Tim Thomas Standing Up For Principle

After winning the Stanley Cup, the Boston Bruins goalie, Tim Thomas, declined to participate in a team visit to the White House, a tradition that spans sports where the championship winners get to meet with the president. Thomas' reason for not attending was momentous, especially in the current political climate, because Thomas declined to visit the White House because he believes the federal government is out of control.  In his released statement, he pointed at both political parties as the root cause, but his Tea Party activism has made his political opinions well known.

Now the main stream media, not to mention the Bruins themselves, are characterizing Thomas as "selfish" and as someone who isn't a team player.  Bruins Coach Claude Julien stated "we don’t mix politics with hockey. In this dressing room here, our job is to win hockey games and win hockey games as a team. That’s what we are.’’  And yet, isn't the act of meeting with a sitting president a political act?  And doesn't someone have the right to decline if they find the actions of the current sitting president despicable?

Considering the president's predilection at lecturing and thin-skinned defensiveness toward his administration's policies and goals (just ask Jan Brewer), I would probably turn down a meeting with the president too.  How do you look a man in the face, smile, shake his hand, and have your picture taken with him, believing in your heart, that while he is not an evil man, his policies are destroying the country you love?

So my hat, my heart, and my applause goes to Bruins Goalie Tim Thomas.   His dedication, not only to his sport but to his political beliefs, are not only a credit to conservatives every where, but an inspiration as well.  So my advice to the Main Stream Media, not to mention the other @$$&#&%$ on his team who think calling Thomas names and deriding his staunch willingness to stand fast on his beliefs, is to stop demonizing a man who plays his sport well, and knows that he will not be used by a misguided political administration as a prop.

Go Tim Thomas

Do You See Goofy

In light of the President's recent tourism speech at Walt Disney World (in which half of the Magic Kingdom was shut down, no doubt upsetting thousands of visitors who had PLANNED their trip to the park months in advance) we offer this telling graphic.

The Fourth Best President - EVER!

 

Via HotAir.com 

Update.  Everyone Likes This!

Kim Jong Mentally Il is Dead

When I read the news, I muttered "Good Riddance," but my sixteen year old daughter took the cake when she came in moments later, saw the headline, and said "awwwww...." with out a single shred of sympathy.  

Hey, If We Can't Win, We'll Cheat

Have you been keeping abreast of the rigamarole in Indiana?  Evidently the Democratic Party couldn't find 500 people in one district willing to put Obama's name on the ballet.  So what did they do?  They FORGED signatures.  How's that for politics?  Now I have to wonder how many dead people voted for Obama during the presidential race too.

Bill O'Reilly - What a classy guy.

In this video a videographer takes a film of Bill leaving a Newt Gingrich fundraiser, which certainly seems odd considering the pains Bill O'Reilly goes to on his show to not specifically endorse a particular candidate. Now realistically, Bill can support privately any candidate he chooses. Heck, MSNBC actually comes out and SAYS who they support. If Bill in his off time wants to party for Newt, well he's ALLOWED to.

But I get disappointed when Bill is not only rude to the videographer (which he should be used to by now, he IS a celebrity of sorts) but he HITS the guy with his umbrella! This just makes it look like his actions are even more sinister! Not to mention unworthy. Keep it up Bill. I already don't like the way you interview people, but I guess since I don't watch your show, it's really not going to affect your ratings.



Update: I recently was made aware of Bill O'Reilly's take on what happened. He says he was coming from a White House Media Party, and not a Newt Gingrich fund raiser, which immediately changes this WHOLE thing. While I'm still not terribly impressed with Bill's handling of the situation, I suppose I can be a little more forgiving based upon the fact that Bill, in many ways, is a hated "face" of American conservatism. Perhaps that umbrella in the face was necessary. Who knows?

Obama Money!

Ray Stevens is hilarious!

Why Obama's Stimulus Package Failed

In all honesty, while the concept behind Obama's Stimulus package was flawed in and of itself, the actual causes of its failure weren't the President's fault. This is a perfect example of how we have created a bureaucratic nightmare with unions, red tape, and ineffective government. It's a wonder anyone can build ANYTHING. Shovel ready my ass.

Some Basic Truths that President Obama Doesn't Know

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -- G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. -- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -- Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan (1986)

12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. -- Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -- Voltaire (1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -- Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain (1866)

17. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. -- Anonymous

18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -- Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill

Hat Tip to WB!  Thanks!

Firefighters Watch Home Burn to Ground... over $75 bucks.

Well, it's happened again.  Try this on for size:  A city charges $75 a year, a one time annual fee for "fire protection".  If you pay and your house catches on fire, the FD comes and puts out the fire.  If you don't, they come out, make sure everyone is safe, and then watch you property burn to the ground and make sure it doesn't spread.  

Why is this important?  Because it's an analog of the current health care debate, and a pretty drastic commentary about the system.

Personally, I'm conflicted.  I recognize that both health insurance (and in this case "fire insurance") are responsibilities that we are required to understand and accept.  In my case, my city's sales taxes cover the cost of fire department response, while my health insurance comes through my employer.  But what if I was responsible, outside of these forums, for these costs?

All I know is that the average American earns about 40k a year.  After payroll taxes, social security, medicare, insurance premiums, and other sundries come out of the check, your take home pay is down to near 30k.  You live check to check, no savings, worrying about your job, barely paying your mortgage, and watching the food prices at Wal-Mart go up and up.  Then you get a bill for $75 from the city for "fire protection".  $75 is literally HALF of your grocery budget for this check.  Do you eat or take the risk that your house WON'T burn down this year?  It's not a pretty decision to have to make and I think we all know what the outcome would be.

That's the whole point of collection taxes through sales - in order to disperse the cost of these public services so that it isn't a burden for a single family.  In fact, even health care works like this.  A bunch of people get insured, so that the few who actually end up using the medical services can have their expenses paid. 

From a libertarian perspective, it's tough luck for the home owner.  Should have ponied up the $75 bucks.  Been responsible.  But there's a point where fiscal responsibility and human decency have to meet, and for the Fire Department to stand there, WATCHING a home burn... that's not just wrong.  It's cruel. 

As usual, there isn't a pretty solution, though I'd be more inclined to pay a sales tax than fork over $75 bucks once a year.  But how does this translate to health care?  Should we allow the government to cover all of our health care requirements?  And when costs start overwhelming the monies collected for it, what then?  What happens when a ninety year old woman is denied the surgery needed to prolong her life, in favor of a thirty something year old getting the money that would have been spent because he's more productive?  The moral issues immediately become a murky swamp that none of us really want to traverse. 

Perhaps there should be a law requiring fire fighters to fight fires.   After all, we already require doctors to help patients, regardless of their ability to pay...

The Decadent Left - OWS

NY Times columnist Ross Douthat penned an interesting article on December 3rd entitled, "The Decadent Left," an in-depth analysis comparing the Occupy Wall Street movement with the Union Protests and the Keystone Anti-Pipeline protests.  In his article, he mentions the fact that other liberal strategists wish that the OWS movement had defined goals on changing public policy, and had a more concrete and structural plan to accomplish them, like the Keystone and Union Protests.  The Keystone protest arguably has delayed the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada down toward the gulf coast, while the Union Protests have (supposedly) caused Ohio's attempt to curb public sector union's collective bargaining to come to a screeching halt.

But the true gems of Douthat's article exemplify why conservatives have been right all along:

The Wisconsin protests didn’t defend American workers’ right to bargain for their fair share of company profits, as traditional union protests have. They defended government employees’ right to negotiate with elected officials over the division of taxpayer dollars — a recipe for profligacy that even liberal icons like Franklin Roosevelt and the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s George Meany once opposed.

Likewise, the Keystone protesters haven’t been defending “the interests of wage-earning Americans,” to borrow the historian Michael Kazin’s description of the historic purpose of the American left. They’ve been harnessing the power of the Democratic Party’s wealthy environmentalist donors to actively kill off American jobs.

Stopping the pipeline won’t drive down demand for fossil fuels, or prevent Canada’s oil from being extracted and shipped around the world. But for a small group of activists and donors, keeping the pipeline out of their national backyard is all that counts, even if American workers pay the price.

I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day, but having a liberal recognize the problems caused by his own party's movements is just amazing.  And he's RIGHT!  The Keystone protests and the Union Collective Bargaining protests HURT America.

But while Douthat hits upon this grain of truth that both centrist and right wing Americans have known for a while, I can't help but smile when he expresses his hope and support of the OWS movement:

Whatever your politics, there’s arguably more to admire in the ragtag theatricality of Occupy Wall Street than in that sort of self-righteous defense of the status quo. Even if it has failed to embrace plausible solutions, O.W.S. at least picked a deserving target — what National Review’s Reihan Salam describes as the “moral rupture” created by Wall Street’s and Washington’s betrayal of the public trust.

Encouraging liberals and Democrats to support a movement characterized by violence, drug use, rape, and mental illness, with no defined goals, who frequently break the law, and call for a socialized society where freeloaders like the OWS protesters are GIVEN what they want, rather than earning it through hard work.

I love Democrats.

E.J. Dionne Jr - It's all those evil right wingers fault!

Recently, E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post penned an article entitled "Divided Moderates Will Be Conquered" in which he objects to moderate calls for the formation of a third "centrist" party.  The article itself begins by claiming Mr. Dionne is a centrist, but his true political leanings immediately become clear when he launches a rather poorly thought out attack on the Tea Party.  It's either he's a leftist liberal or very very much misinformed.  He similarly points, rather adroitly, at the Republican Party for their unwillingness to raise taxes on the rich, specifically by eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts.  It all sounds so reasonable when Mr. Dionne suggests it.

Ah... I love reasonable people, but I think some of the author's finger pointing could be just as viable if directed at the President. Barack Obama ignored his OWN debt commission's findings and then proposed a budget that RAISED federal spending.  Furthermore, raising taxes on the rich, even if we revoked the Bush Tax Cuts, wouldn't net us but a TINY portion of the funds needed to curb the federal deficit.  According to the 2009 Tax Foundation report, a  10 percent surtax would generate at most about $73 billion, which amounts to a whole 2 percent of federal spending.  So pardon me Mr. Dionne, but how does that solve our overspending problem?  2 percent?  That's it? And THAT'S what Democrats are so hung up on?  A lousy 2 percent?  You mean to tell me that Democrats MUST have that 2 percent in order to be willing to start getting serious about cutting spending? 

It seems to me that the Tea Party's vision of a financially responsible government is a laudable goal, one that should span party lines.  Our disagreements come from HOW we want to cut government spending.  Hell, even the President admits it needs to happen, even if he seems totally unwilling to actually do it.  The truth of the matter is that the federal government has broadly overreached with it's entitlement programs, both overspending and mismanaging them.  Not only that, but by imposing itself, becoming not just a last resort, but a first stop shopping mall of assistance programs, we encourage the loss of self-responsibility and personal liberty. 

America is a center right nation, a people with a heart, but we are also a people with a conscience.  We want to help people, we really do.  But we also understand that there is a limit to what we can AFFORD to do.

Dionne says "It’s absurd to pretend that we can shrink the deficit over the long term without substantial tax increases."  Poppycock.  That's exactly what we need to do.  Now dealing with the federal debt - well, had Dionne said that, I would probably have agreed with him.  We probably WILL need a limited VAT just to deal with THAT disaster - a disaster that BOTH parties have created over decades of financial mismanagement.

I appreciated Dionne's concerns about a third party and surprisingly I agreed with him.  We don't need a third party of politics.  What we need is for the Tea Party to become a predominant voice in politics - promoting fiscal sanity.  If Mr. Dionne ran his personal finances the way our government does, he'd be in jail.  That's not good fiscal policy, is it?

So Mr. Dionne's, how about putting your finger away, stop demonizing a political movement that has no other aims but to promote fiscal responsibility in our government, and start recommending where YOU would like to see federal spending cuts.  Come up with something sensible and realistic and maybe, just maybe, I'll think about raising taxes.

Running Things...

This was written by a 21 yr old female who 'gets it'. It's her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

 In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the common good.

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Wow... NOW THAT'S ENTITLEMENT REFORM!

Stop Buying Your Own Books with Taxpayer Money!

Via Hot Air.com' Tina Korbe

According to various reports last week, the State Department spent $70,000 on copies of Barack Obama’s three lauded literary masterpieces (Dreams from My Father,  The Audacity of Hope and Of Thee I Sing) to stock library shelves or to pass out as Christmas presents from U.S. embassies. The administration claims the book distribution helps to “broker talks on important foreign policy matters.” That especially makes sense as a defense of Of Thee I Sing, which just happens to be a children’s book (although, to be fair, royalties on that book go to charity).

Supposedly, the White House had no knowledge of the State Department decision to spend taxpayer dollars on purchases that personally benefit Obama. (As one writer put it, “You pay … Obama reaps the royalties.“) Sheesh, not a lot of communication goes on in the Obama administration, does it?

But Obama can’t claim to be ignorant now — unless he, like his AG Eric Holder, doesn’t read his own correspondence. Republican Rep. Dave Schweikert of Arizona yesterday sent a letter to the president to tell him to knock it off. Wrote Schweikert:

At a time of record deficits and a heightened need to cut government spending, it is clear that spending taxpayer money in this manner is inappropriate.
Furthermore, as with any book deal, there is no doubt some level of royalties paid to you for each copy purchased by the government. Receiving royalties from government purchases of your book is exactly the type of out-of-touch Washington behavior that the American people are weary of and will no longer tolerate.
We request that you instruct all agencies to no longer purchase copies of your books and remit a payment to the Treasury Department for any royalties received as a result of these sales.

Here are a few reasons not to be too worked up about this story: (1) $70,000 is chump change in the federal budget, (2) At best, Obama probably received something like $6,000 in royalties from taxpayer-funded purchases and (3) The more people read Dreams from my Father, the more they’re exposed to the roots of Obama’s rage.

Still, the reason to be worked up trumps them: As American Values president Gary Bauer put it, it’s a prime example of ethics blindness. In other words, it’s the principle of the matter. The administration has violated it — and Schweikert seeks to uphold it. Thank you, Rep. Schweikert.

Oh Boy... I'm Worried

Keeping an eye on the Republican Presidential Melee has been an emotional rollercoaster.  I try to follow a simple rule: vote for the most conservative candidate.  The problem with that rule is that lately, the candidates have been displaying some rather disappointing weaknesses.

Mitt Romney, who I actually wanted to vote for in the last presidential primary, is a Rockerfeller Republican, a technocrat who has changed his personal positions on so many issues in order to appeal to his constituents, that I really can't support him.  The only good news about Romney is that while he won't do much for conservative principles, he will in all likelihood turn the economy around and yield to pressure from Tea Party type Congress folks to cut, cut, cut.  If we win back the Senate.  Yikes.

Herman Cain - Mr. Cain was brought to my attention by my boss, a staunch WASP associate pastor, back when Cain was still polling in the single digits.  To be honest, he is quite appealing.  He knows business, he speaks his heart, even when his opinions clearly go contrary to the conservative base (like with his opinion on abortion), but then when the backlash comes, his campaign (and he himself) suddenly lie about what was said.  "Oh he made a mistake. He MEANT to say..." isn't something you can say to a foreign leader.  Recently Cain made it relatively clear that he didn't know China had nuclear weapons.  Huh?  Seriously?  This man's knowledge of foreign policy is the absolute weakest of any candidate.  Considering how much our "standing" with foreign nations has improved under Obama, how we deal with foreign nations is paramount to the next presidency.

Rick Perry - Mr. Perry is my governor and I basically have two problems with him.  The first is his position on illegal immigration and allowing illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition.  I disagree with him on this.  The problem here is that in TEXAS, he has to pander to the Hispanic block in order to get elected.  If he suddenly switches his position on a national level, he'll alienate that block here in Texas.  Tough choice for the governor.  Perry's other problem is that his handlers have shown some dramatic incompetence in preparing the the Governor for his debates.  Here in Texas, he's come across as smooth and prepared.  On a national level, he's now being forced to run as a "doer, not a talker."  Give me a break.  It's like the first time he's run into REAL resistance to his campaign he folds under the pressure.  Not a good trait for a presidential candidate.

Newt Gingrich - of all the candidates, this man is the one I'd prefer to vote for.  He's articulate, knowledgeable, goes after Obama or the press during debates, and has the ability to make Obama look like an unlettered oaf in any debates.  But the truth is that Newt Gingrich has a lot of personal baggage that will be fresh for many Americans in a general election.  How many wives has he had again?  Newt needs to be part of the next administration - I agree.  President?  Probably not.  I'd accept him as a VEEP though.  Wouldn't a debate between him and "foot-in-his-mouth" Joe be hilarious?

Michelle Bachman - I originally liked a lot of the things Bachman was saying, but as the campaigns moved along, Ms. Bachman sank in my opinion due to her clashes with Tim Pawlenty and now Rick Perry.  She's said some pretty stupid things (like the whole bit about Gardasil causing mental illness) and frankly she shares the same qualifiers that have made Barack Obama such a bad president.  Being a congresscritter, senator, or community organizer does not prepare you to be President.  Sorry Ms. Bachman. I appreciate you being on the side of conservatives, but it's time for you to get back in the battle lines and work for the cause there.

Rick Santorum - Who?  I like Mr. Santorum. I really do.  But the fact that he lost his OWN STATE'S senatorial election doesn't bode well for the man.  He's also a bit too emotional.  I think Mr. Santorum also has a place in the next administration. I'd like to see him there, especially in the State Department - perhaps as Deputy Secretary of State (under John Bolton as Secretary!)  Santorum knows foreign policy really well, but his general appeal is so low that it just won't fly as a presidential candidate.

Ron Paul - Mr. Paul is a libertarian, and as such he's got some great ideas on domestic issues, and as such he's got some dangerous naivety on foreign policy that makes Herman Cain's total LACK of knowledge look much more appealing.  Paul would have us adopt isolationist behavior which would encourage Iran and North Korea to do VERY bad things, instead of just generally light bad things.  There are bad people in the world, Mr Paul, and if we don't do something about them occasionally, they'll get uppity and it's harder to deal with bad people with nuclear weapons than it is to deal with bad people with AK-47s.  Trust me.

Let's face it, with a group like this, all we are really doing is trying to keep Obama out of the Oval Office and not much more.  The real changes we need to our country won't come from the top contenders of THIS presidential farce.  Oh no... it's going to come from us.  We need to win back the Senate, strengthen our position in the House, and work to pressure whoever IS president to cut the size and scope of government to something realistic.

So who do I support? Not sure yet.  All I know is that I'm not very happy with this election cycle's crop of candidates.  We'll have to see where it goes from here.