When I think of today's Democratic Party, I think of a faith-based religion where even the current 11.7% unemployment rate (as measured using the same standards as the Bush administration) isn't enough to deter the moonbats from voting for a leftist president. Heck, the unemployment rate could be 20% and they would be clamoring for more Obama-style hopenchange. It's a moral issue with these types and they worship at the alter of Big Government
Want to know why there's always more enthusiasm by the Democratic delegates? Because government is their savior. Republicans are more likely to have a healthy skepticism of government - even the governments they elect. A healthy distrust of authority used to be considered a good thing. Not so in the left-wing of the Democratic Party anymore, where it's considered racist to question President Obama.
Nothing against Democrats. But they sold their souls for a false religion based on creating a utopia on earth without any acknowledgement of traditional rights and values. Which is probably why they removed mention of God from their party platform only to reinsert Him back in (to boos) at the eleventh hour.
In case you think I'm overstating it, here's video of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm delivering what I can only describe as a Big Gov Sermon at yesterday's convention (sober, one hopes). The delegates at the Democratic Party eat up every word, of course, giving pause to the more reasonable among us.
If this is what your political party's convention looks like, you're living a lot closer to Scientology on the cult spectrum than you probably realize.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Clinton Flop
Let's assume Bill Clinton gave a rousing speech at the Democratic Convention. I don't believe he did, but the talking heads on the cable stations keep trying to tell me otherwise. Timing out at just short of an HBO miniseries, the speech was one long stuttering, meandering, hypothesizing, self-aggrandizing, rambling mess that only Chris Matthews could love. It kept going and going and going until even the Energizer Bunny must have felt like committing suicide.
Mercifully, most Americans changed the channel and watched the NFL Kickoff between the Cowboys and Giants, which means they most certainly missed the Patriots vs. Fauxcahontas, as Elizabeth Warren reminded us why charisma matters in a candidate.
Michelle Obama's speech the previous night grated on my last nerve given the over-the-top rhetoric, but at least it was well-crafted. It would have made a great testimonial except that it made actual testimonials of people who have accepted Christ as their Savior seem small by comparison. And Barack has enough image problems without being compared to the Messiah.
But Clinton's speech, with its faint praise and convoluted excuses for Obama's presidential challenges, couldn't have been effective even if it was the smashing success Washington insiders and media elites claim it to be. Why? Because it wasn't going to move independents to Obama, and that's the point at this point in the game.
We are down to just a handful of undecided voters, six to eight percent really, who have yet to make up their minds in this election. So appealing to them is crucial. And when a cheater who was impeached for lying under oath steps in as your character witness, you know your campaign is in trouble.
As it turns out, Clinton presents a Catch-22 for independents. Either they liked him and miss him or they recall his extracurricular activities, Monica, the blue dress, the big lie, etc. For those in the latter group, Slick Willie was just that, and he lacks the credibility to sell Obama's policies. For those in the former group, Bill Clinton is nostalgia for the economic heyday of the 90s when deficits were one trillion dollars less and Congress actually came together and passed laws. Standing next to each other, our current president is found wanting. Clinton reminds us of all Obama's faults and failures.
Alex Castellanos, a GOP "strategist" who spends most of his time on CNN gushing over Democrats, claimed Clinton's speech by itself was strong enough to "re-elect Obama." I won't ask what medication Mr. Castellanos is on or which winning conservative politician he's given advice to recently, but I will point out the flaw in his analysis.
"Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going too far left, he came in, and the new Democrats took it to the center," Alex summarized. "He did it again tonight."
I disagree. What Bill Clinton actually did was remind independent voters that the Democratic Party has gone too far left, that we don't have a centrist in the White House. Obama's campaign slogan is "Forward" but the Clinton years are "Backwards." And backwards in the Democratic Party sounds a lot saner than forward, where fights break out over honoring God on the convention floor.
The Democrats put Bill Clinton on stage as a measuring stick Wednesday night and proved Obama doesn't measure up.
Mercifully, most Americans changed the channel and watched the NFL Kickoff between the Cowboys and Giants, which means they most certainly missed the Patriots vs. Fauxcahontas, as Elizabeth Warren reminded us why charisma matters in a candidate.
Michelle Obama's speech the previous night grated on my last nerve given the over-the-top rhetoric, but at least it was well-crafted. It would have made a great testimonial except that it made actual testimonials of people who have accepted Christ as their Savior seem small by comparison. And Barack has enough image problems without being compared to the Messiah.
But Clinton's speech, with its faint praise and convoluted excuses for Obama's presidential challenges, couldn't have been effective even if it was the smashing success Washington insiders and media elites claim it to be. Why? Because it wasn't going to move independents to Obama, and that's the point at this point in the game.
We are down to just a handful of undecided voters, six to eight percent really, who have yet to make up their minds in this election. So appealing to them is crucial. And when a cheater who was impeached for lying under oath steps in as your character witness, you know your campaign is in trouble.
As it turns out, Clinton presents a Catch-22 for independents. Either they liked him and miss him or they recall his extracurricular activities, Monica, the blue dress, the big lie, etc. For those in the latter group, Slick Willie was just that, and he lacks the credibility to sell Obama's policies. For those in the former group, Bill Clinton is nostalgia for the economic heyday of the 90s when deficits were one trillion dollars less and Congress actually came together and passed laws. Standing next to each other, our current president is found wanting. Clinton reminds us of all Obama's faults and failures.
Alex Castellanos, a GOP "strategist" who spends most of his time on CNN gushing over Democrats, claimed Clinton's speech by itself was strong enough to "re-elect Obama." I won't ask what medication Mr. Castellanos is on or which winning conservative politician he's given advice to recently, but I will point out the flaw in his analysis.
"Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going too far left, he came in, and the new Democrats took it to the center," Alex summarized. "He did it again tonight."
I disagree. What Bill Clinton actually did was remind independent voters that the Democratic Party has gone too far left, that we don't have a centrist in the White House. Obama's campaign slogan is "Forward" but the Clinton years are "Backwards." And backwards in the Democratic Party sounds a lot saner than forward, where fights break out over honoring God on the convention floor.
The Democrats put Bill Clinton on stage as a measuring stick Wednesday night and proved Obama doesn't measure up.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Fictional Obama vs. Real Obama
President Obama criticized Mitt Romney recently for trying to run against a fictional Obama, but if any candidate has a chance of winning this election, who better than a fictional Obama? The real Obama, after all, has overseen the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Oh well, he wanted to be compared to FDR. Favorably, one assumes, but we'll just leave it to the sycophants in the media to make up the difference.
Fictional Obama was on display quite a bit Tuesday night in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a Barack Obama who grew up poor, dug through dumpsters for furniture and was stuck with just one pair of shoes a half size too small as a law school graduate. Here was a Barack raised by his hard-working grandmother in poverty-stricken middle class, with no radical influences to be found. Here was a president who cared so much about Americans struggling to find employment that he hunched over his desk late at night reading letters, determination in his voice to turn this economy around. Here was a Barack Obama who wanted all of us to succeed, to fulfill our wildest dreams!
Perhaps such a stirring speech with so many heartbreaking stories would win us over if the real Barack Obama hadn't been elected president four years ago. But we know better. We've seen the real Barack Obama up close and personal and he doesn't match the fictional Obama that the First Lady is selling.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the First Lady for trying. Who wants to go back to being picked up in a rusted-out car when you can take separate planes to Hawaii or jet to Spain, Aspen, and Martha's Vineyard with a full entourage of staff, friends, and family members on the taxpayer dime? Not that a rusted-out car would be waiting for the First Couple should Fictional Obama lose the election. I'm sure they could at least afford a Chevy Volt or two.
The Real Barack Obama, of course, is who we are talking about electing, and his tenure has been disappointing to say the least. If the Real Obama wants us to succeed in achieving our dreams, he certainly hasn't shown it. Instead, he has said about successful businessmen, "at a certain point you've made enough money" and "there will be a time for profits later." In the meantime, risk your savings and lose your shirts for the greater good, because "if you've got a business - you didn't build that."
The Fictional Obama may be a family man who dotes on his daughters, but the Real Obama has a Kenyan half-brother living in poverty and doesn't want anyone "being punished with a baby." Which is probably why this year's Democratic National Convention is as anti-family as Americans have ever seen. If the contraception talk keeps up for two more days, the networks will have to change the TV rating to "MA" for mature. And it certainly didn't help when they wrote support for abortion on demand into their party platform - even at taxpayer expense - to go along with taxpayer funded sterilizations and sex change operations, removing any mention of God or God-given rights.
Sure, Fictional Obama is deeply concerned about the 11.5% real unemployment and even the fictional, Enron-style-bookkeeping 8.3% unemployment rate, but Real Obama hasn't met with his Jobs Council in eight months and thinks "the private sector is doing fine." And while Fictional Obama may stay up late focused on the job like a laser, Real Obama has set a record for golf outings and fundraisers, not to mention that time he walked out in the middle of a press conference to attend a party, leaving Bill Clinton in charge (don't worry, the interns had the day off).
Essentially, we elected Fictional Obama the first time around. But he was new on the scene. He spoke eloquently. And he promised to cut the deficit in half. Obama promised real change in 2008, but that turned out to be fiction, too, as our annual deficit has failed to sink below the one trillion dollar mark during his presidency. That's an extra five trillion dollars of very real money added to the debt in less than one term.
It's all too fitting that we should have a record number of fact-checkers in an era where fiscal reality is ignored and personal narrative is king. Meanwhile, Democrats with the aid of a complicit media, try to convince us that Fictional Obama is real, and Real Obama is just a figment of our racist imagination.
My head is spinning.
Fictional Obama was on display quite a bit Tuesday night in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a Barack Obama who grew up poor, dug through dumpsters for furniture and was stuck with just one pair of shoes a half size too small as a law school graduate. Here was a Barack raised by his hard-working grandmother in poverty-stricken middle class, with no radical influences to be found. Here was a president who cared so much about Americans struggling to find employment that he hunched over his desk late at night reading letters, determination in his voice to turn this economy around. Here was a Barack Obama who wanted all of us to succeed, to fulfill our wildest dreams!
Perhaps such a stirring speech with so many heartbreaking stories would win us over if the real Barack Obama hadn't been elected president four years ago. But we know better. We've seen the real Barack Obama up close and personal and he doesn't match the fictional Obama that the First Lady is selling.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the First Lady for trying. Who wants to go back to being picked up in a rusted-out car when you can take separate planes to Hawaii or jet to Spain, Aspen, and Martha's Vineyard with a full entourage of staff, friends, and family members on the taxpayer dime? Not that a rusted-out car would be waiting for the First Couple should Fictional Obama lose the election. I'm sure they could at least afford a Chevy Volt or two.
The Real Barack Obama, of course, is who we are talking about electing, and his tenure has been disappointing to say the least. If the Real Obama wants us to succeed in achieving our dreams, he certainly hasn't shown it. Instead, he has said about successful businessmen, "at a certain point you've made enough money" and "there will be a time for profits later." In the meantime, risk your savings and lose your shirts for the greater good, because "if you've got a business - you didn't build that."
The Fictional Obama may be a family man who dotes on his daughters, but the Real Obama has a Kenyan half-brother living in poverty and doesn't want anyone "being punished with a baby." Which is probably why this year's Democratic National Convention is as anti-family as Americans have ever seen. If the contraception talk keeps up for two more days, the networks will have to change the TV rating to "MA" for mature. And it certainly didn't help when they wrote support for abortion on demand into their party platform - even at taxpayer expense - to go along with taxpayer funded sterilizations and sex change operations, removing any mention of God or God-given rights.
Sure, Fictional Obama is deeply concerned about the 11.5% real unemployment and even the fictional, Enron-style-bookkeeping 8.3% unemployment rate, but Real Obama hasn't met with his Jobs Council in eight months and thinks "the private sector is doing fine." And while Fictional Obama may stay up late focused on the job like a laser, Real Obama has set a record for golf outings and fundraisers, not to mention that time he walked out in the middle of a press conference to attend a party, leaving Bill Clinton in charge (don't worry, the interns had the day off).
Essentially, we elected Fictional Obama the first time around. But he was new on the scene. He spoke eloquently. And he promised to cut the deficit in half. Obama promised real change in 2008, but that turned out to be fiction, too, as our annual deficit has failed to sink below the one trillion dollar mark during his presidency. That's an extra five trillion dollars of very real money added to the debt in less than one term.
It's all too fitting that we should have a record number of fact-checkers in an era where fiscal reality is ignored and personal narrative is king. Meanwhile, Democrats with the aid of a complicit media, try to convince us that Fictional Obama is real, and Real Obama is just a figment of our racist imagination.
My head is spinning.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Illegally Yours
President Obama's lawless executive order to extend visas (or defer deportation) for some illegal immigrants went into effect yesterday, and media outlets were quick to rush down and interview the applying non-citizens. Most of them seemed nice enough and I don't know a soul who would suggest they don't bleed like the rest of us. It's not hard to feel sympathy for an individual who through no fault of their own was brought here illegally, has since assimilated, attends school or holds full-time employment, and feels American down to their very core.
Good for them. Except the president has skirted the law to help them skirt the law with a thrown together policy that is ultimately destined to fail.
For one, circumventing Congress to change the law is a breach of power and most likely unconstitutional (with this Supreme Court, you never know, but its certainly not a policy that gives merit to representative democracy). The immigrants who sign up for this amnesty program could be signing up for quick deportation once President Obama's executive order is revoked or overturned. As it should be.
Secondly, any criteria to apply for "legal" illegal status is dubious at best and creates the potential for gross fraud and abuse. After all, how does one acquire the legal paperwork to prove they illegally entered the country during the qualified time to be deemed acceptably illegal? And if you came here illegally outside the qualified time frame, why not simply pretend to meet the criteria? How do you disprove such a claim? So long as you're under thirty and have established a stateside address, what racist would doubt you haven't lived and worked here for the required five years?
There's also the issue of those who are over thirty but were brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. Why do they get denied the opportunity of their younger cousins and siblings? Are we splitting up families now? The kids are alright but the parents have to go?
This isn't sound policy or even an acceptable substitute for the DREAM Act. It's a nightmare for immigration enforcement, a nightmare for the courts, and a nightmare for businesses trying to follow the law and hire long-term help. Which is why laws are best passed through the constitutional and legislative process, not made up willy-nilly by the wave of a leader's scepter to woo votes in the midst of a political campaign.
Good for them. Except the president has skirted the law to help them skirt the law with a thrown together policy that is ultimately destined to fail.
For one, circumventing Congress to change the law is a breach of power and most likely unconstitutional (with this Supreme Court, you never know, but its certainly not a policy that gives merit to representative democracy). The immigrants who sign up for this amnesty program could be signing up for quick deportation once President Obama's executive order is revoked or overturned. As it should be.
Secondly, any criteria to apply for "legal" illegal status is dubious at best and creates the potential for gross fraud and abuse. After all, how does one acquire the legal paperwork to prove they illegally entered the country during the qualified time to be deemed acceptably illegal? And if you came here illegally outside the qualified time frame, why not simply pretend to meet the criteria? How do you disprove such a claim? So long as you're under thirty and have established a stateside address, what racist would doubt you haven't lived and worked here for the required five years?
There's also the issue of those who are over thirty but were brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. Why do they get denied the opportunity of their younger cousins and siblings? Are we splitting up families now? The kids are alright but the parents have to go?
This isn't sound policy or even an acceptable substitute for the DREAM Act. It's a nightmare for immigration enforcement, a nightmare for the courts, and a nightmare for businesses trying to follow the law and hire long-term help. Which is why laws are best passed through the constitutional and legislative process, not made up willy-nilly by the wave of a leader's scepter to woo votes in the midst of a political campaign.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Where Obama Fails, Curiosity Succeeds
For once, the president was understated, maybe because he has been cutting funding for the space program significantly. A point of national pride? This wasn't just another Olympic moment for Team USA on the balance beam. This landing represents a far greater achievement that will pay huge dividends in terms of both territorial exploration (think Lewis and Clark) and national security (dominance in space when the Chinese are trying to overtake us).
Too bad President Obama plans to slash the Mars program's budget from $587 million to just $188 million by 2015, proving he's willing to spend more on failed boondoggles like Solyndra than programs with proven track records. If only NASA was founded by one of his campaign bundlers.
It illustrates a serious problem. Barack Obama lacks the creative vision we usually demand of our leaders. We all know he's a big spender. He's been borrowing, printing, and spending money like there's no tomorrow. But he has been far too unwilling to invest in endeavors that truly illustrate the best of man's potential.
How can a successful program that has so many future implications for advancing American interests get left behind by a president whose campaign slogan is "Forward"? How does a bloated and ever expanding budget somehow cut one of the few programs that improves lives with technology, demonstrates defense capabilities, and captures the world's imagination?
With decisions like these, no wonder our nation has lost its moxy.
Look at where Barack Obama is interested in moving us away from and what he is interested in moving us towards, and you see a leader seriously lacking in intellectual curiosity.
Space is supposed to be the final frontier, where nations dream to soar. Barack Obama has turned NASA's attention away from space exploration and towards more earthly endeavors like Muslim outreach and Al Gore's global warming alarmism.
If President Obama doesn't have a passing interest in new frontiers, maybe it's because he's been molded by a dogma mostly concerned with controlling old ones. Or perhaps outer space is just too vast to redistribute.
Frontiers, by their very definition, are places unbridled by man. They are the unknown, the unsettled, the wild and the free, places of unlimited potential and possibilty. Is there any place a centralized planner would find less appealing?
America has always worked as a nation because we attract the dreamers and explorers, the risk takers, those willing to give up the banality of the old world for new opportunities. It has always been the place where you proved yourself through ingenuity and independent spirit. Throughout his life experience, President Obama has demonstrated neither.
We are a nation of Frontiers, first the east coast and then the west, and when all that land was settled - space, computers, technology, and beyond. An America that doesn't encourage pursuit of new frontiers and doesn't celebrate going boldly where no man or woman's gone before is hardly America at all. For all the problems Barack Obama complains about inheriting, they were at least American ideals. But they don't seem to suit him and so he's going to leave us with less.
This is how a nation built on hard work and imagination is left only to imagine its once great potential while a naval-gazing president tells us to keep dreaming smaller. You want free contraception and food stamps, no problem. You want to discover new worlds, break boundaries, and explore new horizons? Forget about it.
Curiosity killed the cat, but President Obama has done his best to kill curiosity.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
What the Colorado Shooting Says About Us
Absolutely nothing. It says only that one individual living behind a mask, secretly in contempt of society, was sick and deranged enough to premeditate a mass murder of innocent children and adults. He deserves the death penalty.
Certainly, there will be handwringing and political discussions about what his means about American society, as if his lone act of craziness can be seen in some larger context. It can't.
There will be groups that will call for less violence in movies and video games, seeing how the mass murderer seemed to be emulating the Joker from the Batman movies. Yet in most cities, there is more violence on the nightly news. There will be calls for more money to address mental health issues, although the low-profile killer studying medicine would have never been eligible for it.
There will be groups calling for gun laws, more restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing ammunition. Keep in mind, though, that some of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. See Chicago, for example, where the number wounded in a weekend can reach as high as the Aurora, Colorado theater count did early Friday morning.
The Unabomber never needed a gun. Nor did Timothy McVeigh to devastate that community. Sick individuals, isolated from their neighbors and peers, will always be a threat to society. There are no politics behind it. There is no reason behind it. There is no protection from it. There is just evil.
It would be nice for once if the media chose not to sensationalize this story and moved forward without another word of the shooter's "motivation" or "family life" until it's time to report on his trial. For now, there are only victims -lives cut tragically short - and that's where the focus should be.
I, for once, find myself agreeing with the president. Let's focus on the precious moments we all have together with our loved ones. I'm pretty sure it's the one thing the victims would tell us is most important after all.
Certainly, there will be handwringing and political discussions about what his means about American society, as if his lone act of craziness can be seen in some larger context. It can't.
There will be groups that will call for less violence in movies and video games, seeing how the mass murderer seemed to be emulating the Joker from the Batman movies. Yet in most cities, there is more violence on the nightly news. There will be calls for more money to address mental health issues, although the low-profile killer studying medicine would have never been eligible for it.
There will be groups calling for gun laws, more restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing ammunition. Keep in mind, though, that some of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. See Chicago, for example, where the number wounded in a weekend can reach as high as the Aurora, Colorado theater count did early Friday morning.
The Unabomber never needed a gun. Nor did Timothy McVeigh to devastate that community. Sick individuals, isolated from their neighbors and peers, will always be a threat to society. There are no politics behind it. There is no reason behind it. There is no protection from it. There is just evil.
It would be nice for once if the media chose not to sensationalize this story and moved forward without another word of the shooter's "motivation" or "family life" until it's time to report on his trial. For now, there are only victims -lives cut tragically short - and that's where the focus should be.
I, for once, find myself agreeing with the president. Let's focus on the precious moments we all have together with our loved ones. I'm pretty sure it's the one thing the victims would tell us is most important after all.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Stupid Yahoo Headline of the Day
FREE VOTER ID STILL BURDENSOME FOR POOR PEOPLE
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect much from the barely employed yahoo headline writer, stuck between living at home and trying to find permanent work with a journalism degree in the Obama economy. But I do expect better arguments from so-called left-wing advocacy groups.
From the article:
Of course, signing up for free housing, free health care, free food stamps, free cell phones, and other assorted handouts doesn't seem to be too much of a burden. Meanwhile, under Obamacare every American is required to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, but you won't hear about that burden from left-wing groups - probably because it's mostly a burden faced by the self-employed middle class.
It's also worth mentioning that most states with voter ID laws allow seniors and the disabled to request mail-in ballots so they don't have to leave their homes. Does anyone else really have an excuse?
Just so we've got this straight now: Taxes on middle class families and small businesses = not a burden. Free IDs for the poor = huge burden. That's the nonsense the Left preaches today. And yet they seem surprised when they're ridiculed.
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect much from the barely employed yahoo headline writer, stuck between living at home and trying to find permanent work with a journalism degree in the Obama economy. But I do expect better arguments from so-called left-wing advocacy groups.
From the article:
Nearly 500,000 eligible voters in these 10 states do not have access to a vehicle and live over 10 miles from the closest office where they can obtain the type of identification required to vote in their state, according to the center's study, which came out this week.
Of course, signing up for free housing, free health care, free food stamps, free cell phones, and other assorted handouts doesn't seem to be too much of a burden. Meanwhile, under Obamacare every American is required to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, but you won't hear about that burden from left-wing groups - probably because it's mostly a burden faced by the self-employed middle class.
It's also worth mentioning that most states with voter ID laws allow seniors and the disabled to request mail-in ballots so they don't have to leave their homes. Does anyone else really have an excuse?
Just so we've got this straight now: Taxes on middle class families and small businesses = not a burden. Free IDs for the poor = huge burden. That's the nonsense the Left preaches today. And yet they seem surprised when they're ridiculed.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
American Liberty on its Death Bed?
Welcome to Obamaland, where the rule of law is so upside-down that the lawless are increasingly protected (see illegal immigrants, fast and furious, black panther voter intimidation, etc.) while law-abiding citizens find Uncle Sam's jackboot on their neck, their lives regulated to death. The United States of America still exists by name, but Obama's capture of free enterprise means a whole differnet country than Americans have ever know.
Sure, the motto is still the same, still fifty stars on the flag, and people still act as if nothing's changed. But just as when your favorite microbrew or independent winery gets bought out and mass produced by a megabrand with cheaper ingredients, what you once revered in the first place is suddenly missing and it never quite goes down smooth again.
ObamaCare was a massive government overreach, still is, whether one Supreme Court justice found the mechanism to call it constitutional or not. Such a radical takeover of one-sixth of the economy should require more than a razor thin margin of one party rule pushing it through in the dead of night. If you can't win one single vote from the other party, that's not obstructionism. It's a complete rejection of your idea on its merits, and such skepticism by over half of the population should be treated with deep concern and caution, not political force and name-calling.
Ah, but when you want to ram government into every facet of the individual's life, what is each decision if not political? So that now your health care decisions are political, the car you drive is political, how much energy you use is political, owning a gun is political, what your kids are taught is political, diet is political, marriage is political, etc., etc., ad nausea until there's not a free space left to stand and make a decision on your own without being judged by some nanny-statist. Obama has managed to make even following the law political, abandoning that whole quaint John Adams "Nation of laws rather than men" theory on what constitutes a free republic.
Leftists like Obama can't help but make everything the government's business except how to actually run an efficient government (say by passing a budget). Which is none of your business so don't hold him accountable, or so he hopes you won't. Thus, 100 plus rounds of golf while he bans forks at fundraisers and expands the IRS exponentially to peer into your medicine cabinet. And now the Supreme Court has legitimized this the same way the Oscars once legitimized Cher's acting. It's really too horrible for words.
There's no getting around the awful SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but perhaps even more damaging is what it means for personal property rights in this country. Guess what? Nothing is rightfully yours anymore, because this ruling gives the government the power to tell you exactly how to spend every dollar you earn. Not just the wages they tax, which they have always taken and spent as they desired (see Solyndra, Porkulus, National Endowment of the Arts). But thanks to Justice Roberts, two dyed-in-the-wool liberals (one who has admitted to not admiring the U.S. Constitution), and two Obama-appointed stooges, the government now has permission to reach their hand into your pocket or under your mattress and tell you exactly how to spend the money they didn't tax. Or face another tax. And you foolishly thought it was yours.
Our federal government can now lay claim to every dollar in your bank account. If you don't spend it in a way that they approve, well there's a tax for that. And if you can't choose to spend your hard-earned wages the way in which you desire, do you have economic freedom? Does anything really belong to you? Or does it belong to Obama's regime?
This is a crucial point and the defining reason every individual who cherishes their freedom should be outraged by the court's ruling. And further outraged that Democrats cheered and celebrated it. Our liberty was just stolen from us. No wonder progressives were tickled pink. The Supreme Court practically gave their stamp of approval to move towards Communism.
Down at the National Archives, they've replaced the helium in the hermetically-sealed case that protects our Constitution with laughing gas. Now we can finally move in the direction of Red China as Thomas Friedman always dreamed.
Mark June 28th on your calendar as the day of 'The Ruling', a day historians will look back to as the turning point from America as the land of opportunity to America as the land of tyranny. Before 'The Ruling' the individual was protected by a federal government of enumerated powers. After 'The Ruling' the state has been granted unlimited power. And the man who made the ultimate decision was appointed by a Republican president.
I have written about every wrong direction this administration has taken us for the past three years, but this is worse than even my worst-case scenarios. We can repeal ObamaCare. We can't repeal the Supreme Court's precedent. Unbelievable. What now?
Sure, the motto is still the same, still fifty stars on the flag, and people still act as if nothing's changed. But just as when your favorite microbrew or independent winery gets bought out and mass produced by a megabrand with cheaper ingredients, what you once revered in the first place is suddenly missing and it never quite goes down smooth again.
ObamaCare was a massive government overreach, still is, whether one Supreme Court justice found the mechanism to call it constitutional or not. Such a radical takeover of one-sixth of the economy should require more than a razor thin margin of one party rule pushing it through in the dead of night. If you can't win one single vote from the other party, that's not obstructionism. It's a complete rejection of your idea on its merits, and such skepticism by over half of the population should be treated with deep concern and caution, not political force and name-calling.
Ah, but when you want to ram government into every facet of the individual's life, what is each decision if not political? So that now your health care decisions are political, the car you drive is political, how much energy you use is political, owning a gun is political, what your kids are taught is political, diet is political, marriage is political, etc., etc., ad nausea until there's not a free space left to stand and make a decision on your own without being judged by some nanny-statist. Obama has managed to make even following the law political, abandoning that whole quaint John Adams "Nation of laws rather than men" theory on what constitutes a free republic.
Leftists like Obama can't help but make everything the government's business except how to actually run an efficient government (say by passing a budget). Which is none of your business so don't hold him accountable, or so he hopes you won't. Thus, 100 plus rounds of golf while he bans forks at fundraisers and expands the IRS exponentially to peer into your medicine cabinet. And now the Supreme Court has legitimized this the same way the Oscars once legitimized Cher's acting. It's really too horrible for words.
There's no getting around the awful SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but perhaps even more damaging is what it means for personal property rights in this country. Guess what? Nothing is rightfully yours anymore, because this ruling gives the government the power to tell you exactly how to spend every dollar you earn. Not just the wages they tax, which they have always taken and spent as they desired (see Solyndra, Porkulus, National Endowment of the Arts). But thanks to Justice Roberts, two dyed-in-the-wool liberals (one who has admitted to not admiring the U.S. Constitution), and two Obama-appointed stooges, the government now has permission to reach their hand into your pocket or under your mattress and tell you exactly how to spend the money they didn't tax. Or face another tax. And you foolishly thought it was yours.
Our federal government can now lay claim to every dollar in your bank account. If you don't spend it in a way that they approve, well there's a tax for that. And if you can't choose to spend your hard-earned wages the way in which you desire, do you have economic freedom? Does anything really belong to you? Or does it belong to Obama's regime?
This is a crucial point and the defining reason every individual who cherishes their freedom should be outraged by the court's ruling. And further outraged that Democrats cheered and celebrated it. Our liberty was just stolen from us. No wonder progressives were tickled pink. The Supreme Court practically gave their stamp of approval to move towards Communism.
Down at the National Archives, they've replaced the helium in the hermetically-sealed case that protects our Constitution with laughing gas. Now we can finally move in the direction of Red China as Thomas Friedman always dreamed.
Mark June 28th on your calendar as the day of 'The Ruling', a day historians will look back to as the turning point from America as the land of opportunity to America as the land of tyranny. Before 'The Ruling' the individual was protected by a federal government of enumerated powers. After 'The Ruling' the state has been granted unlimited power. And the man who made the ultimate decision was appointed by a Republican president.
I have written about every wrong direction this administration has taken us for the past three years, but this is worse than even my worst-case scenarios. We can repeal ObamaCare. We can't repeal the Supreme Court's precedent. Unbelievable. What now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)