Oh How the Left Loves to Hide Anti-Rich Propaganda...

You know why (well, one of the many reasons) the left teams up against the rich? It isn't just the jealousy, or the pure envy, but a mixture of those emotions and the fact that there are so few rich to compared to the amount of non-rich that exist.

Frankly, there is a bullying element in it.

But regardless, the left will stop at nothing to incorporate the "we hate the evil, stinking, filthy rich" feeling into everything they do. It feels too good not to. Those who pride themselves on "social" everything love banding together in groups (hello unions) in order to facilitate a change.

Why did I bring this up? Well, it's because I wanted to discuss the article titled, "After Your Job is Gone." - (http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/)

Obama says "There is no Immediate Debt Crisis"

And then claims, "in fact, for the next 10 years, it's gonna be in a sustainable place."

Wait, WHAT?!

I just had to post this. It seemed so "out of whack" that I figured it would be something worth talking about: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/

Take a look at The President's interview, and share your thoughts. I will say, upon looking at some of the comments in the article, these sum it up the best:

 - "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem, and a failure of leadership. America deserves better." - Senator Barack Obama, March 16, 2006

- "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt form $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman, and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." - Candidate Barack Obama, July 3, 2008

What do YOU think?

President Obama's 23 Executive Orders Involving Guns

The purpose of this post is to pass along the information and specifics of President Obama's 23 executive orders pertaining to gun rights and gun control. I'm not labeling every executive order as a "gun control" measure, so that's why the title is named as such.

I have not yet developed an opinion of each order specifically, and since I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, I might not be able to for a long time. I will certainly share what I think based on the headlines of each order (of the entire proposal in full), but I don't believe it would be significant to address them individually. Regardless, since this blog exists to pass along information and foster civil, informative debate, I believe it's imperative to share this information.

Here is the PDF of Obama's plan titled "Now is the Time" - http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/556943/white-house-now-is-the-time.pdf

Here is a list, summarized by CainTV and Herman Cain's staff, that extracts from the main document the 23 orders in principle: http://www.caintv.com/complete-list-of-obamas-execut

Ben Shapiro Takes on Piers Morgan the Right Way

One week ago, I posted the video clip of conservative radio show host Alex Jones making what I think is a fool of himself on the Piers Morgan show. If you don't already know, Morgan has made himself the prime time, cable TV voice of gun control in America, and he has repeatedly, time and time again, brought on gun rights advocates and demeaned, insulted, and berated them for views Morgan deems "absurd." In Jones' case, the message was resounding, but the delivery and the behavior was quite off and disrespectful. Granted, this is what Morgan does to his own opponents who have differing views, but as I said in last week's write-up, we on the right shouldn't behave in this way. We should let the left maintain their contempt and intolerance for opposition and diversity, and we should not shoot back with disrespect, even if it is manifested in a different form. It is ever more clear that Morgan knew how to get a buzz out of the "right" by inviting a fringe, hot-button member on his show, and that ratings and hollow pulpits, above all things, are all that matters to Morgan and CNN.

Alex Jones on Piers Morgan: Right Message, Wrong Delivery

Alex Jones, the conservative radio host responsible for the White House petition to deport Piers Morgan, had a chance to face Morgan in a "debate" about gun rights versus gun control on Morgan's show last night:

Politico (VIDEO): http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/the-deport-piers-morgan-creator-blows-up-on-cnn-153577.html

CNN (VIDEO): http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/us/piers-morgan-guns-debate/index.html

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/alex-jones-piers-morgan-guns_n_2429161.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

The Fiscal Cliff Deal: Country-Helping Compromise or Crap Sandwich?

You've now undoubtedly heard that the House of Representatives has voted in favor of the Senate's version of the Fiscal Cliff bill (officially titled the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012). President Obama is expected to sign it soon. To see the pdf of the bill, go here: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/01/01/american.taxpayer.relief.act.pdf

So what do you think? Is this good for the country? Did one side win? Did one side lose? What about the process?

My opinion:

First, I want to address the process. This might sound odd to some, but in my opinion, the process is the biggest winner here... to some extent. Our bicameral legislature was established to do exactly what the Congress just did: Debate, delegate, argue, and move slowly towards a compromise. While the Fiscal Cliff negotiation process was "oversensationalized" by the media, (albeit, a heavily-slanted media that used this opportunity to push an agenda), it went precisely as our Forefathers envisioned. Our legislative body, the Congress, was designed to be slow. It was designed this way to ensure tyrannical, quick, dictator-like laws were difficult to enact. Our Forefathers believed that if laws were passed quickly, they would not be passed properly. If it was possible for a bill to become law in quick fashion, without debate (which is a representation of the people spread around this country), why not just have one man or woman, namely, a king or queen, simply implement laws? I addressed this previously, and I do believe wholeheartedly in the concept of legislative compromise:

Open Forum: Gun Control; Recognizing Problems and Possible Solutions

As expected, the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut has sent the country into a whirlwind over gun control versus gun rights. Debates have been conducted on Sunday morning talk shows, Facebook, and social circles. I, for one, have been engaged in numerous Facebook debates since the tragedy unfolded as it seems there is no "waiting period" before starting up a discussion. While monitoring my Facebook feed at noon on Friday, the morning of the attack, I noticed gun control debates already flaring up on the social networking site quickly. Keep in mind, this sad attack on innocent school children was not the final straw that started this debate. It's a debate that happens constantly, and legally, it's debated and ruled upon often: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/us/illinois-appeals-court-overturns-state-ban-on-concealed-weapons.html?_r=0

This Open Forum is dedicated to a discussion on gun control.

Open Forum: Fiscal Cliff Friday

Here we are about one month away from the self-imposed "fiscal cliff," and, as expected, the opinions are flying. I believe that because of the mainstream media's liberal leaning it's difficult to get a real sense of what this situation comprises. It seems clear that the media has taken sides, (here, here, and here are just a few of many examples), so getting real, truthful, fact-based information might be difficult.

Regardless, based on what we do know, how would YOU solve the problem. Put yourself in any situation: As a senator, a representative, the President, a casual observer, a taxpayer... whatever you like. How would you handle the situation? Would you negotiate? What do you think should be the solution? What would you like to see as the outcome? This open forum is for just that: sharing any thoughts, opinions, advice, information, etc., that you have concerning the fiscal cliff. I'll put my quick opinion below; feel free to join in any time.

Happy Fiscal Cliff Friday! :-)

Mr. Obama: What are These Fiscal Cliff Negotiations Really About?

Call this an open letter, a fair question, or a continuation of this blog's debate on the Fiscal Cliff:

Part 1 - Fiscal Cliff Open Forum: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/11/open-forum-fiscal-cliff-friday.html

Part 2 - Speaker Boehner's Offer/Proposal to the President: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/12/speaker-boehners-letter-and-fiscal.html

And now Part 3 - Trying to discover what this is truly about. I pose what I think is a very real question:

"Mr. President (and, by association, democrats), would you accept a GOP-sponsored proposal IF it raised the exact same revenue as your proposal but did so by cutting loopholes, deductions, etc., and not raising tax rates?"

Can everyone see where I'm going with this? It's philosophical, sure... but it gets at the heart of this negotiation.

Modern Federalism: A Great Compromise - Part II: States' Rights and Personal Preferences

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." 

- James Madison: From Federalist #45

As it was discussed in Part I, rights are nothing more than a set of permissions or rules adhered to and protected by a society or group of people, and societies and groups of people are defined by different cultures, religions, geographies, etc. While any citizen can make a claim such as, "it's my right to smoke marijuana" or "it's my right to marry whomever I want" or "it's my right to speak as freely as I want," the fact remains that these claims are unfounded, and there are no rights that are guaranteed other than those granted by society. To those who refuse to accept this reality, I ask, "if the rights you claim exist actually do, where do they come from?" Regardless of your answer, what luck do you suppose you'd have if you tried to execute the aforementioned rights in a society that didn't permit and protect them? It needs to be understood that a democratic society, as abhorrent as it sounds, can push its beliefs upon its citizens, even those who choose still live within it as non-participants or non-believers. Before protesting and scoffing at this idea, just think about the question I just asked. The will of the people, through a democratic system, ultimately determines the direction their society travels. You might ask, "well, what about the little guy, and what about his/her rights?" The answer is simple: what about them? If society doesn't grant a right, the right doesn't exist. Polygamy is a great example of this. Why can't polygamists marry whom they want and live in the peaceful way they wish with the same marriage-based government protections that non-polygamists and now some homosexual couples enjoy? Isn't it the polygamist's "right" to love and live as they choose? Simply, no... not yet. That right has not yet been granted by society, and yes, from those polygamists' view, their "rights" are being squashed. As we go forward, it's important to know that while the prescribed notion and understanding of rights discussed here is crucial to a properly functioning society, the axiom that rises above all notions, explained or not explained, is that for the people of any society to be truly free, they must have the ability to live in a society whereby they themselves choose the very society in which they live.

Modern Federalism: A Great Compromise - Part I: Rights

A Preface

Under our current political landscape, one of increasing divisiveness and abrasion, it is key, for political sanity, sanctity, and efficacy, to seek a common ground. Unfortunately, one main realization becomes clearer as each day passes: the larger the political divide grows, the more difficult it becomes to reach that mutual, common-ground goal.

Before we appreciate why Modern Federalism is truly a prodigious compromise, and before we discuss the various mechanisms by which it is, it is important to preface a discussion about this endeavor with a mastery, both in understanding and execution, of the very set of ideas around which most of our political and ideological disagreements revolve: rights.

Of all things manifest, rights are perhaps the most sacred, protected, and revered. As Americans, we cherish our American rights, and from the time of our country's founding until eternity's end, we will fight for our American rights until we're at death's door. These rights, while safeguarded and treasured, are often misunderstood. Regardless of an individual's religious beliefs or lack thereof, rights are often thought of as a divinely-granted proposition. This, however, couldn't be further from the truth.

Where Do Republicans Go From Here? - A Message From the Blog

Good morning,

As all of you have undoubtedly realized, November 6th, 2012 was not a good day for the GOP. If elections and politics were a matter of winning and losing, we lost big time. In the presidential election and in most senate races, the republican party did not perform strongly. 

Fortunately for republicans, and for the nation, elections and politics are not about winning and losing; they're about ideas, proposals, and problem solving. While the pangs of Tuesday night will surely resound for weeks to come, this isn't a time to sulk, bicker, and blame. Reassessing the past and licking our wounds will do us little good. It's time to work together as a party, a coalition, and a cause to bring us together for not only the sake of our institution, but for the greater good of our country.

What is this about? Teamwork. It's as simple as that. It has been observed and reported that the democrats and Team Obama have a great "ground game" and that's what propelled the President to victory. I believe this is very accurate. There is something to learn from our losses, however. Since this isn't a game to be won or lost... since this isn't a battle by which we must hurt the other side in order for us to succeed, the best way to move forward is to work together, not only improving our "ground game," but our message, plans, and platform overall.

Time To Wake Up - Seth Leibsohn's Morning Monologue on Bill Bennett's Morning in America

The following transcript was sent to The Elephant in the Room by Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show. For those that don't know, Morning in America is a radio show that airs live Monday through Friday from 6:00am to 9:00am, EST. It is hosted by Dr. William Bennett, the former U.S. Secretary of Education. Bennett's radio show is an insightful one, and he runs it just as we run our blog: respectfully, and guided with truth and fact. Bill does not engage in shouting matches and he slings no insults. His show is nothing but intelligent, fact-based debate where all viewpoints are discussed and respected regardless of platform.

Website: http://www.billbennett.com/

On Fridays, the show is run by a special guest host (usually Seth Leibsohn). The host runs the show in the same manner as Bill and never deviates from the values of thoughtful debate that Bill maintains throughout his broadcasts.

Below is the transcript from today's show. I think it raises good, fair questions about the President's record, his accomplishments, and his overall push for Obama-defined "fairness." Agree or not, in my opinion, it's a good debate especially with a general election that's 6 months away.