Which Barack Obama is Right?


A genius is someone who can hold contrary concepts simultaneously in mind.

What, then, do we call a person who simultaneously argues two contrary concepts?


How ‘bout “demagogue?”

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama told America’s business owners that they are not responsible for their success.  “Someone else built that.”

Today, the same Obama told Mitt Romney that there not many people who consider themselves victims.

Does Mr. Obama believe that people in dire straights are not victims of circumstances? It seems so. Obama’s telling us that if you succeed, it’s because someone else helped you, but if you fail, you fail on your own.

If that is Obama’s meaning, then his idea of cradle-to-grave government dependency would be, simply, immoral. You don’t systematically reward people who repeatedly fail.

I’d like to welcome Mr. Obama to the world of people who believe we are masters of our domains. But we know Mr. Obama is a demagogue, arguing both sides of the same point to secure himself another four years of dictatorial rule.


Meet the GSA’s 8th Grade Minds That Run Your Life


There are two kinds of people in America: those who grow up to become productive adults, and those who become bureaucrats.

The GSA scandal lit up the 3 Stooges mentality of the “men and women” who would run every aspect of your life if Obama and his czars get their way.

Bureacrat Jeff Neely soaking the taxpayers in Vegas

Jeff Neely’s the guy Thomas Jefferson had in mind when wrote:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Neely and his wife showed no shame in living like Donald Trump on taxpayers’ dollars. They posted these photos on Google+.

When you meet one of those undecided voters this year, the ones whose white guilt wants to give Obama four more years to destroy America, show them these pictures of the people who eat the food they can’t afford to feed their kids.

Then there’s Martha Johnson, appointed by both Clinton and Obama to bureaucratic leadership.  While she “will mourn for the rest of my life the loss of my appointment,” she still saw fit to give Neely a fat tax dollar bonus for his work in staging the Vegas boondoggle.

On the flip side, there were heroes, like Susan Brita, the whistleblower who uncovered the nonsense. Trouble is, in a bureacracy, it’s the  arrogant swine like Neely who tend to rise to the top–the ones who believe, like their White House leaders, that bureaucrats are the moral superiors of the subjects, the serfs, the commoners.

If we don’t clean house this November, we deserve the gulag we’ll surely inhabit.

NYT Describes Mayhem of “Taxmageddon”, And It Will Scare You Sick

Financial Armageddon

What the hell’s going on at NYT? First, they do a piece on Andrew Breitbart. Then they warn the world that Taxmageddon will crush the world in 2013, beginning with the USA.

Financial Armageddon

Here’s how Business Insider summarized the David Leohardt article:

Basically, with no changes to current law, taxes will rise for everyone, and after tax, inflation-adjusted income for the average American will drop to 1998 levels.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-here-comes-taxmageddon-2012-4#ixzz1s9RHtbZC

It’s largest tax increase in the history of Western Civilization, and it will happen if Congress doesn’t stop it. We could be looking at a 5 percent drop in GDP in 2013 alone.

Taxmageddon is the result of decades of borrowing to feed the entitlement monster. Only real entitlement reform will solve it.

The After Party will be at Crowne Plaza Grille at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Clayton on Thursday, April 19 at 7:00 pm. Join us. Bring a friend.

BTW, David Leonhardt’s strategy for heading off Taxmageddon is electing Mitt Romney president. Imagine that.

Separation of Press and State

Borrowing liberally from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, let’s adopt this manifesto of our resolve to keep the government from taking over (via voluntary non-profit status) the free press in the United States:

Americans have more publishing freedom than any people in world history. We can choose what to read; what to teach our children; how, where and when to write; which causes to give money to; or even whether we want to get involved with the news at all. We have the separation of press and state to thank for this broadly based freedom.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” Most Americans have interpreted this clause to mean that the press and government must stay separate for the benefit of both.

Press-state separation has worked very well in practice. Americans freely support an array of newspapers, television networks, web sites, and other publishing institutions, our nation is media diverse and many opinions exist side by side with remarkably little conflict. Our government treats people of all media (and none) equally.

When our nation’s Founders separated the press and government, it was a revolutionary experiment. That experiment has been an extraordinary success. It’s made us the envy of the world, and Americans United wants to make sure that wise policy continues.

By bailing out Big Media, Congress and the Obama administration threaten to destroy that separation, to tear down that wall, to collapse the freedoms the media in America have enjoyed.  Proposals in Congress and in the White House would turn many newspapers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe into arms of the government.  Through the state-run media, administrations would be free to wage propaganda wars. No one would know what’s real and what’s government spin.  For example, the New York Times could report a “scientific consensus” that humans are causing the Earth’s temperature to rise even though no evidence exists to support that claim.

During the post-9/11 wars, the free press provided a check on government assertions of dangers from Islamofascist terrorists.  The press informed us that the WMD menace in Iraq was overstated.  Without a free, independent press, we might never have learned of these facts. Instead, the Bush administration would simply have typed out the NYT’s stories, keeping us in the dark about the truth.

Think government ownership of the press would be tolerable?  Think again. Already, Democrats Feinstein and Durbin are proposing legislation to make it easier for the U.S. government to prosecute conservative bloggers.  And Democrat Harry Waxman is preparing to propose legislation for a government takeover of newspapers.

Not in my country.  If we have to live with a strict, draconian interpretation of the First Amendment regarding religion, then we damn well demand the same separation of press and state.