2014 Midterms

I have never wanted a token minority of either party.

I have always felt that the minority party needs to always be strong enough to keep the majority in check; to always keep them on their toes to do what's right. I believe that when we have too much power held by one party, that we then end up with laws like Obamacare, FDR's New Deal, or LBJ's Great Society.

I also feel that we keep electing as a reaction to the last election. We got Clinton because of Bush41, we got Bush 43 because of Clinton, we got Obama because of Bush43, etc. But, the problem is, the pendulum seems to be swinging wider each time and this is bad. Will we get someone too far to the right because of Obama?

So, now, I'm worried abut the mid-term. We might get an election where far too much power is resting in Republican hands. Don't get me wrong, here; I am a Republican, I come from a Republican family, my first election was in 1976 and it's been Republican all the way since then. But, even so, power corrupts.

Republicans are only human. They are subject to the same foibles, missteps and flaws the rest of us fall to. They can get big heads, too, like the democrats did in foisting Obamacare on us. One example; the TSA. So, I fear a too great Republican majority, just as much as a too great democrat majority. I want a minority with the power to tie down the majority, ensuring that as few laws as possible flow out of DC.

Of course, there are other things I want, too;

• Repeal of the 16th Amendment,
• Repeal of the 17th Amendment,
• Repeal of Obamacare,
• Phasing out of Social Security,
• Phasing out the popular vote for president as it is not in the Constitution,
• Return to a lassiez faire supreme Court, and
• A strict constructionist adherence to the Constitution.

This is by no means a complete list, but it is the high points.

But, my general point is, I want a Republican majority, but one that is held in check by a strong democrat minority. I fear we won't have that and may have a Republican Congress running amok.

That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

"Obama has been racking up the debt at the rate of $1 trillion a year."

One TRILLION dollars a year.

That's $31,709.79 per second.

Repeat: PER SECOND!!

As of the 2010 Census, there are 281,421,906 people in the US. So, over the course of his presidency, Obama has tossed $20,881.50 onto the debt load of EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.

What was it this lying thief said when he was running against Bush?

Oh yeah, June, 2008:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Obama has added $5.9 trillion - 1.475 TIMES MORE than Bush and in a shorter time - "by his lonesome."

$31,688.96 "for every man, woman and child."

Hey, Obama never claimed to be patriotic, so he's simply living up to that.

Remember, $31,709.79 per second; he's got 66,843,593.65 seconds to go and the clock is ticking.

$31,709.79 for each tick.

Tick tock, tick tock...

Just What The Founding Fathers Ordered

Obama administration to order lenders to cut mortgage payments for
jobless

By Renae Merle and dina elboghdady
Thursday, March 25, 2010; 7:14 PM

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it's tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

Nah, the feds aren't taking over the financial market.

This is just what the Founders had in mind; the federal government dictating to private business.

Hmm.

Dictating.

Wonder what that makes Obama?

Speaking as someone who is jobless and pays a mortgage, I oppose this act by the criminal socialist Obama administration.

I signed a contract with my lender. I have to live up to the terms of that contract. I have the right to renegotiate my contract due to my current status, but my lender is not required to agree. And, unless he does, my contract remains as is.

If the feds are allowed to step in and make contracts null and void, what reliance can be placed upon contracts?

Absolutely none.

Could Wipe Out His Cabinet

From the mouth of the tax-cheat who is now Secretary of the Treasury;

Geithner: Obama to crack down on tax evaders

(NECN: Washington) - Over the next several months, the president will propose a series of legislative and enforcement actions to reduce tax avoidance," this afternoon said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Can the hypocrisy be any more clear?

Obama needs to watch out, though. Cracking down on tax cheats might leave him with no cabinet.

Tom Daschle had to pay back taxes, Nancy Killefer pulled because of tax issues and now, Ron Kirk, former mayor of Dallas, owes back taxes. Oh, but Ron has agreed to pay those back taxes. Isn't that big of him? He agreed.

And, we have Mr. Big, Tim Geithner, SecTreas, who didn't pay taxes.

How many more in this misbegotten administration are - lax - on tax isues?

Well, maybe "cracking down" is subjective...

How Are Those Flip Flops, Obama?

No, not the ones on your feet, the ones on your campaign promises.

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Obama wrote: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

But, now, he's decided to forego public financing.

Obama won’t accept public financing

By Sam Youngman
Posted:
06/19/08 08:46 AM [ET]

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) announced Thursday morning that he will not accept public financing for the general election, a move that will give him a major advantage over Republican standard-bearer Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

So, just like he claimed that he did not accept PAC and lobbyist money, the truth is that he did.

Now, he claimed that he'd accept only public money for his campaign, when the truth is that he will not.

Not real big on your promises, eh, Barack?

I guess it depends on what your definition of "aggressive" is.

A Democrat Idea I Partly Agree With

Democrats may to require Iraq to use its oil revenue to pay for its own reconstruction.

This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. One of the points Bush made towards finishing up the Gulf War was that Iraq would not have to pay for our effort.

I could see not having them pay upfront, but I always thought that they should refill our coffers, once the war was won.

Now, I am unsure how US legislation has any hold over another sovereign nation. Since when is Iraq under US law? If Iraq were a possession of the US, or a colony - not a bad idea, by the way - then our legislation has teeth. But, as long as Iraq is sovereign, we can't tell them what to do.
We can persuade them, but not dictate to them.

So, how the dems figure to make this work is something I'd like to hear. Sure, we can cut out funding, but that won't force them to make up for the lack. It is still a matter of Iraqi choice.

That was the part I agreed with. Now for what I don't agree with.

The second part of the bill would be to have the Iraqis tke the lead in military operations.

Yeah, that's a great idea. Put the unskilled in charge - there's a sure path to success.

If you go in for major surgery, do you want the skilled surgeon with steady hands to work on you, or the med-school freshman?

This democrat plan is insisting on the freshman.

Leave it to dems to botch up even a good idea...

Flippity-Floppity

Past - We can do it!

Present - No, we can't!

================================
Hillary flip-flops, contradicts Bill - & herself - in N.H. debate

BY IAN BISHOP and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Thursday, September 27th 2007, 1:58 AM

HANOVER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton scored with a Democratic audience last night by contradicting her husband's belief that a terrorist could be tortured to foil an imminent plot - but what observers didn't know is she was contradicting herself, too.

"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."

She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.
================================

So, Hill, which is it? Torture, Yea or Nay?

How To Lose A Majority

In one easy step...

=============================
Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like -- a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
=============================

Voters don't tend to vote for those who do what they don't like. Republicans found that out in 2006 and the dems don't seem to have been paying attention.

Not Dingell, anyway.

The Backpedaling Begins

Looks like Bush won't be the only president - actual or potential - keeping the troops in Iraq;

==============================
Dems Can't Make Guarantee on Iraq Troops

Sep 27, 6:26 AM (ET)
By BETH FOUHY

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
==============================

I wonder how MoveOn will bastardize their names?

Something Fishy...

Islands of the US Commonwealth, such as the Northern Marianas, will have to comply with the new minimum wage laws;

==========================
Island rights and wage bill intertwined

By Susan Crabtree

House Democrats plan to bring the Northern Mariana Islands in line with U.S. minimum wage laws under legislation that comes to the floor today, thus ending a decade of policy favoring island businesses secured by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
==========================

Except, not American Samoa.

Why is that? As can be seen from the Hill News article above, the new minimum wage law was to end a dacade of policies favoring island businesses.

So, what is the reason for leaving out American Samoa?

Maybe Del Monte's Starkst Tuna?

Starkist Tuna employs 3/4s of the workers in American Samoa. A minimum wage hike may really affect them adversely.

But, where is Del Monte headquartered?

Why, San Francisco.

Oh! Wait a minute. That's Nancy Pelosi's district.

==========================
Shadegg finds House wage hike a bit fishy

5:29 PM MST Thursday
by Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal

Phoenix Republican Congressman John Shadegg is criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for exempting American Samoa and its tuna canneries from the House of Representatives' recently passed minimum wage increase.

Del Monte Foods Co. subsidiary Starkist Tuna employs three-fourths of the work force in American Samoa. Del Monte is based in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.
==========================

So, what is the big change the democrats brought? A change from Republican cronies to democrat?

How is that a change?

Looks Like A Return To The Bad Old Days

Seems the dems may have the Senate now, too.

Unless something happens, there's probably a good chance they'll take the Executive in 2008, as well.

I'm very disappointed in my party. They had everything and threw it all away when they caught Beltway Fever.

But, whaddya gonna do?

"Join the democrats," some might say.

Not if my life depended on it. I oppose the very fiber of the democrat party. It has been an abomination since the criminal FDR, at least.

No. I will fight them with the tools available - my vote.

However, I think that the democrats will self-destruct. They are a party based upon emotion - Dean's scream, for example - and I don't think they will be able to keep their emotions in check. I believe they will not resist "payback."

I firmly believe that the democrat's entire agenda will be "payback." Will I be proved wrong? I don't know.

If I am wrong, then I think the country is in for socialism. What the Founding Fathers started will be tossed upon the scrapheap of history.

If I am right, then there will probably be some short-term damage, but nothing irreparable. The democrats will shriek and flail and show their true selves. The electorate will recoil and hand them their hats in 2008. Will this usher in a return of Republicans? If they have not, by then, learned from their mistakes that led them to be ousted in 2006, then I hope not. Maybe there will be an opportunity for the Libertarians - unless they trip themselves up.

Meanwhile, I'm going to have two years of material.

Tough Luck Liberals

It's been decided.

Democrats have taken the House and will probably take the Senate - unless something has changed since I got out of my car.

Now what?

Now, the democrats have a tremendous burden.

They did not win because of their success.

They won because of the Republican's failure.

The democrats now have two years of opportunity. But, they will be under a very hot spotlight. Any missteps will be pounced upon by the Republicans with gusto and magnified by the circumstances that gave them their victory of last night.

I believe that, if the democrats do not produce in these two years, the 2008 elections shall bring a definite Republican victory. Whether for good or ill.

The electorate's memory is short. In 2008, they will not remember why they put the democrats in office. They will only remember what happened as a result.

This is a great opportunity for the democrats to demonstrate that they deserve their victory. But, it is also a great opportunity for Republicans to focus on their failures and correct them.

For me, the democrat party is a failure in and of itself. The Republicans - well, the current set - have not demonstrated themselves as all that much better. I am forced to have faith in the Republican ideology, despite the fact that few Republican leaders seem to give that ideology much credence. But, at least the Republicans have their ideology going for them, even if it's ignored. The democrats lack even that.