Here's something the media will not tell you...

Apparently, President Obama's approval ratings one month into his presidency are lower than those of President Bush's at the same point in his presidency. I know, it does not mean anything, I just thought it was interesting.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Create or save 3.5 million jobs...

President Obama's claim that the economic spending act will create or save 3.5 million jobs is an ingenious one from a political standpoint. Economists would agree that there is no way to tell how many jobs anything saved. Most people do not realize this. So, when the bill only creates half a million jobs (seems like a lot, until you look at the price of the bill, spending almost a trillion dollars to create five hundred thousand jobs, that is not good economics), Obama can go around saying that it saved 3 million jobs. Nobody will be able to prove either way how many jobs it saved, if any. The media lapdogs will just happily report that our leader has saved 3 million jobs and most people will not question it. The wording in that claim was a brilliant political move, but that is all it is, a political move.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

The vicious cycle...

So, our economy is doing poorly right now. President Obama's response is to spend money and raise taxes on businesses, which will further the burden on taxpayers. Since this will add to the strain, we will no doubt, experience further economic hardship and Obama will respond by raising taxes and spending more money, which will further burden taxpayers, and Obama will spend more, etc... The cycle begins. Where does it end? It ends with government gone wild. It ends with no accountability from anyone (cannot pay your mortgage? Big brother will be happy to take someone else's money and use it to pay yours.). It ends with business owners giving up and moving on. Atlas will shrug.

If we have seen one thing, it is that the market will right itself. Roosevelt's New Deal did not bring us out of the Great Depression, WWII did by putting people back to work. Obama's new deal will not bring us out of this situation. It will, in fact, hurt our chances of recovery. Adding government to the equation will cause nothing but strain and more hardship.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

So we are a nation of cowards...

Attorney General Eric Holder says we are a nation of cowards when it comes to racial discussion. He was basically saying we are afraid to discuss sensitive racial issues. This is a bunch of b as in "B" s as in "S." If a white person says something a black person does not like about race, the whole conversation degenerates into name-calling. The white person is branded a racist and that is used as an excuse not to listen to anything that person ever has to say again. Then, Jessie Jackson makes rhymes and Al Sharpton yells and screams, and the whole thing devolves into a name-calling and yelling match and no progress ever gets made. I do not blame people for not wanting a conversation to degenerate into schoolyard name calling. Conversations on race usually become so juvenile, why would you want to waste your time having them?

I would submit that people are not afraid to have a racial conversation, they just know where it will lead, so they tip toe around it. We have to walk on eggshells so we do not get called a racist. Give it a rest. If we are ever going to have a serious racial conversation in this country, this automatic, reactionary labeling of "racist" is going to have to stop. Try talking about the facts instead of downplaying everyone else's points by calling them names.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

The mortgage plan...

President Obama was in Mesa, AZ to unveil his mortgage plan. He made a speech about it, making sure to hit all of the points, about people losing their jobs and draining their savings, trying to be responsible. I understand, and I feel bad for those people. Here is where I have a problem with him. At the end of his speech, he said this: "But if we move forward with purpose and resolve - with a deepened appreciation for how fundamental the American Dream is and how fragile it can be when we fail in our collective responsibilities." Excuse me? Since when is someone else's mortgage part of MY "collective responsibility?" I am sorry, but other people's mortgages are not my responsibility. I did not sign their contract for them. I had no part in negotiating their loan. Perhaps they would be better off renting. Anyone out there who works hard to make sure your mortgage is paid on time every month, Obama has just spat in your face. This collective responsibility nonsense is just more socialist rhetoric from Obama.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Ridiculous...

President Obama flew to Denver to sign the spending bill. It made a wonderful photo op for him. It makes everyone feel good in these tough economic times. Here is the problem. It costs taxpayers about $60,000 per hour to fly in Air Force One. He could just as easily signed the bill in Washington, but he had to have his photo op in Denver. In these times, can the country really afford his flying to Denver just to get some good press coverage? We are in tough times right now and our president ought not be spending $60,000 per hour to do something he can do at home just as easily. Can we really take him seriously anymore? Yes, he can use Air Force One as he pleases, but this is just insanity. But, I guess if he is already wasting almost a trillion dollars in taxpayer money, what's a few thousand more?

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship is a term we have heard a lot lately. It basically means both political parties working together to come up with the best solution. Obama has been talking about how he wants bipartisan support for the $787 billion economic spending bill. What he has really meant is that he wants Republicans on board without considering their concerns about out of control spending in this hideous bill. It is not a bipartisan bill, it is a Democrat spending bill (the Democrats have been dreaming about a bill like this for years now but have not been able to pass it because of a Republican controlled White House or Congress), but Obama does not care about that, he just wants Republicans to say they support it. Oh, sure, he met with them, but he did not listen to their concerns, he just wanted to use his media buddies to shame them into voting for it. I am glad he did not get bipartisan support in the House, because the Republicans were shut out of the process, why should they support it?

It was a little different in the Senate, where he needed the support of a couple of Republicans to avoid a filibuster, so he found three liberals with an "r" next to their name and they worked hard to trim a few billion dollars out of the bill (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and the always entertaining Arlen Specter). Now, he can say it is bipartisan without getting the support of any Republicans besides those three, and the media will happily report it. Never mind that not a single House Republican voted for it. Never mind that a majority of people did not want it to pass in its current form. Never mind that this is not what is best for the country. None of that is important. What is important is that this Democrat spending gets rammed down our throats, with the help of a few Republicans, whether we like it or not, whether it is good for the economy or not (it is not).

Obama really just wants to pay lip service to bipartisanship, that way, he can say he worked with Republicans when he really did not. Now, he can say he tried to be bipartisan, but it seems to me, what he really tried to do is force them to support this bill without making any real changes (yeah, they cut a little bit out of it, but the bill is still ridiculously laden down with useless spending). To Democrats, bipartisanship is when the Republicans support their agenda, not when both parties are working together.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Obama's five day promise...

Here's some more "change we can believe in." Obama has broken his five day promise yet again. He is set to sign the $787 billion economic spending act today. It passed congress on Friday, late. He promised during his campaign that he would wait five days to sign any important legislation into law. It has been only four days, three of which were weekend days or a holiday. But, I guess this is too important to get weighed down by the fact that it will not help, rather, it will hurt the economy. If they allow enough time for the public to review it, they will not be able to spend $50 million in NEA Arts grants, and as we all know, starving artists who cannot produce anything worth buying are valuable Democrat voters. Oh, wait, they are just "misunderstood." Anyway, enough of that... A politician lying to get elected? That really is change I can believe in. Do you think the media will bring this up? Certainly not the mainstream media. Talk radio and the bloggers will though.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Hope and Change

I wanted to talk a little about "hope" and "change." These are words that we heard a lot during the recent presidential campaign. They kind of make you feel warm and fuzzy, do they not? They make you want to support the guy saying them, right? Not me. This is an old advertising and public relations trick. They get focus groups together and find words that do not mean anything, yet they trigger the proper emotional response. These words are called "glittering generalities." Yes, I am saying you have been fooled by your emotions.

Let us start with "change." Most people would agree that the way things are done in Washington needs to change. But, change to what? The prophet never told us. He did not have to. Most people already believed in the snake oil he was selling. Why did no reporter ask him? Because most reporters are in love with him. Do not forget that change can be bad, just as it can be good. We should beware of people promising change when they will not tell us what kind of change.

Now, on to "hope." Hope is similar to wish. Hoping and wishing do not do anything. Hope in one hand, defecate in the other, see which fills up first. It will not be the hope hand, that is for sure. Hope for the sake of hope means nothing.

Right now, you may be saying that I am wrong. Over time, you will come to see that I am right. When the euphoria from Obama-mania starts to wear off, people will see that there is either no change or bad change. It will happen, I promise. All of your hope will leave you feeling empty and disapointed. It will be too late, Obama will have already reaped the benefits and we will be left to pick up the tab from his government spending bonanza.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

More about the "stimulus"

The tone that the national conversation about the stimulus bill has taken is very dangerous. The Democrats have decided that the Republicans that do not support this treasure trove of wasteful spending just do not want to be bipartisan. "Republicans do not want to create jobs," they say as they grandstand for the media lapdogs. I cannot find the story now, but one of our moonbat congresswomen even said that Republicans were committing a "hostile act" by not supporting it. If you do not support almost a trillion dollars in wasteful spending, I guess you just do not want to create jobs and you are being hostile. It is as simple as that. They do not want to defend the bill on its merits, of which it has very few, they just try to shame people into supporting it using soundbites, knowing Americans are not going to read into the issue any more than that. They will not look into it to see why people do not support it, the thing that will stick out in their minds is someone on the evening news saying that the Republicans do not want to work with the president and they do not want to create jobs.

According to Obama, the reason Republicans do not support it is because they are listening to Rush Limbaugh. Granted, Limbaugh has been against this thing since the beginning, but he is not the reason that fiscal conservatives are against this thing. It will not stimulate the economy. Conservatives know this. The Democrats also know this and that is why they will not debate the actual bill. The bill may stimulate the economy in the short term, putting people to work for a couple months, but in the long term, all of that spending is going to come back to haunt us.

They are just trying to ram this thing through quickly because they know that as people start reading what it is loaded down with (just a few things here) they are much less likely to support it. If people would actually read the wasteful provisions in this thing, there would be a huge demand to know exactly what this bill is going to stimulate besides Democrat politicians chances of being re-elected by saying they secured a billion dollars for their district in their re-election commercials. There needs to be a wake up call soon, before they do any more damage.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

I think I made Google mad...

Last week, I posted this, wondering if Google would delete it. They did not delete it. But I did find that I am getting much, much worse search results than I was before. I was not getting the greatest rankings before, but at least I was on the first page when doing a search for "Liberty Watchdog." Now, I am nowhere to be found in at least the first ten pages of a Google search. On a Yahoo search, I am still in the top ten. Thank you, Google, for proving my theory. You should be proud of yourselves. I am not going to delete the post. I will just have to use other methods to drive traffic to my blog.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com