The size of the person is directly proportional to the size of the person or thing that upsets them!

George Bush was on Hannity promoting his new book, Decision Points.  Bush did not need a Teleprompter to tell us what he thought.  This is a very capable man, far removed from the incompetent boob portrayed in the main stream media.  But what was really stunning was the interaction between George Bush and his former staff.  The George Bush that they described in private was the same George Bush we saw in public.  It was easy to see why these people admired him and respected him.  Dana Perino said it best. She said it was an honor to be the spokesperson for a President who made decisions based on his values.  She said she did not need to worry about what the New York Times said the next day because he did not make his decisions based on his personal popularity.  She said he was a man of integrity who made decisions for the right reasons.

There were numerous times when Bush showed a graciousness and humility that was clearly genuine.  He talked about meeting an Army Sergeant who had lost both legs in Iraq.  Bush visited this soldier in the hospital and in an attempt to encourage him invited him to run with President Bush sometime.  Bush said he was shocked when he got a message that this soldier had received state of the art artificial limbs and was ready to take Bush up on his offer.  There were pictures of Bush and this man running on the South Lawn of the White House.  It was clear that Bush was deeply moved and he was humbled by the experience.  But the most remarkable comment was by the soldier who said that President Bush was a humble man.  He meant it.  Bush was President of the United States, but he treated that soldier as an equal and was genuinely inspired by him.  In Bush we had a President who took the job, not himself, seriously.  No one, watching that show, could possibly doubt the sincerity or the depth of compassion demonstrated by George Bush.  He said that the reason he was so proud to be Commander in Chief was that he was able to come in contact with so many of the outstanding people who serve in our military. 

This image of Bush was far removed from the way he was presented in the main stream media.  This caused me to wonder why Democrats and their supporting liberal main stream media went so far out of their way to destroy this man.  It clearly wasn’t just because Bush is a Republican or even a conservative.  It wasn’t because of the war in Iraq.  It also wasn’t because of an abrasive personality.  Even his enemies acknowledge that George Bush is friendly and warm if you meet him in person.  I finally realized that they hate him for the same reason they hate Sarah Palin.  Bush represented something that the liberal left cannot tolerate.  He is a moral man.  He does not pretend to be perfect, but he is a man who tries to make decisions based on moral values.  Bush sees the world in terms of right and wrong.  He does not subscribe to the principle of moral equivalence.  Liberals see the world in shades of gray and they are deeply intolerant of people who see things in terms of right or wrong.

I believe that some of this is also carry-over from Bill Clinton.  When the Monica Lewinsky story broke, a majority of Democrats in the Senate said that if Bill Clinton had lied under oath that they would vote for impeachment.  However, at some point they decided that it was better for them politically to vote against impeachment.  They justified this on the basis that when Clinton lied it was just about sex and “everybody does it.”  In order for them to justify excusing what Clinton did, they had to convince themselves that all other politicians are the same.   They had to convince themselves that all politicians are corrupt and immoral. 

Then Bush poured salt on the wound by promising to restore dignity and honor to the Presidency.  Liberals were outraged.  If there was a need to restore dignity and honor to the White House, then how could they justify their support of Bill Clinton?   Democrats had to either destroy Bush, or to endure a brutal self-assessment of their own moral character. 

Suppose there is a group of students who decide to cheat on a test.  But one student refuses to go along because he thinks that would be morally wrong.  The cheaters could tolerate him saying he didn’t want to participate because he didn’t want to risk getting caught.  But they cannot tolerate him saying he won’t do it because it is wrong.   They become angry and accuse him of being self-righteous.  This is because when one is wrong and one knows he or she is wrong, it is very disturbing to be confronted with a moral person.  At that point one has to either confront his or her own lack or character or convince themselves’ that it’s ok because the other person is equally flawed.

The liberal left and the mainstream media had to destroy Bush.  They had to convince themselves that he was equally corrupt.  This is why they accused him of doing special favors for big oil in exchange for some vague personal financial gain, although there is no evidence of that.  That is why they felt he had to be abusing the terrorist surveillance program for political purposes although there is not one single example of that.  That is why they had to believe that he had some ulterior motive for ordering the invasion of Iraq even though there is no evidence of that either.   It is why they had to accuse him of lying about the intelligence prior to the war when they knew he was telling the truth.  It was not enough for them to disagree with him on issues, they had to hate him.  They had to attack him the most vicious personal way possible.   Bush then infuriated them even more by failing to respond in kind to the politics of personal destruction.   He could have at least had the decency to lose his temper and launch some personal attacks of his own.  But Bush never did that.  I cannot find a single example of Bush launching a personal attack on anyone.  He frequently disagreed with people on policy issues but he never made it personal.   That made the liberal left even angrier:

Proverbs 25:21-22

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:  For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

I strongly believe that one of the reasons the liberal left hated George Bush was that deep down they knew he was a kind and generous man.  When he refused to lower himself to their level, he heaped coals of fire on their head with kindness.

They are doing the same thing with Sarah Palin.   Liberals fear Sarah Palin for several reasons.  As a result of that fear, they must hate her.  They fear her because she is a skilled politician with an incredible ability to connect.  They also fear her because she sneers at their value system.   One of the big problems we have today is with RINOs who abandon their principles in their desperate search for approval by the cultured elite.  Sarah Palin does not make that mistake.  She literally told the liberal press that she neither sought nor wanted their approval.  Liberals and the cultured elite are not upset because Sarah Palin is not one of them, but rather because she does not care what they think. 

I do not hate Barack Obama.  I think he is a lousy President.  I also think he has dangerously radical values.  I think he is doing great damage to the country, but I do not hate him.  I wish him and his family good health and prosperity.  I would just like to see him removed from a position of power which enables him to do great damge to a lot of innocent people.

I strongly believe that the size of the person is directly proportional to the person or thing that upsets them.  Basically, that means don’t sweat the small stuff.  It also means don’t sweat the small people.  I have had to remind myself of that on more than one occasion.  I eventually realized that if I allowed myself to be obsessed with hatred because of what someone did or said, I was just lowering myself to their level.  The only way I could hope to prevail was to not let small people have a big impact on my life.

George Bush and Sarah Palin understand that.  Their liberal opponents who feel compelled to hate them and launch never ending personal attacks don’t.    

TDM

People love a good conspiracy.  Even today new conspiracy theories are still surfacing with regard to the Lincoln assassination.  How many people know that some nut jobs tried to steal Lincoln’s body and hold it for ransom?  They almost succeeded, since his body was stored in the unsecured basement of his monument in Springfield, Illinois.  The only reason the theft was unsuccessful is that the casket weighed too much and these clowns were unprepared for that.  As a result there was public outrage and Lincolns casket is now encased in concrete.  But, before they sealed him in permanently, there was a group of people who opened the casket to make sure his body was still there.  This was beyond bizarre.

There are regular new additions to the Kennedy Assassination story as well.  In both cases the actual circumstances are well documented.  That is particularly true with the Kennedy assassination.  Every qualified forensic expert who has evaluated the Kennedy assassination records acknowledges that Kennedy was struck by two and only two bullets.  They were both fired from very near the location where Oswald set up a sniper nest.  The bullets came from Oswald’s gun.  Yet the theories keep coming, because most people are dissatisfied with the conclusion that a pathetic worm like Oswald could buy a $4 rifle and off the President of the United States.    For years I thought that Castro had engineered the assassination in revenge for Kennedy trying to assassinate him.   Castro had a point.  But, there is simply no evidence of that.    When Oswald defected to Russia, the KGB thought Oswald was a CIA plant, but eventually realized he was just dumb.  For example, Oswald never even had a driver’s license.   Everyplace he went he traveled by bus.  He got the job at the Texas Book Depository before Kennedy made the decision to travel to Texas.  Oswald tried to assassinate General Edwin A. Walker a few days before he shot Kennedy.  Walker was saved by a wooden divider in his window that Obama didn’t notice.  Obviously if Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, he wouldn’t have shot at General Walker who was not associated with Kennedy.   Oswald was just a nut case looking for someone to kill and Kennedy drove by his window.  The point is that full disclosure of documentation doesn’t seem to have much impact on stopping conspiracy theories.

But, there are exceptions.  Those exceptions are when real documents surface that confirm what was only suspected.  That is what happened with regard to Richard Nixon.  The audio tapes are what did him in.  In Bill Clinton’s case he was done in by the DNA evidence preserved by Monica Lewinsky on the famous dress.

The new Governor of Hawaii, a KoolAid drinking Obama supporter, wants to stop the “birther” movement.  He is promising to end the nonsense and hints that he will release the actual birth documents.  He may think he is helping Obama, but this story was old news and he just reignited it.

The only thing certain is that Obama does not want his actual birth records released.  He has spent a ton of money conducting an elaborate shell game designed to pretend to let people see these documents, but never letting it actually happen.

Obviously I haven’t seen the actual records, so I can only speculate as to what they would reveal.  So far, to the best of my knowledge, there are no known documents from a hospital, doctor or midwife regarding the birth of Obama.   If such documents do not exist, than the only documentation of where Obama was actually born will be in a signed affidavit from his mother, father, or one of his grandparents.  Since all of these individuals are dead, there is no way to verify the accuracy of such a document.   That would mean there was no definitive proof he was born in Hawaii and no definitive proof he wasn’t.   

Note:  Obama’s mother was a college student and his mother was a bank officer.  It is hard to believe he would have been born in Hawaii and never received any kind of treatment at a hospital.  If he was born in Honolulu, someone should have documents regarding either his birth or immediate post natal care.   It is extremely rare for a baby born in a major metropolitan area to not receive immediate care.

Of course there is always the possibility that the documents are there and Obama just didn’t disclose them.  One would wonder why.  There are rumors that his parents never married, but that hardly seems to be a problem worth the effort.  There are even some bizarre rumors that Frank Marshal Davis is his real father, but I find these hard to believe.  I really can’t think of a good reason for Obama to suppress these documents unless he has something major to hide, but if he was actually born in Hawaii, what else would be worth the effort? 

This whole story is bizarre and releasing the actual records will make it more bizarre.  For example the address given in the birth announcements   is in a rather expensive part of Oahu.  It doesn’t appear that either Obama’s mother or his grandparents would be able to afford to rent this house.   The owner of the house was not related to Obama, it was owned by a professor.   There may be a logical answer to this, but it is just another item in a long list of bizarre circumstances.

My prediction is that the birth story will heat up even more because of this new Governor’s attempt to tamp it down permanently.  The irony is that most conservatives have long considered this to be a non issue.  Now even the liberal left is becoming curious.  Chris Matthews is saying why not just release the Obama’s long-form birth certificate?  Sounds good to me.  When even someone as biased and dense as Chris Matthews figures this out, it is beyond obvious.  The more documents released the more questions.   In the end, we won’t know anything for certain other than that we don’t know anything for certain.  But, this story is heating up again and that is not good news for Obama. 

TDM

Sarah Palin got it right.  The Republican Party desperately needs to purge the party of RINO’s.  We need to complete the RINO PLASTY.  We have just experienced the most destructive, arrogant and irresponsible lame duck session of congress in our nation’s history.  This congress has an approval rating of about 13%, the lowest since anyone started counting.  The American people voted last month to remove the current leadership of congress from power.  The House experienced the most massive turnover of seats since 1948.  The only reason the Senate did not switch parties was that an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were running.  Since Democrats had nearly 60% of the seats, they only escaped because so many of them were not up for election. 

Common sense should have told Republicans to simply say no.  They should have limited this congress to passing the extension of the tax cuts and to passing a short term funding resolution.  Every day the Republican leaders should have said:  “the American people have spoken.  They have voted to radically change congress and it is irresponsible for this current congress, who has been voted out of power, to jam through legislation that would never be approved by the “elected” congress.  If all 42 Republicans in the Senate had remained united, they could have made this happen.

Sadly the normal cast of RINO’s could not resist compromising with Democrats.  As a result, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shoved a mountain of crap down our throats and the Republicans in the Senate failed in their duty to stop it.  It is disgraceful and should be a reminder that we simply cannot afford to keep electing RINO’s, just because they pretend to be Republicans.    The arrogance of these people is shattering.   This year several RINO’s were defeated in Republican primary elections.  Even though some of the replacement candidates lost, we are still better off than if those RINO’s had been elected.  It is simply better to have a liberal Democrat, who you know is a liberal Democrat, than to have a slimy RINO who pretends to represent your values but doesn’t.  The bottom line is that replacing a Democrat with a RINO results in Democrats remaining in power, only with more political cover.

Sadly, the damage has been done and most of it cannot be reversed.  The good news is that when this lame duck session finally, thank God, adjourns, it will be over.  The new congress may not get much accomplished, but they will  stop this kind of nonsense.

Here is why everyone should be optimistic.  Democrats had their day.  Their day is done.  We are still here.  Everything changes on January 5^th.   Here are the reasons to be optimistic about next year and our nations’ future.

1. The Senate campaigns for 2012 start on January 5^th. 

Unlike this year, a lot more Democrats than Republicans are up for re-election. 

Democrats: 

                Diane Feinstein, California

                Tom Caper, Delaware

                Ben Nelson, Florida

                Daniel Akaka, Hawaii

                Ben Cardin, Maryland

                Debbie Stabenow, Michigan

                Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota

                Jon Tester, Montana

                Ben Nelson, Nebraska

                Bob Menendez, New Jersey

                Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico

                Kent Conrad, North Dakota

                Sherrod Brown, Ohio

                Bob Casey, Pennsylvania

                Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

                Jim Webb, Virginia

                Maria Cantwell, Washington

                Joe Manchin, West Virginia

                Herb Kohl, Wisconsin

                Joe Lieberman, Connecticut

                Bernie Sanders, Vermont.

Republicans

                Jon Kyle, Arizona

                Richard Lugar, Indiana

                Olympia Snowe, Maine

                Scott Brown, Massachusetts

                Roger Wicker, Mississippi

                John Ensign, Nevada

                Bob Corker, Tennessee

                Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas

                Orin Hatch, Utah

                John Barrasso, Wyoming.

Note:  In addition to having 20 Democratic seats up for re-election, the tea party can also take on some of those RINOs. 

The 2012 Presidential election starts on January 5^th, 2010.

Democrats

                Barack Obama

(Note:  I really cannot come up with a single Democrat that even looks like a viable primary opponent for Barack Obama at this point.  We have a clearly imcompetent President, yet the Democrat Party does not appear to have anyone better available.  This, of course, assumes that Hillary Clinton is serious about not running.  Keep in mind that in order to win a Democratic primary, one has to be more progressive than Obama.)

Republicans

                Sarah Palin

                Mitt Romney

                Mike Huckabee

                David Petraeus

                Newt Gingrich

                Bobby Jindal

                Tim Pawlenty

                Chris Christy

                Rudy Guiliani

                Haley Barbour

                Jeb Bush

                Rick Perry

Note:  This is just the list as of now and I probably left some people out.  There are now 32 Republican governors.  Several of them could easily emerge over the next 12 months to become a serious factor.  Republicans were elected governors in 12 swing states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. 

 Republicans’ did get the Bush tax cuts extended, for everyone.  The cut in payroll tax will also help.  The extension of unemployment benefits was going to happen anyway, because no one in either party has the guts to make the tough decision to cut off benefits. 

 It is always darkest just before dawn.  We just ended the darkest of the dark.  Nancy Pelosi is out of power.  Harry Reid is also out of power, because he does not have close to 60 votes in the new Senate and a lot of those Democrats up for election in 2012 are going to start moving rapidly to the right.  Barack Obama is hopelessly incompetent and his only chance for re-election is to start working with Republicans.  Even if he somehow gets re-elected, which does not look likely, he will be a very different President than we had for the last two years.

The really good news about 2012 is that this country saw a battle between the tea party and progressives.  The tea party won.  Progressives just got done pushing through some nasty stuff, but it was the last minute desperate act by a political movement permanently on its way out of power.

Happy New Year.

TDM

We are drawn to those who dream the impossible dream.  One of my favorite personal memories was from the 2004 Boston Red Sox.  The Yankees were up 3 games to 0 and has a 4 to 3 lead going into the ninth inning of game 4.  Mariano Rivera, who just embarrassed the Boston Red Sox hitters, was on the mound.  Most of the Red Sox fans were in despair, waiting for the final stake in the heart.  But then the TV camera picked up one guy in the right field bleachers holding up a sign that said:  “I still believe.”  My wife and I laughed and said that he was probably the only one left who believed.

But, he was right.  The Red Sox came back to win that game and to win the next 7 games in a row ultimately winning the 2004 World Series. 

But sometimes, dreaming the possible dream is nothing more than abject stupidity.   There was one guy who sold his home, took all the money and bought lottery tickets.   He dreamed the impossible dream and experienced the all quite predictable loss as a result.   Democrats in the United Congress have morphed from dreaming the impossible dream to chasing rainbows.  The House under the brilliant leadership of Nancy Pelosi is trying to renegotiate the tax cut deal already approved by both President Obama and the Senate.  There is zero chance of getting this passed, so all they can hope to accomplish is to put an enormous, but temporary tax increase on everyone effective January 1, only to have it quickly reversed when Republicans take over control of the House.  They also try tried to jam through one last ditch major spending bill apparently with the assumption that neither Republicans, nor the American people, would notice.  They have been so busy with nonsense that they still haven’t passed a continuing resolution bill to at least keep the government from shutting down.  Now, after accomplishing absolutely nothing, they are going to make one last ditch effort to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  This level of stupidity is not inherited, it is earned.  Harry Reid is equally delusional, trying to shove through a huge spending bill with earmarks even the House rejected.  This was after he wasted everyone’s time trying to pass the dream act.  Now he is threatening  to keep congress in session until January 4^th, in a last ditch effort to do more damage before power shifts to the Republicans.  At least Harry does realize that after January 4^th, 2010, the “Party” is over.

The approval rating for this congress is now down to 13%.  When you think about it, that is a major accomplishment.  There are about 40% of the people who automatically vote for any Democratic unless the candidate is so loathsome that even they can’t stand the stench.  To get down to 13% you have to be so obviously bad that even life-long Democrats are fed up.   Such accomplishments are rare, because it requires a rare combination of incredibly bad leaders supported by really stupid followers.   Several people have pointed out that the country can survive a leader as bad as Barack Obama, but questioned whether it can survive being stupid enough to have elected him.  But the fact is that most people who voted for Barack Obama voted for a totally false image of him presented by the main stream media.  I have met many “former” supporters who are shocked to learn the truth about Barack Obama’s background.  They were guiltier of not paying attention and swallowing the main stream media myths than they were of voting for an obviously unqualified candidate.  But the Democrats in the House and the Senate knew or should have known that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were leading them over the cliff in a mad dash to suicide.  If they didn’t know it before the election, they certainly know it now.  Perhaps the Democratic Party can survive being stupid enough to elect Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama as their leaders, but can they survive being stupid enough to continue following them into the political abyss?

TDM

It is impossible to overstate the level of chaos and self destruction in the Democratic Party.  Instead of focusing on what matters, like approving the budget, and extending the Bush tax cuts, they tried to jam through highly controversial legislation, like the Dream Act and repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Then Obama announced that he had reached an agreement with the Republicans without bothering to get approval from his own party.  At least you have to give Obama credit where credit is due.  He appears to be just as willing to disregard Democrats as he has been willing to ignore Republicans.  Democrats disintegrated into a screaming, incoherent mob literally dropping the F bomb on their own President.

This decision was a good move by Obama, but his incompetence quickly surfaced.  He had to give back to back press conferences to try and sell it, because obviously the first attempt failed.  Then, instead of embracing the deal as a good compromise, he described it as giving in to the hostage taker Republicans.  It is hard to sell a deal when you say it is a terrible deal signed only under duress.  In addition to being an unprecedented public display of weakness by a U.S. President, it was incredibly stupid.  Finally, in an act of desperation, Obama invited Bill Clinton to come in and help him sell the deal.  Obama said he had to go to a Christmas party, so he just walked out and left Clinton to carry on.  Even Clinton was shocked.  It was pathetic.

To make things worse, this deal has already been approved by the Senate, with a huge bi-partisan majority.  That leaves the Democratic House in a total meltdown.  If they pass this bill, they will get no credit and it will be viewed as a major loss.  On the other hand, if they don’t pass this bill, everyone will get a huge tax increase, they will get the blame, and Republicans will pass it in January.  This is the ultimate lose lose.

 While it is always fun to watch Democrats self-destruct, this really isn’t funny at all.  We just had a President of the United States publicly give up.  Every leader in the world knows that and will respond accordingly.  When the going gets tough, Obama gets going, usually to a golf course or a Christmas Party.  (Oops…in the Obama White House there are only “holiday parties.”

The following article by Walter Shapiro, who has been an Obama supporter, is very interesting.  Shapiro is apparently unaware that most experts don’t believe Obama wrote either of his books.  This was confirmed by interviews reported in a very pro-Obama biography.  So while Shapiro still believes these books show Obama’s brilliance, his analysis also shows a very troubled individual based on Obama’s own statements.  One would suspect that even though Obama probably didn’t write the books, these statements accurately represent his world view.  

 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/11/ready-obamas-autobigraphy-revisited-dreams-from-a-beleague/

The result is a curiously detached individual who lucked into the Presidency and while he likes the trappings of the office, does not really want the responsibility.  That is why he allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push through their liberal agenda while he vacationed and played golf.  Obama just didn’t care enough to get involved.  He showed a remarkable lack of interest in the details of his cornerstone legislation.  When confronted with the need to make a major decision, Obama routinely punts.  This has been demonstrated many times, with regard to Afghanistan, Iraq and even the BP oil spill.  If you don’t know what to do, you just delay until the decision become obvious.

 Unfortunately failing to make a decision is a decision, usually the worst decision.  Let me give an example.  A young boy has a cancerous tumor.  The doctor approaches the parents and asks for authorization to amputate the leg.  The parents do not want their son to die, but they cannot bring themselves to authorize the amputation.  They decide to wait, to ask for more tests, to get another opinion in a desperate search for some option other than making that horrible decision.  But, the delay results in the cancer growing, and when they finally decide to approve the operation, it is too late and their son dies.  

At least this time Obama made a decision, but at this point he has almost no credibility.  To at least some extent he turned over the Presidency to Bill Clinton, for at least a few moments.  There are a lot of reports that Joe Biden is going to take a more senior role in the administration.  Joe Biden?  Please!  I do not know what will happen, but this is a very serious problem.  While there are constitutional provisions for a President who commits high crimes or misdemeanors and there are provisions if the President is incapacitated and unable to performs the duties of President, what options are available for a President who is simply not up to the job and apparently no longer wants the responsibilities of the job?   A lot of people were justly worried about Obama’s radical agenda.  They should have been more worried about his naivety and inexperience. 

Whenever Obama speaks and attempts to explain things, it get worse.  Perhaps the only solution is imspeechment.  We still let Obama pretend he is President, we just don’t let him speak in public.

 We need a President.  We have Obama.  A significant amount of prayer is appropriate.

TDM

Spinal  meningitis is a very dangerous desease.  Failure to recognize it and treat it can be fatal.  It is now obvious that the country suffers from another even more dangerous condition called having “spineless men who guide us.”

For a long time I have wondered who is the real Obama.  Is he the dangerous left wing radical exposed on the Glenn Beck show?   Or is he merely an incompetent fool with no experience who accidentally got elected President of the United States?   The “brilliant” Obama has pretty much disappeared from sight.  There is still a wide range of opinions with regard to Obama, but neither the left nor the right end of the political spectrum thinks he is up to the job.  The real problem is not that Obama is a left-wind radical, or that he is arrogant or even that he is inexperienced.  The real problem is that he clearly suffers from the lack of a spine.

Normally, a President would gain from making a difficult but necessary decision.  Obama made the right decision to compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts.  If he had come out and said he listened to the people and decided that compromise was in the best interest of the country it would have been his finest hour.  Unfortunately Obama’s two press conferences were so bad that he actually made things worse.  His thin skin was on full public display, when he slammed his liberal base for being daring to say they were disappointed with him.  The equivalent of this would be for a football coach who just lost an important game to blame the loss on his players and insist that he had done his job as a coach but he couldn’t play the game for them.  Then the coach would blame the fans for not giving enough support.   Finally the coach would say that the other team was deliberating doing everything possible to defeat him.

He literally said that negotiating with Republicans was like negotiating with hostage takers and he had to give in to save the hostage.  What an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to say.  If there was any world leader left who was afraid to confront Obama, all doubt with regard to his weakness has been removed.  Obama has admitted that he cannot tolerate pain, and when presented with a threat, he will fold.

For years the United States has had a firm policy of not negotiating with terrorists.  There is a good reason for that policy.  While giving in to demands may save a hostage but in the long run this just encourages more hostage takers.   

This is a very serious problem.  When it is somewhat entertaining to see Republicans mop the floor with Obama and to watch the liberal left hyperventilate, the problem is that Obama is President of the United States.  We live in dangerous times and we desperately need a leader with a spine to make the difficult decisions.  We are in grave danger when there is no “Spine in the Men Who Guide Us.”

TDM

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.”  Unfortunately, as adults, we all know that words can actually do a lot of harm.  In many cases, a broken bone would be a lot easier to repair.

If it wasn’t so devastating for our national security, the WikiLeaks fiasco would be truly hysterical.  The Obama administration is absolutely helpless to shut up a second rate computer geek.   In addition to all the damage already done by the release of top secret documents, apparently there is more, much more.  Assange has sent out an encoded insurance doc to be opened in the event something happens to him.  He apparently believes that the information in this special document is so damaging to the Obama administration and other countries that he is impervious to attack.  Some people have speculated that these documents may refer to Guantanamo Bay, the BP oil spill, or Bank of America.  The only thing we know for sure is that the Obama administration has been cowed into submission just by the threat of their release.  

Obviously, Mr. Assange is probably going to learn the error of his ways.  While the Obama administration may be impotent with regard to dealing with this, he has also made some serious enemies who are a lot more capable than the Obama administration.  In particular, Russia does not tend to suffer fools for any significant length of time. 

This should also be a sharp reminder of what is at stake in North Korea and Iran.  North Korea already has a nuclear weapon.  South Korea has threatened to launch air strikes against North Korea if there are any more attacks on South Korea.  But the problem is that if there is a miscalculation, the result could be a nuclear war.  How much risk of setting of a nuclear holocaust is South Korea willing to take?

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, at a minimum they will use it as a tool of extortion.  At what point do their demands become so unacceptable that one is willing to risk nuclear war to stop them?

The Obama administration is terrified by the threat of releasing these documents.  They have clearly allowed great damage to our national security in response to a blatant act of extortion.  When one sees how impotent we are in the face of WikiLeaks, it is hard to have much confidence in our ability to handle a real threat, like nuclear war.    

In addition, has anyone noticed that there has been very little damaging information released with regard to the Bush administration?  Either the Bush administration was a lot more capable of covering things up, or the Obama administration has just provided a lot more raw material.   I am sure progressives were hoping that WikiLeaks would provide a smoking gun proving that George Bush lied about Iraq and WMD to gin up support for an unnecessary war.  Instead most of the documents released so far show that the Bush administration was saying the same thing in private that they were saying in public.  It is the Obama administration that has been caught lying about nearly everything.

Hillary Clinton recently announced that Secretary of State is her last public office.  Perhaps she knows what is on those tapes.

TDM

When I was growing up in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan we used to have a contest we called nipple twisting.  Two guys would stand about two feet apart and start twisting each other’s nipples.  The winner was the last one to give up.  It was frankly stupid and painful and I often wondered who the real winner was and who the real loser was.  Unfortunately this is remarkably similar to what is going on the United States Congress right now with regard to extending the Bush tax cuts.

 Democrats, with the help of the main stream media, are going to say Republicans are willing to increase your taxes so they can give a big tax break to the richest 2% of Americans.  They will say that during a time of huge deficits, we cannot afford to give a big tax break to the rich folks.

Republicans are going to argue that they shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone during a down economy.    Both sides will point at the other and blame them for the huge tax increase coming January1, unless something is done.  If the Republicans do not handle this well, they could easily get the full measure of blame for the resulting disaster.  I can just hear people like Anderson Cooper moaning into the microphone how Republicans were willing to increase the taxes on everyone just so they could pay back their fat cat Republican contributors.  Unfortunately there are a lot of people in the country who are just stupid enough to buy that argument.

We are in the early stages of nipple twisting and both sides think they can handle the pain.  We will soon find out who will blink.  Republicans who anticipate Democrats blinking should be reminded that they rode the progressive horse over the cliff into the worst political defeat in the last 50 years.  This is like playing chicken with someone who is too stupid to realize they could get killed.  Sometimes the most insane person wins.

One thing is certain, if Republicans cave on this, it will be the worst case scenario.  They will look weak and there will be enormous damage to the economy.  On the other hand if they don’t do a better job of getting the message out, they may lose anyway.   I think it is possible that Obama will simply refuse to sign any legislation that includes keeping all the tax cuts in place.   That would be insane, but so was the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court in New York.  Republicans should have made these tax cuts permanent years ago when they had a majority in both the House and the Senate.  Now they are reduced to a high stakes nipple twisting contest. 

Right now it looks like the Republicans will win, in spite of themselves.  But never underestimate the Republican’s uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Keep in mind that Meg Whitman was defeated in California because of nanny gate and George Allen was defeated in Virginia because of saying “macaca.”  In addition, waiting for Democrats like Obama, Reid and Pelosi to yield to common sense has never worked in the past.  All three have repeatedly shown a remarkable willingness to remain fully committed to acts of incredible stupidity.

TDM

The following article, from Thomas Sowell in Front Page magazine confirms what I wrote in my last blog.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/02/the-truth-behind-the-tax-cut-lies/print/

I am not aware of a single Republican who seems ready, willing and able to explain this.  How is that possible.  I am really tired of listening to Democrats talk continuously about the high cost of tax cuts and watching Republicans sit there like a deer caught in the headlights saying:  “we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone.”  If we lose this argument it won’t be because of the merits of our position but rather because our esteemed Republican leadership seems to be incapable of winning the argument.

Clearly the Democrats are much better at training people to stick with their core arguments.  If you watch any Democrat on any news show you know exactly what they are going to say because they give the same answer, almost verbatim, to every question.  Sadly, Republicans seem incapable of responding to this memorized spin.  All a Republican has to do is look the Democrat in the eye and say:  “your ‘theory’ sounds great, but fortunately we don’t have to rely on a theory when the facts are available.  History has shown us time and time again that cutting tax rates on the wealthy does not decrease tax revenue. “   The best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy.  Democrats are more focused on redistributing income than they are on growing the economy which increases everyones income.

TDM

Democrats are pretending there is a deal in the works to extend the Bush tax cuts.   Of course what they mean is they want to extend tax cuts only for the middle class.  This is really no compromise at all.  We are about to find out if Republicans got the message from the voters in the mid-term election or not.  I sure hope Republicans don’t roll over and compromise on this as it will be disastrous for the U.S. economy.

 I remain astonished that no one, either Republican or Democrat seems to be able to understand this issue.  All Republicans say if that we can’t raise taxes on anyone during a down economy.  Even Republicans seem to accept the premise that failure to increase taxes on the upper income people will result in a loss of revenue.  They accept the concept that failure to raise taxes results in less revenue.  But the problem is that this is unproven and is probably false.  It is incredibly simple.   It is better to take in 35% of a lot than 39.6% of a little.

This would be like McDonalds losing business because Burger King starts charging a much lower price.  What would McDonalds do?  Would they raise prices even more, because they want more revenue?  If they did that, they would probably end up with even less revenue because they would lose more customers.  But, if they lower prices to compete with Burger King, they might gain more customers and revenue might go up.  It is certainly less likely to decline.  This is really Economics 101.

I prepared the following analysis, which makes this really clear.  I assumed that the total taxable income in the U.S. is about $1 trillion and that the top bracket represents 25% of tax revenue or $250,000,000.  (That is pretty accurate).  I then took the $250 billion of tax revenue from the top 1% and divided it by .35 to come up with an estimate of the current taxable income for the top 1%.  The result was an estimate that current taxable income for the top 1% of wage earners is about $714,000,000.

Let’s assume that taxes are increased from 35% to 39.6% for the top 1% of wage earners, but as a result the economy declines by another 1%.  Taxable income for top bracket decreases from $714,000,000 to $706,860,000.  At the increased tax rates of 39.6% tax revenues increase from $250,000,000 to $279,916,560.

But, if the tax rate is left at 35% and the economy grows by 1%, tax revenue increases even more.  Taxable income for the top bracket increases from $714,000,000 to $721,140,000.  Even at a 35% tax rate, taxable revenue increases from $250,000,000 to $281,244,000. 

In other words tax revenues go up faster from a recovering economy than they do from an increase in taxes. 

If we change the percentages, the difference is even more dramatic.   For example let’s assume that the economy declines 4% if taxes are increased and the economy increases by 4% if the tax bracket remains the same.  If the economy declines 4%, the taxable income for the top 1% will decrease from $714,000,000 to $685,440,000.  There will still be an increase in tax revenue, but only from $250,000,000 to $271,434,240.  On the other hand, if the economy takes off and grows by 4% there will be a much larger increase in tax revenues.  Then taxable income for the top 1% will increase from $714,000,000 to $742,560,000 and tax revenue will increase from $250,000,000 to $289,598,400.

Obviously, the quickest way to increase tax revenue is to increase taxable income, not tax rates.  There have been several cases where raising tax rates resulted in a reduction in taxable revenue.  That is exactly what happened when New Jersey passed a millionaire’s tax.  Millionaire’s just moved, and the state got less money.  This is because the more rich people are taxed; the more likely they are to hide income.   This theory is consistent with the tax revenues following the Bush tax cuts.  The top 1% of wage earners paid a higher percentage of total tax revenue after the tax cuts than they did before.

In addition there is a huge difference between the way the top 1% spend additional money and the way the middle class spends additional money.  When lower income people get more money, they tend to spend in on food or clothing.  But higher wage earners are much more likely to spend additional money on investments.  After all, they are already rich, so they usually don’t need to spend more money on food or clothing.  The things they do spend money on are the things that drive the economy..

It’s too bad that, so far, no politician in either party seems to understand the obvious.

TDM