Higher Education in America: An Obot Snapshot

I’m reading the sophomoric tripe that leftists are shilling lately, and I can’t help but wonder if they have any self-awareness, any clue at all about how immature and intellectually-barren they sound.  Did you see the snort- and cringe-worthy Why Obama’s the bestest president of all bestest presidents EVAH column written by an Ed.D.?  In itself it’s a depressing commentary on the state of higher education in this country; it’s also a sad and terrifying look into the Koolaid-addled brain of a typical higher ed Obot.

Here goes my response to this intellectually-challenged, eternally-juvenile doctorate’s 12 reasons Obama is the biggest, bestest, most historicalist president in the history of history’s greatest, bestest presidents!:

1. He is for The People. Say what you will about Barack Obama, but unlike the many presidents who preceded him, he cares about what is best for the greater good. He truly does represent The People. His actions have always been motivated by a sincere desire to do what is best for the majority, even if it meant losing ground with the wealthy, influential or powerful minority.

It is intellectually, spiritually, economically, emotionally, and in every other way impossible to be both for the people and for The Greater Good.  The Greater Good always subverts the rights and liberty of the people; indeed, that’s the very premise by which it exists and by which it justifies perpetrating untold horrors on the people.  In every commie, totalitarian scheme throughout history a few million people have had to die . . . for The Greater Good.  And even so, The Greater Good is never met, these regimes always fail.

As to that last part, just look at the list of wealthy, influential, and powerful people, groups, companies, and unions exempted from the ObamaCareTax fiasco.  Rebuttal complete.

2.  He is for civil rights. He has consistently spoken on behalf of the disenfranchised, the underdog and the most controversial members of society -despite the fact that it was politically unpopular to do so at the time. His outspoken support of gay marriage is an excellent example. Gay marriage is, and has always been, a legal and civil rights issue -not a moral one as conservatives would have you believe. Obama’s open support of gay marriage speaks to his core values and his inherent belief that there truly should be justice for all.

Actually, the “underdogs” are the people most harmed by every single one of Obama’s domestic policies.  It’s not an accident that welfare, food stamp, disability, unemployment claims, and every other form of government handouts have exploded under Obama, and it’s no accident that unemployment among America’s minority population has risen to all-time highs.  It’s also no accident that the income gap between the rich and poor has risen exponentially under Obama‘s reign.

As to Obama’s “evolving” view on gay marriage, he’s not always been outspoken about it; indeed, he’s spent a lot of time supporting traditional marriage.  Obama’s idea of “justice for all” is distinctly racist, as evidenced by his DOJ‘s refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers while going after states for requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

3. He is for one race -the human race. In just a few short years, Obama’s professional achievements and continued demonstration of equality and integrity have done wonders for race relations. America has never been more unified as a people than it has been under the direct leadership of Barack Obama. Finally, the racial lines that have divided blacks and whites for decades seem to be narrowing.

This one made me laugh out loud.  Literally.  There are, demonstrably, hundreds of examples of Obama throwing gasoline on increasingly tense race relations in this country, and it would take hours to find and link them all, so I’ll just include three instances of Obama inciting racial disharmony: “the police acted stupidly,” “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and his campaign accusing Bill Clinton of being a “racist” (this latter set the tone for the media, Hollywood, and random leftists screeching “RAAAAACIST” any time anyone disagrees with Obama’s policies.).

4.  He is for a healthcare system that brings hope and healing to the hurting. Obama’s healthcare plan has allowed uninsured Americans to reap the benefits of a universal healthcare system. A suffering child should never be turned away because his or her mother doesn’t have health insurance. To deny medical assistance to people who desperately need it is barbaric. Obama’s health care plan has placed America among the world’s greatest superpowers who demonstrate care and compassion toward its constituents with healthcare that serves all.

No. He’s not. The ObamaCareTax catastrophe has nothing to do with hope or healing.  Or “the hurting.”  It has everything to do with amassing control and power in the executive branch.  It doesn’t “serve all” (and therefore is not “universal”), and it never will (be); it was never intended to do or be so. Indeed, according to the CBO, 30 million people will not have coverage after 0Care is fully implemented.  Yes, that’s roughly the same number of people that the law–billions of dollars ago–was supposed to help.

No “suffering child” was ever “turned away” under the “old” system; emergency rooms turning away a patient because of inability to pay is illegal and was well before the 0Care nightmare.

5. He is for the middle class. Here are just a few of the comments made by President Barack Obama in recent months: “Rebuilding our economy starts with strengthening the middle class. Extending tax breaks on 98 percent of families now would give hardworking Americans the security and confidence they need.” In July 2012, during a visit to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he said, “The vision of a strong middle class is what we’re fighting for. What we need is somebody who’s going to fight every single day to grow the middle class because that’s how our economy grows, from the middle out, from the bottom up, where everybody has got a shot. That’s how the economy grows.” Enough said.

Perhaps the most deluded point here (if not the most hilarious).  The middle class has been eroding for a couple or three decades in all fairness to Obama, but that’s been ratcheted up under his “rule”, with more and more people out of work, forced into part-time work (largely by 0Care but also by a stagnant economy that Obama’s done nothing substantive or meaningful to turn around), and heavily taxed in new and exciting areas (despite Obama’s pledge not to increase taxes on anyone making more than $250k per year).

6. He is for women’s rights. Obama’s very first executive action as President was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill specifically designed to annihilate wage discrimination barriers for women. He also fully funded the Violence Against Women Act, which addresses the criminality of sexual assault and domestic violence and provides women with the services needed to overcome such atrocities. President Obama nominated two women to the Supreme Court, including the first Latina justice in American history. Furthermore, Obama has taken exceptional measures to secure grant money for women business owners and get them a fair shake from the Small Business Association.

Another completely deluded argument . . . unless you believe that women are nothing more than reproductive and sexual vessels.  If that’s your argument, you win!  Obama does indeed stand for women having early and often abortions (as birth control, no less) and access to “free” birth control pills and “morning after” abortion drugs.  He’s also a big proponent of late term abortions and the denial of medical care to a baby who survives the “abortion” process.  So yeah, if infanticide is your thing, Obama’s your guy.

And if paying 13% less to women is your idea of gender equality . . . chalk up another win!

Oh, and woohoo! The Obama regime will hand out money to Julias who are dependent not on a man but on her Big Brother-, father-, or husband-government.  What a win for women!

7.  He is for doing away with pomp and circumstance. Let’s be real -Obama is one cool cat. As the 44th president of the United States, he has changed the face of the Oval Office forever. Many suggest Obama’s casual demeanor and informal interaction with the American people is inappropriate, and even downright offensive. Millions of people, however -me included -perceive his relaxed deportment, humorous candor and outright honesty as a breath of fresh air. In spite of the fact that he is a politician, and the president, there is something about him that makes him real and relatable. Even though he is the most powerful man in the world, he is, at heart, just a man. In almost four years under perhaps the most intense public scrutiny ever placed upon an American president, he has never lost sight of the fact that he bleeds red, just like everyone else.

Ignoring, as we really must, the “cool cat” weirdness here; how can anyone claim that Obama does away with “pomp and circumstance”?  When he and his wife (and dog) aren’t taking separate planes to the same destination (within hours of each other, no less) or hosting lavish parties on our dime, they are reveling in excesses that defy logic during this time when Americans are hurting economically.

I, for one, am not at all impressed with Obama’s fake accents and bizarre-sounding attempts to pretend he’s . . . whomever his current audience wants to meet (to be fair, I also hate this when Hillary Clinton does it.).

As to his “deportment,” he’s an absolute embarrassment.  I will say that his rare moments of candor (“you didn’t build that,” and “it’s good for everybody when you spread the wealth around“) are noteworthy, but absolutely not so because they make him more “relatable” (I can’t even begin to express my deep loathing for that “word”).

“Outright honesty”? Really? About what?  That we can keep our plan and our doctor?  That our health care costs will decrease by $2,500 per year?  That 0Care won’t add “one dime” to the deficit?  That 0Care wouldn’t cover elective abortions?  That the Benghazi attack that resulted in the rape and torture of an American ambassador and the deaths of three other Americans was due to a video?  That he doesn’t know anything about anything until he sees it on the news or reads about it in the paper?

8. He is for the environment. President Barack Obama has taken a forward thinking approach to creating a red, white, blue and green America. His policies and initiatives for a clean energy economy have had an incredible impact on the future of the nation. For instance, the U.S. reduced oil imports by more than 10 percent from 2010 – 2011. That’s more than 1 million barrels a day. The Administration continues to seek ways to reduce America’s dependence on oil, promote efficient energy and invest in clean energy practices. Read more about Obama’s environmental strategies here.

Obama could give a rat’s patootie about the environment (note above on his and Mooch taking separate planes within hours of one another); he cares about control.  He cares about bankrupting the coal industry and sending electricity and gas prices “skyrocketing.”  And he cares about this not because he believes in the AGW hoax but because he’s a Marxist ideologue who truly believes that America is evil, that it oppresses other countries just by being, and that we should spread our wealth around (not only in-country, but around the world).

As to the bizarre and erroneous claims that Obama has done anything at all to lessen our reliance on foreign oil . . . that has happened not because of his policies (which seek only to limit oil, coal, and natural gas production in America) but despite them.

9.  He is for veterans. Obama has consistently promoted the allocation of funds, increased benefits, job opportunities and extended resources for our nation’s veterans. Although Obama never served in the U.S. Armed Forces, he has always been a responsible and thoughtful commander-in-chief. Unlike his predecessor -G.W. Bush -he has always been conscious of the fact that troops serving in combat zones are sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. He has never lost sight of the commitment, dedication and sacrifice made by the brave men and women who volunteer for military service and he has been adamant about rewarding them accordingly.

Where to start on this one?  His treatment of the Fort Hood terror attack survivors?  His shutting down open-air war memorials out of spite? His first response to any government cuts is to target the military?  His requiring a Marine to violate regulations in order to hold an umbrella for Dictator Won?  His crotch-salute of the American flag?  His requiring that all military personnel be disarmed in his presence?  His repeated insistence that the United States military is “his” and that they “fights on [his] behalf“? His regime’s attacks on Christians and conservatives in the military?  His dismissal of hundreds of generals and other high-ranking military officers whom he deems too patriotic?

10.  He is for peace. Let us never forget that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 -one of the greatest accomplishments any man or woman could hope to achieve in a lifetime. The award reads, “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” During his presidency, Obama successfully ended the war in Iraq and is close to finally putting an end to the conflict in Afghanistan and bring our troops home for good. Speaking of Afghanistan, remember public enemy number one, the King of Terror? It was under Obama’s order that Osama Bin Laden was annihilated and put out of the warmongering business for good.

Obama’s “for peace”? Really?  That must explain why he unilaterally and unConstitutionally took us to war in Libya and why he was chomping at the bit to march us off to war in Syria (on the side of al Qaeda, nonetheless!).  That would also explain his alienation of our allies and his rush to destroy our own nuclear arsenal as he encourages Iran to build one of their own and ignores Russia’s lack of stupidity in refusing to destroy their own nukes.

Yeah, a weakened America, a strengthened Iran, Russia, and China, and roiling unrest throughout the Middle East . . . a sure recipe for peace.

11.  He is for education. Obama has always been an advocate for education, making it a top priority during his administration. Believing education is what brings about the strength of a nation, Obama has set a goal for the U.S. to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. He has increased federal funding and doubled the amount of grant money allocated to students seeking a higher education to cover rising tuition costs. During his presidency, Obama also passed the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African-Americans and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics to ensure equal education for people of color.

He’s “for education” if by that one means indoctrinating our nation’s youth in his cult of personality and refusing to allow the teaching of American history and civics, then sure, he’s all for educating America’s children in the finer points of anal and oral sexual intercourse, leftist protesting, and that Obama is an actual messiah.

As to the goal of producing the highest number of college graduates in the world, that’s going to be easy because colleges are giving out A’s like candy, being bullied and shamed into lowering standards, and basically making a college degree a joke (the author of this “12 reasons” article is a prime example of the type of student who would not have made it past the first semester of freshman year even three decades ago . . but now not only holds a doctorate in education but actually serves as chair of his department!).  This all breaks my heart because I believe in higher education, or at least in the long-lost theory of it.

12.  He is for entertaining the masses. If we have to listen to a president yakitty-yak about this or that for another four years, we might as well pick one with charisma and charm. If you can’t find anything else appealing about Obama, you can’t deny the fact that the guy is an amazing speaker with wit, fantastic comedic timing and an incredible intellect. In fact, I will go so far as to say that when the man does finally retire from politics, he has a rewarding and lucrative job as a stand up comic awaiting him if he so chooses. When’s the last time you heard a president joke about drinking beer, belt out Al Green with poise and precision at a moment’s notice and admit to watching the Kardashians?

Holy crap!  Can’t you just see this written out, painstakingly, in crayons?  We want a president who can “entertain the masses”?  Whose most promising post-presidential career is that of opening act for Carrot Top?  Really?

I have no words.

Conservatives vs. Leftists

Like you, I was horrified by the results of November’s presidential election.  And I was dispirited.  And not a little angry.  I’ve not been sure how (or even whether) to continue a political blog because it seemed so pointless and that all our work was for pretty much nothing.  But then I remember that it was apathy, even more than ignorance, that got us into this mess, and slinking back onto the couch in disgust really isn’t the answer (tempting though it is).  Worse is staying home and not voting at all (that is not in the least bit tempting. To me, anyway.).

So then I started thinking about what went wrong for conservatives and what went right for leftists, and I had these inchoate thoughts swimming around amidst the other emotions and thoughts.  There seem to be a few of key problems on the conservative side, and these are being heightened and played quite ingeniously by leftists.

First, I think we really need to figure out what we want.  Do we want more government and less freedom?  Do we want what we have now, to maintain the status quo in terms of the government-freedom ratio? I was talking with a friend the other day, and he laughingly brought up the time when we, in Florida, could buy drive-thru beer, wine, even mixed drinks.  I’m not talking about bottles and six packs, here, I’m talking about draft beer.  In a cup, in your car.   Sounds nuts, right?  Even I think it sounds nuts.  But then we got to talking about other Floridian responses to new laws, particularly the seat belt law that coincided with serial killer Ted Bundy’s death penalty appeals.  The bumper sticker of the day was “I’ll buckle up when Bundy does” (referring, of course, to Florida’s electric chair).  He did.  We did.

And no, I’m not saying that we need to all be drinking drive-thru brew, with or without our seat belts.  What I am saying is that we adapt to encroachments on our liberty, so much so that we are (or least I am) horrified at the thought of not only buying a glass of wine in my car but of leaving “park” without my seat belt on.  Frog meet pot of water.

The more laws we have, and this is the foundation of regressivism, the fewer freedoms we have.  Regressives are about totalitarian control, right down to who can have children and how many they can have.  Remember, it was progressives who brought us prohibition, eugenics, and a host of other equally intrusive and/or downright evil threats to our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

When it comes to the economy, we seem to agree that the entitlement culture is a big big problem, but then we defend massive programs that will bankrupt us if they are not reformed.  I’ve written recently about entitlements and how I think that conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  Part of that, I think, is that we tend to get defensive when “called out” as hypocrites by the left.  We are not hypocrites for taking social security, medicare, etc.  Were the first wave of feminists hypocrites because they still depended on their fathers and husbands?  Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites before the American Revolution?  They rejected tyranny but lived under it, after all (so goes the crazed leftist logic on entitlements and conservatives).  You get my point.  Any change requires living in the existing condition until that change occurs.

When it comes to politicians, we want fiscal and some of us want social conservatives . . . so much so that we are willing to let die-hard commies be elected if we can’t have our way.  Obama did not win by a landslide, nowhere near one, and he definitely would have lost if conservatives–yes, conservatives–had their act together and not played into the hands of the leftists (newsflash: they have their best interests at heart, not ours).  Some conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones (by the way, I lean libertarian with the noted and huge exceptions of foreign policy and defense), voted for “anyone but Romney” not “anyone but Obama.”  This boggles the mind, and has had me spinning since November.  I just didn’t get it (actually, I’m not sure that I do now, and yes, I’ve read all the crap about how they are practically the same person, blah blah blah. What tripe!).

Then I read J. R. Dunn’s article at American Thinker, and it sort of clicked for me.  We need to break out of this mindset that we must have the most pure conservative on every issue or on our own pet issue.  If we don’t, we will continue to lose, and worse, our losses strengthen the very people who are destroying this nation.  Let’s look, as Dunn does, at the Akin horror show.  I was right there with everyone calling for that silly silly man to withdraw from the race, so I’m not pointing fingers here, or if I am, I’m including myself at the end of my pointy pointy finger.  I must have tweeted 30 (or more) Akin-related tweets that mocked him, urged him to withdraw, etc.  And I was right.  He should have withdrawn.  But I was also wrong because guess who won that race, Air Claire Corrupt Lying Commie McCaskill.   Yeah, that’s a much better choice than some guy who doesn’t know much about the woman’s body or how to answer questions and avoid obvious errors and is guilty of general idiocy.  Um. No.  It’s not better.  It’s a thousand times worse.  She’s a freaking communist, people (including myself here, what the heck was I thinking?).

But that’s the ploy, right.  The left hammers on one slip, one thing, until conservatives are beaten down, backed into a corner that is painted for them.  But look what the left does, it rallies around pedophiles, tax evaders, philanderers, liars, fake Indians, druggies, drunks, murderers . . . you name it, and there is some Democrat in Congress or at the state level who is up to his or her eyeballs in that crime.  Crime, people, not stupidity–actual crime.  No wonder they are so gleeful when we turn on some numbnut who made a stupid statement, they are laughing all the way to tyranny.

Now, I am in no way saying that we should send our own list of criminals to Congress nor that we need to moderate our own views or values, but what I am saying is don’t listen to them anymore.  It’s not even hypocrisy from them; they truly believe that a murderer or a pedophile is better than a conservative.  But here’s the thing, we have to stop caring what they think.  I think that a screw up like Akin is ten times better than Air Claire, but they clearly don’t care what we think, and pandering to their standards is killing not only us but our country.  They are heavy into Alinsky, right?  And they are busily holding us to our own impossible standards, and it’s working.  Like a charm.

Second, once we figure out what we want, we need to work for it in every area of our lives.  Where’d the TEA Party go?  Are you working in your community to keep that fire alive?  Our Second Amendment rights are under attack; this is far bigger than the 0CareTax, so where are the rallies?  Are we waiting for a bill to be introduced?  If so, fine, but plan on rallying because something IS going to happen on “gun control.”  Count on it.

And what about those of us who are appalled by the leftists’ repeated victories in the culture war?  Are we still forking out our money for their propaganda?  Financially supporting actors and companies who hate us, our country, and everything we stand for?  What about those of us who are appalled by what is happening in our schools and universities?  Are we involved, making our voices heard?  Or are we doing what generations of conservatives have done (up until ’09, anyway) and sitting on our couches muttering in impotent frustration and anger?

Third, we need to focus our attention on 2014.  If we lose the House, it’s over.  Heck, it may well be over already as so many conservatives proclaim, but it doesn’t look over to me.

Not yet.

But it will be if we don’t stop this litmus test stuff and start supporting candidates who may not be perfect in every way but who are . . . yes, I’m going to say it, better than the alternative.  That is really all we can do now that we’ve lost so much ground; we don’t have the luxury of choosing the very bestest conservative the planet’s ever seen for each and every office (or for any office).  Does that mean that we have to “compromise our principles”?  Sure, I guess so, if you want to think of it that way.  I prefer to think of it as electing people who are not known communists.  Because guess what, our choices are often going to be some nutter like Akin versus the corrupt commie Air Claire or a moderate like Romney versus the corrupt commie Obama.  By sitting home or voting for some obscure loon who will never ever win (what the hell was that guy’s name again?), we are electing corrupt commies.  We, conservatives, are doing that.  Let’s not.

Social Security, MediCare, and Minimum Wage

Okay, so as it turned out, I was completely unable to watch the SOTU address.  And I’m glad.  The last thing I need is to get aggravated by the Commie in Chief’s latest plans to destroy our country.  So . . . yay me!

So then I was reading through my usual list and ran across a great post by the ever-fabulous Adrienne over at Adrienne’s Corner.  She writes about MediCare and about minimum wage through a very personal and understandable lens; it’s true that we have little choice but to draw on Social Security and MediCare, that the system is such that we do, indeed, depend on government.  As such, I think, we try too hard to rationalize these programs and ignore their flaws.  We lash out at the gross mismanagement of our tax dollars . . . often without considering the fundamental flaws in socialist programs and the entitlement state.  We forget that we, yes, even die-hard conservatives, are indeed–as lefties gleefully note–partaking in the entitlement state, fully-invested (so to speak) in the entitlement mentality.

Leftists just love to point out that conservatives draw Social Security and MediCare, and more recently, that we take out student loans.  This latter point, too, is flawed, when I took mine out, they were with private lenders, not the government; I would never ever have taken a loan from the government to go college, even if that meant not going at all.  But my student loans, like everyone else’s, were sold around and then eventually ended up in the government’s lap–indeed, no student loans can be issued today except through the federal government.  Another “benefit” of the 0CareTax.  But I digress, this post isn’t about student loans and the federal take-over of the student loan industry.

There’s a problem with that leftist glee in our supposed “hypocrisy”; Social Security and MediCare have become the sole means of income/coverage for seniors; there is no other option in the majority of cases.  It’s not like we can survive without these government programs, not anymore.  And they love that!  Why wouldn’t they?  The government has the teat from which even the most die-hard conservative adult suckles.  They conveniently forget that it’s the only teat in town.   Big government wins.

Until it doesn’t.

Of course in my response to Adrienne, I went on and on, but I thought it might be worth posting here as a blog post-like thing.  So here it is:

When we speak of unfunded entitlements, we don’t mean what the taxpayer is forced to pay; we mean whether or not the money is there, in a budget. As we don’t have and haven’t had a budget during Obama’s entire presidency, this gets tricky. But as an example, when the Bush prescription drug plan for seniors was passed, it was “unfunded.” In other words, there were no cuts in spending or taxes added to pay for it in that (or any subsequent) budget. The money that we all pay into MediCare and Social Security was not raised (indeed it was cut during the Bush years and only just raised to where it was by Obama), seniors were not tapped retroactively to cover the bill. It was literally an added cost to the tax payer, tacked on to all the other things we pay for . . . and those we don’t.

So that particular entitlement was the equivalent of adding some new cost to your household budget without cutting back on something else or getting a pay raise to pay for it. It can do nothing but accumulate debt and increase inflation/devalue the dollar. This is problematic because it means that the more we do this, the more we offer without the exact amount spent paid in, the higher our deficit (we spend more than we take in) and the more debt we accumulate (the deficit adds to the debt every single day).

Now, about MediCare and Social Security. These are entitlements, but yes, they are partially (almost minutely at this point) paid for by tax payers. When Social Security, for example, was first enacted, the life expectancy was significantly lower, the idea was that the government would be taking in more than it paid out because people would die before they qualified. Nice, huh? Social Security funds, further, were never supposed to be part of the federal budget, they were supposed to be separately managed (remember that “lock box” stuff?). That didn’t happen, and yes the money was thrown away, wasted, porked out to greedy politicians.

By the way, these funds were never invested (and shouldn’t be, not by the federal government). If YOU, on the other hand, had invested that money independently, knowing the risks and assuming you didn’t lose it all in ’08, you may indeed be a millionaire, but there is no guarantee with the stock market.

But, and here’s the rub, once life expectancy grew and the people drawing Social Security grew, nothing was done to address the discrepancy between what was paid in and what was paid out–most people on SS and on MediCare receive at least 50% more in benefits and payouts than they paid in during their working life. This is a problem. It’s not like a Christmas account where you take out exactly what you put in, possibly with nominal interest paid. It’s like having a Christmas account into which you deposit $500 over the course of the year and then take out $750 at the end of the year. Where does that extra $250 come from? And how can we say we’re entitled to 50% more than what we paid in?

These two programs amount to 2/3 (and growing) of federal spending, yet the taxes paid via our paychecks (the means we pay into MediCare and Social Security) barely make a dent in that amount. If we actually paid for our benefits, that would be one thing. But we do not. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark, the universe. This is why they are (correctly) called pyramid schemes. And why they, like all pyramid schemes, will definitely collapse if they continue as they are.

Now, all that said, there is a very serious problem with all of this because when both programs were enacted, they were supplemental to employer-provided pensions. Very very few employers today provide pensions, outside federal, state, and local governments (and most of those are grossly inflated and unsustainable due to union interference). As you note, you have no choice but to be on Social Security and MediCare. Few do. Something that was supposed to be a safety net (for widows, as Social Security first was introduced and passed) has morphed into a retirement plan for all seniors. That was never the intent, but it’s happened. So people have no choice but to take them because they have nothing else. And then . . . well, we are all socialists now as Newsweek once proclaimed and as the opponents of these entitlements stated in their opposition to their enactment.

What do we do now? I haven’t got the answers, but I do know that as long as even conservatives are fighting to maintain the status quo, these programs, along with our entire economy, will collapse. And it’s not a matter of “if” but when.

Now on to minimum wage. You may indeed deserve more than the current minimum wage, and personally, I think you are worth your weight in gold. But here’s the problem with federal minimum wage mandates: nothing changes. The cost of living and the price of everything simply adjusts to the new minimum, so your $10/hour gets you no more than your current $7.25/hour (not you, personally, a general “you” here).

Employers who are already cutting hours/jobs due to the 0CareTax abomination that changes full-time from 40 to 30 hours per week will simply cut more jobs to accommodate the minimum wage increase. And/or they will pass those costs on to the consumer (thus the flattening out that always occurs after a minimum wage hike–you make more but you spend more to maintain the same standard of living). We can make minimum $500 dollars an hour, but it won’t change anyone’s standard of living. All that will happen is that bread will be $45 a loaf (or whatever).

These are serious and complex issues, but the bottom line on it all is that doing more of the same will lead to more of the same until we eventually collapse.

I’ve written about these entitlements before, including providing specific data and graphs (Okay, So We Don’t Touch MediCare, MedicAid, or Social Security and Screw the Scalpel, Chainsaw Massacre of Federal Budget Needed), and the road to serfdom onto which we’ve been herded.

Until these programs are significantly overhauled, or better yet abolished, there is no shame in participating (there currently is no choice).  Let me repeat that: there. is. no. shame. in being on MediCare or Social Security.  None.  And there is no hypocrisy. The trap has been beautifully built: reject socialism?  Well, you’re a big, fat hypocrite because you rely on (totally unsustainable) socialist policies to eat and see a doctor.  Cowed, shamed, and nonplussed, conservatives fight back by stating that we paid for it.  But we didn’t, not even close.  And that’s the trap.  Fight back, and you bite the hand that feeds you . . . . But that hand is the federal government, out of control and spending more than it takes in.  The very thing you disdain.  Do not be cowed.  The system is rigged, we have to rely on it for now; however, that does not mean it’s a good system.

Conservatives have to stop thinking–convincing ourselves–that we are entitled to anything that is not specifically stated in the Constitution or to more than we actually pay into something.  Regardless of our current circumstances, circumstances that were forced upon us probably to cause this exact response, this Constitutional crisis.  Until we stop thinking that way, stop cowering in fear and shame, we really can’t make a compelling case–or any case–for the free market, for capitalism, or for liberty.


Pre-SOTU Ponderings

Tonight the big 0 will be delivering yet another State of the Union address.  Sigh.  When at all possible, I avoid listening to this man.  He’s a despicable, horrible, tiny little person in whom I vest no admiration and for whom I have even less respect.  Despite this, I do have a morbid curiosity about what he’ll say this year.  This curiosity is rooted in the strange and troubling transformation he’s undergone since his reelection; the real him is becoming more and more clear to everyone but his most die-hard salivating Obots.  And it’s not pretty.

Besides, I’ve posted on each of his previous SOTU’s (he didn’t deliver one in ’09):

2010: POS BO’s SOTU: WTH?

2011: The SOTU In A Nutshell

2012: BO’s Subterfuge of the Union Address

What do I expect from tonight?  I’m not entirely sure because I’m not sure how much of his hand he’s confident enough to reveal, but based on his inauguration speech, I do expect it to be even more transparently leftist than any previous such speech.  And I expect it to be loaded with buzz words that are designed to unruffle the feathers of center-right Americans.

He loves to toss out things that sound like he “gets” America but that actually have nothing to do with true American sentiment or our foundational beliefs.  So he’ll talk about guns as if they are only for sport hunting or shooting skeet in mom jeans, saying things like hunting is an American tradition or some such nonsense.  And he’ll talk about rugged individualism . . . in the context of the “federal family” he seeks to impose (it’s very like Hilary’s “village,” by the way, as you’d expect from a collectivist loon).  He’ll talk about “who we are as a people,” and most of us won’t have any idea what he’s talking about because he not only has no idea who we, the people, are, but he doesn’t even understand that he doesn’t understand.

His speech will cover a laundry list of things that are anathema to the majority of American people:

Amnesty, gay marriage, forcing religious institutions and individuals to act against their conscience, global warming (or climate change, whatever the newest catch phrase is for this hoax), raising taxes, fair shares, infrastructure, teachers, guns, and our individual responsibility . . . to the government (i.e. 0 himself) and to a lesser degree to the collective.

Things he won’t mention:

His kill list, his drone attacks on American citizens, Benghazi and our raped and murdered ambassador, the fact that there has not been a federal budget during his entire presidency, the fact that war deaths have sharply increased under his “leadership,” the amassing of ammo by his administration, the numerous unConstitutional executive orders he’s signed and intends to sign, drone activity in the U. S., the fraud that it took to “win” the election, the fact that death panels are indeed a prominent feature of “cost-savings” in the 0CareTax, or the fact that Gitmo is still open and that he not only extended President Bush’s warrantless wiretaps but added to their scope and intrusiveness.

Things he may mention but shouldn’t:  his new healthy housing initiative whereby the federal government imposes requirements on homeowners to meet as yet unclear “healthy” standards (this is in compliance with, added to, and/or justified by the 0CareTax monstrosity), his nuclear disarmament plans (whereby the only country who currently has nukes and won’t in the near future is the United States; all other countries, of course, will keep theirs), the fiscal benefits of the 0CareTax (there are none, so far it’s a complete failure in every way–“not one dime” was a lie; “illegal immigrants won’t be covered” was a lie; “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” was a lie; “abortion won’t be covered” was a lie; and on and on) except that it does seem it will fulfill its goal of shutting down private health insurers), and his “cyber-security” plans (i.e. a kill switch).

But who knows, maybe he’ll surprise us all and actually tell us the real state of the union:  we’re broke, divided, pissed off (on both sides of the aisle), and teetering on the brink of at least two (more) wars.  Three if you count the civil war he seems intent on creating.  Naw, he’s not got an honest bone in his body.  Add that to the fact that he’s a coward, and we can expect more happy BS that sounds right but isn’t.


Obama Must Go ( #OMG ), And No, That’s Not A Free Pass For Romney

As the election draws near, I admit that I am anxious.  I’m certain that the devastation a second 0 term would bring will further harm our country; I’m not sure how much.  We are, after all, Americans and have survived all sorts of assaults on our Republic, the most harmful–excepting perhaps Islamofascist terrorists plotting and organizing overseas–from within (I’m thinking Wilson and FDR here), so yes, we are more than capable of pushing back the commie tide once more.  I’d just rather get started on that in 2013 than in 2017.  One thing about which I am certain is that I will never (again) be duped into supporting totalitarian, fascist, anti- and unAmerican actions from anyone.  The Patriot Act . . . yes, I did think it was a good idea at the time.  What a numbskull I was!  How naive!

Look at what 0 has done not only to add to the power of the executive branch–to powers far exceeding any the Founders had in mind; indeed, to encompass powers the Founders deliberately denied the president.  Actions rooted in the Patriot Act and that were and are cheered not only by leftists but by conservatives.  Violating Pakistan’s national sovereignty to “get” bin Laden? Woot! No problem!  Setting up a presidential “kill list” that directly violates the 4th Amendment, bypasses Congress, and is an affront to everything America stands for?  Woohoo! Let’s do it! shout both lefties and conservatives!  Let’s empower the president to unilaterally decide who lives and who dies–what a great idea!  Only the very best banana republic dictators enjoy such a privilege.

So I’m reading “The Progressive Case Against Obama” over at Slate (yes, that Slate, regressive central), and I’m struck by a few points–quoted in order, but without context (read the whole article for their context—it gets nuts in places, with typical regressive ramblings about the horrors of the free market, individual responsibility, equal justice, etc., but is worth the read):

So why oppose Obama? Simply, it is the shape of the society Obama is crafting that I oppose . . . .

I’d argue that Stoller, the article’s author, leans more libertarian than progressive/regressive, but in this point, he’s spot-on.  The society 0 is creating is more impoverished than ever before, the middle class is shrinking . . .by design.  The society 0 is creating is more contentious, more divided than ever before . . . by design.

It is as if America’s traditional racial segregationist tendencies have been reorganized, and the tools and tactics of that system have been repurposed for a multicultural elite colonizing a multicultural population.

Yes, it’s “as if” that, huh?  How about it IS that?

Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis.

Yes, he did.  As did Clinton when his administration forced banks to offer mortgages that lendees could never afford . . . never pay back.  That was no accident, and neither was 0’s purposeful decision to encourage a foreclosure crisis.  After all, comfortable, happy people don’t engage in Marxist revolutions.

As Sheth also notes, there is a lot more to women’s rights than abortion. Predatory lending and foreclosures disproportionately impact women. The drug war impacts women. Under Obama, 1.6 million more women are now in poverty. 1.2 million migrants have been deported by the Department of Homeland Security. The teacher layoffs from Obama’s stimulus being inadequate to the task disproportionately hit women’s economic opportunity.

Not many regressives are willing to admit that women are more than the sum total of their reproductive organs, so kudos to Stoller here.

The case against Obama is that the people themselves will be better citizens under a Romney administration, distrusting him and placing constraints on his behavior the way they won’t on Obama. As a candidate, Obama promised a whole slew of civil liberties protections, lying the whole time. Obama has successfully organized the left part of the Democratic Party into a force that had rhetorically opposed war and civil liberties violations, but now cheerleads a weakened America too frightened to put Osama bin Laden on trial.

Now this, this I find interesting.  Leftists have always been more effective shrieking shrilly from the sidelines, speaking “truth to power,” whining and whingeing about “the man.”  When they become “the man,” they don’t know what to do.  Leftists are, by their actions and ideology, outsiders, complainers, radical outcasts stomping their feet to be heard.  That’s what they do best.  That’s actually the only thing they do well.

Leading is just too much for them, they get confused, bogged down in their own rhetoric (we HATE “pigs”; gee, you upstanding policemen and women are whom we are fighting for because you are union!  We hate wiretaps [or insert any Bush policy 0 continued]; gee, those wiretaps [or whatever] are freaking fantastic!), and ultimately, they lose their moral and ethical compass.  They can rage against inequity, but they don’t actually dislike it–they just don’t want the current “dominant” group to have power, wealth, whatever.  They can rage against war, but they don’t actually dislike it–they are more than happy to support 0’s war in Libya, even if it was/is illegal.  They can rage against . . . well, you name it, anything, everything.  But they cannot offer viable solutions.  They are best, are “better citizens” when they play watchdog not big dog.

Over at The Atlantic another regressive expresses his outrage at the 0 kill list in an article entitled “What If Mitt Romney Inherits Obama’s Killer Drone Fleet?“:

So to sum up, Obama has implemented a global killing program with zero checks and balances; he’s operated it out of the CIA rather than the Department of Defense; he invokes the state-secrets privilege to avoid defending it in court, even as he brags about its efficacy . . . .

And yes, if Romney is elected, he will indeed “inherit” this power.  Only now are regressives worried, however, only now do they suspect that an American president should not have the power to unilaterally and unconstitutionally order the deaths of American citizens. Short-sighted?  Stupid?  Yes, and yes.  But that’s the trouble with conservatives, too.  We supported (or at least I did) The Patriot Act against all logic.  But look what 0 has done with that power.  Look what the next president, whomever that may be, can do to expand it, to enshrine dictator-like power in the executive branch for all time.

Good-bye Congress.  Good-bye Supreme Court.  Good-bye Constitution.  Good-bye Republic.  Good-bye America.

And what are 0’s solutions to the very real problems in America?  Straight out of the commie handbook:  regulating salaries and establishing a “secretary of business.”  If that sounds familiar to you, you must be a student of history and know about the German Labour Front and the Reichsarbeitsdienst.  As I’ve written before, everything old is new again. 0’s solutions are communist solutions (call it “Marxist” if you prefer, but Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto . . . not by accident. Well, okay, kind of by accident, but what Marx thought of his failed, hastily-written crap doesn’t really matter to today’s leftists/regressives/communists), and 0’s not just using Hitler’s playbook, he borrows heavily from Lenin, too.

American can and will survive . . . no matter who wins on November 6th.  But wouldn’t it be better if we could stem the communist tide and start rolling back harmful, anti- and unAmerican policies?  Wouldn’t it be better to change course now than in 2017?  I believe Romney will change our course, and I believe that with our insistence on his maintaining Constitutional values, he’ll not only do the right thing but will do so with dignity and humility.  If I’m wrong, I will be the first to say so, and I will be the first to hold his feet to the fire, call him out on every single thing he does that I would object to if 0 did it.  Every. Single. Thing.  I will never support Romney if he does the wrong thing, if he continues down the path of tyranny . . . even under a conservative banner.  I will not sell my soul for partisanship; I will not sell my morals and ethics for political points.  I will not, in short, be a hypocrite.  Regressives have lost whatever voice, whatever gravitas, they had before they got power by doing just that, and making that mistake is not something I will be party to.

This constitutional conservative is done being a patsy for big spending, big government tyrants.  Period.  But the first step to restoring our Republic is to get the most dangerous one of all out of office.