Obama, Tax Cuts, Islamophobia, and the Mosque

There are several issues that need to be discussed on this blog and I'm hoping to get some debate going. On several, I have some legitimate questions for my liberal friends to help me understand, so let's dive right in.

Is Obama a Muslim?

Returning from a Summer Break

It is time to blog again. After a little break from the blog for the summer to deal with some personal issues, my divorce is final and I’m actually following the news again. So much information…


Let’s do some random drive-by thoughts.


I found it very interesting that the Elena Kagan hearings were actually more about Thurgood Marshall, whom Kagan clerked for after law school. I guess Republicans had nothing to attack her about. Yet, they still didn’t want to vote for her.

The Third Depression? Why Paul Krugman may be right, but for the complete opposite reason.

In today's New York Times Op-Ed, "Economist" Paul Krugman stated:

"We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending."

I did not until now believe that someone could seemingly understand economics, have done any amount of research into the the worst Depression of US History - that being the Great Depression of 1929-1941 - and be able to say something so ridiculously wrong.

The Rule of Law and the Gulf Coast Oil Spill

It's becoming more and more apparent that the Obama Regime doesn't much care for our Constitution. He admitted as much back in 2007, stating that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties - that is it says what the government cannot do to us. He doesn't like these limitations put on government and its showing.



The most recent example of the Obama destruction of the rule of law in this country is the $20Bn shakedown of BP. Now I know many of you (myself included) think that BP made a bunch of mistakes and deserves to pay for its faults. Hayword (the CEO) clearly has a PR problem. However, I have to stand and proclaim clearly that this $20Bn "escrow account" to be managed by an "independent third party" (a laughable joke - Kenneth Feinberg, the guy Obama put in charge of docking top executive pay, is this "independent party") is completely unconstitutional and is an utter disgrace to the criminal and civil court system we have in this country for dealing with problems of this type.

Not just the party of NO – The Republicans’ Roadmap for America’s Future

In recent months, many on the left have accused the Republicans in Congress of being simply the party of “no”. President Obama himself has accused congressional Republicans of just sitting on the sidelines and hoping for him to fail because they’ve made a political calculation that if he fails, they’ll win in November.

The problem with this accusation is that it is completely false. Do Republicans and conservatives want Obama’s agenda to fail? Of course! We know that his agenda will ruin America as we know and love it. We know that taxing more wealth away from the private sector and spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have will only further stagnate our already fragile economy and ultimately, as predicted by economist Art Laffer, could lead to a secondary collapse of the economy – otherwise known as a double-dip recession.

The point of this post is to discuss some of the ideas percolating on the Right. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin put together “A Roadmap for America’s Future”.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

The Second Amendment and Suspected Terrorists

One thing that conservatives often attack liberals on is the “being soft on terrorism” issue. The consistent claim is that liberals are putting America in danger by being soft on terror.

These claims have been made often, especially on the issue of accused terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Charles Krauthammer has been hard on liberals when it comes to Miranda-izing suspected terrorists, even though Attorney General Holder has recently embraced a new Miranda policy endorsed by the conservative columnist.

The Obama administration has further been criticized by many Republicans for having followed the rules about how long you can question a terror suspect before you read him his rights. These objections have been particularly loud since the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted Times Square bombing.

If Obama Does It - Republican Just Gotta Hate It

In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, plenty of Republicans said they found it refreshing that Miers' experience amounted primarily to her time as a corporate lawyer and Bush aide.

That included Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who noted then that "40 percent of the men and women who have served as Supreme Court justices" had no judicial experience.

"One reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers' qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court," Cornyn said in 2005. "Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives or academicians."

What the Stevens Retirement Might Actually Mean

If it has been so that the Supreme Court could properly be called the “Kennedy Court,” because of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s grip on a tie-breaking vote much of the time, which may well be even more so when the Justices open a new Term next October. Without Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring at the end of the current Term, Justice Kennedy moves into position to become a frequent “assigning Justice.” That is a role not well known beyond Court-watchers, but it is quite important, and can make a difference in how ambitious, or cautious, the Court is in ruling on major, hard-fought cases.

But Kennedy also will no longer be an object of Justice Stevens’ efforts to marshal a majority of the Court for results that are — more often than not — liberal rather than conservative. There is, at present, no other member of the Court’s liberal bloc likely to match Stevens’ ability to persuade a sometimes-reluctant Kennedy to join with that bloc in a closely divided case. If Kennedy is to vote for liberal outcomes, it may well have to be more of a personal choice than it has seemed to be up to now.

Arizona is leading the way - we should follow.

Let me begin by first saying that the new law recently passed by the state of Arizona regarding illegal immigration should not have been necessary.

No, if the Federal government had done what it promised to do, what it is charged with doing – protecting the citizens and borders of the United States – this task would not have fallen to the states to take up for themselves.

Yesterday was May Day. Hundreds of thousands of people, in all likelihood many of them illegally here, protested in the streets of this country. They want President Obama to tackle the politically unviable task of “immigration reform”, which to all but the most obstinately blind translates directly into “amnesty for all illegal immigrants”.

Is Texas Synonymous With Today's Conservatism?

USA Today (Monday, April 12, 2010) featured a debate on education on its editorial page (9A). It was fairly revealing and also of no small concern to those of us who believe that our country guarantees certain freedoms to each citizen, including freedom of religion. It was no accident that Thomas Jefferson insisted upon "separation of church and state" as a condition for the new nation he helped form.

It was this very dedication to separation of church and state, (especially if the religion were not the old-fashioned Judaeo-Christian ethic to which the founding fathers ascribed), that has caused old Tom (Jefferson, that is) to fall in esteem in the Lone Star State.

It's Not Going To Fail

Health reform is now almost completely law. Many Democrats finally realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform -- which was never as negative as portrayed -- shows signs of improving. And I've been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.

Repeal! A Conservative Call to Arms

On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The bill is with the President, who will most likely sign the bill into law on March 23, 2010. The vote was 219-212. Not one Republican voted in favor of it.

So now that it’s done, what does it mean? What can we do? What comes next? Will America ever be the same again?

I need to apologize to the readers of my blog for losing hope yesterday in my pre-vote blog posting. I admit, I did feel incredibly upset, angry, betrayed, depressed, and all around sick to my stomach because I know what this bill represents. I know what a power grab it is. I know how all of our lives will be changed if it is enacted. I know of the massive new tax increases it will impose, and I know of the insurmountable debt it will add to our already nearly budget busting levels of red ink.