Thursday, November 15, 2012

Plausible Deniability

By Jordan Front

By now you’ve heard that Gen. David Patraeus has resigned from his post atop the CIA thanks to the media blitz about his sex scandal. The meme on from the right was “We know more about Patraeus after two days than Fast and Furious after two years and Benghazi after two months.” That’s spot on.

This is of course in the wake of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, of which an investigation is taking place. How convenient it is that a person in the position of knowing something has a scandal brought against him at the same time! What a coincidence! Can’t subpoena him now (or whatever the technicality is).

What is interesting is that the General’s “special friend,” Paula Broadwell spoke publically about the Benghazi attack being about a terror group responding to the CIA holding Libyan militia members in detention. Well… that’s sure a more realistic motivator than a Youtube video, wouldn’t you say?

The CIA denies this because an executive order was signed in 2009 that prohibits the Agency to detain folks. Cue the scene from Airplane! where the crap literally hits the fan.

What is even more egregious is that Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice is being considered for Secretary of State. This is a person who went on five shows five days after the attack and claimed they were spontaneous. Senator Jeff Corker from Tennessee said it best in that she either lied on purpose or she was out of the loop- both are bad!

All of us conservatives knew Benghazi-gate smelled fishy, it’s just too bad this didn’t come out before the election. Or that Mitt Romney was just barely, almost, kind of, sort of, a little bit forceful on the issue.

Well, there’s no crying over spilled blood! Because after hearing the news, the President leaped into… bed. He had to get up early for that fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day, you know.

The President has played over 100 rounds of golf since he has been in office; eighteen holes 25 times a year is a good amount for anyone. What’s the pricetag on that, Mr. President? Also, who paid for it- you or the taxpayer?

Nevermind. I support Barry on the links! He can’t do any damage when he’s not running the country, right?

At least he can’t be blamed for lying or knowing something radioactive when he really doesn’t know. Thank goodness for plausible deniability and unelected cabinet members making the tough choices so the President doesn’t have to get his hands dirty.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Veteran's Day

By Jordan Front

We here at Getting Upset would like to thank our veterans for the exemplary job they have done defending our country.

We Americans are detached from the perils of the world. We are sheltered from war in our backyard, famine, extreme poverty and ravenous diseases. Sadly, our troops are deployed to see these horrors and they are needed to defend us from the scum of the earth.

Yes, America imposes it’s will on the world. Someone please argue with me that the rights to life, liberty and property are wrong, because that is what America spreads to the world! Spreading these rights to whatever region to foster America’s best interests does not diminish the mission’s legitimacy.

Every war America has been involved in has been over the protection of liberty, life or our property (or that of an ally).

Our troops are legitimately hated by some. This is because they are those who forcibly carry out the will of America (which they see as wrong, illegitimate, etc.). In essence, those who have a problem with our troops dislike that they perform so well furthering this country. Some people just can’t stand a winner!

Let’s not forget that our troops are government employees. Is it ironic that some people want to cut the funding of one of the most explicitly Constitutional areas of government; to “provide for the common defense”? What’s more, some people want to cut funding to this area of government that is one of, if not THE most efficient at getting its job done on time. By the way, blame Washington for any ongoing wars, not the soldiers; they want to come home!

I hope everyone appreciate the best bureaucrats in the world- our men and women in uniform who allow us to live our lives in peace!

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Fundamentally Changing America

By Jordan Front

In 2008, then Senator Obama said we were five days away from the aforementioned line in our title. He was right.

The election last night was a repudiation against conservatism. CONSERVATISM AS A WIDESPREAD IDEOLOGY WILL NEVER BE THE MAJORITY AGAIN.

Liberals will greet this with cheers, of course, but this is not the lamentation of a heartbroken patriot. It comes down to between 45-49% of the country receiving some sort of aid from the government. This means the Democrat party influences voting for their candidates with handouts and the notion that any shortcomings in your life are some else’s fault.

This is nothing new. The notion that people are the victim of someone else, being oppressed in imagination, goes back to the populism of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. This is different from being oppressed legitimately where natural rights are violated. The victimization I am referring to is spurned by jealousy or hatred. Just because America was founded on Christian and Jewish principles or that someone has more money than you does NOT mean you are oppressed.

Buying votes via handouts is not new either; this goes back to Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs. The government is not Robin Hood; one that takes from those who earned wealth and gives to those who didn’t. Limbaugh is referring to this as the government being “Santa Claus.”

These Robin Hood and Santa Claus policies of redistribution will add more people onto the government handout machine, as the amount has already increased in the last four years. Many in the know have been projecting an increase should Obama get re-elected and his ideology continue to influence policy and legislation.

What’s more, some experts believed as far back as two years ago that there were too many receiving handouts to ever vote in someone to not perpetuate the free ride. It looks like they were correct.

Mitt Romney stood for getting people away from government dependency and into a job. Personal accountability lost yesterday.

Mitt Romney was not the “right wing extremist” that he was painted as. Though, for as center-right as his worldview was, he was TOO CONSERVATIVE TO WIN IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY. Ronald Reagan would have even lost in this year’s Republican Primaries because the establishment would have said he was “too conservative to win.”

That is incredibly scary, but what is even more jaw dropping is that in reality Mitt Romney was actually too conservative to win! Expect ever more moderate Republican candidates from here on.

Being liberal is easy- it makes you feel good; it helps easy the “guilt” from your “privelege.” For those of you who voted for the tough choices to make our country great again, you will forever be in the minority in the US of A.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Flipping the Bird to Sesame Street

By Jordan Front

I never got a chance to address this, but I’d like to weigh in on how the Obama campaign zeroed in on Mitt Romney wanting to cut funding to PBS. As a recap, Big Bird is the face of the station and a laughable campaign commercial was created to bash Romney. The issue would have flown under the radar if not for that.

The country has $16 trillion in debt, devaluing our currency and Romney wants to address it, so that makes him the bad guy. When Republicans want to make a cut in spending that would slow the increase of spending (as opposed to less than in the previous year), Democrats go apoplectic. All of those programs cannot afford one dollar of cuts! Yeah, uh-huh; let’s nod our heads like good little lefties.

Juxtaposed-ly, when Democrats want to cut military spending and Republicans don’t budge, they are called not serious when it comes to cutting the budget.

How about this? We get the economy humming again so people can afford to get off government assistance. If the economy doesn’t start producing wealth again, there will be no way to ever pay down the debt.

What happens when our economy crashes? The world economy crashes. What happens when the world economy crashes? Well, it won’t be pretty, to say the least.

Getting the economy running again is an issue of national security, and one candidate has already proved he has no interest in seriously lowering the debt. The same candidate has also hung his campaign on a muppet. Who’s the serious one?

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The Sum of All Debates

By Jordan Front

That’s it, they are finally over. I don’t want to get into who lied and such, that would take forever to decipher all of that and do it well. What I do want to get into is what it means.

Most of the polls show a virtual dead heat within the margin of victory, and the majority with Romney in the lead. has a table of the major polls going into the most recent debate. That is key, what will voters think now after all is said and done?

Romney came out looking competent and not bothered by petty charges, and addressing the serious ones. Obama did not look incompetent, though he did look less aggressive than the second presidential debate. This would have been a plus if he hadn’t relied on the petty charges he rolled out. He did have a few punches landed, such as the “horses and bayonettes.” To Romney’s detriment he did not defend himself as much as he could have, i.e. missed opportunities. Basically there is a fine line to walk, in my opinion.

Romney has obviously won me over, but I don’t think he decisively won this one. Obama also did not do anything spectacular except throw out a high amount of attacks without detailing his plans. I need to vent: This is ironic coming from a man who says his opponent doesn’t have a plan. Oh, but his plans are a matter of national security, right? BS. He also said, in 2008, that when one doesn’t have a plan, they need to paint their opponent as one to run from (paraphrasing). I apologize, that was boiling up inside me.

Romney said a lot of the right things on foreign policy but not enough of them. The conservatives won’t mind, as he is obviously looking for independents and the “disenchanted Obama voter” which are moderate and conservative Democrats.

I seriously don’t think this debate changes the political landscape much. Mitt will still be leading by about 2 points (virtual tie). Why? Because Obama did not do much to cause a change.

Hopefully I provided a mostly lucid look at what happened (ending now). We all know I could provide ten pages on the falsehoods and half-truths Obama spewed, but that’s just what happens when I get upset.

Monday, October 8, 2012

The Debate: Part 2

By Jordan Front

The point of this is to illustrate the Romney shined in last week’s Presidential Debate. No, Obama didn’t perform up to expectations because of his anniversary or the high altitude (see: 2008 DNC acceptance speech at the Bronco’s Invesco Field). And yes, Romney looked sharp; it doesn’t matter if you disagree, that’s how he looked. Policy does not matter in today’s article, because I’m going to talk about where the political points were scored.

In the opening segment, Romney made the point that mandates from the federal level is akin to “trickle down government.” He then made the comment that a rough economy with decreasing household income is very similar to a tax; these two observations were very keen.

The President then pointed out that economists view his vision for the economy favorably, but Romney rebutted saying there are studies that support his vision as well. Obama moved forward with a charge that Romney’s plan is the same as Bush’s and his own is the same as Clinton’s. Romney swiftly countered this; so far no charge has resonated partly due to that they are standard talking points.

When the candidates moved to the deficit, Obama stated that spending was not his fault, but Romney noted that the President has not reduced the debt as promised. Obama then threw out the charge that there are tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, and when it came to Romney he flat out stated that this doesn’t exist.

Obama the accused Romney of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class and that big business needs to be taxed. Mitt then stopped and addressed the claim, saying that he wants no such thing. Romney then had the money line of Obama giving $90 billion to green energy which is worth 50 years of subsidies to oil companies. Still on the attack, Romney addressed that the President does not pick winners and losers, but just the losers with Solyndra. Guess who won that segment?

When it came to the entitlements, Romney accused the President of cutting $716 billion from Medicare and he didn’t deny it! Obama then accused private insurance companies of weaseling out of paying claims, probably the MOST unsubstantiated charge of the debate.

The move to the segment on regulation started with Obama trying to frame Romney as not wanting any. Mitt rebuked this and made the point that Obama apparently thought Wall Street needed a bailout in the financial crisis. Romney also made the point that regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill are not all clear.

After two segments that were a draw, and winning the one on regulation, the President didn’t seem like he wanted to be there anymore. The gist of this segment was the standard talking points on the issue. The President tried to link his plan to Romney’s several times and Romney reiterated several times that there should not be an overarching federal plan, but rather individual state plans. This was a serious nod to federalism and the 10th Amendment.

On the role of government, Obama attacked several times that Romney has no plan. With the most deft of any other maneuver in the debate, Mitt several times stressed that he had to work with a Democrat legislature, and it could not “be [his] way or the highway” to get things done (revert to this in the upcoming segment on gridlock).

The President stressed that big government projects create “ladders of opportunity,” which in my opinion was his strongest point of the debate. Romney later in this segment sliced in with the $90 billion given to green energy could have hired 2 million teachers. Chalk up two more segments to Romney.

The final segment on gridlock felt like Obama’s chippiest (I know that’s not a real word). The President said he would take ideas from everyone, which was the most hollow claim considering the last four years. He also claimed that Romney needs to say no to people in his own party. Those lines were the only chances Romney missed to lambaste the President. Perhaps Romney felt he would have come off as too aggressive and unfriendly if he did.

As far as policy and “truthiness” go, draw your own conclusions, but as far as debating goes, Romney clearly won.

Friday, October 5, 2012

The Debate: Part 1

By Jordan Front

Here is my debate analysis from Wednesday evening. I viewed it twice, and only heard about ten minutes of expert opinion. My favorite line was when James Carville described Romney as a “chainsaw.” That’s high praise coming from him!

You all know that I’m in the tank for Romney, but as a fan for anything, I am personally most worried about who I’m rooting for. I was extremely impressed with Mitt as he said all the things I was hoping he would! Basically, I was treating it as a sporting event yelling and fist pumping. Romney has really won me over as a full supporter ever since the selection of Paul Ryan and the superb performance the other night.

Why should I doubt Romney’s professionalism? He did, after all, run businesses and projects for 25 years; slightly different than the goals of the public sector in Obama’s experience.

One can argue policy, but no one can make the case against Romney being more prepared and looking equally competent, if not more so than the President. Two thirds through the debate, starting in the healthcare segment, the President started to get chippy (i.e. mudslinging).

Obama was not particularly effective with these due to Romney forcible explaining the charges. This was not akin to the “gentlemanly” John McCain probably would have let the charges go to let the voters decide. The political arena is tough and Romney still seemed polite even though he was forceful.

The big takeaway was that Obama seemed to fizzle toward the end. This was not entirely his own fault because Romney emerged under the pressure of the President’s charges. Don’t take my word for it, watch it yourself if you don’t believe me.

The next post will get into the substance of the debate, but not necessarily the arguments for and against. It will be more of a “punches landed” analysis.