The Democrat Moral Superiority Complex

I recently met a man who cycled from his home in California to Maryland.  When I exclaimed how interesting it must have been to talk with Americans across the country, he looked at me as if I had two heads.  "Are you crazy?  I didn't talk to anyone," he told me.  "They're all red-necks."

A liberal friend solemnly warned me not to tell anyone I support the Tea Party.  They're all racists, wacko survivalists and birthers, she told me, impervious to anything I said about my pride in the Tea Party, and our mainstream issues: fiscal responsibility and constitutional, limited government.  She knew we were racist because there were only white people at our rallies.   No matter there's not a black face at the anti-global warming groups she goes to, or in her neighborhood or church.  It's only conservatives who are judged guilty of racism before proven innocent.

Democrats believe that good and evil in this country is divided along party lines, with all the caring people in their party, and all the greedy, mean people in the other.  They also believe that intelligence is doled out along party lines.  Conservatives are morons while liberals are the most brilliant people ever seen.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_democrat_moral_superiority_complex.html#ixzz2dqVKLwoL

Unintended Consequences

One of the many unintended consequences of the political crusade for increased homeownership among minorities, and low-income people in general, has been a housing boom and bust that left many foreclosed homes that had to be rented, because there were no longer enough qualified buyers.
The repercussions did not stop there. Many homeowners have discovered that when renters replace homeowners as their neighbors, the neighborhood as a whole can suffer.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/03/unintended_consequences_119804.html#ixzz2dpzJwwC6

The high price of ‘Milking the rich’

Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio has a tax plan that rivals call a political “fantasy.” It’s a fiscal dream, too. If de Blasio, the city’s elected public advocate, thinks New York can hike taxes on the rich and not suffer for it, he didn’t learn much from the 2008 crash. Gotham must become less dependent on the “top 1 percent” to be able to provide services to everyone in a downturn, not more.
De Blasio’s scheme is this: Hike income taxes by 13.8 percent on New Yorkers making above half a million dollars annually.
He’d use this bounty — $530 million a year — to pay for 38,177 pre-kindergarten students to go to school all day instead a half-day. He’d create 10,000 new pre-K slots, too.

The rest, $188 million, he’d spend on older kids’ after-school activities. After five years, de Blasio would let this tax surcharge lapse, and — he says — find another way to pay.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_high_price_of_milking_the_rich_G5sGh0e0DAtnCQE7JcEJxI 

Tie debt limit to spending cuts

The American people know that Washington has a spending problem, and they won't support another increase in the debt limit without meaningful action to reduce spending and reform government.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the federal government will spend $640 billion more than it takes in this year. Over the next 10 years, CBO estimates we will borrow and spend $6.3 trillion more.
The American people know that our deficits and debt are hurting our economy and costing jobs. They want their elected leaders to take meaningful action to reduce spending.
Every major effort to deal with the deficit over the past 30 years has been tied to the debt limit. In 1985, President Reagan signed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction bill, which included a debt limit increase. When President Bush reached a budget deal with a Democratic Congress in 1990, it included a debt limit increase. President Clinton reached similar agreements with a Democratic majority in 1993 and with a Republican majority on the balanced budget agreement of 1997.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/02/debt-limit-spending-cuts-john-boehner-editorials-debates/2755977/ 

Barack Obama’s Staggering Incompetence

It’s reported that President Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress’s blessing, but “on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.” According to the Huffington Post:

Senior administration officials describing Obama’s about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he’d had a change of heart.

In light of all this, it’s worth posing a few questions:
1. Why didn’t the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/02/barack-obamas-staggering-incompetence/ 

The President Must Personally Make His Case for War

The grossly obese Syrian officer was coming in the door of the King Khalid Military City exchange while I was coming out. I saw instantly that this was no soldier; this was a thug, a threat only to the unarmed civilians that are his kind’s prey. My eyes fell downward from his cruel face to the piece of flair gracing his olive green fatigues.
“Nice Assad button,” I sneered. Real warriors don’t wear pictures of dictators on their uniform. He glared back at me with his dark, rat eyes, not understanding my words but fully appreciating my contempt. Though Syria was a putative coalition partner, I knew I was staring at an enemy.
Not much has changed since Operation Desert Storm. The Syrian regime’s “soldiers” are still just punks fit only to oppress the defenseless, unable to even hold their own against a ragged band of barely-armed insurgents. But like the vast majority of Americans, I have grave concerns about attacking them.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2013/09/03/the-president-must-personally-make-his-case-for-war-n1689397 

John Kerry’s Case For Bombing Syria

Two memorable images dominate perceptions of John Kerry. The first of them, taken from the Fulbright hearings, in April, 1971, shows a lanky twenty-seven-year-old Navy veteran, hair below his ears, medals pinned to his military fatigues, testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about alleged war crimes and atrocities carried out by his fellow soldiers in Southeast Asia. The second image, less flattering to Kerry, emerged during his abortive 2004 Presidential campaign, and it showed him windsurfing off Nantucket. Now, there is a third image: a somber, gray-haired Secretary of State standing behind a podium and talking about rows of Syrian children “lying side by side, sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad’s gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.”
Kerry’s task was to present to the public the case for bombing Syria. He did it without apology and with some passion, combining specific details about the August 21st attack in Ghouta, an area east of Damascus, with sweeping claims about the nature of the Syrian regime:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/08/john-kerrys-case-for-bombing-syria.html