.

The fact that the government is disassociating itself from what this great country was founded upon is disgusting. Bailing out corporations and citizens that failed, all in the name of preventing systemic risk and exposing moral hazard, is socialist. During recessions, everyone must learn how to do more with less, but apparently the government is excused from that notion because they want to take more from us to feed their greed. This is outrageous, but citizens have continuously sat there and asked for more abuse. Well not anymore because I am planning a Boston Tea Party protest of this crap that the King, the Prince and the minions are imposing upon us. More information will be written in the next coming weeks about the logistics of it. If anybody wants to volunteer their time, please contact 2009bostonteaparty@gmail.com.

Politico is reporting that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the eldest member of the Senate, is accusing Democrat President Obama of strengthening the executive branch, to the dismay of the legislative branch.

Byrd writes to Obama:

The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials… As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

The irony of this letter is great because during the campaign, Obama promised a transparent government that would be accountable to the American people. Now here he is appointing all these czars that will directly report to him, taking power away from Congress. He doesn’t need to have his officials being confirmed by the Senate, he can just appoint them as a czar. But where are the screams of separation of powers clause that attacked President Bush during his terms? How about Obama trampling all over the Constitution in order to attain power and control of our country. There’s the beginnings of a dictatorship if I ever saw one.

Obama’s own words during the campaign:

I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security…We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy

It is worrying to read that Obama “rejects the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security”, because while willing to sacrifice the powers of the executive branch in regards to protecting us, he is for the view of expanding the executive powers to increase government’s size and scope. In terms of “openness”, who are these czars accountable to? The minute word leaks that these czars are monitoring more waste and corruption, Congress will call for hearings, that’s when we regain a majority in ’10, and Obama will gladly retort back to President Bush’s precedent of executive privilege, which he bashed, to protect his big government “solutions”.

…And a sinking tide will wreck all ships. That’s what the current state of economic affairs is within our country. While Obama and Geithner publicly discuss plans to bailout the financial sector and foreclosure “victims”, the vagueness of their discussions has led to the dissolution of stock values, which is affecting not only America, but the world.

Today, Ben Bernanke discussed the current “severe” state of the economy, and how the combination of TARP 2.0 and the Fed’s monetary role will allow our economy to recover later this year. This caused excitement in the markets and the Dow soared. Hopefully when I take a look at my boat of mutual funds, they will also increase in value.

We, conservatives, prescribe to the notion that some ships will sink and ruin. That’s the natural environment of market forces. It’s how the captains of those ships rebuild a new, more improved ship that will survive the next storm. It is difficult for some of us to understand why rational people would want to bail out failing financial institutions and people that bet wrong on investments. The ad hoc approaches have not done wonders so far for the American economy.

The Porkulus law doesn’t look like it’s going to help either. What they’re doing is pumping water into dry lands to those with broken ships. In the meantime, they’re draining the little water I’m floating on now and the future sea my children will be floating on. Extending unemployment, reinstituting the “welfare queen”, taxing my business and income, and providing disincentive to invest will drain the remaining sea of our economy. Regarding the foreclosure situation, the tide is already low and ships are already wrecked. Pumping water into the situation will not revive sunken ships.

Why not helping those that are already afloat? Can’t Captain Obamahab give us with floating ships additional tools to help improve them? Cut my taxes so I can improve my ship, which will allow me to hire more workers and court people to invest in new projects. This will help keep others afloat without taking away from our future. What Obama doesn’t know is that all low tides fill in eventually. It isn’t done by irrational men filling it, but by natural forces.

In what might be the biggest oxymoron of our time, the left is debating the ethics of a California mother that decided to have octuplets with the help of fertilization. This morning on some CNN show, I saw a roundtable panel discussing the ethics of having eight children and whether it is right for someone that knowingly lacks the means to support children, yet bears them anyways.

First, let me state that as a pro-lifer, I am happy she brought life into our world; however, there is a responsibility we bear to our children to give them the best life possible. Does this mean she should have gotten an abortion, absolutely not. It means the fertility doctors involved should of looked at her situation, a unemployed single parent that already has six kids, and stated let’s wait until you have your feet firm on the ground and the means to raise the additional children the right way.

MSDNC reports: “Experts say the public’s sudden and dramatic flip-flop from coo-ing celebration to resentful backlash highlights the clash between two competing sets of values: the rights of the individual and her obligations to society. Americans don’t want anyone making rules about family size.”

All of a sudden they realize there’s obligation to society? These are the same people that deny life to humans, all in the name of a woman’s choice. People that have dared us to quit challenging a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. As conservatives, we are on the right side of the coin, we hate abortion and we disagree with irresponsible birthing. Liberals now find it convenient to play both sides of the coin when public backlash becomes robust or when economic times are difficult and there lies their hypocrisy.

The same MSDNC article quotes: “Making matters worse in the eyes of many people, the delivery of the mom’s eight babies by a Los Angeles hospital team of 46 doctors came at a bad economic time.” And the AP begins a story regarding her welfare: “A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman’s 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California’s taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.”

No kiddin’, but if the economy was booming, having the children would be ok? Of course not, applying that logic to this situation is ridiculous. The economic situation is just adding fuel to the fire.

Now this post isn’t here to demean single parents having children, I was raised in a single parent household, where there were only two children, so I understand the struggle of most single parents have in responsibly raising their children. I am disappointed because this sets a precedent for people to irresponsibly bear children and face zero consequences and to exploit the system that already covers your six children to now cover your 14 kids. I’m having a difficult time comparing it to public funding for abortion because although these children were brought into the world, it’s not right for these children to struggle through life because of their irresponsible mother and it’s not right to the California taxpayer to support this.

Watching Barack Obama the past couple days, there’s an old quote that goes “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Now  I remembered hearing the quote many times, but didn’t know who stated it. Well it was no surprise to me when I found out who said it, V.I. Lenin, communist father of the USSR. Seems like Obama is using his comrade mentor’s quote to issue his own propaganda regarding our economy and I’ve had enough of it:

“We know that we’re going to have to spend money to jump-start the economy”

“In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse, we could lose a generation of potential and promise.”

“The most important message today is that the situation is getting worse, we’ve got to act boldly, and we’ve got to act swiftly. We cannot delay,”

“if nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.”

“only the government can provide the short-term boost necessary.

“We’re already looking at a trillion-dollar budget deficit or close to a trillion-dollar budget deficit, and that potentially we’ve got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on at this point,”

Different statements all explaining the one goal he has in mind; the government being the end all be all of the American economy. I understand the economy is bad, I’ve stopped taking a salary from my company, but is higher government spending really the answer? He can spend all he wants, but will it increase private spending, entrepreneurship, productivity? We know it’s going to increase public works projects and “green” jobs, but where will that take us? Those infrastructure jobs will come to an end, then where do the workers go? (I’m sure their going to be union) Also, the funding is going to have to come from somewhere, which I think he’s going to soak not only the rich, but the middle class and small businesses (America’s heart and soul) with higher capital gains, payroll taxes, estate, and whatever else he can come up with.

Now what we need is Republican leadership to stand up and yell STOP! Obama can entice our leaders in Congress with “tax credits cuts”, but it shouldn’t work. If Obama wants to work with our party, then let’s discuss keeping the Bush tax cuts, eliminating the AMT, lowering the corporate tax, cutting capital gains to 10%, and if he’s so consumed by helping the middle class, then cut the 15% and 25% brackets to 10% and 15%.

Increased government spending hasn’t solved anything. Go back to Japan’s lost decade and see how the government made everything worse, take a look at the Great Depression and how the New Deal was so “great”, take a look at anything the government can get control of and see how awful it turns out.

Here’s a great quote for you regarding Obama holding the government accountable with spending:

“new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review,” Obama said. “We’re not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period.”

That’s a bold face lie if I ever saw one, Democrats creating bills without any earmarks, ha.

Now I’ve called my senators and house member (who are all Massachusetts liberals and it was probably useless to call them anyways because they don’t care.) and I urge you to do the same. Enough is enough because when the chickens come home to roost with all this government spending, it’s going to be us getting sent to the slaughterhouse, not them.

Here in the frigid northeast, poorer citizens that receive oil heating assistance from Joe Kennedy’s Citizens Energy found out yesterday that they will receive less or nothing this winter because Joe’s best friend, Venezuelan dictator president Hugo Chavez’s PDVSA subsidiary Citgo, decided to quit donating oil because of falling oil prices and the “global economic crisis”.

At a press conference yesterday, Kennedy said Citizens Energy likely will be forced to cut about 20 percent of its heating oil distribution in Massachusetts and halt the program altogether in other states unless it can persuade Citgo to change its mind or can raise money elsewhere to buy oil and fund grants. In addition, he said Citizens would have to lay off 20 staffers.

Kennedy said he has repeatedly reached out to the Venezuelan government in an effort to persuade the company to resume oil donations. He also urged people to write to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Citgo is the US distribution arm of Venezuela’s state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, which Chávez indirectly controls. ‘We are doing everything we can,’ Kennedy said. ‘We’re not ready to give up.’

The ignorance of Kennedy is illustrated in the bolded words above; let’s think about this, a dictator, that cares less about his own people, will have an epiphany and decide to resume oil donations because the Prince Joe Kennedy and Americans have reached out to him. If Joe really wants to do everything he can, why doesn’t he stop taking a salary from the non-profit and let the firm use his salary to purchase more oil. According to the 2005 Citizens Energy 990 form, Joe made $57,903 as chairman of the non-profit firm and $305,708 from the for-profit sister company. Now, I’m not the type of complain about people making too much money, in fact I’m for it, but I know Joe’s background and if anything he isn’t hurting so why not put your money where you mouth and ideologies are and “help the poor folks in Boston”.

Joe K has ran ads the past couple years that discuss helping the area’s less fortunate and how it shouldn’t matter that he’s getting oil from a dictator that hates America, oppresses his own people, and supports terrorists. Here’s one that exploits the elderly and how SuperJoe is there to save the day:

I know the global situation is tough, and people/business/countries must act accordingly, but this program is three years old and when it was started oil prices were at hovering $50-70 and on the increase. Fast forward through the past two years and $140/barrel of oil and now oil is at the $40-50 range, but on the decline so now’s the time to end it? I think it’s more about Hugo’s need to sell a few more barrels instead of donating it to support his FARC buddies.

The good news is that lower prices should mean that more people will be able to afford heating their homes and rely less on the government and the aid that is distributed by our government to the poor will go further in heating people’s homes:

State and federal governments have stepped up subsidies to struggling families through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. ‘For the first time ever, the program is fully funded,’ said Susan Kooperstein, a spokeswoman for Action for Boston Community Development Inc., a nonprofit that provides services to low-income residents. Last year, Kooperstein said, the agency was able to give the city’s poorest families a maximum of $865, which bought more than a tank of oil. This year, the maximum has been raised to $1,305, which now buys more than three tanks.

Anyways, I see this as great for America because now I don’t have to watch Chavez use Kennedy as a mouthpiece for his “humanity”, even though his people suffer immensely and we’re not supporting that terrorist sympathizer/socialist who sides with Iran, Cuba, and Russia, and calls our President “the devil”. If Joe K was a patriot, it should have been a thanks, but no thanks from the beginning.

First, may I wish everyone a blessed and safe new year. Second, Let’s put 2008 in our rear view mirror, but not forget the lessons learned for us as conservatives and Republicans. Third, Let’s look to 2009 as a time to rebuild the party leadership in the mold of Goldwater and Reagan, not of moderates and bipartisanship.

I’m currently reading “A Glorious Disaster” by Middendorf, which discusses how a group of young conservatives formed a coalition to transform the Republican party base from eastern country club elites to conservatives and ended up having their candidate Sen. Goldwater as the GOP nomination for the ’64 election. As I read through the book, it’s becoming clear to me that 2008 represented pre-’64 because conservatism has been disregarded by some of our congressional leaders and even our President. The result of disregarding the principles that brought them to power in the 90′s and early this decade has been disastrous to us.

Critics have blamed conservatism as the issue plaguing our country’s problems. Conservatism isn’t defined by the same old failed liberal ideas of increased government spending and scope or corporate bailouts to solve our country’s problems. It’s defined by giving the citizens the freedom and incentives to innovate ideas to solve current problems and lay the path for the future.

So as a new president takes the oath and additional democrats invade the Congressional halls, we must begin to form a strongest base imaginable that will not bend to wavering RINOs, moderates, and democrats that want to dictate to us what the Republican party should consist of. We witnessed what happened when there’s a “maverick” as our nominee, let’s not do it again. We consist of strong family values, personal freedom and responsibility, low taxation to have people and businesses keep their money, not the government, judges that abide by the rule of law, not their own personal politics, free trade agreements that open our products to the world on a larger scale, health care that isn’t brought to you by the government, but by your own choosing, and a secure America. Our ideas and values are shared by a majority of Americans, we just haven’t provided the right leadership that citizens want to be apart of. Starting from the top-down, let’s elect that strong leadership that shares our ideals, and dismiss that “big tent” talk.

This upcoming year, let us lay the foundation for 2010 by sounding the horns, taking to the streets, explaining to the people that we are the party of freedom and prosperity, telling the elected officials that we’re keeping a close eye on them and we will act appropriately come the elections, and letting America know it’s our time in 2009.

Most of us on this site are originalist interpreters of the Constitution. Well, seeing that this is a federal case, I’ll go with the Fifth Amendment, as opposed to the Fourteenth, which deals with states. Anyways, the Fifth guarantees “no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” just in case anyone forgot. As those who are political junkies notice, Democrats are always getting caught in their corruption ways; see here, here, and here. So, does it surprise anyone that Democrats are begging Gov. Blagojevich to resign?

How deep can this case become? Obama vowed that he’s “absolutely certain” that no one from his staff engaged in any deal making and also stated “that’s not how we do business.” On the front page today, Mark Kilmer has a great post that states Obama’s Chief of Staff did engage in talks of deal making and it’s certainly how Chicago dems do business. I, along with others, expect this to blossom further and Rahmbo to resign because of this, so much for HopeandChange.

Next, why is Illinois AG, Lisa Madigan, so adamant about giving Gov. Blago the boot? Why not leave it up to U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald, who is the head prosecutor in this case, or the legislature to begin impeachment proceedings. She’s interpreting a vague law regarding the governor’s ability to serve; “According to the AP, a rule that was intended to cover cases where a governor is incapacitated for health reasons. Her motion indicates that his inability to serve because of the scandal is akin to a debilitating health issue.” Thankfully, the Illinois Supreme Court denied her request to relieve the Governor from his duties. I understand she is the state’s top attorney and she must ensure justice, but something smells fishy about going after him without any criminal convictions. Apparently, they’ve had a history of rivalry, with Madigan not siding with the Gov. over releasing public records and talks of her being a candidate for Obama’s seat and governorship in 2010.

Then there’s Governor Blago, who according to the WSJ: “Through his attorney, Mr. Blagojevich has denied any wrongdoing. He told the clergymen that he is innocent and will be vindicated ‘when you hear each chapter completely written,’ according to one of the pastors.” Each chapter huh, looks like I’ll snuggle up with a beer and some nachos and enjoy reading each chapter. Also, in today’s WSJ, he’s retained Edward Genson, a seasoned Chicago lawyer, who’s represented mobsters, politicians, and a rap star. “You don’t hire Eddie Genson if you’re going to plead guilty,” said one Chicago lawyer. I’m wondering if Blago is seriously taking on the feds or if he’s looking for a deal to take anyone down, we already know one prominent Ill. dem has.

Then there’s the letter sent to Gov. Blago from Senate dems telling him to resign so his prints aren’t on Obama’s successor. If he doesn’t step down and still appoints a replacement, the Senate dems “would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority … to determine whether such a person should be seated.” Basically, they wouldn’t recognize the newly named replacement, so much for party unity. Then, there’s discussion if that would be even allowed by the Constitution, check out this link to fivethirtyeight.com which talks about it.

I’m ecstatic Gov. Blagojevich is on his way to proceedings to defend himself, it’s what our Constitution guarantees, but the real enjoyment comes from watching Democrats squirm from what might come out.

I had an idea this day would come. We’re a business that sells a luxury good, tickets, and during tough times, many people are being cost-conscious and not spending money on entertainment events. We rely on mainly wealthier people that have the means to spend hundreds maybe thousands on sports or theatre events, not to say that less wealthy people don’t buy, because they do, but not enough of them buy to supplant the buying power of one wealthy customer. (The epitome of supply-side econ. benefits) So without people spending, we had to stop taking paychecks, essentially lay ourselves off. We’re a employee owned and operated company, so we’re going to do what it takes to keep the company afloat without going into complete failure. We’ll still pay our bills, still sell our product, and come to work, albeit on a shortened day.

The question is how do i feel today. Well, I am disappointed because I took a huge chance and pay cut by leaving a large multinational corporation to come start a business, and essentially lost. I feel for my two co-workers that put in the time alongside me and do their best to make this company great. However, there is one thing I’m not and that is worried. I am not worried because I will understand the lesson of failure, similar to the rest of American small businesses that suffer, but unlike some businesses that are begging for a bailout without taking an honest look at themselves and their model. I will take a look at what works, what doesn’t work, and restructure our model that works for us and has us coming out stronger.

I see this event as what makes our country great; the fact that businesses can endure hardships every day, but we can work our tails off, go to bed at night, and wake up the next morning with optimism that our hard work will get us out of this.

Dear Congress,
If reports are true, and there will be a bailout for the big three, I demand to voice my suggestion to each company as someone who has a stake of their tax dollars being loaned to the companies.

As a stipulation for receiving funding, one of the companies should resurrect an American classic, a part of American lore, an as American as apple pie… I’m talking about the Delorean DMC-12. Think about how it affected the history of America. It shot Michael J. Fox to superstardom and sent John Delorean to bankruptcy court.

Instead of apologizing for making unattractive cars, bringing back the DMC-12 would appeal to a new generation of Americans. Celebrities love the Italian sports cars with the gull-wing doors that open up, well the DMC-12 opens up and it’s fast. Beat that Ferrari.

Obviously, there will need to be some reconfiguration, make it a little lighter for gas efficiency and maybe make a limited Doc Brown series that appeals to us Reagan babies. Please give this idea a shot, if it fails, we can power up the flux capacitor and pretend it never happened.

Best Regards,
Michael Ferragamo

Fox News.com is reporting a story which explains why Rhode Island is a failing state operated by a handcuffed Republican governor that must answer to a General Assembly filled with 93 Democrats out of 113 total members (82%), (which is a little less than the percentage of MA’s supermajority, 87.5%)

Anyways, the story discusses Rhode Island coming up with new ideas to tax the heck raise money to fund infrastructure repairs. Ideas include:

Taxing state residents a half-cent for every mile they drive, which could raise $50 million annually. The rate could vary based on vehicle weight.
– Imposing a $3 toll for cars and a $6 toll for trucks on Interstate 95 near the Connecticut border. The effort would start in 2014 and would raise an estimated $39 million annually. Additional tolls could be placed near the border with Massachusetts on Interstate 195 and near the northern ends of Interstates 95 and 295.
– Charging tolls on all three bridges linking Aquidneck Island, which includes Newport, to the mainland.
– At least doubling the $60 registration fee for passenger cars.
– Raising the state gasoline tax by 5 to 15 cents.

I believe the last thing Rhode Island needs to do is raise taxes or fees especially in the current economic environment, and the fact that RI has the highest employment rate in the country should serve notice that if Providence wants to maintain jobs and still receive tax revenue, its as simple as making RI a little more attractive to businesses because as the Tax Foundation points out; they are the worst state in the country for biz. tax climate and the 7th highest corp. tax. Instead, the boneheads over at Federal Hill are “taking nothing off the table.”

Then leave it to the RI transportation bureaucracy to spin this into a environmental issue, because it’s not the citizens that matter;

Director of the Dept. of Transportation said besides raising money for road repairs, the miliage tax would discourage motorists from making unnecessary trips and reduce the harmful tailpipe emissions responsible for smog and global warming.

If RI wants to fix roads, why not enact a capital bond bill that will spur investment into the state and will not rely on raising taxes in the short term. Many of the citizens and businesses are already struggling with the taxes and fees placed on them, why not help them out this holiday season?

Fox News.com is reporting a story which explains why Rhode Island is a failing state operated by a handcuffed Republican governor that must answer to a General Assembly filled with 93 Democrats out of 113 total members (82%), (which is a little less than the percentage of MA’s supermajority, 87.5%)

Anyways, the story discusses Rhode Island coming up with new ideas to tax the heck raise money to fund infrastructure repairs. Ideas include:

Taxing state residents a half-cent for every mile they drive, which could raise $50 million annually. The rate could vary based on vehicle weight.
– Imposing a $3 toll for cars and a $6 toll for trucks on Interstate 95 near the Connecticut border. The effort would start in 2014 and would raise an estimated $39 million annually. Additional tolls could be placed near the border with Massachusetts on Interstate 195 and near the northern ends of Interstates 95 and 295.
– Charging tolls on all three bridges linking Aquidneck Island, which includes Newport, to the mainland.
– At least doubling the $60 registration fee for passenger cars.
– Raising the state gasoline tax by 5 to 15 cents.

I believe the last thing Rhode Island needs to do is raise taxes or fees especially in the current economic environment, and the fact that RI has the highest employment rate in the country should serve notice that if Providence wants to maintain jobs and still receive tax revenue, its as simple as making RI a little more attractive to businesses because as the Tax Foundation points out; they are the worst state in the country for biz. tax climate and the 7th highest corp. tax. Instead, the boneheads over at Federal Hill are “taking nothing off the table.”

Then leave it to the RI transportation bureaucracy to spin this into a environmental issue, because it’s not the citizens that matter;

Director of the Dept. of Transportation said besides raising money for road repairs, the miliage tax would discourage motorists from making unnecessary trips and reduce the harmful tailpipe emissions responsible for smog and global warming.

If RI wants to fix roads, why not enact a capital bond bill that will spur investment into the state and will not rely on raising taxes in the short term. Many of the citizens and businesses are already struggling with the taxes and fees placed on them, why not help them out this holiday season?

From the diaries, by Erick.

The WSJ has an interesting opinion piece written by David Kopel, of the Cato Institute. It discusses the recent news regarding Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress and the incident in a New York nightclub where he possessed an unlicensed, in NY, loaded glock and he accidently shot himself in the leg. The point Mr. Kopel brings up is regarding New York City’s gun law, which states if a person is found to be carrying a firearm illegally, it carries a minimum three and a half year prison sentence, and how it punishes those that are discriminated by the state for not recognizing out of state permits and not issuing permits to non-residents, which in the wake of Heller, is up for discussion.

Read More →

The left have always transformed their positions on issues, depending on which way the wind is blowing. They claim to stand for individual rights, while imposing government’s will on society. They stand for a Darwinian approach to life, as Erick noted,, until the situation is ripe for the usurpation of power to dominate the weak. The current financial situation shows the internal conflict of being a liberal. Their stands of personal freedom and “survival of the fittest” are being tested right now with the financial crisis. I’m going to look at their Darwinian views on a couple issues in America and then look at the financial crisis. I know it’s comparing apples and oranges, but it’s worth a look.

Read More →

I know most on here don’t follow Massachusetts politics, but we had a ballot question that would of abolished the income tax here, but it failed. Then today a state agency decided to increase tolls, after they increased them last year. I wrote this today for publication in our weekly university newspaper.
Tolls increased

Article appearing in Mass Media, UMass Boston’s independent newspaper.

Change they believe in!

Admit it. Admit you were nervous about what would happen to the state if we voted to eliminate the income tax. Tell me you were scared by the ads of cutting health care, teachers, and policemen. If it passed, property taxes would have skyrocketed because we all know that towns can override Prop. 2 ½, without a vote, and raise them (It’s a lie they can’t). So you stepped into the voting booth and marked no on question one.

You sucker, you fell for it. You fell for the lies and propaganda that the state and unions put on the airwaves as an excuse for them to be fiscally responsible with our money. Change was in the air, and like fools, you believed Massachusetts would go along for the ride. It isn’t ‘change’ when Democrats gain more of a stranglehold on Mass. Politics. The occurrence of ‘change’ on November 14th should teach you a lesson.

Read on…

Read More →