Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Speech at the Maryland Tax Day Tea Party

Friday, April 16th, 2010

I recently spoke at the 2010 Maryland Tax Day Tea Party in Stevensville. Here are the links and the text of the speech:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Text of Speech:

You know, theres a Chinese proverb that says that there are three curses, each one worse than the previous. The first of these curses is: “May you live in interesting times.” Well, the times we live in are certainly interesting.

We stand here today at a transformative moment in American history at the front lines of what can only be called a revolution in thought. We are here today, like hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans in cities all across the country to exercise our basic right as citizens, as a free people in a democratic republic. We stand here today, peaceably assembled, petitioning our government for redress of our grievances. And we are here to tell our government one thing: STOP.

We stand here today with a crisis of creativity in our country. We look around and see problem after problem: Poverty. Millions unable to get health care. People out of work. Its easy for all of us, no matter what our political views may be, to agree on what the problems are.

But though we all see these problems, for too long, we have seen just one solution let the government do it. Its their job. Its their responsibility.

Well, the second Chinese curse is this: May you come to the attention of those in authority.

Well, let me tell you, weve definitely been getting attention from those in power.

We are citizens today living under a government that doesn’t represent us its people. And we have made the decision, together, that we can no longer refuse to take action. And for that, we are drawing much attention.

But when I say people, I should be clear, because I don’t just mean us here today, or our friends across the country. I mean all Americans, regardless of whether or not theyre a part of the tea party movement. For years, no matter the Administration, no matter which party controlled Congress, no matter who we elected, none of us has been represented by our government.

And why should anyone care? Why should anyone have bothered to pay attention to what we wanted? Why pay attention when we largely refused to take action when we continued to let elected officials get away with whatever they wanted? We have congressional approval ratings in the teens and twenties, and yet re-election rates are in the 90s, and thats unacceptable.

You know, thirty-two years ago, something remarkable happened in the state of California. In 1978, Californians stood up passed Proposition 13 overwhelmingly a law hated so strongly by the political class, because it of all things made it more difficult for politicians to raise taxes.

But thats not why Prop 13 was important. No, it was important for what it started for what it signified. 43 states followed by passing some form of a tax limitation. In the late 70s, Americans realized that theyd been taxed too much for too long, and that it was time to do something about it.

But today the problem we face the problem that is drawing us attention is not our dislike of taxes. It is our solemn and firm rejection of completely out-of-control spending by politicians.

You know, to go off on a tangent for a second, Rodney Dangerfield once had a great line in Back to School that said, Youve always got to look out for #1, because if you dont, youll end up stepping in #2.

Well, pardon the analogy, but for too long, our elected officials have not been looking out for us for the citizens who should be #1. And worst of all, they havent just mistakenly stepped in some #2 theyve thrown us into a $16 trillion dollar pile of it.

And that brings me to the third Chinese curse: May you find what you are looking for.

For too long, those who wanted big runaway government have gotten what they wanted.

We have a Democratically-controlled Congress this year that passed a new trillion dollar health care entitlement, all the while ignoring overwhelming public opposition.

But why should we be shocked when just 7 years ago, a Republican-controlled Congress passed a new half-trillion prescription drug plan that nobody wanted?

We have a Congress today that raises the federal debt ceiling whenever it bumps up against that ceiling.

But why should we be taken aback considering that Republicans raised that ceiling again and again when it was politically convenient to do so?

Its pretty sad when those in Congress dont even know what the word ceiling means, isnt it?

We have President Obama borrowing, printing and spending more than any president in history, in the supposed name of job creation.

But why should we be surprised when his Republican predecessor did the exact same thing?

We have a president now who wastes trillions of dollars overseas in multiple endless wars, sacrificing American lives, destroying our civil liberties at home, and shredding our Constitution into millions of tiny bits.

But why should we be surprised to see him merely continuing and expanding the policies initiated by George Bush?

And then, of course, we have the worst example of all an example of government so out of control an example so galling that it deserves special scorn, all its own.

And this time Im talking about the bailouts.

A tag-team effort, foisted upon us by our last two presidents, a scheme that took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, ignored the public outcry of those taxpayers, and then handed that money to the well-connected friends of unelected treasury secretaries and government officials, so that Wall Street millionaire bankers could keep making campaign contributions to both parties.

The truth is, we only really have one party with two competing factions: the spend money over here party, and the spend money over there party.

But what we realize today is that low taxes are not enough. Low taxes mean nothing if we don’t reduce spending as well. And fortunately for our future generations, more and more Americans are realizing this as well.

Theyre realizing that the reckless spending of taxpayer money our money is just the beginning. Our government hasnt just been eroding away our pocketbooks, but also the basic liberties that have for so long characterized our free society.

But we cannot we must not — let lawmakers keep grabbing this power the power to solve problems that they themselves created.

This may come as a surprise to some in Washington, but you know, you cant run massive government programs like Medicare and Medicaid and the FDA and the medical boards, and many, many others and then say the free market doesn’t work in health care, so we’ll run it, instead.

You can’t put up roadblocks to interstate competition between insurance companies and then say we need a government option because insurers don’t have enough competition.

You can’t have the Fed and the Treasury and the SEC and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FDIC and then say we need to regulate financial instruments because the free market is failing.

No. We live in a world where the easiest way for a federal agency to get more funding is to fail at what it does, and the easiest way for Congress and the President to grab more power is to create a problem. This has got to stop, and its got to stop now.

Because if it doesnt stop, then as the Chinese curse suggests, well find what were looking for.

So the next time theres a Democrat who wants to spend money on a new health insurance bureaucracy, or a Republican who wants to spend on a new prescription drug entitlement, or a Democrat who wants to spend money on a supposed peace-keeping mission in Somalia, or a Republican who wants to spend money on war in Iraq no matter what it is, and no matter how much you think it might be a good idea you, me, all of us need to ask the question: Where is this money coming from?

Do I want to be taxed more to pay for this? Do I want the national debt to explode from more borrowing to pay for this? Do I want the Treasury and Federal Reserve to print more money to pay for this?

Or do I want to live my life, with as small a government as possible a government that doesnt threaten to bankrupt our finances or crush our currency. A government that doesnt have the power to run roughshod over the freedoms that we value so much.

We cannot let these bad policies be ignored anymore. Every time we let the government reach into yet another part of our lives, there’s only less freedom left for us.

So do not let public debate be drowned out by those who shout obstructionist! every time someone opposes your ideas. Those of us opposed to bad laws arent obstructionists. We are citizens, with ideas we care passionately about.

And we demand to be free and responsible for ourselves. We don’t want handouts; we don’t want special advantages, whether those are farm subsidies or social safety nets.

We want a government that acts in accordance with the people, not in defiance of them. A government that does not trod about on our basic liberties, the economy, or our livelihood.

We must make runaway government spending a political curse on those who support it, before it becomes a curse on us financially. We must make our will known; we must ensure that our demand for a government of the people, by the people, for the people remains forever a reality and not just an idea.

Sotomayor & The Police

Sunday, May 31st, 2009

Given that Sotomayor was nominated by Barack Obama, I never had high hopes that she’d be good on federalism, guns, economic regulation, labor issues, property rights or the rest of the issues that I agree with the Court “conservatives” on. I did, however, hope that she’d be at least good on the things that “liberals” are supposed to be good on: civil liberties, torture, and police abuse.

This article doesn’t give me much hope that she’ll be at least good on those issues.  

As the article explains, in Jocks v. Tavernier Sotomayor convinced two skeptical judges to join her in throwing out a verdict where a jury found that Jocks had been wrongfully arrested by an off duty cop. The crux of the issue is that Sotomayor convinced her fellow judges to overrule the jury and believe the story of the off-duty cop, after the jury had effectively rejected his story by ruling for the plaintiff.

It seems Sotomayor’s “empathy” doesn’t include the victim of police abuse, who managed to convince a jury of his peers that that he was wrongfully arrested.

Tax Propaganda

Friday, April 17th, 2009

As you can see from the video below, paying money to the state was “patriotic” then, just the politicians say it is now.

However one thing has changed. Back then the propaganda said spending makes you an enemy of America: “Every dollar you spend for something you don’t need, is a dollar spent to help the Axis.”

Today we’re told to spend, spend, spend to “stimulate” the economy.

Magical Obama

Thursday, March 19th, 2009

Obama has pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term… Can anyone look at this graph and think he’ll actually do it?

garrison-bho-deficits

By the way, it’s worth noting that the chart was made before another $.9 billion in deficit spending.

Transparency in the Obama Regime

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Obama said he would change government with a new emphasis of transparency.  Instead he reneged on his promise and instead created Recovery.gov where you can learn that $81 billion is going towards “protecting the vulnerable.”

Somehow I doubt those billions will do anything for the truly vulnerable… those who are victimized by a government that devalues our savings, taxes us into debt and devastates an already dying economy.

Coke, Pepsi and a Stiff Drink

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Waiter: What would like to drink?

Patron 1: I’ll have scotch on the rocks, and also please bring me some ice water.

Patron 2: Can I see the wine list?

Waiter: Sorry. We only serve Coke and Pepsi.

Welcome to American democracy.

Like most Presidential elections, this year we’re offered two candidates that are more the same than different. And like Coke and Pepsi, the packaging differs a little, so does the tone of their advertisements, and one candidate even seems a little hipper, but the substance is the same and virtually indistinguishable.

That’s why I’m so unenthusiastic about voting this year, particularly for the Presidential race. McCain with his finger on the button scares me. So does the idea of Obama with mandate for change.

I’ll probably ending ended up pulling the lever for Bob Barr, even though not voting on principle is also very appealing. Sure Barr’s campaign hasn’t been able to capitalize on the enthusiasm of the Paul campaign, and some of the campaign’s decisions have been quite questionable. (I’m thinking specifically of the decision to stiff Ron Paul while Campaign Manager Russ Verney was writing in praise of George Bush’s post-9/11 “leadership” - you know, the “leadership” that got us into Iraq, failed to make any reform in social security, authorized torture, spied on Americans, etc.)

Still, for most Americans who don’t even realize that Bob Barr is on the ballot, a vote for him is just a generic libertarian protest vote, which is exactly what I want it to stand for. (Plus Barr smokes cigars, which makes him far more appealing than Obama who lies about quitting cigarettes or McCain who quit his two pack a day habit in the 70’s, then spent the 90’s trying to tax and regulate the cigarette companies out of business.)

And at the end of the night, I’ll settle in for a stiff drink or three (paired with a cigar) and see who the country picks in the latest Pepsi challenge.

Unlike the election I’ll have meaningful choices: Bourbon, Scotch (Single Malt or Blended), Rye, Kentucky Whiskey, Rum, Vodka, Gin, various liqueurs, port, and even tequila should the mood strike. And you won’t find me mixing anything with Coke or Pepsi.

Ron Paul to Decide Montana?

Sunday, October 12th, 2008

That’s what Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer says:

Biden, Obama and Iraq

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

To Obama’s credit he was on the record in the run up to Iraq as opposed to the war. But one wonders if he would have actually voted against it in the Senate had been there in 2002. Given his proclivity to duck hard votes in the Illinois Senate, I doubt he would have opposed the war in the U.S. Senate.

And, as explained by Gene Healy in this National Review article, his decision to tap Biden as his VP only reinforces my doubts:

A Profile in Cowardice
Joe Biden shirked his Constitutional responsibilities on the Iraq war.

By Gene Healy

In Friday’s presidential debate on foreign policy (assuming the show still goes on), we can be sure that Barack Obama will hit John McCain hard for supporting what Obama has called a “dumb war” in Iraq. But in doing so, Obama has at least one major handicap to overcome: his running mate.

In October 2002, Sen. Biden voted to authorize the Iraq war. “I made a mistake,” he now says — he had “vastly underestimated” how incompetent the Bush administration would be in prosecuting the war.

So has Biden changed his position on Iraq? Not really. In October 2002, when the congressional vote was held, Biden, like most members of Congress, was in favor of avoiding accountability and punting the question of war or peace to the president. And Biden remains firmly in favor of avoiding accountability for Iraq today. That tells us something about Joe Biden’s judgment and integrity. More importantly, it tells us a lot about the health of Congress as a political institution, and about the erosion of Congress’s power to declare war.

As James Madison put it, “In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.” But Biden, and a majority of senators and House members, ignored that wisdom in 2002 and voted for a use-of-force resolution that handed a “blank check” to the president, as Sen. Robert Byrd rightly observed at the time. True, the resolution features some boilerplate about exhausting other options before using force, and prominent lawmakers have used that language to suggest they didn’t “really” vote for war. But the operative clause of the resolution — “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to defend American national security and enforce U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq — left it up to the president to decide whether and when to initiate the war.

Read the whole thing.