These days, won't even buy a cup of coffee

Hekyll: "I guess we were all wrong about Obama. He really IS a fiscal conservative."

News reports show that Obama is really interested in cutting spending.

He's cutting $100 million! Isn't that a lot?"

Jekyll: "Well, Obama's Federal budget this year is supposed to be over $3.6 TRILLION."

Hekyll: "So? 100 million is a lot of cash."

Jekyll: "How much do you make in a year, Hekyll?"

Hekyll: "About $20,000."

Jekyll: "OK, let's say you plan on making $20,000. Let's also say you have debt of around $100,000 and you plan on SPENDING about $36,000. You with me now?"

Hekyll: "I owe $100K, I make $20,000, and I spend $36,000 in one year?!? I can't do that! I'll go bankrupt!"

Jekyll: "Well let's say someone does lend you the money. Now you and your wife need to figure out how you're going to get out of the hole. OK?"

Hekyll: (panicked) "OK, but I don't know how I would get out of that one."

Jekyll: "Well let's say that after months of trying, that you and your wife crunched all your expenses; all the stuff you guys buy, trying to cut your phone bill, food, car, insurance, movies, everything. You finally figured out how much money you can cut from your expenses for the year. The total you cut for the whole year in your precarious financial situation? $1."

Hekyll: "$1?!?!? What!??! That's ridiculous! That's an insult! $1 is not going make any difference whatsoever in my situation! I can't even buy a cup of coffee for that!"

Jekyll: "That $1 in your situation (spending $36K) is the EXACT same amount that Obama cut from the Federal budget: $100 million out of a budget that is $3,600,000 million!

$1 out of $36000... is the same % as
$100 mil out of $3,600,000 (what Obama is spending).

So do you think if you owed $100,000 on credit cards, and you made $20K, and you spend $36K, that saving $1 would make ANY DIFFERENCE?

Obama's budget deficit is going to be around $1.6 TRILLION this year ALONE! That's like we make $20,000 and spend $36,000. And yes, we owe about $10 TRILLION in debt already, just like you owe $100,000 in credit cards. Obama's cuts, which are just .002% of spending, is an insult? You bet it is. Come on, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. My treat."

'Obama is a moderate' = 'I am the King of England'

I was wondering when the left would stop pretending that Obama is a moderate/centrist and just admit he's a full-ledged leftist.

During the campaign we heard that Obama was "post-partisan", would bring "a different tone to Washington", and was very "moderate", a "centrist", a "concillitator".

Wow, that seems like such a long time ago.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/12774/the-case-for-trust-and-support
Here Chris Bowers says why leftists should trust Obama:

"To my surprise, I think the trust and support argument is actually very strong. It focuses on five main reasons:

1. President Obama's progressive background
   
2. President Obama's voting record in the Senate
   
3. Democratic trifectas are rare
   
4. A major shift toward the public sector has occurred in just the first few weeks of President Obama's administration.
   
5. The Senate is the real problem anyway."

Check out what he says about Obama's background:
"Because of his background: There are some very progressive aspects to President Obama's background. Two that always stick out in my mind are that he spent time after college as a community organizer and found religion through a church that preached liberation theology. Experiences such as these can only come from a person who is open to left-wing ideas. Obama simply must view progressivism as something to take seriously, rather than as the caricatured fashion it is often portrayed in our national political discourse. There have been times in his life where he has sided with some very, very left-wing ideas."

Everything in Obama's progressive background and voting record was brought up in the campaign and DISMISSED by not only Democrats but by some REPUBLICANS as well.

"No, as President he won't vote like he did with his voting record or lifetime of progressive causes/connections. He'll be moderate."

Now that OpenLeft is saying he's a leftist, can we please put away the "moderate/centrist" argument?

What does this say?
1 Clearly, obviously, Obama is a leftist. HE IS NOT A MODERATE.
2 Obama is a liar
3 Democrats from the media to all pundits will purposely collude and happily lie to get a Democrat elected
4 The left (20% of voters are liberal) will be his bedrock of support


The media will continue to try to purposely collude and represent Obama as a moderate. Why? Most of them are liberal and for years (decades) have been trying to present themselves as moderate/centrist. They see Obama's illusion and their own illusion of centrism as linked. They will try to say that all of Obama's policies are really...centrist/moderate.

What conservatives need to do is EDUCATE people on what conservative and even moderate positions are, and people can clearly see for themselves that what Obama is doing is not moderate or centrist.

And in case you're wondering, I am not in fact the King of England.

Obama living in liberal fantasy land

Over the past few days 3 things have happened that reinforce Obama's complete lack of understanding of reality. Obama is regressing into foreign policy stances even WEAKER than Clinton's, if you can believe it.

Nuke-free world comments raise alarms
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=94296

Obama Team Mulls Aims Of Somali Extremists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041003734.html?

U.S. navy eyeballs Somali pirates in hostage standoff
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1033510220090411?sp=true

In the case of wanting everyone to just "get along" and give up nukes, "He described the United States' obligation as a "moral responsibility."" A moral responsibility to give up nukes? Ummmm...do you see ANY OTHER COUNTRY chomping at the bit to get rid of their nukes? You think Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea are just excited to GIVE UP their nukes? It's complete FANTASY. Iran is flaunting the Europe, the UN and the US because they CRAVE nukes because of the power it gives. These countries will NEVER willingly give up nukes because there is nothing you could replace them with. What can you give N. Korea that replaces the power thy get with nukes? Money, food, power over their people? No, they can get that WITH their nuclear weapons.

Obama treats nuclear weapons as some sort of GUN CONTROL: if we outlaw guns, nobody will use them. In the real world, gun control just means CRIMINALS would use them because they know nobody else has a gun.

In the nuclear weapons scenario, Obama would have us disarm while the criminal countries of N. Korea and Iran happily use nuclear weapons any way they can.


In the 2nd article, regarding Somali extremists, the article states that "The organization's rapid expansion, ties between its leaders and al-Qaeda, and the presence of Americans and Europeans in its camps have raised the question of whether a preemptive strike is warranted. Yet the group's objectives have thus far been domestic, and officials say that U.S. intelligence has no evidence it is planning attacks outside Somalia. "

OK, so there are a bunch of Somali extremists, with ties to Al Queda, who have carried out attacks, but it's ok because they are only attacking Somalia. WHAT?!? Obama won't attack them because they're only domestic Islamic terrorists?

Why don't we substitute some other countries then. If a group of Islamic militants with ties with Al Queda was ONLY attacking Egypt, or Phillipines, or Thailand, or Saudi Arabia, or...the UK... DOMESTICALLY, then it wouldn't be a concern? Hey, the Taliban is only domestically attacking inside AFGHANISTAN, are they OK too???

And what happens when these trained, funded, and willing terrorists...decide to cross the border?


And lastly, the Somali pirates. I hope that the standoff is ended peacefully, but Obama's lack of decision and not even commenting about it for 3 days belies his overall indecision and weakness in regards to foreigners. If he is too strong he risks those in Africa/Middle East starting not to like him. And gosh, he wants EVERYONE to like him. Clearly the Somali pirates are not afraid of the American Navy (as they have stated); not because they have superioir firepower, but because they have superior WILL.


All in all, Obama's foreign policy picture is one of weakness and abdication of responsibility, reflecting a complete absence of understanding the real world. Really, did we expect anything different?

GOP needs to go "nucular" on Obama amnesty

Republicans absolutely need to come out STRONGLY against Obama’s amnesty bill. Not just strongly, WITH MAXIMUM EFFORT!!! The wishy-washy approach of McCain and Bush is completely unacceptable.

I know why the GOP is doing it: they fear Hispanic backlash, backlash against the GOP for being “racist”, and backlash from business owners that want cheap labor. This is pandering and not leading.

It should not be very difficult to be against amnesty for illegal immigrants and not be racist: in fact most people fall into this group.

The way it should be handled for Republicans is:
1 Acknowledge we are a nation of immigrants
2 Acknowledge immigrants, and especially Hispanics’ contribution to society
3 Say we ALREADY HAVE a legal immigration process with Mexico and other Latin American countries. For Mexico alone we let in over 110,000 people LEGALLY to this country (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2008.pdf).
4 It’s not FAIR to Hispanics living in Mexico to wait LONGER because illegal immigrants CUT IN LINE; those that CUT IN LINE should not get rewarded. Those 110,000 had to wait, why can’t these people here illegally?
5 Need to be tough on EMPLOYERS that hire illegals
6 We already TRIED Amnesty in 1986 and it didn’t solve immigration. Why? The day after amnesty was signed NEW illegal immigrants crossed the border. Until we seal the border and/or Latin America becomes as wealthy as America, Amnesty will only “solve” illegal immigration for a few minutes/hours until the next illegal immigrant crosses the border.
7 Illegals lower wages and take jobs from Americans. This has been proved in numerous studies.
8 Illegals also cost much more in taxes than they produce.
9 If an illegal immigrant has a child that is an American citizen, no one wants to split up the family. The mother and father should be proper parents and raise their child in their home country. When the child is older they can make the decision where they want to live. GOP should ask a rhetorical question: if you had to move to a poorer state, would you leave your child behind or raise them with love wherever you were?
10 Applies to illegal immigrants from EVERYEHERE, not just Latin America. Europe, Canada, Africa, Asia.


I’m not in marketing, but the “message” that should be repeated over and over, using key words like “CUT IN LINE”, “RESPECT”, “FAIRNESS”, “AMERICAN JOBS”, “FOREIGNERS”, “WAGES”, and “EUROPEANS” :
1 FARINESS. Fairness to American workers and fairness to Hispanics living in Latin America who do the right thing and don’t CUT IN LINE and immigrate legally. Who likes people that CUT IN LINE?
2 AMERICAN JOBS. Let’s raise wages and give jobs to Americans, not citizens of FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Hey, actually raise an issue working people care about.
3 TRIED AMNESTY AND IT DIDN’T WORK.
4 RESPECT for Hispanics and LEGAL immigrants
5 Applies to ALL illegal immigrants, including EUROPEANS and Asians. Mention European countries BY NAME and not just focus on Mexico.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that...

The blog post title is from the Declaration of Indpendence. But what if the ENTIRE Declaration of Indpendence was just that sentence?


Here are some excerpts from famous American speeches/writings:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the "

"Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately "

"AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new"

"WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the"

"And, Reverend Clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you: I can't "


How do those short "excerpts" resonate with you? Do they move you, do they make you think? I'm sure you know where many of these excerpts come from (and you can cheat and look at the bottom for answers). If you had never heard those speeches or read those words in their entirety, would this small little excerpt have ANY impact on you by only reading this short sentence above?

What do they all have in common? They are all less than 140 characters, which is the maximum number of characters of a Twitter post.

Twitter is a fun website, and it's great for posting announcements quickly to a lot of different people.

I admire Michael Leahy’s drive, ambition, and ability to organize conservatives on TCOT and with the various tea parties across the country. I see quite a lot of conservatives see Obama using social networking in his campaign, and so conservatives try to use Twitter to spread the conservative message.

But the time for conservatives now (and forever) is not the ability to do quick announcements; what we need is for the populace to be EDUCATED. Do you think a 20-year old will be able to glean the crux of the Federalist Papers from reading it 140 characters at a time? How can we present IDEAS like freedom, education about history and economics, about Democrats repeating failed policies, 140 characters at a time? Sure, we can send messages to EXISTING conservatives using Twitter, but how many NEW ONES can we expect to get?

Of course, you can post links (URLs) to Twitter with pages that have unlimited content, but it’s actually more cumbersome to click each individual link, and with only 140 characters it’s not even clear what the link is from the abbreviated description.

Twitter is actually more conducive to quick, emotional outbursts than reasoned debate or argument.

And this dovetails with the tea parties as well, organized by Michael Leahy of TCOT fame. What is the purpose of the tea parties? Is it that conservatives are unhappy with Obama? High taxes? Spending? Government control? All of the above?

It seems that the tea parties are making a lot of noise, and letting people vent; it’s also showing that conservatives in general CAN organize. These are all good things.

The danger is that the actual MESSAGE of what conservative tea parties are standing for is muddled and most people don’t understand what conservatives are talking about.

Everyone knows that the pro-immigration rallies were about getting amnesty.
Everyone knows that the G20 rallies iun London were anti-capitalist/banker/globalization.
Everyone knows that the anti-war ralliers were…anti-war.

If an apolitical/moderate voter sees a tea party on TV, will they know what conservatives are protesting? If not, then whomever is commenting on the news story will freely TELL the viewer what they are protesting.

Sadly, many voters don’t know what the issue with spending is because: 1) we haven’t seen negative effects of deficit spending after so many years of it, and 2) Bush/Republicans also had deficits. They have no idea how big Obama’s deficits really are in relation to any of Bush’s deficits, about inevitable inflation (and what that even is), about Obama’s power grabs.

Without educating voters as to the REASONS why Obama’s spending and Obama’s policies are harmful, conservatives can easily be painted as “obstructionist”, trying to prevent Obama who “got dealt a bad hand” and is “just trying to help out”.

Do I think conservatives should use Twitter? ABSOLUTELY! Is TCOT a great way of communicating to fellow conservatives? Yes. Are tea parties a good chance for conservatives to get their voices heard? Yes.

But let’s not substitute noise for reason, abbreviated Twitter posts for well-thought out arguments.




Just in case you're wondering, here are where the excerpts are from:
Gettysburg Address
FDR Dec 8 1941
Federalist Papers #1
Federalist Papers #2
Reagan "Evil Empire" speech 1983