The End Justifies The Means: The Words "Lie" Or "Failed" Aren't In Their Dictionary. It's All Just 'Relative' After All.

Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.

In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?

Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?

Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.

It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?

How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).

Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.

Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.

80% Of Jobs Added The Past Four Years Were Part-Time. That's NOT "Growth"!

I thought the state of our economy was bad when I found out recently that the net number of jobs added to our economy the past four years is zero. Here's a reminder of the facts about that:

1. The unemployment rate decrease is almost totally due to people giving up looking for work and leaving the workforce. Another way to say that is, when you stop looking for work you are no longer counted as unemployed which drives the unemployment rate down.
2. If the same number of people were in the workforce now (instead of dropping out of it) as were in it at the beginning of this recession the unemployment rate would be around 11%. The claimed improvement in the unemployment rate is a total illusion.

As if that weren't condemnation enough proving that the economy is not better off after all, we now find out that of the jobs that were created, 80% of them have been part-time! We've been bleeding full-time jobs and replacing them with part-time jobs. That represents a sick economy, not a healthy one.

Contrary to loud and frequent proclamations by the president, his democratic allies and The Media that the jobs picture is better than it was four years ago that's only true if you believe that part-time jobs are just as healthy for our country's economy and for families as are full-time jobs.

Four years after G. W. Bush's tax cuts went fully into effect we had full employment at 4.4%. After four years of President Obama's recovery programs the unemployment rate is still well over 7%, the real unemployment is still(!) near 11% and part-time job increases have outnumbered full-time jobs 4 to 1. Not only has this jobs environment not improved, it's far worse than under Bush after the same duration of jobs policies. Facts can be inconvenient things, huh?

If Detroit's Recovery Is Important Then We Must Begin By Understanding The Root Causes Of Its Problems

I say it every time about our nation's troubles/challenges: The Truth Matters! It matters because we CANNOT fix our country's problems until we have the courage(!) to BOTH understand the root issues AND fix those instead of succumbing to political correctness and doing things that feel good or simply have good optics. The appearance of doing something is perceived to represent progress whether it does anything good or useful. Appearance is everything. Honesty and integrity? Forget about it! That's too old-fashioned.

There are some facts, to the extent one cares about truth, that would be irrational on a cosmic scale to ignore. This research/analysis by The Heritage Foundation is relevant and important to anyone who actually cares more about fixing Detroit's problems than political agenda or political correctness.

Is it relevant that Detroit was one of the premier cities in the US, in the world in fact, in the 50's and 60's and is now in third-world condition? What happened there beginning 40 years ago? For one thing, it has been run by only liberal politicians/policies since 1972. Is that relevant? Let me answer that by asking a question: who would claim credit if that city were still a shining example as it was 50-60 years ago? Is it relevant that our country's explosion in union control over companies' management and in union-secured benefits began there 50 years ago? Is it relevant that Detroit's leadership has been among the most corrupt of all large cities in recent decades ... leading to conviction and jail time for many of those highest in city government? Is it relevant that about half of Detroit's adults are illiterate and only 7% of the kids entering high school are 7th grade level proficient in reading? (By the way, becoming educated requires(!) personal choice/commitment. No teacher or school can 'make' one become educated if one has no interest in it. One's attitude has everything to do with it. Check out Dr. Benjamin Carson's biography if you don't believe one can overcome poverty, a broken family, peer pressure, and even racism to become educated anyway.) Is it relevant that all these ills have resulted in spite of Detroit being one of the biggest consumers of state and federal (ie, taxpayer) largesse?

On a more general note, could it be more clear that what one would call tough love is not only necessary but sufficient? Detroit needs the city equivalent of what company restructuring can do to restore a company from bankruptcy thus restoring it to self-sufficiency and success. Now that a capable-appearing city manager has been put in charge, the extent to which Detroit can be restored depends almost entirely on what unions and the state of Michigan do to help solve Detroit's problems rather than holding illogically, in fact suicidally onto proven corrupt 'deals' (people went to jail but their deals stayed in place) of the past. It's time for honest and courageous introspection independent of any(!) political agenda or political correctness.

All-Knowing But Totally Oblivious

This is insane!

Leader after leader in this administration parades before congressional committees and claims ignorance about things they're paid to know ... and CARE ... about. Things they are PAID TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT!

A scandal breaks out within the Justice department and the guy in charge (Att'y Gen'l Holder) doesn't know what's been going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT? Recusing himself has far more to do with wanting to avoid it like the plague than doing his stinking job. He goes before the people in charge of our government and isn't motivated to come prepared with ANY answers as to why his organization is doing things that are causing a national uproar? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, sir? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant and incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, did the same exact thing. Someone decided to change ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE from "planned terrorist attack" to the completely MADE-UP(!) "the video caused a spontaneous mob action" and she neither knows that happened nor cares to find out who did it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What, madam? Are you completely stupid in addition to being ignorant AND incompetent? You must think WE are that stupid too!

And then there's the President, who's the 'boss' of them all. He ALSO HAD NO CLUE either of these things were going on AND DOESN'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT what's really going on with either of them? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'll relentlessly pursue what's going on, TRUST ME! What, sir? Like you did with Fast and Furious and all the other scandalous things you promised(!) you'd take care of? Do YOU also think we're stupid?

You think you're not complicit just because YOU didn't cause any of this? You're THE MOST complicit by doing nothing about it when you're the people in charge! CEO's of real companies get fired ... immediately ... for this kind of nonsense. They're paid to make their companies successful and when trouble comes, to LEAD fixing it. The people currently in charge of our federal government seem to think they're only there to take credit for whatever good things happen whether they're responsible for them or not. You don't hear them saying I don't know when someone asks them about a success thing down in the ranks below them. In fact, they RUN to get in front of it to APPEAR like it was totally their doing.

These people are insulting our intelligence and defying common sense. And they're running our government? What's up with this?

Plausible deniability has morphed into bonehead ignorance in practice. Do we really want leaders who are this ignorant of what's going on in their organizations and don't care enough about bad things when they happen to PROACTIVELY(!) find out what's going on and practice REAL LEADERSHIP in getting to the root of them ... and fixing them?

What's wrong with these people? We didn't hire them to only work hard at remaining ignorant about what's going on beneath them! Good grief!

For 40 Years Americans Have INSISTED Our Government Close The Borders So Why Haven't They?

The ONE thing American citizens have been VERY clear about ... for 40 years(!!!) ... is wanting the federal government to close our borders to illegal entry. YES, conservatives ALSO want the immigrants here to have some kind of legal status. A work visa or some such thing at a minimum. To say conservatives don't want them to have some kind of legal status is a bald-faced lie.

You want proof? We relented TWICE on having amnesty first, having extracted a PROMISE by democrats to close the borders. We've done amnesty TWICE so by what warped logic can anyone claim we oppose it? How many times have democrats actually closed the border? ZERO times! Who is being intransigent and unsupporting? What's the REAL TRUTH? We are thoroughly fed up with democrats' collective passive-aggressive behavior on this! We have never opposed legal status (some form of amnesty) and we still do not! How much longer must we suffer their lies and thoroughly irresponsible behavior?

After TWICE getting screwed via democrats' broken promises, why should ANYONE be surprised that we now insist that the borders get closed FIRST? "Give us amnesty again and we PROMISE we'll close the borders first" democrats are saying again. Even republicans in the gang of eight are saying the same thing. On what RATIONAL basis are we to believe these guys .... AGAIN?

For 40 years, a majority of Americans have been saying the borders MUST be closed. What has been stopping mainly democrats the past 40 years from passing a bill that simply closes the border? Surely they could have closed it in all this time! IF they wanted to! Ah, there's the rub. Our politicians don't really want to do what a large majority of American citizens want them to do!!!

By the way, isn't it clear that closing the borders logically(!) requires NO preconditions to be done successfully? They could pass a bill tomorrow that does that and only that. Americans would support it by a huge majority. So why don't they do that?

We'd be STUPID to fall for the amnesty first argument ... AGAIN!

Ah, For The Good Old Days After Bush II's Tax Cuts!

Don't you all long for the good old days created by Bush II's tax cuts? Remember what happened after the majority (80%) of his tax cuts were implemented at the end of May 2003? One month later the unemployment rate peaked out at 6.3% and began a steady decline in only 3 1/2 years to 'Clinton levels' of 4.4%. And only three or four months after Bush II's tax cuts cut in, federal revenue began a steady climb to a record(!) $2.6 Trillion (also in only 3 1/2 years), some 30% higher than achieved under Clinton for the same unemployment rate?

Of course The Left loves to fallaciously tie the 2008 economic problem to those Bush tax cuts and policies in spite of the fact(!) that they had nothing to do with it and in spite of the fact(!) that his tax cuts helped both unemployment and federal revenue until something totally unrelated cratered the economy. Remember that the 2008 collapse was triggered instead by the sub-prime mess that had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush tax cuts or policies? I'm sure those drinking The Left's Kool-Aid still choose(!) not to remember those inconvenient facts but that's what actually happened for those of you who 'can handle the truth'.

Democrat Hypocrisy Regarding The Killing Of OBL

President Obama criticized Romney last week for saying something he didn't even say and taking a position he didn't even take regarding going after Bin Laden.

Romney NEVER said not to go after OBL but he did say we'd best not lose our focus on the bigger problem we have with international terrorism. He always said we should go after OBL but warned against taking too many resources off the general threat in order to accomplish that. So, President Obama is quoting Romney totally out of context and stating a supposition as if fact that maybe Romney wouldn't have approved such a raid as the one that killed OBL. OBL committed the greatest act of terrorism against our homeland in our entire history. Does anyone except president Obama actually think ANY American president would not go after OBL? Turns out however that there is one president who actually failed to act and he's now lecturing Romney. (More on that below.)

Well, not so fast with your criticism Mr. President! Don't you remember that, contrary to what Romney actually said, your own VP (Biden) actually said we should not go after OBL? Obama's own VP actually said what Obama is falsely accusing Romney of saying. Hmmmmm. Mr. President your hypocrisy and tendency to bend/twist the truth are showing again.

We've also just seen President Clinton get on this bandwagon and criticize Romney for saying/believing something that Romney did not say/believe. I almost fell off my chair when I heard Clinton criticize Romney when it is factually true that Clinton is the only president who in fact did choose not to get OBL when he could have. And he did so not once but at three different opportunities!!!

The country's leading Democrats are coming unglued folks. This kind of nonsense is unbecoming a president and we have the last two Democratic presidents practicing this hypocrisy and mean-spirited behavior.

To MSNBC: What About President Obama's "Economic Acumen"? How Has That Worked Out?

Funny, FUNNY headline today on MSNBC: "Romney sells his economic acumen, but voters may not be buying".

That's flat hilarious!!! Of course they mean compared with Obama's "economic acumen", right? Our economy is stuck in a ditch that Obama said he'd have fixed long before now and HE has "economic acumen"? He was hailed as the smartest president ever. He AND the lame-stream media went out of their way to claim that no one on the planet knew what was wrong and how to fix it better than he did. If he was so smart, why is he now saying he didn't know how bad it was? Isn't that an admission that he was ignorant regarding the problem instead(!) of being the smartest about it?

How the media can say such things with a collective straight face is amusing isn't it?

President Obama Once Again Proves(!) He Doesn't Understand Our Founding Or Our Constitution

President Obama doesn't understand what the founding of this country was all about any more than he understands the constitution (as I explained a couple of blogs ago)

Regarding the constitution, just because he taught constitutional law doesn't mean he understands the constitution. One can attempt to teach something without truly understanding it. Just because you teach a subject doesn't mean you understand it correctly.

What he was teaching is the progressive view of constitutional law that what's lawful is not what the constitution says or was intended to mean. He was NOT teaching the constitution; rather how to change it!!! Hello People! What he was teaching is the progressive view that legal precedence trumps(!) the constitution. By that vehicle, therefore, the Supreme Court could have the power to change the constitution (the way progressives want) instead of defending its principles. Once they say something is constitutional, that makes it so ... whether either the founders or the constitution itself said so in the beginning. In effect, they can choose to define something as lawful that the founders tried mightily to prevent. It is they who can say what they want the constitution to support now whether that was supported originally or not. That is NOT what the founders intended ... AT ALL!

Now President Obama has the audacity to claim he's actually in sync with the founders. What a crazy idea that is! In a 4/19/12 article titled "The Governing Class and Us" the Heritage editors described his disconnect as follows: "President Barack Obama delivered a politically charged speech (on 4/18/12 in Elyria, OH) in which he hearkened back to the country's roots, saying that his opponents "don't seem to remember how America was built." In his view, taxpayers want their money spent in ways that will help further "the larger project we call America." In other words, more spending and bigger government paid for with higher taxes."

America was built on the principle of a small federal government with very limited power. President Obama's goal is to increase the scope, size and control of the federal government, period! As a progressive he believes there is no ill in our land that the federal government cannot fix ... if we give it sufficient money and bureaucratic power. That is what the founders worked hard to prevent!!! Even the liberals of those founding days ('old' liberalism per Herbert Hoover) understood the evils of big, powerful and controlling government. After all, they had just fought for our freedom from England over that very thing.

President Obama thinks his Republican opponents don't remember how America was built? Good grief! It is he who doesn't know our history! It's a good thing he never taught that subject ... progressives are terrible at teaching it but revising history is what they do best!!!

Learn from the evils in history or you'll be doomed to repeat them. Our founders knew that. They knew from history and their own experience with King George the inevitable results of big and powerful government. They did their best to prevent it here and they succeeded for about 200 years. Now this knucklehead of a president wants us to believe his revision of our own history. He must think we're stupid!

Even Progressives 'Get' The Issue With ObamaCare

"The Far Right" wasn't so nutty after all! We claimed from the beginning that ObamaCare would cost more, not less, and that it would add to the deficit in spite of President Obama's assurances to the contrary. We used common sense at the time. We had no choice because ObamaCare's instigators were hiding the truth and playing shell games with our tax money. We suspected, based simply on common sense, what has become provably true now. Check out two NRO articles.

First, John Fund's description of what happened includes this:

"As early as last September, a panel of liberal journalists on NBC News consisting of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post all agreed that Obama’s “biggest political mistake” was devoting so much time and attention to health care. “The idea of launching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake,” Ignatius summed up. “That’s just not how a president makes good policy.”"

The reaction of us on 'the far right': Well, DUH!!! Those kinds of comments are startling to progressives across America but we far right crazy people can reasonably and quite rationally claim We Told You So!

Second is Michael Barone's article on the real cost of ObamaCare. Smoke and mirrors at a minimum. Lies and subterfuges would be a more honest assessment.

It's Ironic That President Obama Is Accusing The Supreme Court Of Activism

So, the Prez is accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism should it overturn part/all of ObamaCare. That's ironic because creating ObamaCare was an act of progressive activism and of executive activism. Actually, I guess the Prez ought to know what activism is since he's the most practiced president of it in our entire history. Who better to judge what is or is not activism? ;-)

Well, if it is judicial activism, I say so be it. Sometimes it takes an act of activism to counter an activist action. One can accurately say, however, that it's not the Supreme Court that would be activist in this case. The real activism in this case was the Prez's health care law. Overturning it would be an act of patriotism and constitutional support/enforcement. It would be honoring, y'know, that pesky oath they ALL take to uphold, preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

The Prez, by that legislation and his threats(!) toward the Supreme Court, has proved once again the irrationality of his claim that he understands the constitution. It proves his claim to knowledge based on having taught constitutional law is invalid. Just because you teach something doesn't mean you understand it correctly and he's proving that he doesn't by actions he takes nearly every day he's in office. The only thing he really understands about the constitution is the progressive agenda for changing it into something it was never intended to be.

We Need To Understand What We're Up Against With The Middle East And Islamism

Too many Americans don't know history very well thanks largely to the sanitizing efforts of the progressive movement in our education system. Too many of those who have heard the historical facts don't know how to add them up, thanks again to PC-think being ingrained in our kids for several generations now. And the media whose job used to be informing us about the facts of things are so invested in the progressive PC-think culture that they won't share the truth because it doesn't line up with the appeasement philosophy within the progressive agenda.

Every once in a while however someone in the media explains elements of what's going on in the Middle East in an informative and honest way. We should pay more attention for our future's sake. If you're one of those rare folks who are interested in the truth, won't hide from it, won't irrationally dismiss it, and care about where it'll take us if we ignore it, read Clifford May's article, "It's Not The Arab Spring, It's The Nahda". in NRO earlier today.

President Obama: "I Don't Bluff!!!" Uh, Pardon Me Sir But What About All Those Pesky Campaign Promises?

When commenting about the challenge of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and America's promise(!) to not let that happen, President Obama said a few days ago that "I am not a bluffer!". Are you kidding me?

Based on President Obama's campaign promises (most of which went unfulfilled) one could easily justify labelling him The Bluffer-In-Chief because he didn't keep his word on most of his promises ... to his own citizens!. And he now expects us and Israel to believe that we can trust his promise to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons! C'mon folks! Does it make more sense to base our belief whether he's bluffing on words or on his historical lack of action on previous promises?

IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you were Israel's leader would you (based on President Obama's actual track record) trust President Obama's promises when your country's very existence depended on it?

President Obama's campaign promises didn't become truth so were they lies or bluffs or naivete? If naivete is the reason, isn't it likely that he's being naive now and will back down to Iran when real consequences loom? If his campaign promises were lies or bluffs, that's no better than naivete is it? Regardless how one dissects President Obama's latest not-a-bluffer claim, his record (assuming actual facts matter to you) is one of not doing much of what he says he'll do. If you were Netanyahu, what would you think and do? Be honest now!

Agenda And Supporting Spin Matter More Than Truth, Integrity, Principles, And The Constitution

To this administration, spin has become an art form. Just as in art, what they're doing doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people but something that's going on this week makes their "spin versus principle and honesty" instincts clear to everyone.

Penalties for not purchasing health care ARE TAXES!
The adminstration sent its Justice (HA!) Branch attack dogs to the Supreme Court this week to defend the ObamaCare penalties. Their argument to the justices: the penalites are taxes and therefore are constitutional because the executive and legislative branches have constitutional authority to levy taxes. In fact, however, this administration doesn't actually care whether they are taxes; it's strictly an argument of convenience and necessity not honesty.

AND(!) Penalites for not purchasing health care ARE NOT TAXES!
The administration also sent it's budget director to Capitol Hill the very same day(!) this week to defend ObamaCare. The budget director was asked by a congressional committee this week whether those penalties were taxes. He evaded and evaded and evaded but the congressmen persisted and insisted he answer the question. When he finally relented, he said, the penalties are not taxes. Why does this administration want Congress to believe the opposite (HUH?) of what they want the Supreme Court to believe? Because this administration knows that Americans, even their own supporters, are intolerant of tax increases on the middle class and that Congress would therefore be inclined to toss out some/much/all of ObamaCare if it raised taxes on the poor and middle class.

What do people possess in the way of principles when they argue before Congress one thing and at the same time(!) argue (as a matter of choice!) before the Supreme Court the exact(!) opposite? It's one thing for different entities on opposite sides of legislation to take opposing views. It's another thing altogether for the same entity to take totally opposite positions at the exact same time to different groups of people. What is that? Schizophrenia? A political kind of insanity? Or just agenda taking priority at all times, at all costs and over all things including reason and common sense?

Does this administration not understand that they've made a conscious decision(!) to lie? Either to Congress or to the Supreme Court? That places them in technical legal contempt of court or contempt of Congress because one claim must be untrue. This administration has no problem being dishonest to one of the three brances of our federal government. Which implies that they'd have no problem being dishonest to either one or, by extension, to The People. And what about being consistent with, much less submissive to the Constitution? Isn't it therefore fair to assume that, to this administration, agenda trumps the Constitution if they can find any possible way make it submissive to that agenda rather than the other way around? Maybe that defines progressivism.

It turns this into a plausible, sensible question: how are we to know when/whether they're lying to the American people if they have no problem choosing(!) to lie to Congress or the Supreme Court for purely agenda-driven purposes? If they're willing to consciously lie to one of the branches of government this way, doesn't it mean that, to these people, agenda trumps honesty, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution ... at ALL times? The Constitution thereby being something to bend to the will of one's agenda, ie to progressivism.

The CLEAR bottom line: What's hilarious if it weren't so incompetent, this adminstration doesn't know OR care whether the penalites are taxes and will argue it whichever way meets the approval of whomever they're speaking to at any one time. Truth, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution are irrelevant. All that matters is getting their current audience whomever it is to believe what they're saying at any given moment so that ObamaCare (or any other item on their agenda) survives. Protecting that trumps everything, period, no exceptions. If they'll purposely distort truth before Congress and/or the Supreme Court, how much more easily are they capable (and driven!) to do the same with us citizens? Are you okay with that? I'm not!

In Fact, it's not even a rhetorical question any more ... they played the same truth-distorting game with us on this already! Do you remember when they were trying to get Americans' buy-in on ObamaCare and they encountered resistance because those penalties looked like taxes to us at the time? Do you remember that they already said to us before that these are not taxes? Doesn't it bother you that they're now before the Supreme Court arguing that they are taxes? Their lawyers believe these are not taxes but they have no difficulty telling us they aren't!!! So it isn't even a question whether they'll play games with and distort truth to us. They have already done so!!! Do we care about honesty and integrity in our president? I do!

This White House Believes It's Own Lies And Nonsense Spinning

Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, made the rounds on Sunday talk shows to begin spinning President Obama's upcoming 2013 budget. Y'know that inconvenient constitutional requirement that led Obama to produce a budget last year that got no yes votes at all in the Democratic(!) Senate. I guess the White House figured that insufficient spin was the reason it wasn't passed last year when in fact it was due to outrageous spending that even Democrats couldn't swallow.

When asked why the senate, controlled by the president's own party, hasn't passed a budget in 1,019 days, Mr. Lew trotted out the standard spin line, "You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes." Only problem with that is a budget only needs a majority of 51 votes to pass in the Senate and they have enough Democrats there to pass it without a single Republican vote. By the way, Mr. Lew, President Obama couldn't create a budget last year that could get a single supporting vote from his own party so good luck with that spin thing.

President Obama and his administration are so sold out to spin and twisting truth that they seem to think that just because they think and/or say something it must be true because they thought it. If these guys aren't competent enough to get basic constitution-based requirements right, they're not competent to do something as complex as running the country.

It's interesting that the White House is sending out their spin doctors in advance(!) of the president's budget this year. I guess they think the reason it didn't get a single vote last year is because they didn't explain it well enough. Ms. Pelosi's rule for getting things passed, "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it", isn't going to work any more so they just need to spin it better to fix that problem. Two problems with that President Obama.

First, a fundamentally flawed (ie, far too expensive) budget won't pass regardless of spin. Second, you guys don't know what you're talking about. So stop talking and just do your stinking job. Better than you have for the previous three years please!

Seriously President Obama, Please Put Some Effort Into Understanding What Leadership Is And Is Not

Here's an article that puts accurately into words/explanation what I've blogged all over the map about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290203/out-touch-obama-michael-barone

Most people seem to think this kind of behavior is 'unpresidential' of him. For sure it's that in great degree but is too unspecific for me. To me, he's completely lacking in leadership skills. Divisive, aloof, no clue about team building much less teamwork, no clue about decision-making, no clue about how to do balanced budgets or why that and no debt are important.

It's sad for me to see this in a president. As I proudly(!) blogged on his inauguration day, "A genuinely momentus day in our history today as an African-American, Barack Obama, is sworn in as president! We pray for a new spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and responsibility throughout our country that focuses not on divisive attitudes but on resolving the problems we face with courage and resolve in God's good grace."

To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement.

Establishment Republicans STILL Don't Get The Message From The 2010 Elections But NON-Establishment Santorum Does

Andrew McCarthy put it precisely correct in his NRO piece today:
"Forget the fratricidal warfare between two establishment soldiers [Romney/Gingrich] so harmonious on substance that their contest, inevitably, has descended into a poisonous, personal food-fight. The problem is not the GOP infighting. The problem is the GOP [Establishment]. [Establishment] Republicans are simply not interested in limiting government or addressing our death spiral of spending."

That is pure, unadulterated TRUTH! They're nothing less than a progressive wing of the Republican party. Unfortunately it's a significantly large and powerful wing. But there is no doubt they've COMPLETELY(!) lost their collective minds vis a vis republicanism.

The behavior of "Establishment Republicans" is the EXACT reason why Democrats can legitimately call out the GOP on their UTTER FAILURE to control spending and debt during the Bush years. It makes MANY of us Republicans sick to death of the nonsense going on with/from/between Romney and Gingrich. If Obama wins his reelection it will be entirely because of the nonsense going on/from this spineless bunch of politicians who have the nerve to call themselves Republicans.

Romney has never been a big secret to us. I like that he 'looks' presidential. Unfortunately we need a Republican president who will operate like Republicans used to. He's a moderate Republican in much the same way McCain was. No wonder McCain endorsed him! That endorsement completely validates the extent to which Romney is a moderate of the same (losing!) ilk. Romney is also a capitalist of the kind we're fed up with too. (Yes, many of us Republicans don't like that any more than most liberals!) It didn't take Trump's endorsement of Romney today to convince us of Romney's dark side of capitalism nature but it adds certainty where uncertainty may have existed.

Gingrich's constitution support/knowledge bona fides gave us hope that someone among the Republican Establishment really does get it regarding our ==>> Republic <<== . However, we were nervous and now events of the past couple of weeks shot that notion completely full of holes. He 'feels' every bit as much an Establishment Republican in the bad sense (although different 'flavor') as Romney.

So now what? Santorum is the only candidate acting/talking like a genuine conservative. The interesting ... and HOPEFUL(!) ...  thing about him is that he hasn't changed who he is ... ever. True, one can find a couple of important issues where he initially took the wrong position but he's now clear about what those mistakes were and why they were mistakes. He's a person I trust to genuinely(!) learn from his mistakes. I don't have a problem with people making a few mistakes as long as they truly learn from them and their values/principles are consistently conservative. Santorum seems every inch such a person. He's very appealing to me and pretty much every true conservative.

Okay Folks, It IS Socialism

The Hill produced a piece titled "Obama's European blueprint bad for US" (by Judd Gregg) yesterday, January 30, 2012. The comments to that are full of rants by people claiming what the current administration has been doing is not socialism. Here's one comment for example: "That's not socialism.  I suggest you consult a dictionary.  Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.  None of Obama's proposals are remotely socialism.  And taxation is not socialism."

Here's my reply to his comment: Maybe you should read a dictionary too. Mirriam-Webster says socialism is: "any of various social systems based on shared or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ". Note the word "shared". Our government owns most of several companies now and their control over all businesses and entire industries(!) is growing rapidly via regulations and 'rules'. It's fair to call this 'socialism lite' so far but there is no doubt we're on an increasingly socialistic trajectory. The "government's share" of ownership and control are both increasing. Also check Wikipedia: "A primary goal of socialism is social equity and a distribution of wealth based on one's contribution to society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of society as a whole." President Obama and other progressives say the same thing ... ALL the time.

Please pay attention people! Socialism is NOT defined as ONLY government OWNERSHIP of the production and delivery of goods and services. Yes, it can involve outright ownership but the truth, in case you're interested in truth, is that "socialism" ALSO INCLUDES government CONTROL over those things. The whole point of socialism is that it's the counterpoint to the 'evils of capitalism'. The control over capitalism that socialists desire can be accomplished by outright ownership of businesses OR by controlling what they can and cannot do. That's not only common sense, it happens to be true by any respected definition of socialism. And to those favoring capitalism there is no difference in effect ... either approach accomplishes what socialists desire and what capitalists oppose.

Of course(!) you're entitled to believe that what President Obama is doing is good for the country but you're living in denial of fact to claim it's not socialism AND an increasingly socialistic trajectory he's putting us on. Your belief in his objectives makes you a socialist by definition. Denying it doesn't make it untrue. Why not just embrace the terminology when it's what you want? What are you afraid of? It's like someone saying I only eat vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and, perhaps some milk and cheese but that doesn't make me a vegetarian. C'mon folks! Just be honest.

More Hypocritical Distortions By The Media And The Left About These Republican Candidates

MSNBC headline today: "History flubs in Republican debate". Candidates say an incredible number of things to promote their candidacy. If you had to talk that much to promote yourself for a job would you get an occassional fact incorrect? How accurate is YOUR understanding of history? And you expect Republicans to be perfect but not Democrats?

When you took classes in high school or college did you ever get a fact incorrect or did you always get 100% on all your tests and homework? Did you even tell a boss something that turned out not to be correct?

Take their criticism of Romney. They make a big deal of a couple of errors he made and then very quietly (brief simple statement) mentioned that he corrected them but the headline is he FLUBBED HISTORY.

Take their criticism of Gingrich. When Gingrich was talking about Carter's presidency, Gingrich said Carter gave us an 10.8% unemployment rate. MSNBC has a field day with that reminding us that the unemployment rate Ginrich mentioned didn't happen until two years after Carter left office, under Reagan.

So Gingrich is wrong and MSNBC had another opportunity to say Reagan was bad ... he caused the 10.8% unemployment rate? We have to give MSNBC credit for then agreeing with Gingrich by explaining the facts: "Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election."

The inflation that Reagan inherited(!) was caused by Carter's economic and monetary policies. For those of you who weren't alive or don't remember, the inflation rate was killing our economy. The prime interest rate rose to a staggering and record(!) 21.5%. What is it now, 0.5%? Can you imagine what it was like to try to buy something at a 25-30% lending interest rate? Fixing that problem happens to result in an increase in unemployment. It just does by the nature of the required fixes. The unemployment rate was doomed to keep heading up early in Reagan's first term because Carter so messed up our economy. Yes, the unemployment rate went up during Reagan's first two years but it was because of a problem he inherited.

But MSNBC's headline was Republicans flubbed history by blaming that on Carter. The truth (if you're interested!) is, it WAS Carter's doing!!! If Reagan's unemployment rate was not Carter's fault, why is MSNBC reluctant to blame Clinton for the recession Bush inherited? Why do the liberal media and liberals accept as fact that Obama blames Bush for the unemployment rate of the past three years? Bush caused the unemployment rate of the past three years but the unemployment rate under Reagan his first two years was his fault, not Carter's. Do you detect any hypocrisy or dishonesty in that?

More On The Media's Distortion Of Santorum's Comments

The Media's feeding frenzy is getting ridiculous. I welcome information about and insights into Santorum's qualifications and positions on issues. But I want truth, not distortions.

Here's more on the facts in case you're interested in the truth about what Santorum has said/done:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287419/santorum-birth-control-kathryn-jean-lopez