Congratulations, Atlanta!

Well, congratulations, Atlanta.  Another cretin gets himself killed by the police, this time after fighting with officers rather than complying with their lawful orders.  During the struggle, the man unsuccessfully attempted to grab the officer's gun, may have been shot during the struggle, but manage to wriggle free with the officer's Taser.  He was fatally shot as he fled the pursuing officers when he aimed the Taser at them.

A completely justified shooting, as anyone with even a minute fraction of a functioning brain should be able to understand.  Of course, bleeding heart liberal idiots have already begun the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, as they whine about this poor black man being murdered "for doing nothing".  Boo hoo.  Murder, you say?  Pfffft.  I prefer to think of it as simply adding chorine to the gene pool.  The human race will be better off without him.  Oh, diversity has made us so much stronger, don't you agree?  Not one bit, I say.  Harsh, you say?  What makes you think I care anymore?

The reaction to this unfortunate incident was sadly predictable - a crowd of angry sub-humans destroyed the Wendy's where the incident occured, burning it to the ground, as if somehow the (former) employees and their minimum-wage jobs (which they will no longer have) were responsible.  Yet how many ignorant leftists will claim this destruction was justified, and will support further such actions by people who should never be allowed to even exist in a civilized society?

Sadly, the end result of this will be that police will be even more afraid to detain criminals if they are black.  Consequently, every black criminal will understand this and the disrespect of law enforcement officers will grow.  Police will be left with no choice but to allow black criminals go, or not to attempt to detain them in the first place.  Black crime will skyrocket, while the liberals will dance and sing the praises of fewer black arrests and incarcerations.  Obama's plan will be accomplished.

And get ready for the July 4th fireworks, when 10,000 patriots show up to dismantle the barricades defining the world's newest country, Seattle's "Chappel Hill Autonomous Zone".  Should be fun.

Hard to Understand

It is quite understandable why so many people are so fired up over Trump's claims he will do the things that Obama promised and lied about.  It is much like the anti-Bush sickness that gripped the country in 2008 and ushered in the Age of Obama.

But before we get swept up in this latest wave of populism, remember that a "President Trump" would have to go through Congress in order to do anything he promises.  Obama was successful in manipulating the legislative branch because of the unwavering aid of his toadies Reid and Pelosi, along with a media that is incredibly slanted to the left.

Were Trump to be elected, who do we have on the side of the GOP?  Mitch McConnell and Paul "Boehner" Ryan.  These two RINO fucks will continue to do exactly what they have been doing, which is exactly what has brought the GOP to shame and disgrace - favor Corporatism over conservatism at every opportunity.

Trump will side with corporate billionaire ass-hats like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, exactly like Barry O'Bama has.  His economic policies will basically be turning the entire country into a casino complex or a high-rise condo - which is the only thing he know how to do.

People need to read up on Trump's actual business record.  He is not the "world's greatest businessman" as his press would have us believe, any more than Obama is the "world's greatest orator."

Don't misunderstand - Trump is a wealthy man and has overseen many successful real estate developments, which account for his vast fortune.  His personal wealth is estimated at $3.7 billion, not the $10 billion he claims.  On the bright side, perhaps this "discrepancy" shows how ready Trump is to assume a lead position in our government.

But Trump also has a laundry list of failures in his business endeavors.  Trump casinos continue to lose money, and Trump casinos and properties have filed for bankruptcy protection on five separate occasions.  Again, perhaps this shows his ability to accrue more debt than he can service, which makes him eminently qualified as our new Checkwriter-in-Chief.

While the list is long, here are just a few reminders that not all of Trump's ideas are "the greatest".  When was the last time you had a  Trump steak, washing it down with Trump vodka, or reading a copy of Trump Magazine while flying on Trump airlines?  Do you know anyone who ever shared in the American dream and bought a house with a Trump mortgage, after graduating with a degree from Trump University?

A lot of people have real, solid, reasonable ideas about how to address the important problems we face, such as how to seal our borders and deal with the millions of illegals who drain our economy of $350 billion each year, or reduce the size of government - which is the only true way to grow our economy.

Trump is not one of them.

That being said, should my choice boil down to Trump vs. Hillary, I will do exactly as I have done since 2008 - hold my nose and pull the lever for whichever moron the GOP puts up against the perpetual progressive assault from the left.

But it won't be pretty, and I won't enjoy it, and I can practically guarantee a loss.  If Trump becomes the GOP's choice, I think we had better get used to the phrase, "Madame President".

Actually, because of the horrible bias in the electoral college system, I don't really think any GOP candidate will ever win again.

And, once the next census has been taken, the illegal population counted, and blue representation in government has been increased as a result, elections in America will be more like those in North Korea - a mere formality.

But that is a story for another day.

Fair's Fair

"We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

 But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

There can be no divided allegiance here.  We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt

Who's Fault Is It?

I know this woman's suicide is sad, but I can't help but laugh at all the bizarre conspiracy theories being cooked up by the #blacklivesmatter idiots. Of course, these people don't really care about Ms Bland as much as they care about simply stirring up the pot.

 

 

They claim a huge injustice has been committed, and demand the arresting officer be held responsible. How ignorant of them.  If anyone is to be held responsible, it would be the folks running the jail.  I have no problem with calling them out for negligence, although in no way could this be deemed a murder.

But, again, when will we start holding the individual responsible for their own actions?  Why is everything always someone else's fault these days?

I agree the woman should have been watched closely, as the dash cam video showed she was indeed bat-shit crazy.  It is a tragedy that she was left alone to hang herself.  But I feel strongly that the arresting officer was in no way out of line during the arrest, or remotely responsible for this woman's suicide.

Don't take this the wrong way. Any time a person dies in police custody there is reason to be suspicious.

But I'm just upset about how many times this same situation seems to be occurring, and how quickly the left assumes the authorities are guilty of some horrible plot against (insert minority du jour here).  I find this a rather amazing conflict, since liberals are so adamant about the need for more and more powerful government.

If you watch the video, you can clearly see the officer acting in a polite and courteous manner until the point when the woman began her belligerent tirade.

Every single time an officer pulls a car over, there is a definite possibility that he might get shot.  Which is why police want to see your hands on the steering wheel, and not fumbling about - either with a cigarette or a gun - while they are performing their job.

There was a definite series of events that caused the officer to turn from polite and courteous to aggressive.

There are many who claim she should have never been taken to jail, or pulled over.  I wonder, what should the officer have done?

"You don't feel like getting ou! t of your car today, ma'am?  Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't notice you are a black woman.  How racist of me not to notice.  I understand how terribly oppressive it is of me to make such an unreasonable demand.   I apologize for the inconvenience your traffic violation might have caused you.  Please, go about your business.  Thank you, and have a nice day."

It's like dealing with a spoiled, whiny child - sometimes you have to give them a swat to get their attention.  And, when you do, there's always some bone head who will scream to police about child abuse.

If you watch the video again, the majority of events took place off-camera.  You could, however, hear the audio track, which painted a picture of the woman screaming and kicking in a futile attempt to avoid compliance with the officer. 

One question: doe! s anyone dispute what would have happened if the woman simply responded to the officer's initial courtesy with a polite "yes, officer"?

Remember the last time you say a white guy yanked from his car and hauled off to jail for something as silly as a routine traffic stop?  Yeah, I don't either. It is a rare occurrence, to say the least.  And do you ever wonder why that hardly ever happens?

Is that because of "white privilege," as the left always claims, or because most white people understand it is not only proper but advantageous to deal with police in a courteous and cooperative manner?

No, this has nothing to do with the insanely nonsensical concept of "white privilege." Anyone, of any race, can expect the same outcome if they interact properly with the police:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2plo4FOgIU

I was raised to believe that a person's race doesn't matter, that it is a person's character that matters.  A man is a man, and an asshole is an asshole - period.  I am being constantly reminded how wrong that truly is by the morons who now claim it's racist NOT to recognize people by race.

In today's messed up, "fundamentally transformed" America, race now seems to the primary factor in determining right from wrong.  And it is becoming painfully apparent that black people can do no wrong in the Age of Obama.

No matter what a person does these days, it's always someone else's fault when any social interaction turns out shitty for them.

How sad.

The ACA is the Wrong Way

I am encouraged by the latest lawsuit by Houston's Dr. Hotze against the Great Lie that we know as Obamacare.

After spending a week in the hospital, I had a chance to speak with various doctors, nurses, interns, and the like about Obamacare.  I was surprised to learn that we all seem to be in agreement that the ACA is an abomination.

The idea that some modification of our existing system was needed might have been universal, but to turn the entire system - nearly one sixth of our entire GDP - on it's ear with a bag of lies and bullshit was definitely the wrong way to go.

Addressing the number of people who couldn't afford regular, preventative health care was certainly a necessary task.  Too many people are forced to wait until they are quite ill, and then their only recourse was to show up and overwhelm hospital emergency rooms across the country.  The ability to pay didn't matter - federal law and human decency demanded treatment.

If for-profit health insurance made everything cost too much, why did we force the entire country to purchase for-profit health insurance?  Why couldn't we spend money to build more free clinics across the country to provide care for the indigent? 

So now, the people who formerly could not afford regular checkups must now learn how to afford insurance premiums when they are not sick, and massive deductibles when they are.  This is certainly a bait-and-switch from the idea that Obamacare was the savior of the health care crisis in this country.

I hope everyone will notice that our esteemed lawgivers graciously exempted themselves from compliance from the new healthcare laws.  You see, they like the way their healthcare was paid for by the people of America, along with their pensions and lifetime benefits at the expense of the working class they so adamantly prented to defend.

Enter Obama, and the ongoing concept that success is a bad thing, and that you should feel guilty for having money in America.  Unless, of course, you contribute to the DNC, at which point you are allowed to make all the money you wish.

But this is what is to be expected now and in the future as the Democratic Socialist Party, formerly operating as the DNC, gain more control over the ignorant and the apathetic population who only worry about cell phone signals, Facebook likes, and who's dancing with the Kardashians.

God speed, Dr. Hotze.

How Does That Old Joke Go?

Osama - Now a Good Muslim

It would seem there is very little anyone can do with this disease people refer to as the "religion" of Islam.  Rather like cockroaches, rats, or any unwanted vermin, these people must either be ignored or dealt with - but they are proving every day that they cannot coexist.

There are those who falsely claim Islam is a religion of peace, but this is simply not true.  According to their holy book, the sole purpose of the faithful Muslim on this earth is to convert the entire world to Islam or kill those who refuse.

The truth is that Mohammed was nothing but a diseased child molester who was thrown out of Jerusalem because of his increasing violent attacks on the other religious groups.

If you study the books (I have not personally studied the Koran, because I can't, but have read several books on the subject and consider myself more informed than most) he claims were given to him from Allah, they are all about the man Mohammed himself - following his orders, his commands, pleasing him.

If you swallow the malarkey, it seems Allah seemingly chose Mohammed at random to be not only his eyes and ears, but his judge, jury, and executioner.  Hardly the kind and benevolent Supreme Being, wouldn't you say?  I know the Bible calls for some serious smiting of enemies, but I cannot find the passage where the good Christian must kill any and all who refuse the Word of God.

As I have always said, religion can have wonderful effects on people, but organized religion is a dangerous thing.  And when a religious zealot is able to harness the power of the mob through his warped and biased beliefs, we are talking serious end of world type stuff here.

Now, to all your other suggestions, there is little we can do to "suppress" nuclear weapons in those countries that currently possess them.  And thanks to Obama, we have allowed Iran all the time and money it requires to complete its goal to be a nuclear power.

If we were going to do something, it would have to be more than "sanctions".  Economic sanctions do not work - period.  We have levied sanctions against North Korea for nearly three decades, and yet they continue to test these weapons.

Now Obama wants to lift sanctions against Iran, and has firmly argued against any new sanctions, and for what - to show them how much we love them?  This will not end well, I can assure you.  I'm fairly certain that, within a decade, we can say goodbye to Israel, along with half the world's population.  Gee, that sounds rather gloomy, doesn't it?

Good news?  Only 999 days left until Obama must leave the White House.

Bad news?  Which idiot will replace him?

Why Don't We Have a Secure Border?

We don’t secure our border only because we continue to play this “P.C.” game.  If we truly wanted to stop it, the solution is simple.

Militarize the border

Nobody in, nobody out, unless they’ve got ‘papers’.  No more crossings except for authorized entry points.  Amazing the influence a pile of dead bodies would have on a person’s decision to cross illegally.

The US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles (3,439,040 yards) long.  If you put up a tower every 200 yards, it would require 17,195 towers.  Man these towers 24/7 with properly armed military personnel (hey – we’ve got 150,00 guys coming home from Afghanistan soon who will need jobs) means anything that crosses the border is within 100 yards of a rifle bullet.  My guess is that we could say goodbye to 99% of illegal border crossings.

Don’t let anyone tell us that it would cost too much.  Even at $15k per tower (typical overblown government contract rates?), the total cost to put up a twenty-foot tower every 200 yards along the entire 1,954 miles of the US-Mexico border from Brownsville, Texas to Tiajuana, California, would be barely over $250 million.  Of course, since we get back $1.47 for every dollar spend by Uncle Sam, we make a cool $117 million profit, right?

How many billions do we currently spend each year on “Border Security” that allows millions of illegals to cross every year?  How many billions more do we currently spend on providing benefits to these trespassers?  The cost to put 5 soldiers at each tower would be barely over $1 billion a year.  We would be saving taxpayers billions each year that could be used to help balance our budget, or provide benefits for Americans.

Ps – Some additional steps to stem the flood of illegals:

As long as our government incentivizes illegal immigration, it will never stop.  There are a few additional measures we could take to make sneaking in a bit less inviting.

Declare English to be the official language of the United States of America

One country, one people, one language.  Don’t like it?  Don’t stay.  A few hundred million saved every year by not printing every single state and federal form in multiple languages.  In order to legally immigrate to this country, you must prove basic English skills, or at least have a family member who can serve as an interpreter.

Strict Enforcement of existing immigration/labor laws

Since 1986, it has been a federal offense to knowingly employ anyone in this country illegally.  Enforce instant deportation of illegal workers – period.  Business with multiple violations must be shut down.

Note to GOP: Forget the Website!

What do you mean, scam?

Why are we spending so much effort in the failure of Healthcare.gov?  Are we going to be happy once the bugs have been worked out?  Of course not, so why not focus on the law itself?

Please remember that the ACA is simply the first step towards a single-payer, true National healthcare system. Although I doubt they ever expected things to go this sour this quickly, the ACA was never meant to last. It was purposely designed to be easily replaced at the proper time. This is simply how the crooks in Washington operate.

Obviously, they can’t just come out and declare their intent to take control of one-sixth of our nation’s economy. So they do it in small, measured steps, incrementally - progressively, if you prefer.

First comes all the squawk about how messed up our existing system is. Notice that those pushing so hard for this “healthcare reform” never propose to fix only the parts of the existing system that are “broken.” Instead, their master plan is to propose a complete restructure of the entire system into the ridiculous nightmare which we now call "Obamacare."

They sell the idea to the brain-dead of America by promising how great it will be, and that by using taxpayer funding to subsidize insurance for 30 million people, the costs will magically start going down. But as hard as they try, the left cannot draw the support they need to float this giant turd. So they rig an election in Minnesota, and newly-elected Senator Al Franken, with a vast knowledge and experience which can only be gained as a Saturday Night Live comedian, casts the 60th and deciding vote. Obamacare is now the law of the land, and there was great rejoicing from the left.

But the new system turns out to have serious flaws, which must be fixed at any cost. So each area that is “broken” must be carefully reviewed and repaired – exactly what they claimed couldn’t be done with the existing system. A tweak here, an exemption there, and for the next few years we will watch as this turd repeatedly resurfaces.

Of course, the ACA has nothing to do with actual health care. What we actually have with Obamacare is government-mandated participation in the private insurance market. The insurance companies – as evil as they were made to appear during the initial debates over health care reform – were involved from day one with the crafting of the ACA. Big Insurance actively lobbied for it, because the federal government is going to force everyone in America to either purchase their product.

But eventually, perhaps out of the sheer goodness of their hearts, the kindly folks in Washington DC will begin the inevitable attack on private insurance companies. As costs go up, which is certain to happen due to the laws of supply and demand, the taxpayer-funded subsidies for those who qualify will also increase. Politicians from both sides will begin explaining to the American people the unfairness behind record insurance companies profit while taxpayers are being punished.

Our benevolent politicians will then push for the removal of all greedy private insurance profiteers from the equation. In other words, the government will now take over one–sixth of the nation’s economy. And, in the end, the sheeple will thank them for delivering Single Payer unto them...

The Evolution of Climatology

In the beginning, man was a timid animal spending most of his time hiding in caves, terrified by the forces of nature.  But as man evolved, he was able to explain away these events by blaming them on evil creatures, demons, and spirits.

Sometime later, these evil creatures were replaced by a host of gods and sub-deities.  Sacrifices and offerings were made to these deities in hopes they would grant favorable weather for crops, or a pleasant weekend for the company picnic.  The more devious members of the clan soon learned that, by pretending to possess the ability to speak to these deities, they could achieve a more powerful status.

Finally, in today's modern society, we have replaced these "Weather Gods" with scientists, and we have replaced the spirit-talkers with politicians.  The scientists are now paid by politicians to study and report on the causes of bad weather.  In their infinite wisdom and seemingly infinite budgets, these great thinkers have determined that bad weather is caused by the very presence of man.

So today, "sacrifices" to the Weather Gods have evolved into higher taxation to the lords and masters - the ruling elite, the politicians.

Funny, but it sounds a whole lot like we've gone full circle.  Mankind hasn't progressed much past huddling in caves, making offerings and sacrifices in an attempt to appease the wrath of Mother Nature...

On Strike for Maximum Wage

"One day, I'll work here..."

"Hey, here's an idea:  Let's all go on strike and demand higher wages!  Why not?  Just  because I'm 23 years old, have seven children, no husband, and never graduated High School doesn't mean I should let these billionaire tycoons pay me slave wages, right?"

Well, these idiots can only see corporations such as McDonald's as some multi-billion dollar business whose CEO rolls naked in piles of gold coins while poor people starve.  They seem to forget that all the actual restaurants - the places that hire these idiots - are owned and managed by individual franchise - aka "small business" - owners.

These people purchase franchises in an attempt to maintain a slight profit margin.  Can you guess where their earnings come from?  That's right - from whatever is left after operating expenses - including labor costs - have been paid.  I'll bet Obama couldn't answer that question.

The owners of these small businesses normally have a very slim operating margin.  If they pay more money, they can hire fewer workers.  Now, last time I checked the Little Red Progressive Handbook, this wouldn't be fair at all.   And if they raise the price of their product, they risk fewer sales.

Remember, most of the fast food workers have to constantly be reminded "no, no, no - it's bread, meat, bread!"  Why do you think they have signs in the toilets reminding employees to wash their hands?  I'm surprised the sign doesn't also remind them to wipe their ass, or zip their pants up.  Most anyone with an IQ above a carrot already knows this.  Ever watch the vein on that moron's forehead throb when you buy something for $4.77 and hand them a five dollar bill and two pennies?

For Pete's sake - landing a job at McDonald's flipping burgers was never meant to be a lifelong career move.  You can not, nor should you even try to, raise a family on minimum wage.  Keep it in your pants, and plan for a family.  Raising a child should be an afterthought, an inconvenient consequence of a drunken Saturday night hump-fest.

Instead of increasing their pay, we need to enlighten this generation of spoiled crapweasels to this fact.  The last thing we should do is pay them enough money so that they never have to advance their careers past the prep station at a fast food franchise, or give them hope that entry level employment is a final career goal.

The bottom rung of the economic ladder is not supposed to be comfortable.  We already do this with welfare, which is why we have families with three generation on government assistance and have never worked a day in their lives.

If it were possible to earn a "comfortable living" flipping burgers, why would we even need public education?  Just hand the kids a diploma when and if they pass the 6th grade, then assign them to whatever task the collective requires.

Graduation at Elementary Schools in the Age of Obama:

"...and please, hold your applause until all the names have been read and their life's function has been assigned:

Dover, Ben - bus driver, $15 an hour.

Dover, Eilene - robotics, $15 an hour.

Head, Richard - burger flipper, $15 an hour.

Jarse, Hugh - law enforcement, $15 an hour.

Jablome, Haywood - trash collector, $15 an hour.

Jabubu, Okaka - auto repair, $15 an hour.

Moorehead, Craven - sheep farmer, $15 an hour.

Obama, Barack - president, $15 an hour.

....."

Socialism...what if we all pretend once - just once - that it actually worked somewhere on this planet?  Would it still fail?

Debt Ceiling Time Already?

If the intent is to limit the amount that Congress has the authority to borrow, then the debt "ceiling" is nothing but a joke.

Each and every time Congress overspends and approaches the limits of their borrowing, they simply grant themselves an increased line of credit, and keep right on rolling.

Enough lies, enough spending.  Congress once again makes empty motions about fiscal responsibility and our children's future, but with the phony sincerity of a fat person promising to go on that diet after Thanksgiving.  And the lies handed to us by government stooges are just as insincere.

The first lie is obvious: "Congress must raise the debt limit to cover what they have already approved."  Not true; the reason they want the debt limit raised is because Congress cannot approve any further spending without exceeding this current ceiling - their "credit card" has been maxed out.

The second lie is even worse.  There is no possibility of the US ever defaulting on our debt - provisions in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution prevent that from ever taking place, even though the party in power erroneously attempts to invoke the 14th Amendment as justification to raise the debt ceiling.
 
Sooner or later, someone has to say "enough!"  I seriously doubt the Orange Man has the stones to stand up, but if not him, then who?  Our debt is already so unbelievably enormous that most are not certain it can ever be dealt with.  And, as Cankles so cold-heartedly offered, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

When Is Enough Enough?

Al Gore is back - this time with a new take on his same old bag of horseshit.  It's not "Global Warming" anymore.  That old chestnut dates back to the 1890's when scientists first begin to formulate their doomsday scenarios.  What these guys tell us today is that the "experts" have all agreed that the presence of man is responsible for the warming of our atmosphere.

But what they try to hide is that the data collected doesn't seem to support their theory.  Therefore, this esteemed panel of learned men decided it best to simply fudge the data to support their hypothesis, rather than starting over.  They have been caught several times, yet their blatant attempts at lying are always laughed at by liberals, because in their minds the end always justifies the means.  Remember, only conservatives lie; liberals use deceit to help us because we're too stupid to know what's good for us.

Oddly enough, in the 1960's a group of experts broke away from the mainstream to pursue their own theory.  They predicted that, because of the presence of man, all life on Earth was going to be destroyed by a "Global Cooling" catastrophe.  Enter little Albert Gore and his tree hugging wife, Tipper.

John Holdren, one of the leading proponents of this radical "Global Cooling" theory, suggested that coal dust should be spread along the Arctic ice cap to absorb the sun's heat, melt the ice, and prevent the impending ice age.  If the name John Holdren sounds familiar, it should - he is the Obama administration's "Science Czar."  He has rejoined the "Warming" crowd, and his latest suggestion is to broadcast reflective particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool our doomed planet.

They don't call it "Climate Change" anymore, either, because the evidence collected shows a series of natural cycles of warm and cool.  Nowadays, the well-informed tree-hugger uses the term "Extreme Weather" to describe the consequences of man's existence on this planet.  Al Gore is back, and laughingly uses Hurricane Sandy to claim the presence of mankind on the planet is responsible for "ever worsening weather events."  Don't these guys ever give up?

Sandy was not the "super-storm" the media and the enviro-whackos love to claim.  It's all about sensationalism.  "It was the worst storm ever, with damage in the billions, and some folks even died."  Sandy was a puny class 1 storm;  They estimate the Great Hurricane of 1900, the one that destroyed Galveston and killed thousands, was a class 5.  Katrina and Rita were both class 3 storms, and the devastation was much worse than Sandy.

After 50 years of living on the Gulf Coast, I've witnessed dozens of hurricanes much more powerful than Sandy.  Making Al Gore and his buddies wealthy beyond belief will not affect the strength or weakness of any hurricane, tornado, blizzard, or thunderstorm in the slightest.

Obama Part II - The Fiscal Cliff

You Got It, I Want It

The arrogance and ignorance of Obama seems boundless, as he continues to press his populist horse excreta on taxing the wealthy to "address" our deficit. But the numbers he throws our are ridiculously insignificant.

In a single term, Obama has put another $6 trillion on the national credit card, and we have $1 trillion-plus deficits forecast over the next decade. Raising tax rates on the wealthy has been estimated as an $800 billion increase in revenue - over 10 years.

There is no "mandate" to raise taxes; just remember that nearly 50% of America no longer wants to hear Obama's empty promises, or his excuses for our country's eminent economic collapse. For every person who thinks soaking the wealthy is "fair", there is someone who does not.

If Obama were truly a leader, he would drop his populist rhetoric and examine all the ways to use tax reform and spending controls to reduce the $3.8 trillion a year - $10 billion a day - that it currently takes to feed our overblown federal bureaucracy.

Smilin' Joe - Master Debater

So, who won?  For all the spin from last night's Vice Presidential debate, the biggest question I have is what sort of people consider Joe Biden's debate style as "down to earth?"  Holy crap - this pinhead is a heartbeat away from being our president?  Scary thought....

From where I sat, I didn't really see a clear winner, but I can definitely say that Ryan did not lose to an idiot like Smilin' Joe.  There is much talk today, and criticism by Democrats, that Ryan had nothing to say.  That he did not offer any "specifics."  I find it incredibly amazing that someone could endure the sad antics of Joe Biden for a solid hour and not have heard the things Ryan had to offer. 

What Ryan did say, when Sheriff Joe wasn't rudely interrupting, or the liberal moderator wasn't cutting his response short, was that one cannot make specific promises when putting forth a plan to solve our problems.  What he can do is establish a set of priorities, and then work with Congress (something painfully absent with Mr Obama) to find a way to best achieve these goals.

This is nothing like Obama's "Yes, We Can" liberal fantasy world, where there always seems to be more of other people's money for the government to spread around.  Romney's plan is a business-like, reality-based approach, a real dollars and cents world of crippling debt caused by out of control spending.   Don't get me wrong - Obama's addition of $5 trillion in new debt over three and a half years is no worse than Bush's $5 trillion, eight year contribution.

I believe we watched the same debate, yet I somehow came away with a different take.  Forget our resident village idiot and his dim-witted smiling sidekick for a moment, for all they promise is four more years of the same: taking on more debt to fund more public spending, investing tax dollars in green energy companies that might actually create jobs this go-round, and higher taxes on the job creators with the hope they will not be indirectly paid by those "hard-working middle class families that have been buried the last four years."

Obama says he wants to make "investments in our future".  Not very specific, but the Dems cheer wildly.  Doesn't say where he will find the money, other than the century-old "tax the wealthy" chestnut.  Ryan gave actual figures on that, by the way - did you pay attention?  Ryan stated that if all those who make over $250,000 a year are taxed at 100% it would only pay for 100 days of spending, or less than one third of what our federal government already spends each year.  We still need to find another two-thirds of the fiscal year funding, which leaves rather slim picking to take on new "investments" in our future.

Repeal the Bush tax rates for the high rollers?  Make those who already burden 36% of the tax liability in this country pay a "fair" share?  OK, fine - that amounts to $800 billion in additional revenue over the next ten years, right?  The federal government spent $3.5 trillion in fiscal year 2012.  Divide by 365, and you find they spent  $9,600,000,000 per day.  That $80 billion windfall from the repeal of the Bush tax cuts will cover 200 hours of government spending.  Not even 9 full days, but the Dems cheer wildly every time Obama says it.  Well, to be fair, he never actually says that; his speeches use the rounded-up figure of "$1 trillion" in revenue, but you have to divide by 10 to see how that will affect our deficit.

Why are Obama's supporters so engrossed with details?  I can't help but wonder why Romney is expected to outline his entire first term to the nth degree when all we got from Team Obama in 2008 was "He's not Bush" and a vague promise of "hope and change."  We do know from Obama's actual record, something he didn't have in 2008, that he has broken almost every promise he made in 2008, so maybe I can understand why Democrats want specifics.  But, of course, Obama has an excuse for every single failure.  And, if he can't come up with someone or something to blame for his own shortcomings, his adoring liberal media make up the excuses for him.

If you failed to notice, Ryan was cut off each time he attempted to rebuff Smilin' Joe's hollow talking points.  At one point, Ryan did appear to get a bit miffed, at which point he asked Biden whether he thought the viewers would get more from the debate if they stopped talking over one another.  Of course, we got nothing but that same shit-eating grin from Biden, which probably explains why so many on the left say Biden "won".

Over a dozen of Biden's so-called "facts," already shown as phony in this morning's press, went unchallenged by Ryan - not for lack of effort, however, but by the empty headed Martha Raddatz.  The left claims she did a fantastic job, while those on the right claim she stifled the debate; I go with the latter job description.  If you want to simply hear somebody reading off talking points, then go watch a speech or a pep rally.

Remember that the reason Obama had his butt handed to him in the last debate was because there is a huge difference between reading from your teleprompter to an adoring crowd, versus actually debating someone with the knowledge and ability to counter empty promises and lies with fact and truth.  We all know that Obama cannot run on his own record, therefore his job is to make Romney look worse than him.  Thus, many desperate Democrats now rejoice that our Vice President is a rude and ignorant buffoon, smiling and laughing while Ryan spokes in all seriousness of the inevitability of Iran's nuclear arsenal.

Personally, I feel that Joe Biden is Obama's insurance policy against a dose of high-speed lead poisoning - no maniac in his right mind would dare put him in charge of America?  As far as last night's debate, Joe Biden did exactly what he was sent to do: to try his hardest to push and bully the younger and less experienced Ryan into a Biden-esque gaffe as ammo for more of those vicious and misleading attack ads which Team Obama has now adopted as their sole campaign strategy.  But, when allowed by the moderator, Ryan pushed back, and his closing remarks certainly gave us what we were looking for - a clear choice between four more years of zero leadership and stagnant economic growth and perhaps what a new path might take us.  Obama has a proven record of failure, so where is all that "hope" for America's future the Dems were so full of four years ago?

Yes, the Democrats recovered quickly from Wednesday's butt-kicking at the hands of Romney.  The myriad of excuses for Obama's poor performance cooked up today by campaign staff and the media are nothing short of astounding in their ridiculousness.

They range from the thin air in Denver, to the failure of Jim Lehrer to stifle Romney's challenge of Obama's phony facts, to the fact that Romney simply lied.

Romney lied?  Lied about what?  Excuse me, but exactly what promises has he made to the American people that he has broken?  This is nothing but a cheap and childish and desperate attack, especially considering its source.

After all, Obama has done nothing but present half-truths and outright lies for four years, repeating them over and over until the typical brain-dead liberal can recite them as scripture.  There's an old saying invoking the actual color of kettles versus pots, but I will refrain from giving the race-baiters any ammunition.

But I digress.  The unemployment numbers came out today, and Democrats across the country danced in the streets with what they claim to be new and certain proof that Obama's policies are indeed working, and that the Republicans can go suck eggs.

Let's examine these unemployment numbers.  From the government's own website, the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today."

We are supposed to believe that adding 114,000 jobs lowered the (U3) unemployment number by three tenths of a percent, down to 7.8% ?  Using some simple math, this means there are roughly 38,000,000 employed in this country (basic math).

That number isn't even close, so there must be some other way to calculate this magical indicator of our economic health.  Let's go back to the BLS website:

"The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September...The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by 456,000 in September."

Interesting enough, with only 114,000 jobs added in September, the number of people unemployed fell by 456,000.  I wonder what happened to the other 342,000 people in September.

So according to our government, the true number of people unemployed today is 12.1 million,  This represents 7.8% of the labor force, then that puts our labor force a bit over 155,100,000:

"The civilian labor force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September while the labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.6%."

155,100,000 people, at a 63.6% utilization rate, yields 98,600,000 people with jobs and there are 56,500,000 members of this "labor force" who apparently don't want to look for work.

I find the 42.1 million person difference between those "in the labor force" who don't want to work and those who are "officially counted" as unemployed a bit mind boggling.

Government math is indeed confusing.  I wonder how they ever balance their checkbook?

Voter ID Law - What's the Problem?

As a Libertarian with strong conservative values, it is easy to identify the viewpoint of the far-left extremist.  And the dogged opposition from the left towards adopting a Voter ID law is a perfect example.


Photo ID is required to cash a check, to rent a car, to buy alcohol, to use a credit card, to board a plane - yet those on the left claim any photo ID law is simply a "ploy to disenfranchise" voters.  Talk about your conspiracy theories...

If fraud is so small as to make no difference in an election, then why such staunch opposition to a voter ID law?  What is there to hide?  And convictions for voter fraud are difficult to obtain, which yields ammunition to the argument that "actual"voter fraud is non-existent.

Of course, using this logic, I feel all warm and fuzzy to know that only 1055 people cheated on their taxes in 2010.  Or at least that's how many people were actually convicted by the IRS - and those guys have some serious stroke!

In truth, voter fraud during presidential elections is extremely small by percentage.  But where it truly makes a difference is during state and county elections, the local governmental positions which most directly effect the citizens who vote.

When you claim that a voter ID law is a Republican ploy, are you implying that Democrats are the only ones who attempt to commit voter fraud?  Or is it that Democrats are the party incapable of obtaining photo IDs?  What exactly are Democrats so afraid of when it comes to protecting the voting rights of the citizens of this country?  And why do you never hear of Democrats complaining about Republican voter fraud?

Voting is a right, but it is a "qualified" right, subject to citizenship, residency, age, etc.  You have a right to withdraw money from your own bank account at any time, but you must be "qualified" through proper identification to exercise that right.  In the same manner, you should be made to prove that you are indeed a resident of the county in which you wish to cast your ballot.

As to that 80-year old "people" you know who will be unable to vote if Texas enacts a photo ID law, perhaps she should make it a priority to obtain a photo ID if she wishes to continue to exercise her right to vote.  What is disgraceful is how Democrats always use Grandma to defend their continued quest to allow non-citizens to vote, or to pay voters to cast multiple ballots as they are bused around the counties on election night.

If the government were to establish a "national photo ID" and provide it at a minimal cost to all citizens, would this make Democrats happy?  It certainly should, if the disenfranchisement of legal voters was the true root of their opposition.

Finally, the US has a voter turnout averaging 48% over the last fifty years (55% for general, 40% off-year).  If anyone feels "disenfranchised" during any election, you still have two years in which to obtain the proper identification.

What does it take to vote in an election?  Before you can vote in any election, you must first register.  In order to register to vote, you must prove:

you are a United States citizen;

you are 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you file this form (note: you must be 18 years old by the date of the general, primary or other election in which you want to vote);

you live at your present address at least 30 days before an election;

you are not in jail or on parole for a felony conviction and;

you cannot claim the right to vote elsewhere.

If you meet these requirements, you are then issued a Voter Registration card.  What's the problem with adding a photo to that card?

Cost prohibitive?  Oh, please - with the $14 trillion that Obama will have added to our debt before he's run out of office, not counting the next decade of Obamacare taxes, don't tell me that it will cost the taxpayers too much.  If there is one thing Washington is NOT opposed to, it's the spending our money.

Another Christmas Miracle

In a grand display of self-sacrifice, Obama sent his wife and kids off to Hawaii without his glorious presence, so that he might save Christmas for 160 million Americans.  And, by remaining on the job, he's managed another in an unending series of historic accomplishments:  a two month extension of his Payroll Tax Holiday!  Once again, America is saved - praise be to Obama!  Hallelujah!

You see, Democrats are all about fairness and social justice. And they display a bulldog-like tenacity when protecting the Holiest of Holies, Social Security and Medicare.  Woe to unto any evil Republican who might taketh away thine rightful benefits, especially in this season of giving.

Would it be that we mere commoners were intelligent enough to divine the great and powerful Obama's master plan, we would see that the best way to preserve Social Security is to have everyone who still earns a paycheck pay less into it.  This stroke of genius falls right into line with the Democrat's idea that unemployment checks are the fastest way to stimulate our economy.  Who are we to dare argue with the great minds of Washington?

I know, I know...saving Social Security by diverting funds from it does seem rather contradictory, even hypocritical.  Some say this is because Democrats fail to see the difference between FICA, which is arguably not a tax, but collected and tied to benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, and all other taxes meant to fund the out-of-control federal bureaucracy.

We must remember not to lose our faith; we must remember to not question our rulers, for they have the knowledge of things we mortals cannot possibly comprehend.  We must truly believe that diverting funds away from the two signature programs of Democrats is not an obvious attempt to purchase votes from those in this country still ignorant enough to believe in that most ethereal of promises, Hope and Change.

Even though the irony of this promise is becoming more obvious each day, as most have lost hope of ever seeing any change, we must not forget the fact that the true mystery of Obama's holy mantra may be beyond our comprehension as lowly taxpayers.

Yet, even after all of this, you would begrudge Dear Leader his well-earned time of rest?  Blasphemer!  You are not fit to remain in the collective.

Quote of the Day:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions.  Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the "new, wonderful, good society" which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean "more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious."

Marcus Tillius Cicero (106 - 40 B.C.)

Take The Quiz!

Damn - I only scored 3 out of 9.  What this shows is that, in spite of the myriad of insane demands by this Flea Bagger "movement," there is common ground between all Americans when it comes to the failure of our government and its migration to corporatism.

There are major divides, however, when it comes to solutions.  The Flea Baggers want more government and more spending, a $20 minimum wage, a waiver of all debt, free health care, free college education, or any of the other bits of equine excreta espoused by the "Occupy Wall Street" cretins that I noticed the "quiz" failed to touch upon.

This "quiz" was a weak attempt to give some shred of credibility to the senseless protests of these spoiled group of societal freeloaders, angry that they may just have to work for a living.  A fine example of the manipulation by the media.  As you should understand by watching Fox News, it is easy to get the answers you're looking for, if you simply ask the right questions.

Quote of the day:  "Just when the protest seemed to turn violent, the police managed to disperse the crowd by firing job applications at them."

As for the true problems we face, we can all agree that for too long, politicians have bowed to corporate interests.   The problem has gotten completely out of hand, so much so that Obama doesn't even try to hide it anymore.  He has made up his mind that his administration will decide which businesses, industries, and institutions will succeed and which will fail.  As we have seen, our government has an extremely poor track record in picking winners and losers.

It comes as no surprise that this administration's choices have favored his biggest campaign contributors, which receive favorable legislation as repayment for their continued support.  But, as both the Tea Party and the Flea Baggers have implied, America has the best form of government that money can buy.

Word of advice:  watch what Obama does over the next few months, and notice the complete abandonment of his 2008 theme of uniting America.  Knowing he has almost no chance of re-election, he is like a wounded animal that has been cornered by his own undeniable record of failure.

Now that numerous scandals of his failed and corrupt administration are coming to light, I wonder how much longer he will continue to blame everyone else for his own shortcomings.  Any person of character would accept responsibility of his office and either change course, as Clinton did, or resign, as Nixon did.  Unfortunately, Obama does not possess such character, as we have seen by his arrogant yet incompetent leadership.

His rhetoric will be become exponentially more divisive as the elections grow near, and his frustration with what he sees as "GOP opposition" to his socialist agenda may yet bring out the radical leftist he has tried to so hard, and spent so much, to conceal from the public.

But, as long as Team Obama keeps driving the wedge deeper, we will continue to fight each other instead of facing our common enemy.  And because of voter ignorance and gullibility, a slick campaign and a billion dollars is apparently all that is required these days to rent a room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Running a campaign and running a country are not the same thing, and it has become painfully obvious that a two years as a Senator from Illinois did nothing to prepare Obama for the most difficult job on the planet.  And a bunch of entitled college students selfishly whining about the burden of their self-inflicted student loans cannot possibly be compared to a genuine political movement such as the Tea Party.