http://www.ronaldhart.com en-ushttp://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=521Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=521 May 15, 2012  

Obama got it right about gay marriage by finally announcing he is for it as a states' right issue. Kudos.

The president overturned Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy last year, and now he has come out in support of gay marriage. My guess is that he felt homosexuals could endure brutal wartime combat but until now were not quite ready for marriage.

The openly gay can now serve in the military. I am not sure where "openly gay" falls on the continuum ranging from Richard Simmons to Richard Chamberlain, but that's fine.

Between enlisting in the military and marriage, gays must not feel their lives are complete until they can be yelled at in the confines of a sanctioned institution.

Joe "Plugs" Biden came out for gay marriage a few days before the president did. One might say Biden's gaffe may have "outed" Barrack. I was surprised that Biden went off-message and caused a problem; he usually makes such solid decisions.

The good news for gays: The weeks of interplay between Biden and Obama leading up to this announcement might be made into a musical – it's a win-win.

Maybe life will improve for the often-bullied Biden. I hear gay teenagers are sending him encouraging videos telling him things will improve for him.

Biden followed his predecessor, Dick Cheney, in supporting gay marriage. Cheney has a gay daughter, which is probably why he reversed himself on the matter. Either that, or he sees marriage as akin to torture.

When Obama "evolved" on the issue, the press cheered with glee, much as they cheer the TV show "Glee." When Mitt Romney changes positions, he "flip-flops," but the media's Messiah, Obama, of course, simply "evolves." Conservative Republicans never believed in evolution, anyway, so they are torn on this.

The GOP rigidity on same-sex marriage is troubling. If you support minimal government and individual responsibility, how can you insist on legislating such personal matters?

Gays are not just Democrats; many Republicans test positive for Appletinis. There are about 7 gay Republicans in Congress, but we generally do not find out who they are until Gloria Allred calls a press conference with a male-prostitute client and tells us.

While some Republicans, like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, are gay-friendly, the GOP is not coordinated on the issue. An Alabama GOP politician who ran for office on an anti-gay platform was recently found to be secretly donating his sperm for lesbian couples overseas to get pregnant. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing!

I grew up in a small town, in a simpler time. Gays were gay even back then, and we all knew it, but they were not all up-in-your-face about it. I wondered then why would anyone would choose to be gay.

To evangelicals: You have to admit that being gay must be something with which a person is born. One does not "catch" gay. Therefore, if God made gay people that way, why expend angst and anger making life hard on them? Are they really a problem? With massive debt, unneeded wars of choice and an ever-more intrusive government, why are a couple of gym teachers with a joint checking account an issue? Whom are they hurting?

As a libertarian, I have long said it is wrong to waste effort going out of one's way to keep gays from anything as long as it does not harm others. While I am not a fan of the mechanics, I really do not care what gay guys do – as long as they do not try to do it to me.

Those consumed with denying gays the right to marry are relics of the past. They are like AM radio stations that still play music. You know they exist, but you wonder why – and who listens.

I am not sure why the GOP-ers think that, but for their vigilance, everyone in America might run off and get all gay-married. The GOP needs a big tent; who better to decorate it than gays?

The anti-gay article of "faith" is so ingrained that now Romney and Marco Rubio, or whatever Republican Romney picks for a running mate, are boxed into a corner and will have to be against gay marriage. That's such a shame – they would make such a cute couple.]]> http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=520Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=520 May 10, 2012  

The Obama campaign unveiled its latest slogan, "Forward," last week. As we know, in 2008 Obama campaigned to head the greatest country in the history of the planet, a country built on capitalism, limited government, and personal responsibility, with the fuzzy mantra of "Change."

That should have been our wake-up call.

He did try (and is still trying) to change and transform independent, self-reliant Americans into an entitlement-minded, government-dependent populace inflamed by envy and empty rhetoric.

Obviously, when you have the best country ever, you want to change it by electing a guy with only community organizing experience who has never managed anything and whose wealth comes from two books he wrote about himself before he had hardly done anything.

Mitt Romney should run on "Hope," as in we "Hope" we don't re-elect Obama so America can go "Forward." Or even better, Obama's campaign slogan should now be "Forewarned!"

The slogan "Forward" was used by socialist Nazis (Hitler was the first to offer universal health care). It has also been used in many other communist/socialist propaganda campaigns over the years - unbeknownst to the Obama PR machine, or maybe knownst. (Probably the latter, but it is telling, isn't it?)

This is a perfect example of the importance of having a Word software program that runs a Hitler check on any position you want to espouse. The only tidbit I know about Adolf Hitler is that he did not drink, especially tequila, because he felt it just made him mean.

Some have noted the stark contrast between George Bush's speech to the nation on Dec. 14, 2003, after Saddam Hussein's capture and Obama's self-aggrandizing, spike-the-football, "Ding, dong, bin Laden's dead" speech on May 1, 2011. Nowhere in President Bush's speech did he claim credit for the capture of the evil Hussein. Instead, he heaped praise upon the intelligence analysts and the brave fighting forces who accomplished that remarkable feat. He thanked them and congratulated them, and did not use the words "I, me, or my military."

On the other hand, our own Dear Leader Obama's speech reads like a fifth grade homework assignment on how to use the first person. "My intelligence community...my national security team... I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action...at my direction..." on and on, ad nauseam.

It is very clear that Obama never heard the definition of a "leader" as one who takes less of the credit than he should and more of the blame. Perhaps he should read the letter Eisenhower had in his back pocket in June of 1944, taking sole blame if the D-Day invasion had failed. But then again, Ike was a true leader.

Bill Clinton breathlessly opined in a recent campaign ad that it would have been bad for Obama if things had gone wrong in the bin Laden raid. I'm sure Navy SEAL Team Six appreciated that perspective.

The Dems also implied, in the same breath in which they accuse Romney of being trigger happy, that he would not have approved bin Laden raids in Pakistan. Of course he would have, but it's more likely he would have done a leveraged buyout of the mess that is Pakistan, fired the current al-Qaida management, and turned the country into a profitable one.

Maybe the next move will be to imply that since bin Laden was rich, did not drink and had multiple wives, Romney would not have agreed to kill him since he was so Mormon-like.

By all accounts, the al-Qaida business franchise has long been in decline (most believe because of poor customer service) and bin Laden had been demoted. Reports say bin Laden was living on past glory for a long time. He smoked weed, had four women living with him, took Viagra, colored his hair to appear younger, and constantly watched films of himself on TV.

Maybe it took so long to find him because he was hiding out in his first row seats at every L.A. Lakers basketball game.

It is not like Obama would take political advantage of the killing of bin Laden to distract voters from his great record on the economy, or make the bin Laden takedown about himself, or use it to stoke liberal battle cries prior to the election. I am sure Obama would say "his" killing of bin Laden was not about him - he did it for Trayvon.]]> http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=519Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=519 May 3, 2012  

Of late, it has been like drinking water through a fire hose for us op-ed humorists.

First we have the abundant blessing of the John Edwards trial. Tension builds on the chance that his hair might turn state's evidence against him. Then Obama-appointed EPA regional administrator Al Almendariz gets caught as no Obama disciple wants to be, saying what he really thinks: effectively, the EPA likes to crucify business. Then there was the GSA boondoggle. I had the picture beside me of the head of the GSA in his $2,000-a-night Las Vegas hotel room as I wrote my April 15 tax check to Obama for my "fair share." And if it wasn't his wife who took that picture of him luxuriating in the tub with two glasses of fine wine at the ready, he may need Secret Service protection from her.

Then there is the gift that keeps on giving: the Secret Service hooker scandal, which seems to have widened to El Salvador and beyond – and there are not many things wider than Janet Napolitano. The Inspector Clouseau of America appeared before Congress with her '80s gym teacher haircut and comfortable shoes, assuring Congress that this was a one-time event.

But senators wanted to know more: Who were these women? Do you have pictures? And would they do a three-way with a senator in exchange for building a taxpayer-funded bridge in their village?

I said it a week ago: Since I have been a dude pretty much my entire life, I know for sure from the way that frat party unfolded – and contrary to what the administration said – that was not their first rodeo.

Our government employees caused a scene and Colombian authorities were called. In another example of American exceptionalism, we successfully exceeded the debauchery tolerance of Colombia, the cocaine capital of the world, where prostitution is legal. I would be proud if I were not paying for it with my taxes.

This thing was a train wreck waiting to happen. I am surprised it had gone so long undetected by the vigilant White House "press corps" that rides along with the president on every trip. What does it take – the Secret Service guys getting Abe a lap dance at the Lincoln Memorial?

The woman at the center of the scandal charged $47 for sex, which is money well spent when you consider that John Edwards used campaign money for a $400 haircut.

Faced with embarrassment, the Secret Service does what government has done for years: divert attention, in this case, by roughing up rock star Ted Nugent for his verbal bravado. It is silly to interview Ted Nugent, almost as nuts as considering him relevant or a rock star. When you are this White House, you are constantly searching for new enemies to blame for a failed administration.

Good call roughing up Ted Nugent, because as we know, our country's primary problem is an aging rocker who likes his Second Amendment rights. Maybe the Secret Service should question '80s rock band 38 Special; they sound dangerous. The only thing Ted Nugent and 38 Special are assaulting these days is the early bird special.

My problem is not what people do in their private time; that is a personal issue. If they want to take the risk, that's their business. Sleeping with a hooker is risky, much like bungee jumping – in either case, if the rubber breaks you are probably dead.

We libertarians are fine with someone choosing to sell sex for a living in the private sector at the market price. But like most things the Democrats do, in this case they think there should be a give-away program of the product for the entitled few.

I am mostly troubled that there are now 6,500 Secret Service employees protecting one president. Two hundred of them got to Colombia a week in advance of the president's visit, stayed in a five-star hotel, and bullied some local hookers. And Democrats accuse Republicans of waging a "war on women"? On the upside for Obama, these women's jobs are the only ones we've been able to confirm that his administration has created.

Aside from the cost, I am afraid the Secret Service is not that Secret, and its agents are the ones getting serviced.]]> http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=517Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=517 April 27, 2012  

As John Stossel points out in his great new book, "No They Can't, Why Government Fails -- but Individuals Succeed," we are convinced by liberal academia and the mainstream media that politicians are somehow heroic. In annual Harris Interactive polls, people were asked to name their heroes. In 2001, Jesus Christ won. In 2009, Obama won, followed closely by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

When former U.S. Senator Edwin Muskie died, newspapers and TV ran long and solemn tributes to the Democrat operative. For its maudlin tribute, The New York Times tapped Bill Clinton for his testimonial that "Generations to come will benefit" from Muskie's work. Stossel points out that David Packard, founder of Hewlett Packard, died on the same day; the papers ran much smaller obituaries.

"Laser printers, 60 million PCs, hundreds of useful products and thousands of jobs existed because of David Packard." He created thousands of millionaires and a $5 billion foundation that helps children. With his management style from the computer company he founded, Packard reordered corporate America. He got rid of executive suites so all workers could communicate better. He came up with the profit sharing plan, flex-time for workers, and many other innovations that made Americans' lives better. Today his company, founded in a garage, employs 340,000 people.

Yet Edwin Muskie was viewed by the media as amazing. David Packard was just a greedy, evil businessman.

Those who believe that government has magical "transformative powers" also seek to convince us that all of our ills can be blamed on someone else. That was the whole "hope and change" shell game Obama played on the country in 2008. "Just vote for me and all your problems will go away." If government could make you feel better about yourself, it would be a bar.

Obama believes that corporations are inherently evil and are out to destroy workers. Mr. President needs to put down the John Grisham novels and read the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

U.S. enterprises have done more to better the lives of Americans than any politician. The best we can hope for in our elected officials is that they will get out of the way, taking their regulations and graft with them, so American ingenuity and enterprise can lift the standard of living of all our citizens.

The real reason politicians fight so hard to get reelected, at all costs, is that they fear having to live under the laws and regulations they created.

Obama spent the past week giving teleprompter speeches about his vision of "fairness" and how, if only we passed his "Buffet Rule," all would be right with the world. Never mind that both liberal and conservative economists scored it as a political game of conjured-up envy. The bill raises only $5 billion. It's simple math: Obama has run up $5 trillion in deficit spending, so $5 billion divided by $5 trillion is one tenth of one percent (.001). It was another class envy ploy, not a real proposal.

He even lined up a few millionaire donors, mostly Democrat fundraisers, to stand behind him while he made his pitch to the nation for raising taxes. They had confessed to Obama, the high priest of taxation, that they did not pay their "fair share" and should be ashamed. It is an article of faith among the few still-rich liberals that being rich is OK as long as you feel guilty about it.

This Democrat Kabuki theater has all the substance of a WWF match between Obama, the Defender of the People, and the evil Darth Vader (a political rival to be named later). I trust the average voter sees this for what it is: unsubstantive political pandering and grandstanding.

Obama made $900,000 less last year than he did in the previous year. So even he is suffering under his own economic policies. This is a man whose entire wealth has come from writing two books about himself before he had actually done anything. Harvard now offers a class called "Understanding Obama" -- a class I doubt even Obama could teach.

Our country is great because of good people who pursue their own self-interests in business. Businesses power our country, and citizens power innovation. People like David Packard and their vision make us great, not opportunistic politicians who create nothing of economic or moral value.]]> http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=516Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.ronaldhart.com/display_column.php?column_ID=516 April 23, 2012  

Distracting Obama from scouting out vacation spots for Michelle, with South American leaders at the Summit of the Americas meetings were eleven advance Secret Service agents subsequently sent home -- with pay, of course, unlike their hookers.

It seems a prostitute and one of the federal government officials were arguing because he did not pay the "lady of the evening" properly. The lesson here is clear: Never involve yourself with sleazy people to begin with. I trust the hooker learned her lesson.

The agent and the hooker argued over her $47 price. I wish the government were as stingy with our tax dollars. If she had been a government-procured hooker she would have cost $2,500 and, because of union seniority rules, she would have been 64 years old.Maybe the Colombian hookers were paid with counterfeit drug money seized by the Secret Service. Suspicions arose when the $50 bill used to pay the prostitute had a picture on it of Ulysses S. Grant wearing a baseball cap on backward.

Per The Wall Street Journal, the whole scandal was uncovered "when one of the women stayed in an agent's hotel room past 7 a.m., in violation of hotel policy." It seems a third-world hotel has a more effective policing policy than our own government agencies.

This is the most embarrassing thing to happen to the White House since news of the GSA $820,000 western regional conference boondoggle broke last week.

Prostitution is legal in certain parts of Cartagena called "tolerance zones," which explains why this city hosted politicians from 32 countries and why Charlie Sheen has asked to be transferred to Promises Cartagena.

It has long been the unwritten code among government workers not to rat each other out. That might mess up their sweet gig. What happens in Colombia, stays in Colombia -- or Las Vegas -- except for the STD, which comes home with you.

Boys will be boys, especially macho types who gravitate toward jobs involving guns. I get that. My dad was a cop; I know most do noble work.

My beef is that the agents got there a week in advance and stayed at a five-star, beachfront hotel. Our GSA conference attendees had hotel rooms that cost over $2,000 a night in Las Vegas, where they usually comp idiots. The bigger question is, why are we paying for all of this?

And who investigates the CIA, IRS, TSA, The Federal Reserve, FBI or the Secret Service?

There are now more than 6,500 Secret Service employees, and we still just have one president. This over-the-top Praetorian Guard for our president should, like all parts of bloated government agencies, be cut back. They all start with some grandiose mission, in this case to protect the president. Then they grow unchecked into monstrous bureaucracies accountable for neither their results nor their use of taxpayer money. I don't care what they did to the hooker -- just stop doing it to us taxpayers.

Every four years agents are called upon to protect presidential candidates. Resources are assigned to candidates based on the importance put on them by, of course, the government. This ranges from full Secret Service protection for Mitt Romney to Ron Paul, who was given some nunchucks and told to be careful.

Rick Santorum was eventually assigned Secret Service coverage; it was the first time he had ever used protection. Glitter was thrown on Newt Gingrich by gay activists and he got protection. On the bright side, the whole episode was nominated for a Tony Award.

Herman Cain got Secret Service protection, but that was just to shield him from his wife after news of his indiscretions surfaced.

Secret Service officers recently caught ducks slipping on to the White House grounds. The birds were escorted off after background checks found that they had not donated enough money to the Obama re-election campaign to merit that much access to the President.

Who can forget the couple who sneaked into the White House state dinner for the Indian Ambassador? Apparently, bouncers at nightclubs do a better job of keeping out the unwanted. The Secret Service immediately addressed that lapse by changing its policy; no longer are people allowed into such events by just saying "Oh come on, dude, Michelle Obama promised we could come."

We need maybe a 1,000-person Secret Service whose agents remain skilled at what they do --- just in case we ever get a president we want to keep.]]>