A recent New York Times Op-Ed article critical of President Trump and his policies was published without the name of the author, allegedly someone who claimed to be an inside senior administrative official.  Here’s what I have to say about “anonymous” sources:

If you don’t have the balls to put your name on your statements, there is no reason anyone should take your statements seriously!!

For the record, my name is Patrick Klos.

On September 19, 2012, Nevada Senator Harry Reid apparently took to the Senate floor to (illegally) campaign against Mitt Romney.  He ranted about how Mitt Romney was hiding this and avoiding that.  All speculation with zero proof of any of his suppositions!

Mitt Romney’s recently released tax return indicated he paid a little close to 14% of his income in tax last year.  Reid didn’t point out that more than half of Romney’s income came from Long Term Capital Gains, which the government taxes at 15%!  If Reid doesn’t like rich people paying less taxes on their long term investments, why doesn’t he propose legislation to remove the limit on Long Term Capital Gains??  Let investors pay the same tax rates for all their investment income.  Mitt Romney isn’t a criminal because he pays (only) what he has to!!

Reid said nothing about the 16.4% of Mitt’s income that he gave as charitable contributions.

Most telling, Harry Reid also tried to paint Mitt Romney as a hypocrite with the following statement:

Mitt Romney believes in two sets of rules – one for millionaires and another for the middle class.

That’s funny, because I know that Harry Reid regularly votes for legislation that applies to all citizens of the United States EXCEPT the Federal Government!  If that’s not “two sets of rules”, I don’t know what is?!?!

Mitt Romney’s “two sets of rules” – subjective and very hard to prove.  Harry Reid’s “two sets of rules” – objective and a matter of public record!

I get a kick out of Obama’s new ad attacking Mitt Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts for being #1 in per capita debt and #47 in job creation (apparently for the 4 year term from Jan. 2003 thru Dec. 2006, source: Moody’s 2007).  While Massachusetts was #1 in per capita debt, Illinois was #7 – not a whole lot better, and while Massachusetts was #47 in job creation,  Illinois was #46!  From the looks of it, Illinois was barely a step behind Massachusetts in the rankings.  (Funny how they don’t mention that in their ad?!?)  And guess who was U.S. Senator for the great state of Illinois during the last 2 years that Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts?  You guessed it: BARACK OMABA!  So for all that Barack Obama tries to attribute to Mitt Romney, as a U.S. Senator, it seems Barack Obama was no more effective in helping his own state reduce the debt and create jobs!?!?

FactCheck.org has an interesting and more detailed review of the facts, so I won’t bore you with them here.

Sad, but oh so true!

Thank you FreakingNews.com!

On Monday, April 2, 2012, just days after the Supreme Court heard arguments about the Constitutionality of parts of the legislation known as “Obamacare”, President Obama made the following public comments:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, and I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint – that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

First of all, for the Supreme Court to overturn a law would not be unprecedented or extraordinary.  That is part of their job.

Secondly, the law WAS NOT passed by a “strong majority” – the votes were 224 for and 206 against (source).  That’s only 52% for versus 48% against, with over 10% of the Democrats (and 100% of the Republicans) voting against the bill!

Thirdly, Obama besmirches the Supreme Court by calling them “an unelected group of people”, thereby questioning their integrity and authority to review a case like this, suggesting that such actions would only take place as a result of “judicial activism”.  Of course, the Supreme Court is “an unelected group of people” – they’re supposed to be unelected so that they can be impartial (in theory) because they never have to worry about being re-elected.  Their job is to interpret the Constitution without any bias whatsoever.

Obama makes it sound as if a law can’t be overturned once it had been approved by the Congress.  That’s simply not the case!

President Obama: Did you forget your elementary school social studies class that first taught you about the “Separation of Powers”?  Remember the executive, legislative and judicial branches??  Remember that the framers of the Constitution created this separation of powers so that no single branch can take over the control of the country?  You’ve already commented that the Constitution was “too restrictive” – now you’re trying to imply that it’s not the Supreme Court’s place to overturn a law that was passed by Congress??  THAT IS EXACTLY THE SUPREME COURT’S JOB when the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

This was just Obama’s way of getting his “message” to the members of the Supreme Court that might succumb to his influence without having to pick up the phone and actually make a call.