Archives For Obama


Steve —  6.3.2010 — 2 Comments

The long-standing alliance with Israel is on shaky ground today because of one man – President Barack Obama. Let me explain:

Israel has been under the direct attack from terrorist organizations for many months. And when I say direct, rockets have been blowing up buildings (schools, hospitals, homes, etc.) – it doesn’t get much more direct than that. In an attempt to stop the attacks without just annihilating the enemy (which Israel can do), they set up roadblocks and naval blockades to facilitate inspection of humanitarian supplies.

Did you get that? Israel is looking for weapons that will be used directly against them. All other supplies are allowed to pass the blockades. Sounds reasonable to me. This has been an ongoing process for the past four years and the rules are simple. If you are asked to stop for inspection, you cut your engines and prepare to be boarded and your full cooperation is expected.

The other day, at least one supply ship didn’t follow the rules – they didn’t stop when asked to. So, the natural conclusion is that this particular ship doesn’t want to be inspected because they have something to hide. In a blockade situation, you don’t get to hide anything.

So, the Israeli navy forcibly boarded the ship and was met with active and aggressive resistance. Again, another violation of long-standing rules. In response, the Israeli solders defended themselves with lethal force. Their lives were in danger and they had a right to protect themselves. It’s easy for the media to portray this as a trigger-happy killing, but anyone with any military knowledge understands that lethal force is the last resort. You give enemy combatants every opportunity to prevent it, but there comes a time when it becomes you or them. Those are the rules.

So, we have a ship that didn’t stop when told to – STRIKE ONE.
We have a crew that didn’t cooperate with the inspectors – STRIKE TWO.
We have active resistance with weapons designed to prevent the inspection – STRIKE THREE.

Israel’s response was done by the book and in accordance with the PUBLIC rules of engagement for the blockade. The supply ship’s crew decided to disregard those rules and they paid the price. It is no different from my son choosing to disobey – he knows the cost, but does it any way and he has to suffer the consequences because of it. There’s a chain of events set into motion because of one choice.

Change the location of this conflict to NY harbor. The blockade is managed by the US coast guard and a supply ship from a known enemy sympathizer doesn’t stop for inspection. What would you expect to be the Coast Guard’s reaction? Do they use all necessary force to ensure a potential deadly cargo doesn’t get into the hands of people meaning to do you and me harm or do they allow the ship to go by. We stop them and we enforce the rules.

The latter invalidates the entire blockade and shows the rest of the world that it is a farce. I guarantee you that any other ship captains that are considering running the Israeli blockade are thinking twice about it right now.

And here comes the betrayal part of my story – President Barack Obama doesn’t tell the world that the US stands behind its ally Israel and reinforces the reason for the blockade. Nope – he condemns the action and hangs the only ally in that part of the world out to dry.

If you have any questions about the makeup of Obama’s character, look no further than this one incident. It isn’t complicated and doesn’t require a PhD in political science. An ally is someone you support – even in the face of unpopular opinion – especially when you know they are justified in their actions, which any reasonable American should be able to see.

UPDATE: Just saw this video of Sec. of State Clinton clearly condemning what happened.

As a continuation of the previous article, I’m compelled to help expose the hidden agenda of liberals – especially those in Washington these days. Whether it is job creation or universal health care or water allocations for the Central Valley of California – the truth isn’t readily apparent.

I’ve been told by a liberal friend that conservatives lack compassion and that is one of the reasons she votes for and supports Democrats. Is compassion bad? Surely not. But the distinction isn’t accurate or fair (and I’ll go into that in another post). On the surface, these federal programs do look to be meeting the needs to people that are hurting the most: the unemployed, the uninsured and the thirsty farmer.

In truth – they rarely accomplish anything that they are touted to do. When Obama and congress decided to pour over $1T into the economy to try to “stimulate” it rather than take a $1T hit on tax revenues by way of tax cuts, the result hasn’t been recovery, just more debt. Where has the stimulus been seen? GM is still in the tank, Wall Street is more unstable than ever and unemployment is still double-digits.

Ask any conservative what the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is and you’ll hear a very common answer: conservatives desire less government and more personal responsibility. Why? Because there is a fundamental belief that the free-market, capitalist society in America will auto-correct anything that gets askew. Competition spurs innovation, which produces better products/services for less money.

Big government squelches competition because it takes away the accountability needed to keep the players honest and trades it for “stability” and broader access to privileges that have been turned into rights somewhere along the way.

Here’s the progression that liberals are working toward:

  • Big government produces services at no or little cost to the consumer
  • This entitlement removes the incentive to be creative and work hard
  • Private sector cannot compete with a government that doesn’t have to play by the same rules
  • The lack of competition has a direct impact on the price of goods/services from the private sector
  • People turn to government for intervention
  • Government obliges and offers a federal option
  • Taxes are increased to pay for it
  • Private sector is forced to cut jobs to meet shareholder expectations due to expanded taxes
  • Dependence on the government increases for more and more unemployed
  • Government programs grow to meet the need
  • Personal freedom is removed for the sake of the greater need
  • Taxes are raised
  • and so on…

That’s not the way this country is supposed to work. Here’s how it should work:

  • Private sector produces services at a fair market price
  • Innovation allows company A to offer same services at a lower price
  • Rest of market responds either with better services or still lower price
  • Consumer reaps the benefit of the battle for market share


  • Private sector produces services at a fair market price
  • Company A decides to try to make more money by raising their price
  • Consumers respond by taking business to Company B
  • Company B is allowed to use additional revenue to offer better and better services – either by increased features or by lower price
  • Company A has to respond by adjusting price or adding features
  • Consumers decide who has the best value

You see – in a pure free-market economy, the consumer dictates the rules of the game. For the most part, we don’t have a pure free-market in core services because liberals have seen fit to create crutch programs that looked good on the short, but never took into consideration the effect on the long. And intervention is on the rise and threatens to undo the very thing that makes this country great – reward for hard work, innovation and creativity.

“But Steve, nobody would want something so devastatingly bad – right?” Wrong. If you give a man a fish rather than incent him to learn to fish, you have control over the man because of his dependence. He eventually can’t imagine a world without his daily fish and that is called job security for the fish vendor.

Yes, it comes down to simple security. Liberals want it through making people dependent on their programs, while conservatives want it based on the merit of their ideas and hard work. So, whether you are talking about health care reform or stimulus money, the goal of the current administration and democratic congress is to make us more dependent on the federal government and they will not let anyone or anything – including the Constitution of these United States – stand in their way.

Have you ever heard that if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he’ll immediately jump out, but if you put him in the water and then turn the heat on, he’ll stay and literally be cooked alive? It’s time we realize we are the frog and the liberals have been turning up the heat for decades now – it is up to us to change the menu to something other than frog soup. Get involved and call your elected officials and the next time we get a chance to vote, may we look deeper than a catchy campaign slogan and feel-good promises.

Remember, it is more compassionate to teach a man to fish than to make him dependent on anyone or anything.

Job Creation Hoax

Steve —  3.19.2010 — Leave a comment

Our president and elected officials have stated their number one job is to bring this country’s recession to an end as soon as possible.


I know…shocker, right? What you may not understand are all the reasons. Some probably assume that it is simply because the majority are Democrats and I’m a conservative and the two shall not mix…ever. That assumption, while true, isn’t why I’m writing – I think I can prove it without focusing on politics. It is simple logic and a slight understanding of how business works.

What do we need for more jobs to be created? A simple examination of why jobs are being eliminated should provide us the answers. A company, especially a publicly-traded company, is not owned by the business leadership, but rather by shareholders. People buy stock because they want to see a return (more money) from the money they use to buy the stock.

That return is realized when the company is able to make more money (net revenue) than they expected, which is one component of what drives stock prices up. There are two components to net revenue – profit and loss (income and costs). If a company says that they think they can produce a net revenue of $100K and are able to actually do $105K for a given time period, then people would buy the stock because the current price reflects the anticipated $100K and therefore undervalued and should go up. Make sense? If not, just know that doing what you say you are going to do in the stock market is good, and exceeding it is better.

All that to say is that the owners (shareholders) expect to be making money and therefore expect profits to be at least what you projected. To achieve this, in a recession, the focus gets put on the costs a company incurs. The most expensive line item on a company’s balance sheet is payroll and consequently the place where the biggest impact to the bottom line can be made. Eliminate jobs and you cut costs and directly affect net revenue.

So, if jobs are cut to help companies maintain net revenue and shareholder expectations and we want to stop that trend, what can be done help net revenue. The second largest cost on a company’s ledger is taxes and this is where we get to the meat of the issue. If you receive a paycheck and ever ventured to look at the amount of taxes that are taken out – you’d immediately get red in the face. What you need to know is that is nothing compared to what the business must pay.

There is a tie to payroll taxes and the overall picture for a company – if you have an employee that you hire at $50K, their take-home pay is affected by the taxes that are required to be taken out. A lower tax rate means that an employer might be able to hire the same person for $48K if the tax rates were lower. If you add that up over 1,000 employees, all of a sudden you’ve just found $200K of income that you can put into something else – like new jobs.

So, if you want to create jobs in America, the first place the government should be looking is to lower the federal taxes levied against employers. Decreasing the tax rate means more money stays with the company and can be reinvested immediately to stabilize and grow the business.

But this wasn’t even considered for more than a second in Washington. Reagan implemented this very tactic to successfully bring inflation under control and it has been successfully used time and time again to help stimulate the economy. There’s a proven track record and tons of evidence…so why haven’t we seen this as a proposed solution?

If you really want to know the full reason, read the next post. It is political…so be warned.

The short answer is that job creation, at least where most of us live (private sector), hasn’t been the goal at all. If it was, we would be seeing more money in our pockets each paycheck, which would allow us to go spend it on goods and services and really “stimulate” the economy.

All this to say, any talk about job creation coming out of Washington these days should be interpreted as creating federal jobs to support new programs intended to “fix” our country. Don’t be fooled for another second because now you know.

The Line

stevemanatt —  3.11.2009 — Leave a comment

For me there exists a line – a tolerance line of stupidity and lately the area of my life where this line is being danced upon is with our government.