President to help middle class by paying them in fairness. Middle class not sure if it constitutes legal tender.

Not that Buffett

Every now and then, an issue comes up that allows me to truly gauge the intelligence of the American people.  Well, I’m excited to report that such an issue has arisen: the Buffett Rule.  No, we’re not talking about my personal hero Jimmy Buffett; he’s too drunk to be paying attention.  I’m talking about that annoying old man Warren Buffett, who has allowed his inability to satisfy his secretary sexually financially to quickly absorb as much of my talk radio time as Jesse Jackson and his merry band of hoodie-wearers.  In case you didn’t know, Mr. Buffett, a man worth billions, has made it part of his bucket list to complain about how he pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretary.  This has caused many to offer him the practical option of simply paying more in taxes if he’d prefer.  In fact, he can even pay my taxes while he’s at it. Not surprisingly, the idea of a rich guy asking the feds to take more of his money is something the lefties can’t ignore; especially when all of their other economic plans have been as successful as a one-armed man rowing his boat in a straight line.  So, instead of making an effort to propose an actual budget that could get a single vote in the House of Representatives, our little dictator in chief has asked the Senate to vote on the “Buffett Rule.”

Mr Obama is promoting the ‘Buffett rule’, which would set a minimum tax of 30 per cent on the income of millionaires, as he attempts to establish a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger and a former private equity executive.

You may be asking why I’m using the Buffett Rule as a barometer of American intelligence.  Well, the last time I looked, a majority of Americans supports the proposition of “making the rich pay their fair share,” even if they can’t tell you what “fair” means.  To put it simply: if anyone is in favor of this proposition, then they obviously sustained severe brain damage.  And to support this point, I’m not even going to make reference to the fact that, while the top two percent already pays a disproportionate share of the total federal income taxes, half of this country doesn’t pay any.

No.  I’m going to focus on a lie that is so blatantly obvious that someone would need to be comatose not to catch it.  What’s the lie, you ask?

Still, throughout his speech, the message was clear: In 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrats are in favor of ‘fairness,’ of having those Americans who can afford to do so pay a bit more in taxes so that the rest of the country can thrive.

How is taking more money from the top 1% going to help the country “thrive?”  It’s a proven fact that the extra money won’t put a scratch, let alone a dent, in the national debt.  And it isn’t like we have a president who seems to care about deficits.  The implied argument being made here is that the middle class will somehow be helped by taxing the rich more.  How?  Well, notably absent from Barry’s plan is a tax cut for the middle class.  And it’s not like the extra money being extracted from the rich is going to be sent to the middle class.  So, how is this plan helping anyone?  That’s right, it’s not.  The Buffett Rule is a political stunt that the president hopes will distract everyone from the fact that his presidency has been less then stellar.

So, are you going to fall for this asshattery?  Of course not.  You’re one of my readers.  But your mom may not be.  So feel free to poke her with a sharp pin to make sure she responds to painful stimuli before giving her a summary of the foregoing.

Senate filibusters taking money from oil companies and using it to build more exploding cars

Well, the temperature has dropped, and with it, my mood.

Just kidding.  It’s Friday, so the work week can suck it.  Plus, how could I possibly complain after three days of Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court?  Just listening to the confused responses of those who previously told me the case was a slam dunk was enough to get me through the week.  Don’t get too excited though; just because the Justices’ questions exposed the absurdity of the mandate doesn’t mean they’ll vote that way.  After all, the Court found a constitutional right to abortion somewhere.  But I’m not here to talk about that.

I’m here to talk about the the Senate bill to end oil subsidies.  It failed due to the filibuster rule, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass something.  Barry, of course, was not pleased:

‘They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past. Or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future,’ Obama said. ‘It’s that simple.’

He continued with the rhetoric:

‘It’s like hitting the American people twice,’ Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Thursday morning. ‘You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it’s a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?’

Two things about this.  First, the American people aren’t being hit twice, because we’re not talking about actual “subsidies.”  In other words, the government isn’t taking my tax dollars and sending them to Chevron.  Instead, our tax code gives oil companies tax breaks, which simply allows them to keep more of their own money.  Thus, B.O.’s statement is blatantly untrue.

With that being said, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies?  I agree with the president in this respect.  In fact, why are we giving them to any industry?  Why does the government have pet projects?  Why don’t we just lower taxes overall and get rid of subsidies/tax break for every industry?  This leads me to point number two.  What does Barry want to do with the extra money the government gets if the bill is passed?  Pay down the debt?  Send me a check?  Wallpaper the White House?  No.  Of course not.  He would use it to “invest in the future.”

The bill would have killed several tax breaks taken by the five largest oil companies and use some of the proceeds to extend expiring energy tax provisions, such as tax breaks for renewable energy, electric cars and energy efficient homes.

That’s right.  He’d turn them into tax breaks for other industries.  And not just any other industries, but industries that don’t work and that nobody wants.  And as an aside, renewables are already the Belles of the Ball in terms of tax breaks.  Need proof?  Here’s some info from the Congressional Budget Office; complete with a picture which everybody likes.

So, what have we learned?  We have further confirmation that Obama’s a liar (which, to be fair, every politician is).  We’ve also learned that removing tax breaks is hard.  The Republicans didn’t just reject the bill because of the give-away to renewables, or because they’re in the pocket of big oil (which everyone in Congress is).  We’re already paying through the nose for gasoline, and increasing the costs on oil companies certainly won’t help prices go down.

Well, that’s it.  I’m going to listen to some more audio from the Obamacare hearings, and dream of days where the Supreme Court actually enforces the Constitution.

You could buy Italy for the price of Obamacare.

Nope, he's not a college professor. Sorry.

Primary season has officially arrived in Illinois.  Even though early voting has been going on for a while now, and the actual voting is almost upon us (the 20th), I really didn’t feel the upcoming election until last night, when, as I was trying to find my remote control, I began being fed propaganda by Mitt Romney.  Many people hate these commercials.  Not me.  At least I’m not being forced to watch another advertisement about stuff I’ll never use; like tampons.  I’m not a woman, but I did marry one (SCORE), and I’ve never seen her do gymnastics during that time of the month.  Come to think of it, I’ve never seen her do gymnastics at any time of the month.

The point is, I like political commercials.  It was nice to see Mittens all up in Santorum’s grill during his thirty-second spots.  I didn’t see any for Santorum.  Do these commercials really impact how people vote?  It seems unlikely.  For example, I was on the fence for a while, between Mittens and Santorum.  But then Santorum said he’d heavily regulate internet pornography, which caused me to immediately fall/jump off the fence onto Romney’s well-manicured lawn. Santorum’s porn position was not mentioned in Romney’s commercial.

Truth is, I’m voting for Romney because he can win…I’m not convinced Santorum can.  And winning matters.  I like being part of a winning team, even if I sat on the end of the bench.  Winning increases self-esteem, and chicks don’t dig losers.  Also, Obama’s a friggin’ train wreck, and not the kind you can’t look away from.  Problem is, the wreck is everywhere.

Take his monumental health care plan, for example.  Obamacare is right up there with shooting an unarmed man in the face in terms of Barry’s Greatest Hits.  Of course, all of us with an ounce of common sense (and by “common sense,” I mean the realization that stuff costs money), knew that the healthcare bill would cost way more than the administration was claiming.  Why?  Because you can’t subsidize the health care of millions without it costing lots of money.

Well, the CBO just updated its cost estimates for the kindler, gentler version of single-payer healthcare, and those estimates have provided strong support for Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words: “We need to pass it to know what’s in it.”  What’s in it happens to be slightly more than the gross domestic product of Italy, circa 2010:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Want more?

President Obama’s proposed budget would add $6.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

And this is before the thing even gets implemented (coming in 2014).  I can hear the liberals now…actually I can’t.  My guess is we won’t hear anything from the left on this.  All we heard from the left during the debate about Obamacare was that it would be deficit neutral.  That they’d find the savings by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in Medicare.  That they’d lower health care costs.  Well, those things all turned out to be inaccurate.  So, either the administration was criminally negligent in the quality of accountants it hired, or it simply lied.  I’ll let you decide which.

All of this leads me back to the beginning.  I’m voting for Romney because he can win (and he hasn’t mentioned regulating porn).  In fact, I think he will win.  Don’t look at national polls; look at local polls in the swing states.  And don’t look at them now, because Obama is currently running against himself; even he can’t lose that race.  Once Romney gets the nomination though, he’ll (hopefully) start pointing out Obama’s many large and distinguished warts.  Does Romney have some of his own?  Sure (see: Romneycare).  But at the end of the day, we’ll have a very successful businessman up against a college professor who has presided over the worst economic recovery since our last little-dictator shoved the New Deal disaster down America’s collective throat.

Hooray Democracy! Piggy, Duck!

We welcome your opinions!

I’m not like most people.  I enjoy saying “I told you so.”  Well, I told you so.

Remember the “Arab Spring?”  You know…when some of those Middle Eastern nations threw off the chains of oppression and rose up in a super-sized Democracy movement?  Sure you do.  And you likely recall that Egypt was the headlining band.  Certain loud portions of the Egyptian population didn’t like living under their stable dictator (never thought I’d use those two words together in a sentence), and so they caused a ruckus, which inevitably lead to the morons that run our country to work behind the scenes and pressure the dictator to step down.  Why?  Because Democracy totally rocks everywhere and at all times!

Some people with common sense, like me, were concerned about the movement in Egypt, however.  In fact, the whole thing reminded me a little too much of The Lord of the Flies.  That little island community started out with dreams of equality and free speech too (as long as you had the conch), but quickly devolved into the mean kid running around with his merry band of face-painted hooligans and ended with a boulder falling on Piggy.  Well, if Piggy were still alive, and living in Egypt, he should avoid standing under cliffs.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest winner in the first round of Egypt’s elections, has threatened to take to the streets if there is any attempt to manipulate results.

What is the Muslim Brotherhood?  Depends on who you ask.  If you ask a member of the Brotherhood, they’ll tell you it’s a moderate group that enjoys non-violent activities such as knitting and donkey-polo.  If you’re anyone else, its a fundamentalist islamic terrorist organization.  They’re credo is rather simple:

‘God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.’

Hmmm…that sounds slightly familiar.  And according to the Yahoo! news article linked above, the Brotherhood is the “moderate” group expected to share power in Egypt.

The first round of voting in the multi-stage election wraps up on Tuesday, with Islamist parties including the Brotherhood and hardline Salafist groups winning about two-thirds of votes.

The Salafists are even more hardcore than the Brotherhood (or are they just more open about it?) in their desires to rid the world of non-fundamentalist muslims.  Sounds like a government literally gushing with freedom and tolerance.

What does it all mean?  Under our current president, the Middle East has gone from bad to worse.  Iran is becoming nuclear; we’ve largely abandoned Israel; and we’ve supported the overthrow of a pro-West, moderate dictator in Egypt, in favor of new leadership comprised largely of anti-American fundamentalist muslims.  I’m glad all of that work Barry’s put in to improve America’s image in the Mid-East has worked so well.

$200,000 per job. And they wonder why people are angry.

Stimulus

More absurdity.  It’s not a surprise, mind you, because we’ve seen this before.  But one has to wonder how this man continues to have a job.

‘You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,’ Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.

That’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner not disagreeing with a recent study which concludes that each job created by Obama’s proposed “jobs bills” will cost taxpayers $200,000.00 for each job created.  And it’s not like the jobs “created” are going to receive salaries of $200,000.00.  Considering the types of jobs at issue, i.e., construction and government, over half of that money will be absorbed by bureaucrats.

Geithner speaks of alternatives.    What are these alternatives?

‘If government does nothing, it does nothing now because they’re scared by politics or they want to debate what’s perfect, then there will be fewer Americans back to work, the economy will be weaker,’ he said.

Apparently the only alternative is to do nothing.  This man is being paid $191,300.00/year, with a bad-ass pension, to be the super-smart economic policy guy.  According to him, the choices are either shoveling money to public employee unions and well-connected construction companies, to the tune of $200,000.00/job, or nothing.  Whatever happened to brain-storming?  My kid could give me better alternatives than that.  In fact, she did.

I asked my seven year old daughter what would be a better way of getting people to spend money, thereby stirring economic growth.  Let everyone keep more of their own, or spend a ridiculous sum on a few jobs for a small group of people.  Her answer: let everyone keep more of their own money, because then they’d buy stuff.  See, there’s one alternative so simple, a child could come up with it.

Why don’t we have a payroll tax holiday?  Why don’t we reduce the burdens on business, or cut the corporate tax rate?  Why don’t we just simplify the tax code, and lower everybody’s rates?  These are all things that could be done, which wouldn’t involve throwing more money at politically-connected groups.  That won’t happen though…why?  Because it takes away Barry’s only road to re-election: make the independents think the Republicans only care about the rich.  Let’s not forget the key point: that the “job’s bill” depends on raising taxes on the evil rich (while apparently giving everyone else a self-sustaining pony that craps rainbows).  I, for one, am bored with the “eat the rich” meme…and I’m not even rich.

The job’s bill is the worst kind of political theater, because it actually causes a few people to have hope that their situation will improve through government intervention.  It won’t.  See, this entire “spending” debate brought about by the Tea Party isn’t about taking money from the “most vulnerable.”  It’s actually about identifying those that truly are in need, and making everybody else get a friggin’ job.  There, I said it.  Do I believe giving anybody two+ years of unemployment benefits is going to make them take a lower-paying job than the one they just lost?  Call me cynical, but no.

Let’s review all that great government intervention: TARP?  Well, it certainly helped the big banks, which have largely paid us back.  Of course, it didn’t do anything for anyone else (which is not surprising when you consider the fact that Europe had done the same thing several months before), and the talking heads are now either complaining that it helped the wrong people (duh) or are giving airtime to the bored who are currently camping out on occupying Wall Street.  How about those auto bailouts?  Both GM and Chrysler went bankrupt anyway, with GM ultimately being owned by us…and the UAW (and they still haven’t paid us back).  The first stimulus?  You know, the one that was identical to the current jobs bill, except even more money was spent?  Sure it created some jobs.  But those jobs are now gone (because you can only fix a road so many times in one year…see, for example, Illinois), and the economy has never grown like the economists “expected.”

Based upon the Fantastic Failures of Government Intervention, Mr. Geithner’s other alternative, i.e., doing nothing, would certainly seem to be a better option.  Let’s face it.  Government manipulation of the housing market got us into this mess, and government’s efforts at resolving the crisis have only made it last longer.  Now, because our president wants to be re-elected, we’re going to try something that we already tried two years ago, and that we know failed in every conceivable way possible.  It’s this nonsense that angers people like me.  If the goal were to actually help people that needed it, you wouldn’t hear anybody like me complaining.  How about re-opening the state psychiatric facilities whose closure put a lot of disabled people on the street to fend for themselves.  Or maybe providing better care to our Veterans?  Instead of common sense, we get loads of borrowed money put into the programs that we know will fail because an election’s coming up.  Geithner’s justification: Why not…there’s loads of countries that are willing to loan us money.

Needless to same, I have come to the conclusion that obtaining an advanced degree in finance or economics from an Ivy League school is the equivalent of saving enough box tops to get that decoder ring you’ve always wanted: it may take awhile, but at least you get to eat a lot of cereal.

All Hail King Barry. **UPDATE**

I do what I want.

Or should I call him Dictator…or just Dic.  It’s quite amazing really.  I still hear libs call George W. Bush’s War in Iraq “illegal,” even though he actually sought, and received, Congressional approval multiple times.  Let’s compare that to our current president.  As you all know, B.O. decided to send some of our military assets to Libya, to help Western Europe secure some oil.  Since that time, we’ve been part of a coordinated effort to assassinate the leader of a foreign country that’s in the middle of a civil war.  Oh, and our president never asked Congress’s approval to do any of it.

To be fair, the prez had the authority to act unilaterally against Libya under the War Powers Resolution.  The WPR only allows him to take such action for sixty days, however…and that time has expired.  In other words, in order for the U.S. to continue its military action in Libya, Congressional approval is necessary.  It’s the law.  Unless you’re supreme leader Barack Hussein Obama.

Today, instead of seeking Congressional approval, our democratically elected president took it upon himself to tell the American people, with their pesky laws, to pound sand.  See, according to Barack, since we’re only half-assing our way to killing Qaddafi, our involvement in the Libyan conflict is “limited.”  Since it’s “limited,” Congressional approval is not needed.  Obama’s assertions are astonishing for several reasons.  First, claiming that military action is “limited” because we’re only “providing support” to NATO, when we’re the only ones with the boats and missiles and stuff, is absurd.  Second, the President is doing the very thing his party has accused Bush of doing, i.e., waging an illegal war, except this time, it’s actually illegal.  Last but not least, the whole basis for not seeking Congressional approval, i.e., that Libya is a “limited operation,” is an exception that doesn’t actually exist in the War Powers Resolution.  Barry and his lawyers simply made it up.  Oh, and then there’s that whole “we’re not trying to assassinate Qaddafi (that would be illegal) but we keep firing missiles at his house” thing.

Considering that Barry has already appointed his own personal czars to direct all manner of government without any Congressional oversight, deciding he can wage war against anyone he chooses, whenever he gets bored, doesn’t come as much of a surprise.  After all, he did just send U.S. military into a foreign country without its consent to shoot an unarmed man in the face.  But I must admit, I’m becoming a little scared of our tyrant in Washington.  Remember, Hitler was elected democratically too.

**UPDATE**  Well, despite what ABC told me almost thirty days ago (see link above), apparently the prez gets 90 days, not 60, to seek approval from Congress regarding Libya.  Not that it matters, since Barry still hasn’t asked for permission.  Now, Boehner has warned B.O. to seek Congress’s approval by Sunday (day 90)…or else (or else what?).

**UPDATE II**  Apparently ABC was right the first time…it is 60 days.  Although there seems to be some level of “flexibility” that could allow for 90.

What about Osama’s Civil Rights? *UPDATE*

They're actually watching the season finale of "The West Wing"

It’s fascinating, isn’t it?  I wonder if the lefties realize just how inconsistent they’re being over this whole OBL killing thing?  But we’ll get to that in a minute.  Yesterday, we, as the bill-paying children of the United States, were told that we are not going to get any more information about the outcome of Barry’s steel resolve in the face of overwhelming odds: the death of Binny.  Not just the photo of his dead body, but anything.  While the implied reason for the lack of info is mostly “national security,” the real reason is probably that everytime more information comes out, the killing looks more and more like one of those George W. Bush productions that the libs hate so much.

Let’s take all the latest information we have to date and see where we are.  Our glorious president, overflowing with both moral and American values, gives a “kill order” to the SEALs.  Not a “try and capture him so we can bring him to justice and kill only as last resort” order, but a “I expect to see his dead body sinking into the Arabian Sea before anyone knows he’s dead” order.  So, we insert American military far into a sovereign nation, without its consent or knowledge.  We break into a compound under the cover of darkness, kill several occupants, although no guns were ever found in the house.  Finally, we kill an unarmed man, in his bedroom, in the middle of the night.  And if you believe his 12 year old daughter, we had actually taken Laddy into custody before putting a couple of bullets in him.  When asked whether this operation was legal, AG Eric Holder said yes, stating that we were practicing “national self defense.”  Hmmmm.

Now, this is where I need to point out that I fully support what Barry decided to do.  All things being equal, I’m a fan of assassinating our enemies.  If it were a sports team, I’d wear its jersey with pride.  Let’s get them before they get us.  That’s why I always supported going into Iraq.  Next, we should find the Yemeni cleric who was allegedly behind several of the more recent terror attempts, and drop a bomb on his head.  But this is a George W. Bush position to take, not a “Bush should have been impeached and put in jail because he fought an illegal war and illegally waterboarded those terrorists” position.

I’m wondering how long it will take for cracks to appear in the liberal’s support of killing OBL.  Yes, the Pakistani assertions that there were no guns in the house can be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, since their feelings were hurt by not being cc’d on Barry’s email to the SEALs.  Also, I certainly question the credibility of the 12 year old daughter.  But we do know that our Prez gave the “kill” order and that Binny was unarmed at the time we shot him.  That info. came from our own people…and I was told yesterday that not believing our government makes me crazy…and I’m the sanest person I know.

The point is, we all know that, had Bush been behind the raid, all we’d be hearing from those on the left is that it was illegal, or immoral, or not keeping with our American values.  They’d ask why couldn’t we take him into custody and try him in federal court in New York?  Seriously, where’s the ACLU?  OBL’s Constitutional Rights have been taken without due process!  Are the protectors of our Civil Rights too busy harassing public school students as they pray over their fattening lunches to get on this?

Simply put, you can’t be a namby-pamby on national defense that spent eight years constantly hollering about Bush being a war criminal when your current Prez likely broke both international and national law in the killing of an unarmed man in a foreign country, while at the same time, attempting to assassinate Gaddafi in Libya during another ‘illegal’ war…and expect to be taken seriously.  But then again, they’re liberals, and they should never be taken seriously.

[UPDATE] Uh-oh…not only was Binny unarmed, a senior defense official said only one of people killed was armed, and that guy was in the guest house.  War crimes?  Hello?  And that picture at the top of the page?  They may actually have been watching “The West Wing,” since there were “twenty to twenty five minutes” when no one in the situation room knew what was going on because the SEAL’s helmet cam went out. 

Good thing the Prez wasn’t under oath last night

Saving the world, or something.

Barry’s speech last night was astounding.  He outlined the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ which basically says the U.S. will use military force in any country where we think civilians might be killed, or something like that.  He criticized the Iraq War for implementing a regime change, when that is exactly what the mission is in Libya.  Finally, he blatantly lied to the American people when he stated our involvement is ratcheting down, because we’re handing the  mission over to NATO; as if NATO has its own military sitting around somewhere.

Libya is a disaster in a myriad of ways.  First, it sets a precedent that will be used for every humanitarian crisis of the month.  I can hear it now, “if we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast?  Or Bahrain?  Or Haiti?”  Second, it’s a mission that will take months to complete…although we’re not exactly sure what will constitute completion.  Obama says regime change is not what we’re about…although we’ve sided with the rebels, and regime change is most certainly what they’re about.  This isn’t a peace-keeping, or humanitarian mission; it’s a military action.  What’s happening in Libya is a civil war, and we will be providing military support for the rebels.  If their goal is regime change, doesn’t that make it our goal by proxy?  Our government is even considering arming the rebels.  The rebels consist, at least in part, of members of Al Qaeda!  We’re actually contemplating arming our enemy.  Do we learn absolutely nothing from the past?

And who is NATO?  Well, it’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it was primarily created as an allegiance against the Soviet Union.  It’s members consist of us, France, England, and then some other countries with the military equivalent of catapults.  Simply removing the American flag patch from our uniforms and replacing it with a NATO patch doesn’t change the fact that it’s our troops being shot at.  Just as an example, 2200 Marines are being shipped out for a 10 month tour of duty off the Libyan coast.   And for what?  To protect armed rebels?  Armed rebels that choose to hide out within a civilian population?  Why do you think Q was sending his troops to Benghazi?  It wasn’t to check out the scenery; the rebels selected the city, with all those human shields, as their base of operation.

If this is a humanitarian mission, then why the hell is our secretary of state meeting with a rebel representative, to “determine Libya’s future?”  If this doesn’t constitute regime change, than I don’t know what does.  And of course, the reason for all of this has already come to pass for Western Europe: the rebels are going to start selling oil again. 

Liberals still don’t get it

Well, it was a long, and glorious, evening.  In case you don’t follow these things, the Republicans took control of the House by winning over 60 seats.  They also took practical control of the Senate, and continued their assault with big gubernatorial pick-ups in various states.  It was, without question, an unmitigated disaster for Obama, liberal Democrats, and especially, the “moderate” Dems who sold their souls to the far left of Nancy Pelosi.  In fact, I can’t decide what was better last night: seeing the results or hearing the pure, unadulterated anger in the voices of the MSNBC election coverage. 

Of course, last night’s results beg the question: why did it happen?  Was it because of how much we luv the Republicans?  Not really.  Was it because of Obama’s policies?  Almost certainly.  You listen to the far left progressives, however, and you quickly realize that they (still) don’t get it.

“Obama didn’t spend enough.”  “He didn’t push single-payer.”  “He didn’t forcefully propel his progressive agenda.”  “The messaging on all the great stuff he’s accomplished was lost somewhere.”  These are the things I’ve been hearing from the left.  They believe the true left will now become more galvanized without the “moderates.”  I think the Keith Olberman’s of the world will quickly come to realize, however, that what’s left of their party doesn’t agree.

Here’s what we learned last night.  Through all the dissatisfaction with the Republicans and their wars and their spending, this country is still a center-right country.  America is different than every other country in the world because we were a democracy from inception.  In other words, personal freedom, responsibility, and opportunity are our culture.  For good or bad, we don’t like big government.  We don’t even like medium government.  And we showed that last night.

The liberals see a stimulus that saved jobs.  The majority of this country sees billions of dollars being taken from the pockets of producers in the private market, some of whom are now part of the 9.5% unemployed, and given to government workers.  Like it or not, government employees work for us, and when they’re pulling down paychecks and benefits and pensions on the backs of the unemployed or underemployed, heads will roll.  Why?  Because we’re not France, and we wouldn’t even know how to be France.

Liberals see legislation that gives everybody insurance.  The majority of this country sees legislation that isn’t going to reduce the amounts they pay for medical care, but will increase their costs elsewhere, as the government will certainly need to subsidize millions of people who still can’t afford it. 

Liberals see Social Security as a safety net for the retired.  The majority sees taxes taken out of their paycheck at gunpoint, money which they, and the economy, could certainly use now, with empty promises that it will be protected for their retirement.   

This is the divide that separates America from Western Europe (and the rest of the world).  We’re willing to pay taxes for the military, police, and efficient government.  We’re even willing to pay taxes to provide for assistance to those who need it.  We’re not, however, willing to pay taxes for Michelle Obama to travel through Spain in style, or Nancy Pelosi to fly on private aircraft whenever she feels like going somewhere, or a Dept. of Justice that selectively enforces federal law, or people on welfare using their government-issued debit cards for psychic readings (I’m looking at you California).  This is especially true when many of the people paying the taxes are having a hard time putting food on the table.

Simply put, last night was a message to our representatives, both Republican and Democrat, to get their acts together.  If the remaining liberals in office don’t want to heed that call, then they may find themselves in an even smaller minority come 2012; which wouldn’t be a bad thing.