How to destroy a nation Reply

By Tom Quiner

It is essential to squash a people’s independent spirit to bring them down.

America is the most independent nation in history. That is changing. As the chilling video above reveals, our kids coming out of public schools today increasingly have a sense of entitlement. In other words, they are increasingly comfortable to become dependent on government.

The teachers union controls our kid’s curriculum, and they downplay capitalism and American Exceptionalism at the same time they nurture political correctness, multiculturalism, and envy.

President Obama builds on the degradation of achievement with his support of the Occupy Wall Street Crowd and his demonization of America’s top producers (aka “the rich”).

Let me pause here. I come from a family of public school teachers. There are teachers doing wonderful work against increasingly tough odds these days.

I honor these teachers and the teaching profession.

I do not honor the teachers union who have a stunning influence on our children and national politics. They were one of Barack Obama’s biggest campaign supporters. They have politicized education.

Under Mr. Obama, 44% of Americans receive some sort of payment from government compared to 29% (still a huge number) under President Reagan.

The video above reveals the sense of entitlement our youth have ingrained in them by the time they reach college.

Let me leave you with this question: does a sense of entitlement make a country stronger or weaker?

Gingrich vs. Obama: who is more trustworthy? 4

By Tom Quiner

This is part two of a discussion of Barack Obama’s trustworthiness compared to Newt Gingrich’s.

To my many liberal friends reading this, I’d like to explain my rationale for writing this post. As you know, I am a fan of Newt Gingrich. I think he would make a great president, and I plan to caucus for him on January 3rd.

I know you gently demur.

Newt Gingrich has been hammered in the press by liberals and conservatives alike this past month for his “baggage.” Fair enough. Goes with the territory when you run for president. But when one of my liberal friends said he couldn’t trust Newt Gingrich because he had been twice-divorced, I was prompted to post a blog earlier this week: “Do you really trust President Obama more than Newt Gingrich?”

I methodically revealed one broken promise after another from Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, that post was far from exhaustive. Since Mr. Obama did not receive the same scrutiny in the press as a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney, I am compelled to build on the president’s lack of integrity on a number of additional issues.

One of candidate Obama’s broken promises was his adamant support of public financing of presidential campaigns:

“I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

When it came time to honor this campaign promise, Mr. Obama reneged, even as the McCain campaign honored their commitment to stick with public financing. The McCain campaign also denied that the Obama camp tried to discuss or even negotiate on this issue.

This is but one of countless pledges on which he brazenly reneged, and as always, with little outrage from the Mainstream Media.

Once president, Americans became alarmed at the shocking expansion of government spending and national debt implemented by the president and his party. President Obama spoke soothingly of his budget …

“What my budget does is…that by the middle of this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt.”

And yet, despite Mr. Obama’s point-blank denial that his budget was adding to the national debt, the budget released by the White House totally contradicted him with these projected deficits over the next decade:

  • 2010: $1.293 trillion
  • 2011: $1.645 trillion
  • 2012: $1.101 trillion
  • 2013: $768 billion
  • 2014: $645 billion
  • 2015: $607 billion
  • 2016: $649 billion
  • 2017: $627 billion
  • 2018: $619 billion
  • 2019: $681 billion
  • 2020: $735 billion
When we look at the nation’s accumulated debt burden on Mr. Obama’s watch, the shocking numbers explain why the Tea Party was born:
  • 2010: $9.019 trillion
  • 2011: $10.856 trillion
  • 2012: $11.881 trillion
  • 2013: $12.784 trillion
  • 2014: $13.562 trillion
  • 2015: $14.301 trillion
  • 2016: $15.064 trillion
  • 2017: $15.795 trillion
  • 2018: $16.513 trillion
  • 2019: $17.284 trillion
  • 2020: $18.103 trillion

To recap this and my previous post, Barack Obama promised to:

1. Provide healthcare for all.  He didn’t.  22 million will remain uninsured under his watch.

2. Close Guantanamo. He didn’t. It’s still open. He stuck with the Bush approach.

3. End military tribunals. He didn’t. He stuck with the Bush approach.

4. Revise the Patriot Act. He didn’t. He stuck with the Bush approach.

5. End the Bush-era tax cuts for “the rich.” He didn’t. He stuck with the Bush approach.

6. Never sign a new piece of legislation, known as his “sunlight before signing” vow, until 5 days had passed. He’s broken this promise repeatedly, especially on mammoth pieces of legislation like Obamacare that required lots of sunlight time to be properly scrutinized.

7. Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses. He didn’t.

8. Never hire lobbyists in his administration. He broke the vow and hired lobbyists.

9. To stick with public campaign funding for his presidential bid in 2008. He didn’t honor his pledge. But John McCain did.

10. Not add to the national debt. He has, with a mind-boggling expansion of federal spending.

In fairness, not all campaign promises can be kept. Intentions are good, but politics get in the way. But most of the promises on which he reneged above were Mr. Obama’s choice.
It is these brazen betrayals that breed such cynicism amongst voters.
In light of Mr. Obama’s choice to consistently dishonor the moral underpinnings of his campaign, I respectfully suggest that Mr. Gingrich’s two divorces should be a minor consideration to independent voters.

Do you really trust President Obama more than Newt Gingrich? 6

By Tom Quiner

Barack Obama

Newt Gingrich

I had lunch yesterday with my favorite liberal friend.

He voted for Barack Obama for President. He will most likely vote for him again.

I asked him about Newt Gingrich. He said he could never vote for Mr. Gingrich because he broke his marriage vows.

Quiner’s Diner has suggested in a previous post that there is no correlation between divorce and a person’s ability to lead the nation (Analyzing Gingrich’s Baggage).

However, there is a link if the candidate, in this case, Barack Obama, has lied to you, the voter.

Now I don’t like to use the word lie, because politicians oftentimes say things with good intentions but just can’t get something done because of a weakness in their ability to lead.

Take President Obama, he vowed to provide healthcare for all. Ain’t gonna happen.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 22 million Americans will lack access to basic health services after the full implementation of Obamacare in 2014.

Did President Obama lie? No, he just couldn’t deliver on his campaign hype. Happens to every candidate.

How about his campaign promise to close Guantanamo? This was a huge deal to Candidate Obama and his political base. President Obama reneged on this pledge once he got into office and discovered that President Bush was right to keep it open. President Obama even resumed the use of military tribunals with terrorists, something he formerly opposed.

Did President Obama lie? I think the term is harsh, but this is a campaign pledge he chose to break, because he realized his earlier emphatic view was emphatically incorrect.

Candidate Obama called for reform of the Patriot Act. When push came to shove, he called for renewing the law as it stands without change, tacitly acknowledging that President Bush was once again correct.

Candidate Obama vowed to end the Bush-era tax cuts for high earners. Agree or disagree with the position, Mr. Obama didn’t deliver, again tacitly acknowledging that President Bush was correct.

Candidate Obama appealed to voters on both sides of the aisle with his “sunlight before signing” vow:

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

He hammered home the point on his website:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

The president has total control over keeping this vow. No one can make the president sign a law any sooner than the president wants to. The rationale behind candidate Obama’s vow to wait for 5 days makes sense in light of the complexity of some legislation, such as the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Then-Speaker Pelosi acknowledged it had to be passed before we’d fully “find out what’s in it.”

The president reneged. He signed it into law just two days after passage.

Same thing with his mammoth $787 Billion stimulus package, the one supposedly loaded with shovel-ready jobs. He waited only a day. He didn’t allow voters enough time to see the finished bill and learn that much of it was being diverted to public union employees. There were no shovel-ready jobs.

The same thing happened with the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. He chose to renege on his campaign promise and sign them into law without waiting five days.

Candidate Obama also promised to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses. He didn’t.

Candidate Obama proudly claimed he would never hirer any lobbyists in his administration. He was adamant, as you can tell from his remarks here in Des Moines on November  10th, 2007:

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

He doubled down on his commitment to keep lobbyists out of his administration with these comments during a campaign speech:

“When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

The USA Today exposed his boast as a fraud. They reveal that his campaign fund-raising team included 38 lobbyists who had been paid $138 million to lobby the federal government in 2007. President Obama proceeded to appoint two lobbyists to his administration.

No one made candidate Obama hire lobbyists to raise money for his campaign and appoint them to his administrataion. Barack Obama made the choice even though it contradicted his campaign promise.

On the other hand, let us look at Newt Gingrich. Through his leadership, Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994, the first time that had happened in forty years.

Mr. Gingrich led the charge by helping develop and sell The Contract for America. He got every Republican candidate to sign on to the Contract except for two. The Contract promised a vote on 8 reforms. Speaker Gingrich delivered on his promise and got each reform to the floor for a debate. All did not pass the Senate. But through the Speaker’s leadership, he delivered a balanced budget to the American people.

So let us return to the headline of this post: whom do you trust more, President Obama or Newt Gingrich?

The never-divorced president chose to repeatedly, and cynically, renege on key campaign promises he made to his supporters and the American people.

The twice divorced Speaker delivered on his.

Analyzing Gingrich’s “baggage” 4

By Tom Quiner

One of three men will be elected President of the United States in eleven months: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich.

Could one of the lower tier candidates like Michele Bachman or Rick Santorum experience a resurgence and win the presidency? It is possible, but unlikely at this stage in the campaign. The polls indicate it will come down to these three.

Each has serious baggage.

Mr. Obama’s baggage is profound. He has been president three years and things have gotten worse. Unemployment has gone up. Black unemployment is horrendous. The economy is running on fumes. Our debt is out of control, and the president’s only solution is to tax America’s most productive Americans, aka “the rich.”

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, the president could come up with only a single cut he’d be willing to make to the budget: block grants to community action agencies, which accounts for a little less than a billion dollars from the budget (a drop in the bucket in a sea of red ink). The irony is that community action agencies (which are not government entities), are on the front line in leading dependent people to independence in the fifty states. That’s the last place we’d want to cut.

The president has added a massive new entitlement, Obamacare, that nobody wants. And taxpayers feel conned by that boondoggle. At the time Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid presented Obamacare to the American public, they sold it as a way to reduce costs. Once it was passed and we “learned what was actually in it,” to quote Ms. Pelosi, the Congressional Budget Office revealed what conservatives had been saying all along, it is going to be very, very expensive. It will not save the government money; it will add to the deficit.

Mr. Obama has serious baggage with practicing Catholics. His party crammed abortion into Obamacare over their protests. His administration is stripping conscience protection laws away from Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims who work in the medical field and want nothing to do with what they consider to be nothing short of infanticide. And now the Obama administration is pushing to make the morning-after abortion bill available over-the-counter without a prescription.

Keep in mind that Catholics all by themselves represent 27% of the electorate.

Want to talk about baggage? The president is rich with it.

What about Mitt Romney? I will preface my remarks by saying I like Mitt Romney. I could vote for him over Mr. Obama in a heartbeat. Like every politician who has been around awhile, he has had some policy flip flops. His flip flops have been on core issues such as abortion and gay marriage, a source of huge concern for social conservatives. And his embrace of Romenycare, upon which Obamacare was modeled, reveals a comfort for big-government solutions that conservatives view as major baggage. In defense of Mr. Romney, he vetoed eight of the most onerous provisions of the bill, but the liberal Massachusetts legislature overrode his veto on six of the them.

Nonetheless, Mr. Romney loses a key point of debate with the president when it comes to the critical subject of healthcare. You can hear the president’s words: “Mitt, we were just following your lead.”

Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney carries major baggage in this campaign.

That brings me to Newt Gingrich.

I’ve heard it many times: Gingrich has too much baggage. A frequent liberal contributor to the Des Moines Register’s letter to the editor page put it this way:

“I was shocked when I read the latest Iowa Poll that has Newt Gingrich taking the lead among Republicans. How can this philandering man in the party of family values be the frontrunner?”

We will quickly acknowledge that marital fidelity is not an issue to Democrats in light of their tolerance of infidelity, and accusations of indecent exposure, sexual harassment, and even rape, by former president, Bill Clinton.

It is a bigger deal to conservatives, but not a deal killer. Here’s the question: does marital infidelity affect a person’s ability to lead?

Evidence says no.

Just look at the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. By all appearances, both have been faithful husbands. For that, I applaud them. But they were (and are) lousy presidents.

Ronald Reagan was divorced and was a great president.

Martin Luther King was known for his marital infidelities, but was a powerful civil rights leader who changed America.

One of the great leaders in biblical history is King David, a notorious adulterer who had the husband of his mistress killed.

A good conservative who had been so critical of former President Clinton’s escapades, said to me recently that he couldn’t support Mr. Gingrich. He said he’d feel hypocritical after bashing Clinton all those years.

Comparing Clinton to Gingrich is like comparing apples to oranges. Mr. Clinton took advantage of a young intern in the Oval Office. He was accused of even worse. Mr. Gingrich got divorced twice. I hate to say it, but people get divorced. Half of the country has been divorced.

I don’t see Mr. Gingrich’s divorces as an impediment to his ability to lead.

The liberal letter writer leveled another accusation at Mr. Gingrich:

“How about the fact that he faced ethics violations while serving as the speaker of the House and resigned?”

Mr. Gingrich faced 75 ethic charges while in the House. All but one were dropped. He evidently claimed tax-exempt status for a college course that was viewed as a political endeavor.

What happened?

The House had a hard time trying to figure out if Mr. Gingrich did something wrong on this issue, so they brought in outside counsel who identified two Gingrich infractions:

1. He “may” have violated tax law “by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.”

2. He provided false information to the panel based on a mis-filed form. For this, Gingrich paid a $300,000 fine.

A year later, the IRS finished their review and found no improprieties in Gingrich’s tax filings.

Newt Gingrich was cleared. All the charges were bogus.

Our liberal writer continues with another bit of Gingrich baggage:

“Have you already forgotten about the luxury cruise he and his wife went on at the beginning of the campaign? “

Is it a crime to have money in this country? If it is, Barack Obama is disqualified. So is Mitt Romney. So is Ronald Reagan. So is Hillary Clinton.

Is the writer critical that Mr. Gingrich wished to take a vacation and spend some time with his wife, Callista, before the rigors of the campaign made this opportunity impossible?

Keep in mind, he took his cruise last Spring, a year and a half before the election. Is that really baggage? On the other hand, the president is in Hawaii for 17 days right now on his umpteenth vacation of the year. I don’t hear many liberals squawking about that.

Mr. Gingrich’s views are crystal clear on the subject of life:

“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception. I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law. That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life.”

Unlike Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich offers a complete package for Independent and conservative voters. He is unequivocal on life issues. He is not only a fiscal conservative, he actually balanced the budget when he had a chance to do something about it.

He reformed welfare when he had a chance to do something about it.

He reduced capital gains taxes when he was in a position to do something about it.

He ramrodded the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 which made Congress live by the same rules that business had to live with.

Newt Gingrich has demonstrated that he is an extraordinary leader with a brilliant mind. We need his talents to help restore America.

[This was Quiner’s Diner’s 400th post! Do you like what we’re saying? Then spread the word! Don’t like the message? Then spread the word! We want to hear your thoughts. We love respectful, civil discourse. Be sure to e-mail today’s column, or post it on your Facebook page. DON’T FORGET TO VOTE on how well you like … or disliked … today’s post.]

Would you pass the malaise please? 1

By Tom Quiner

You’ve got $5000 in your pocket. Who is going to spend that money better:  you or a stranger?

Answer quickly, please.

Do you really think a stranger is going to take your five grand and spend/invest it better?

It’s an interesting question, because Warren Buffet says rich (productive) Americans need to pay more taxes. And yet he gives a lot of money away to charity. And yet he’s got a fancy foundation that gives even more money away. And yet he doesn’t give that money to the government, even though he says he and other top producers need to be taxed at a higher rate.

He acknowledges by his inaction that a stranger (aka bureaucrat or legislator) is not going to spend his money better than he is.

But that is the foundational principal of liberalism. From Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, the cry is always that the most productive Americans are under-taxed, that government can spend their money better than they can. (For the record, I am not one of these super producers. Nonetheless, I commend their significant contribution to our nation’s economy and tax base.)

America has had two dramatic periods of stagnation in my lifetime: the Jimmy Carter years and the Barack Obama years. Both of them blamed problems on others. Mr. Obama says we’ve gotten soft. Mr. Carter lamented a national malaise, a crisis of confidence.

Mr. Carter screamed for windfall profit taxes. That was the solution to our problems.

Mr. Obama’s mantra is tax increase on the rich. That is the solution to our problems.

Each of them shared a similar vision: that problem was not them; it is us.

Laura Ingraham juxtaposes the words of these two liberal presidents. The similarity of their floundering rhetoric is scary.