We Now Have the Perfect Government

With a split Congress both parties will either have to work together or die. The people have voted for change for the third election cycle in a row (2006, 2008 and 2010). The American people have once again said "hey, you're not listening. We don't like how D.C. is doing things".

It's probably best that Harry Reid won too. This way he either gets to redeem himself or he'll be the lasting symbol of the Democrats 2010 failure which will trigger more change in 2012. Keep in mind; the Senators running for re-election in 2012 are from the Senate class of 2006 which is mostly Democrats following their sweeping victories. If things don't improve by 2012 another Voter Revolution may ensue leaving a heavy Republican majority in the Senate.

This will work out best for the American people if both parties embrace their unique opportunities:

1. If the Republican House proposes fair legislation that the Democrat Senate can pass the Democrat President will have to sign it.
   
2. If the Republican House keeps sending far-right agenda legislation at the Democrat Senate they won't pass it and the Democrats will have a reason to point fingers at the Republican in 2012 and retain the White House.
   
3. If the Republican House sends fair legislation to the Democrat Senate and they don't pass it the Republicans will be able to point fingers at the Democrats and increase their chances of winning the White House in 2012
   
4. If the Republican House proposes fair legislation that the Democrat Senate can pass but the Democrat President Vetoes it the Republican's can point fingers at the Democrats and increase their chances of winning the White House in 2012.
   

If scenario 1 above is followed the American people will be the winners and Obama will probably be a two-term President. That's the best case Scenario for all of us.

The good thing is that neither party can be the "Party of NO" and remain in power in 2012.

Unofficial Founder of the Tea Party

No, this isn't a criticism so just follow along. Obama is the one who preached "Hope and Change". His message was one against the establishment and "business as usual" of the professional politicians in Washington D.C. The message hit a chord with many Americans and he won the election. In the subsequent two years that change hasn't been fully realized to the degree that many more Americans would like. Thus, to continue the promised change in Washington, the Tea Party emerged. Therefore, in an unintended way, Barack Obama is the unofficial founder of the Tea Party. The message of "Hope and Change" is still going strong against the career politicians in D.C.

Michelle Obama Disbarred?

Did you know that Michelle Obama only practiced law for less than 5 years? She passed the bar in 1989 (2nd attempt) and stopped practicing in 1993. Did you also know that her inactive status as a lawyer was court ordered?

I got one of those emails that make the rounds with truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. I saw the picture they posted on a blog but it could’ve been altered. Thus, I went to the ARDC (Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission of Illinois) website myself and looked it up. Sure enough; it’s true. Her inactivity was court ordered. It doesn’t explain why but it does clearly state “…court ordered inactive status”. I wonder what she did for that to happen?

https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=326158583

On the flip side; Barack’s record clearly states that he voluntarily retired from practicing law. Thus, she clearly didn’t voluntarily retire.

https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=928352475

What? The transparent Obama's hide something? I am shocked!

Healthcare is inching closer

Even though the people don't want it. 59% of those who have an opinion don't want THIS reform. Most people don't argue that we need reform it's just the costly reform we're getting that's the issue. After this we're going to need perpetual reform for the next few decades to clean up this mess. Even with the final vote nearing its ugly head there will be more debate and votes in our future. This isn't over. Ugh.

http://www.seattlepi.com/politico/413527_politico30894.html?source=mypi0

Remember, congress does makes mistakes.

But, no need to worry. I'm sure Palin will fix it all in 2012.

One problem with passing legislation the people don't want is it doesn't help you get re-elected. Especially when the taxes start NOW and the benefits don't start until way after any second term would begin. In 2012 the people who are un-insured today will still be un-insured and will be wondering where their healthcare is. A "smart" opponent running against our rookie President will use this to their advantage and get a nice giant White House to move into in January 2013.

Hugo Chavez says "No" Too

Seems Socialist Venezuela Leader and avid Obama supporter Hugo Chavez doesn't think he should've won either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE59A1MU20091011

Also in the article is aging Fidel Castro making note of Americas "genocidal" policies? Really? Genocidal? Does the senile old communist fart even know what genocide means?

- the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Where are we "deliberately and systematically" trying to "exterminate" ANYONE? Being at war with someone does not equal "genocide". If war now means genocide then there are a lot of genocides going on in the world. I guess whenever the Irish bomb a British pub they're practicing genocide. When the Palestinians bomb an Israeli marketplace it must be genocide. When Russia invaded Geogia last year I guess that was genocide. What an idiot.

Barack H. Obama Peace Prize?

I was looking at a list of past winners. Most of these are for "lifes work". Many of them for decades of work. We also don't know who the competition for Obama was. They don't reveal that information. He may have been the best choice based on the competition. We won't know for 50 years according their rules.

Here's a link to the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

• Kofi Annan is on there. He's the leader of the U.N. that botched the Iraq WMD search which lead to the eventual invasion.
• John Hume and David Trimble won in 1998. Bill Clinton worked with these two on peace in Northern Irelend and he didn't get included in the award.
• Yasser Arafat is on the list in 1994 so they're not perfect.
• At least Mother Theresa got one. She deserved it.
• Sadat and Begin won in 1978 but, like Clinton, Jimmy Carter was left out (he later won in 2002 for his decades of work and deserved it).
• Awesome, Lech Walesa won in 1983. Now what he did in Poland was truly an accomplishment bucking big bad Russia.
• Henry Kissinger won in 1973 for the "Paris Agreement". Looks like that was also an award based on promise rather than actual since the Paris Agreement didn't work.
• Martin Luther King won in 1964; that's a good choice.
• Albert Schweitzer won; another good choice.
• Woodrow Wilson won in 1919 for his League of Nations. Of course, America never actually joined the league of nations but it did later evolve into the United Nations. Not bad. I guess on this one the "promise" eventually panned out.
• Teddy Roosevelt won in 1906 for actually ending a war and creating peace without any troops. That's a good one.

Al Gore won in 2007 for making a DVD. Albeit it was a good DVD but a Peace Prize?

In Al Gore's win there was much speculation that Europe was trying to coax him into running for President (that's the speculaton on his Oscar win in Hollywood too). I'm not knocking Gore. It was a darn good DVD but is also miscontrued by many people. They forget to mention things that even Al Gore said because it doesn't fit their agenda. I need to watch it again. I really liked it.

All-in-all it looks like the Peace Prize isn't always accurate like any other award or us humans in general. Kissinger shouldn't have won. They should've waited to see if the plan even worked...it didn't. Woodrow Wilson's was a little pre-mature. In hindsight it eventually led to the United Nations so they lucked out. Bill Clinton should've been included in 1998 but wasn't. Jimmy Carter should've been included in 1978 but wasn't. He later won what he deserved in 2002 so that worked itself out over time. Many others won like they should have. A lot of the people on the list I've never heard of.

Only time will tell if Barack Obama is Henry Kissinger or Woodrow Wilson. Will the promise of peace pay off or will reality result in his award missing the mark?

Testing Obama

Here’s an article about Obama being tested so far. It’s pretty good. It’s not making any accusations or conclusions. It’s just laying out the tests thus far that Biden promised and how only time will tell if he’s passed the tests or not.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22370.html

Most of these are lose-lose situations. They’re pretty hard to deal with no matter who you are. But, the problem is that these tests shouldn’t have happened. Many of these tests have occurred because the villains in these cases are not gaw-gaw Europeans in awe of our Celebrity in Chief. They view him as weak and do not respect him. It’s not how many people like and respect Obama that matters. It’s those who don’t that we have to be concerned about.

Approval Ratings

"The president continues to be highly regarded. By solid majorities of 65 percent or more, those surveyed said he has a vision for the country's future, has brought dignity back to the White House and is a strong leader willing to make hard decisions," reported a CNN/Gallup Poll.

Hey, not bad. Except that was written near the end of 2003 about George W. Bush. My how the tide can change quickly. Watch out for the undertow.

The current CNN/Gallup Presidential approval rating poll has Barack Obama slipping from 67% on inauguration day to 62% on April 5th. The Rasmussen poll had Barack Obama at 65% on inauguration day and sliding to 56% by April 5th.

While the numbers themselves aren’t that important they do both show the same trend. His approval ratings are sliding. The public as a whole are not as enamored with him as they were 70+ days ago.

Rasmussen uses another telling number along with their daily presidential tracking numbers. They see one key differential being between those “Strongly Approving” and those “Strongly Disapproving”. The day after his inauguration Obama had a +28 differential. 44% strongly approved while only 16% strongly disapproved. That key differential, while slipping, still remained in double-digits until March. On April 5th he had only a +6 differential with 36% strongly approving and 30% strongly disapproving. As of April 13th that differential is down to +2% with 34% strongly approving and 32% strongly disapproving.

As we learned in the time between 2003 and 2008 anything can happen. Will Obama’s ratings get better or worse…yes. They will do both. Where they will end up…nobody knows. Currently the trend is down. Hopefully for all our sakes that will change. Only time will tell.

AIG punitive bonus tax

Wednesday night on Jay Leno President Obama avoided the answer to Jay’s direct question about Congress’s taxing a selected group of citizens just because they’re mad at them.

President Obama on Thursday commended the House for passing the measure.

"Today's vote rightly reflects the outrage that so many feel over the lavish bonuses that AIG provided its employees at the expense of the taxpayers who have kept this failed company afloat," he said. "I look forward to receiving a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/bonus.bill/index.html

But on Sunday’s 60 Minutes he said:

The president also stressed that his administration won't endorse a House bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid out by companies that receive bailout money.

"As a general proposition, you don't want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals," Obama said. "You want to pass laws that have some broad applicability ... you certainly don't want to use the tax code to punish people."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/22/obama.60.minutes/index.html

Which is it BARRY? Are we taxing/punishing them or not?

Mexico City Rule

President Barack Obama has lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for clinics or groups which provide abortion services or counseling for abortions overseas. The rule previously prohibiting this practice has been known as the Mexico City Rule. It has been called the Mexico City Rule because it was unveiled at a U.N. conference there in 1984.

Under this rule, no U.S. government funding for family planning services can be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.

This has been a good rule. There is no way to truly determine where the money came from that a Government agency sends to a foreign agency. They can claim “oh, these were private dollars we collected and sent to Bolivia”. There’s no fool proof way of knowing for sure. If you find $20 on the street and spend it on pop and candy you still have your own money sitting in the bank. If you spend $20 of your own money on a movie and popcorn it can easily be argued that you spent YOUR $20 on pop and candy and the FOUND money on a movie and popcorn.

Besides, this IS NOT about whether anyone believes in abortion or not. Whether you’re Pro Choice or Pro Life it is not OK to send our hard earned tax dollars to a foreign country to pay for their abortions. Our tax dollars should go towards more important issues that affect Americans. If you want to send money to a foreign country to pay for their abortions then write a check. I’m sure they’ll accept it.

Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber asked Barack Obama "I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” Ever since then the crucifixion of Joe the Plumber has begun.

His Divorce papers have been read on the radio, it’s been claimed that he’s not even a plumber, and he’s been accused of being a McCain campaign “plant” even though Obama was wandering through HIS neighborhood. Many times the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign of politics of distraction. Isn’t that what the Democrats and their puppet news outlets are doing now?

Joe the Plumber and his life aren’t even relevant. What IS relevant is the question he asked Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s revealing answer. Obama stated, "If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that for $250,000 up… you'd go from 36% to 39%, which is where it was under Bill Clinton." He went on to explain “it’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”.

“Spread the wealth around”? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Who is he; Robin Obamahood now? How is it fair to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who haven’t? Isn’t this SOCIALISM?

After Obama wins I think I’ll retire. Why not? With all those rich people making $250,000 or more sending me checks every month who wouldn’t?

The Last Debate

If you're looking at substance John McCain eeked out a narrow victory. But, it wasn't what he needed.

Barack Obama was on the defensive most of the night but that was probably the game plan. He was just trying to not make a mistake. In Football that's called a "prevent defense". When you have the lead you just hang on and try not to give up the big play the puts your opponent back in the game.

John McCain's problem is he doesn't know how to elaborate clearly. He had several opportunities but he missed them all. He misses the "key" words that stick in peoples minds. When discussing William Ayers he was right in saying the association didn't matter but what he should've added was "it's not the association that matters but the coverup of this association and others". The word "coverup" would've stood out. Everyone knows that both Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's scandal's were more about the "coverup" than the actual offense.

When talking about Partial Birth Abortion he should've looked at Obama and asked "do you even know what Partial Birth Abortion is? Do you understand that when the babies head begins to come out that they drill a hole in its head, stick a tube in and suck out its brain? Are you saying that that is OK?" THAT, would've had an impact.

When talking about taxes he should've explained that corporations don't really pay taxes. They pass that expense on to consumers as the cost of doing business. He also should've included in his talk about lowering corporate taxes that it'd help keep American jobs in America and reduce outsourcing because corporations will be able to afford to hire Americans. "Outsourcing" is a big concern with Americans these days.

To rebut Obama's middle-class tax cut he should've asked "what good is a lower tax rate on NO income?". Taxing the rich and giving to the poor will only increase prices because the business owners will hire less people, lay off more people, add the tax increase into their costs and increase the prices of their goods and services. Thus, those who still have a job will end up spending their "tax breaks" to pay for the business owners tax increases. You can either trickle down income or trickle up taxes. He also should've mentioned that 40% of Obama's 95% don't pay any taxes at all anyway. How are you going to give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes?

McCain is losing because he fails to say the right thing. Obama is winning because he fails to say the wrong thing.

Unfortunately neither party nominated their best candidate just the easiest to nominate.

The Audacity of Bad Judgment

At the Republican Convention Sarah Palin ad libbed a joke in response to audience cheers from Alaska women: "You know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" she asked, pausing perfectly. "Lipstick!" Since then there have been signs at the McCain/Palin rally's along the same lines stating "Read My Lipstick" and so forth with the "lipstick" theme. Sarah Palin, as far as we know, is the only one of the four candidates that wears lipstick on a regular basis (although I have my suspicions about Biden). Thus, the word "lipstick" is hers in this Presidential Campaign.

Yesterday, after commenting on the Republicans policies (or lack thereof), Senator Barack Obama punctuated his comments with the line "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig". Granted this is a very old line used to imply that no matter how much you pretty up something it doesn't change what it is. An ugly pig is still a pig and a bad policy is still a bad policy.

John McCain has used a similar line in the past about wrestling with pigs. When asked about Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's criticism of him as "a blatant opportunist'' McCain replied that he doesn't want to "go down" to that level and "I think it was Bob Dole, you know, that said you don’t want to get into a wrestling match with a pig, You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” This was an analogy about sinking to a low level rather than actually calling anyone a name.

Even IF Obama didn't intend to call Sarah Palin a pig was it a good idea to exercise bad judgment and use a line that can be construed as if he was calling Sarah Palin a pig? Even IF McCain was calling Howard Dean a "pig" is it a good idea to sink to the same low level and call the most popular Governor in the United States a "pig"? Is sinking to lower levels going to get us the change we need in Washington?

Awhile back Barack Obama convinced many people that while he lacked experience he would make up for it with good judgment. I try to pick out the rare things he says that I agree with in an attempt to accept him as our President should he win in November but then he goes and does silly childish things like this. When is this "good judgment" going to kick in? It seems he also has a lack of experience with GOOD judgment as well.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080910.htm

Senator Joe Biden (The Man who wants to be King)

Senator Barack Obama has now officially named Senator Biden as his running mate as Vice President. Normally the Vice President is quickly forgotten shortly after the Convention and then re-emerges for the one and only debate with the Vice President of the opposing party. Usually, the Presidential Candidate is the main focus, as it should be, until one is elected.

The presidential candidate should be strong enough to stand on their own and are typically present and/or former Governors. Ronald Regan was a two term Governor of California, Bill Clinton was a former Governor of Arkansas and so on. These men had the experience in dealing with both dominate parties to get a bill to pass, they learned how to deal with the various branches of their respective state’s government and what it takes to put a budget together and get it passed. Senator Obama is a junior Senator from Illinois who has never been in a position that provided him with any experience on how to govern a state much less than an entire nation. To add to his short resume, Mr.Obama knows nothing about Foreign Affairs, hence,, in comes Senator Joe Biden with his thirty plus years in the Senate and most recently as chairman of the very powerful “Foreign Relation Committee”.

So, the real question is: why would Mr. Biden give up his chairmanship to be Vice President?? To answer this one only has to look at the man himself. He has run several times for president, most recently here in 2008, but was rejected by the voters very early in the Primaries. Senator Biden is now 65 years old, which would make him 69 in 2012 and 73 in 2016. Basically, this year was his last shot for the number one position. As the major duty of the Vice President is to take over as President if something should happen to the residing President Senator Biden is vastly more qualified to be President than Senator Obama. Mr. Biden is old enough to be Mr. Obama’s father and is a very ambitious man who wants to be KING. Mr Biden would not give up his powerful chair seat on the ’Foreign Relations Committee’ unless there is something in it for him.

The Democrats have realized that Senator Obama does not have the skill set to be President and have therefore chosen Mr. Biden to be a Co-President. For the Man who wants to be KING, this is as close as Senator Biden will ever get to the Presidency.

This is the first election since I was old enough to vote that I believe that the selection of the Vice President is very important and may have a huge impact on determining which party will win the White House. Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have chosen poorly. Senator Obama should have chosen a current or former Governor around his own age, like Senator Bayh.
Senator McCain needs to choose a current or former Governor who has a great understanding of economics and is much younger than he is, like Mr. Mitt Romney

As for the Man who wants to be KING, Senator Biden will certainly overshadow Senator Obama all the way through to November.

Obama Biden Laden

Is Joseph Robinette Biden really the best pick for Vice President? I thought Mr. Barack Hussein Obama promised us CHANGE from typical Washington politics. Mr. Biden has been in Washington D.C. since his first election to the Senate in 1972. In 1972 John Sidney McCain III was still in a P.O.W. camp in Vietnam. Mr. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982 and after two terms was elected to the Senate in 1986. Thus, Mr. Biden has been in Washington D.C. 10 years LONGER than John McCain.

What happened to youth? Where’s this youthful energetic White House with fresh ideas we’re supposed to get? Mr. Biden is currently 65 and will turn 66 shortly after Election Day. He’s older than Hillary Clinton (60), John Edwards (55), Bill Richardson (60), Mitt Romney (61), Mike Huckabee (53) and well, just about everyone except John McCain who just turned 72.

What about health? A lot is made about John McCain’s health. Nothing has ever come of it. He’s a very healthy man especially with all he’s been through in his life. Joe Biden suffered two brain aneurysms in 1988. What other or continuing health concerns does he have that we don’t know about yet?

What about qualifications? Joe Biden is clearly more qualified to be President than Obama. Just like how Lyndon Baines Johnson was more qualified than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If Obama is still trying to recreate the Kennedy years has he forgotten what happened to JFK?

What about perception? Did nobody notice that their names together, “Obama Biden” look eerily similar to “Osama Bin Laden”? Like it or not perception is part of the game. That’s why Obama keeps trying to make McCain look like an bumbling old man and McCain tries to make Obama look like an unqualified elitist. Perception can be more dangerous than reality.

So, where are we? The age issue is out the window because Biden is not much younger than McCain. The Washington insider issue is out the window because Biden has been there 10 years longer than McCain. Thus, CHANGE is now out the window. If we don’t have change then what do we have left? Hope?