The Liberty Watchdog

The vast, right-wing conspiracy is back

2009-09-28T09:48:00.002-05:00

Get your foil hats out, folks, Bill Clinton has invoked the "vast, right wing conspiracy" again. Here we go again. It could not possibly be the fact that Americans are opposed to run-away spending. It cannot be the fact that Americans do not want the government taking over banks, car companies, news papers, and health care. It is merely a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

This is how they try to marginalize anyone opposed to Socialism as merely some kook, racist, right wing extremist, or paid for by special interests. These people really seem to believe that there is no genuine opposition to President Obama's fiscal irresponsibility. Or, they do not believe it, but they believe if they say the same lies enough times, loudly enough, people will believe it.

Once again, try to change the sales pitch, rather than changing their plans when faced with strong opposition. They demonize and marginalize the opposition.

I wonder if the word came from Soros on this one.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Okay, everyone say it with me "mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama!"

2009-09-24T09:28:00.005-05:00

Here's what kids in Government schools are being taught now:

This is just creepy. There's not a whole lot more that can be said. Is this what we will be forced to chant at the re-education camps? Perhaps Charisse Carney-Nunes will be the reeducation czar. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for reporting this on her blog.

This is a common tactic of tyrants, get them while they are young and impressionable. Government schools are in place to teach kids how good Government is, just as Christian schools teach kids about how good Christianity is. If your kids go to a Government school, this is the type of nonsense they will be subjected to. "Mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama!"

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

The Obamacare Message is Failing

2009-08-23T12:22:00.002-05:00

The numbers are slipping, most people do not support President Obama's health care overhaul. This is because the longer it is debated, the more people do not like what they see in it. So, instead of changing the plan to something more suitable, what do they do? They change their message over and over. Instead of changing their shoddy product, they change the packaging. Look for the next incarnation of the Obamacare pitch to play up the emotional side of the argument. We will hear about the poor people who cannot afford health insurance, we will hear about our moral obligation to make sure everyone has health care, and do not be surprised to hear a few new focus group words too.

Rather than change what is bad in the bill, they will just keep trying different sales pitches until one works. Tying healthcare to the economy did not work, demonizing doctors did not work, demonizing insurance companies did not work, so now, they will try to find a new strategy. Do not be fooled by their new approach. Make sure this thing does not pass in its current form. They should scrap the whole thing and start over, rather than change the sales pitch. Someone should tell the Democrats that it is the bill that stinks, not the sales pitch.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

On Cash for Clunkers

2009-08-23T12:08:00.004-05:00

In a previous post, I made the claim that "Cash for Clunkers" would not go anywhere. What I did not take into account was the Government's complete ineptness at trying to run anything. So, now they have scrapped the program. They were going to have to do it because car dealers were starting to withdraw from the program. The reason: they were not getting their money. And people think the government can run health care.

I will say this, we have not seen the end of "Clunkers," it will reappear, though not in its current form or by the same name. These people are addicted to using your money to force their desired result out of other people. We will see some other kind of taxpayer-subsidized program to redistribute your tax dollars to people who buy more fuel efficient cars.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Come quietly to the camp, comrade...

2009-08-06T10:16:00.004-05:00

Our government is now asking us to turn our friends and neighbors in for spreading "disinformation" about Obamacare. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ They have not said what they will do with this information, but this plea was posted in response to a video showing President Obama (then Senator Obama) saying that he is a proponent of a single-payer system of health care, and that it will take fifteen or twenty years to get to single-payer. The video also showed Barney Frank trying to say the same thing. This is a gestapo-like attempt to silence critics of Obama's health care takeover. Now, if you write something, or say something in "casual conversation" that Obama deems "disinformation," someone may report you.

He says that you will be able to keep your health insurance if you like it, but this will eventually go away if there is a "public option" in the final plan. He says that it will be competition for the insurance companies, and if they are so good, they can handle a little competition. They can, but not from an entity, such as the government, that is able to operate at a loss for years and years. If the government runs out of money, they can use the power of force to seize more. Private businesses cannot do that, so the playing field is slanted towards the government. A "public option" will lead to complete government control of healthcare.

I am not even going to get into the horrors of government-controlled-anything in this post, but just suffice it to say that quality of healthcare will drop drastically if you put government in control of it. They cannot even properly run a simple car trade in program.

They think they will be able to silence their critics with tactics like this, but they will not be able to silence everyone... I, however, am anxiously awaiting my "re-education."

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Cash for Clunkers Is Not Going Anywhere

2009-08-04T07:44:00.004-05:00

Am I the only one who is starting to think that "Cash for Clunkers, " if the spending increase passes the Senate, will never go away? This is a wildly popular program. So popular, in fact, that it burned through a billion dollars in a week. If this thing is not killed now, it will become a new vote buying scheme for politicians. It was supposed to end when funding ran out, or November something-or-other whichever came first. Now, they are rushing to add another $2 billion to it. No government precedent goes unexploited, and this program will be no different. I have serious doubts that the politicians will ever let it die. This program is now another income redistribution program, and it will be with us for the forseeable future. It is just another thing the government will have its hands in, now and forever.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

This is what we have to look forward to...

2009-03-25T08:45:00.002-05:00

Over 3,000 veterans at a VA hospital were exposed to HIV. Keep demanding your government run health care, people. This is what we have to look forward to when all hospital employees, including doctors are government employees. When is the last time you recieved good service at a government agency? If you are like most Americans, probably never. Do we really want to put our health in the hands of bureaucrats? Our current system is not perfect, but it is much better run than, for instance, the DMV.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Atlas is shrugging...

2009-03-04T08:34:00.004-06:00

John Galt is here. He is destroying business and investment in this country, just like in Atlas Shrugged. In Ayn Rand's novel, John Galt was a man who worked as a destroyer to fight the policies of an increasingly overreaching government bent on destroying the free market and punishing achievement. In this case, he is not a lone man. He is the higher income earner who does not want to subsidize people who do not pay their mortgage or cannot provide for themselves. He is the business owner who is cutting his earnings to make less than $250,000 per year. He is the investor refusing to invest. This is a good article about him.

President Obama does not believe in the free market, he does not believe in achievement. He believes in punishing achievement and rewarding failure. By putting his Marxist policies into action, he is doing the same thing the looters were doing in Atlas Shrugged. People are trying to figure out how to make less than $250,000 per year so they do not have to pay more taxes under the proposed legislation. Investors are not investing. Look at how the stock market has been tanking. This is not President Bush's fault, it has actually accelerated under Obama. The people who drive the motor of the world have no faith in this man.

Obama does not intend for this to happen, but it is happening, through the law of unintended consequences. Most of us with a brain, knew this would be what our future had in store for us once Obama took power, but for some reason, this president, who is supposed to be so intelligent, is too stupid to see it. What does he really think will happen when you punish achievement? His policies are already starting to backfire. Small businesses are cutting productivity to avoid the tax hikes, and cutting productivity is never a good thing. When productivity thrives, so does the economy. It is a lose-lose situation to cut productivity, but they are doing it for a higher purpose. They are doing it based on principle.

Or maybe there's something more nefarious at work. Maybe he wants business to fail and the market to tank, or if not him, the socialist puppeteers who are pulling the strings behind the scenes (maybe his heart is in the right place and he is just being used, but somehow I doubt it.). Why would they want this? Simple, so they can say that the free market does not work (even though it has worked for over 200 years) and instate their socialist agenda. If they get everyone dependent on government to survive, think of all the Democrat voters this will create. Not to mention the power aspects of having total control over people's lives. Democrats love to have more people depend on government, because these people typically do not vote Republican or Libertarian.

Obama's government is a perfect representation of the government in Atlas Shrugged. There is a financial crisis, which is now aggravated by government interference, and the typical response by big government types is to respond with more government interference. Which will make things even worse. John Galt wants to put an end to this. We will no doubt experience years of hardship because of this. But, I cannot say I am opposed to it (Atlas shrugging, that is, not Obama's Marxist policies). Hopefully the American people will get the message before it is too late.

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

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

2009-02-27T10:45:00.002-06:00

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...

2009-02-27T10:34:00.004-06:00

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...

2009-02-27T10:09:00.002-06:00

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...

2009-02-20T10:28:00.003-06:00

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...

2009-02-20T09:56:00.002-06:00

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...

2009-02-20T09:36:00.002-06:00

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

2009-02-17T11:46:00.003-06:00

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...

2009-02-17T10:56:00.004-06:00

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

2009-02-08T18:12:00.003-06:00

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"

2009-02-08T17:15:00.004-06:00

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...

2009-02-08T17:05:00.002-06:00

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

The Minnesota Senate Race...

2009-01-31T15:46:00.002-06:00

Al Franken has succeeded in stealing the election in Minnesota. Oh sure, Norm Coleman is challenging the results, with good reason, but it probably will not work out for him. People will say that the recount proves that Franken is the winner, but those people have not read into the issue. I have never heard of a recount where every single challenge went in favor of one candidate, as they did for Franken. My favorite, which I alluded to in a post last year involved the 32 ballots that were "found" in an election official's car. All of those ballots were for Franken, not one for Coleman. In a race as close as this one was, at least one vote out of those 32 should have been for Coleman. There was definitely some skulduggery going on in this one. If the courts overturn it, it will be a miracle, if they do not, it will prove that Minnesota is incapable of running a clean election.

Liberty Watchdog

libertywatchdog@gmail.com

On Gitmo...

2009-01-31T15:04:00.002-06:00

So, Obama will close Gitmo within a year. That is just great. Now what are we going to do with all those religious extremists who have pledged to allah that they will destroy the western way of life? Maybe some of the Democrats in congress would like to have them in their congressional districts. We cannot let them go free as long as we are still at war with them, otherwise they will rejoin the fight. Many who have been set free already have, and there is no reason to think that the rest will not. My proposal, if Gitmo really does close, send them to Phoenix and let Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County do as he pleases with them.

Liberty Watchdog

libertywatchdog@gmail.com

Let's see if Google deletes this one...

2009-01-31T14:54:00.003-06:00

Why did google allow the google bomb "miserable failure" linking to Dubya's profile at whitehouse.gov to exist for almost the entire Bush presidency, yet they fixed it when Obama inherited it almost immediately? Google says that it does not reflect their politics, that the one for Bush remained for so long, but if that is true, why did they clean it up so quickly when it caused traffic to go to Obama's profile? We should try it linking communist to Obama's White House profile and see if it gets fixed as quickly. For those who do not know what a google bomb is, if enough websites link a certain word to a website, that page will achieve higher results on the list in a search engine search. Google says they have fixed the problem, but it still works for some other search engines.

Liberty Watchdog

libertywatchdog@gmail.com

The New Stimulus Plan

2009-01-31T12:49:00.004-06:00

Where do I start with this bloated monstrosity? This $825 billion spending plan is so laden down with goodies for friends of the Democrat party that it is just shameless. The reason they are trying to force it through so quickly is not to help the economy (they know it will not), it is so the American people do not get a chance to read it and realize they are being taken for a ride by the chosen one and his gang of miscreants. When congressional Republicans refused to support it, the Democrats were more than happy to run out to their buddies in the media and grandstand about how the Republicans do not want to create jobs. The media goes along with it, never mentioning that this bill will do nothing but increase government spending and fund pet projects of Democrats. They know the American people will just swallow this because they said it will work.

Here is a list of many of the spending programs included in the "stimulus" bill, HR1. I will point out just a few of them, but you can see a fairly complete list by clicking on the link above. Would somebody please tell me how these are going to stimulate the economy?

$50 million in grants to fund "arts projects and activities which preserve jobs
in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other
support during the current economic downturn" through the National Endowment for
the Arts...

$50 million for what, so more sculptures that no thinking person would want to buy can occupy the front of government buildings? If these artists were creating art that people actually wanted, there would be a market for it, but since nobody wants them, I guess it is up to taxpayers to bail them out. Or at least, the Democrats, after all they do count on the support of these people. It must be nice to be able to spend other people's money.

$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C....

Where is the value in this to stimulate the economy? What does the National Mall in D.C. have to do with the current state of our economy? Nothing, that is what. Do these people think we are stupid? No, they KNOW that most people are stupid.

$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums...

I like the Smithsonian, but this is not going to help either. The Smithsonian has nothing to do with the economy. Seems like more spending for the sake of spending to me.

$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair...

Yes, education is important, but this is for Government education. Soon your kids can go to a more modern school to learn about how good government is. That is, if they do not violate zero tolerance rules by drawing a picture of a gun. This will not stimulate the economy any more than it would if the government spent that money on more studies of the environmental impact of cow flatulence.

$300 million for Indian Reservation roads...

Now, there is a good idea. Let's spend money on roads in places where there is no federal taxes paid so people can get to the casinos that also are not taxed. As much money as the reservations are making off people at those casinos, they should be expected to fund their own infrastructure...or pay taxes like the rest of us.

$2 billion for development of advanced batteries...

And then, there is this little gem. I am all for advanced batteries, you would have to be stupid not to be, but does the government really need to spend $2 billion on it under the guise of economic stimulus? And why should the government fund this? The researchers will only develop the bare minimum of results, as all government researchers do. Government researchers only work hard enough to keep receiving grants, and rarely produce anything because, once they do, there is no more funding. They would rather keep researching with no tangible results and keep getting paid. Why not let Duracell do this research? If they felt they could make a profit from advanced batteries, they would be making them, or at least researching how to.

And there are many more. Just read for yourself here.

Some of these are probably necessary spending. All I am asking is that they try to pass those programs on their own merits and not try to fool us by telling us that it is for the economy when it really is not. This is just a bonanza of government spending that will probably hurt the economy more than it will help.

Tax cuts are a much better way to stimulate the economy. I do not mean Obama's definition of a tax cut, which is taking money by force from people who earned it to give it to people who did not (Obama's proposed tax cuts will give people money who had no tax liability), I mean cutting taxes for people businesses who actually pay them. Yes, that means "the evil rich." And it means small businesses, which employ many people. I know, 95% of small businesses will not be hit with His tax increases, but that 5% is the group that actually employs people.

Liberty Watchdog

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

I am Back

2009-01-31T12:36:00.003-06:00

I am sorry about the hiatus, as I have been quite busy lately. There is so much to talk about, what with the new stimulus (which is really just a collection of democrat spending programs that they have wanted to impose on us for eight years now), Obama appointing lobbyists (breaking his own rules), a tax cheat being appointed as Treasury secretary, Obama telling people not to listen to Rush Limbaugh thus paving the way for the return of the fairness doctrine, an overly expensive inauguration (or should I say coronation), the future closing of Gitmo, Al Franken's successful theft of the Minnesota Senate race, etc...

I will update on these as I can.

Liberty Watchdog

Libertywatchdog@gmail.com

Janet Napolitano

2008-12-09T10:06:00.004-06:00

I have been watching the Obama cabinet appointments with a certain amount of amusement. We have a president elect who won by promising "change," and now we see him filling up his cabinet with Washington insiders and former Clinton people. Hardly seems like change, but then again, I did not really expect to see any bold changes out of someone who votes in lockstep with his party more than anyone else in the Democrat party. I say that I was watching the appointments with amusement, that is up until the appointment of one Janet Napolitano as the secretary of Homeland Security.

This is probably not a good choice for this position. This department is supposed to be in charge of protecting our borders. This woman, as governor of Arizona, cut off all funding for the Maricopa County sheriff's (Sheriff Joe Arpaio, if you do not know who he is, search him on Google. He is the best sheriff in the country.) illegal immigration enforcement. She clearly has no interest in protecting our borders. So, why would Obama appoint her? It just does not make sense.

Or maybe it does make sense. Maybe he is setting the tone that he does not care about protecting our borders. Maybe for the next four to eight years we will have an open door policy to anyone who wants to come here whether they want to help or harm American society. I have no problem with immigration, I just want only people looking to contribute to society to come here. People who want to work should be welcomed with open arms. People who want to leech off our welfare system, government education system, commit crimes or acts of terrorism need not apply.

Obama has shown that he does not care who enters this country with one political move. Appointing Napolitano is a strong statement of what he thinks about the sovereignty of this nation.

On an unrelated note, this is a good proposal of an alternative to the government bailout:
http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2008/12/09/the_perfect_stimulus_package

Global Warming

2008-11-19T19:12:00.012-06:00

I am one of those heretics that does not believe that we caused global warming. There is just not enough evidence to support it. There is, however, plenty of evidence supporting cyclical changes in global temperature caused by factors outside of human control. It just seems to be all too typical liberal thinking to believe we can control things that are beyond our control.

The global warming movement is more an anti-capitalism movement than a true environmental movement. After the fall of communism, there were many displaced people who found refuge in the environmental movement, and they have succeeded in hijacking an entire agenda. If environmentalism was not an anti capitalism movement, way more pressure would be put on countries, like China, who pollute way more than the USA to curb emissions. That is not how it works though. All they talk about is how bad the United States is, and how evil we are to pollute so much.

There is nothing wrong with wanting clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, and wanting to lessen and eventually eliminate our dependence of foreign oil, but the "green" movement is completely out of control. We have Al Gore running around like Chicken Little screaming "the sky is falling," while at the same time accusing Dubya of playing on our fears. Seems like the pot and the kettle to me. We do not control the weather, and we probably never will. We should want to go green for the right reasons, we do not need to do it based on lies. We should do it when the technology makes it cost effective to do so.

Another horrible thing that has come out of green technology is ethanol. Ethanol is a terrible idea. Who thought it would be a good idea to use a food source as fuel? Now, on top of the rising cost of everything else, we have rising food costs to contend with. I know, i have heard the argument too that the corn used for ethanol is not human food grade, but it is feed grade. Now it is more expensive to feed livestock, which leads to higher food prices. Now that there are ethanol subsidies, less of other crops are being grown, like hops, which led to an increase in the price of beer last year. Now you are mad, right? They will not tell you that the reason you are paying more for a case of Pabst (or your beer of choice) is because of ethanol. They think we are stupid. When you look at most people, they are right.

So, I will now probably be forced to drink hemlock by Obama, even though I am right. If humans do contribute to global warming, it is in a minuscule way. Compared to mother nature, we humans are weak and insignificant. We should not be assigning more importance to ourselves than we are capable of achieving. I suspect the dumb masses will continue to blindly follow false prophets such as Al Gore and the rest. Here is a funny article about the subject and about over anxiousness to proclaim travesty:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Some Noteworthy Articles

2008-11-19T13:12:00.006-06:00

A great article by Mitt Romney about the automakers bailout. Bailing them out would basically be prolonging the inevitable. Restructuring of the industry would be a better solution. The only thing I would add is that the big 3 should start, once again, creating vehicles that people are excited about, like they used to. Bring back the Hemicuda...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Romney_detroit_bankrupt/2008/11/19/152984.html

Let the Minnesota recount begin. Now that Ted Stevens lost the race in Alaska, it is more important than ever that we do not let the democrats steal this one. If they do, we are in big trouble:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11013851?source=most_viewed

Tom Daschle, yet another partisan Washington insider, is appointed to Obama's cabinet. Yes, another liberal political hack appointed. With all of the established Washingtonians and former Clinton people being appointed, this does not seem like any kind of "change we can believe in." Where are the Republicans that Obama is supposed to appoint? I am sure there will probably be a token Republican in the cabinet that nobody in the administration will listen to, but so far, the appointments have shown anything but change and anything but intentions to "govern from the center." The appointment of leftist Daschle only furthers my argument.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_health_daschle;_ylt=AlHE9ya4G_R0.6_rmlN__KayFz4D

Joe the Plumber

2008-11-19T12:34:00.014-06:00

I wanted to talk a little about Joe the Plumber. Here is a man who is concerned about his, and his fellow Americans' ability to achieve the American dream. Sure, he may not have all his ducks in a row yet, but I would wager most Americans do not. The key is that he has plans, as do many people and he asked a valid question about how Obama's tax plan would affect those plans. What happened next is that people friendly to Obama's goals proceeded to try and invalidate his question by publicly humiliating him, rather than listening to his concerns.

Is his treatment after asking a valid question what we can expect if we ask a question of Obama that his is considered hostile to his goals? Will Obama's buddies with access to government computers dig into your background and will his lapdogs in the media gleefully report your private information on national news if you should happen to ask something they do not like? That does not sound like good change to me. We should be allowed to ask the tough questions as it is important for political discourse. Now, anybody who has a question that Obama might not want to hear should make sure there are no skeletons or embarrassments hiding in their closet. Obama's thugs will be happy to root your deepest secrets out and put them on a national stage for you, along with help from a media already proving itself to be a mouthpiece for our new "ruler," the treatment of Joe the Plumber proves this. Get ready to no longer be able to question your government, or risk public humiliation if you do.

Tolerance

2008-11-15T13:54:00.005-06:00

Liberals claim to be the tolerant ones. In many situations, they go out of their way to be overly tolerant. They, however, are not tolerant of other political ideas. I have found liberals to be very intolerant of conservative ideas, they think conservatives should not even have a voice in the nation's political discourse. Conservatives get shouted down on college campuses all the time. Congressional liberals are salivating at the thought of the fairness doctrine being brought back, which will kill talk radio. Never mind the fact that they own most of the print and broadcast media, since they cannot seem to get a foothold in talk radio, they want to shut it down. In fact, biased news is more dangerous than talk radio. Talk radio hosts make no bones about their political leanings, whereas news is supposed to be balanced coverage, which it is not. Not disclosing where you are coming from and reporting something as fact is way more damaging than speaking from a certain point of view and disclosing that point of view. Conservative talk show hosts qualify everything they say as being from a conservative standpoint. When CNN reports something, they report it as fact even though they are reporting it with a leftist tint. So, will the fairness doctrine include MSNBC and CNN? Somehow I doubt it. Hardly seems "fair," right? Back to intolerance, if you disagree with a liberal politically, prepare yourself for an angry retort about how you are wrong, with no substantive argument to back it up, or even worse, a self-righteous tirade of insults calling you a racist or some other name. They will not take the time to learn why you think the way you do. Let us never forget the people saying that you are a racist if you do not vote for Obama. If not liking leftist redistribution politics, and not wanting somebody who embodies those views to occupy the White House makes one a racist, than maybe I am one. I would not vote against anyone because of their race or religion, just like I would not vote for somebody for the same reasons. That does not make me a racist, if fact, quite the opposite.

Don't get me wrong here, conservatives are not always the most tolerant people either, but then again, most do not claim to be. I am just pointing out that liberals claim to be so tolerant, but I guess they get to choose what to be tolerant about. Pretty neat deal for them. Most conservatives, though, are at least willing to let somebody else express their views. Most conservatives will not try to shut down free speech. No conservative I ever heard of has tried to shut down liberal talk radio, but the liberals sure try to silence conservative voices in the name of "fairness," just because they are not very good at radio. They think their way is the only way and all opposing voices should be silenced. They believe conservatives should not be allowed a seat at the table.

Here is an interesting article about this very subject:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80938

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

FairTax

2008-11-14T16:57:00.006-06:00

Our current tax system in America is a bloated monstrosity laden down with bureaucracy. Most people would agree that something needs to be done. In my opinion, the plan that would work the best is the FairTax. For those who have not heard about it, it is a plan to eliminate all current federal taxes and replace them with an embedded 23% sales tax on everything we buy. For more information about the details, visit http://www.fairtax.org/. I am not going to get into all the details of the plan, mainly because of time concerns. I just want to hit on a few points about it.

Most politicians are not on board with the FairTax, mainly because it takes a lot of power away from them. In order for it to pass, people are going to have to push their elected officials into it. If you support the FairTax, let your congressman and senators know that you will not be voting for them if they do not support it. The FairTax would do great things for our economy.

Critics of the FairTax generally lie about it to keep people ignorant of the true terms of the bill. They will leave out details, such as the provision that ends all other taxes and simply state that supporters just want a 23% increase on everything you buy. They try to paint a picture that the cost of living will go up by 23%, when this is not true. If you are not paying anymore income or payroll taxes, you will have more money. Also, since corporations will not be paying taxes, their cost of doing business goes down. When their cost of doing business goes down, generally their prices go down or their employee's wages go up. Corporations do not hold wealth, individuals do, and you cannot tax an entity that does not hold wealth.

If the FairTax were to pass, companies that have gone overseas for more favorable tax rates would come back. America would be a mecca for companies looking to cut expenses, and this means more jobs for Americans. More products made in the USA, fewer products made in China.

The FairTax would also force people who do not pay taxes, to pay taxes. Illegal aliens, vacationers from other countries, drug dealers, prostitutes, all of these people would be paying taxes. Over the last year, here in Minnesota, many Canadians have been coming down here to buy stuff, such as cars, because of the strength of Canadian money. These people would all be paying into our tax system. Under the current system, they pay nothing to the federal treasury.

I know what you are saying, poor people cannot afford this. Under the bill, as written, there will be a prebate sent to everyone for the amount of the taxes they would pay on necessities, so poor people still would not be paying any taxes at all.

No tax plan is perfect, but the FairTax is as close as we are going to get. I firmly believe that this is the way to dig ourselves out of the current economic situation and get this great nation back on the right track. The bill faces a lot of hostility with the current political situation, but if the people scream loud enough, and the political hacks in Washington fear for their jobs enough, it could be a possibility.

Liberty Watchdog

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

Random Thoughts...

2008-11-14T12:31:00.013-06:00

Government bailouts. President Bush, and Republicans in general, have taken a hard hit over the current financial situation. When something like this happens, the blame usually falls squarely on the shoulders of the party in power. Let us not forget, the Democrat party has been controlling congress for some time now, and doing quite a lousy job, I might add. Let us also not forget that it takes two parties working together to mess things up this badly. This financial situation can be traced back to Jimmy Carter's reign of terror, that is when the government started pressuring Fannie May and Freddie Mac to make ill-advised sub prime loans. That's right, I said it, the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans in this. Giving the Democrats total control is not going to fix things, it is only going to waste more money. As I recall, both Democrats and Republicans supported this $700 billion bailout, which has done exactly nothing for the economy. Now, they are talking about having additional bailouts. We, as taxpayers, should demand that the government knock off this nonsense and start acting in the interest of the people instead of wasting our money. Let the free market handle the situation. The only thing bailout plans do is get more and more companies lining up at the trough to feed at our expense.

Guns. I have purposely avoided this topic, but I cannot anymore. Obama says he will not take our guns. The other side says he will. They are both off base on this. Obama cannot take our guns, the Constitution forbids it. We will not see all guns made illegal. I do expect to see the assault weapons ban passed again, which is nonsense (assault weapons on the list were shown to focus groups and the ones they said looked "scary" were the ones included in the ban. It had nothing to do with the dangerousness of the weapon itself.). Obama will, however, increase taxes on weapons and ammunition so much that we cannot afford them anymore. That is what liberals do. When they cannot figure out a way around the Constitution, they will tax something to death rather than pass an outright ban. Sure, guns will still be legal, we just will not be able to afford them. We may also lose the right to defend ourselves in our own homes.

Personal responsibility. We will not have to take responsibility for our actions anymore. Obama will be there to bail all of us out when we fail. Oh sure, he is counting on many people to continue to be responsible, otherwise there would be nobody to pay for his entitlement programs. Under Obama, if you do what you are supposed to, work, make your house payments, etc... you will have the fruits of your labor confiscated and given to someone who does nothing to improve themselves or their lot in life. If you make the choice to be irresponsible, the government will be there to make sure you are taken care of, so drink up. What happens when people get sick of paying for entitlements? If you have not read it, I recommend reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It may scare you.

Just for fun. Maybe liberalism really is a mental disorder:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

Liberty Watchdog

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

2008-11-12T11:20:00.003-06:00

A video for you. It is "Election Day" by the Anti Heros:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7faNjpaGL8

I missed this one, but better late than never. Somebody should tell the Obama people, namely his transition team co-chair Valerie Jarrett, that presidents govern, they do not "rule." Dictators rule their people. This is just another example of the arrogance displayed by the Obama team. Obama thinks that he owns you and that we are meerly his subjects who should grovel at his feet. Get ready for a huge expansion in the amount of government control over your lives. Read all about it here:
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1.html?q=blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/11/10/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1

I live in Minnesota and have been watching this play out over the last week. Al Franken and his ilk are trying their best to steal the election. On Wednesday, we woke up to hear that incumbent senator Norm Coleman had a more than 700 vote lead in the senate race. Now, we are hearing that there were votes for Franken "found" since the election. In fact, there were so many votes "found" for Franken that the lead is down to 206. Funny, these "found" votes are only votes for Franken, none for Coleman. If there was no foul play here, shouldn't some of these votes be for Coleman? Especially as close as the race is. My favorite out of all of this is the 32 votes for Franken, none for Coleman, that an election official "found (more likely filled out) in her car. If Franken steals this election, it will be proof that the Minesota election process is broken. Also interesting to note, the secretary of state in Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, was financially supported in his election by a group co-founded by a member of moveon.org and is an ally of ACORN, the group that has fraudulently registered thousands of voters for this election. Here is the article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html

Liberty Watchdog

LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com

He is not even president yet

2008-11-10T17:54:00.005-06:00

and Obama is already creating new offices. The One has named an "office of the president elect." He just cannot wait until he is president. He is already proving to be pretty arrogant and it is not even a week after the election.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_president_elect_/2008/11/10/149643.html

In other news, Obama will force your kids to do community service. Community service is supposed to be volunteer work, but the chosen one will make it mandatory. Oh, sure, he has backed off that language now, but for how long? When can we all expect to be forced to be good citizens? I thought it was our right as Americans to not have to participate in any good-government nonsense.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539

Liberty Watchdog

2008-11-10T09:31:00.002-06:00

I do not have a lot of time this morning, so i will keep this short. There are few troubling things I heard or read over the weekend. The first was from an article that I now cannot find, if I do find it, i will post a link. Someone involved with Obama's transition used the phrase "the common good." Where in the constitution does it state that a government function is to confiscate your money and put it towards the "common good?" Nowhere, that is where. That phrase comes straight from Karl Marx, but Obama is not a socialist, right? He is a leftist, and we will see just how far left. He is incapable of "governing from the center" because he is blinded by the left.

Big surprise, the media is biased toward Obama:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/post_obama_bias_media/2008/11/09/149343.html

Maybe you do not want to unionize at work. Your boss treats you fairly and you do not want to spend your hard earned money on a union that will not do anything for you anyway. A union may not do anything for you except take your money and give it to democrat candidates. Your boss may decide he/she does not need the headache of a union and switch to all temp labor. Under Obama, you will no longer have a private vote on the matter:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4A81L720081109?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

Economy be damned, Obama will spread fairness and raise taxes even in this tough time. He will kill what is left in our weak economy, and the best part, he thinks it will help. If raising taxes on employers (I know he claims taxes will not go up on 95% of small businesses, but that 5% includes most small businesses that have employees) and lessening our dependence on foreign oil without drilling in America will help, he is right, but I think we all know the truth:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081109/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_stimulus

Liberty Watchdog

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Government

2008-11-07T18:25:00.002-06:00

We are about to enter an unprecedented and dangerous time in our great republic. For the first time, we have elected a president who views taxation as a way to spread wealth and “fairness,” not as a means to fund the necessary functions of government such as protecting our borders, infrastructure, enforcement of contracts, etc (not that taxes have been funding only necessary government functions for some time, but that is a topic for another day)… The voters have said no to personal liberty and yes to the nanny state. People have figured out that they can use the ballot box to plunder what rightfully belongs to others (remember the freeloader who thinks Obama is going to pay her mortgage and pay for her gas?). Not only have the people figured this out, the leftist politicians are now blatantly pandering to that notion. When you take money from achievers and turn it over to non-achievers, it tends to lessen the desire to better oneself.

Obama has done a couple of things successfully during this marathon election. He has managed to change the definition of tax cut to mean a handout for people who are not paying any taxes. He has also managed to get most people on board with the notion that it is a good idea for fewer people to pay taxes. This is an effective scheme because the fewer people there are paying taxes, the less people there are that will vote against him and other big government types when they raise taxes to create new unnecessary social programs. A third thing he managed to do, with the help of many over the last several years, is get people believing that health care is a right, not a responsibility. Your healthcare is your responsibility and nobody else’s.

Part of the problem here was the lack of any credible opposition candidate. McCain was not a particularly exciting candidate. He is not a small government conservative; he is more a liberal in conservative’s clothing. Obama just so happens to be a silver-tongued demagogue that claims that government can be everything to everyone and he is slick enough to make a majority of voters believe it, and was able to capitalize on that ignorance. Bob Barr is a true small government conservative, but he made some errors. First, he ran as a Libertarian. As we all know, just like any other third party candidate, Libertarians have very little chance of getting elected. Even though the lesser of two evils is still evil, we are stuck with the Republican and Democrat parties, at least for now. Second, he split the conservative vote, albeit not by enough to change the outcome of the election. He would have been a good choice, had he been a credible candidate.

The Republican party needs to lick its wounds, regroup and figure out where they are going, and figure out how to rebuild conservatism. They have lost the trust of their base because they have been spending money like drunken Democrats in Washington. They will not be able to continue to be the party of “less big government” that they have become. The Democrats may hang themselves, and a revamped conservative movement needs to be there to capitalize before we get pushed past the tipping point and tumble into the abyss of socialism. If we are to save this great nation, a new conservative movement will need to emerge and actually stick to the principles of protecting liberty and fiscal responsibility. The Democrat party is the party that offers a free lunch. There is no room in this country for two major political parties that do that, so the Republicans need to stop moving in that direction. The Democrats try to be all things to all people, and we need a check on that because the government cannot be all things to all people. Our nation simply cannot survive an ideology like that, as there are too many parasites that will suck the treasury dry.

If we do not act quickly, the liberals will run roughshod over our rights. Over the next two to four years we will see our economic freedoms further erode. I fear we may already be past the tipping point and the damage will be irreversible. We need a strong voice for individual liberty. If one does not step forward, and soon, our days as a nation may be numbered.

Liberty Watchdog