Category Archives: Political polemics


The tax code is complicated; that makes it easy to spin.  The context of taxation is extensive and not in the knowledge base of most people.  Sometimes it seems to make no sense at all. For instance, if you buy a piece of improved property and it skyrockets in value, the IRS allows and expects you to report every year that it is going down in value.  It’s called “depreciation” and it reduces your tax bill.

Democrats are trying to make the case that Romney is heartless and greedy.  First by declaring that Romney paid no taxes at all, which was not only a falsehood but an insult to common sense, and now on the grounds that 14% is less than a fair share.  The math is correct but it doesn’t make the case.

A heartless man does not give extensively to charity as Romney has done.  A greedy man does not pay more taxes than necessary by intentionally omitting an allowed tax deduction, as Romney did. The bottom line is thru charity and taxes he kept 42% of his income and 58% went for the benefit of society.  This math is also correct and it disproves the case the opposition is trying to make.  Call it spin if you wish, like the 14%.  The math and the reasoning are here.

The bottom line is Romney has been more generous than either Obama or Biden who is particularly famous for his lack of charitable giving.  Romney also seems to prefer giving to society thru charity rather than thru the government.

One final thought.  Greed and envy are close companions.  Waging class warfare is an outlet for envy.  Is waging class warfare not a form of greed also?



I want my money back.  The show wasn’t as entertaining as it was expected to be.  Biden was obnoxious but otherwise he did quite well.  Each agenda declared their candidate won.  Arguably Biden did a better job with his answers; clearly his “friend” Paul Ryan came across as more likeable.  Ryan also did a better job of establishing his honesty, not once did he lie by saying Biden was his friend.

Speaking of lies, Joe Biden said of the Libyan Consulate attack “We weren’t told they wanted more security; we did not know they wanted more security there.”  That was a bald face lie.

Biden said President Obama has “gone out and repaired our alliances so that the rest of the world follows us again.”  It’s far from the truth slo Joe may actually believe it so this one falls somewhere between a lie and oblivious ignorance.  But no benefit of the doubt can be given on the next statement that Romney and Biden, “bet against America all the time.”  Biden combined a lie with a smear with that one.

Biden said the administration passed a “middle class tax cut.”  That was another lie.  Biden said Sarah Palin spoke about “death panels” in their Vice Presidential debate in 2008.  No such statement by Palin is in the transcript.  Biden lied again.  Biden said no one is looking to do things through the UN.  But the truth is the UN plays an important role in the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

All politicians play loose with the facts at times.  We accept that within bounds.  It is up to us to intelligently separate the wheat from the chaff.   It bothers us to label anyone a liar.  But when liars lie and lie and lie, then lie again by accusing you for being the liar, at some point courtesy begins to look like guilt.  It is time to call the liars liars.  Joe Biden and Barack Obama are liars.


The promisorial proclamation

“…I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.” — Barack Obama

Let’s take each promise in the order in which it was given.

“…this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick…”

Was there no care for the sick before the age of Obama?  Perhaps that’s why Michelle felt no pride in America before her husband was nominated to run for the presidency.  We know Obama was referring to what has come to be known as Obamacare with its promised expansion of coverage to all, so let’s be generous and allow that the jury is still out on this one.  Although the program is a setup for disaster, the disaster hasn’t occurred yet because many of the law’s provisions have not yet become effective.  What we do know is the law was so unpopular that it required a good deal of unethical practices to get it rammed through both houses were controlled by the President’s own Democratic Party.

Medical care has been available to everyone for many years.  Emergency rooms accept the indigent for anything from kids with sore throats to someone with serious injuries.  What’s missing is insurance.  It is true that broader and more personal care is provided through insurance coverage.  Privately purchased insurance is a thing of the past.  Today it comes with employment which leads us to promise number two

“…this was the moment when we began to provide …good jobs to the jobless”

This one hardly needs comment.  Since Obama made the promise of “good jobs” the jobless rate has grown from less than 6% to nearly 10% and remained over 8%, where it still is, for a longer period than at any time since the Great Depression.  The real unemployment rate is over 11% when you count the jobless who have given up even on seeking work.

“…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow…”

Only God and Obama could ever make a promise like that and God knows there is no reason to promise it.  In fact, the highest ocean tide ever recorded was on the night of October 4–5, 1869 at the head of the Minas Basin in the Bay of Fundy.  It was a promise to do the unnecessary and the impossible.

“…this was the moment when …our planet began to heal…”

I suppose he was referring to environmental friendly programs like the subsidizing of Solyndra to postpone its bankruptcy and the building of the Chevrolet Volt in the hope that someone might buy one.  As far as healing is concerned, none has been observed as yet, particularly not in politics.

“…when we ended a war …”

The troops were not drawn out of Iraq in the time promised.  And we are still fighting the war in Afghanistan.  The causalities are just not being reported as loudly since Obama took office.

“…this was the moment when we …secured our nation and restored our image”

Judgment on this one falls in the realm of opinion, but does anyone really hold the opinion that our image in the world is better than it was 4 years ago?

“this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…”

In that statement there lays a germ of truth.  We just hope the disease is reversible.  What came together was not the nation as a whole, but the internal workings within each of two factions into which the country became more deeply divided under this president.

We need some fixin’ that’s for sure, but we don’t need Obama to “remake this great nation” into something else.


Headlines from the right run from “Won by two touchdowns” to “It’s Over!”  Comments from the left run from puzzlement to disappointment and to downright anger at their candidate for his poor performance.  There is universal agreement that Romney won this one – big time!

But it is not over.  Obama had a bad night but remember what he told his followers in an earlier campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we will bring a gun.”  Romney skipped the knife and came in to the fight with a gun.  Expect Obama to bring a cannon to the next one.  One just wonders what he has to use for ammunition.

Because we live in an age of idiocy, I feel compelled to explain for the benefit of readers on the left that all this talk of guns and ammo is metaphorical (look it up).  I wouldn’t want to be accused of inciting violence the way Sarah Palin was when she used the word “target” to identify areas where conservatives should focus their efforts.

This election is about more than a choice, it’s a test.  There has rarely been a race where the candidates and the choices voters face are better known.  There is no complacency in this race.  This is not a pass or fail test either.  The margin of victory will be the score.  If Romney wins big there will be hope for major change.  If Romney wins but the margin is small the test will show America has a slimmer chance of returning to what it once was.  If Obama wins, it’s all over.  America will have made a clear choice and it will be all but impossible to reverse it until the country collapses in fiscal distress.  Then a strong man will come in and be accepted by the people in their distress.  That’s how Hitler and Pinochet gained power.  Hitler destroyed his country, Pinochet returned his to prosperity.  They both killed a few people in the process.


It’s an old Socialist trick.  Take mightily from the masses in complex ways they don’t understand and give back a pittance in something tangible and you will gain their trust even as you are depriving them of their prosperity.  Eva Peron was a master, or should we say mistress of the technique.  She would hand out actual peso notes at times when she mingled with the public.  Eva and her husband devastated their once prosperous nation yet the people referred to her affectionately as Evita when she reined and today she is honored with her image on the currency.  Fidel Castro, as I remember it, gave a rice cooker to every household.  Apparently today’s pittance du jour is a telephone.

Republicans don’t get totally off the hook this time.  While the Democrats are spending our tax money buying votes with free telephones, Republicans in Florida were playing ACORN with voter registrations.  The RNC in Florida hired an outside firm to canvas neighborhoods and register voters.  It must have been piece work because they registered some dead people and perhaps a dog or two.  At least the Republicans had the decency not to do it with some of the Democrats money and they promptly fired the firm and ended the program.


It is not often that I write such a strong headline.  But when President Obama says the Fast and Furious gun facilitation program was started by George Bush and ended promptly by Eric Holder as soon as he heard of it, what else can you say?  That comes at about the 4 minute mark on the video.

Some videos just won’t embed on our system; this is one of them.  You can view it by going to the Daily Caller.  It is a clip of Barack Obama being interviewed on a Spanish language TV program.  The President was asked some very pointed questions by the interviewer – Don’t you think Eric Holder should be fired? – If there was no higher involvement than a few field operatives why did you refuse to release the documents?  You have to watch the video to hear the Presidents answers to these and other questions.

Yesterday the New York Times reported on the report released by the investigator appointed by the Obama administration to investigate the Obama administration’s Justice Department.  There were 9 words in the headline.  One would think Fast and Furious would be among them.  The headline read “Guns Inquiry Urges Action Against 14 in Justice Dept”.  So that gun problem, whatever it was, was just a case of some bumbling on the part a few expendable low level agents at the ATF and they have been held accountable.  Tell it Brian Terry’s family.


Once in blue moon a post bears repeating in its entirety.  Back in May, Random Thots published a list written by an Obama supporter of the President’s accomplishments since taking office.  It was a well written and impressive list.  I did a little research to see how accurate the writer was in his claims.  The Rebuttals are the result of the research.

One thing I would point out is how the truth can be used to convey a lie.  In the first example the author’s claim was absolutely true as he wrote it.  But it conveyed the idea that a higher level of standards relating to the lobby industry had been established and followed by Obama and his administration.  That was a lie.  The signing of the law turned Obama’s previous legal use of lobbyists (use that he continued) into an illegal one.  All others including his opponents were now subject to new restrictions while the President de facto set himself above the law by not complying with it even though he was the one who signed it..

Here is the original post.



Posted on May 31, 2012

There is a list going around the Internet outlining an extensive number of things the President has accomplished since coming into office.  The author seems to be addressing Obama supporters who are disappointed in the President’s performance.  It’s an impressive list, well documented and straight forward in it’s presentation.  I thought I would check it out.

Here is an example from the middle of the list.

He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House.

REBUTTAL. He did sign the ban, but continued to hire former lobbyists to serve the White House. Mega lobbyists Steve Ricchetti, Broderick Johnson, James Heimbach just to mention three.

Not to cherry pick, I started from the top.  Here are the first seven.  They are enough to tell the storey.  Here’s a link to the full list.

Legislative Prowess
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.  Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%.

REBUTTAL. True. With Democratic control of the House and the Senate, Pelosi, Reid and Obama had a radical’s field day.

Fiscal Responsibility
Within days after taking office, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse.

REBUTTAL. True. The Order added the requirement for contractors to disclose their political party affiliations when applying for government contracts making it easier to reward those who had done political favors for the President and his party. 

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money.

REBUTTAL. True. But his appointee to initiate the post never served due to her personal income tax problems.

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries.

REBUTTAL. Not really. On his first full day it was a proposal and not a freeze.  And it didn’t stop federal employees from getting increases in their income.  It only stopped raises within grade. Increases could still be given as bonuses or the raising of pay grades without the need for promotions.  The proposal was more fanfare than substance.

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending.

REBUTTAL. True. Each government agency already had a Chief Investment Officer. The creation of this new layer of oversight provided the means to control all of the agency career CIOs by one czar appointed by and beholden to the President.  It also added and an unnecessary expense

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system.  http://bit.

REBUTTAL. Defense Secretary Gates called this a controversial move.  I am not qualified to judge the advisability of it. However one thing is clear; it dismissed one third of private contractors, replacing them with civilian government workers.

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

REBUTTAL. This is better known as the Erskine-Bowles commission.  The Commission made many recommendations for the President and the Senate to include in the Federal Budget.  None were adopted.  Harry Reid’s Democratically controlled Senate hasn’t presented a budget in 3 years, contrary to law.


The truth can become a political gaffe if it is politically incorrect or poorly phrased.  I would not say Romney’s remark was totally correct but he was on the right track.  Read our sidebar entitled Democracy’s Fate.

Romney was essentially correct when referring to the 47% and said “These are people who pay no income tax.”  The precise number is 46.4% that pay no Federal income tax.  And he was also close to the mark with the assertion that these people will vote for Obama no matter what.  After all, the primary impetus behind Obamacare was to increase the number of dependency/entitlement voters.  Reaching the 30 million uninsured was more rhetoric than reality.

In some ways Romney is reminiscent of Ross Perot.  Both men were successful in business yet each came with generous helping of naivety in matters politic.  Understandable for Perot, surprising for Romney.  Mitt felt too comfortable speaking off the cuff to a group of supporters who he presumed would understand his point.  But fund raisers are, for the most part, public events.  By now a candidate should realize that the opposition is likely to be among the crowd, recording every word and gesture, and fishing for something that could be used against you.  That’s what happened here.

Romney didn’t say he doesn’t care about the plight of the poor and disadvantaged.  He didn’t say that and he didn’t mean that, but his choice of words made it easy for the opposition to characterize as such.  His point was that to concern himself with the votes of people who pay no Federal income tax would be useless because the Democrats have that voting block locked up.  Again, I don’t wholly agree but he is on the right track.  Here is the Quote.

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement.  And the government should give it to them.  And they will vote for this president no matter what.  …  These are people who pay no income tax.  …  [M]y job is not to worry about those people.  I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

This election is a test of Tocqueville’s theory.  It seems Romney knows it; he just doesn’t have Reagan’s skills of explaining it.  This bit from the New York Times Opinion Page is typical of the drudge coming from the left.  It is scurrilous but Romney opened the door for it.

Those people? Those miserable peasants scrounging around the castle entrance? Those lay-abouts with mouths open for a spoonful of rich folks’ bounty? Those fate-forsaken unwashed with dirty hands outstretched for help unearned? Those ingrates who bring in a pittance but reap a premium?

Only a man who has never looked up from the pit of poverty could look down his nose with such scorn.

Politics is a dirty game.


Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations told ABC News the attack on our embassy was a spontaneous eruption by demonstrators; it was not a pre-planned event.  Her statement is in direct contrast to that made by Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif who not only said the event was pre-planned but added that the Libyan government warned us about it three days in advance.

These statements are in direct conflict with each other so there can be no question but that one of the two nations is not telling the truth.

A pre-planned attack on the United States by a Muslim faction in Libya does not bode well for Obama who has Muslim roots and has trumpeted his ability reduce hostilities and bring understanding between the modern day Barbary Pirates and the United States.  The administration is trying to characterize the killing of Ambassador Stevens, the parading of his body through the streets, the burning of American flags around the world and the storming of our embassies as something other than hostility against the United States.  This is absurd enough on its face, but pre-planned attacks make the claim even less credible.  The role of an ambassador is to convey the position and policy of the leader of the nation they serve.  Ambassadors are given little discretion to make critical pronouncements of their own.  Susan Rice was appointed by Barack Obama.

To be a spontaneous reaction we must believe that demonstrators routinely carry enough weapons to breach our security of the Libyan embassy, capture and kill the ambassador and destroy two buildings within the compound.  Susan Rice’s statement defies common sense.

Truth is becoming ever more difficult to discern.  There was a time when in a case of conflicting claims between Libya and the U.S. we felt comfortable with the judgment that our spokesperson was the one far more likely to be telling the truth.  We no longer have the luxury of making such assumptions.

UPDATE:  One thing admirable about Susan Rice is she is uncomfortable when she is lying.  It shows in the video of her statement.


Four of our diplomats were slaughtered inside of the American Embassy in Libya when protesters heavily armed with guns and explosives stormed the compound.  The American flag was torn down inside the embassy in Tunisia and the Al Qaeda flag raised in its place.  Rioting Muslims are burning the American flag in the street outside the American embassy in London.  Newspaper headlines are reporting that riots against America are breaking out around the globe.

Obama sends Jay Carney to explain to the American people that these acts are not against America, it’s just that some Muslims didn’t like a film.  The exact words issued by the White House through their spokesman were:

“This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims’

Our credit rating was just downgraded again today from AA to AA-.  The unemployment rate has remained over 8% longer than any period since the Great Depression of the 30’s.  So many have dropped completely out of the job market that 88 million Americans do not have a job; that’s one out of every three that is not employed.  And this President thinks he should be re-elected?