http://www.opendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=D302015 In God We Trust http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20895 http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20895 I have decided to move on to a new blogging venture. As such I will no longer be posting here on OD. I will still be around, reading OD's and commenting. I will leave this entry public for the exchange of notes and ideas. <br /> <br /> May the Lord richly bless you all in Christ.<br /> Steve Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20864 http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20864 The attempted Times Square bomber was, shockingly, a Muslim radical who recently spent 5 months in Pakistan. So much for left-wing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's contention that the attempted bomber was probably some radical anti-Obamacare nut. What's amazing is that the bomber almost got away. The FBI knew who the guy was hours before he was caught on a plane that was about to take off from JFK airport. It begs the question how he got on the plane if the FBI knew he was the prime terrorist suspect. You would think the Feds would be able to flag a major terrorist suspect on their do not fly list. Alas, it seems that once against government is incapable of doing anything right. These jokers want to micro-manage our healthcare but they can barely prevent a terrorist from escaping on a plane. He shouldn't have been able to board the plane in the first place. At least they caught him before it was to late. I wonder if Obama will order the FBI to question this Muslim radical about his position on Obamacare. After all, this administration desperately wants to prove that it isn't Muslims who are dangerous. It's those radical tea party protesters and anti-Obamacare people who are dangerous you know. Those wickedly dangerous grandma's and flag wavers who talk about freedom and rights. They're the dangerous ones. Not radical Muslims with bombs. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36738.html">LINK</a> & <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1986885,00.html">LINK</a> & <a href="http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/times.square.car.2.1672788.html">LINK</a><br /> <br /> It seems the Obama administration has a Katrina on its hands with their response to the oil rig leak in the Gulf. The administration has been woefully slow to respond and so far refuses to make any actual decisions regarding the spill. Team Obama is hunkered down in the White House debating what to do while oil continues to poor out. Now comes word that the EPA didn't even follow its own plan of action for dealing with an oil spill like this, they didn't even have a fire boom available. It's very easy to attack Obama for this problem and the Democrats wholeheartedly deserve to be attacked after their relentless attacks on Bush after Katrina. Katrina was proof that Bush and the Republicans hate blacks. Dare I say the oil rig is proof Obama and the Democrats hate whites. After all, it's white businesses and beaches that will be harmed. Of course, that's little more than a gratuitous game of gotcha and little more than a minor amusement at the expense of the arrogant left. What this oil rig spill and Katrina prove is that government is incapable of dealing effectively with disasters. They'll be the first to blame a lack of resources. The truth is they have the resources, what they don't have is the ability to make quick decisions. The endless bureaucracy in every single Federal agency and program makes it impossible for government to react quickly to any problem. Agencies don't work well together, they don't communicate with each other and they waste like none other. Their sole purpose for existing isn't to respond to disasters like the Gulf oil spill but rather their purpose for existing is to continue to receive additional funding every year and expansion of power. Whether or not they do their job has become irrelevant so long as funding continues to increase. The EPA deserves to be stripped of its funding for failing to follow its own plan of action but you and I both know that will never happen. The EPA will declare that they could have protected the Gulf if only they had more money. In 10 years another spill will happen or some other environmental disaster will happen and the EPA will fail to do anything properly and they'll once again demand more money. It's a never ending cycle of incompetence all at the expense of taxpayers. <a href="http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html">LINK</a> & <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0">LINK<br /> </a><br /> The following link is to an article which an overly glowing summary of Sarah Palin's moves since last July. The article is right about a number of things, most of which are policy related. She was right about the death panels and just about everyone except for Obamacare apologists admit that Palin was right. I dare say that's her biggest policy triumph. Palin has taken populist positions on drilling for oil, Israel and taxes which have aided her popularity. I think it's a touch absurd to suggest that Palin is responsible for a poll that shows a majority of Americans are pro-life. The country has been moving in that direction for two decades now, I find it hard to believe that Palin put the pro-life position over the top. The article points out that Palin's numbers have gone up substantially head to head against Obama. It also points out that she's earning $100k per appearance. It seems to me that Palin has a choice to make in the next six months. Does she desire to be President enough to give up the financial incentives of being a right-wing celebrity speaker? If Palin wins the GOP nomination, the election comes down to Ohio. So I guess the question becomes can Palin beat Obama in Ohio. There's little doubt Palin (or at this point just about any Republican) could win Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada and New Mexico for the GOP. I think she can win Ohio but it will be a tough battle. It's quite a gamble for Palin. If she runs and loses, she'll be a nothing has been who won't be able to make a lot of money. If she wins of course, she's President and once out of office will be able to make plenty to support her family. I know what I would do in her position. The question becomes how badly does she want the White House. <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/sarah_palin_is_on_a_roll_1.html">LINK</a><br /> <br /> The Tea Party protesters are violent, dangerous extremists according to the left-wing media and the endless yammerings of left-wingers. So far there have been no acts of violence at hundreds of Tea Party rallies across the country. On Saturday pro-illegal immigration protesters beat up a bunch of anti-illegal immigrant protesters. As usual, it's the left-wing protesters that are violent not the right-wing. But of course the media won't go on and on about violent liberal extremists. They'll either ignore the story or try to justify it. Left-wing protesters in this country have been violent for decades. Whether we're talking about union strikes in the 30's, Vietnam protests in the 60's, Black Panther attacks in the 60's and 70's, anti-IMF protests in the 90's and 2000's or the recent events in San Francisco. It's left-wing protests that are violent. Right-wing protests, when the right-wing bothers to protest, are peaceful. The Tea Parties have been little more than a bunch of grandma's and flag wavers talking about freedom and liberty. Only in the minds of the left is this dangerous and racist. Not all left-wing protests are violent of course, most are not. But the likelihood of violence occurring at a left-wing rally is infinitely higher than it is at a right-wing rally.  History simply speaks for itself. <a href="http://biggovernment.com/bdarby/2010/05/03/the-extreme-left-a-ticking-time-bomb/">LINK</a><br /> Tue, 4 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20863 http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20863 President Obama recently said "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." I wonder who is to determine how much is enough money for someone to earn. God hasn't given us such a standard, if the Lord did it would be contained in scripture. So who on Earth is to determine how much is enough. Obama? Congress? Government bureaucrats? I wonder what is enough in Obama's mind right now. Clearly $5.5 million isn't enough, that's how much the President earned last year. I wonder if the salary of some of the New York Yankees reaches the threshold. Derek Jeter is set to earn $22 million from the Yankees, Alex Rodriguez will earn $33 million. Is that too much in Obama's mind? Kobe Bryant made $23 million playing basketball for the Lakers. Is that too much? I wonder if Brad Pitt made too much for his last film or if James Cameron made too much for Avatar. I wonder if Katie Couric's salary is too much. Keith Olbermann earned $10 million at MSNBC last  year, is that too much? Oprah is said to be worth around $1 billion, she recently signed a $100 million endorsement deal with Procter & Gamble. Is that too much for Obama? Whatever the threshold is we know Obama's solution is for government to confiscate all money earned over the limit in the form of taxes. And in confiscating all money earned over the 'enough is enough' Obama standard, the economy will come to a screeching halt as the the rich retire rather than work for government. The question is whether Obama is a true believer in the quasi-marxist enough is enough rhetoric or whether he's simply playing class politics this week like he played race politics last week. Either way, Obama's statement is absurd and ridiculous. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/28/obama_to_wall_street_i_do_think_at_a_certain_point_youve_made_enough_money.html">LINK</a><br /> <br /> The Kennedy myth is getting taking on by the History Channel and the left is in a tizzy. Most of the nonsense out there about JFK and Camelot is complete nonsense. In fact the term Camelot wasn't even used until after he died. The truth about Kennedy is that he was a whoremonger who cheated repeatedly on his wife. He was a mediocre President who screwed up the Bay of Pigs and unintentionally brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. He wasn't nearly as liberal as he was made out to be after his death. But none of this is allowed to be mentioned in anything more than an offhand manner, lest the liberals flip out. The LBJ socialist Great Society was all built on the Kennedy myth, which at the time and still today is a nearly a religious personality cult. Liberal journalists will tell you the greatest President in the 20th century was FDR followed by Kennedy. Budding liberal pols will tell you they want to be just like Kennedy. Unfortunately Kennedy didn't do much of anything while President and what he did do was mediocre at best. No doubt he was very charming and amusing during his press conferences but beyond that he was a mediocre President. But don't dare say that out loud, the Kennedy worshipers will flip out and attack your credibility. Don't dare suggest that JFK was a serial adulterer. Don't dare report that Jackie was disappointed that JFK was killed by a wayward marxist rather than a southern racist bigot for no other reason than it made JFK's death more difficult to manipulate for the left. (she bemoaned this fact to LBJ before he took the oath of office)  I have no idea what is in the History Channel version of Kennedy's life. But the fact that the left is so enraged suggests that there's more truth in there than fiction. They wouldn't be so defensive if there wasn't a good deal of truth in this show. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7653481/Kennedy-mini-series-provokes-outrage-among-American-liberals.html">LINK</a><br /> <br /> The Democrats are outraged over Arizona's law that allows police to question people on immigration status if they have a reasonable suspicion is an illegal immigrant. The left is running around screaming 'your papers please' in reference to the cliche Nazi demand of Jews in the 30's. What's interesting is that the left is outraged that the state might ask people to prove citizenship but just a few weeks ago Obama signed a law requiring all Americans to prove to the state we have health insurance or face a fine. It seems that in the mind of the left, government demanding proof of citizenship is bad but government demanding proof of health insurance is good. Either way be prepared to show some sort of documentation to the government. Now it seems the Democrats are once again threatening to issue a nationwide ID card as part of an immigration bill. The ID card would be required of all people seeking gainful employment. So let's get this straight, government demanding proof of health insurance is good. Government demanding we have an ID card to work is good. But government demanding proof of citizenship is wrong and "poorly conceived." The inconsistency of the liberal mind is amazing to me. <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card">LINK</a><br /> <br /> Apparently the Obama White House is nasty to reporters who dare cross them and is stingy with information. It seems most of the Press Corp is annoyed with Obama because of this. That hasn't stopped them from issuing one glowing report about the President after another. Perhaps they're afraid of losing access or more likely they're supportive of Obama's policies and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In any event, it's an interesting piece by Politico. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36454.html">LINK</a><br /> Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20862 http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20862 Obamacare will be successful at one thing. It will drive health care costs up according to the Department of Health and Human Services. This ought to add fuel to the repeal Obamacare fire. Nearly 90% of Americans are covered by health insurance today and I have to wonder how any of us are going to benefit from Obamacare. So far, it's clear that costs are going to rise because of Obamacare. Our employers are still going to cover our health care and the added Obamacare costs will either be passed onto us in the form of lower salary or will be passed onto customers, which hits us because we're ultimately going to be the customers of a company that passes Obamacare costs to their customers. Taxes are almost certainly going to rise. While Obama hasn't come out in favor of a VAT, he's said it's on the table. So how exactly is the middle class better off with Obamacare? We're not getting a service we don't already get and we're going to get taxed for it. It seems to me that the middle class, of which most of us belong, is going to be left with a lower standard of living thanks to Obamacare. Couple Obama's appetite for wild spending ($2 trillion in new debt after less than 18 months in office) and it seems clear that the middle class is losing big time thanks to Obama. <a href="http://csbj.com/2010/04/23/audit-health-care-overhaul-will-drive-up-costs/">LINK<br /> </a><br /> The President recognizes that he's losing big among just about every demographic out there with the exception of the very poor, the very rich and blacks. Polling has indicated in the last year he's lost the middle class, he's lost white support and he's seen a substantial decrease in support from women. So it's no surprise that Obama is rolling out identity politics in a push for Democrats in 2010. It's an interesting political move by the President. We're talking about a President who less than 18 months ago told the country he was going to transcend race. Now he's looking to carve the country up via identity politics. Politically speaking, I think this move suggests massive desperation on the part of the President. I dare say it's extremely pre-mature desperation. I appreciate that it looks like the GOP is going to pick up 20-30 House seats and 5-8 Senate seats. I appreciate that Obama's poll numbers are consistently below 50%. But for the President to essentially play the race card this early in his administration in what clearly is an act of desperation to save a few Dem House seats is incredibly short sighted and pre-mature. This is the sort of move a President pulls the week before an election when they're down 5 in the polls. (read: Bush calling Clinton and Gore bozo's the week before the 1992 election) I just don't understand where Obama's desperation is coming from or why he's allowing it to be displayed in public so early in his administration. By essentially playing the race card, he's telling white middle class voters that he's not interested in them. But he needs them badly for re-election, especially the moderate fence sitters who pushed him into office in 2008. I understand why Obama would play the race card as a last ditch act of desperation but in April 2010, 6 months before the mid-term election and two and a half years before the 2012 election it seems more than a little early to act with such desperation. Politically, it just doesn't make sense to me. <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Obama_seeks_to_reconnectyoung_people_AfricanAmerins_Latinos_and_women_for_2010.html?showall">LINK</a><br /> <br /> Obama and his administrators apparently don't approve of the law being enforced. Probably better put they don't like the law being enforced unless they support the law. Arizona has passed a law which does little more than allow the state police to ask suspects of their immigration status. Apparently when police suspect a crime has been committed Obama and his administration don't believe law enforcement should be allowed to act. And make no mistake, those people who are in the country illegally have committed a crime. It's no different than pulling over a motorist on suspicion of drunk driving. Alas, the administration believes that allowing the police to enforce the law is 'misguided.' What's misguided is providing amnesty to people who are in this country illegally. Why should we expect illegal immigrants to respect and obey our laws when they're breaking the law by being here in the first place? if amnesty is provided, how can we expect them to respect and obey our laws when they have been provided a get out of jail free card the minute they're proclaimed citizens? But of course, Obama doesn't care about that. He only cares about attacking states for daring to enforce the law, thus threatening legions of potential Democrat voters. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-day-life-homeland-security-secretary/story?id=10471211">LINK<br /> </a><br /> Obama's national security adviser is on film telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy merchants. No wonder Obama's foreign policy is anti-Israel, he's got anti-Semites advising him. If this guy were a Republican the media would go absolutely wild. He would be accused of being a Nazi, a fascist, a bigot and his joke would be used by the left-wing media to prove that all Republicans are racist, anti-Semitic bigots. Alas, he's a Democrat working for Obama and the media is so far silent. After all, Democrats can't be racists or bigots, they can't be anti-Semitic . Those labels are reserved for Republicans in the left-wing media. I’ll bet this guy doesn’t lose his job even if the media picks up this story. He’ll get away with a fake, PR apology and no one will remember his racist joke next week. If he were a Republican working for George W. Bush you can bet he would lose his job. The media wouldn’t stand for him staying in the administration. Of course, he’s a Democrat who works for the savior Obama so the media won’t call for anything more than an apology. The double standard is amazing.  <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-national-security-advisor-tells-joke-depicting-jews-as-greedy-merchants">LINK</a><br /> <br /> Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20861 http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D302015&entry=20861 Obamacare will not stop healthcare premium increases according to a LA Times report. The Times laments the fact that Obamacare doesn't give regulators the power to ban rate hikes. The health insurance industry only earns about 2% in profit, if double digit rate hikes are banned by government health insurers will not only not earn any profit but they'll lose money and ultimately go out of business. But the LA Times can't be bothered with trivial details when they're pushing for more government regulation. Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal reports that in 15 years we'll have a doctor shortage of 150,000, in part because Obamacare provides insurance to 30 million currently uninsured people. Obamacare isn't going to reduce health insurance premiums despite what Obama claims. The bill was little more than an opportunity to increase the size and scope of government with an eye towards a future where government will control our healthcare outright. Give the left a few years and their 'solution' to rising health costs will be complete government control as a single payer. In the meantime, if you don't think health rationing is right around the corner what do you suppose is going to happen when we're short of doctors? Health rationing with government at the center is a way of life in Canada and Europe, it's coming to America thanks to Obama and the Democrats. There is no incentive whatsoever under Obamacare for college students to go to med school. The industry is uncertain and future income is in doubt. This will only drive away potential doctors which will lead to even more of a shortage. In the very least it will result in a shortage of good doctors. We can only hope the Republicans are able to repeal this law in 2013. Otherwise, the country is headed down the road of socialist healthcare where government has the power to decide life and death via rationing if not death panels. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.story">LINK </a>and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond">LINK</a><br /> <br /> My family had a fine time at the Tea Party Express that rolled through town on Saturday. Mrs. Notliberal and the kids are looking forward to attending the Tea Party tax day rally tomorrow. The Media Research Center has done a study of the mainstream press concerning their coverage of the Tea Parties. Not surprisingly if the mainstream press didn't ignore the Tea Parties, they reported on them in the most negative way possible. The flip side is that left-wing protests and rallies have in the past received extremely favorable coverage. In 2009 the networks more or less ignored the Tea Parties. Nearly 70% of the networks Tea Party coverage or mentions occurred after Scott Brown's election to the US Senate. Major Tea Party rallies on April 15th and July 4th last year were ignored by the big three networks. Compare that to multiple glowing stories about the Million Man March in the 90's and the Million woman march in 2000 or the major anti-war protests during the Bush administration. Coverage of the Tea Parties sounds like the rant of liberal bloggers on the major networks. After all, the Tea Parties are full of racists and threatening people. If there was ever a good example of the major media players showing their liberal colors it's their coverage of the Tea Parties compared to left-wing protests. Left-wing protests are 'heroic' and shown in the most glowing light possible. Conservative protests are dark, dangerous and violent. Never mind that left-wing protests are the egg and tomato throwers and the rioters (see: WTO protests throughout the last decade). It's interesting to see how the media has ignored the Tea Parties, which are arguably the most important political movement of the last decade. The Tea Parties so far have shown themselves to be strong enough to actually get things done politically. The anti-war protesters couldn't defeat Bush in 2004 and it took them nearly six years to finally get a Democrat majority in Congress. The Tea Parties have already helped elect Republicans in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, they've chased Bart Stupak from the House and they have a shot at helping the GOP takeover Congress in November. It's interesting that this group is so ignored by the mainstream press and when they are reported on the reporting is negative. If the left were actually able to quickly put together political movements that are successful like the Tea Parties you can bet the media fall all over themselves trying to air the most glowing report.  <a href="http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2010/TeaParty/Introduction.aspx">LINK</a><br /> <br /> The US Post Office has lost $12 billion over the last three years and according to the GAO its business model is not sustainable. Proof yet again that government is unable to run any sort of business whatsoever. Oh but the OD left will point out that UPS uses the Post Office to ship packages to remote locations and we're supposed to bow down at this amazing bit of information. UPS of course is taking advantage of the Post Office's poor business model and making a profit on it to boot. UPS is more than capable of offering package service to remote locations but they would have to charge more to ship to those locations. The Post Office is foolish enough to offer one price fits all service and is losing money because of it. That UPS takes advantage of the fools over at the Post Office only proves how bad the Post Office really is. Those living in rural areas should not expect taxpayers to pay for their mail service and that is exactly what they're doing right now. Letter service should be opened up to the free market, at the end of the day most of us would save money. If that means some rural areas get less mail service or pay more, so be it. We shouldn't be falling all over ourselves to subsidize other peoples chosen lifestyles or their choice of remote locations. Likewise rural folks shouldn't be expected to pay for city nonsense. (I'm talking to you upstate New York and not Chicago Illinois) The Post Office is a nightmare of poor service, it has never been profitable. It's costing taxpayers billions a year. Government refuses to fix the problems in the Post Office, mostly because they have no way to quickly respond to changing market conditions. The Post Office has for several years discussed reducing service from 6 to 5 days a week and they're no closer to cutting a day today than they were 5 years ago when it was clear as day that they needed to. Government bureaucracy doesn't respond to the market at all, which is why the Post Office is losing money. Freedom and free markets can provide us with better service without costing taxpayers billions in losses. Alas, government would rather rack up more debt than give up any of their precious power. <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Postal-Service-business-model-cnnm-1854134548.html?x=0&.v=3&.pf=taxes&mod=pf-taxes">LINK</a><br /> <br /> A few tidbits:<br /> <br /> Obama has tighter control over media coverage than the Soviets. His nuclear weapons conference was off limits to reporters. So much for the open government he promised during the election. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067_pf.html">LINK</a><br /> <br /> Government is providing more incentive not to work by extending unemployment benefits. The problem with extending benefits over and over again is that it creates a state of dependency on the recipient. We saw the same thing with the welfare programs created by LBJ's Great Society nonsense in the 60's. Over time welfare benefits created generations who were dependent on government handouts. By extending unemployment benefits over and over again, the Federal government isn't creating an incentive to work hard at finding a job. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180243952375172.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion">LINK</a><br /> <br /> Obama is once again bowing to foreign leaders. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100412/480/urn_publicid_ap_org52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a/">LINK</a><br /> <br /> Obama's science czar told students that America can't be #1 forever. It's as though the left just aches to see America loses its standing in the world and cede our freedom to the will of international rabble. Beyond that, is this any way to inspire young Americans? <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64073">LINK</a><br /> Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT