I have finally got the new site ready for public viewing. While there will probably be a few format changes over the next few months as I tweek a few different things, all new content will be posted to the newly created Donkey-Riding Commies Corral. Please visit the new site and pass the link on to anyone who you think might be interested, amused, or infuriated by what’s there. Here’s the link, please use it early and often and thanks for reading.

www.donkeyridingcommies.com

Thanks,

Ron

I wrote a long time ago that the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge was moving to a new home. In the same post, I mentioned my ignorance of site building. Well, it’s taken longer than I expected to find a workable format but it’s almost here. By the end of this week, I hope to have the new site running and functional. Eventually, everything here will be migrated over. By Friday, at the latest, I’ll post the new web address and hopefully see all of the previous readers and some new faces there. Thanks again for reading.

Update: It’s taken almost two days longer than I expected to get the hosting account set up for the new site. I haven’t got a chance to even login to start setting up the new format because there’s no access yet. My promise of having it up-and-running by today or Thursday will have to be moved back another day or two. Sorry but I’ve got some ideas for the new site that I’m really excited about. I’ll have the link up as soon as I have enough content to make it interesting. Thanks.

This is the InsideSTL.com article from 4/27/09. Please visit www.insidestl.com and participate in the debate raging in the comments section each week. As always, thank you to InsideSTL.com for publishing my articles every Monday.

Since hinting that Attorney General Eric Holder would be unleashed on the previous administration over allegations of torture, it’s been confirmed that the CIA briefed members of both parties in Congress over 30 times about their “enhanced interrogation” programs. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has denied these reports as she calls for investigations while claiming, “We were not – I repeat – were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” Despite her insistence to the contrary, the Washington Post ran an article in 2007 which placed Pelosi, who was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, in a 2002 secret CIA briefing where four members of Congress were briefed in explicit detail about interrogation methods to be used on terrorist suspects and given a virtual tour of detention centers. The article stated that no one in attendance voiced opposition to the program and “at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder.” Either Pelosi or the Post is lying, both can’t be correct. While current pressing issues are placed aside so Democrats can pursue political vengeance, one question is rarely asked; did the United States torture detainees in the “Overseas Contingency Operation,” formerly known as the “War on Terror?” Hardly anyone seems concerned with the details of the programs that could cost several former government officials their freedom.

Make no mistake, the enhanced interrogation methods employed by our intelligence community were not pleasant by any means. Waterboarding is a particularly horrifying experience which is why it was so effective. While being placed on their back, detainees would have their backs placed in water with their feet at a higher elevation than their head. The interrogators placed a cloth over the subject’s face and then would pour water onto the cloth over their airways, making it very difficult or impossible to breathe. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the blood and an immediate physiological reflex causing a panicked feeling of certain death by drowning. Water would be poured from a height of one to two feet for no longer than 40 seconds at a time. Afterwards, the cloth was removed and the detainee would breathe unimpeded for three to four minutes. No detainee could be under the wet cloth for more than 12 minutes a day for a total of five days in the 30-day period for which it was approved. This method was used on three high-value detainees and was always subject to these restrictions which Congress was briefed about. Since the detainee’s lungs were elevated above their head, there was no danger of breathing water into their lungs and there was no risk of death or long-term physical harm. It would definitely be a horrifying experience to endure. However, is it actually torture?

In an internal memo, Dennis Blair, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, wrote that it was easy to condemn the decisions made by the Bush administration “on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009.” His memo also stated, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking the country.” Blair’s comment was also echoed by Clinton-appointed CIA director, George Tenet who stated that he knew that the harsh interrogations saved lives. He was quoted as saying, “I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” Four previous CIA directors along with Obama’s own appointee, Leon Panetta, advised against the release of the interrogation memos. The actions of the administration are purely based on political bloodlust and the nation will be left more vulnerable while Democrats seek to placate their far-left base.

In an interview with Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the Obama administration needs to release the internal intelligence memos which show the program’s success in order for the American people to be fully informed. When asked about Cheney’s request during a House subcommittee hearing, in true “truth-seeking” spirit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded, “It won’t surprise you that I don’t consider him a particularly reliable source.” (To be fair, many independent investigators have said the same thing about her.) Later, in a press conference, B. Hussein Obama explained that he had already reviewed the memos Cheney requested and determined that there was nothing of public interest in them. Something seems a tad unjust when the accuser is also the gatekeeper of any evidence released to support or negate their own claims. Perhaps it slightly warps the basic foundation of American criminal law that places the burden of proof on the state? Not to mention a slight thumbing-of-the-nose at the assumption of innocence?

While attention and resources have been diverted to this witch hunt, jobless claims continue to increase beyond expectations, Pakistan is being threatened by the Taliban, and the Secretary of Home Land Security publically stated that illegal immigration “is not a crime per se.” There are much more pressing issues than continuing the quest for the “Liberal Holy Grail” of seeing Bush and Cheney paraded before the nation in show trials. When the current Speaker of the House can’t seem to reconcile her version of events with the public record, it might be advisable to at least let her figure out her story before issuing the subpoenas. It would be very embarrassing to collect a prominent Democrat leader in the investigations.

Along with the name of the conflict, the Obama administration has changed the methods the nation will use to keep a vigil for terrorist activities, or as they are now called by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “man-caused” disasters. This is their prerogative. However, no one possesses the ability to see into the future. If the nation does end up falling victim to another attack (God forbid) the Obama administration could face their own precedent of “truth commissions” from the next administration about the decision to declassify very top secret information on an effective intelligence-gathering program. This is the danger of even entertaining this vendetta. It could set in motion a perpetual routine of post-election criminalization of hard decisions which are ultimately made in times when decisive leadership is needed most.

After taking power in 2006, Congress initiated over 600 investigations into alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration. In fact, during this timeframe, the only body of government with approval ratings that were lower than George W. Bush’s was the Democrat-controlled Congress which saw its ratings fall into the single-digits. As many prominent Democrats talk about ending the “failed policies of the Bush administration,” it appears that they are continuing their own failed policies while neglecting present serious issues which still need to be adequately addressed. Could Obama have been on to something when he originally said it was time to move on?

This article was originally published on www.InsideSTL.com on April 20th. My new articles are published every Monday on InsideSTL. I place them here after they are no longer featured on the site each Wednesday. Please take the time to visit the site, read the articles, and participate in the debate which takes place in the comments section. As always, I want to thank InsideSTL for giving me the weekly forum.

The common storyline concerning political discourse says that racism, hatred, and greed fuel the actions and beliefs exclusively of those on the right. Liberal Democrats often take credit for the civil rights movement despite the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was actually a Republican and Democrat John F. Kennedy ordered phone taps of the civil rights icon. Most of the votes in Congress against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were cast by Democrats. Southern segregation was a Democrat platform during this period. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. Today’s liberals, or progressives, claim that racist Democrats became fed up with their own party for supporting the Civil Rights Act and jumped ship to join the Republican Party. Basically by their logic, racists were furious with the party who offered the most opposition to the Civil Rights Act, causing them to become members of the party that offered the most consistent support. Don’t try too hard to understand the logic because it’ll cause heads to explode. Now, the racist accusations are flying again and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has actually turned this progressive myth into policy through their recently released report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Elsewhere, progressives are also using the tired storyline to explain last week’s nationwide tea parties. All of this is a concerted effort to marginalize Obama’s critics through painting any criticism as the product of bigotry and ignorance.

Last week, the DHS under the supervision of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, released a report claiming that the current economic downturn along with the election of the first black president poses a threat of fueling violence from “rightwing extremists” who are defined as not only hate groups but also “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” Anyone who considers the 10^th Amendment still applicable to American politics is apparently a threat according to Obama’s DHS. DHS admits at the beginning of the report that they have “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” The hypothetical threats referred include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” The report also singles out veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan and anyone who is pro-Second Amendment, people supporting third party candidates, and/or opposes expansion of federal government programs. Essentially, anyone who disagrees with the Obama agenda is being painted as the next Timothy McVeigh. It is interesting though, that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn aren’t worried about increased monitoring.

This report differs greatly from the January DHS report focusing on the threat of cyber-attacks from leftwing extremists. In this report, leftwing extremism is defined as, “groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements…” The report specifically mentioned such leftwing terrorist organizations as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and had concrete evidence requiring elevated threat levels from previous actions of the groups. Nowhere in the leftwing report did it caution that certain people should be watched because their political beliefs make them more susceptible to being recruited by leftwing extremist groups. To equal the broad warning of the rightwing extremist report, the DHS would essentially have to say pet owners should be watched because they are more susceptible of being recruited by the ALF to blow up laboratories. Democrat Representative, and chair of the House committee overseeing DHS, Bernie Thompson confirmed this when writing to Napolitano, “This report appears to have blurred the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not.” 

When discussing the reasons behind the recent nationwide tea parties, actress Janeane Garofalo read straight from the progressive script when she told MSNBC’s Keith Olberman, “It’s about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.” She then went on to claim that Fox News, the only network to give real coverage of the protests, focuses on the “Klan demographic.” What is unsettling is that the intellectually vacant and perpetually single Garofalo wasn’t alone in her assessment. During the weeks leading up to the tea parties, MSNBC anchors Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow couldn’t stop laughing at their “cleverness” as they referred to “teabaggers.” Illinois Representative, Democrat Jan Schakowsky told TheHill.com, “It’s despicable that rightwing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with such a shameful political stunt.” Between asking combative questions and interrupting their answers in order to insert official Obama talking points, CNN “reporter” Susan Roesgen lamented from the Chicago tea party that she had not seen one African American in the entire crowd. It’s easy to avoid an honest debate if you successfully paint your opponent as a bigot, undeserving and incapable of productive conversation.

B. Hussein Obama was probably more sincere than he had ever been when he explained, “It’s not that I want to punish your success.  I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too.  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The tax day tea party protests represented the alienation felt by many in this nation. If Obama gets his way, a majority of the population will consume most of the government entitlement spending but pay no taxes. This will create a voting majority able to extract whatever they want from the taxpaying minority. This is tyranny, plain and simple. While many may support this idea out of self interest in light of their present socioeconomic class, no one with any higher aspirations should ever condone this type of confiscatory despotism.

Abraham Lincoln, who many of Obama’s supporters constantly compare him to, once said, “If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution.” The revolution Lincoln is referring to is brewing and it will manifest as the regular, nonviolent coup provided for in the Constitution. It will take place in November of 2010 when voters head back to the polls. This is when every protester who has seen their concerns written off as acts of ignorance and racism will be able to enact change that, not only they can believe in but also believes in and respects them as well. All without any actions requiring DHS monitoring.

This article appeared on www.insidestl.com on April 13. Please visit www.insidestl.com and support their site. I would also like to thank them again for giving me a weekly forum.

In case any low-income kids in Washington DC were starting to take the “hope” message too seriously, the Obama administration is working to lower their expectations. The White House just hosted its annual Easter Egg Roll and, thanks to Obama, this year, low-income families had the lowest chances of participating in the event’s 195-year history. During the election, candidate Obama acknowledged that poor families don’t have equal online access. He said, “Every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m President.” Too bad he didn’t make good on this promise before Easter. Since the event started in 1814, Easter Egg Roll participants had to wait in line to secure their free tickets. No amount of political clout would allow anyone to circumvent standing in line. There were absolutely no exceptions. B. Hussein Obama decided to do away with the line this year and, instead, chose to distribute the tickets online. That’s right. He decided to use the internet, even though he campaigned on the issue of disproportionate online access for low-income families. As if this didn’t restrict certain socioeconomic classes’ access enough, as expected, scalpers got in on the action and pushed tickets even further out of reach for low-income children. The Washington Post reported that tickets were on Craigslist for as much as $50 apiece and The Politico said that “six tickets to the Easter Egg Roll went for $979.99 on eBay.” (With all of the shady campaign financing exposed during the election, it might be advisable to check out exactly who is collecting the money from the online sales.) However, the Easter Egg Roll snub is minor compared to the role Obama’s Department of Education (DOE) played in helping to kill the program that gives low-income Washington DC schoolchildren the chance to attend the same private schools that the President and many other Washington officials choose for their own children.

Since 2004, DC has run the Opportunity Scholarship Program which annually gives 1,714 students from low-income families earning less than $23,000 per year up to $7,500 for private school tuition. Ninety-nine percent of students receiving vouchers are minorities (90% black and 9% Hispanic.) The vouchers are distributed through a lottery system and the city receives an average of four applications for each available voucher.

Without the vouchers, these students’ only option is the dismal DC Public School System where about 69% of 4^th graders read below basic skill levels, students consistently rank last nationally in both ACT and SAT scores, and approximately 42% of students end up dropping out. All of this poor performance comes despite the fact that DC spends approximately $15,000 for each student’s education which is 50% more than the national average and double the cost of a single voucher. The problems plaguing these public schools aren’t from a lack of funding. Instead, there is something fundamentally wrong which will require more than just tax dollars to resolve. Until a solution is found, no one can ethically deny any children an adequate education merely because their parents cannot afford to move to a better school district or pay private school tuition.  

Teachers’ unions oppose voucher programs which assist parents in finding alternatives to failing public schools. One of their main arguments claims that voucher programs only siphon precious tax dollars away from public schools. However, as discussed, DC’s public schools’ problems run much deeper than mere finances.

Unfortunately for low-income students, teachers’ unions donated $55,794,440 to politicians from 1990 to 2008, 96% of which went to Democrat politicians. This makes it more than a coincidence that Democrats usually line up on the same side of issues as the nation’s largest teachers’ unions. Senate Democrats followed this pattern when voting down the Republican proposal last March which would have guaranteed funding for the voucher program past the 2009 – 2010 school year.

During the election, Obama told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that even though he was skeptical of vouchers, he wouldn’t allow his preconceived opinions to prevent him from supporting them if he saw proof that they were successful. Democrat Senator, Dick Durbin echoed Obama’s sentiment claiming that he wouldn’t support continued funding of the program without proof of effectiveness. This sounds reasonable, however, on April 3, Obama’s DOE released a Congress-mandated, peer-reviewed report on the voucher program. The evaluation compared test scores of students who received vouchers to those who entered the lottery but didn’t receive a voucher. It found that voucher recipients were reading 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students and student subgroups showed 1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth. Yet, even though Obama and Democrats claimed such information would be relevant to their decision, the report wasn’t released by the Administration until after the Senate Democrats had sealed the voucher program’s doomed fate. The Wall Street Journal reported that despite the fact that the DOE review was actually completed last fall, several months before the Senate’s mid-March vote, the report wasn’t released until April. The article also said, “We do know the Administration prohibited anyone involved with the evaluation from discussing it publically.” The DOE deliberately sat on this information until after the Senate finished debating and voting on the program.

If anyone can understand the value of a good education, it would be both B. Hussein and Michelle Obama. The President received a scholarship at age 10 which, combined with the hard work and sacrifice of his grandparents, allowed him to attend one of the most prestigious private schools in Hawaii. He has explained, “There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support, and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper.”  Michelle attended a very elite magnet high school with rigorous, highly competitive admission testing requirements in Chicago. Both he and Michelle received Ivy-League educations which led to degrees from Harvard Law School for them both. Being good parents, upon moving to DC, the Obama’s decided to enroll their own daughters in private schools instead of the troubled public schools. How can Obama allow his administration to play any part in denying low-income DC children access to the same types of institutions which he credits for his success?

Deroy Murdock of Human Events mentioned the famous quote from Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president which said, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.” In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, B. Hussein Obama wrote simply, “I owe those unions.” It seems that 1,714 disadvantaged DC school children just got a real world lesson about collective bargaining and political clout. Too bad they didn’t have anyone representing their interests sitting at the table.

I know, it’s been a long time without hearing from me. Well, I’ve really only been writing weekly columns on www.insidestl.com. In case anyone’s interested, my articles come out each Monday, if you get the time please check out www.insidestl.com, they’re good people for letting me spout off each week. I’m going to put some of my more favorite weekly pieces on the blog in an attempt to catch everyone up with some newer content and will return to posting more regularly. Sorry for being gone for so long and thanks to anyone who has stumbled upon this blog and taken the time to read a little. I’m still working on getting a new site up-and-running and I’ll have it ready in the next two weeks. Thanks again for support…

“I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making under $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes.” These were Obama’s words from a campaign speech last September. Throughout the election, Obama’s supporters constantly pressed for voters to elect their man if for no other reason than self interest because Obama’s tax plan was guaranteed to put more money into everyone’s pockets. However, last Wednesday, the largest tobacco tax increase in history went into effect raising the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes by almost $0.62 a pack. The tax increase is to fund massive expansion of the SCHIP program which will add over 4 million “children,” many well over the age of 20, to government healthcare. A look at the SCHIP details shows how misleading the debate truly was on this legislation and only reinforces the need for harsher scrutiny before Obama implements his cap-and-trade program which would represent a new significant tax on all American families, regardless of income levels. It’s already been shown that Obama’s campaign promise didn’t apply to anyone who smokes, which is a habit that very disproportionately affects those in lower income levels. The cap-and-trade program, as admitted by Obama himself, will represent new sweeping taxes on every item purchased by all Americans along with any energy they use either in their homes or at the gas pumps for their cars. Even if you don’t smoke, you may want to take a quick look at the recent tax increase because the current budget in front of Congress will include a much higher tax increase targeted at any American family that consumes any form of energy. These definitely don’t align with Obama’s constant promises of not raising “any of your taxes.”

The main problem with the increased tobacco tax in order to fund the SCHIP expansion is the idea that a tax which is meant to discourage people from smoking cannot reasonably be counted on for consistent revenues to fund entitlement programs. What if the tobacco taxes meet their stated goals of lowering the number of smokers? What then becomes the default revenue source for the expanded government healthcare coverage? Punitive tobacco taxes have become socially acceptable sources for government revenue because they are painted as accomplishing two impressive stated goals. The first is to provide incentives for more people to quit smoking. Second, the money raised is going to the noble cause of providing insurance for children not currently covered by government programs nor private policies. Both of these goals have noble intentions. However, the success of the SCHIP funding depends on the failure of the tobacco taxes to accomplish their objectives. Perhaps, even worse is that smoking is a habit which very disproportionately effects those earning lower incomes. An Associated Press article stated that a Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year found that 34% of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers and the rate consistently declined as incomes rose. At the $90,000 a year income level, only about 13% of respondents were smokers. Therefore, the brunt of these tax increases will be borne by those making far less than the $250,000 the level of income which Obama promised last September wouldn’t see tax increases of any kind. Apparently, he was speaking exclusively to nonsmokers.

This brings about the very important question about future funding for the expanded SCHIP program. If the tobacco tax accomplishes its goal of drastically reducing smoking, who will end up paying for expansion of entitlements? The program is based on conflicting goals. Are smokers really expected to quit smoking? Perhaps, they are just expected to continue smoking and heed Joe Biden’s advice during the election that it’s patriotic to pay higher taxes. The answer is obvious that future funding for the SCHIP program will become embedded into every taxpayer’s April 15^th bill just as all other government entitlement programs. For now, the idea that the social outcast smokers will bear all of the increased costs seems to be enough to keep most voter concerns limited. Once tobacco revenues are insufficient, what are the next products or groups of citizens who will be targeted with higher taxes to pick up the slack brought on by smokers uncommitted to the cause of funding children’s insurance?

A similar tax proposal that will disproportionately affect those earning below the magic $250,000 level is also getting closer and closer to being reality as Congress reviews Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget. One of Obama’s main revenue streams in his budget comes from the establishment of a market-based cap-and-trade program which essentially taxes carbon emissions. Very few people seemed interested that Obama once sat on the board of the Chicago-based firm which would provide the national trading platform which would trade the lucrative tax credits. Needless to say, this firm stands to redefine obscene profits from running the government-mandated trading markets for carbon credits. Americans should be very concerned about the ramifications of this policy. As noted in a previous article, an interview which was conveniently covered-up by The San Francisco Chronicle before the election quoted Obama explaining that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Analysts of the president’s proposal claim that the average families’ energy bills could easily rise by more than $1,000 a year. Unfortunately, these increases don’t adhere to the cut-off for families below the top 5% of wage earners. These rate increases would affect everyone who uses any energy to run their home or drive their car. This means everyone will see their costs rise. On top of the increased energy bills, the cap-and-trade program would raise the prices of anything produced and sold in US markets because companies would have to pass along the cost for increased carbon taxes to consumers through higher prices.

So it seems that Obama’s campaign promise about no tax increases was speaking to a much smaller audience than originally reported. No one making under $250,000 a year will see any of their taxes increase as long as they don’t smoke, use energy, or purchase anything.

For all of you reading the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge, thank you for the support. For the next few weeks, there will not be any new updates besides the posting of my Tuesday articles for InsideSTL.com to the site. The reason is, work is now underway on a new site. The Anti-Obamassiah Refuge will become part of a much larger project. As soon as I get the site somewhat functional, I’ll put the link to it here. Taking that I’m building a website for the first time, hopefully, I can have everything running in the next couple of weeks but I’ll post the progress and web address as everything is starting to come together.

Rest assured, Obama is not getting a free ride. I’m not shutting up to “just give him a shot” or anything else just as ridiculous. From the signs we’ve already been getting on how the country is going to be governed, we’re going to need much more space than we have here to fully address all of the issues. Thanks for reading and please check back to read the weekly articles and to get updates on the progress.

In Obama’s press conference today, he took a shot at a true national treasure which was entirely uncalled for, unprovoked, and in very bad taste. In response to a question about whether Obama has consulted with any living presidents, he worked this line into his answer, “In terms of speaking to former presidents, I’ve spoken to all of them that are living. Obviously, President Clinton - I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances.”

Obama’s promises to foster a nonpartisan environment is a farce. His true vision of bipartisanship, apparently, includes insulting the widow of one of the most popular presidents in American history who has herself had recent health problems. Well, Mr. Obama, you had better pray that we can find another Ronald Reagan in four years because that is the level of leadership we will need to undo the damage you will do to America both at home and abroad.

I honestly tried to give Obama a chance but picking on Nancy Reagan is completely out-of-bounds. Especially since the claims that she was some wacko spiritualist are completely wrong and blown out of proportion. Funny how Democrats label an aging widow as a nutcase because she saw a fortune teller once, yet they throw a fit when it is mentioned that Bill Clinton is an alleged-rapist despite the constant, valid charges that he was. Speaking of Democrats, seances, and Clintons, it was Hillary Clinton who claimed to channel Eleanor Roosevelt during times of stress. To Democrats, the idea of being bipartisan means that they will reach across the aisle to Republicans that agree with them. Republican dissent is labeled as partisan, Democrat dissent is considered proof of Republicans’ partisanship.

Below is a link to the full video of his interview today. Notice how he kept placing the blame for any further economic messes by pointing out that he isn’t president yet and he can’t make policies yet. We are in for a long four years, at least blogs like this will have plenty of material, as long as Obama and his rabid Democrat lapdogs don’t decide to start classifying dissenting content as hate speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3180767&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

As I do every week, I want to thank Tim McKernan, Justin Boyd, and everyone else at InsideSTL.com for giving me a weekly forum on their site. This article appeared on InsideSTL.com on November 4. For the time being, InsideSTL.com plans on continuing their STL Politics section. Therefore, if you enjoy reading my articles on the site, please let them know. Also, please take time to read the other great articles you can find there and support their advertisers. (www.insidestl.com) While this article may seem out-of-date, it is actually more important than ever. Now that Obama is in office, we need to do everything we can to force him to keep his bipartisan promises. His selection of Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid’s press conference stating that they are looking to strip Joe Leiberman of his committee chair position for supporting John McCain is not giving encouragement to those of us who are waiting to see how the Obama administration will govern.

The Democrat Party has come a long way since John F. Kennedy’s timeless quote of, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Barack Obama has mesmerized a whole section of the voting public with tales of creating a utopia if they give him their vote. Last Friday at an Obama rally, Peggy Joseph told reporters, “I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to work on puttin’ gas in my car. I won’t have to work at payin’ my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me.” This line of thinking seems to explain most Obama supporters. Plenty have claimed that it would be stupid for voters not to support Obama out of pure self-interest. The problem is that Obama’s proposals won’t bring about this utopia. In fact, just his tax and energy proposals alone will only pose an increased burden on American households who are already stressed due to the impending recession.
Obama’s tax cuts, mainly benefiting those currently not paying taxes, are projected to cost the US federal government $900 billion in the first year and increase the deficit by $3.3 trillion over ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center. His current tax increase proposals will not even cover a fraction of what his new spending will cost. This is probably why no one can pin down the exact income level which will be the cutoff for tax increases. Last week, the figure started at $250,000, then Joe Biden moved it to $150,000, Obama put it at $200,000 during his infomercial, and the day after, Obama-surrogate, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson moved the number to families making over $120,000. It moves so much because Obama’s promised tax cuts are as likely to happen as Bill Clinton’s promises were during his first campaign. While campaigning in 1992, Bill Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2%, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” (Sound familiar?) Despite the campaign rhetoric, Bill Clinton implemented some of the largest tax increases in history, for all income brackets, after taking office in 1993. Despite claims that the economy roared during both of Clinton’s terms, the majority of growth didn’t occur until after the 1997 tax cuts which were forced through by the Republican-led Congress. The main cut that attributed to the explosive boom in technology companies was the reduction in the capital gains tax. This made investments in small startup companies much more attractive for venture capital firms and other investors. Further proof of the effectiveness of cutting capital gains tax rates is that revenues from capital gains taxes doubled after 2003 when President Bush substantially cut them. When Bush took office in 2001, the country had already entered a recession which was only deepened by the attacks on 9/11. He got the economy growing again through the tax cuts Obama now decries.
On the energy front, Obama’s plans also fall short. The main feature of Obama’s energy proposal is his promise to invest $15 billion a year for the next 10 years for the development of alternative fuels. In the interim, he refuses to allow oil companies to drill in the most oil-rich parts of the country to offer relief for Americans at the gas pumps. Drilling would provide results well before the development of viable alternative energy solutions. Also, just the announcement of increased drilling would have an immediate negative effect on prices in the futures markets which would be realized at the gas pumps.
In a recently released January 17, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama stated, “What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there…So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” He even goes further by saying, “…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” At a time when Americans are experiencing increased energy prices and the economy is grinding to a halt, Obama plans to bankrupt the coal industry, which employs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American workers. He also plainly states he will cause home energy prices to “skyrocket.” Currently, coal plants generate 49% of the nation’s power. The impact on the coal industry will bring drastic increases in unemployment and the “skyrocketing” energy prices would severely cut into every American household’s budget. John McCain’s cap and trade system is much less aggressive by giving companies time to cut their emissions before charging them. Obama also opposes developing nuclear power plants which could create over a million new jobs and provide clean energy with existing technology which doesn’t depend on foreign oil.
Obama’s supporters urge others to vote for Obama out of self-interest. They claim he is going to give massive tax cuts, mortgage relief, and create new jobs. Democrats have based two presidential elections around distrust of a president they claim has infringed on the peoples’ rights. Now they are fully behind a man who has promised to grow government larger than the country has ever seen. Obama hasn’t earned the trust of those following him. He has refused to explain his constantly changing policies, he refuses to explain his questionable history, he has cut off members of the media who have asked him tough questions, and he has even run a smear campaign on a common citizen who asked a tax policy question after Obama approached him in his own driveway. Before voting, take pause and realize that a government large enough to give people everything can also take it away. Growing government is easy, reigning it back in is damn near impossible. Please remember this when voting.

In case any of you are wondering about the fate of the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge, I just want to assure everyone that we will still be here pursuing the same purpose and mission as when we were established.

Already, Obama is choosing some of the most partisan, liberal members for his cabinet and Harry Reid is out discussing the strategy to throw Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat caucus to punish him for betraying Obama. This doesn’t seem to be shaping up to be the bipartisan utopia Obama and Biden promised in the wake of their election victory. Instead, it looks like we as a nation are about to be led further to the left than ever before. I pray that God keeps a watch over the nation and keeps us from having to suffer for the actions of leadership that is more focused on punishing their detractors than keeping the nation safe and prosperous.