In case you’ve missed it, the Obama Campaign has released the life of Julia.  “Julia” is a composite of women living in an America remolded in Barack Obama’s vision for the United States.  One wonders why the Obama Campaign would release a composite of a woman’s life just as Americans learned that the girlfriend detailed in his autobiography “Dreams of My Father” is a composite of many women.  One might imagine that the hay made of the composite girlfriend should have delayed the release of “Julia” in an intelligently run campaign.

In any event, Julia’s life is detailed from the age of three until her retirement at age 67.  The animated infographic, which goes through stage after stage, details all of the government programs and other liberal goodies that Julia uses during her life.  Programs not available should Mitt Romney become President, and the authors argue that under Mitt Romney all such opportunities will disappear.  Whether it’s the Head Start program, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or Medicare and Social Security, Julia utilizes government program after government handout after government program to live her life.  The only mention of her working is taking a job in the glamorous field of web design.  It mentions she uses birth control and then chooses to have a child, Zachary, who also uses government programs.  There is virtually no mention of her parents and no husband.  Julia’s story is a vague abstract and not a complete picture.

It’s very clear that Julia is something upon which the Obama campaign can hang whatever idea they want.  Julia can stay on her parent’s health insurance until she’s 26.  She gets birth control so she can focus on her career.  She retires comfortably on social security.  She is, essentially, the model liberal woman.

In other words, Julia is a mannequin.

Read More →

We are not a democracy.

I know that’s hard for most people to understand. I know we’ve been inculcated since the the Wilson Administration that we are a democracy. I know we were taught in American History class that World War I and World War II were about making the world “safe for democracy!” Well, those of us who were paying attention and not staring at Mary Sue Pelton’s training bra. (Okay maybe I was staring, too.)

The United States is a Republic. We use some tools of democracy in our Republic. The best known tool we use is voting. We vote in referendums. We vote on sales tax increases. We vote for local and state officials. And we vote for congressmen, senators and, in a roundabout way, for President.

To prevent fraud in elections, some states have enacted laws that require residents to present photo identification in order to vote. One of these states is the one I live in, Georgia. Some people are challenging the Constitutionality of this law and the laws in other states. Opponents argue that the law is discriminatory against minorities and poor people. It violates their “right to vote”.

What these opponents of the vote ID laws never tell you is striking: There is no right to vote.

Read More →

T. Boone Pickens claims that the Koch brothers are responsible for the lack of an energy policy in the United States. He says that because the Koch brothers are heavily invested in fertilizers and other chemicals, they are funding an effort to stop a cohesive energy policy. A policy he says would surely include a switch from petroleum to natural gas. Like his plan.

Of course, as the article cited above points out, Pickens stands to gain a great deal from any switch to natural gas. He is heavily invested in both the natural gas industry and in wind energy.  His highly-marketed plan would have American taxpayers subsidize huge investments in wind turbines so that we could then shut-down natural gas power plants and use that fuel to power Over-The-Road (OTR) trucking, which consumes huge amounts of diesel fuel that made from the same petroleum as gasoline.

Before deconstructing all of this, let’s dispel a few myths:

Read More →

I was speaking with a co-worker the other day as she explained her issues with her new mortgage lender. It seems that her previous lender sold her loan, and now it has taken several months and multiple phone calls to get her payment plan set back up the way she wanted it before. It occurred to me awhile later that her frustration explains an awful lot about why liberals so often choose government over the private sector, and it has a lot to do with why we’re such fast-food junkies in this country.

The conclusion I’ve come to is that government is preferred by liberals because of the franchise phenomenon. A “franchise” is a business that offers a consistently similar service in multiple locations (although often, single-location businesses attempt to use franchise techniques). Examples include H&R Block for tax services, Jiffy Lube for automotive care, Chili’s for family dining and of course every health-nut’s whipping boy McDonald’s for fast food. In particular, government is reminiscent of fast food.

Think about it this way: Most people agree that fast food is unhealthy and the quality is relatively poor, especially when compared to home-cooked meals or fine dining. However, there are three basic components of fast food that keep people coming back:

Read More →

I’ve never met Matthew Goldstein, but judging by his bio I don’t think it’s something I’d like to do. It reads like a stereotype of the elitist, leftist intelligentsia. A B.A. in English and History, an M.A. in World and Comparative Literature (whatever that means) and a Ph.D. in English, all from über-liberal universities, and a job at a community college in Oakland, California.

Dr. Goldstein has commented about blogs written last week criticizing Warren Buffett’s recent pronouncement that he doesn’t pay enough taxes (like mine):

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett heated up the blogosphere with a recent New York Times op-ed piece, “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.”

. . .

But when the Sage of Omaha starts offering old-fashioned soak-the-rich rhetoric, people take notice. And support from those who stand to lose the most from a tax hike can only help the cause of so-called class-warriors, right?

Well, maybe.

When taxes on the nation’s highest earners become an expression of noblesse oblige, they may only reinforce existing economic inequalities. Doesn’t any middle-class society worthy of the name need to make the super-rich pay their taxes?

Well, actually, no. You see, middle-class societies depend on the “super-rich”. Those super-rich people are the ones investing the money in job-creating new businesses, like the investment groups behind Google and Twitter. They invest in existing corporations, like the people buying out the shares of GovernmentGeneral Motors and yes, investors in Berkshire Hathaway. Their money, sitting in banks, is loaned to mom-and-pop stores and workshops, and to middle-class families buying new homes. When that money is ripped-away in the form of taxes to pay for phantom “green jobs”, nanny-state policies and to “protect the poor”, it’s not available to create new or grow existing businesses and hence, new jobs for poor and middle-class workers.

Read More →

Warren Buffett took the time to write an op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times and give Barack Obama some cannon fodder for his taxpayer-financed campaign bus trip. Not being a regular Times reader (I prefer the Journal), I heard about the piece after news reports of Mr. Obama quoting it on the campaign trail. It seems Mr. Buffett doesn’t think he and other wealthy Americans like him are taxed enough.

Oh, he phrases it in his polite, even-handed manner that has made Buffet both an investment and media darling. I met Buffett a few years ago and found him to be both charming and generous. He’s really quite funny and personable. He regaled my group of graduate students from the University of Southern California and the University of Georgia with stories of making quick hundred thousand dollar deals on companies in Korea and smart investment decisions going back to his youth. In the op-ed, he’s calm and seemingly even-handed as he chastises Congress for its “coddling” of millionaires and billionaires like him. He even mentions the liberal focus-group-tested phrase, “shared sacrifice.”

Here’s the problem with your views, Mr. Buffett: I want a chance at what you’ve got. I did long before I met you, and I still want it today. Just a piece of it would be nice. Yes, I’d like to be a successful millionaire or even a billionaire someday, but what you’re asking for makes it harder for me to get it.

Here’s just a portion of what Warren Buffett had to say:

Read More →

Seems the Lamestream Media is scared stiff that Texas Governor Rick Perry may run for President. Jennifer Rubin (the “conservative” blogger at the Washington Post) initially writes a piece rightfully decrying the New York Times Op-Ed about Perry speaking at the Prayer Response Event last week, then had an unfortunate piece criticizing Perry for not being inclusive:

In his comments at the event, Perry specifically disclaimed partisanship. He kept his comments generic: “His agenda is not a political agenda, his agenda is a salvation agenda. . . . He’s a wise, wise God, and he’s wise enough to not be affiliated with any political party, or for that matter, he’s wise enough to not be affiliated with any man-made institutions. He’s calling all Americans, of all walks of life, to seek him, to return to him, to experience his love and his grace and his acceptance, experience a fulfilled life regardless of the circumstances. I want you to join with me as I share his word with you.”

However, this is not to say there weren’t problems with the event.

For starters, Perry had previously insisted that the event welcomed persons of all faiths. But this is what he said on Saturday: “Like all of you, I love this country deeply, and thank you for being here. The only thing you love more is the living Christ.” Not so pluralistic after all.

Why is this “conservative” Jennifer Rubin attacking Rick Perry for expressing his faith at a Christian event? Rubin is basically stating that because this non-denominational Christian event welcomed non-Christians, Perry shouldn’t be mentioning God or Jesus at all. And it gets worse:

So to recap, his words at the event were restrained but not ecumenical. And his use of public office to promote the Christian event was, to me, inappropriate.

…

A a practical matter, the event suggests that Perry, a man of considerable confidence, is not accustomed to operating on a national, rather than Texan, stage. One of his key problems is the degree to which he can expand beyond a base of Christian conservative supporters. This will make the task somewhat more difficult.

However, the most unfortunate aspect to this entire matter is that he has given a club to the left-wing contingent that thinks religion should not be discussed in the public square and that reference to one’s faith as the basis for public-policy positions is somehow illegitimate. In that sense, Perry has done more harm than good to those who believe, that with appropriate modesty and restraint, religious values and viewpoints have a place in the great national debates of our time.

So in other words, because he might upset the fringe Left (who’d never vote for him anyway) by publicly displaying his religion, Perry isn’t qualified to be a Presidential candidate. Instead of defending Perry’s right to be a Christian and express his faith openly, even as a public official, Rubin suggests that Perry is in fact not qualified to be a candidate because he actually embraces his Constitutional rights!

Read More →

My very first “Intemperate Thoughts” post came just after an Independence Day holiday, so it seems appropriate to have another during this holiday.

For those unfamiliar, this is a list of random, often cynical and (hopefully) humorous thoughts that I’ve been collecting for the past few months.  They’re insensitive and meant to irk you.  And if you’re really offended by them, then I’m really, really happy about that.

Here we go!

1. For the Left, why is it that after 60 days in Iraq it was, “Bush lied, who died?” when after 60 days in Libya it’s, “GET OFF OBAMA’S BACK!!!1!1!!!11eleventy!!!
2. It seems the new immigration law has the illegals leaving Georgia.  Now farmers complain no one wants to work their farms.  Of course not!  Why work in the hot when you can sit on your bum, eat McDonald’s and collect a welfare check?!
3. I don’t feel any need to defend Halperin or go after MSNBC.  After all, if Rachel Maddow or even Bill Kristol had said the same thing about Paul Ryan, we’d be calling for their heads.
4. Speaking of BIll Kristol, today he suggested a Bachmann/Lieberman ticket.  So, just when did he escape from his straight jacket?
5. I haven’t watched one second of the Casey Anthony story on Fox News and I just don’t care.
6. Today was a “day without immigrants”.  Illegals stayed home to show their solidarity.  The only thing that seemed different was that I made it to work without being cut-off by a beat-up minivan with 74 ladders scotch-taped to the roof.

Read More →

I’m not a huge fan of Michele Bachmann. I don’t dislike her and if she’s the GOP candidate in 2012 I’ll support her, but she’s doesn’t excite me the way she excites much of the Tea Party constituency. That being said, I’m also not a fan of journalists misrepresenting history in a “Gotcha!” game with candidates.

George Stephanopolous interviewed Congresswoman Bachmann after Politifact rated several statements by her to be false (partial video in linked article). Primary on Stephanolopolous’ mind was her statement that the Founding Fathers worked “tirelessly” to end slavery. Stephanolpolous, like any historically ill-informed liberal, assumed that because the United States ended up with legal slavery after the ratification of the Constitution that this statement must be false.

For what it’s worth, I couldn’t even find an assessment of this particular statement from Bachmann on slaveryby Politifact, which has rated many statements by Bachmann as false.  Though her association of John Quincy Adams with the Foundational period doesn’t hold muster, Stephanolpolous is showing his greater ignorance of history.

In the full interview, Stephanopolous cited the instances of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as being slave holders. He’s right that they were and so were many others, but he seems to be thinking that because these two Founders were slave holders, it summarily damns the rest of the founding group and that it means slavery wasn’t a contentious, hard-fought issue among the Founders.

The problem with this concept is that it assumes that the Founders came together at the Constitutional Convention as a singular, amorphous group with the same goals and ideals driving their actions. It suggests that the actions of the Founders were largely pre-ordained and that the Constitutional Convention was merely puppet theater.

In reality, the founders had diverse views and goals on many issues, and far from a puppet theater the Convention was held largely in secret with negotiations that were both contentious and heated.

Read More →

As any fan of Star Trek will tell you, we get the word “Sabotage” from the Dutch word for shoe, “Sabot”. In Star Trek VI, we are informed, technophobic workers threw their shoes into the gears of new machines due to their fear of losing their jobs to the new mechanical contraptions.

It also seems the President shares the technophobic sentiments of those laborers of yore. In a statement to NBC News, the President stated (h/t Fox Nation and @Keder):

“There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

So, says President Obama, the reason you’re unemployed isn’t because of poor government policy. Blame those pesky automated kiosks. Except for one thing: Advances in technology and efficiency have always led to more jobs in this country in the past.

Read More →