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.

 

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.

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.

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.

Monopolizing

I like Monopoly , but generally I don’t have the time nor enough interested friends to break out the board game on a regular basis. I usually play video game versions, which offer two significant advantages. First, you can blast through a full-blown game in 30-45 minutes. Second, you can be absoutely ruthless and don’t have to worry about offending the computer players.

Electronic Arts is the creator of the newest video game version of Monopoly, which I acquired a while back for the Wii . Unless you can pick it up for one or two bucks at a garage sale I wouldn’t bother purchasing this one. The game play is horrible and it just isn’t fun at all. If you want a fun video game version of Monopoly then grab Monopoly Party for Gamecube or PS2. ANYWAY, this isn’t a video game review, so let me get back on topic…

Born of the Great Depression, Monopoly is basically a caricature of capitalistic ideas. Now, EA has corrected that problem. Although EA’s Monopoly is horrible, they added a version of the game called the "Richest Edition", or as I call it, the "Obama Edition". In this version of the game, every time someone lands on a Community Chest space, the poorest player gets to take properties – including whole monopolies – away from the winning players. Additionally, the winning players are always put at a disadvantage when playing mini games as the start of each round. Often, the best strategy is to stay behind the other players so that you can be awarded all their property as the game goes on.

As frustrating as it is to always have your winnings taken away and given to the players who are not very good, it must be truly maddening to have this happen in real life. If nothing else, the game gives you a good taste of what life under Obama will be like. If Obama has a heart, he’ll take my Monopoly game away and redistribute it to someone else.

So You’re Stuck with McCain

Polls these days suggest that there are still somewhere between five and eight percent of the population that hasn’t decided on who to vote for.

Let me make this easy for you. Do NOT vote for Bob Barr! It’s true that you probably agree more with Bob Barr than John McCain; however, voting for Bob Barr will only create a repeat of the 1992 election in which Ross Perot handed the election to Bill Clinton.

All kidding aside, I understand that none of the undecideds are considering Bob Barr. Even though I agree with  much of what Bob Barr says I could never throw my support behind a candidate that aligns himself with the Libertarians . But that’s a subject for another post. The real issue is more serious.

How can a person be undecided? The differences between McCain and Obama are dramatic. I certainly don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion of all the differences but I would like to point out just a few of the obvious ones. Or at least the ones that matter most to me.

  • Abortion – Obama has even argued for murdering children born after unsuccessful abortions (more on this later)
  • Income redistribution
  • Personal Responsibility

Whenever I hear someone from the Obama campaign (or any other Obama supporter) get asked about Obama’s support of infanticide they always say the same thing: “Oh, come on! Do you really believe Obama wants to kill babies?” They never deny it and they cannot dispute it. Although not exhaustive, FactCheck.org provides a reasonable introduction to the discussion. Even if this is inaccurate (which I don’t believe it is), the fact of the matter is that Obama’s stance on abortion is appalling.

I’m a little confused that there are so many people with either missing or broken moral compasses (another topic for an upcoming post). If you believe in life, freedom and all the other wonderful things the United States has to offer then you only have one choice. No matter how hard it is to put a check mark next to McCain’s name.