I just got my first set of hearing aids this week.  It has been an ear opening experience.   My hearing has been terrible for years, but recently it deteriorated to a level I could not tolerate.  So, I finally made the plunge.  I quickly discovered a world of full of sounds to which I had been oblivious.   For example I now know that my computer keyboard makes a loud noise every time I hit a key.  I didn’t know that.  In many ways, this is a good thing.  I can certainly understand people better when they talk.  To be honest, there were a lot of times when I didn’t understand and was too embarrassed to admit it so I just nodded my head and hoped that worked.  If you combined a high female voice in a crowded room, I didn’t have a prayer.  But there are also sounds that are frankly annoying.  I scraped my fork on the dinner plate last night and jumped about three feet.  Now I know why my wife griped so loudly about a sound I could not hear.  I am still adjusting to the new world of sound.  Although sometimes I miss my world of silence, life is better when you can hear.

This morning, while watching the news, I heard something even more startling.  I heard a President of the United States admit to an unprecedented abuse of power.  No one is unhappy that Anwar al Aulaqi is gone.  The man was a terrorist and he was a threat to the U.S.  But he was also a U.S. citizen and that really matters.  If Obama had ordered a mission to try and arrest him and he was killed in the attempt, that would be perfectly acceptable.  But Obama never pretended that this was anything other than an assassination.  Obama has granted to himself sole discretion with regard to the execution of a U.S. citizen without even the pretense of due process.  President Obama has been very careful to avoid calling this a war on terror.  If it is not a war, then what exactly is the source of his authority to take this action?

There are several things he could have done.  He could have had Anwar al Aulaqi tried, in absentia, in a U.S. court or even a military tribunal.  He could have asked congress for authorization to eliminate a known terrorist.  He could have done a lot of things, but he did not.  He just decided Anwar al Aulaqi was a threat so he ordered him eliminated.  The problem is with regard to the precedent this sets for this President and for other Presidents in the future.  This time, most Americans agree with the decision to eliminate this terrorist.  But, there is a reason for the rule of law.  The rule of law is not designed to protect the guilty; it is designed to protect all of us.  Once we give this type of indiscriminate power to anyone, including a President of the United States, we are entering dangerous new territory.  If Obama can target Anwar al Aulaqi, he can target anyone.

President Obama was speaking at the retirement ceremony for Admiral Michael Mullen, who is retiring as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He referred to him as Mike.    This shows a lack of respect for the office held by Admiral Mullen.   It also shows a lack of respect for the office of President of the United States.  I couldn’t help imagining the following phone call:  “Hi Mike, Barry.  This  al Aulaqi guy is becoming a real nuisance.  Why don’t you go ahead and take him out!”  Really?

According to reports the ACLU is all over this.  Normally, I find the ACLU on the wrong side of every issue.  But in this case, perhaps we should pay a little more attention to what they say.  I don’t know what you heard this morning, but I heard abuse of power.  I also heard that a despicable terrorist is no longer with us.  The question is, which matters more?



A lot of liberals believe that Jesus would support socialism.  At a minimum, they assume Jesus would support raising taxes on the rich and giving more money to the poor.  They like to use words like “social justice.”  But, social justice is found in the dictionary, not the Bible.  If one actually reads the scriptures, one can make a strong case that while Jesus did command us to help those in need, He most definitely  did not believe in redistribution of wealth. 

It is important to read passages of scripture in context.  Obviously, Matthew 25:14-30 comes before Matthew 25:31-46.  One would have to assume, being the Bible and all, that this was deliberate.  For that reason, we will go to Matthew 25:14-30 first:

Note that the master gives money to people based on their ability.  He didn’t give the same amount to everyone.  The person who was considered to be more capable was given the most money.  The person who was considered least capable was given the least money.  Not much social justice there!  Then the big shocker:  when the master returned, the rich had gotten richer and the poor had gotten poorer.  This is quite similar to what happens under capitalism.  According to liberals, Jesus should have recommended taking the extra money away from the rich guy and giving it to the poor guy.  But Jesus did the exact opposite.  He took the money away from the poor guy and gave it to the rich guy.  Wow!

But the story did not end there.  Later, in the same chapter, Jesus reminded us that those people who are able to earn more have an obligation to help those in need.  Now read the rest of the chapter, verses 31-46:

When you think about it, Jesus understood the difference between liberals and conservatives a long time ago.  Liberals want to raise taxes on those who earn money to give to those who are unable, or unwilling, to earn it themselves.  So a lot of people assume that liberals are more generous and caring than conservatives.  However, this is not necessarily true.  ABC did some research and ran the following story in 2008:

It turns out that while liberals are generous with other people’s money, they aren’t necessarily generous with their own.  And while conservatives are definitely out to earn more money, they are much more likely to be generous. 

After reading these two passages, it is pretty hard to argue that Jesus was a liberal.  Actually, he would probably fit in really well with the Tea Party. He would give more money to those who are ready, willing and able to make a profit.  He would give less money to those who are less capable.  And he would take it all away from those who just want to sit on their buns and wait for a hand out.  He would also expect those who do well to help out those in need.  This looks remarkably similar to the Tea Party Platform.



There was a country that stupidly elected a new, naïve, inexperienced radical President.  He blamed all of our problems on the debt incurred under his predecessor.  But, instead on cutting spending, he borrowed even more money and spent it wildly and foolishly.  Billions were spent bailing out the richest firms in the country who had caused the problem in the first place.  Billions more were spent bailing out the unions whose bloated contracts were making it impossible for companies to compete.  He promised to lower unemployment, lower the deficit and grow the economy.  He promised hope and change.  He delivered record unemployment, a double-dip recession and an unprecedented increase in our debt.

But unlike the prodigal son, who eventually realized the errors of his ways, this President wants to double down.  He wants to take even more money away from the few people who have any left and give it to those who have proven themselves incapable of handling it the first time.  It is sort of the prodigal son in reverse.  He has learned nothing. The point of the prodigal son is one of forgiveness, but it is not one of stupidity.  It is important to read the last verse of this parable:

 Luke 15:31-32  (NIV)

   31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

 In other words, I love your brother, and I forgive him, but I’m not about to give him any more money.



There are few things in life more enjoyable than watching a habitual liar get caught in the act.  At first the Obama administration considered SOLYNDRA to be one of the greatest ideas in the history of man.  They ignored the fact that it was the Bush administration that first considered this.  Obama shoved them aside and took all the credit for himself.  He either didn’t notice or didn’t care that the Bush administration rejected the proposal as a really bad idea.  There were speeches, photo ops, an appearance at the ground breaking, and even a joint appearance with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This was Obama’s show piece of how investing in green energy would create jobs and move America forward into a prosperous and glorious future. 

 Unfortunately, the great idea has morphed into a financial disaster.  Instead of creating all those great new jobs, SOLYNDRA ran out of cash and had to lay off 1,100 people.  The Obama administration is stuck trying to explain why it threw away a half billion dollars on a half-baked venture, conveniently financed by a big Obama supporter.  At best, this is incredibly stupid.  At worst, it is outright fraud. 

 What’s a guy to do?

 Easy; in the deluded world of Obama, find a way to blame everything on Bush.  So, under this brilliant strategy, SOLYNDRA was transformed from an Obama show piece to a really bad idea inherited from the Bush administration.  It is sort of the “devil made me do it” defense.

 But, in their haste to dodge this bullet, they missed a few minor details.  Like those inconvenient documents proving that the Bush administration rejected the project before Bush left office.  In addition, the Bush administration analysis predicted SOLYNDRIA would run out of funds around September, 2012.  Seems pretty darn accurate to me!  No one is buying the blame-Bush argument on this one.

 SOLYNDRA is going to change everything.  SOLYNDRA is so bad, it is so obvious and there is so much direct evidence against the Obama administration that it can no longer be ignored.  In a bizarre twist, ABC News broke the story, but then ignored it.  So, Brian Ross from ABC News went on Fox News last night and gave a devastating interview:

 He said the controversy goes right to the door of the White House.  (It is hard for Obama to pretend he never heard about SOLYNDRA when there are all these videos of him bragging about SOLYNDRA.)

 No matter how much the main stream media love(d) Obama, they love a good story more.  Don’t be surprised to see this turn into a feeding frenzy.  There is more than enough blood in the water to draw the sharks.



I am relatively sure the Washington Post views this article as a hit piece against Republicans.  Everything here is true, but as with most things written by the liberal left it gets everything exactly wrong:

This is actually a pretty good explanation of the difference between people who vote for Democrats and those who vote for Republicans.  Liberals consider themselves to be intellectually and culturally superior to conservatives.  Conservatives are routinely put down as being stupid and uninformed.  It would seem that if this was true, it would be liberals who want to limit voting to better educated and more capable people.  After all, don’t all the smart people think like liberals?

Instead liberals want an extended time for early voting so they have more time to round up people who otherwise wouldn’t remember to vote.  They desperately need the coveted convicted felon support.  And they absolutely need support from people who are somehow working their way through life without any photo ID.  I am sure these are all really nice people, but I wouldn’t exactly describe them as being better educated and more capable.  Oops, that would be Republicans.



Three things are certain.  Death, Taxes and Democrats winning elections In Districts where there is an effective Democratic machine.  Yet Turner, a Republican, just won the special election to replace Anthony Weiner in the 9th New York congressional district.  It has probably happened before, but the last time I remember was in 1979 when Jane Bryne beat the Daly Machine candidate during the Chicago Mayor election.  There had been several major snowstorms and the citizens were less than pleased.  But, remember that Bryne was a liberal Democrat who had previously been connected with the Daly Machine herself.  In addition, she won a Democratic primary, so ultimately the Republican still lost.  A Republican actually winning an election in this type of district is rarer than the sighting of an Ivory Billed Wood Pecker. 

Obama carried this district by 11 points and this is the home turf of Charles Schumer.    Democrats poured $700,000 into this race during the last week, compared to $13,000 spent by Turner.  In addition, Weprin himself outspent Turner two to one on this race.  Democrats knew the significance of this election.  The following article describes the all-out effort by the Queens Democratic Party Machine:

Inside its headquarters — which doubles as the Weprin campaign’s nerve center — get-out-the vote workers rushed to pick up manila folders containing block-by-block layouts of the district; others sat at the phones, methodically working through voter-contact lists. Volunteers fanned out across Queens, handing out glossy placards highlighting Weprin’s endorsement from the New York Times editorial page.

If you go outside your home, turn your head toward Washington D.C. and sniff carefully you will detect a new odor.  “Democratic flop sweat.”  It is now common in all Democratic circles but noticeable stronger on the left.  If things continue on the current course, expect the stench to increase significantly.

You will also notice the faint sound of footsteps.  That is the sound of the Jews in District 9 deserting the Democratic Party.  Expect the sound to increase and more and more people desert the sinking ship of state.  We will soon be calling it the Democ Party, because the rats are leaving the ship.



The Washington Cathedral planned to hold a major interfaith 9/11 Memorial service.  They invited Leon Panetta and Barack Obama, but did not invite George W. Bush or anyone else from the Bush administration.  They invited a Buddhist Nun and an Imam, but no evangelical Christians.  The explanation given was that since the Cathedral itself is an Episcopal church they felt their own clergy would be more than adequate to serve as the Christian representatives.

Perhaps it is just coincidence, but it appears that God was not impressed.  First there was a rare East Coast earthquake on 8/23/2011 that damaged the Cathedral.  The Cathedral ignored this warning and continued on.  Then, on Wednesday, September 7, 2011, a crane fell over at the Cathedral:

The service has to be moved to the Kennedy Center:

Just saying!



There is an old saying that “victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan.”  JFK, among others, used that quotation.  The Obama administration loaned $525 million to Solyndra, then bragged about this as the first show piece in a wave of new jobs created by investing in green energy.

It, like most other Obama ideas, was a major bust.  Solyndra has filed for bankruptcy and the FBI is investigating whether or not this was just stupidity or was it fraud.  At a minimum, it was an incredibly bad investment.  Obama personally sat in on meeting with Solyndra executives and as recently as May of 2010, visited Solyndra, along with Arnold Schwarzenegger, to brag about all those green energy jobs.

Now the White House is trying to back away big time and this scandal is blowing sky high.  It is so bad that Henry Waxman and Diana DeGette took the time to write a letter to House Committee investigating this to explain why this is not there fault because they were lied to by Solyndra executives.  They threw the executives at Solyndra under teh bus faster than Obama threw his white grandmother.   When people like Waxman and DeGette start running away from things it is best to expect a really big explosion.

This stinks to high heaven and the White House is probably torn between covering up Fast and Furious or covering up Solyndragate.



It has always been difficult to understand why Europe has been so willing to allow unbridled socialism.  The following article, from CBS News, offer the best explanation so far:

 The percentage of people who are mentally ill in Europe is remarkably similar to the percentage of people who are extreme left wing liberals in the United States.  Coincidence?