Do You Have an Impeach-mint? Perhaps some Binaca?

The case for impeachment can easily be made, especially when President Obama is embroiled in so many scandals that it’s almost impossible to keep track of them all. That said, I can’t figure out why people like Sarah Palin are calling for impeachment. What purpose would it serve? As much as this president deserves to be removed (and probably locked-up), I think there are at least two major reasons why impeachment should be off the table.

First, I believe we’ve reached a delicate point in the history of our nation. Many of the people who voted Obama into office continue to support him. I have no doubt that they would continue to support him even if he broke into their homes and personally destroyed their children’s most beloved toys. And killed the family pet. And used the bathroom without flushing. Many of his supporters would find a way to excuse his actions and blame the Republicans or the 1% or the Koch brothers or whomever. But there’s  another group of supporters that are waking up. Whether it’s Obamacare, Common Core, immigration or something else, these people are fed-up and are beginning to question the Democrat Party and its leaders.

Many Republicans went through the same process during George W. Bush’s presidency. They wanted to believe that Bush was on their side, but he started down a path that many could not follow. It may have been immigration, TARP, Medicare Part D, war or something else, but they knew that they were not being represented or served by their party or president. The defection from the Republican party continues even now – perhaps especially now.

We’ve been pushed into a hyper-partisan world and told that those with whom we disagree are not just wrong, but evil. This lie is perpetuated by Washington. Americans are finding they have more in common with each other than they previously thought. Those on the “left” and “right” have a chance to come together because they both feel betrayed by Washington and they are tired of partisan bickering.

If Republicans begin discussing impeachment, I think it’s likely this movement will be reset.

To explain what I mean, let me share my own experience. During the 2000 election, Bush talked a lot about lowering taxes, privatizing Social Security and using private sector alternatives for Medicare, etc. This all sounded good to me and I gladly supported Bush; however, after he was sworn into office in 2001 he quickly began talking about amnesty for “guest workers” and other illegals. What’s more, he continued to push it even though Republicans were wildly against it. The Republican leaders were betraying the will of their constituents (not much has changed). Out of frustration, I headed for the registrar and officially left the GOP. Keep in mind that this all happened before September 11, so the betrayal and subsequent party change occurred rather quickly.

Fast-forward a few years and I found myself re-registering as a Republican because I was so frustrated by the hate and vitriol being spewed toward Bush by the left. Whether you agree with the man or not, the way he was treated was disgusting. My registration as a Republican was a reaction to the Bush-haters; an act of defiance toward them as much as an act of support for the president.

I believe that any discussion of impeachment will have a similar affect on those struggling with Obama. They might not like what Obama is doing, but they still view Republicans as “the enemy”. An attack on their “leader” will cause a reaction and they will reflexively defend him. By abandoning the talk of impeachment, these people will be further exposed to the corruption of this administration and others in Washington (both parties). This will hopefully allow time for their feelings to steel.

As this happens to both Republicans and Democrats, we have a chance to act as Americans to clean house in Washington. As a Nevadan, I don’t want two Dean Hellers any more than I want two Harry Reids.

Second, there is perhaps a more obvious reason to stop talking about impeachment. Here is a partial list of successors (in order) should Obama be removed from office:

  • Joe Biden
  • John Boehner
  • Patrick Leahy
  • John Kerry
  • Jack Lew
  • Chuck Hagel
  • Eric Holder

Tell me which name you stopped on and thought, “he would do a good job!”

So, impeachment really wouldn’t solve any problems and it would present a whole slew of new ones.

In case you were wondering after reading my spellbinding tale, I left the GOP again in 2009 and have no intention of returning. It presents some frustration since Nevada is not friendly to anyone outside the (R) or (D) clubs, but the answer is to improve fairness in voting rather than force voters to choose between two evils.

 

ALERT: Students FORCED to go to college and take on debt!

I’ve been struggling for a while now. I’ve been asking myself many of the same questions all of us ask. Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What flavor of wings should I order today? Honestly, it’s not quite that dramatic. Not quite. But I have been suffering a crisis of sorts trying to reconcile my beliefs with the world around me. On occasion, I take to the blog and concoct some crazy tripe about my personal predicament. Never satisfied, I save the draft and walk away.

Until I can achieve some kind of personal peace with my political persuasion, I suppose I can find some relief by yammering about something else. Today’s topic is an asinine email I received from Senator Harry Reid. You can read the full text of the email here:

http://reid-report.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100117162.18984.342&gen=1

Get a tissue because you’ll laugh, you’ll cry and most likely give yourself a bloody nose.

Fair warning, after reading my thoughts you’ll probably feel the same way (except for the laughing and crying part).

So, here’s the gist: Students have too much college debt, so the government must bail them out!

Why do students have too much debt? Because “As higher education becomes more expensive, students are forced to take out more loan debt.” (emphasis added.) They are forced! Of course, the natural question is who is forcing students to take out more loan debt? Logically, you would then ask why is higher education becoming more expensive? After asking these questions, you might think it a good idea to find out who’s jacking up the cost of education and then forcing students to take out loans to pay for it. Wrong! We need a bailout.

There are three things that I ponder as I read the Senator’s words.

First, college education is a choice. Students go into college knowing the cost. If they choose this path in life, then they are also choosing the price that goes with it. If a person goes to a dealership and buys a Ferrari, then it seems silly that they would complain about being forced to make the payments month after month. Maybe they should be more pragmatic in their decisions. They can choose not to go to college or they can choose a less expensive school. There is no coercion.

Second, why is the cost of education going up? While the economy continues to suffer, the cost of higher education just climbs and climbs. Rather than do any real research, I’m just going to paste a couple of the first links that come up in Google when searching for information regarding the increasing cost of education:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/cost-of-college-degree-in-u-s-soars-12-fold-chart-of-the-day.html

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/college-costs-tuition-rising-student-debt-infographic/

The bottom line is that education costs have increased more than 1000% since the 70’s. Name something else that has increased similarly.

Add this to the fact that many schools are already incredibly wealthy. Harvard, for example, has an endowment of about $30 billion. Stanford and Princeton are almost $20 billion each. Yale is more than $20 billion. (Just for kicks, guess what BYU’s endowment is. Less than $1 million.) So again, why is the cost of higher education going up?

Third, Harry Reid says “the average debt per student is at an all-time high – nearly $29,000.” I’m no mathemagician, but that doesn’t seem so high that we need to start bailing everyone out. For example, a lower-end Ford Taurus can run you around $30,000. My guess is that a lot of college students are driving cars that cost more than their college debt.

It seems obvious why this issue is coming up now. The Democrats are trying to buy the votes of college students. To some extent it might work; however, I think a lot of younger voters are starting to wise-up to the political tricks of those in Washington.

 

A Modern-day Flood. Boo.

Previously on NevadaBrad.com: I lamented – but didn’t necessarily disapprove of – the fact that most of Nevada’s representatives are not from Nevada. After griping, I noticed that the horse was still moving so this is an attempt to give it a proper and final beating (settle down, it’s just a wild horse).

First, a quick recap: Only 36% of the Assembly were born in Nevada. Only 19% of the State Senate were born in Nevada. Quick enough? Good.

So, just another interesting note. The Republicans tend to be far more balanced when it comes to picking native Nevadans. The Republicans claim 40% natives with 60% outsiders.

What do you think the ratio is with the Democrats? The natives weigh in at 24% with 76% for the outsiders.

So, what does it mean? It’s tough to say. On the surface it seems that we’ve all but lost the state to a bunch of outsiders that do not have the best interest of Nevada at heart. Did these people flee to Nevada with the plan to overthrow a red state with a small population? I think that’s unlikely. As stated in my previous article, these people were fleeing the fruits of their labors. Someone else did to them the same thing they’re doing to us. The problem is that we’re running out of places to which we can flee.

The next logical question is this: What’s with all the outsiders in elected office? Is it because of the sheer abundance of transplants? Or because native Nevadans have a tendency to avoid office? Or is it because we’re so flush with outsiders that it’s a given that the population, now comprised of outsiders, will vote for these weaklike-minded candidates, which are also inevitably outsiders?

Here’s a few quick numbers to help you understand what we’re dealing with. The population of Nevada is currently about 2.76 million. In 2000 it was under 2 million. That’s a 38% increase in just a little more than a decade. Unless the people of Clark County were finally successful in their Lepus curpaeums-Homo sapiens cross-breeding experiments (Area 51 stuff), then it’s obvious that people are flooding into our state. Why? They long to be closer to their favorite gaming establishment? They want the freedom to visit the Circus Circus buffet when the craving strikes? It’s most likely because they enjoy sleeping in the shadow of the majestic Spring Mountains. Or it might just be the beautiful summer weather.

Roughly 2 million people now live in Clark County. That’s a 45% increase over their 2000 population of 1.38 million. In Washoe County we’ve seen a 26% increase from 340,000 (2000) to 430,000 currently.

Whatever it is, there’s some reason they came here. And they continue to come here. Whether it’s favorable business, tax, housing (or whatever) conditions, I’m skeptical that our current leadership will preserve the qualities that drew them here to begin with.

We’ve turned from a nice red color to kind of an ugly blueish-purple. Now that people are waking up to the problems on both sides of the aisle, perhaps we have a chance to take our state back. Many on the left are disgusted at the early settlers/pilgrims that “stole” land from the natives. Let’s hope that they feel similar disgust at the modern settlers that have stolen this land from the native-Nevadans. And they can go home and let us get back to harvesting wild horse meat to sell to the French.

Obama and the Pride of Having a Job

I can’t name a time where I met an American who would rather have an unemployment check than the pride of having a job.Barack Obama

So says our supreme leader, President Barack Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm). At face value I find this a little hard to believe; however, since he’s the most accomplished wordsmith of our time I’m going to believe he meant what he said. Which is that he can’t name a time. Meaning the specific time. And that’s probably true. There’s no way he would remember the exact hour let alone minute, right? Oh, Mr. President.

This is true for me and it’s probably true for you. It’s probably true for the vast majority of Americans. But there’s also a huge chunk of the country that feels otherwise. I’m going to make some sweeping generalizations that should hold up just fine. I trust that you’ll be mature enough to understand that there may be exceptions.

About a block from where I work there’s a panhandler that’s been standing on the corner for a couple of months now. He has a cardboard sign and waves to everyone who passes. Why would he beg for money when he could feel the burning pride of earning a paycheck? I’ll admit that I don’t know his circumstances. It’s possible that his feet were glued to that exact spot and he’s can’t go anywhere. But what about the people who beg for a few dollars because they just need enough money to get a bus ticket to Carson City? Years later, these poor people still haven’t been able to get enough money for that elusive ticket. For some reason, they prefer a handout to a paycheck.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud estimates that insurance fraud costs us more that $80 billion dollars each year. This fraud includes workers that fake injuries so that they can collect a disability check (unaware of the pride they will be missing out on). There are tons of ways to commit insurance fraud, but it also includes arson and murder to collect insurance. If people are willing to murder in order to get a check without working, is it even remotely possible that they might do nothing in order to get a check without working?

According to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, state and provincial lotteries have generated $200 billion since their inception in 1964. The odds of winning are laughably small, yet people sink billions of dollars into lotteries. For example, the odds of winning $100 in last years Powerball were more than 1 in 12,000. The grand prize? More than 1 in 175,000,000. Why would people drop so much money on certain failure? You might naturally think it’s because people are attracted to the idea of getting a check without working for it. Once you consider the pride factor you will realize you’re wrong. The truth is…something…else.

Living in the great state of Nevada, let’s not ignore gambling. (I’m referring to gambling in the traditional sense and not the act of putting your kids in Nevada’s public schools.) The American Gaming Association reports that total consumer spending on gambling is nearly $40 billion annually. People lose their families, their homes, their jobs and more to the effects of gambling. They risk it all to get out of having to work to earn a paycheck.

You could go on forever with examples of what people will do to get out of working for a check. While this obviously represents a minority of the country, it’s silly to say that no one would choose to get free money when they could experience the euphoric pride that comes with earning a paycheck.

I initially thought the president was playing a game of semantics, but then I realized it’s probably simpler than that. In all likelihood he’s probably never met an unemployed person. I can’t imagine that the private beaches of Martha’s Vineyard or the golf courses of Hawaii are crawling with the unemployed. It’s still quite an accomplishment considering how many he’s created.

SB303 and the Great Representatives of Nevada!

First of all, let’s stop with this ridiculous “undocumented immigrant” tripe. While reporting about the “Driver Authorization Cards” I heard KRNV painfully and awkwardly report about “undocumented immigrants”. They’re not the only ones, though. If you want to see a headline, check out this one from KOLO TV: “Illegal Immigrants Are Now Legal Drivers”. Of course, they use the term “undocumented immigrants” in the story, but they get points for the headline.

I know what you’re thinking. “No human is illegal!” Sure. Whatever. Humans may not be illegal, but their actions are. If not, then burglars simply become “undocumented visitors”. Stalkers are simply performing “undocumented stakeouts”. Stolen goods come from “undocumented purchases”. There is nothing wrong with using your words to describe something. Especially when describing an “immigrant” that arrived in the country “illegally”.

Moving on! Today’s topic is not about how we describe people. It’s not even about SB303. Not really. I will say this. SB303 is a bad idea. If you want to have this discussion, then let’s directly address the topic of illegal immigration. Let’s talk deportation, amnesty or whatever. To dance around the issue with Matricula Consular cards and “Driver Authorization” cards is foolish. It’s like telling the burglar, “I know you’ve committed a crime and that’s wrong; however, we’re going to allow you to keep the stolen goods and enjoy them while we ignore the fact that you molested our property.” It’s a complicated issue with very valid arguments on both sides. But rather than deal with the issue, we’ve just kicked the can down the road. That’s what passes for leadership these days. But I disgress.

Do you know who represents you? What do you know about the leadership in Nevada? I’d like to use the Driver Authorization Card issue as an excuse to share a few facts.

How many in the Assembly and Senate are actually from Nevada?
Assembly: 15 of 42 (36%)
Senate: 4 of 21 (19%)

I have no problem with electing people from other states. Nevada is awesome so why wouldn’t they want to come here? I do have a bit of an issue with where our current representatives come from, though. They come from states that have destroyed themselves through progressive policies. States like California and New York. There are a few from Utah and Texas, but not many. To most of these politicians, Nevada is just a new girlfriend. Instead of realizing how amazing Nevada is, they go on and on about their old girlfriend and how great she was. They never stop to remember how rocky that relationship really was. This is just something to keep in mind during the next election. We should probably dump these bums and look for someone serious who is ready to commit instead of making us dress-up in their ex’s old clothes.

Moving on!

How did the Assembly and Senate vote on SB303?
Democrats
Assembly: 100% Yea
Senate: 100% Yea

Republicans
Assembly: 4 Yea, 9 Nay
Senate: 9 Yea, 1 Nay

There’s something I’ve wondered for a long time. The Republicans are the ones who are close-minded, right? Unwilling to reach across the aisle. Don’t even get me started on how racist they are! When was the last time every Republican voted for or against something and some of the Deomcrats joined them? Has it ever happened? And yet, Republicans are always fractured. The Democrats just toe the line while accusing Republicans of the very things they’re guilty of themselves.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. The Republicans need to start voting on principle instead of playing politics. Democrats need to stop being shills for the party of corruption and deceit.

Here’s a list of the members of Nevada’s Assembly and Senate, along with birth location and how they voted on SB303.

Nevada Assembly

Aizley, Paul (D): Yea (Boston, Massachusetts)
Anderson, Elliot (D): Yea (Marshfield, Wisconsin)
Anderson, Paul (R): Excused (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Benitez-Thompson, Teresa (D): Yea (Ventura, California)
Bobzien, David (D): Yea (Washington, D.C.)
Bustamante Adams, Irene (D): Yea (Hanford, California)
Carlton, Maggie (D): Yea (St. Louis, Missouri)
Carrillo, Richard (D): Yea (Belen, New Mexico)
Cohen, Lesley (D): Yea (New York City, New York)
Daly, Skip (D): Yea (Reno, Nevada)
Diaz, Olivia (D): Yea (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Dondero Loop, Marilyn (D): Yea (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Duncan, Wesley (R): Excused (Sonora, California)
Eisen, Andy (D): Yea (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Ellison, John (R): Nay (Elko, Nevada)
Fiore, Michele (R): Nay (Brooklyn, New York)
Flores, Lucy (D): Yea (Glendale, California)
Frierson, Jason (D): Yea (Los Angeles, California)
Grady, Tom (R): Nay (Tonopah, Nevada)
Hambrick, John (R): Nay (St. Paul, Minnesota)
Hansen, Ira (R): Nay (Reno, Nevada)
Hardy, Cresent (R): Yea (Mesquite, Nevada)
Healey, James (D): Yea (Stanford, California)
Hickey, Pat (R): Yea (Carson City, Nevada)
Hogan, Joseph (D): Yea (Fort Dodge, Iowa)
Horne, William (D): Yea (Wichita Falls, Texas)
Kirkpatrick, Marilyn (D): Yea (“Clark County, Nevada”)
Kirner, Randy (R): Nay (Los Angeles, California)
Livermore, Peter (R): Nay (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Martin, Andrew (D): Yea (Newark, New Jersey)
Munford, Harvey (D): Yea (Akron, Ohio)
Neal, Dina (D): Yea (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Ohrenschall, James (D): Yea (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Oscarson, James (R): Nay (Ogden, Utah)
Pierce, Peggy (D): Excused (Milton, Massachusetts)
Spiegel, Ellen (D): Yea (New York City, New York)
Sprinkle, Michael (D): Yea (San Francisco, California)
Stewart, Lynn (R): Yea (Salt Lake City, Nevada)
Swank, Heidi (D): Yea (Prescott, Wisconsin)
Thompson, Tyrone (D): Yea (North Las Vegas, Nevada)
Wheeler, Jim (R): Nay (Los Angeles, California)
Woodbury, Melissa (R): Yea (Palo Alto, California)

Nevada Senate

Atkinson, Kelvin (D): Yea (Chicago, Illinois)
Brower, Greg (R): Yea (South Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
Cegavske, Barbara (R): Yea (Faribault, Minnesota)
Denis, Moises (D): Yea (Brooklyn, New York)
Ford, Aaron (D): Yea (Dallas, Texas)
Goicoechea, Pete (R): Yea (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Gustavson, Donald (R): Nay (Culver City, California)
Hammond, Scott (R): Yea (Syracuse, New York)
Hardy, Joseph (R): Yea (Reno, Nevada)
Hutchison, Mark (R): Yea (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Jones, Justin (D): Yea (Granada Hills, California)
Kieckhefer, Ben (R): Yea (Springfield, Illinois)
Kihuen, Ruben (D): Yea (Guadalajara, Mexico)
Manendo, Mark (D): Yea (Erie, Pennsylvania)
Parks, David (D): Yea (Boston, Massachusetts)
Roberson, Michael (R): Yea (Webb City, Missouri)
Segerblom, Tick (D): Yea (Boulder City, Nevada)
Settelmeyer, James (R): Yea (Carson City, Nevada)
Smith, Debbie (D): Yea (Tucson, Arizona)
Spearman, Pat (D): Yea (Indianapolis, Indiana)
Woodhouse, Joyce (D): Yea (Glendive, Montana)

Will You Make Government Your God? The Case Against Mormons Supporting Obama

The election is less than a week away and it’s time that we address the abominable Harry Reid. There are a few reasons this is necessary.

First, Gregory A. Prince wrote an article in which he bragged about how little he knows about Mormonism. One of his claims is that Romney has somehow “sullied” Mormonism. When Reid was asked about this comment he just had to agree. I’m not sure why Reid thinks he’s any kind of authority on Mormonism. This is the same Harry Reid who bore false witness against Romney at least twice (God should make a law against that or something). He is now lying about Romney and claiming some kind of technicality to make himself feel better about. This is clearly a man who has sold his soul for a fleeting moment of earthly power.

Second, there was a rash of blog articles and news stories several weeks back that proclaimed, “I’m Democrat because I’m a Mormon, not in spite of it!” Go ahead, say whatever you have to to make yourself feel better.

Third, I’ve had several friends from church come out in open support of Obama. Let’s say you take away the obvious things like Obama’s sociopathic lying and despicable stance on abortion (“I don’t want them punished with a baby!”). You are indeed supporting these positions when you vote for the O, but can you make the case that supporting Obama makes you more compassionate? That voting for welfare and “insurance” for all outweighs everything else?

The answer is easy: no.

In a philosophical sense, this is where people like Gregory A. Prince (Ph.D.!) stumble. He states that we have a “sacred obligation to assist the less able.” In the next sentence, he almost touches on a key tenet of the church, which is this: “Work is a guiding principle in the Church’s welfare program.” Our president views government welfare as a vote-harvesting system instead of as a hand-up.

Even this misses the more important point. Welfare is not the responsibility of the government! As Prince brags about the church’s welfare system he conveniently forgets about another tenet of the church: self-reliance and preparedness. We should be prepared for circumstances that might place us in need. Should you not have sufficient resources, then you turn to your family. Should your family have insufficient resources then you turn to church welfare. Should the church not be able to take care of you, then turn to the community. The federal government should provide a safety net as a last resort.

Some may disagree and that’s okay. But consider this:

  • When giving to the government, it is estimated only about .30 of every dollar is used for its intended purpose
  • When donating to LDS Charities, 100% of your donation goes to the cause
  • Most other reputable charities keep their operating costs below 10%

Why would you want to trust a bloated federal bureaucracy when people are in need? What’s more, shouldn’t you have a say in how your money is used?

Mormons believe that for each of God’s “institutions”, there is likely a sinister knock-off. This particular issue is a great example. God has a system to provide for His people, but the government provides an alternate system that replaces God with the government. This does not mean that the government programs are inherently evil. It does not mean that those who implement the programs are ill-intentioned. In the case of government welfare it seems clear that it’s being used to obtain power. This is certainly evil. Either way, it cannot ever work as well as God’s program.

Theologically, this is where the argument falls apart for well-intentioned Mormons voting for Obama. A great read concerning this is Marion G. Romney’s conference talk titled “Socialism and the United Order Compared“.

I believe that Mitt Romney understands the plan. I believe that most Americans understand the plan. Your government seeks to enslave you through taxes, which will be collected with a gun to your head if you don’t comply. The government enslaves the welfare recipients by giving them handouts in exchange for votes. God’s plan allows us to choose for ourselves. As George Albert Smith said, “… I believe our Heavenly Father is giving us our opportunity for development. … We will discover now whether the love the Savior said should be in our hearts is among us.”

So, will you make government your god? If you’re Harry Reid then that’s an easy answer: yes.

Reid Fundamentally Disconnected from LDS church and Nevada

Congratulations, Harry Reid. You’ve gone from being a lawyer to being a politician to being a really bad politician to being veritable scum of the earth.

Interestingly, Harry Reid recently decided that, as self-elected mouthpiece for the Mormon church, he has the obligation to spread lies and bear false witness against Mitt Romney. He also has declared that his understanding of the Gospel is superior to Mitt Romney’s understanding. According to Reid, Romney has “sullied the religion.

This coming from the man involved in real estate and other scandals. Plus, remember when the voting machines in Southern Nevada already had his name checked as people were voting? And then the unions used questionable tactics to boost the vote in Reid’s favor on election day?

Harry Reid is a bad person and is fundamentally disconnected from the people he is supposed to represent. Why do we keep electing him?

What’s more, where is the scandal with Mitt Romney? His scandals are all manufactured, unless you count the “47%” gaffe. His big scandal is that he dared to tell the truth? Surely an unpardonable sin in Washington. Reid knows he is lying when he continues to slander Romney, who is a decent man. Reid’s actions are disgusting.

Now that I’ve gotten the ranting off my chest, I would like to attempt to explain what Mormons really believe. I believe a convincing argument can be made in favor of Romney’s politics. The same argument will be damning to Reid’s tired old politics.

I’ve been trying to put some thoughts together on this topic for quite a while and Reid’s ongoing tantrum gives me an excuse. Watch for part II…

You Didn’t Build That: Mystery Solved!

Ever wonder why Obama made the now infamous “you didn’t build that” comment? It seemed weird at the time, but I figured it out. If you are not responsible for your successes then Obama is not responsible for his failures. For example, consider this potential exchange:

Fictitious and Unlikely Reporter: “Mr President. Don’t you feel responsible for increasing the debt by 5.4 trillion dollars since you took office?”

Barack Obama: “I didn’t build that.”

Reporter: “Surely you see that your policies have led to increased unemployment and out of control abuse of the welfare system, don’t you?”

Obama: “I didn’t build that.”

This is, of course, keeping in line with his core belief that “the buck stops with you.”


ObamaTax and the Enslaving of America

What more can be said about the Supreme Court’s abominable decision last week regarding ObamaTax? Don’t worry, I’ll find something to say whether it’s worthwhile or not.

Two things occurred to me as I’ve been listening to the discussion. First, I realized just how close-minded those on the left are. Those on the right can completely understand why others want ObamaTax to stand. “Free” health care would be great. Not having to worry about pre-existing conditions would be awesome. It sounds dreamy and we get it. I doubt there are many on the right that do not understand why some people are so excited about the prospect of socialized medicine.

Now, should we take bets on whether any of the lefties understand why people are opposed to ObamaTax? I’d bet that it’s not many. I’d be surprised if they thought it was because we fear an enormous government. Or because we distrust our government becoming so intimately involved in one of the most private and important aspects of our lives. Or because we’re saddling ourselves with unthinkable debt when we’re already nearly $16t in the hole. Or because we believe that in a free country we should not be taxed and/or penalized for not doing something. Instead, consider the comments of Gene Jeffress where he suggests that those who oppose ObamaCare are racist.

Speaking of racism, why is it that black Americans are not outraged? Why is it that they continue to support this president? I’m not very good with math, but I’m going to do my best here. Currently, almost 9 million of the nearly 40 million black Americans are on food stamps. That’s about 22% of blacks compared to about 6% of whites on food stamps. Additionally, almost twice as many black Americans are below the poverty level as white Americans (25.8% vs. 12.3%). The unemployment rate for black Americans is hovering just below 14%, which is almost double the national average. All this with a black president in the White House!

The progressives, including our supreme leader, President Barack Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm), seek to enslave black Americans by making them dependent on government programs like food stamps and health care. Many people are fighting this tyrannical government, but far too many are willingly allowing the government to enslave them. A Pew Research Center poll from March shows that 83% of black Americans approve of ObamaTax while only 9% disapprove. After all the blood that was shed so that slaves could be free, why would their descendents willingly replace the shackles? Obama is not your friend. ObamaTax enslaves all Americans. The sooner we understand that and find a way to escape the better.

Whiners and Winners

Republicans tend to get flustered when it comes to picking a candidate. It seems to be a much easier task for Democrats (“Would a dead person vote for this candidate?”). I admit that I struggle a bit myself; however, it usually doesn’t take long before the choice is apparent.

Consider the crybabies (hereafter referred to as Gingrich and Santorum) that we had in the race. Their campaigns amounted to little more than complaining that the Romney campaign wasn’t playing fair. Because, as we all know, it will be a clean fight once our supreme leader, President Barack Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm), gets involved. I hate the dirt and vitriol in politics. I wish we could have a clean debate. The fact of the matter is that the left cannot win a fair debate and they have to resort to throwing sand in the eyes and then kicking the groin. It’s dirty but it wins elections.

Romney seems to be the only candidate that is willing to go head-to-head with Obama. What’s more, I believe he can do it without sacrificing ethics or principle. He may have hit hard in the primaries but I never heard anything that was fallacious. On the other hand, Newt built his campaign almost exclusively on fallacy. Newt was the Republican candidate most like Obama. He is smart, he portrayed himself as something he is not and he fought a dirty fight. I expect that Romney’s campaign style will be equally effective against Obama.

If the promise of a good fight isn’t enough to convince you that Romney is the man, then consider the whining and bellyaching that came from the presumptive losers. Both Santorum and Gingrich looked like children at the store that didn’t get the toy they wanted. The only thing that was missing was the footstomp and the refusal to cooperate until they got their way. Their concessions told us immediately that we made the right decision. I never liked Gingrich, but I wanted to give Santorum a chance. Unfortunately, it became obvious far too quickly that Santorum was not the one to put against Obama. It won’t be long before we know for sure whether that person is Romney.

On another note, I finally realized what Ron Paul’s supporters have in common: they’re all crazier than he is. If that’s possible.