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.

Fuzzy Rant: Voting Your Arrogance and Pretending It’s Your “Principles”

Okay, I’ve been holding in this rant for a while, but I just can’t do so any longer.  It’s been coming for some time, with Adrienne’s recent post feeding the fire.  But the last straw was some idiot Paulbot (redundant, I know) who keeps tweeting me inane crap about how establishment GOP are trying to “bully” her vote, so she’s going to vote for someone named Gary Johnson. You remember that guy who was in the GOP primary debates posing as Ron Paul lite?  No? You don’t remember? Don’t worry, he is not memorable.  Nor is he ever going to be president (neither will Ron Paul, of course).  But hey! The “principled” people will vote for him anyway!

The supreme sense of their own importance makes the “principled” ones infuriating.  [–let me interrupt this rant to note that I don’t mean all Ron Paul supporters and certainly not all libertarians, just the fringe ones who turn off the rest of us with their looniness] Like most self-centered people, they care only about themselves, their principles, their useless, pointless, self-indulgent “stand.”  It’s ignorant, sure, but I’ve come to believe that it’s mostly arrogance.  How else do you explain people who see the devastation that 0 has wrought in four years and think it’s better to have him win another destructive four years than to vote for Mitt Romney, the only person who has a chance of defeating him?  How else do you explain someone whose principles dictate that they collude in the destruction of our republic so that they can strut around declaring that they didn’t “sell out”?  What will they be strutting amongst?  The wreckage of America.  A totalitarian nightmare that they’d rather see our countrymen and women endure than vote for someone who isn’t pitch perfect, lockstep in line with their view of our republic (a view, I should note, that I do not share . . . nor do the majority of American non-leftists as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s nomination.  But they know best, these Paulbots).


But, but, but whine and whinge and moan the Paulbots, 0 is just like George W. Bush. Just. Like. Him.  Really, we swear!  Bush spent big (he did); he expanded government unacceptably (he did), he got us into wars we probably shouldn’t have been in (he did). So seeeee!??!! Just exactly the exact same sameness.

Uh huh.

Two things are incredibly wrong with this childish thinking: one, Bush was a big-spender, possibly a progressive, but he didn’t hate America or Americans.  Two, Bush didn’t get away with it, not really.  By the end of his term his approval was at 25%; Americans didn’t approve of his big spending, nanny state, police state crap.  We’d had enough.  (This is essentially why I contend that had McCain been elected, the TEA Party would still have emerged. McCain, like Bush, is a big-spending, big-government nightmare. But like Bush, he’s not in the same Marxist league as 0.).  These arrogant “principle” voters for Johnson (whom they didn’t go to until Ron Paul completely failed, so how principled are they, I mean really?) think casting their vote for Johnson, or abstaining from voting, will change . . . well, actually, I’m not sure what the hell they think they’ll change by doing that. I’d have to have a significantly more inflated sense of my own importance to even begin to comprehend it.

The only way to change the Bush-type “compassionate conservative” / RINO / regressive crap is to vote them all out of office; we don’t do that by handing 0 another term in which he can potentially destroy both our economy and our Republic.  We do that, slowly, over time, with passionate dedication to correcting our own wrongs (if we supported Bush, as I did) or by steering our nation back on course with our votes, our vigilance, and our voice.  We do it by recognizing that we won’t always–may never–have the “perfect” choice, but the better of two will be evident, and that’s the one we want, even as a place-holder for a more acceptable constitutional conservative in the next election cycle.

We certainly don’t do it by stomping our feet, sticking out our pouty pouty lips, and demanding a return to American liberty and values NOW! We didn’t get here overnight, and we’re certainly not going to get out of here overnight.  But don’t try to tell that to a “principle” voter.  They just don’t get it.  I’m still not sure how a vote for what’s-his-name, er, Johnson, is a return to our core values, but whatever.  I gave up trying to reason with self-important, self-inflated, self-centered leftists long ago, and Paulbots are far too similar to leftists for me: trying to reason with a Paulbot is rather like trying to reason with a leftist.  In fact, it’s exactly like that, right down to their obsession with “following the money.”

Would I have preferred a different candidate?  Of course.  (Though, to be perfectly honest, I’m not unhappy with the Romney nomination.  Not anymore.  But that’s a different post for a different day.)  But we don’t have a different candidate; we have this one.  So it’s either Romney or 0.  Period.  It’s not rocket science.  It’s not an insolvable puzzle. It’s not even a particularly difficult choice . . . unless you are so arrogant, so unprincipled (yes! unprincipled) that you think voting on your “principles” justifies your role in America’s downfall (and make no mistake, surviving four more years of this radical, antiAmerican, unAmerican, pro-Islamofascist Marxist nightmare may well be more than even our great nation can manage).

But no, you go ahead and vote your arrogance principles.  You know best, after all.  You assert that voting for someone you would not choose–Isn’t Ron Paul your guy?–is better than voting for someone you . . . um, did not choose.

Or something.

Let’s see what’s at stake here:  the Supreme Court, with at least one and up to three appointments likely in the next four years and which is the go-to branch for leftists who can’t get a popular vote on their pet agenda projects (remember: “democracy” is only worth defending for leftists if it reinforces their totalitarian policies); the nation’s economy, but hey! who needs one of those?; global war, a very real possibility in light of 0’s horrific influence on the Middle East, China, Russia, and Europe and his acolytes’ support of the Islamofascist “Arab spring”; but hey! that’s not your problem, right? It’s the big, evil America who’s to blame for terrorism.  In India. In Bali. In Africa.  Uh huh, right; unconstitutional consolidation of power in the executive branch finalized, but gee, that’s going to happen anyway, right? One day. Why not next year?!; more and more people dragged down into poverty and onto welfare and food stamps, but hey! that’s not your problem, right?; the ObamaCareTax, it needs to be repealed and most assuredly won’t be under a second 0 term; the size of government, but hey, bigger is better, right?  Because that’s what your crap vote for Obama Johnson will guarantee; the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments, but hey! Who needs those as long as you can vote your “principles”?

The more of you who vote your “principles” (i.e. yourself), the larger the popular vote gap, the larger, in other words, the “mandate” that 0 and his traitorous horde will claim.  And use to further their destructive agenda.  But hey, who cares about the popular vote, right?  It’s only the electoral college that “matters.”  Right?  Wrong.  Ten kinds of wrong.  Sure, the electoral college decides the election, we all know that.  But the popular vote matters and not just in the history books but in the winner declaring a mandate. Most of us know that 0 won the popular vote by just over 9.5 million votes (in a country of over 300 million people).  And look what they did with that “mandate.”  Imagine what they’ll do with the one to which you are actively contributing by refusing to vote for Mitt Romney.

You are not happy with Romney.  You are not happy with either party.  They’re “just the same,” right?  So instead of bucking up, taking responsibility, and working to change the GOP, to shift it to a more limited government platform by electing constitutional conservatives and libertarians and by staying involved to ensure the party stays the course, you’ll just take your marbles and skip off to vote for that guy, what’s his name again?, who has zero chance of winning.  Genius.

You are not happy that things aren’t exactly as you wish them to be, so you’ll puff up your cheeks, hold your breath, thrash about on the floor in a temper tantrum . . . and ultimately–and make no mistake about this–aid and abet the single most dangerous president this nation has ever known (well, there are other contenders like Woodrow Wilson, but you get my drift).  And you’ll do it on “principle.”  Because, after all, that will make a “statement”; you’ll “let them know” they can’t “bully” you!  Your message will be heard “loud and clear.”

Uh huh, and what delusional, self-important world do you inhabit?

But yes, by all means, vote your “principles.”  After all, if you care more about yourself than your country, what choice do you really have?

Open Letter to President Obama: This Nation Simply Doesn’t Deserve You

Dear President Obama,

Despite your valiant efforts to cast the pearls of your vision for a “fundamental transformation” of America before the loutish, bitterly-clinging swine who call themselves Americans, you seem to have failed.  And oh, no, Mr. President, please don’t misunderstand me, this is not your failure; you are a man above all others, a visionary who sees the past and strives to achieve regressive goals where all others failed.  No, this is America’s failure.

Despite one hundred years of conditioning, Americans just aren’t ready for your efforts to breathe new life into an agenda once laughably believed to be dead because of its utter failure (and sure, a few hundred million dead, but hey! that’s the price you pay for Utopia. I get that).  But America, this woefully backward failed nation, is just not worthy of your efforts.  It’s a nation of horrors, war-mongering, greed, and . . . a bunch of other really bad stuff.

We know this because look at the resistance your courageous and bold efforts for The Greater Good have been met with:  “people waving tea bags around,” people who don’t “thank” you for your efforts to increase their taxes and ensure that more and more people are on food stamps, unemployment, and welfare, people who–let’s face it–simply refuse, stubbornly and against their own best interests, to embrace your most excellent and backward-looking brand of “change.”  These people don’t want your help, Sir, they just want to bumble along with that ridiculous “Constitutional Republic” and their “document of negative liberties.”  They are rigidly determined to thwart your best efforts to guide them, to show them that they are much better off if they, like the fabulous Julia–who depends on no man, only the government for assistance (was there ever a more compelling example of women’s equality and ability?), accept your guiding hand and your benevolent, absolute authority.

Instead, these people, these so-called Americans, these capitalist swine, these lovers of “freedom” (how over-rated is that?! How dated!) insist on defending their tired old selfish ways, insisting that equal justice and equal opportunity are better than social or environmental or racial justice and opportunity.  I mean, really!  How nuts is that?  These ignorant people with their fanciful ideas about a free market and a free people are beneath you.  Have you heard them mumbling inanely about how they get rights not from you, our President and Dear Leader, but from . . . wait for it! . . . their “Creator”?  How can you work with these “pro-America,” “pro-God” types who keep willfully misunderstanding your carefully-crafted message?  Why would you even want to do so?

Mr. President, this nation simply doesn’t deserve you.

Look at the way they reject your brilliant take-over of 1/6th of the economy with your “Affordable Healthcare Act.”  Look at the way they stomp their feet when you simply try to “rule” them as is your rightful place!  Look at the way they point to your logical attempts to ensure utter control over their lives and call it “overreach.”  Look at the way they call you a liar simply because you know best how to explain things to them so they’ll like them (and they still don’t! Such disobedience!).  Look at the way they mock you and everything you do; you, the man who inspired such elementary school hits as the “Mmm mmm mmm” song!  It’s unconscionable.

No, Mr. President, you are a man of and for a different era, an era in which the masses understood that they needed a supreme ruler.  You are, after all, a man of such historic and unprecedented potential that even the Nobel committee acknowledged it!  You are a man who wants to force your benevolence and vision on an undeserving nation.  That, I respectfully submit, is beneath you both as a Global Citizen, Visionary, and Ruler and as a man.  Why would you want to lift up and help these despicable rubes?  Why would you waste your time on a people who neither recognize your greatness nor respect it?  Why would you, in short, seek to impose your miraculous vision on such undeserving, ungrateful, unwashed masses?

No, Mr. President, your calling, great and wondrous as it is, must be greater, perhaps to lead the greater nations of this world: the Irans, the Venezualas, the Egypts, and the Syrias.  Heck, I imagine that the EU would be thrilled to have your most excellent, most high understanding of the world and the order you seek to establish.  Ignore these American ingrates, and set your sights on your higher calling where you can pursue your deepest desires amongst throngs who not only acknowledge your greatness but embrace it.  Go global.  America, so horribly out of touch with the rest of the world, is simply beneath you.  Leave it be.  They’ll fall under their own twisted ideas of “freedom” and that quaint notion of “American exceptionalism” . . .  not to mention that the whole checks and balances / three co-equal branches thing is truly hampering your ability to “get things done.” “Co-equal” is just not acceptable.  You must “rule”!

You belittle yourself by associating yourself with the people of America, with the nation of America.  Best to turn your back on her, her people, and her past.  It’s time, Sir, to move on to greener and redder pastures.  Your boundless greatness is wasted here, your magical presence rejected by the stubborn and “free-spirited” American people.  This cannot be tolerated, you must renounce your American citizenship in favor of global citizenship, set an example for the brave who know that globalism is the future!  You must turn your back on a nation that will never support you or your vision.

Mr. President, with all due respect, it would be best for you and for the world if you rejected your party’s nomination for a second term.  There is much to be done in the world, Sir, and only you–let’s face it–can get it done.  America is weighing you down, embarrassing you with its wealth, ideals, opportunity, morality, and exceptionalism.  You can do better.

Sincerely hoping you choose not to seek a second term,


Screw the Scalpel, Chainsaw Massacre of Federal Budget Needed

Our country is in dire financial straights.  Dire.  We are on the verge of losing our triple A rating, there is talk of dropping the dollar as the world’s standard, and other countries own more of our debt than is comfortable (to put it mildly).  This needs to be addressed immediately, and that means that we need to start reconsidering our massive entitlement spending.  Even without the passage of the explosively-expensive healthcare monstrosity (and its implications regarding expansive government control), we are heading down a road to abject poverty for everyone in this country.  No one seems to want to talk about cutting entitlements, but let’s be honest, if we don’t cut them now, we’ll soon not have any money for anyone.  The gravy train has to end.

Considering that 47% of Americans pay zero income tax and that many of those actually receive “tax refunds” (!) and a range of entitlements from welfare to food stamps to Medicaid to unemployment (and on), that leaves the rest of us to foot the bill for everyone in this country (including illegals, who pay no income tax at all, either).  The median income in the United States is $50k (give or take), with women earning in that “median” range $35k.  So selecting $40k somewhat arbitrarily (God knows math is not my strong suit), let’s look at a handy pay check calculator and see what taxes and pay-outs are subtracted if you are a single person w/no dependents living in Massachusetts:

Salary:  40,000
Weekly Gross:  769.23
Fed Withholding: 83.77
Social Security: 47.69
Medicare: 11.15
State:  37.65
Weekly “take home” pay:  $588.97

Notice this is without any healthcare or other benefits figured in.  You are now making less than $30k a year (closer to $24k after health, dental, and whatever other benefits you get through work).  And with that you will be (in addition to healthcare) in need of housing, utilities, clothing, car, gas (rumored to be going to $7.00 a gallon, from the $2.63 it is now) and insurance for said car, food, etc. and etc. All of which are skyrocketing, while our paychecks are shrinking.  How much savings?  Retirement planning?  Pretty much none, right?  And the middle classes continue to sink into poverty, and the cycle of entitlement reliance continues . . . by design.

Now consider that unemployment is through the roof (and apparently going to be higher than expected when the new numbers come out on Friday . . . because it snowed), that businesses (big and small) are not hiring at the moment, and that there are massive cost increases coming in the form of healthcare reform, Cap and Tax, and who knows what other nasties this lunatic administration wants to impose on us (a VAT?  more taxes on “the rich” that we’ll end up having to pay from our increasingly diminished paychecks–anyone who thinks tax increases are not passed on to the consumer is living in a delusional la-la land), and you have a recipe for not only national bankruptcy but a great many more personal ones, too.  This country is going in the wrong direction.  We cannot sustain this:

(from The Corner, h/t Jill from Pundit & Pundette via Potluck)

This is not okay.  Not only are we being strangled and dragged down by insane taxes, with more on the way, but they aren’t coming close to covering the government’s massive spending: “This year’s deficit is 10.6% of the nation’s economy, more than three times the level that is sustainable, administration officials said” (source, emphasis mine).  Raising taxes will not help us or the government or anyone receiving entitlements.  The only thing to do is get out a chainsaw and start some mad massacring of these programs.  I’m not kidding.  They have to be hacked and slashed and butchered, neither a hatchet nor a scalpel will not do the trick.  Nor will piling on more entitlements, more spending, more, more, more . . . and absolutely no way to pay for it. 

We are not the “richest nation on earth,” not anymore.  We are a debtor nation.  Unless we face this and make some tough and strong decisions now, going forward, we’re going to be a banana republic.

How’d we get here?  Honestly, I could give a rat’s patootie at this point.  The only thing that can be gained by saying “well the republicans did it, no the dems did it, un-uh, they all did it” is absolutely and utterly nothing.  Get that?  It doesn’t matter one tiny iota how we got here, except–down the road–in terms of looking back, having stabilized our economy and balanced our budget, with the intent not of blaming everyone under the sun but of learning what went wrong so that we don’t allow it to happen again.  I am so not interested in who did what or what mistakes were made or how bad [insert your favorite straw man] is/was.

Our nation is in dire straights, and the only thing that is sensible is to work to get us back on a strong, American track.  That means we have to clean House (and Senate) this November, not simply because they are progs or traitors or absolute lunatics but because they are threatening our nation’s security and stability.  With them in power, we will never be able to address the serious financial problems in this country, never.  They compound them every day, and we are responsible for allowing it to continue.  If we do nothing, we don’t just lose an election, we lose a nation.



Healthcare, Welfare, and Power

I watched an interview Greta did last night with some House member, a republican, who has been trying since August to meet with BO about healthcare reform.  He’s sent numerous letters via snail mail, numerous emails, made numerous calls.  And got nothing back.  Nothing at all.  Not even an acknowledgment.  After BO’s “my door is always open to all” speech before the joint session (better known for the “you lie!” statement made by a patriot member of Congress), this same House member sent yet another series of requests to meet with BO about healthcare.  Turns out this guy has been in the medical profession for a quarter of a century AND he’s a lawmaker on Capitol Hill.  Gee, isn’t this just the sort of thing the pre-election BO claimed he’d welcome?  The viewpoint of someone not only across the aisle but actually knowledgeable about the issue at hand?  Do you think that this guy got his audience with the liar in chief?  Nope.  So I began to wonder why. 

It’s time, I think, to reframe this whole healthcare “debate.”  We on the right are looking at this all wrong.  While we know that there are issues with our healthcare system, that it’s flawed, imperfect, and that it could be better, we need to understand that what is happening now is not about healthcare.  Not even the tiniest little wee bit.  Seriously.  They’re not “wrong” or “stubborn” or “partisan.”  They are not in the least interested in reforming our existing system (what “reform” means), they are interested in completely taking it over and rebuilding it as a nationalized, government-run system.  And yes, we know that.  We’ve all been saying that for ages, but the bottom line is that it’s not about compassion and being neighborly, and it’s absolutely NOT about healthcare.  It is not about lowering costs.  It is not about covering more people.  This is about amassing government control of our economy.  It’s about money.  It’s about power.  If we continue to let the discussion center on the wrong thing, we’ll lose.  We are losing. 

We keep responding by offering common sense solutions to the healthcare “crisis,” but these fall on deaf ears and are ignored and even denied (how often have we heard that republicans offer no solutions, want the status quo, etc.?).  We keep responding by objecting to publicly-funded abortions (which I vehemently oppose) or by complaining about cuts to Medicare, objecting to the lumping of more fiscal responsibility on the states to cover the expanded Medicaid program, and/or by arguing against the government takeover on the grounds that it is too expensive (it is), that it won’t do what they say it will (it won’t), or that it will mean higher premiums and taxes and fines for all (it will).  But here’s the rub, they know all this.  It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that in order to achieve their goal, they need to ensure that we are taxed, fined, even jailed into subservience and complete domination by the government.

This is not about lowering costs, covering more people, or even about healthcare at all.  Not one tiny bit.  If it were, there are a least six things we can do right now (not in three or four years) that will make a huge difference, expand coverage, lower costs, provide “security” for already insured or under-insured Americans, etc.  And they wouldn’t cost a fraction of a complete restructuring of our healthcare system, with its myriad government bureaucracies, panels, commissions, committees, and layers of red tape.  But these are not even being considered.  At all.  Why?

Because the goal is to take over one sixth of the economy, period.  It could as easily be the banking industry, the car industry, the student loan industry, the newspaper industry, public radio . . . oh, wait, those have all been taken over already (the last two are in the works, still, but that’s what’s going to happen).  See?  We are missing the boat completely by even entertaining this as healthcare “reform.”  We are asking the wrong questions and spending our time flailing ineffectually at smoke.

They’re not thinking about healthcare, costs, or covering more people, so why do we keep getting sucked into the sideshow?  If they wanted to lower costs or cover more people, there are quite a few things that they could do for a quarter of the money and that wouldn’t screw up coverage for the 253.4 MILLION Americans who have coverage that they like (and this number goes up every single year, more and more people are being covered, not fewer, at least not before this economic nightmare that BO and his horde have, I believe, exacerbated to instill in us blind fear and panic, allowing them to do anything at all in the hopes that they’ll “fix” it.  This tactic has been used throughout history by unethical, power-hungry tyrants, and it’s being used on us now.).  Claiming that government-run healthcare is the answer, the ONLY answer, is typical liberal thinking.

Tug the heart-strings, claim high moral ground, and then use that to oppress and control the masses.  It’s like saying that welfare is about helping poor people.  Of course it’s not.  It’s about keeping poor people of all races on the democratic voting rolls and ensuring that they have no voice (that they aren’t told to have) and that they have no prospects to better themselves.  It’s about power.  And money.  Who gets wealthy from these wonderful programs that are supposed to lift up the underprivileged?  Who has built up multi-million dollar bank accounts and live in mansions?  Certainly not the people supposedly being helped.  It’s how liberals work.  How many people ever go OFF welfare?  How many people ever go OFF food stamps?  Not too many, and when they do, they are held up as “amazing stories” and “miraculous” and “inspirational.”  You know why?  Because they did it, literally, against all odds.  The deck is stacked against the poor getting ahead or improving their socio-economic circumstance, and that’s how the libs like it.  Is it a coincidence that the number of people who do not pay income tax (they are too poor) has continually risen over the past fifty years?  That under BO, the welfare rolls have undergone a “sharp increase”?  Why is that?  If the goal is to provide opportunity and help people get ahead, why isn’t it working?  Why is the exact opposite happening?  It’s not rocket science here:  these programs are not designed to help people. If they were, their rolls would not expand each and every year.  If they were, the expanding welfare rolls would prompt serious discussion about what’s not working and what can be done.  Notice the silence? 

The bigger the government is, the more people dependent on the government, the better they can wield that power and control.  And what better way to get people dependent on the government than to take over the banking, auto, student loan, media, and healthcare industries?  Seriously?  No conservative could ever be a fascist or a totalitarian dictator because one of the dearest-held conservative beliefs is in limiting government.  Limited government means less power for those in government and less control over the people.  This entire administration’s agenda is about expanding power, increasing government control over the masses, and restricting liberty.  Healthcare is a red herring, an illusion, a means to an end, and if we keep trying to grasp onto that, we’re going to lose far more than our doctor.