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:

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:

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.


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…

Class-action Lawyers, Blah, Blah, BLAH…

I thought that with my last post I was done with the trial lawyer thing, but then I started wondering again. Why do trial lawyers support Democrat candidates so disproportionately? Do they truly believe in the liberal/progressive cause? Or are they simply investing their money where they think they’ll get the most return?

It seems that these firms advertise on Fox News in a huge way. In fact, with the exception of the local attorneys that I’ve mentioned, all the lawyers I’ve listed are advertisers on Fox News (I’ve got a few more to add at the end of this post). If you can believe what the reporters and politicians say, Fox News is the equivalent of the devil. Or maybe Rush Limbaugh is the devil and Fox News is hell. If that’s true, then where does Glenn Beck fit in? I don’t know how it all works, but Fox News is supposed to be bad (although I’m convinced that anyone who demonizes Fox News has never actually watched it). Do these firms also advertise on MSNBC or CNN?

I was further annoyed by Harry Reid’s response to a message I sent him. In my message I expressed my concern that Washington seems hellbent on passing a strange health care bill but they aren’t doing anything to stop the bleeding when it comes to job loss. I also mentioned that in regard to health care I consider tort reform to be a legitimate problem – much more so than the issues addressed in the bill. He seems to be avoiding legitimate problems while focusing on things that are just not critical right now. Finally, I demanded that he consider the voice of the people and discontinue his support of the current Democrat health care proposals. As always, in his response he just explained to me why I’m wrong and why he’s right. In part his message said this:

Proponents of tort reform link the rising costs of premiums for medical malpractice insurance to the rising cost of personal and group policy health insurance and assert that limiting punitive damage awards could significantly reduce the costs of health care. Critics of tort reform note that caps on punitive damages at the state level have been wholly ineffective in reducing the cost of malpractice insurance and have only served to enrich insurance companies. Furthermore, because medical malpractice suits result in less than one percent 1% of total health care costs, tort reform would do little to lower the overall cost of health care.

Just once I would like to get a response that says something like, “I value your opinion and will absolutely make it part of my consideration.” It will never happen, though.

Why would Harry Reid support tort reform? According to, four of the top 20 donors for his 2010 campaign are trial attorney groups that would certainly be negatively impacted by tort reform. The second ranked donor is none other than Weitz & Luxenberg, a group that was previously featured here. Counting donations only from trial attorney groups in the top 20 (Weitz & Luxenberg, Simmons Cooper LLC, Waters & Kraus and Cooney & Conway), Harry Reid has received $203,800. In other words, about .22% of his donors contributed more than 7.6% of his current donations. All four firms specialize in asbestos/mesothelioma litigation. There are several more firms in the top 100 and I’m sure even more among the more than 1,800 donors. So, Harry Reid is clearly beholden to a bunch of shady lawyers that aren’t even located in Nevada while openly rebelling against the people who put him in office.

As a comparison, I looked up the same information for John Ensign. I could not find one trial attorney group among the top 100.

I don’t know if I’ll ever have answers to my questions. In the meantime, here is more campaign contribution information for attorneys I’ve seen advertising on TV.

First, Baron and Budd. Steve Baron donated $6600 to – that’s right – John Edwards between 2004 and 2007. He also donated $4600 each to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, $2300 to Joe Biden and a whopping $29,500 to the DNC.

Russell Budd was even more generous. Again, $6600 to John Edwards between 2004 and 2007 with similar contributions to the other candidates. He gave $25,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2007 and $43,500(!) to the DNC in 2004. It used to be a free country, so I say use your money however you want. On the other hand, how many jobs could have been created with this money? Heck, give me the money and I’ll campaign for the candidates of your choice full time. The check should be for $133,900 (total contributions from 2004 to present). Or you can pay me cash under the table – I think that’s how Democrats work, isn’t it? But I digress.

Next is Adam Pulaski of Pulaski & Middleman. Of course, Mr. Pulaski donated to John Edwards, but it was a measly $1000 in 2004. More interestingly, he also gave a small donation to Ciresi for Senate. Mike Ciresi, of course, is the trial lawyer that was involved in the “big tobacco” class-action lawsuit. The one where he and his firm were thoroughly enriched through arguably devious methods. Strangely, Pulaski also donated a total of $7130 to Lindsey Graham in 2008. Why he would make a donation to a Republican senator from another state seems odd to me. This is certainly something I’m interested in researching further.

David Middleman of Pulaski & Middleman gave only a small $500 donation to Mike Ciresi in 2007. If it’s quality and not quantity that matter, then consider that the only money he donated went to a scummy trial attorney from another state.

As a side note, considering that Ciresi suddenly found himself with painful gobs of cash he seems to be pretty stingy with his money. He gave $1750 to a Minnesota congressman and $2300 to Hillary Clinton. Someone needs to ‘splain to him the rules.

I saved the least interesting for last. I couldn’t go on and on about these attorneys without mentioning Fox News mainstay Binder & Binder. You may remember Charles Binder. He wears a hat:

Charles Binder of Binder & Binder

Charles Binder of Binder & Binder

It seems that most of his donations are for local people, but when he supported a presidential candidate he went for John Kerry (woo!). Same goes for Harry Binder. Each made a $2000 donation to John Kerry – nothing else too remarkable otherwise. There was a large donation to the DNC by a Charles Binder, but I couldn’t confirm this was the same person. BUT, Charles Binder has a program on Air America, so that should be entered into evidence. I’m not sure whether this firm technically counts since they specialize in dealing with the Social Security Administration. I’m inclined to call this business legitimate, but I”ll let you make the call.

Sorry – lots of words and nothing very interesting. I hope I’m done with this subject. Something new next time – I promise.

Me and Obama

Some may have noticed the lack of posts on NevadaBrad mentioning our supreme leader, President Barack Obama. This is deliberate. I only mention him now for a few reasons. 1) to explain why I don’t mention him, 3) to ponder on a question I can’t seem to answer and 3) because Rush said something about Obama that I found interesting.

It often appears that the America I love is dissolving before my eyes. There are few leaders in Washington that represent the people. Heaven knows Harry Reid is only looking after his own interests. (Speaking of, the election is coming up – expect to start hearing about Yucca Mountain soon.) Obama is actively working to destroy everything that made this country great since the beginning of its history. I don’t think Obama thinks he wants to destroy America, but he certainly doesn’t want America to the be sole super-power. If you’ve ever read Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist, you can easily imagine that Obama is the leader that has been in the making since long before FDR. It is frustrating and I can’t find anything to joke about. I understand the frustration people may have had about George W. Bush, but BDS was just wacky. I won’t resort to the silly tactics of those who despised George W. Bush. I have simply decided to let my blog watch from the sidelines as much as possible. In a nutshell, that’s why I just don’t mention him when I can help it.

My question is this, and I sincerely would love to have an answer: How is it that the same people who constantly joke about Bush being a bumbling idiot now think that Obama is the greatest orator of all time? At best, Obama is predictable and boring when reading the teleprompter. Without the teleprompter he sounds like the new guy at Toastmasters. Worst of all, when you can actually understand what he is talking about it is absolutely terrifying. As an example, consider his statements on Israel. Or consider that he immediately issued a statement about the murder of an abortion doctor, but only issued a statement on the murdered soldier several days later after being embarrassed by talk radio. Obama certainly has nothing on Bush when it comes to speaking. I feel like I’m living in bizarro world.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh was on Hannity recently and made the following comment: “If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama is beating them to it.”

Later in the show, during the Great American Panel segment, a democratic strategist (I wish I could remember his name)  explained his problem with Rush’s comment. He said he disagreed with Rush’s analysis because  he felt that Rush was comparing Obama with the terrorists. This seems to be the main complaint against Rush for making this statement. I happen to love Rush’s comment because it’s true and it touches on a deeper problem, which obviously didn’t occur to our democratic strategist. The intent doesn’t matter – the results do. If al-Qaeda destroys America because they hate us or if Obama destroys our country because he thinks he’s helping people, at the end of the day the country is destroyed.

Suppose someone were to kill a member of your family. The brakes in their car failed and they hit your family member as they were crossing the street. Are you okay with this since it was an accident? Would you be less angry if they were maliciously murdered? You may have some sympathy in the first instance, but ultimately the result is the same and you will most likely feel the same type of suffering either way.

Rush’s scenario is essentially the same. Rush regularly says that with liberals it’s always the intent that matters and not the result. Obama is proving that idea once again.

The stimulus was a failure and failed to accomplish anything it was meant to do and yet we’re forging ahead with health care. The best government does a horrible job running itself – Obama’s government has already shown – and will continue to show – what the worst government will do.

So, there it is. Why I don’t talk about Obama.