January 31, 2013
Colin Powell - Republican? And Racist?
After watching Bill O'Reilly interview Colin Powell a couple evenings ago, I came to the conclusion that the self-proclaimed Republican is certainly no conservative and would be better suited as a member of King Barack Hussein Obama's Democratic (read Communist) Party.
'Republican' Powell would have us believe that he supported King Obama in 2008 because he believed Obama's economic policy was superior to John McCain. In reality, there was really no economic policy presented by Obama (remember it was all 'hope and change') and both Obama and McCain supported the pork-filled stimulus package just prior to the election. With all things being equal, Powell, as a good Republican, should have supported Republican McCain.
Powell also voted for King Obama in 2012 when it was crystal clear that Obamanomics had been a catastrophic failure in the past 4 years. Romney has been a very successful businessman and former governor of Massachusetts, and there is every reason to believe that he would have had a much stronger economic policy than that of the former community organizer, King Obama.
Unable to give any other substantive reason for not supporting the Republican's semi-conservative candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012, could it be that Powell preferred the color of Obama's skin to that of Romney?
Note to Colin Powell: The Republican Party is no place for racists.
January 25, 2013
Guns, Guns And More Guns
Jessie Duff, a very talented marksman, was on Sean Hannity's show the other night. She demonstrated an AR-15, a 30-06 rifle, a .45 caliber pistol and a 12 gauge shotgun with 2 types of shells. All the weapons were semi-automatics. If I had to defend myself against a number of people, the AR-15 with a 30 shot clip would be my weapon of choice. If there was just one person that I was defending myself against, the damage a shotgun does is quite impressive. There are, however, some concerns I have with the weapons Ms. Duff demonstrated. 1) Semi-automatic weapons can jam for no apparent reason. 2) The shotgun is limited by the number of shells you can put in the weapon at any one time - usually around three. 3) Rifles and shotguns can be a bit unwieldy. Therefore, I generally prefer a good old reliable .357 or .38 revolver for home protection. Revolvers are just point and shoot, and you don't have to worry about chambering the first round. Hopefully, we will never have to defend ourselves against any intruders but, if we do, heaven help them if they get past my guard dogs and my lovely wife...I will be waiting.
January 16, 2013
King Barack Hussein Obama On Gun Responsibility
King Obama just got through lecturing us on the evils of guns and signed a number of relatively insignificant executive orders while urging congress to pass more sweeping gun ownership reforms and restrictions.
Unfortunately, his administration is responsible for the most egregious acts of distributing assault weapons to criminals in the history of our nation. Does anyone remember 'fast and furious'? Attorney General Holder has continued to stonewall the investigation by congress into 'fast and furious' and absolutely no new gun control legislation should pass congress until Holder and King Obama's administration come completely clean concerning this deadly fiasco.
King Barack Hussein Obama On The Debt Ceiling
King Obama discovered early in his reign that it is really fun to spend other people's money. Unfortunately, WE HAVE RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY! When increasing the debt ceiling comes up for a vote, every conservative representative and senator should get up and give this speech Obama gave in 2006 (before he became King Obama) and then vote against raising the debt ceiling unless there is an agreement written in stone to reduce spending and pass a balanced budget.
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America. And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans—a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies. But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again. Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.