Skip to content

Obama’s Warped View of the Role of Government

July 18, 2011

Last week I was struck by how differently liberals look at the world.  In a press conference regarding raising the debt ceiling, President Obama made the statement:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

For starters, there is nothing that prevents the President from writing as large a check as he is comfortable writing to pay for any kid’s college education—let me give him my address, as my daughter begins college in September and I could use some cash.

He said he won’t accept a deal to raise the debt ceiling if he is “. . . able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need . . .”

Since I’m not a liberal, I’m not familiar with the idea that I’m not able to keep what I earn, although I am reminded of the same when I look at the withholding on my pay stub every two weeks, and the rather large slice of my earnings that get shoveled into the black hole of government, but I digress.

What I earn belongs to me, not the government, and I am able to keep all of it and pay my taxes accordingly.  And government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

Later in his speech, President Obama went on to say:

And if you don’t have revenues, it means you are putting more of a burden on the people who can least afford it.  And that’s not fair.  And I think the American people agree with me on that.

Liberals love to hide behind “Fairness.”  Let’s call fairness what it is—Socialism.  I hate break it to you, but life is simply not fair; there are winners and losers.

Government exists to serve the people and ensure that ours freedoms and liberties are protected, with an absolute minimum of government intrusion.  Liberals try to turn this inside out in the name of “Fairness,” using people to serve government and redistribute wealth, eroding the very freedoms and liberties our founding fathers intended government to protect.

(The entire transcript of the press conference can be viewed here

A. Muser


Governor Christie for President?

September 10, 2010

Governor Christie for President of the United States?

A. Muser

Voters Take Note–Democrats Raise Taxes–Republicans Lower Them

September 9, 2010

When the rubber meets the road, let’s be clear about precisely who the party of higher taxes is–Democrats.  If you had any doubt, and you shouldn’t have, let the numbers do the talking.  Feast your eyes upon the tax increases Democrats are putting on the backs of “wealthy” American families.    If your family income is $75,000, your tax increase will be $1,126; if your family income is $100,000, your tax increase will be $1,837; if your family income is $200,000, your tax increase will be $3,672 . . .

Iran’s Ahmadinejad—Picking-Up Where Hitler Left Off

February 22, 2010

Many of us were not born when Adolph Hitler slaughtered millions of the world’s Jews, yet we wonder how the world could have remained silent and allowed such a monster to gain the power to kill millions of innocent men, women and children.  Unfortunately, some have not learned from history and seem doomed to repeat it.

In a sick twist of irony, the world has been unwilling to exterminate a similar strongman, who denies the holocaust and existence of Israel, and who at this very moment is building a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Once again, attempts to deal with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad through direct talks have been futile and fruitless.  How long will the world continue to kick the can down the road, allowing Ahmadinejad to run out the clock?

Does anyone really believe that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes?  Of course not—Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and the world is watching.

The United States recently exposed a secret enrichment site at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom, which Iran should have declared three years ago when it began construction there.  However, Iran decided to keep it secret until September this year.  Never mind that the site is only suitable for 3,000 centrifuges, enough for making a bomb but in no way sufficient for producing nuclear fuel for a civilian reactor.

Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency recently discovered a secret dossier containing evidence that Iran experimented with advanced nuclear warhead design.

How long will the world allow Ahmadinejad to play it like a Stradivarius?

We cannot rely on sanctions and hope to avoid a nuclear Iran, nor can the world once again remain silent and allow a monster to gain the power to kill millions of innocent men, women and children.

A. Muser

We’re Not in New Jersey or Virginia Anymore Dorothy—or are We?

January 17, 2010

If President Obama’s campaign visit to Massachusetts does for Martha Coakley what his similar visits did in New Jersey and Virginia for Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds, Democrats will lose their veto-proof majority in the U.S. Senate with Coakley’s defeat Tuesday.  Democrats’ insistence on ramming healthcare down the throats of American voters, combined with the other big-government policies President Obama and Democrats are pursuing, may be the beginning of the end.

Martha Coakley’s defeat on Tuesday in Massachusetts’ special election to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate will be a deathblow to Democrats’ healthcare legislation in Congress.  More importantly, a defeat Tuesday will cause many Democrats up for reelection in vulnerable seats across the country to resist sticking their necks out to support President Obama’s agenda.  Coakley’s defeat Tuesday will result in a move Wednesday by Democrat lawmakers across the country to get to the center, where the voters are, to save their own skin.

Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s election, the fact that Democrats had to call the President in to a solidly blue state to defend the nostalgic seat of the “Lion of the Senate” signals a significant repudiation of the Democrats’ agenda the past year.  Voters are mad as hell right now and Tuesday we’ll get a glimpse at just how deep voter discontent will run this coming November.

A. Muser

President Obama to America—Read My Lips, No Transparency

January 6, 2010

Many Americans were looking forward to the promise of change extolled by candidate Barack Obama on the presidential campaign trail.  “Change” was printed on every campaign sign, button, bumper sticker and placard, and it served as the background in many of candidate Obama’s televised speeches and campaign rallies.

The politically convenient and rewarding cornerstone of candidate Obama’s “change” campaign was transparency.  He promised us that he would be a different kind of president.

Well, many Americans are feeling double-crossed and used right now, after voting for candidate Obama because of his promise to bring transparency to Washington, only to now learn that he and other Democrat leaders are excluding America from the democratic process as a healthcare deal is being forged this very moment behind closed doors in secret meetings.

Regardless of where Americans come down on the policy questions addressed in the healthcare legislation, healthcare impacts every American in one way or another, accounting for one-sixth of this nation’s economy.  To say that Americans are entitled to participate in healthcare’s reformation is an understatement and voters should be demanding transparency and storming the steps of this nation’s capital with pitchforks to get it.

Democrat leaders are forgoing an open, public reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the healthcare reform legislation, opting instead for secret meetings at the White House, which is simply undemocratic and unacceptable.  Brazenly excluding the public from this process requires a conscious level of paternalistic and dictatorial arrogance that simply transcends description with the written word.

What is really difficult for Americans to come to terms with is not that candidate Obama has broken his repeated promises to America that he would “bring C-SPAN into the healthcare negotiations.”  Instead, it is the disregard for an open, democratic process that President Obama and Democratic leaders have undertaken that really smacks of backroom deals and having something to hide, true or not.

This healthcare legislation is so voluminous, complicated, and unintelligible, that it really requires open debate, challenge and understanding in a public forum, rather than partisan drafting behind closed doors and jamming it through to declare some sort of political victory.

Transparency and having C-SPAN in the room during the healthcare negotiations were explicit promises candidate Obama made to Americans.  Voters have long memories and don’t look kindly on presidents who violate their own campaign promises, just ask George H.W. Bush, “Read my lips . . .”

A. Muser

Are Enviros Like Watermelons–Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside?

December 14, 2009

One week ago, on the same day 193 nations converged on the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drove a stake into the ground, declaring carbon emissions its dominion and an “endangerment” to human health.   The coordination of the EPA’s announcement with the opening of the conference was transparent as a political opportunity and it conveyed desperation, likely a reaction to the public’s disengagement from the issue of climate change and the administration’s need to appease the left flank.  Unfortunately for the administration and Democrats more generally, attempting to place global warming front-and-center right now is a conscious and direct repudiation of the issues most important to voters in Middle America.

A January 2009 poll by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which can be viewed right here, rated global warming dead last as a priority issue—number 20 out of 20—well below issues like the economy, jobs, terrorism, Social Security, education and Medicare, to name a few.  Democrats’ desire to jam Americans by attempting to make global warming a priority and the EPA the tip of the spear is a mistake.  Democrats are demonstrating that they are out of step with Middle America and in lock-step with those outliers desiring a command-and-control economy.

This is not to say that Republicans are in touch with the needs of those in the middle, it’s just to point-out the obvious; the public’s interest in addressing global warming is waning.  Many folks are quite frankly a bit confused.  The rabid zeal with which many of the global warming alarmists advocate and the redistributive wealth solutions they advance leave reasonable people in Middle America wondering if this fanatical environmentalism is the new socialism.  Are these environmental extremists like watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside?

Most Americans have little to no interest in the globalism that attaches to any discussion of reparations or remedies to be paid to developing nations by developed nations as part of a global warming solution.  In fact, most Americans are likely more isolationist than not, with tough economic sledding at home and two wars abroad.  Further, any solution assumes that there is in fact a global warming problem, which some argue may also be in dispute, given recent revelations that some of the science behind global warming was done to produce a predetermined result.

Given the gravity of the financial cost that any global warming solution would have on the world economy—$45 trillion has been mentioned—no solution should be proposed without a virtual unanimity of solid science behind global warming.

Many Americans have read that 10-20% of global warming is man made and 80-90% of global warming is natural, not man made.  Additionally, they believe that global warming is part of a natural cycle that has been occurring on earth for 4.5 billion years.

Nonetheless, the desire for a clean environment is non-partisan—we all want it, and many of us on the left, right and in the middle are doing our part every day to protect the environment and reduce the size of our carbon footprint, without the need for globalism, redistributive wealth solutions, or saber-rattling by environmental extremists.

A. Muser