Obama Spiked the Football on Bin Laden, Caused Arab Unrest?

The Drive-By Media would love you to believe the problems in Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Middle East is over a video made and published on You Tube...or a radical Christian pastor (that even Christians abhor as wrong)...but the one very obvious question is not being asked: is the problem Obama "spiking the football" after killing Osama Bin Laden?

Before you start in on me and how it's Bush's fault...(or Mitt Romney's for reacting or global warming or killer bees or whatever silly excuse liberals choose today), remember how Obama was going to make the world love us just by being him? Yeah, about that...hasn't happened, has it?

Oh, and by the way, there's this:

We also have the intelligence to suggest that this attack was planned and well in place before any videos or any other baloney that it's being blamed on occurred.

Now, please tell me, Mr. Obama Apologist: If the problem is this video, please explain to me why it's Osama Bin Laden that the protestors are screaming about?

Could it be that the real problem is Obama policies? Do you think maybe, just maybe it's because Obama's shown himself weak to terrorists? Or maybe, just maybe it's because Obama went and "spiked the football" and bragged over and over and over again about killing Bin Laden?

Or maybe, just maybe, we could surmise it's both. Because I lived through 7 anniversaries of 9/11 under President Bush. Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Islamic extremists didn't pull this sort of attack.

So today we've got the Drive-By Media focused on something Mitt Romney said TWO MONTHS AGO to donors talking about strategy. THAT'S the focus because apparently that's the important thing (not the fact that Obama spiking the football on the Bin Laden killing caused riots). Yep. That's the Media's priority. We must not let them do it! This is the news story!

Obama's (Lack of) Response to Libyan Attack was Disgraceful, Romney's was Presidential

As I'm sure you are aware, the United States Embassy in Cairo, Libya was attacked and our ambassador was killed.

So here's what the US Embassy said shortly before the attacks:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Wow. Friends, WE apologized BEFORE we were attacked. We're apologizing for "hurting the religious feelings of Muslims?" Well apparently it wasn't a good enough apology, because then they attacked.

I know we're going to hear how "It wasn't Obama!" but friends, the administration absolutely cleared this statement. Americans were attacked overseas.  Frankly if the President DIDN'T know about this that says what a weak leader we have elected President.

Now let me ask you a question: Do "hurt feelings" justify violence? Do "hurt feelings" justify murder? OF COURSE NOT! I don't care how badly your politically correct feelings are hurt...you do not get to kill Americans (or anyone else, frankly).

One man was Presidential yesterday in the wake of this. No, it wasn't the actual President of the United States. It was the man who I believe will be President in a mere four months, Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney had a chance yesterday to look Presidential, and he nailed it. (President Obama had an opportunity to be weak and pandering...and he nailed that opportunity as well as Governor Romney nailed the opportunity to look Presidential.)  It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan when Americans held hostage in Iran boarded a plane to go home as Reagan was sworn in as President.

Here's what Governor Romney said in the wake of the attack:

It wasn't until far later in the statement that Romney condemned the liberal attempt to apologize.  Of course that's what the liberal media is focused on...and not how weak Obama was in a difficult moment. How dare Governor Romney criticize poor Obama...he's had it so tough!  Friends, I'd like to remind the Drive-By Media of something important: Mitt Romney, in addition to being a candidate for President, is also a citizen. That means, for four months more anyway, Barack Obama is Mitt's President too...and in this country it is not only our right to question our leaders it is our responsibility. Even if that President has thin skin.

My friends, we need a real leader. President Obama has clearly refused to be that. Mitt Romney I am convinced will lead. And that's the kind of President this nation deserves.

To my regular readers: Have you liked Biblical Conservatism on Facebook yet? YOU ARE MISSING OUT on the news I read to prepare this blog and the political and political cartoons and memes that make me laugh! Click here to see the page and ,like us!

This ad was not paid for by any political candidate, party or PAC. It has been posted as part of this Blogger's personal endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time laws.

Dissecting Obama's Talking Points: Taxes (Pt 1)

Since the election is in full swing, I wanted to expand my sporadic series of "Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points" and do a more specific analysis of President Obama's rhetoric. Specifically, I'd like to analyze one well repeated talking point of the President's: "We're simply asking the wealthiest among us to give up their tax cuts."

I have two issues with this attitude. First and foremost, referring to these as "tax cuts" is a fallacy. The current tax rates were passed into law in June of 2001. That means these rates have been in place now for eleven years. Compare that to the Clinton Tax Rates, passed into law in August of 1993, which stood as law for not quite eight years. Yet according to most liberals, these are the "correct" tax rates...the ones we should return to by "repealing the tax cuts." Now friends, I'm no mathematician, but seeing as how the Bush rates have been the law of the land now for eleven years, changing the rates to a higher rate cannot honestly be considered "repealing a tax cut." Rather, they must be considered raising taxes.

What makes this even more preposterous of a claim is the fact that President Obama claims that raising payroll tax rates back up to the standard 6.2% from the active holiday rate of 4.2% equates "raising taxes." Here's a shock: Obama's trying to ride two horses with one rear end. Didn't see that one coming. So, if we return tax rates to where they were a year and a half ago is "raising taxes" but returning rates to where they were ELEVEN YEARS AGO is simply "repealing a tax cut?" Raise your hand if your head hurts after that logic? (My hand is in the air.)

Fact is the tax rates are what they have been since 2001. They are the official tax rates. Any increase in taxes above those rates is not repealing a tax cut. It is raising taxes. Period.

(Monday we will deal with the second part of this falicious claim by the President.)

Shock of Shocks - Obama Wants to Raise Taxes

Picking up my sarcasm, friends? Good, because I'm laying it on pretty thick.  Of course President Obama wants to raise taxes...he's a liberal! His mentality is that all your money really belongs to the government anyway, whatever isn't taxed is government benevolence, and you should be happy with whatever government leaves for you. That's why he thinks that tax cuts "cost money." It makes about as much sense as me saying "If I choose not to buy Eggo Waffles, I'm costing the Kellogg Company money."  Actually, that money didn't belong to Kellogg in the first place. Same goes with tax dollars. The money doesn't belong to government in the first place.

Now let's talk about the theoretical logic behind Obama's tax increase...one would assume it's to close the budget deficit. So let's look at some numbers, shall we? The 2012 Federal Budget had a deficit of $1.327 Trillion. Now, over ten years, the Obama tax increases would raise $700 Billion. That translates into only $70 Billion in additional revenue per year (and that's assuming businesses don't adjust their spending accordingly, which they most likely will do). But let's put on our Happy Imagination Hats and make pretend that businesses won't adjust their spending and will just bend over, grab the ankles, and pay the taxes. (Why not, since we're living in Happy Imagination Land anyway.)

So even assuming a static budgeting projection, the deficit drops from $1.327 Trillion to $1.257 Trillion. Wow. Huge difference, right? Wrong. It's a drop in the bucket. We're still more than one and a quarter trillion dollars in debt FOR ONE YEAR.  So basically, this tax increase is pointless. It's ignoring the real problem entirely. Which is Obama's favorite thing to do: Pretend the problem is insufficient revenue and not excessive spending.

It's typical liberal rhetoric: just pretend we can spend and spend and spend. Just tell people we're raising taxes on somebody else. That way they'll vote for you, because apparently Americans are so selfish that they're fine with taking somebody else's money. It's not going to work, friends. Just ask Walter Mondale...I mean he beat Reagan, right? Oh wait...

Bottom line, Obama is grasping at straws. Only Mitt Romney can defeat Mitt Romney. Once Mitt fires up the conservative base, it's all over for Obama. We just need to fire up that base. Then, instead of raising taxes on somebody else, or taking somebody else's money, we can simply elect Somebody Else as our President.

Obama's Being Lauded for Doing Nothing on Gay Marriage

Last week, President Obama gave his "decision" on the gay marriage issue.  In short, he said, "I believe we should extend marriage to homosexual couples, however, I do not believe this is a Federal issue and should be handled by the states."  Translation: The President wants to be thought of as progressive on the gay marriage issue, but doesn't have the juevos to support doing anything about it.

I don't intend to talk about feelings on this issue.  To quickly rehash my previous statements:  I believe the word marriage has a specific meaning, that it is a faith based institution and that it is between a man and a woman.  Also you should know that I respect the Constiutions equal protection clause enough to say that the best solution is to either a) create a separate institution with similar rights for gay couples or b) simply remove the word marriage entirely from the legal license and make all legal unions "Civil Unions."

What President Obama knows...what everyone should know really...is that this nation is not in favor of extending the meaning of marriage beyond one man and one woman.   Yes, I realize that polls recently are showing a shift in this debate...but there's just one problem: This never bears out any time the subject of gay marriage goes on a state wide ballot!  Even in California, one of if not the most liberal state in this country, voted to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2008.  The states where some form of gay marriage has been legalized

My best conjecture on this is that people are not willing to say "no I do not believe marriage should be extended to everyone" in a poll, where another person is listening to their response and quite possibly judging that statement...but when they get into that polling booth, just them and their conscience and faith, they vote their conscience and vote no.

So what the President has done, in essence, is say "All you people who agree with gay marriage, I'm with you, but all you people who disagree with gay marriage, I'm not going to go against your wishes with any legislation."  Translation: President Obama hasn't done a darn thing. He's not supporting gay marriage in anything but words. He's not advancing legislation in any way. He's not making any decision. He's wimping out.

So to those of you who are applauding President Obama's decision, please hear me: President Obama did nothing.  He expressed his support and then promised not to back that support with any of his Presidential authority. The President is trying to ride two horses with one rear end, yet again. I hope you will wisely not be swayed by it.

Reactions to Obama’s Non-Compromise on Abortion

One of the more difficult things about writing a daily political blog is trying to discuss all pertinent issues in a timely fashion.  Sometimes, when the President tries to pull the wool over our eyes the day before a Republican Primary, something gets pushed off to the side.  For a day.

Last week, the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations went to the wall with President Obama on one of those lovely hidden rules in the Obamacare law (you know, the ones we had to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it” hidden rules), this time requiring all hospitals and other medical practices to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization (for the record, this usually means vasectomy or tubal ligation aka tube tying) services or not receive any federal funding. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to quickly outline my personal views on this subject.  I have no moral objection to contraception.  Contraception means methods of preventing pregnancy through either a barrier that stops the male genetic material from fertilizing the female genetic material. (For the record, I consider vasectomy and tubal ligation as contraception, albeit permanent…they keep one or both sets of genetic material in their respective biological storehouses.)  I have huge moral objections to abortion.  Abortion is the process of destroying a fertilized human embryo.  I believe that life begins at conception, and that all human life is precious because it is created in the image of God. 

To give a crude analogy, let’s consider the male genetic material a lit match and the female genetic material as a bucket of gasoline.  Contraception would be the process of keeping the match away from the gasoline.  Abortion is extinguishing the fire after the match hits the gasoline.  My belief according to my faith is that it is ok to stop the fire from happening (preventing pregnancy), but not to extinguish the fire (aka destroying the human life).

I am not alone.  The Roman Catholic Church, most traditional Protestant denominations and pretty much all Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations are opposed to abortion.  In those groups the beliefs on contraception are not so universal.  Many of those are also opposed to contraception.  I believe that human life begins at conception; not at some point after conception, but also not at some point before conception.  Simply stated, it’s not a human until the genetic material combines. 

The President, however, has decided to take for himself a power that does not belong to him: the power to force individuals of faith to fund procedures their faith says is murder.  Now the Constitution is clear, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  You know why it says “Congress shall make no law”? Because the President DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS!  Period.  The President may either sign off on laws or veto them, but he has no right to pass them on his own.  Period.  But we’ll get back to that.  Congress has no right to force any individual to go against their religion.  (The only exception is that one man’s liberty ends at another person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.)

So the President’s attempt to force individuals and hospitals and organizations to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization services is absolutely, 100% Unconstitutional.  Period.  But there is more to this problem.  The Obamacare law and the President wanted to force these organizations not only to provide these services but to PAY FOR THEM! He wants to force organizations with moral objections to not only provide these services but pay for them for their employees, free of charge.

So then, last week, the President came out with a “compromise.”  Instead of requiring the organizations to provide these services to their employees free of charge, now, out of the goodness of his heart, he’s telling the Insurance Company that THEY must pay for these services.  Oh, and by the way, do you know who is forced to provide Insurance to their employees due to the Obamacare law?  Employers!  So the same conscientious objecting employers are being forced to provide the Insurance which is forced to provide the objectionable services.  Translation:  Obama is still requiring those groups to pay for services they find morally objectionable!

One last thing:  The President calls these new services that insurance companies are required to cover “free of charge.”  Baloney.  Does the President HONESTLY believe that Insurance companies are going to just provide these services, which by the way are far more expensive than the co-pay that we shell out as consumers, letting that cut into their profit margins?  OF COURSE NOT!  You know how insurance companies will recoup that loss?  I’ll tell you how:  Raise premiums.  But Obamacare will lower costs, right?

Bottom line, this is just another liberal social program being forced on people against their will because Obama and the liberals know better than we do what’s best for us.  So let’s do our nation a favor and elect ourselves a new President.

A Dose of Reality on Obama's Student Loan Forgiveness

The President's latest Socialist plan to gain votes has hit the scene:  Student Loan Debt Relief aka Obama's Student Loan Bailout.  It's an irresponsible plan that is devoid of personal responsibility that, by the way, is going to cost a whole lot of money.  There are so many questions to ask about it, so let's dive in.

First and foremost, it's pure entitlement mentality.  Let's talk about what a loan is, student or otherwise.  A loan is a bank giving an individual money to purchase something, like an education, for example.  The bank then is paid back with interest for that loan.  You see, the bank doesn't give loans to be nice or to help you out. If they give you a loan without charging interest, they have no reason to be in business, plus no revenue stream to pay their employees, pay interest on their depositors money and still make a significant enough profit to make the risk of giving you a loan worthwhile.

So you have people who have taken out loans to purchase a college education, have then proceeded to purchase that college education, and are now protesting saying "DON'T MAKE ME PAY YOU!  DON'T MAKE ME PAY YOU!"  I'm sorry, but that mentality is as preposterous as going out to dinner, ordering a meal, having the meal you ordered served to you correctly with fresh ingredients and finding the meal delicious, then protesting the manager for asking you to pay the bill.  In short, you're seeking to rationalize and legalizing YOU breeching your end of contract after the other party in the contract, the bank, has fulfilled their end of the contract.

Secondly, with Obama's proposal to forgive all unpaid loans after 20 years.  So why pay it back?  Rework your student loan payments to pay minimal amounts, set it on a 30-40 year term, pay $50 or $100 per month instead of what you genuinely should owe on a standard 10 year repayment plan, and then see a huge part of it forgiven because it's outstanding after 20 years.  I don't need to break out my Delorean Time Machine to figure out how THAT is going to end. It's going to end with either a) Banks only allowing an absolute maximum of 20 years to pay back loans to protect themselves and not allowing defferments, etc for any reason, thus meaning failure to pay will crush your credit score OR b) A massive crash from banks and government departments giving student loans in 20 years when people don't pay them back (and not giving new capital to give loans to the next generation).

Thirdly, and I cannot stress this enough:  WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?  I can guarantee you Obama's answer, at least as it pertains to government loans, is raise taxes.  Are you with me in the 53% of Americans who pay taxes?  We're going to get the bill so Obama can make life "fair" or in reality so he can get the college vote strong for him in 2012.  Obama is going to tell you the wealthiest amongst us must "pay their fair share."  It's a lie, of course, again the top 1% pays 38% of the taxes already.  The reality of the claim is that Obama is telling you you're entitled to someone else's money, this time for college.

Look, I have a student loan.  I'm paying for it too...you know why?  Because I legitimately owe that money back.  The fine folks at Direct Loans gave me a loan to go to college.  I used that money to go to college.  Now I am paying for that education I received.  I am fulfilling my end of the contract, Direct Loans finished fulfilling theirs back in 2005 when I received my degree.  Now it was up to me to complete my end of the bargain.

I also can tell you that I know very few people with socially useful college degrees who can't find a job and owe thousands upon thousands of dollars.  The people who have degrees in Business, or Communications, or Computers, or Accounting, or Engineering all have jobs in their field.  The ones who don't are the ones who have degrees in Art or Philosophy or some other such thing.  Those of us who made the decision to get a marketable degree are now dealing with the positive consequences of our decision, those who made the decision to get a degree in their hobby are experiencing the negative consequences of their decision.  That's the reality.

But this generation doesn't WANT to take responsibility.  It's somebody else's fault.  Somebody is supposed to make their problems go away.  They don't want to deal with the consequences of their decision to take out a loan and to get a degree that isn't marketable.  And now President Obama is coddling this to get votes.  Shame on you, Mr. Obama.  Shame on you.

Is Obama Even Trying?

Seriously, friends.  The President has proposed the same bad bill again in the Jobs Bill that failed when it was called the Stimulus Package.  He's proposed a deficit reduction that is predicated on raising taxes on the very people that create jobs, something that is guaranteed to be in direct contradiction to his desire for jobs in the Jobs Bill.  Essentially he's proposed two bills have have about as much chance of being passed as the approval for the Football with Puppies in Place of Balls League of America* being granted. 

The Jobs Bill is so very bad that the Democrat Senate won't even take up the measure.  His deficit reduction bill calls for tax increases, which we all know won't pass the Republican House (nor should it) because we cannot trust government to spend those new revenues on paying down debt.  We need to starve government by refusing to feed it's addiction. 

By the way, it turns out the American people ARE paying attention, by the way, because according to a new Rassmussen poll, 62% of Americans believe tax increases would be spent on new programs, only 23% believe that new revenue would be used to pay down debt. (1)

The question must be begged: Is Obama even trying at this point?  He has no reason to believe these policies will work as advertised...or else they would have worked the first time Obama tried it.  He also knows the bill won't be passed.  He knows he can't get his policies enacted, and despite his "getting things done" argument he won't get the things done that a) the people want and b) will get passed (see: Balanced Budget Amendment).

My conclusion must be that no...Obama is not trying...to fix the nation's problems.  What he is trying to do is precisely what we on the Right told you he was trying to do: remake America into a socialist nation.  He wants to redistribute wealth not because it will help the economy but because he thinks it's the best thing to do.  So this jobs bill is all about blaming the GOP for his own failures...that way he can get another four years to do more "changing." 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) If Taxes Hiked to Reduce Deficit, 62% Think It Will Be Spent on New Programs
*The FPPBLA is a completely made up league.  Also, I love dogs so I wouldn't watch if it was real.