Newsweek (Obama) Cover

Might as well be, looking at the way they portray Mrs. Bachmann on the cover.

Will ANYONE please tell me where the Barack Obama cover was that has this "tone?" I didn't see him portrayed as "Angry" which certainly might be fitting for a "Community Organizer."




Here is the article that cover represents.

From that article:

"But far more damaging than the charge of double standards may be the growing realization among Americans of just how radical the Tea Party movement really is. The willingness of its most committed members to risk national default for the sake of achieving its political goals has no doubt contributed to the dramatic rise in the number of Americans who view the movement unfavorably."

Nope... no media bias.

Props to @JedediahBila for the link to @thedailybeast, which it seems has sold its soul. And Meghan McCain writes there.... who'd have thunk it?

Follow @wisdomofsoloman

Eat Your Peas, America

So we've been downgraded.

Congrats, President Obama.

You're correct - you inherited a mess. Thirty years of bad policy and mismanagement... check that - one hundred years of bad policy and mismanagement, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson and his "progressive" tax system. Yep... you inherited a mess. I agree.

Those of us who didn't see it clearly a few years ago have come full circle and admitted we were wrong.

And through all that self-reflection,we've really had hope. We had hope that you really would be "change." We hoped that when it all came to a head you would step up and do the right thing.

But when the going got tough, you hid behind closed doors. You showed us that you are more concerned with being President than acting Presidential, because to be a leader... to act like the "Leader of the Free World," would have meant sucking it up and going against your beliefs, knowing that every credible independent source told you to do so.

Now we've been downgraded. First time in history. Ever.

You are indeed historic, President Obama.

I hope you're historic for another reason, though. I hope it is you who helps America finally wake up to the perils of "progressive" politics.

A nation simply can not tax people more and expect the government to successfully redistribute that taxation in a way that creates more wealth. All that redistribution will ever create is a dependence on more government.

Look to our public school system for proof positive. Look to the inner cities. Look to Wall Street, for that matter.

Even the "rich" on Wall Street are now used to being propped up by the government, which is why when they didn't see more taxes from the "debt ceiling deal" they went crazy, and we have now seen the market lose five percent of its value within the past week.

From the Washington Post article:

Standard & Poor’s has warned Washington several times this year that, unless the federal government took steps to tame its debt, its credit rating could be lowered.

So... S&P says that "Cut, Cap and Balance" had it right, and therefore by The White House's own admission with this statement Paul Ryan had it right. And by generally supporting them both, The Tea Party has been right all along.

I saw this on Huffington Post and thought it was the perfect insight regarding how dysfunctional the conversation has become, in large part due to the horrible messaging from the media:

"President Obama should be impeached because he didn't put the Tea Party into internment camps when he had the chance and protect the US from such a destructiv­e domestic threat."

Seriously, people really believe this kind of thing.

The media and the Democrats in Congress have run around calling their fellow Americans "terrorists," "teabaggers," "jihadists," and more.

Why wouldn't young, gullible college students believe this to be true?

I know when I was young I thought Ronald Reagan was a horrible president. During the Clinton impeachment era, I believed he was not guilty of anything more than having a very casual affair with some chubby chick, and the Republican Party was out to get him simply because they hated him. Why? The media told me so, that's why.

So why would this not be the opinion of many people who will not have the intellectual integrity to check what another source of information might say about things?

Eat your peas, America. It ain't going to get any easier.

Follow me on Twitter

Change You Can Believe In

During an interview – I believe it was on On The Record, I heard a good argument from Senator Mitch McConnell about how this whole “debt ceiling” deal went down.

He spoke about what was “won” from the conservative perspective and what comes next if you’re a person who believes, as do I, that spending is out-of-control and that the growth of government must be stopped.

Essentially, everything that happened comes down to the fact that conservatives only control one half of one chamber of Congress (The House). Therefore conservatives really only control one-third of the legislative process of government, if you include The House, The Senate, and The White House in control of the legislative process since The President must always sign off on any legislature.

And really, conservatives don't even really control The House, even though the media and the liberals – including, it seems, our Vice-President - will tell you America is “being held hostage by terrorists.” The Republican Party controls The House, and therefore the “progressive” agenda still has something to say about what happens in The House.

It is my humble opinion that the representatives who were elected to to the “Tea Party” uprising should be very proud of themselves. Whether or not you agree with everything they’ve done, they were elected to go to Washington D. C. and draw a line in the sand on behalf of their constituents, and with the exception of a few they did just that.

These Congressional Freshman did exactly what they were asked to do. They didn’t go make an issue of abortion or gay marriage; they went and made an issue about the size and scope of government, which is what really needs to be dealt with at the federal level. Our political system worked, and some people don’t like the results. So be it.

When it is all analyzed, however, the truth is that right now the “progressive” establishment holds most of the cards in the District of Criminals, and the progs are more interested in government maintaining the status quo than they are interested in creating real change, which is why in the end Boehner got the votes he needed to get this “deal” done. This deal allows government to continue to grow, spend, and destroy our future.

This is not Boehner's fault; this is the system we have to work within until we can really effect change.

I believe Boehner was an honest broker on the behalf of the conservative agenda. I believe Boehner, like McConnell, had a “leadership” role to play, because as McConnell said during this interview, if not for the 2010 election the progressive establishment would still have ultimate control and we’d be in worse shape than we are in today.

McConnell and Boehner had to do what they did, in order to gain a small victory.

Small victories give inspiration, and small victories gain momentum. Momentum helps win future victories, and eventually the side that wins enough small victories will win a few big battles and eventually win the war.

The Republican leadership got what they could get right now given what they have to work with.

We have a radical leftist in The White House and his lackeys Reid, Durbin, and Schumer in The Senate, and they all answer to George Soros.

Until we conservatives can vote ourselves into The White House and have control of The Senate, this is the best Boehner and McConnell could do. And for that I give them credit, because although we'll still be spending more after this deal, by voting in the group that we voted in during the 2010 midterms we definitely changed the discussion.

And that is change you can believe in.

The "Truth" According to Chris Matthews

It's not that a person is allowed to be on TV and say things this stupid. It's that he is given credibility and people actually believe he speaks the truth.



Most people watching MSNBC are watching that network because they agree with the politics of the pundits. A "typical" MSNBC viewer will watch this in full context and completely miss the words "Not particularly this case."

What the viewers of MSNBC will walk away with is "Gun," "Violence level of the right-wing in this country," and "Shot down in a political act."

Truth is, the "right-wing" of this nation is no more and no less violent than the "left-wing."

There are abortion-clinic bombers who can be associated with the "right-wing," and they should be condemned. And sure, it's possible and even likely that there were some arguments during the Obamacare debates that were instigated by "right-wingers."

However, there are also those union thugs who beat down "Tea-party" people at town halls during the Obamacare debates. There was a man who had his finger bitten off by a "left-winger" at an Obamacare protest. There was the militant environmentalist who held a bunch of people hostage in front of The Discovery Channel building.

Political discourse is heated. Anger is at an all-time high. But one thing is for sure, and that is the truth. The truth is, Gabby Giffords was not shot by a "Violent right-winger," and for Chris Matthews to continue insinuate such is just plain dishonest.

Out Of Control Government

File this one under "Are you kidding me?"

According to this article from The Washington Times, Vice-President Biden is somehow able to get away with charging rent of The Secret Service, who are entrusted with the responsibility of keeping him safe.

From the article:

Since April, Mr. Biden has collected more than $13,000 from the agency charged with protecting the lives of he and his family, for use of a rental cottage adjacent to the waterfront home he owns in a Wilmington, Del., neighborhood.

Mr. Biden, listed not as vice president in federal purchasing documents but as “vendor,” is eligible for up to $66,000 by the time the government contract expires in the fall of 2013, the records show.

So we pay them, and they pay him, and we pay him...

As Seen At A Used Book Store

Went used book shopping a couple of weeks ago.




Interesting to see whose books are piling up (and perhaps not selling?) in a used book store. Also fascinating these two ending up next to each other.

An open letter to President Obama.

President Obama, I believe you have an excellent opportunity to show true leadership in this time of crisis. You are our President, and it is your job to lead. And we must be in a crisis; you keep saying so.

Mr. President, do your fair share. After all, you keep talking about how people who have millions of dollars like yourself should share the sacrifice.

I would like to offer an idea to you, sir. I would like to propose to you a way you might score major political points and shut some people up, all at the same time.

You, sir, have the opportunity to seriously put some smack down on the likes of Glenn Back, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and perhaps some others including me.

Sir, if you do this one thing, I will believe that you are sincere in your belief system.

President Obama, I believe you should donate a large sum of your personal wealth to the government.

Maybe if you wrote a check for $5 million. We can figure out a number, the details are not important at this moment. It is important and you need to act fast – remember, we’re in crisis and must act now. That’s what you keep saying. Anyway - you get the point. Lead. Set the example.

While I know that it doesn’t fit the bill through the exact means we normally do things, a personal donation to the government of some magnitude would absolutely be the right thing to do if you truly believe those who “have” should share the sacrifice and you believe the government is the correct way to redistribute the wealth.

While you’re at it, perhaps you might make a contract with the government, and promise to donate a percentage of your future income to government. I mean, come on… you’re going to make a lot of it. Look at President Clinton if you’d like an example of what sort of career path you might be on. And truly, you’re probably going to make a lot more than him. After all, you won a Nobel Peace Prize. And you are America's first Black President. I mean besides President Clinton. Whatever. You get the point.

I know that technically makes my suggestion two things, but work with me here. After all, this is about our future, isn’t it? And clearly government knows best what to do with your money since your economic belief system is based on the theory that the system needs to do for the people, and that everything should be fair. Equality, if you will.

Certainly your money will be used more efficiently and for more common good if you spread the wealth around through taxes, since you have so much money and are certainly going to be extremely wealthy for the rest of your life.

By the way sir, I would like to offer you some advice. Do not own a corporate jet. Ever. In the words of another President (one conveniently named Bush) it "Wouldn’t be prudent” after all the flak you’ve given corporate jet owners. Just sayin’.

I can tell you with great certainty that all the aforementioned talk show hosts have suggested at one time or another that perhaps those who believe in redistributive government and have the means should do exactly what I suggest here in this proposal, but that those with that wealth and your belief system are really hypocrites who will never consider such an option. This is your moment to show exactly how wrong they are, and how committed you are to government as the solution to our problems.

Respectfully,

A concerned citizen who did not vote for you but believes you have an excellent opportunity to, as Nancy Pelosi said, "Save life on this planet as we know it today."

Follow me on Twitter if you’d like. I am having fun learning to offer brief commentary at random times. Could be interesting!