U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) told a crowed at a church in San Francisco that it was un-American to enforce our immigration laws.  She wishes to stop raids and deportations because she sees enforcing those laws as un-American?  Then why should I have to follow laws I don’t like?  We have already learned from several of President Obama’s cabinet picks that we may not have to pay taxes either.  What kind of system is this?  Is this the new era of responsibility that Obama and the Democrats talked about?  Ignore laws you don’t like?

I guess this was an important enough issue that Speaker Pelosi felt compelled to speak on.  You know, ensuring that people that have come into our country illegally have a way of getting jobs and using our tax-funded institutions such as health services and education while legal Americans are struggling to get jobs or hold onto them and trying to pay for healthcare.  Welcome to the Democrats’ America–where you may be better off if you’re here illegally.

The President the other night spoke before a joint session of Congress.  In his remarks he mentioned how he does not want big government nor does he want to raise everyone’s taxes.  Does not want big government?  Coming from a man who just introduced a $3.55 trillion dollar budget?  From the man who projects that because of the sheer amount of government spending he has proposed that the budget deficit will be $1.75 trillion?  Please.  He and his Democratic colleagues in the Congress are rushing to spend our money faster (see deficit) than they can collect it from us.

If President Obama really does not like big government then he should not rely on heavy tax burdens on the wealthy.  We are talking about people who make $250,000 and up.  These are the small and medium business owners.  These are the investors.  This are the corporate movers and shakers.  Thus far, Wall Street has not been brimming with confidence every time Obama talks about more taxes, spending, and heavy regulations.

The issue is a major philosophical one.  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress believe that only the government can create the necessary jobs to help the economy–not the private sector.  In fact, they believe that the private arena should be burdened with oppressive taxes.  The problems with this line of thinking are many (see: history).  But let us keep it simple:  how often do the poor or lower/middle class create jobs?  It is the upper middle class and the wealthy in this country that create the jobs for the lower and middle class.  Through commerce people are able to buy from companies which are then able to hire more workers.

Mr. President, please be honest with the American people.  Come right out and proudly declare your love for big government and taxes.  Inform the people that you think it is time to punish the hard working and give to the less fortunate.  Revel in your desire to take from those who are paying their mortgages to help those who made unwise financial decisions.  Just come out and tell us that you embrace socialism.  But please, stop insulting our intelligence with this talk of not liking big government.

President Obama ran a campaign promising change.  He ran promising openness and a ethical administration while denouncing the Bush administration.  However, the reality seems to be quite different (like so much of Obama’s campaign rhetoric vs. reality).  So far, Obama’s track record for ethical nominees is closer to a bad SNL skit rather than an administration that the American people can be proud of.

- Bill Richardson withdrew his name to be Commerce Secretary due to a grand jury investigation into political favors to donors.

- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner failed to pay more than $40,000 in payroll taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund.  This is the person who was placed in charge of collecting taxes from the rest of us?  What would happen to any of us for not paying $40,000 in taxes?  I doubt we would get a promotion.

- Tom Daschle, nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, had to withdraw his name today as pressure mounted.  The problems Daschle faced were due to his filing more than $140,000 in back taxes and interest (he failed to disclose more than $300,000 in past income, including the use of a car and driver for three years).

- Nancy Killefer had to withdraw her name today as well due to tax issues.  She “failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government.”  Chief Performance Officer?  Seems like with her tax issues she fits right in with the rest of Obama’s picks.

I thought it was patriotic to pay taxes?  Someone get Vice President Biden on the phone!

Today the House of Representatives passed their version of the stimulus bill. The vote was 244-188 and not one Republican voted for it.  Despite talk of reaching across the aisle, the Democrats in Congress and President Obama are pushing through a massive, special interest ridden, and debt deepening farce in the guise of economic stimulation.  Here are just some of the areas of wasteful spending that is contained in this bill.

$1 billion for Amtrak
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$400 million for global warming research
$2 billion for child-care subsidies
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$650 million for more digital TV conversion coupons
$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$81 billion for Medicaid
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$83 billion for the earned income credit (for people who don’t pay income tax)
$66 billion for education

This bill is not about economic stimulation.  This bill is simply riddled with socialist pet-projects that the liberal Democrats in D.C. finally have the votes to push through.  Well, I guess President Obama is delivering early in his administration on his promise of change–he’s actually spending more than President Bush.

Sources

WAll Street Journal
Fox News

President Obama, four days into his job, facing a bad economy, terrorism, conflict in the Middle East, and domestic political strife in Washington wasted no time to take dramatic action.  Action that the American people had been demanding from day one and were, perhaps, upset that it had taken his administration three additional days to get around to.  Of course I am talking about his signing an executive order to allow tax payer money to be used to promote and fund abortions in other countries.  Yes, the U.S. Government is going to be running an estimated $1 trillion budget deficit, but I guess a little money can be spared as long as it is for something worthwhile.  Thank you President Obama for working so diligently on behalf of the American people and our pressing issues.

Please note:  this post may contain up to 98% sarcasm with a +/- 2 percent margin of error.

So all eyes of the media and liberal groups (isn’t that the same?) were on the inauguration of President Barack Obama.  The specific focus of the left’s ire was Rick Warren because of his support for California’s Proposition 8 which amended the state Constitution to recognize marriage as between a man and woman only.

However, another figure drew my attention.  Rev. Joseph Lowery gave the benediction for President Barack Obama’s inauguration.  During his speech (4:30 into it), Rev. Lowery appeals to God, stating he hopes that black would not be asked to get back and that white would embrace what is right.

I thought Barack Obama had talked about the election not being about black vs. white.  And now he embraces someone who openly chastises whites as not doing what is right.  However, he has a major problem with his thesis–the exit polling.  Whites did not look at the color of the skin of the candidates.  However, that seems to have played a role in the voting patterns of others (Exit polling data from CNN).

In the 2008 Presidential election, white voters represented 74% of the electorate and cast their ballots in favor of Senator John McCain only 55%-43% over Senator Barack Obama.  However, African-Americans, who representaed 13% of the electorate, voted in favor of Senator Obama 95%-4% over Senator McCain.  Looking at the facts, there appear to be some people who do care about race when voting.

The Democratic hopes of having a filibuster proof super majority (60 seats/votes) in the United States Senate was dashed when Saxby Chambliss won re-election in his runoff election with Jim Martin.  This is good news for conservatives–thank you Georgia voters.  Before President Obama can sign legislation into law it must pass both the House and Senate.  This means that some ultra-liberal legislation can be blocked my a minority of conservative Republicans in the Senate.  I hope they use this power wisely–with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid they will need it.

Myth #1:  Huge voter turnout
The fact is we did have a large voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election just like we did for the 2004 election.  However, the turnout numbers were nearly identical to the 2004 election.  The estimate is that around 60.7 percent to 61.7 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots this year.  In 2004, that number was 60.6 percent.

Myth #2:  The media was not biased in favor of Obama
The Center for Media and Public Affairs conducted a survey to find out how the media covered both campaigns.  The results?  65% of news stories showed Obama in a positive light while only 31% of news stories showed McCain in a positive manner.

Myth #3:  Obama is a champion of change
Jim Geraghty has a rundown of some of the recent people that Obama has tapped to be advisers or Secretaries in his new administration.  Some of the people Obama has tapped either served in Bill Clinton’s administration or have been in politics forever:  Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle, Greg Craig, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Peter Orszag, and more.

These individuals are prime examples of Washington and political insiders that seem to diverge from Obama’s pre-election rhetoric of: “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result” - Barack Obama, December 27, 2007.  So much for “change.”  I guess we’re just left with “hope.”

I was listening to the radio on my way to work the other day and they played a clip from a woman who was losing her house due to foreclosure.  The woman had chained herself to her house and stated on record that she did not want the bank to be able to take her home and hoped the politicians would “do their job” and help her to keep it.  Now, I feel bad that she and her husband are losing their house.  I understand that people are going through bad economic times.  However, since when is it the government’s “job” to protect us from our own decisions?  The problem is, this reliance on government for bailouts and handouts is not unique to individuals.

Recently the government passed a $700 billion bailout package.  $700 billion–our national annual budget is currently about $3 trillion.  Nearly a third of our national budget for a massive bailout of stupid financial decisions?  Also, the big news today is about the big three auto makers here in the United States lobbying Congress and the President to take action and come to their rescue.  They are requesting up to $25 billion in government aid to avoid a failing domestic auto industry.  I thought the United States won this ideological battle with the Soviet Union and other communist regimes–central planning and government ownership does not work. I guess someone forgot to tell our own citizens that we “won” this ideological battle.

However, with the election of Barack Obama we’re seeing a resurgence in demands for government help.  Not the Constitutional help we’re used to like national defense, but help from our own dumb choices.  When will people return to what made this country what it is today?  Taking responsibility and building their own future without an inefficient and soulless government there to redistribute assets and catch us when we fall. After all, there is always a price for government intervention. Always.

Ok, so as I’m sitting there watching the election returns pour in I admit that the political junky in me was loving it.  However, the well informed voter in me was aghast.  Had Americans just elected a slogan machine as President?  “Change,” “Hope,” etc.  What does this mean?  The promises made by the Obama campaign during the lead-up to election day would have us all believe that just by virtue of winning the election that Obama and his new administration would usher in a new era immediately.

However, before all the votes had been counted, Obama set the expectations a little lower.  During his victory speech he cautioned the voters that this would be a tough hill to climb and that it might not be completed in a year… or one term.  Excuse me?  Not even in one term?  He’s been on the campaign trail offering “tax cuts for working families, affordable and expanded health care and a speedy withdrawal from Iraq intended to save billions of dollars each month” (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05/president-obama-promises/).  Tax cuts for the middle class?  He began his election saying that anyone making under $250,000 would not see their taxes raised.  Well, according to his running mate and several political associates, that number keeps moving lower and lower.  His running mate, Joe Biden, said late during the campaign that they would not raise taxes on those making less than $150,000.  Well, just what is the middle class?  How much is the upper end before they get classified as rich?  Apparently that’s a moving target.  Obama had talked of a speedy withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  Now this will take more than a term?    And last, health care for all?  Really?  His campaign promise was that by the end of his first term he would have signed a universal health care bill into law.  With a budget deficit that could approach $800 billion to $1 trillion?  We shall see.

A lot of his campaigning was spent tearing down the Bush administration.  Some of it deserved–fiscal irresponsibility, for example.  However, now the buck is going to stop with Obama and he is already attempting to insulate himself from the wrath of the voters after over-promising during the campaign.  Beginning January 20th, 2009, Obama and the Democratic controlled House and Senate will be expected to uphold their lofty rhetoric.  I’m not holding my breath.