A Quick Post on the Downgrade

Yesterday S&P downgraded America's credit rating from AAA to AA+.  We had held the AAA rating for 94 years, and losing it is yet another depressing sign of American decline. There are some pretty negative consequences for losing our rating, but I don't want to get into that.  If you're interested in the possible negative effects Hot Air has a pretty good write up here.

Instead, I want to just go over some things real quick.  First, lets look at S&P's reasoning for downgrading the US.  This little bit in particular.  Emphasis mine:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

So basically, we lost our credit rating because we couldn't balance our budget or make considerable gains in doing so.  Since Democrats seem to only favor tax increases on the wealthiest 10%, and its mathematically impossible to balance the budget even if you tax the top 10% by 100%; it follows that Democrats don't want a balanced budget like those extreme and stupid Tea Partiers (Or that they're actually in favor of raising taxes on everyone, but using their rhetoric against them is so much more fun).  In other words its their fault, and I don't think its unfair to outright say that.  One side recognized that the budget needed to be balanced, entitlements represented a problem, and proposed realistic solutions.  The other stuck to unrealistic demands for a mixture of ideological and political reasons.  Oh and refused a deal that cut much more and may of saved our credit rating. 

There's a status I saw making its way around facebook that sums it up pretty well:

The United States of America has had a AAA credit rating since 1917. That rating survived WWI, the Great Depression, World War II, The Korean War, Vietnam, Jimmy Carter, 9-11, and those "unfunded" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It couldn't survive less than one term of the current White House occupant's misguided policies." -- Michael J. Fell

Its beautiful in its simplicity, and try as hard as some liberals will, this -will- be blamed on Obama.  Democrats may find a way to escape blame, and Republicans may inevitably get some blame, but Obama will be the one who gets the worst of this.  One of the arguments I've used on people who voted for Obama is that they elected him to make things better, and regardless of what mess Bush left him, he failed.  Philip Klein makes that same argument for why the downgrade is going to hurt Obama:

But there’s another reason why Obama won’t escape blame for this. Obama was elected president at a time when Americans felt the nation was in decline, and his central job was restore their faith that our best days were ahead of us, as President Reagan did after the Carter era. Whether you think he was dealt a poor hand or not, the bottom line is that the sense of decline has only deepened during the Obama presidency, and the first-ever downgrade of U.S. credit, whatever its ultimate financial implications, is yet another symbol of that decline.

The rest of his article (linked above) makes other good arguments for why this will fall on Obama, so give it a quick read if you're interested.  Hopefully America sees it the same way and this adds to the momentum conservatives are building as we head toward 2012.

A bad week in the polls

...and it doesn't matter which poll you look at, or how biased it is.

Gallup

Thirty-eight percent of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40% in a Gallup Daily tracking weekly aggregate. Meanwhile, Obama maintains the support of 81% of Democrats, and his job approval among Republicans remains low, at 12%.

[...]

Overall, 46% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing as president in the June 28-July 4 aggregate, one point above his lowest weekly average. Obama's average weekly job approval rating has not been above 50% since Feb. 8-14, though it reached the 50% mark as recently as May 3-9.

Obama's lower ratings come amid a still-struggling economy, the ongoing difficulties presented by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the recent change of command in the war in Afghanistan. Underscoring the challenge at hand, Obama's 44% approval rating in July 2-5 polling (Gallup did not interview July 4) ties his lowest three-day average to date.

WaPo

On the question of Obama's leadership, 42 percent of registered voters now say they have confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country, with 58 saying they do not. At the start of his presidency, about six in 10 expressed confidence in his decision-making.

Obama's overall job-approval rating stands at 50 percent, equaling his low point in Post-ABC polling; 47 percent disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in his presidency, those who strongly disapprove now significantly outnumber those who strongly approve.

Among those who say they definitely will vote in November, 53 percent disapprove of the way he is handling his responsibilities.

CBS

Economists have declared the economic recession over largely over, but most Americans don't share their optimism, and they are increasingly blaming President Obama for their money woes.

Mr. Obama's approval rating on the economy has tumbled five percentage points from last month, according to a new CBS News poll, with just 40 percent of those polled expressing full confidence in his actions.

More than half of those questioned (54 percent) said they disapproved of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy. Last month, 45 percent approved. The drop in approval has been seen mostly among independents, just 35 percent of whom now say they approve

[...]

The poll shows widespread concern among Americans when it comes to employment. Seven in ten Americans rated the job market in their area "fair" or "very bad"; only a quarter of those polled described it as "good".

There did appear to be some optimism that the job market would improve over the next year -- but not a lot. While 28 percent said they expected the job market in their area to get better over the next year, twice as many -- 56 percent -- said it would likely remain the same. Another 14 percent predicted even fewer available jobs in the coming years.

PPP

Barack Obama's hit a record low in PPP's monthly national polling on his approval numbers. 45% of voters approve of the job he's doing while 52% disapprove. This is the first time he's topped the 50% disapproval mark in our surveys.

There isn't any one smoking gun to point to in explaining Obama's diminished standing. In the last month he's seen small increases in the number of voters disapproving of him among Democrats (from 13% to 16%), Republicans (84% to 88%), and independents (55% to 56%) alike.

The two most troublesome things for Obama in his numbers at this point are his standing among white voters and independents. Whites now disapprove of Obama by nearly a 2:1 margin, with 62% giving him bad marks and only 35% saying he's doing a good job. With independents his approval is just 40% and 56% disapprove of his performance.

Both WaPo and CBS have a tendency to skew their samplings in favor of the Democrats, and these polls are no different.  In the WaPo poll there's a 7 point advantage for Democrats while the CBS polls has a 5 point advantage for Democrats, both of which are far higher than they should be.  Even with a seven point bias in his favor Obama only manages to get 42% support for his decision making, which is just slightly important when you're the chief executive of a nation.  In fact the few subjects Obama and Democrats manage to win on in either poll are by small amounts, which means they aren't actually winning in those areas.

Even if you ignore the bias, Democrats will still have a hard time justifying the huge decline in support they've witnessed.  Both Gallup and CBS are quick to point out that both Clinton and Reagan has similar approval numbers during this phase in their Presidency and went on to win second terms.

Obama is not alone in facing a challenging second year in office -- Bill Clinton (43%), Ronald Reagan (42%), and Jimmy Carter (40%) all were below the majority approval level in July of their second year. Of course, each of those presidents saw his party lose a substantial number of seats in that year's midterm congressional elections, though both Reagan and Clinton recovered in time to win a second term as president.

What both fail to mention is that neither President has seen a decline on the same level of Obama.  If you look at Gallup's numbers you get some interesting results.  For example, Obama has seen a 23 point drop in support since he took office, while Clinton's level of decline at this point in his Presidency was 15 points, and Reagan's was only 9 points.  Keep in mind that Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote in 1992, meaning that he never lost the support of those who voted for him.

In fact the other person they mention - the one who failed to win reelection - who most resembles Obama.  Both Carter and Obama started with similar numbers at the start of their presidency (Obama 67%, Carter 66%) and ultimately Carter would lose 26 points in this same time frame, just three points more than Obama.  Keep in mind that Obama is still pulling in around 90% approval from blacks, which helps boost his approval ratings slightly.

The point both polls were trying to make (If you give CBS the benefit of the doubt) is that it's too early to be using these polls as an indication of reelection chances.  But reelection is exactly what Obama needs to be worried about.  In 2012 Obama will have to actually win the election on his own merits, without the hope of a huge turnout of young voters or minorities eager to elect the first black President.  In 08 Obama was a sort of "fill in the blank" candidate.  To the moderate he was a moderate and to the progressive he was a progressive, but in 2012 everyone will know exactly what he is, and it's not something anyone is happy with right now.

Speaking of reelection, wasn't she suppose to be unelectable?

With his approval numbers hitting new lows it’s no surprise that Barack Obama’s numbers in our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race are their worst ever this month. He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46. The only person tested he leads is Jan Brewer, who doesn’t have particularly high name recognition on the national level at this point.
 
It’s not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly well liked. Only Huckabee has positive favorability numbers at 37/28. Romney’s at 32/33, Gingrich at 32/42, Palin at 37/52, and Brewer at 17/20. But with a majority of Americans now disapproving of Obama it’s no surprise that a large chunk of them would replace him as President if they had that choice today.
 
There are two things driving these strong poll numbers for the Republican candidates. The first is a lead with independents in every match up. Romney leads 48-35 with them, Gingrich is up 50-39, Huckabee has a 46-40 advantage, Palin’s up 47-42, and even Brewer has a 38-37 edge.

Why Obama deserves the gulf spill criticism

Every now and then you get someone who tries to defend Obama over the gulf spill.  It's not hard to make an effective argument to refute them, but having examples like this really makes the process that much easier:

After making a brief stop in Norfolk for refueling, U.S. Coast Guard inspections and an all-out publicity blitz intended to drum up public support, a giant tanker billed as the world's largest oil skimming vessel set sail Friday for the Gulf of Mexico where it hopes to assist in the oil-cleanup effort.

The Taiwanese-owned, Liberian-flagged ship dubbed the "A Whale" stands 10 stories high, stretches 1,115 feet in length and has a nearly 200-foot beam. It displaces more water than an aircraft carrier.

Built in South Korea as a supertanker for transporting oil and iron ore, the six-month-old vessel was refitted in the wake of the BP oil spill with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters

The vessel's billionaire owner, Nobu Su, the CEO of Taiwanese shipping company TMT Group, said the ship would float across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," ingesting up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day.

But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

Ed over at HotAir points out a lot of interesting facts and makes a few key points, such as how this ship can basically do what's taken us 2 months time in one day, and that there's no reason the government shouldn't of known about this ship before day 66.  He's absolutely right, and there is no valid reason why this monster shouldn't of been in the gulf as soon as possible.  This is where the President comes in.  ThePresident has the ability to pound on tables and make things happen without all the bureaucracy, but instead of actually doing what he can to fix the problem, he's tried to pass the buck off on whoever he can.

Even more proof that Obama is a legislator at best, but certainly not a leader.

5 things Conservatives shouldn't say

Obama isn't my President.

It's unsurprising that the first time I heard someone declaring that the President wasn't their President was during the Bush years.  Although I'm certain others have made this statement toward other Presidents, I doubt it was quite as widespread, and so the statement has come to personify the rabid, foaming at the mouth hatred that liberals expressed during those years.  The statement isn't offensive because the man in charge happened to be from my political party, but it offends me as an American.  To disagree or even hate a President is one thing, but to declare that he isn't your President is something else entirely.

The same goes for Obama.

Is it unfortunate that an incompetent, far-leftist got elected to office?  Of course, but does that mean he's not your President?  Absolutely not.  Him being your President doesn't mean you owe him any particular loyalties.  Americans aren't expected to love or follow their Presidents, but we should be expected to respect the office.  I hardly consider it respectful to ignore the current officeholder just because you disagree with - or outright loathe - his policies and ideology.  Like it or not Barack Obama is the current President of the United States of America, so unless you're in the process of throwing a revolt or giving up your citizenship, he is your President.

There's a surprisingly thin line for legitimate dissent to outright insanity.  Liberals sprinted across that line without looking back, and conservatives could find themselves teasing with that boundary if they're not careful.  I can count the number of people I've heard say "Obama isn't my President" on one hand, but virtually no one offers any sort of condemnation for such statements, and that's what worries me.  Conservatives need to ensure that we don't become what liberals became during the Bush years.


Obama is a Kenyan!/Where's the Birth Certificate?

Where is the birth certificate?

That question isn't aimed toward Obama, but the Birthers who, for whatever reason, have pursued this relentless despite having little to no proof.  Initially I was open to the suggestion that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and thus wasn't eligible for the Presidency, but as time went on I became less and less impressed with Birthers and their arguments.

For the last year and a half they've been going on about this, and for the last year and a half they've produced...nothing.  Their argument never evolved past its original point, in which they point to Obama having never released his birth certificate.

For a starting argument it isn't bad.  It is suspicious that we've never seen a birth certificate, and that Obama has blocked that information with an executive order, but that's circumstantial evidence at best.  At some point you have to start producing something to validate the serious nature of your claims, but they never did that.  There was never any decent answer to the certificate of live birth, or the newspaper clipping declaring Obama's birth, but their absolute lowest moment came when they declared that they had the birth certificate, only to find out it was forged by a blogger.

Conservatives should treat Birthers for what they are:  Conspiracy theorists.  If they want to spend their own time pursing this, then that's their business, but conservatives need to continue to distance themselves from people who believe Obama isn't a natural born citizen.  At the same time we really do need to pass legislation which requires presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.


Obama is a Muslim!

The argument for Obama being Muslim goes something like this:  Because Obama's father was Muslim, and because he spent time as a child in Indonesia learning in Islamic schools, Obama is a Muslim today, as is evident by his poor treatment of Israel.

It's a bit difficult to address that argument simply because it's so absurd, and is on the same level as doubting Nikki Haley's conversion.  I'm not even sure why they would bring up his faith of his father since that's certainly does not bind a man toward any particular faith, especially when you grow up in a completely different culture.  Pointing out that he spent time reading the Quran and learning in Islamic school has a bit more validity, but again has no consequence on choices he made later in life in regards to faith.  It would be like saying a Muslim child is Christian because her family has embraced the American life and now celebrates Easter and Christmas in the same commercial sense that so many other Americans do.

I've repeatedly maintained that if Obama is anything other then what he says he is, it's Atheist, but ultimately it's not something worth focusing on.  Arguing over whether Obama is Christian, Muslim, or Atheist doesn't change what he's doing to this country, but it does serve to make his opposition look radical and/or insane.


When will the States/People revolt/secede?

Revolt and secession should always be a legitimate option for the American people to take should it ever come down to it, and wondering how far you would have to be pushed before you take up arms against your own government and countrymen is something we should all think about at least once.  However it's a thin line between asking yourself what the prerequisites are for rebellion, and openly demanding/supporting it.

Advocating revolution is a serious thing, so unless times are extremely dire or your reasoning is perfect you won't find much sympathy with the public, and to be honest that's a good thing.  When people make such threats they often do so not because they believe they have an obligation to fight against a government that has usurped the law, but because they disagree with the current ideology/policies in practice.

Again we can look to the Bush years for an example.  During this time it wasn't uncommon to hear smug liberals saying that the blue states should leave the union, have their own President, and watch the red states crumble and die.  This talk wasn't driven by a belief that they had a legal obligation or case to rebel, but from a hatred of the man (Bush) and his policies. 

There are some similarities the conservative case for revolt against Obama.  It would be dishonest to say that the majority of flirting with revolt doesn't stem from a conservative hate of the man and his ideology.  While there is a valid argument that his ideology could be outside the constitution, and thus illegal, the argument isn't so clear cut as to permit talk of revolution.  There is quite a bit of gray, and certainly nothing that mainstream America would see as valid.   It's worth noting that in some cases the threat is merely on the table, with legitimate reasoning for it, such as when Governor Perry of Texas spoke of secession if the Federal government continues to usurp state power. The distinction has to be made between the two, otherwise you risk coloring the entire movement as one of radicals who may very well be those "right-wing terrorists" the DHS spoke of.


Impeach Obama!

Much like how I'm offended as an American when people say Obama isn't their President, I'm also offended when people call for the impeachment of Obama.

Throughout this post I've brought up the Bush years, and I've done so because it's easy, for me at least, to remember the disgust I felt over the way liberals acted during those years.  Those memories and feelings have been invaluable in guiding my dissent against the current administration, in reminding me where the line is and why I shouldn't cross it.  The call for impeachment personifies this best.  During the Bush years liberals were proud to call for Bush's impeachment, often validating it under the belief that he lied about the Iraq war.  It was, and is, a flimsy excuse, one that if true would mean the impeachment of many Senators and Representatives, including many Democrats and liberals, and would imply a greater conspiracy throughout the world.  Pointing this out doesn't change their mind, and only serves to remind you that their dissent is based in disagreement turned into rabid hatred.

Just to be fair:  The above picture actually came from a Ron Paul rally, but it's just an example of the type of thing you would see broadcast, proudly, by liberals.

Just as liberals had no legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Bush, conservatives lack a legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Obama.  Many of the arguments I made when talking about revolution apply here.  There is a legitimate line of questioning about if his ideology is legal under the constitution, but it's such a gray that I don't believe any of the arguments (that I've heard) for impeachment are reasonable, let alone legitimate.  The call for impeachment stem from a sizable minority, who often make the call during Obama's particularly bad moments, and often are never called out.  It's not beyond reason to believe that if Obama were reelected it could send conservatives into a frenzy not unlike that of liberals during the Bush years.

The consolation is that impeachment would ultimately do more damage.  Biden is a complete moron in every sense of the word, and impeaching Obama would only serve to make him a martyr for Progressives.  His defeat, however, would be a crushing defeat, and perhaps see moderates retake control of the Democrat party.


Final thoughts

Unlike liberals, conservatives do not have much in the way of leeway.  Liberals got away with their rabid, foaming at the mouth because they have the support of the media and as such they were able to present themselves as far more moderate and reasonable then they were.  The worst of them were not shown, and the bad was always presented as no so bad.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are always presented as bad.  We're violent, we're radical, and we're insane.  Most people don't buy into that, but conservatives can't take that for granted.  Conservatives need to remember what it was like during the Bush years, and always need to do their best to keep their arguments within reason, or at least be able to justify them when the time comes.

Often people say shocking things (and too often it seems they do it just to be shocking) and too people many look the other way, unwilling to attack another conservative.  However, this is our movement, and we have an obligation to police our own.  Maybe we can't control it, but we do have the right to try.

If nothing else internal dialogue offers us the chance to strengthen our views, and helps us to defend them against liberals later.  As the bible says:

     As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

Conservatives still gaining ground

Whether you're a bit down or encouraged about the political climate today, Gallup brings you some good news with one of their latest polls:

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

Not only have conservatives maintained their plurality, but there are now twice as many self-described conservatives than there are liberals.  The increase in people describing themselves as conservatives likely comes from the drop in those calling themselves moderates, and I can't help but feel that that has something to do with another chart Gallup provides:

While the Republican party has been the conservative party for at least the last ten years, the Democrats went from a party with a plurality of moderates, to one with a plurality of liberals.  The fact the Democrats are liberal really isn't going to be surprising to anyone, but it is interesting that as liberals have taken over the Democrat party, more and more people have identified themselves as conservatives.  That leads me to believe that people's views aren't changing so much as the left is increasingly looked upon as radical, or otherwise outside the mainstream while conservatism is stilled viewed favorably.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from this is a continued sense of momentum conservatives have leading up to the midterm elections.  Rasmussen shows that Republicans are up 8 points among likely voters on the Generic Congressional Ballot:

Republican candidates now hold an eight-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 20.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.  Last week, Republicans led 46% to 36%, tying the GOP's largest lead ever since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.

In January of last year the numbers were reversed with 42% supporting Democrats and only 36% supporting the Republican.  Democrats have to contend with a universally unhappy response to the oil spill, strong anti-Obamacare sentiment, an economy that continues to struggle, and the increasing view that Obama is just as much to blame as Bush for the state of the economy.  Unless something major changes in the next few months - and there's no reason to think anything will - Democrats will find themselves replaced in the House, and possibly (though unlikely) even the Senate.

Something to think on:  Is Republicans taking control of the House and/or Senate a good thing for Obama in 2012?

Ideological

Throughout this blog I've used the term "ideological", and until now I have yet to define it.  A good example would be when the Obama administration sacrificed Arizona to the Chinese, but a better one comes from Obama today:

President Obama signaled on Friday that countries in Europe should not withdraw their extraordinary spending programs too quickly.

In a public letter to other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in advance of a summit meeting in Toronto next week, Mr. Obama wrote, “Our highest priority in Toronto must be to safeguard and strengthen the recovery.”

Mr. Obama also addressed currency exchange rates, which are likely to come up at the meeting, and repeated his support for market-based rates, a reference to views that China is holding down the value of its currency.

“This is obviously going to be an issue that we’ll continue to discuss,” a White House spokesman, Bill Burton, told reporters traveling with Mr. Obama to Ohio on Friday, according to the Associated Press.

Mr. Obama also wrote in the letter, “We must be flexible in adjusting the pace of consolidation and learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession.”

That statement represented a signal to Germany and other European countries, which have moved in recent weeks to pare spending, mindful of the wrenching consequences of excessive public debts in Greece, Portugal and Spain. The United States is trying to pare its own substantial deficit. Mr. Obama reiterated a pledge to cut the deficit, now about 10 percent of gross domestic product, in half by the 2013 fiscal year, and to 3 percent of G.D.P. by the 2015 fiscal year, a level he said would “stabilize the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio at an acceptable level” by then.

But American officials are concerned that fiscal retrenchment by too many countries at once could imperil the global recovery.

It's one thing to truly believe that increased government spending actually helps economies,  but Obama takes it beyond that and starts lecturing other nations about it.  The EU is teetering on the brink of failure because of debt, but if you looked at Obama's remarks you would think they were just being panicky.  Europe burns and Obama tells them that now is not the time to stop playing with gasoline.

One has to wonder if Obama is truly ignorant to the problem.  Democrats have wracked up incredible deficits since 2007, and continue to pursue expensive measures as if there wasn't a very real, very dangerous problem.  He continues to pay lip service the idea of cutting the deficit and the debt, but turns around and offers us expensive budgets and says we need another stimulus.

If Obama understands the problem or not is irrelevant since his ignorance would still be born from his ideological view of economics.  Europe and America have problems with spending, and Obama's priorities are set on getting them to spend more money.  It defies all sense, and this is what I mean when I use the term ideological.

Democrats Gone Crazy

The last eighteen months have been pretty interesting, and I'd say downright entertaining if it weren't for the seriousness of the situation.  After winning 08 in pretty much every category, Democrats set about to disprove the myth of the time; that they were invincible.  Though a mixture of a insanity, arrogance, and a deep rooted lack of common sense, they would make people hate them.

At least that's the reasoning we can hope for.

Now to be fair the crazy of the last year and a half hasn't been restricted to just Democrats.  We all remember that guy who did his best to not just destroy himself, but the party as well with one moronic declaration of love after another.  But for every story of Republican crazy (half of them coming from Ron Paul and Birthers) we get ten stories of Democrat crazy.

Below are some of my favorites.  I'll probably write about this again simply because I had so much fun reminiscing.  Good times.


Meet Alvin Greene

Alvin Greene came onto the political not too long ago.  Until he somehow won the South Carolina primary nobody had heard of him, and his campaign consisted of paying the $10,000 fee and...doing nothing.  I don't mean nobody in the way the media used it with Obama, I mean that one of the leading theories for him winning the primary was because voters picked names alphabetically since they didn't recognize either candidate. 

Since his primary victory he's proven to be a complete train wreck for the Democrats.  At first he was a curiosity.  People asked "Who is this guy that's going to get crushed by DeMint?" 

And then we found out about his felony charges, and it's been all downhill from there:

Court records show Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student, then talking about going to her room at a university dorm.

Charged with disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity, Greene could face up to five years in prison. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.

Democrat response has ranged from wanting him to drop out - you'll fully grasp why that's reasonable when you see the video below - to saying he's a GOP plant, which is delightfully insane (Who would plant a guy that no one's heard of, and didn't do anything during the election?).  It's not that they want to win this election, they can't, but this guy hurts just about anything at all related to the Democrats.

Skip to 2:15 to get to the interview



The drama is still playing out today with allegations of voter irregularities and Democrat Vic Rawl saying he's going to join the ticket anyways.  Why these two men want to fight over who gets the right to lose with a D next to their name is beyond me, but it's entertaining so I hope they keep at it.


The Obama Administration Photo-OP


What event could cause a city to panic and buildings to be evacuated?  A terrorist attack?  A major fire?  Maybe a massive natural disaster?  Try a photo-op the Obama administration ordered:

Monday's authorized military jet photo shoot over Lower Manhattan frightened many New Yorkers and enraged Mayor Bloomberg, who was never told the event would be occurring.

The Department of Defense had pre-approved the flight of a presidential Boeing 747 and two F16 military fighter jets, seen above in a photo taken by NY1 Viewer Tatyana Hube, to fly around Staten Island and the Statue of Liberty.

According to an administration official, the flight was being conducted to update its file photo of the plane near the Statue of Liberty.

The article briefly touches upon the chaos this sparked, and one person asks the obvious question:

The incident sparked fear in many workers in Lower Manhattan and forced the evacuation of buildings in Jersey City.

"Whoever thought this through and didn't come to the obvious conclusion that there should have been a notification of the residents of Lower Manhattan, many of whom are 9/11 survivors, how does that work?" said Gregory Segal, a Battery Park resident.

Some workers say the image invoked memories of September 11, 2001, when two hijacked commercial airliners flew into the World Trade Center towers.

No, really, how does that work?  What happened the last time people suddenly saw Boeing 747's flying low over New York City?  Was there not one person within the administration who said "Hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't do this." or at least said "Maybe we should let people know we'll be flying this plane over them."  This wasn't a one man operation, quite a few people had to of been involved and signed off on this, and that's what makes it so crazy.

To give you an idea of the panic this caused:



Oh and the picture?

The only thing that could make this better?  Finding out it cost the taxpayers $357,000.


Her Royal Highness Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Fransisco

There's a reason people don't like Nancy Pelosi, and it has something to do with her being a word I won't use here.  However if a conservative ever wants to pant liberals as elitists, they need only look to Nancy Pelosi as an example.  Pelosi has a problem with spending, which we all know, but it goes beyond just supporting overpriced, bloated bills.

Take the debate over her jet.  After 9-11 the Speaker of the House was legally obligated to fly on a military aircraft for security purposes, which makes sense.

So when does it become a problem?

Did you know she was entitled to a military plane? Neither did I. But under legislation passed after 9/11, it’s legally mandated for security reasons. Dennis Hastert had such special transport for five years.

Nancy Pelosi asked for a bigger (and far more expensive) plane because the one she was using couldn’t make it to the West Coast without a refueling stop. Hastert didn’t have that problem getting to Illinois.

It's pretty safe to say that there was no pressing security need to ensure she get a plane that can fly non-stop across the country.  Refueling at military bases isn't exactly a risky proposition, but it does take time, and our Speaker demands that no expenses be spared in getting her from point A to point B in the least amount of time possible.

Pelosi reacted with her usual level of grace, which is shrieking and screaming like a banshee.  She may have a point though, it is kinda sexist to criticize purchasing an expensive plane just so the Speaker can from point A to point B without stopping.  Downright Un-American.

You could almost ignore the jet incident.  She did have a legal obligation to fly on them, and even though the excuse is incredibly weak, it's still an excuse.  But then Pelosi, in all her brilliance, does this:

Last fall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved her district office into the new federal building in San Francisco. The move quadrupled the rent she pays, and her new $18,736 monthly bill is almost double the next-highest rental paid by a Member of the House.

A database assembled by the Sunlight Foundation in cooperation with Roll Call provides new insight into Congressional spending on district office rents. Not surprisingly, Members from large urban districts with the highest property values are paying the most for district office rental, particularly New York–area Members.

But even in these high-rent districts, Pelosi’s new digs blow away the competition.

The next highest monthly office rent belongs to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D), who occupies an office in a federal building in Manhattan’s trendy SoHo neighborhood for just under $10,600. Rep. José Serrano (D) paid $10,350 a month last year for an office in the Bronx, but he recently moved into a new building where the first month’s rent was only $9,583, his spokesman said Friday.

The fact that she's charging the US taxpayers over $200,000 a year on a district office is pretty ridiculous, but then you find out why she moved:

Pelosi’s spokesman said the high price of the Speaker’s new office is partly due to her need for additional space — she had been in her prior office for more than 20 years — and new security needs that go along with being the Speaker of the House.

“San Francisco is one of the most densely populated cities in the country and, of course, office space rents are some of the highest, on average, in the country,” said Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary.

“After being based in the Burton Federal Building for over 20 years, we were no longer able to meet the needs of San Franciscans in the existing space. The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size. Additionally, the new building is more centrally located, right off of Market Street, which allows for easier access for constituents via public transportation,” Hammill said. Pelosi’s old office was about a half mile away, near San Francisco’s city hall.

Who buys this crap?  Around $150,000 extra in costs because you wanted 33% more room and "new security"?  That math is pretty sketchy even by Democrat standards, but the security part is what boggles my mind.  She spent two years in the old building as Speaker, and suddenly she needs new security? What pressing threat justifies charging the US taxpayer so much more money?

This is all ignoring the moronic statements Pelosi regularly makes.  When you spout out gems like "We have to pass to bill to find out what's in it." people tend to think you're lording over us poor, common, peasants.  Which is either dangerously true or dangerously delusional.  Probably a mixture of both.


Tell me who you are!!!

Democrat politicians have done a lot of things in the last eighteen months, but one of the things they've held back on is assaulting people, which is pretty wise when you want people to vote for you.  Or you don't want to go to jail, take your pick.

But Representative Etheridge was having a bad day, so what does he do when two students ask him a question on the street?  Loses his mind:



Check out the unedited footage here.

The only thing more confusing than his action is how quick Democrats have been to defend him.  I don't get it, why?  Even if the students were trying to ambush him, and are in fact not students, how is his response at all acceptable?  He could of just kept walking, or given them an answer that didn't mean anything.  Heck he could of even told them he doesn't appreciate being interviewed on the sidewalk.  Really, he could of done just about anything other than what he did.

Hey, maybe they were students who were inspired by this message of civic involvement!



A crazed hypocrite makes for "Wtf" moments apparently.


Expect more posts like this in the future.  The last year and a half has been filled with Democrats going mad, but virtually none of it gets the attention it deserves since the media is too busy going nuts over conservatives.  Hearing what these people say or seeing what they do truly helps you grasp just how our country got to where it is today.

It's also the best argument for Congressional term limits.

The Myth of Green Jobs

Although the Green movement has gained momentum within the US, it struggled to make the same progress in America as it had in Europe for one simple reason:  Economics.  While Americans were somewhat eager to embrace aspects of environmentalism, they were hesitant to believe everything, and even more hesitant to engage in policies that could harm the economy.  In order to change what would ultimately be a losing argument the Greens shifted arguments and focused on the potential economic boon of their policies, and thus the term "Green jobs" became commonplace.

The arguments are rather attractive, and even I agree with aspects of them.  They argue that going Green can help America achieve energy independence, help prevent global warming, and create desperately needed jobs. In the 08 election both parties picked up on this to one degree or another.  Democrats stayed focused on the environmental aspects of it, while Republicans merged it into current energy plans with McCain calling for an "all of the above" option.  Both sides admitted that the technology needed more worth, but other then that there never really seemed to be a downside.

However since then we've had access to new information.  A study from the King Juan Carlos University of Madrid found that Green energy is largely inefficient, expensive, and often kills more jobs then it saves, or exactly what you'd expect from something with the Green label:

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

The staggering cost of green jobs isn't something isolated to just Spain there's also Denmark:

• The Danish government spent 90,000 to 140,000 per a wind energy job created
• Only ten percent of the people employed by the wind industry held new jobs, the other ninety percent were old jobs that transferred over
• The average clean energy energy employee contributed 10,000 less to the economy than the average Dane, resulting in a GDP $270 million less than it would of been had the employees NOT been clean energy

And Germany:

• Wind energy costs three times as much as conventional, and solar eight times as much
• Since 2000 the German government has spent over $101 billion in subsidies for clean energy that only makes up 7% of the nation's power 
• The government has spent an average of $240,000 per a green job

And even America:

Yes, but getting these jobs is burning a hole in the national wallet. The problem is that even advocates like Obama concede that these programs are not very cost-effective in creating jobs.

Obama says the grants will create 17,000 cleantech jobs. Well, get out your calculator. $2.3 billion for 17,000 jobs equals $135,294 per job. (And that’s not including the eventual interest on this deficit spending). Those green jobs had better pay well over six figures to justify that expense.

Not to worry, the administration has a plan to solve this, too. It wants Congress to approve another $5 billion for “tens of thousands” more green jobs.

Although the Greens tried to present their case as one of pragmatism, the reality is that their cause is still highly ideological, and even borderline religious.  Numbers like these are staggering, but rather than admitting that and encouraging the continued development of more efficient green energy, they push forward as if we have some great moral imperative to adopt clean tech.

I, and most Americans, aren't against Green energy, but what we are against is crippling our economy in order to fulfill some ideological dream, and yet that is routinely what we get.  Take the stimulus which was filled with green and other liberal projects, cost a fortune, and failed to produce the numbers it said it would.  Indeed the numbers it did produce were strikingly similar to those above, with jobs in some areas costing in the hundreds of thousands per a job produced.

If Obama wants to help this economy - and himself - he should abandon such overly ideological policies.  .  Green Jobs, as of now, are a myth, and throwing money at a myth is as dangerous as it is insane. Until Green technology becomes efficient and affordable we would be better looking at conventional methods to solve today's problems.  Trying to force "being Green" on us will only continue to produce negative results.

Picture of the day

Gallup has Obama down to 46% approval rating today, and along with it came some interesting numbers.  Obama is struggling with just about every demographic other than the poor, young, and black.  In fact the black numbers make for an interesting visualization.

Black approval is around 92%, while white approval at 40%.  All other demographics are trending downward (including, strangely enough, Latinos).  Meanwhile blacks are...er...trending up.  Despite Obamacare sinking, despite the oil spill, and despite the corruption in the Sestak offer their numbers don't budge.  If they don't disapprove of the President when he's doing so poorly, what is left other than race, and what would you call people a who remain loyal purely because of race?

Maybe Obama should lecture Mexico

Less than a week ago President Calderon went before Congress and lectured us all on the evil's of the new Arizona law:

Calderon, the first foreign national leader to address Congress this year, said he strongly disagrees with the Arizona law that requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.

"It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement," he said to cheers, mainly from the Democratic side of the chamber.

Speaking in English, he warned of the risk when "core values we all care about are breached."

Calderon makes a pretty speech, standing up as a heroic figure for his people and warning the mighty American oppressors about the dangers of racism, and telling us we should change our ways.  His speech, however, is nothing more than pretty words.  Democrats choose to pick ideology over their fellow Americans, although we've seen that before, and to add insult to injury they ignore the obvious:  That Mexico has effectively exported 10% of its population into America as a means to sustain their economy and avoid social unrest over their corrupt, broken government.

If Calderon gets to come over here and lecture us about the horrors of racism, perhaps Obama should do the same.  Obama is the first black President, and as such you would think he would take some interest in addressing racism against blacks whenever possible.  By that I mean legitimate concerns, not the political demagoguery they use against the Tea Party.  Calderon's lecture presents the perfect opportunity for Obama to travel to Mexico and address an issue not really touched upon by the American media:  Mexican racism.

It's difficult to know where to start exactly, but President Calderon's predecessor, President Fox, wouldn't be a bad place.  In 2005 when the illegal immigration debate was raging President Fox had this add to the debate:

"There is no doubt that Mexican men and women, full of dignity, determination and a capacity to work, are doing the jobs in the United States that not even black people want to do there."

When President Fox said this there was a widespread outrage among both the American and Mexico press, even though his words aren't particularly outrageous by Mexican standards.  However that says more about Mexico than anything else, and doesn't excuse the racist language used.  Back when this was said Jesse Jackson issued a meek statement on the whole affair:

[Fox] opened a door for us to talk about the system of denial… In late years, we have been locked out of conversations [negotiations with the President Fox and the US on issues of immigration, trade, education and health care]," said Mr. Jackson. "It's been only President Bush and President Fox."

Compare this to his response to the Arizona law:

Jesse Jackon appeared on MSNBC today and told Contessa Brewer that the new law, allowing police to require proof of citizenship from anyone they “suspect” of being an illegal immigrant, is the equivalent of ‘terrorism for the innocent…you look suspicious because you are Mexican.” Jackson also seemed to suggest that even Gov. Bill Richardson was at risk of being pulled over under this law because of his appearance. And further pointed out that it’s not the illegal immigrants who are to blame for our economy it’s Wall Street

Again ideology (amnesty for illegal immigrants and all that it brings) trumps principles (standing against racism, and standing up for blacks).  Is there a single leader of the black, liberal community who actually cares about blacks?

Obama, Jesse Jackson, and others are ignoring more than just the principle of defending blacks from racism in other countries, they're failing to protect blacks in their own.  In perhaps one of the most shocking examples of racism we find Mexican gangs participating in ethnic cleansing campaigns in our own country:

Anthony Prudhomme was slain by members of the Avenues, a Latino street gang. But he was not a rival gang member, or a police informant, or a drug dealer. The Avenues did not target him for the content of his character, or even the contents of his apartment.

They targeted him for the color of his skin.

Prudhomme was murdered because he identified himself as black (he was in fact mixed-race) in a neighborhood occupied by one of the many Latino street gangs in Los Angeles County. Incredibly, even though these gangs are fundamentally criminal enterprises interested mainly in money, gang experts inside and outside the government say that they are now engaged in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" -- racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans.

The leaders of the black community most certainly have a responsibility to protect the interests of blacks living within America, even when that clashes with their own far-left ideology.  If this had been a white gang there would've been an uproar.  Jesse Jackson would of gone there personally to comfort the families, blacks would of demanded the white gang members been handled harshly, and the entire nation would watch the gang killings happening in LA very closely for years to come.  But because it clashes with the liberal argument that illegal immigrants do not increase crime, it cannot be mentioned.  Perhaps liberals consider the blacks who are slaughtered by these gangs to be silent martyrs, dying for the greater good of mankind.  I somehow think their motivations are a little more selfish than that.

There is more, less extreme evidence as well.

Take this incredibly racist show that was broadcast on the Spanish Language channel.  I got about five minutes in before I shook my head and walked away, and those who know me know that I'm fairly strict about what I consider racism.  It seems that every slur and stereotype they can think of is not just used, but repeated over and over again.

If that show didn't do it for you than maybe you'd enjoy the stamps Mexico made to commemorate one of their favorite comic characters, Memin Pinguin:

Without any context the images themselves are pretty offensive.  When I look at these pictures I see a shocking resemblance to Curious George, which may just be me, but it doesn't change the point that this character looks more like a monkey than than a human being.  A BlackNews article gives you a bit more insight into the character:

Then there's Pinguin. An entire generation of Mexican school children (and many adults) has grown up delighting in the zany frolics of the popular comic hero. Pinguin has grossly distorted monkey like features, a baldhead and big ears. His mother is a grotesquely fat, bandanna-wearing mammy. The black mammy domestic was the stock racist image of black women in countless 1930s and 1940s American movies. But Pinguin's mother isn't a domestic. She routinely wears her bandanna around their house, and it's a ramshackle house in a poor barrio.

The Pinguin series ran in Mexican newspapers and magazines during the 1960s and 1970s. It was created by Sixto Valencia Burgos, one of Mexico's top creative artists. In 1998, Burgos became president of the Mexican National Association of Comic Artists. The Pinguin series is so popular that decades after Burgos discontinued the series, fan clubs still sprout up on both sides of the border. The comic books are still wildly popular collector's items in Mexico, and other parts of Latin America, and continue to be much discussed and much read.

I recommend reading the entire article, and I would like to point out that this character seems to be the perfect visualization for their "term of endearment" for blacks, which is negritos, and means "little black people."

Perhaps the most damning counter-argument to Calderon's lecture is their own policies toward blacks in regards to illegal immigration.  From wikipedia:

Because their existence is not widely known throughout Mexico and the rest of the world, they are often assumed to be illegal immigrants from Belize or elsewhere in Latin America (Sailer, 2002). There have been many accounts of Afro-Mexicans being pulled over by the police and being forced to sing the Mexican national anthem to prove they are Mexican (Graves, 2004). This discrimination causes many Afro-Mexicans, if they are able, to conceal their African lineage.

The source is in all spanish, so if anyone can read it and dispute this piece, I'll remove it.  I know Wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy, but it's not particularly bad either.  If the source is true, and it's not hard to believe that it is, then this is the most damning thing that could possibly be brought up against Mexico.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mexico, and indeed most of Latin America has the remnants of the old Spanish racial caste system still in place.  Whites are at the top of that caste system, and blacks at the bottom.  For Mexico to lecture us on illegal immigration is ridiculous, but for them to lecture us on racism is an insult.  And for Obama, the "pinnacle of black trimumph", so simply take it is unforgivable.