Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson


Entries in Democrats (113)


Hillary And Old Republicans

How old is too old to be president?

Ronald Reagan was our oldest president and to this day Democrats continually argue the he was far too old to be president.

When McCain ran, one of the leading arguments against him was that he was too old to be president.  The same argument was made over Bob Dole and Ron Paul, claiming they were also too old.  A quick search on the internet and you can find the same arguments being made for any number of candidates for senate or congress.

In past elections Democrats were always the first to question age.

Now on forums and in chat rooms they cannot contain the excitement they have to push forward Hillary Clinton for president.  But if elected at this point she will be just a couple months different in age then Reagan.

The few rare times I've seen Hillary's age brought up, Democrats quickly go into attack mode refusing to answer.  "Republicans never questioned age before when they pushed forward older candidates?"  they typicallic fire back.

They are right, Republicans unlike Democrats don't look at age, race, gender, religion etc.  They support the candidate with the best experience for the job regardless.

In Hillary's case, she can't even name any of her accomplishments that would make her the best for the job.  Given that, its hard to argue that she is the most qualified Democratic Party candidate for the office of president.

That aside, isn't also fair to hold your own candidates up to the same standards and same lines of questioning you target the other party with?

Democrats knew in the past they couldn't win with comparing experience.  Look at Obama compared to McCain.  McCain had more qualifications hands down.  Obama's only experience was as a state senator in which he voted present more often then not.  So what did they do?  They fired back at his age, making it the center argument against why he shouldn't be president.

It's going to be interesting watching Hillary run again.  Many of these same arguments Democrats used against Republicans for they the Republican shouldn't be elected are the same arguments they themselves are going to have to look inward at and try to come up with an answer to.  Then again, with the liberal media do you really think the questions will be asked in the first place?


Being Liberal

I'm sure many of you out in cyberland have come across postings on facebook shared out from "Being Liberal".  If you have, I'm sure you've also found how easily most of their information can be debunked.  I'm likewise sure you most likely have heard of, if not personally experienced how easily they ban anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Until recently the face behind the page had remained unknown, going only by "W", but the New Haven Register posted an article found in full HERE interviewing the person behind the page.

Wojtek Wacowski, who lives in Fair Haven, is coming out from behind the screen. But, he insists, "Being Liberal" is not about him.

"It doesn't matter who I am, it doesn't matter what I think. I have accidentally created a soapbox. It gives me the unique opportunity to interact with people in Tulsa, Okla., or St. Louis, Mo.," or those in the Bible Belt, who feel isolated from others who see the world the way they do.

So far it sounds fair enough, after all the web is where people are able to find others sharing their interests and interact.

And he backs up his popularity with numbers from his page: "570,574 Likes, 1,001,546 Talking About This."

It's not the "likes" that matter, he says. Plenty of pages have more of those, and they can be inflated by advertising. It's the second number, which is the total of those who are somehow interacting with the page -- commenting, tagging it, sharing it or mentioning it in their own posts.

I find this a bit humorous.    When you look at Being Conservative, they have 2.7 million likes with only about 500,000 "taking about this"  What that says to me is that the liberals on this site are more prone to repeat what they see posted without really questioning what it is they are repeating where as "Being Conservative" has more people who agree with its ideas but instead think for themselves without simply repeating whatever is posted.

I will have more on the concept of thinking for themselves in a moment.

He says 87 percent of his followers are American. During the Arab Spring, however, he suddenly attracted Egyptians.

Again another interesting statistic.  13% of the likes are from people outside this country.  That comes out to be 74,175.

I'm also curious as far as which side of the conflict those from Egypt who started linking the site came from considering the "Arab Spring" was a clash between anti government protesters (tea party types) and the government and the pro government groups. 

Wacowski, 52, was born in Gdansk, Poland, and immigrated to the United States in early 2001.

Came to America from a socialist leaning European country and now seeks to make America into the same type of country he left.  No surprise there.

When he asks what being liberal means to people, he gets many answers. He considers the best one to be a quote from President John F. Kennedy:

"Someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad."

Someone who looks ahead and not behind.  It could also be said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

That said, I always found it interesting that liberals always attempt to equate not supporting government controlling of health, housing, schools, jobs etc as not caring about them as Wacowski does ever so subtlety here.

He encourages two-way conversation, which isn't easy in social media. Pointing to his laptop, he says, "We have the communication power to get the whole world working together," but instead people look at "smiling kittens."

This brings us back to the point of thinking for yourself.

In the article he points out he encourages two way conversation but "Being Liberal" (similar to Blue Hampshire) is notorious for banning anyone who dares disagree with their views.  If you look back at the original article there are dozens of commenters pointing out they were banned from the page.  One even points out he was banned for asking why the moderator uses FDR as the pages profile picture.  Anyone points out they were banned for daring to ask where all the anti war liberals went.

Among the popular "Being Liberal" topics lately are health care policy, right-to-work laws and immigration. One of his personal issues is the high number of people in prison, with the U.S. incarcerating one-fourth of the world's prisoners.

Another popular topic is "gun safety regulations." He prefers the term to "gun control," which he said evokes a negative reaction.

Have they ever stopped to think that more government equals more people in prison?

The second paragraph here is also very telling and something I've discussed many times with friends.  Liberals are very skilled at using vocabulary to attempt to win arguments.  Think about it, who would be against "gun safety regulations".  It says right on it's name that it's all about "safety" but he openly admits here that it's not, it's about control.

And what does being liberal think of our dear leader Obama?

"I think that he's extremely effective and a very good politician, but he is very much willing to compromise ... to be president of all Americans," so he doesn't push for liberal positions.

"My little bleeding liberal heart would like to see him as being more liberal," Wacowski says. He does credit Obama with holding "Fireside Hangouts" on Google Plus, emulating the "fireside chats" of the president Wacowski sees as our most liberal: Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"America got great in my opinion because of FDR," Wacowski says.

So Obama isn't liberal enough?  And he compromises too much?

What exactly has he compromised on?

Remember folks Obama is so far left that he can't even get the majority of Democrats to support his budget.

And as for FDR, does Wacowski care about the internment camps where they rounded up Japanese Americans during World War II?

FDR in actuality was a lot like Obama.  He appeased Stalin and helped foster situations that allowed World War II to happen.  He appointed many communists/ anti Semites into higher offices which later refused asylum to Jews who were escaping the Nazis.

Over all the exposing of Wacowski isn't exactly a shocker for anyone.  New England liberal who bans anyone who disagrees with them, who isn't originally from America and now wants to change everything about the country...  oh yeah real shocker.


What was the point of ObamaCare

Serious question for my friends on the Democratic Party side of the isle, what was the point of ObamaCare?

I recall several of the selling points being made by Obama and other Democrats was that it would help lower the sky-rocketing health care costs and help make sure the millions without health care gain access to coverage.

So far in reality the opposite appears to be holding true.

We've seen nearly 5 million Americans lose their existing insurance since ObamaCare went into effect (4.7 million).

Health and Human Services this past Tuesday confirmed that only two million have signed up for new coverage under ObamaCare.

That's a net loss of 2.7 Million MORE people who now have no insurance.

But it gets worse, only 5 to 15 percent of those who are being reported as signed up have actually paid their first premium.  If they don't pay they aren't actually enrolled.

And worse yet, the majority of those who've signed up are not the healthy younger people willing to pay higher then market rates the plan required to be self sufficient.  That means the government is being left with a huge spending hole that we'll all end up having to bail the country out of.  On top of that those of us who haven't yet lost our existing plans are seeing increases because of the mandatory coverage all insurance companies are now required to carry.

So we have more uninsured and health care costs are going up even higher, which is why I ask what was the point of the law again?

Perhaps that's why Congress woman Carol Shea Porter in an effort to save her skin in the next election is trying to distance herself from ObamaCare, claiming "This is not the bill I voted for".  Of course she would have had to have read it to know that.

Let's not forget that she closed the doors on several of us at her "town hall meetings" while ushering in the purple shirt health care campaigners in through back doors while pushing ObamaCare down on all of us.  She partook in the lies to force this on all of us and now wants to pretend that she's actually for the people.

I'd like to see her response to that question, what does she believe the point of ObamaCare was?  And if it's not meeting the desired goals how long must we be stuck with it before even she's willing to admit it's a failure and seek it's repeal?


Answers To Democrat Cheat Sheet

Democrats this Thanksgiving graced us all with a cheat sheet to allow their minions to repeat "facts" without having the need to think for themselves.  You can read it in full HERE.

A simple reading of this handout can be quickly dismissed with a little thought but often times our friends on the left don't think as much as they feel what's right or wrong.  For instance, let's start with their first fact.

•Raising the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to
$10.10/hour would increase the pay of 30 million
•The minimum wage hasn’t kept pace with inflation.
Today, 40% of American workers make less than the
1968 minimum wage.
Simple questions which hopefully get their mind turning will immediately show the flaws in what they are bringing up.  For instance...
If raising it to $10.10 an hour is good, then why wouldn't $20 an hour be better?  Or how about $50?  Or let's shoot for $500 an hour.  Wouldn't that be great?
Regarding wages vs inflation, once again you can simply respond with a follow up question.  What has caused inflation to increase since 1968?
The largest causes for inflation increases is government intervention, so who in their right mind would believe more intervention would be the answer?
Let's go on...
• Republicans voted against closing the loopholes that
corporations use to ship American jobs overseas.
Any time liberals throw out "facts" like this without giving the bill name or number I'm always skeptical.  I'll get to the details in a moment.
First though think about this and the prior fact about inflation and let's think about it logically...
The government has increased wages to the point it is now cheaper to do much of the work in creating products overseas.  American's buy imported products (as evident by the lines on Black Friday) because they are cheaper.  Democrats wish to increase taxes on the goods coming in from overseas.  And that leads to increased inflation which I thought Democrats were just saying was a bad thing?
Now let's get back to the details...
I found one article detailing some of them HERE.  You are welcome to read it for yourself but the details amount to a couple things.
1) Double taxing corporations
2) Rolling back incentives for businesses to invest
3) Increased taxes on oil which would result in higher costs at the pump and increases in your heating oil costs.
• A majority of Americans – 63% – across party lines
support reform that creates a pathway to citizenship
for undocumented immigrants.
•The Senate passed a bipartisan reform bill 5 months
ago - but Speaker Boehner still refuses to offer a
timetable on a House vote.
Polls also show that most Americans (62%) want MOST illegals deported.  They also want the government to do more to stop more from coming into this country.
A pathway to citizen ship is far different from what we are seeing with Democrats in MA. who have openly welcomed illegals who come here and continue to break other laws while living off the government.
Ask your liberal friend repeating from his or her cheat sheet if they feel it's ok for someone who has never worked in this country and never paid taxes in this country to instantly begin living off the tax payers collecting the benefits the rest of us pay for and our country is going deeper and deeper into debt because of.
As for rushing to vote on bills, didn't Democrats learn their lesson with ObamaCare?  NH Democrat Carol Shea-Porter is backpeddling claiming it's not the bill she voted for, which it is and she would have known that if she took the time to read it.
Instead of rushing to grant 11 Million illegals citizenship wouldn't you rather get it right the first time?
• 89% of Americans support universal background
checks for all gun buyers - but Boehner refuses to
hold a vote.
Take a step back for a moment and put aside emotions on gun control and think about facts for a minute.
In many instances of recent mass shootings the shooters had mental health problems.  Because of HIPPA laws (many of which were passed by Democrats) even if we had full background checks, the gun stores would not have access to mental health records and the checks wouldn't prevent these individuals from purchasing weapons.

It is a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.

It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check. This applies to all dealers, including at retail stores (like Walmart), gun shows, flea markets, or anywhere else.

It is a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent, or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase, or possess a firearm. The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony. 

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

So now what isn't covered that Democrats feel need to be added to our already bloated federal gun laws?
•In 29 states, you can be fired for being gay. That’s
why the Senate passed the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA) – protecting LGBT
Americans from workplace discrimination.
•House Republicans refuse to hold a vote on ENDA.
We as American consumers also have the right to boycott any business that discriminates.
Let's turn this one around to our liberal friends and ask the following...
If you own a business and it's your money being used, should you or should you not have the ability to use your own money how you see fit?
Let's say you own a store and find out that female cashiers bring in 10% more business.  Since its your private business shouldn't you have the right to hire only female cashiers if you feel it generates more revenue?
How about a business that uses only attractive models in their ads and discriminates against overweight or unattractive people?
If they feel all discrimination is bad then ask them when they plan to boycott Hooters, all strip clubs that have strippers of only one gender, nearly every clothing store etc etc etc.
This brings us to column 2 of their cheat sheet, what the claim republicans are pushing that's bad for America
•House Republicans have voted more than 40 times to
repeal health care reform and sabotage it every step
of the way - including a government shutdown that
cost our economy $24 billion.
•By a 20-point margin, Americans favor keeping or
expanding the Affordable Care Act (58% to 38%).
•Multiple studies found the Affordable Care Act offers
competitive and affordable prices.
•BREAKING NEWS: Obamacare has already saved
seniors $8.9 billion in prescription drug costs - that’s
$1,209 per person.
Point 1, regarding the shut down, Republicans asked for a 1 year delay.  Instead of Debating Obama and fellow democrats pushed back resulting in the shut down.
Not even a week after the shutdown concluded, several democrats including NH's Jean Shaheen began pushing for a 1 year delay (exactly what Democrats faulted Republicans for that resulted in the shut down).
Point 2, polls show the majority of Americans favor repeal.  The only polls democrats will be able to find in their favor are either polls from before the ObamaCare site launched and people began to see the real problems with it or polls that take advantage of the uninformed who do not understand that the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare are one in the same.  That's also why you now see Democrats abandoning the term ObamaCare.
 Point 3, ObamaCare has INCREASED costs to most Americans.  Anyone currently paying into the system is paying more.  Those draining on the system get to drain more increasing the national debt.
The cost of ObamaCare over 10 years is expected to reach $1.3 Trillion.
Specifically regarding the cost savings to seniors, it isn't a real savings.  It's passing the cost from one group to another.  Now senior pay just 25% of their drug costs leaving the remaining to be put into premiums the rest of us pay.  It's not a savings, it's a shell game.
•Under the Paul Ryan Republican Budget, millionaires
would likely get a $245,000 net tax cut.
•Middle class families would pay an average of $3,000
more in taxes.
•Medicare would be cut by a total of $356 billion.
Do Democrats really want to talk budgets?  We have the highest government spending of all time right now with record level deficits.  Obama's unemployment rates continue to stay over 7% making this the worst economic recovery of the past 100 years.  More people are on food stamps then ever before.
But let's look at their "facts", the above facts come from the group "The Tax Policy Center".  This is the same group that claimed Romney's tax plans wouldn't work but yet praised Obama's ideas that we now see setting record deficits.
In fact, it's a highly ideological tract based on false assumptions, incomplete data and dishonest analysis. In other words, it is custom made for the Obama campaign.
the Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank that has long opposed cutting income tax rates.
Moving on...
•A majority of Republicans voted against reauthorizing
the Violence Against Women Act.
•House Republicans targeted birth control access in
their government shutdown ransom demands.
Republicans objected to the new version of the Violence Against Women Act because of additions Democrats made to the bill that they were concerned would not hold up in court.  The Republicans attempted to pass the original version and Democrats shot that down.
Birth control is an interesting one because what Democrats want is to ignore the 1st Amendment.  If your religious belief is that all life should be protected, then it would be a violation of your freedom of religion to be forced to pay for a policy that supports abortion.  Again this goes back to the question of how much control should you have over your own money?
•House Republicans voted to block federal fracking
rules and safeguards.
•100% of House Republicans voted against repealing
taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil.
Like it or not our entire economy is driven by oil.  Ending "subsidies" (which are actually cases of companies keeping their own money so they aren't funded by anyone) would increase oil costs resulting in a direct tax on the poor who would pay more for gas and heating oil.  Not to mention it would increase costs of good in stores by increasing transportation costs.
• Paul Ryan’s budget slashes Pell Grant eligibility for
college students.
Nothing has done more to increase costs on college students then the mentality that everyone should go to college.  And now that it's un-affordable and college students taking useless degrees can't find jobs, the government is once again redistributing wealth to fix a problem it created. 
Giving away money for students wanting to take advanced basket weaving does nothing for our economy and doesn't ever produce a return on investment.

Ripple effects of Cash For Clunkers

Back in 2009 I wrote about how the cash for clunkers deal Obama put forth was going to hurt the used car market, you can read the story HERE.

Interesting thing happened this weekend while I was shopping for a car with my family, we are now seeing the ripple effects exactly as I predicted them.

My wife and I are currently shopping for a slightly used car.  As we began discussing options with one of the dealers we meet he pointed out how the used car market is "suffering".  Because the cash for clunkers took many of the older cars out of the market, poor families had two choices, either push the cars they had even further or buy a newer model car.  And for many, the 2nd choice wasn't an option.

This resulted in even fewer older cars going into the resale market and an even higher demand on the newer used cars driving up the price.

This leaves me finding very poor selections at nearly new car prices.

Will Democrats take responsibility for this?  I doubt it.