Posted: 25 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Elections, Politics | Tags: charles krauthammer tag, howard dean, liberal agenda, obama, obamacare, scott brown, scott schaefer, Tea Party |
Charles Krauthammer wrote an article this week that I found – as I do most of his work – quite profound. The article explains Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts and debunks President Obama’s absurd claim that Scott Brown prevailed due to voter outrage over the failed policies of the last eight years. It was more about the last eight weeks than eight years.
I pray Democrats remain delusional and continue explaining Scott Brown’s election away as anything but what it really was. Voters are outraged, to be certain, but they are outraged over Obama’s socialist agenda and his corrupt, dishonest administration, which is perfectly comfortable with back room deals, vote buying and broken promises.
Read the rest of this entry »
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: 24 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Politics | Tags: conservative politics tag, glenn beck, Politics, refounding america, scott schaefer, stop liberals now, stop obama, Tea Party, tea party patriots |
I have reprinted below an open letter from Glenn Beck to all Americans. Along with it goes my endorsement, enthusiasm and unrepentant support for the 9/12 Project, as well as my tremendous thanks to Glenn Beck for spearheading this effort.
Glenn is one of the most decent, most patriotic Americans I know. Glenn has been tirelessly trying to protect the United States and its constitution. A man working to protect the Constitution should be a threat to no one. Quite interestingly, the left attacks him personally at every opportunity.
Margaret Thatcher once said "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." The liberals have no answer for Glenn Beck, nor do they have a single political argument left, so they attack him personally.
Thank you, Glenn Beck, you’re a good man and a great American. I am proud of you. Please be careful, as they don’t have a single argument left for you. For my part, I am with you and commit to the Refounding of America in any way I can possibly help.
Scott Schaefer
Friends,
What an amazing few days on the road this has been. Your spirits have been high, your faith strong and your spine unbendable. I ended my multi-day book tour at The Villages with what had been billed as a rally but could be better described as a candid citizen-to-citizen chat.
Today, I have stopped looking for a leader to show us the way out because I have come to realize that the only one who can truly save our country… is us. To change America’s course we need to change ourselves, our expectations and our willingness to accept the unacceptable. When we refuse to allow our children to receive a trophy for participation, we are on the road to restoring the meaning of merit in our Republic. When we insist that no one is too big to fail, we will be able to learn from our mistakes, and when we demand that we are self-reliant, we will ensure that others can rely on us, not the government.
There is much to do, much to learn and time is of the essence. While I will be explaining the entire Plan over the coming weeks and months, I did want to give you a preview of some of the highlights:
Education is key, and not just for our children. To that end, we will be conducting a series of conventions. These will be full-day experiences where you will be immersed in learning about topics ranging from self-reliance, community organizing, the economy and how to be a political force in your own neighborhood and country. The first one will be in Orlando at UCF Arena on March 27th. You will also be able to vote to have a convention in your region by clicking here.
I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100 year plan. I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting, using only the battlefield of ideas.
All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.
On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country.
Glenn Beck
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: 24 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Elections, Politics | Tags: conservative politics tag, liberal agenda, liberals, obama, obamacare, Politics, scott schaefer, Tea Party |
Bill O’Reilly says the far left is down for the count, that Obama is losing power and must move towards the center to remain in office. Keep a sharp eye for far left liberals who appear to be moving right towards the center. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the Central Committee are socialists who will never abandon their agenda, but they will almost certainly disguise it.
Bill O’Reilly is a smart guy that should stop giving free pointers to the far left. His article:
More than anything else, it was the foolishness of the far left that harpooned Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Independents broke big for Scott Brown and his own internal polling showed that national security issues like civilian trials for al-Qaeda thugs and the president’s perceived soft approach on terrorism in general helped Brown to a smashing victory.
President Obama, of course, is a big loser along with Ms. Coakley. His trip to Massachusetts last Sunday was gutsy, but foolish in hindsight. Voters in a very liberal state simply rejected his request to elect another liberal. The president lost face and power and has to know it.
Now, Obamacare is in great jeopardy, cap and trade is dead, tax increases will not happen, and liberal policies across the board are on the run. All of this is the fault of the far left, a group led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a number of radical journalists. Scott Brown should send these people fruit baskets.
As President Obama acknowledged on Wednesday, the same voter dissatisfaction that swept him into office gave Scott Brown a Senate seat. But why are voters so disenchanted after only one year of the Obama administration? The short answer is ideology.
With the exception of Afghanistan and firing drones at terrorists, Mr. Obama has governed far to the left. He’s allowing the Democratic Congress to spend a record amount of money, and that may lead the USA into bankruptcy. He is trying to engineer a government takeover of the health care industry. He is allowing heinous terrorists captured overseas full constitutional rights. He is trying to tax corporations and wealthy Americans any way he can.
In addition, he entertains über-left guys like George Soros at the White House. He gives radical unions like the SEIU tax breaks, while most other unions don’t get them. He fails to criticize Pelosi and Reid when they hide their health care negotiations from C-SPAN, even though the candidate Obama openly promised such negotiations would be public. If this isn’t far left governance, I’m Hugo Chavez.
And do you know what? Independent-minded Americans don’t like it.
Just look at the polls, where 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. So you figure the far left is less than half of that. In addition, radical left-wing media outlets life MSNBC and Air America are failing. Yeah, Al Franken won in Minnesota, but that’s was an anomaly. Today, he’d lose big.
If President Obama wants to avoid the fate of Jimmy Carter, he must move quickly to the center. He must be a tougher guy on terrorism, rethink the health care deal so Americans can understand it, and stimulate the economy by targeted tax cuts, not massive government spending.
With his power waning quickly, Mr. Obama has no time to lose.
By Bill O’Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, January 21, 2010
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: 19 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Elections, Media | Tags: democrats tag, liberal bias, liberal media, liberals, msnbc, obama, olberman, scott brown, socialists, vote buying tag |
To All Democrats, Far and Wide; For the good of the country, heed my words:
You people have gone too far. I prefer to live out my life believing – as I truly do – that America is the shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan envisioned. If you love your country – or even just care mildly for your country – you must renounce the kind of absurd attacks being advanced by MSNBC.
You can continue to bash Fox News, I realize the only remedy that will stop you from doing that is time; time for you to realize and accept it as fair and balanced. I’ll accept and live with that delay. But, MSNBC has to go, and only you can make it happen.
In a three day span, one MSNBC anchor vociferously advocated voter fraud against Scott Brown while Keith Olbermann said Scott Brown — the Republican Senate nominee in Massachusetts — is “homophobic” and a “racist.” Speaking during his “special comment” Monday night, Olbermann folded nearly all of the negative attacks Democrats have tried to pin to Brown in recent days into one scathing rant.
I implore you. For God and country, rail these people out of your party, before the rest of us turn on all of you for harboring them. Your time is limited. The rest of the story:
Joe Scarborough is going after a fellow MSNBC host, calling out "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann for saying Scott Brown — the Republican Senate nominee in Massachusetts — is “homophobic” and a “racist.”
Speaking during his “special comment” Monday night, Olbermann folded nearly all of the negative attacks Democrats have tried to pin to Brown in recent days into one scathing rant.
“You have heard Scott Brown speculating, talking out of his bare bottom, about whether or not the president of the United States was born out of wedlock,” Olbermann said of the Republican who is leading in the polls against Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). “You have heard Scott Brown respond to the shout from a supporter that they should stick a curling iron into Ms. Coakley’s rectum with the answer, ‘We can do this.’”
“You may not have heard Scott Brown support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or describing two women having a child as being quote, ‘just not normal,’” he continued. “You may not have heard Scott Brown associating himself with the tea party movement, perhaps the saddest collection of people who don’t want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the ’60s insisted they were really just concerned about states’ rights.”
Summing up his case against Brown, Olbermann concluded, “in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude-model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
Soon after the broadcast, Scarborough, the host of “Morning Joe,” responded on Twitter, calling Olbermann’s attack “sad.”
Sad doesn’t adequately describe Olberman. A suitable reprisal would be to fire Olberman, which MSNBC would, if they had even one iota of journalistic ethics. The rest of the liberals must force them. But you won’t.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: 15 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Economy, Media, Politics | Tags: liberal elite, liberals, michael barone, obama, obama is lying, obama lies, obamacare, obamunism, realclearpolitics.com, scott schaefer, socialists |
By Michael Barone | RealClear Politics
In his New York Times column last week, David Brooks contrasted “the educated class,” which supports Barack Obama and his liberal worldview, with the tea party movement, “a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against … the concentrated power of the educated class.”
Many conservatives read Brooks as putting down the tea partiers. I think he was indicating distaste for both sides. “I’m not a fan” of the tea party movement, he wrote, but he also noted, “Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the year.”
Still, it sounds like Brooks was indulging the conceit of so many liberals that they are, well, simply smarter than conservatives.
But when you look back over the surges of enthusiasm in the politics of the last two years, you see something like this: The Obama enthusiasts who dominated so much of the 2008 campaign cycle were motivated by style. The tea party protesters who dominated so much of 2009 were motivated by substance.
Remember those rapturous crowds that swooned at Barack Obama’s rhetoric. “We are the change we are seeking,” he proclaimed. “We will be able to look back and tell our children” that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
A lot of style there, but not very much substance. A Brookings Institution scholar who produced nothing more than that would soon be looking for a new job.
In retrospect, the Obama enthusiasts seem to have been motivated by a yearning for a rapturous, nuanced leader. Send that terrible tyrant with his tortured sentences and moral certitude back to Texas and install The One in the White House, and all would be well.
The Obama enthusiasts have achieved that goal, and perhaps it’s not surprising that, as polls show, they’re not much engaged in the details of the health care bills or cap-and-trade legislation or looming tax increases and the like. They, or at least most of them, were never much interested in those things anyway.
In contrast, the tea party protesters, many of them as fractious and loudmouthed as Brooks thinks, are interested in substantive political issues. They decry the dangers of expanding the national debt, increasing government spending and putting government in command of the health care sector.
Their concerns have basis in fact. The national debt is on a trajectory to double as a percentage of the economy over 10 years, and the Democrats’ health care bills threaten to bend the cost curve up. Higher taxes could choke off economic recovery and keep unemployment up near double-digit rates for years.
Last year’s stimulus bill surreptitiously raised the budget baseline for many domestic spending programs and sent money to state and local governments — a payoff to the public employee unions who spent more than $100 million to elect Democrats in 2008.
Agree with the tea party folk or not, these are substantive public policy issues of fundamental importance.
Or look at other issues on which Brooks notes, correctly, that Americans have been moving away from positions “associated with the educated class.”
The educated class thinks that gun control can reduce crime. But over the last 15 years, crime rates have plummeted thanks to Rudy Giuliani-type police tactics and while 40 states have laws permitting law-abiding citizens to get licenses to carry concealed weapons.
“The educated class believes in global warming,” Brooks notes. But ordinary Americans have been noticing that temperatures have not been rising in the last decade as climate scientists’ models predicted, and they may have noticed those Climategate e-mails that show how climate scientists have been jiggering the statistics and suppressing opposing views.
On these issues the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.
As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773.
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Posted by: Scott Schaefer | Jan 14, 10:06 AM
Thank you for this article, Michael. I have observed and listened to you for several years, with admiration, as I consider you the most knowledgeable political analyst – if not the outright smartest – I’ve ever seen. It is also quite apparent from the article that you are a gentleman. Referring to liberals as the educated class is much more gentle than I would be, were I in your position. Personally, I find the term distasteful.
Liberalism, as a philosophy, is and always has been wrong, believing as they do, that mankind is flawed in that people are selfish by nature. They, the enlightened liberals believe they must then fix human beings with their enlightenment. They then force their enlightened policies on us – the unwashed masses – for our own good. The irony is that they almost always force us to act against our own good.
The liberals have historically advanced their agenda by whatever means they feel they must, be it hiding earmark spending, clandestine legislation or federal judges who legislate from the bench or at gunpoint, if necessary. After all, it is for our own good. They have, however, usually been held in check by their more conservative fellow office-holders.
This time, however, they are running largely unchecked, and they are systemically changing America; for the worse. I have entirely ceased believing that they [the liberals] even mean well, as their ilk originally did while protesting the Vietnam War in the sixties. This stylish president does not mean well, he means us harm. He does not, for some reason, believe that America is the last best hope, as it were.
If he and the other democrats who are now running the circus in Washington actually believed in the policies they espouse, they would do so honestly, rather than altering facts, hiding behind closed doors and outright lying when it suits them. Surely by now, most Americans should have noted that the democrats haven’t been discussing improvements in medical care, they are only discussing how to control the healthcare system. Thank God it’s for our own good…and thank God there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan. I feel better.
I have proudly been a Reagan Republican since before I could vote, but I now realize that the substantive part of me has proudly become a Tea Party Patriot. Thanks again, and don’t let up on them; for all of our good.
Scott Schaefer | StopLiberals.wordpress.com | Proud Tea Party Patriot
33.022115
-96.705820
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: 15 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Economy, Elections, Stimulus Spending, Taxes | Tags: banks tag, class warfare tag, joe the plumber, obama lies, obamunism, punitive taxes, tax, taxation |
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis. "We want our money back," he said.
All American taxpayers, myself included, wants "our money back," as the President so eloquently put it. Go get ‘em champ…protect the taxpayers. Though, you must admit it sounds somewhat absurd coming from a guy that hands out billions of dollars at a time. And yet – at this point, anyway – I still don’t disagree.
Obama then branded the latest round of bank bonuses as "obscene." and said his goal is to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.
Here is where I have a problem. Obama’s comments from the preceding paragraph are frightening. All Americans should listen carefully, let it sink in, and then vote against every democrat for the rest of their lives.
These are the very same policies that made the former USSR such a shining example of success throughout the last century. In one paragraph Obama says (1) that profit is evil; (2) it is his goal to prevent profit in the future; and (3) that he is best suited to decide how privately owned companies should spend their money.
He further adds that he will tax you and seize your money at gunpoint in order to centrally plan and redistribute your money the way he best sees fit. The Class Warfare Obama incites when it suits him is inherently evil. But, then again, so is the race baiting at which he is so adept.
The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. "If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers," Obama said. So he has singled out private companies to whom he has decided to apply punitive taxation.
Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers. So, to be perfectly clear, Obama wants to confiscate the money which belongs to – let’s say – Goldman Sachs, and distribute it differently than the way Goldman itself wants to spend it.
The president’s tone was emphatic and populist, capitalizing on public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.
The proposed 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion. There are approximately 50 such companies. Administration officials estimate that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 biggest ones. They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most of those that did have repaid the loans.
"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said. In that Obama is applying this tax to institutions that never took TARP money or who have repaid it, he is lying. No one has said these banks should slip the obligation in favor of letting the taxpayers foot the bill; except him. He is lying.
This confiscatory and punitive tax also applies to companies that never took a dime of TARP money and to companies that accepted TARP money, but have paid it all back. So all of the President’s rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. He is lying. The real truth is, he needs the money to continue funneling money to labor unions, special interests and those voting blocks that consistently vote democratic. In other words, he is doing exactly what Harry Reid did with Ben Nelson; he is buying votes.
"Politics have overtaken the economics," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large Wall Street institutions. "This is a punitive tax on companies that repaid TARP in full or never took TARP." Even before details came out, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea."
Not surprisingly, in Congress, Democrats embraced Obama’s proposal while Republicans rejected it. The Democrats in Congress are still sufficiently distant from the mid-term elections that they fear Obama, Reid and Pelosi more than they do the voters in their home districts. This will change when they all realize that the Tea Party – a political party that didn’t even exist a year ago – has the support and momentum necessary to oust the Majority Leader from office in his final re-election bid.
"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. It is only in Massachusetts that an idiot like Barney Frank can re-elected, time and again.
At what point do you people stop believing in his Yes We Can chants and realize that Obama’s policies – his core philosophies – are un-American and critically harmful? I just hope the voters of Massachusetts do the right thing at the polls next week. But, mark my words, if by some never before seen miracle happens and a Republican is elected Senator in Massachusetts, the democrats will challenge the results or find some other reason not to seat Senator Scott Brown.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: 14 January, 2010 | Author: Scott Schaefer | Filed under: Media, Politics, Taxes | Tags: dear leader tag, liberal agenda, lies, obama is lying, Politics |
Americans learned last year that President Obama discards campaign promises like most people discard used Kleenex. Among the pledges he cast aside were reducing the deficit, reining in federal spending, not allowing lobbyists to work in his administration, increasing taxes only on those who make more than $250,000, and opposing "government-run health care" because it is "extreme."
This year, Mr. Obama is picking up where he left off.
Consider presidential signing statements. Since Andrew Jackson, presidents of both parties have told Congress that while they are signing a bill into law, they intend to ignore specific provisions because they involve unconstitutional restrictions on the executive branch or are otherwise problematic. A president’s power to do this springs from his oath of office, through which each new chief executive promises to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."
Because of Washington’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, President George W. Bush drew heated criticism from Democrats for his signing statements. Among his toughest critics was Barack Obama, who in a questionnaire for the Boston Globe in 2007 accused Mr. Bush of "clear abuse" in using signing statements "to avoid enforcing certain provisions . . . the President does not like." He promised not to use signing statements to "nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."
Yet Mr. Obama started issuing signing statements shortly after taking office. Democratic Reps. Barney Frank and David Obey called him out on it in a letter to the White House complaining that they were "chagrined" that Mr. Obama was issuing signing statements.
Recently, the Obama administration admitted that after receiving the letter from Messrs. Frank and Obey, it stopped the practice. But the president still has aides examine each bill to identify provisions the administration will disregard. It’s just that Team Obama isn’t telling Congress which provisions it is ignoring. It’s right for him to defend the office of the presidency. The problem is that he is doing it in a way that violates his own standards of transparency and accountability.
This hypocrisy has not gotten much attention. But another act of duplicity has. During his campaign, Mr. Obama pledged that any negotiations on health-care legislation would be broadcast on C-SPAN, "so the American people can see what the choices are," and not conducted behind closed doors. "Such public negotiations," he said, were "the antidote" to "overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who . . . will resist anything that we try to do."
Internet publisher Andrew Breitbart collected videotape of Mr. Obama making the same promise eight different times in 2007 and 2008—evidence that this was not a hasty or ill-considered pledge. It was supposed to epitomize the "change" that was at the core of the Obama campaign.
Now, however, the final negotiations on health-care reform are being conducted behind closed doors and there’s no formal legislative conference between the House and Senate, which would guarantee Republicans at least a few seats at the table. This bill is not only being written in secrecy, it is being written by an anonymous group of Democrats. We can therefore throw Mr. Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship onto his mountain of broken promises.
Instead, he’s practicing hardball politics, aiming for a health-care bill that gets just enough Democrats to jam it through Congress with lighting speed before the American people’s justified anger gets even hotter than it already is. This is dangerous, both for the country which gets saddled with a lousy piece of legislation and for Democrats, who will bear sole responsibility for the bill’s deep cuts in Medicare, rising insurance premiums, increased taxes, and decline in the quality and availability of health care.
Maybe it was naïve for Mr. Obama to make the C-SPAN promise. But it was his pledge to do business in a different way, and it likely helped him win over swing voters. Mr. Obama even talked this week about "changing the way Washington works." But we can see that Mr. Obama’s preferred style is backroom legislative drafting and what that style produces—sweetheart deals like Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s "Cornhusker Kickback" and dozens of other special-interest provisions that benefit one state or a group at the expense of good policy. Mr. Obama should insist that every last payoff be removed from whatever bill is cobbled together.
This all plays into a broader narrative: Mr. Obama is not the centrist or new-style bipartisan leader he presented himself to be. On many of the most basic issues raised in the campaign, and in describing the kind of leadership he would practice, Mr. Obama misled voters. Americans will overlook a lot of things when it comes to politicians—but being on the receiving end of a giant bait-and-switch game isn’t one of them.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.