Long Time, No See

I've taken a break for a while. I got so worked up during the election, I was giving my blood pressure and adrenal glands a bit of a break. But, oh my heavens, some of the stuff that's out there now is equally able to make my blood boil.

I stumbled across this story today. It seems a bit harmless, until you read the entire article to gather all the Saul Alinksy connections.

Obama quotes Alinsky in speech to young Israelis
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/obama-quotes-alinsky-in-speech-to-young-israelis/#TsgXEgzGAbLcoJ8E.99 

The anger is due to my true belief that this man was elected only because of the color of his skin and not the content of his character, and no one was willing to hear or see his true agenda or the story of his background and influences.

And, as I was getting out of the car this afternoon, I heard a sound bite of his speech to the Palestinians. Mere days after he stood in front of Israelis and told them that they had no greater friend that the USA, her turns around and verbally spanks them in Palestine. I guess I thought he went to Israel first to display an order of priority, but I now wonder if it was to give him a chance to undo anything he said in Israel as he visits Palestine and Jordan.

It's clear that his sympathies are pro-Islamic, so I guess it must've hurt his little ol' feelings that Islamic resistance movement, Hamas, chose to fire missiles into Israel while he was there. Clearly, his presence in the White House didn't have the mystical-magical effect of instantaneously making all Islamic nations  love us again.

What an amateur...except for one thing: his ability to keep us from seeing his truth.

Power Grab

Immediately after earning accolades from the world for brokering a cease fire between Hamas and Israel, Egypt's president Morsi issues a decree, granting himself wide-ranging unchecked powers. Coincidence? I think not.

His involvement in the Gaza situation made him a player on the world stage. He gained instant credibility and political capital. Much like a 5-year-old with a dollar bill in his pocket as he walks into a candy or toy store, Morsi couldn't wait to spend it. It's a little disturbing.

Even more disturbing is the fact that we have a newly-elected president with a penchant himself for executive fiat. It's interesting to me that I haven't heard anyone draw an analogy between the two. Maybe it's happened, and I've just missed it. Maybe people are afraid to put the idea out there in case it gets snatched up. Maybe I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist in my middle age.

What does he have to lose? He doesn't have to be elected again, and he clearly has the mindset that he can do whatever he wants, because he feels that he was handed a mandate in the election.

Give it a thought...

It's the Evil Rich? {sigh}

During the weeks it took for many of my FaceBook friends to get their power back after Hurricane Sandy, I was relieved to see that some of them had purchased generators so they could continue to reside in their homes. 

Enter Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times op-ed section and his article "A Failed Experiment." Apparently, use of private generators is part of an evil plot on the part of the wealthy to create workarounds on the backs of the rest of the public. (I wonder if my liberal friends in the Northeast realize that they've just become part of the evil rich?)

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to him that towns, counties and states are lagging in the revenue they need to support their services, not because of tax cuts for the "wealthy," but because of the dire state of the economy where tens of millions of people are unemployed, under-employed or have been forced into early retirement, leaving no income or too little income to tax. And homes are being abandoned for foreclosure, because they can't be sold for a decent price, so property taxes are not being paid. We all know that we can't tax our way out of this. Even if you tax the evil rich 100% of their income, it wouldn't even come close.

I'll say this about Mr. Kristof: I know nothing about him, but from the tone of his writing, I believe he means well. He doesn't seem to be the type of Democrat with a hidden agenda. He seems to be an ivory-tower liberal that espouses all the ideals that allow folks like him, my mother and the somehow-not-so-evil-rich celebrities on the left coast to puff up their chests and feel good when they look in the mirror. I do believe his heart is in the right place, but I also believe he's misguided. He's fallen in love with the way of life in Europe and the Middle East as only someone who can come home to the sanity of the United States can do. And what makes this type dangerous is that they set themselves up as pawns for Democrat politicians whose motives may not be quite so pure.

I may have said it before, but if not I'll say it now. There are politicians and "community organizers" (code for those who make their livings by exploiting minorities) out there who pretend to be working for the poor/"underprivileged"/disenfranchised/etc., but whose real goal in life seems to be punishment of anyone who has achieved something. The tax on the rich is not to benefit the poor...it's revenge. The true beneficiaries of all this class warfare are the purveyors of said class warfare—the liberal political class.

But when they go after the wealthy, they always seem to forget that if someone is that wealthy, they have the means to take that wealth and relocate to somewhere else where it won't be confiscated for the benefit of someone who hasn't earned it. That's a component of socialism, folks. And to quote Margaret Thatcher, "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money." They also forget that money not gained by your own labor is neither appreciated or spent wisely. Punishing the rich will not truly benefit the poor. 

Taxing the rich is not the solution. Food stamp EBT cards and free phones are not the answer. Back-to-back years of unemployment benefits are not the answer. Giving people anything is not the answer...fish, for example. I'm no Biblical scholar, but it doesn't take either a scholar or a Christian to understand the concept that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Here in the South, we like sugar and sweetness. Our sweet tea is like syrup and  so are our disparaging remarks. So, in closing, all I can think to say about Mr. Kristof is bless his heart...

The New Definition of Bipartisanship

I thought I knew what bipartisanship meant, but ever willing to admit if I'm wrong, I double-checked with our friends over at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...and here's what they said:

: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Yep...that's what I thought. I really just wanted to check for the "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" part, because watching recent events, you would think that the word bipartisan—particularly when used in combination with the noun "solution"—means "involving a compromise or concession on the part of the Republican Party in favor of the philosophies of the Democrat party."

I could have sworn that during the debates, Barack Obama promised that he was suddenly willing to work with Republicans to achieve a bipartisan solution. But since the election, while we hear conciliatory/flexible language from John Boehner, Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham regarding revenue (even tax hikes), there is no indication of flexibility coming from the left. 

There must be a tax hike on the wealthy (the debate about whether a couple making upwards of $250K/year makes you wealthy or one of the evil "millionaires and billionaires" will have to wait until another rant), and there must be yet another increase in the debt ceiling, even though it was a concession on the debt ceiling last year that got us into this sequestration mess to begin with. 

Obama says, "Let's begin our work with where we agree," indicating that Congress should go ahead and pass legislation to "hold down rates on the majority of Americans." Oh, and they'll work on spending cuts later...after they raise the debt ceiling so they can spend more money.

And I some oceanfront property I'd like to sell you in Arizona...

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

I don't know anything about David Petraeus personally or professionally. Every time I've seen him on television, he's seemed very professional. He's a highly-decorated 4-star general and holds a PhD. You don't reach those levels in your career and academia if you're stupid or have no honor...or without having all the skeletons in your closet deeply probed to make sure that he didn't have anything there that would make you vulnerable and put national security at risk. And, it's not insignificant that he's the director of the CIA, where they take snooping to the highest possible level.

So, with all that in mind, doesn't it seem the least bit odd that he would be caught in the most pedestrian of indiscretions? And isn't the timing interesting? After Bengazi...after "intelligence" was thrown under the bus, after the election...but just before he was to testify before Congress.

I won't go so far as to say that he was set up...that someone targeted him and seduced him because they wanted to "have something on him" in order to control him. However, I will say that this has to be more than coincidental. At the very least, this story is a distraction from the Bengazi hearings, and at worst, it takes him, and any information he could impart, out of play during those hearings.

On a personal note, as much as I feel that infidelity is inexcusable, and it always makes me sad, I do respect him for coming clean. I admire him for owning it instead of burying it under a vague "personal reasons" excuse. 

In semi-related news, Chris Kubasik, the president of Lockheed Martin was asked to resign for having an "close, personal relationship" with a subordinate.

Good heavens, this puts a damper on the romance of Friday night date night. Zippers are not a new invention. Do high-powered men need to get instructions on how to keep them closed with every pair of pants they buy? {sigh}

What Mandate?

It's over. Thank goodness. The only thing worse than four more years of Obama and Biden would've been four more years of Obama and Biden after a protracted election dispute.

I stayed up late enough to see the results, but not late enough to hear Obama's victory speech. Tonight, I risked physical illness to listen to the full speech. (I can't help it. It's how he changes the intonation depending on his audience...and that clipped cadence that tap dance on my very last nerve.)

First, let's digress a moment and talk about the phrase "give back." That implies that the fruits of Romney's and Ryan's labor were given to them in the first place. Well, 'cause you know, you didn't build that. {sigh} 

And secondly, the girls are charming young ladies, but some of us have not, and never will, fall in love with Michelle. She's a little too condescending and always looks likes she's just smelled something foul. She's just not nice. And as much as the media would like to make you believe it, wearing a teeny-tiny belt under an understated bustline does not make you a fashion icon.

But on to the main topic of my second rant of the day. In case you never went back to look, the final results were:


Barack Obama    60481384 50%
Mitt Romney 57678451 48%

It wasn't a cake walk...and he wasn't handed a mandate. Even ABC News admits that. We didn't all get together, hold hands and sing Kumbaya and validate his policies and his vision for moving forward to "perfect" our nation (the implication being that only he can make it perfect...grrr). He needs to remember that 48% of us didn't want him in office again. And, oh, by the way, there were some of those others who only considered him the lesser of two evils, not necessarily a candidate they really wanted.

So, President Obama, you wanted four more years? You've got it. But we're watching more closely now. A little bit of the bloom is off the rose. Even the mainstream, leftward-leaning, selectively-editing media calls you out...every now and then. The comedians have started having a little fun at your expense. You've been fact checked and found to have a somewhat loose relationship with the truth. 

Hope is broken and the change has been disappointing. We all have wounds from these last four years, even if we're fortunate enough to remain gainfully employed. My husband and I are extraordinarily fortunate, but even so, we've lost $50,000 in the value of our home (in spite of spending a small fortune on a full kitchen renovation) since I last had it appraised two years ago. That was well into your watch, Mr. Obama, so let's not blame good ol' W for that, K?

The time has come to roll up your sleeves for more than a photo op. You've spent the last four years campaigning, but you don't have that excuse anymore. It's time to quit blaming Bush and making excuses, park the big, fun airplane and do the job you've been avoiding. Let your celebrity friends have parties without you. Golfing and basketball will have to wait. And those daily security briefings? You should probably take those in person instead of on paper. You may even want to ask a question or two. Jobs council meetings? Perhaps those are important too.

You've promised to get things done. Some of us know that sequestration was your administration's idea to begin with, and now it's your cross to bear. Fix it. Obama-phones, Obamacare, birth control pills and Margie's food stamps aren't guaranteed in the Constitution, but the federal government's responsibility to provide for the common defense is. The fiscal cliff is looming, and the military who will provide our defense is at risk for going over the edge. And, just in case someone forgot to tell you, bipartisanship doesn't mean "the Republicans always concede." It means you'll have to learn to communicate without a teleprompter and make a few concessions of your own.

And after you make sure the military won't suffer, you should probably mend fences with the intelligence folks you threw under the bus after the spin you created to protect your "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run" myth backfired on you. We need them to provide information to the military about the enemy. Don't worry, though. Even if the worst is revealed when the truth comes out, no one will talk about impeachment. Choosing Joe Biden instead of Hilary Clinton for your VP was a great strategic move. 

Never forget, there is another election in two years. Another opportunity for Republicans to put forward better candidates than Richard Mourdock, and you just might lose your Senate majority. You haven't seen a lame duck like that the one you'll see in the mirror if that happens. 

You're one of the most incredibly arrogant and narcissistic human beings I've ever seen, so you should be happy now. All eyes are on you. But you're lucky. Even those of us who don't like you, love our country. We'd like nothing better than to see you succeed and have to admit that we're wrong. On the other hand, if you don't clean up this mess, Hell hath no fury like the next Democrat candidate will face...or, like what her husband will turn on you should your poor performance makes it impossible for her to achieve her dream. I wouldn't want anyone with the last name of Clinton that upset with me.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

Good Lord, how many times have we heard that? And we still don't get it. And until we get it, there's no good way to get a conservative of any type in the White House or to get control of the Senate.

Republicans and conservatives, let me say it clearly: let go of the moral right social issues or NO conservative values will prevail. 

There are many one-issue voters out there among the independents. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would've been the best thing to happen to the economy, and independents probably recognized that, but if you have a bunch of stodgy, out-of-touch old white guys out there spouting moronic crap about abortion or same-sex marriage, they will vote against anyone else of the same party out of fear.

You can't legislate morality. You can't control the moral behavior of others. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one!! If you don't want your daughter to have an abortion, be a good parent and teach her your own family's values!!! But if the girl down the street chooses to have an abortion, for whatever reason, it's not your business. You have a right to your faith, your values and your opinions...and so does she.

Same thing for same-sex marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! If you don't want your daughter or son to marry someone of the same gender, that's a little more complicated than imparting values, but I would hope that you'd prefer your child to be happy in a committed relationship than to live a lie and be miserable. And, as for the hypothetical couple down the street (since I don't think my current very small subdivision has any same-sex partners), it's not anyone's business but theirs. Furthermore, if a gay or lesbian couple gets marriage, it has no bearing on the sanctity of my marriage your marriage or the institution of marriage as a whole. I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: as someone who's been divorced twice, I've contributed more to the decay of the institution of marriage than any gay or lesbian couple I know. It's up to me to right that ship--with the help, of course, of the fabulous man who is now my husband.

I know some truly amazing people in loving relationships with partners of the same gender. You can't paint them with the brush of the erroneous stereotype of a promiscuous gay lifestyle, then turn around and refuse them the deepest level of a loving commitment. How dare any of us presume to speak for whatever higher power or creator we believe in.

Libertarians and other fiscal conservatives join with Republicans because there's no other way to get to a majority to elect politicians who claim to have fiscal sanity. Other parties will never stand a chance, because of the media coverage and exclusions from the debates. So we're stuck with each other.

But unless you want to see our country go with policies that are diametrically opposed to everything you believe in, perhaps you should go for part of what you believe in. Stop trying to control the moral behavior of others. Until you do, you will continue to have a party in power who want to and will be able to control important parts of your behavior and, even worse, your liberties.

When it comes to issues that don't harm others and won't affect you directly, I respectfully suggest that you live and let live. If it comes down to it, a good economy, national defense and your second amendment rights should be a top priority for your leader. Otherwise, you won't have the freedom to live according to your faith and values.