The Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy President

     Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is a mental disorder which affects woman in 85% of the cases diagnosed. The disorder manifests itself with the caregiver of a child deliberately keeping the child ill, sometimes to the point of death, in order to fulfill an overwhelming desire on the part of the caregiver for attention and sympathy. As long as family and friends are focused on the sick child, that focus is also extended to the caregiver of that child.
     I only bring up this rare disease as a sequoia into discussing the motivation of President Obama for the obviously destructive policies he advocates. In a way, the President has a version of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, only it is an entire nation that he seeks to keep sick. One thing is clear about Barack Obama, he is a narcissist, and as such he needs constant stimulation of his ego. A healthy and thriving economy places the government and the President in a much less prominent role in the lives of the citizenry. Inversely, when things are in turmoil and people are unemployed, there is much more attention paid to the President, thereby giving him a sense of importance. Of course, the environment of constant crisis does allow, as Rohm Emanuel framed it shortly after President Obama's victory in 2008, for the government to do things that it ordinarily wouldn't be able to do. But forcing socialist policies on the country is only one outcome of crisis for President Obama, the other is to feed his ego.
     To understand why the President is a practitioner of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, one only needs to look at his childhood. He was abandoned by his father and his mother sent him to live with his grandparents to separate him from his step-father, Kolo, because she felt his free market ideas were poison to her young impressionable son. By a very young age, Barack Obama developed not only a hatred for capitalism, but a desire to be a better father than his biological father had been to him. These early lessons, along with the constant ego-stroking he received throughout his life, created a potent combination of a desire to be in control like a father and a distrust for anything that might claim that responsibility from him, such as free market capitalism.
     Barack Obama's need to keep the nation in a constant state of crisis and malaise is rooted then in his desire to father and to have constant attention focused on his every word. This is why he prefers speech-making to governing and confrontation to cooperation. The first step in the therapy process for treating Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is the separation of the victim from the person with the disorder. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has been given another four years to continue the economic sickness of the nation and thereby feed his need for attention. We, as his victims can only become sicker and hope we don't die before help arrives in four more years.

Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 26, 2012.

Rise Above By Sinking Below

     CNBC, whose parent company GE received billions of taxpayer dollars at the dawn of President Obama's first term, has created a campaign called, "Rise Above." This White House inspired campaign is designed to convince House Republicans to abandon their principles and sink to the level of fiscal depravity currently occupied by the President and Congressional Democrats.
     The incestuous relationship between CNBC and President Obama began early in his first term. It was best illustrated by Jim Kramer, the host of the network's show, "Mad Money", when he  laid down at the administration's request. Only months into the President's term, Jim Kramer said he had never seen an administration that had engaged in such a massive destruction of wealth in the private sector. Only days later, presumably after a visit from the Chicago mob in the form of Rohm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Mr. Kramer was praising the administration's handling of the economy. It was shortly thereafter that Jim Kramer received a promotion to one of the morning anchor positions. Had he stuck to the truth, I imagine his career would have suffered an opposite but equal effect.
     The "Rise Above" campaign is insidious in its use of  the Liberal tactic to manipulate through feigning balance. Ostensibly the campaign is suppose to send a message to politicians from both sides to "rise" above partisanship and come to an agreement to save the country from leaping off the fiscal cliff. On a daily basis, however, CNBC engages in characterizing  Republicans as focusing exclusively on keeping tax rates low on the wealthy, as if they are actually suggesting a rise of middle-class tax rates. One of their methods of deception is to demonize Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and by extension the Republicans who signed Grover's pledge not to raise tax rates. Over the years, CNBC has engaged in a campaign to characterize Mr. Norquist as a radical right-winger, simply because he advocates for the American people keeping more of what they earn and the Federal government living within a budget. Pretty radical stuff.
     The "Rise Above" campaign, replete with its own graphic and buttons that all the CNBC employees are forced to wear, looks and feels like an extension of the 2012 Obama Presidential campaign. Any time now I expect CNBC to claim that Republicans want to tax Big Bird and use the money to buy binders for businesses that want to ship jobs overseas in some grand scheme that will prevent women from being able to afford contraception and abortions while at the same time pushing your grandmother over a cliff in her wheel chair.

Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 26, 2012.
    

A Rice Pretzel

     It's an upside down time in which we live where a highly decorated general like David Petraeus, who has spent the better part of 40 years serving his country, must retire in shame as the result of an affair, but Susan Rice, who purposely deceived the country about the deaths of four Americans, is being considered for a promotion. After all, didn't the left try to make the case that an affair was a private matter when they defended Bill Clinton during his many dalliances? 
     Republican senators Phil Graham, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte met with UN ambassador Susan Rice yesterday to discuss her role in the Benghazi cover-up. The result of the meeting was best summed up by Senator Graham, who said he was more disturbed after the meeting than he had been before. As well he should have been. Ms. Rice twisted herself into a pretzel trying to explain why she lied when she appeared on 5 Sunday shows after the terrorist attack on September 11 in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
     Ambassador Rice claims that her statements in the days following the attacks were guided by the official talking points disseminated by the intelligence community. But according to the testimony of former CIA Director, David Petraeus, the intelligence community knew almost immediately that the attacks were a result of planned terrorism and not, as Ms. Rice said on the Sunday shows, a spontaneous demonstration as a result of an anti-Muslim YouTube video. Mr. Petraeus also testified that the official talking points that were distributed by the CIA reflected the terrorism angle and nothing was said about the video.
     And therein lies the rub. The White House claims that someone changed the talking points and removed the reference to terrorism and inserted the claim about the video being responsible for the attack. It just isn't believable that the talking points from the CIA would have been changed without the knowledge of the President and his senior staff, including Ms Rice. It is also not feasible that when Mr. Petraeus saw the changed talking points, he would not have tried to correct the inaccurate information. This would have taken place before Ms. Rice appeared on the Sunday shows and purposely disseminated the lies about the video.
     There are many unanswered questions about the biggest foreign policy disaster in recent memory. One thing is clear, the administration, including Ms. Rice, engaged in a cover-up to hide the truth from the American people that Al Queda is resurgent and is not on the run as the President has said. There is no more obvious lie in American politics than the Benghazi cover-up, and oddly enough there is no greater lack of interest in the truth than there is by the main stream media and the left. In response to the absurd twisted defense of Ms. Rice's lies in recent days from the media, all I can say is, "These pretzels are making me thirsty."

Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 26, 2012.

Between Barack And A Hard Place

     House Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for the difficult position in which they currently reside visa-via the fiscal cliff. By allowing the Democrats to back them into a political corner the last two years that they have controlled the House of Representatives, John Boehner and the rest of the Republicans have given President Obama and the Democrats not only legislative victories, but may well have cost their party the Presidential election.
     It all began shortly after the Republicans took control of the House after the 2010 mid-term elections. The Bush era tax rates were set to expire on December 31, 2010, unless they were extended by Congress and the President. President Obama, at that time, wanted to extend all the rates, saying that raising any tax rates in the context of a faltering economy would throw us back into recession. But the President also wanted increased spending and the ill-advised tax holiday created by a reduction in the Social Security withholding rate. Instead of John Boehner and the Republicans saying "no" to the increased spending and tax holiday and pushing for the current income tax rates to be made permanent, they gave the President everything he wanted. And in so doing, they placed a temporary tourniquet on a bleeding economy and allowed the President to procrastinate the results of his failed policies until after he was safely re-elected.
     Less than a year after the President and Senate Democrats played John Bohner and the House Republicans like a cheap Stradivarius, they executed an encore performance. In August of 2011 the Federal government's debt ceiling was reaching its limit and needed Congressional action to allow the drunken sailors in Congress and the White House to extend their spending spree. Once again, instead of having a showdown and imposing adult behavior on the Federal government, the House Republicans agreed to raise  the debt ceiling. But they didn't just stop at raising the debt limit, they also agreed to the automatic cuts in defense and domestic programs called the sequester. These automatic cuts would be triggered by nothing being done otherwise, which is the one talent Congress exercises best. Conveniently for the President, the cuts wouldn't happen until he was safely re-elected. Once again, for fear or reprisal from the voters, the Republicans aided President Obama in kicking the can down the road past his re-election.
     Had John Boehner and the House Republicans stood on their principles and the knowledge of what was best for the country, the colossal failure of President Obama's policies would have been brought to fruition before he was re-elected and may have prevented that tragedy from ever occurring. This would have allowed for a real recovery to happen over the next four years with leadership interested in the health of the country, both economically and constitutionally. I find it ironic that the very thing which lead the Republicans to cave into the President, i.e. electoral defeat, is the one result they guaranteed with their fall from principle.

Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 26, 2012.

Why Do Union and Government Workers Escape Redistribution

     The left in the United States and around the world is fond of redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who don't. But this concept always raised at least two questions in my mind, who is wealthy and who is not? To the person making minimum wage, a bloke earning $25 an hour is wealthy. Just as to a person who is making 200 thousand dollars a year, someone making a million dollars is wealthy. In survey after survey, almost independent of what someone earns, they don't consider themselves rich.
     A third, and I think more important, question comes to mind in the redistributive model, i.e. what entity is the arbiter of determining who is the provider and who is the benefactor? Of course, in most cases it is big government that is given the power to confiscate wealth and redistribute it. This necessarily leads to corruption because as the saying goes, "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul." It has become painfully obvious recently that the United States has reached a tipping point which finds us with more Pauls than Peters.
     Politicians who implement redistributive policies are not concerned with the financial status of those they call poor, but rather with the disposition of those persons votes. If they truly believed in redistribution as a path to fairness, then why do government and union workers escape the redistributionist's confiscatory policy. Government and union workers enjoy up to twice the salaries as their counterparts in the private sector, and contribute very little to benefits that far outstrip any received by their brethren in the real world. The redistribution model seems to work in reverse when it benefits union workers. Wealth is taken from taxpayers, who make less than the union workers, to pay for their higher salaries and gold-plated benefits.
     The reason that government and union workers escape the ire of community agitators and other redistributionists is simple, money. Taxpayer money is given to union workers in the form of higher contracts, which is then collected in the form of dues. Those dues are then "donated" to Democrats, who are the very same people who negotiate union contracts within the framework of collective bargaining agreements. As an added bonus, the Democrat party receives two-thirds of the union votes. It's a money-laundering scheme that would make Tony Soprano wet his pants with excitement.

Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 25, 2012.
           
    

The Self Esteem of Global Warming

     I have been fascinated in recent years by the global denial of fact and common sense as it relates to the climate change religion. The fact that none of the predictions from the climate change "experts" over the last 20 years have materialized, doesn't stop these anti-Capitalists from trying to destroy perfectly good economies. Even the exposure as frauds of the "scientists" at England's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research, doesn't slow down the desire of world leftists to redistribute wealth using oppressive global government. I thought for sure it was the end of this fraudulent "science" known as climate change, when emails were released from Hadley showing the "scientists" deliberately ignored data that refuted the man-made global warming argument. But the world media, along with all the institutions of the left, ignored the scandal. Just as they did when the code for the computer program which created the models upon which the entire man-made climate change argument is based, showed that the desired results were hard coded so as not to allow any other results.
     I was perplexed by the willingness of otherwise intelligent people to buy into such a thoroughly discredited fraud. Until I realized that support for man-made climate change is linked to another leftist sacrament, the self-esteem movement. What better way is there to make irrelevant people feel good about their lives than to convince them they are saving the planet? Think of the delusion of grandeur inculcated in a generation of people that instructs them that they are more powerful than God. Never mind the fact that even if the planet is warming in some unnatural way, the climate change pushers solutions would have little affect on reversing the trend, according their own research.
     If one looks at the history of our planet, it becomes obvious that climate change is a natural part of its cycles. Greenland used to be farmed by the Vikings, and is now covered by ice. A million years ago there weren't any polar ice caps, and now "climatologists" point to their supposed melting as a sign of some man-made Armageddon. The planet has existed through many cooling and warming spells greater than anything the climate change pushers claim is happening today. And these other climate change events in our planet's past have all occurred before industrialization or the invention of SUVs. These facts are known by the world leftists, whose aim it is to use these natural earth cycles to convince the people of an impending Armageddon, and thereby sacrifice their liberty at the alter of big government. Much like the Egyptian Pharaohs used eclipses to convince the simpletons of their day that they had godly influence over the earth.
     It is hard to counter manufactured self-esteem, especially when it is derived from an individuals perception that they can control the climate, much like a god. And the superiority they feel over their fellow citizens, who they have been taught are analogous to flat-earthers, is more intoxicating than any opiate known to man. It is the self-esteem of Global Warming, and in the absence of real science, it has created the mechanism of our real destruction as a result of ignorance.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.
    

The Biggest Con In History

     As a child, my mother taught me that one diminishes the morality of a good deed by bragging about it. Throughout my life I have learned that this truism applies to most virtuous behavior. So, for instance, the person who talks about how honest they are, is usually the one with the least honesty. The bread and butter of the confidence man is convincing their mark through words, not actions, of their honesty. And it's not just con men who employ this tactic for the purpose of separating gullible people from their money. I'm sure we've all known people who exaggerate how good they are at one activity or another, when reality falls far short of their words.
     The need for someone to constantly talk about their virtuous character has its roots in a basic insecurity within the individual. They realize, even if it's at a subconscious level, that they are lacking in virtue. By shaping others perception of them as a virtuous person, they can mitigate the insecurity within themselves. Sometimes this shaping of perception is done for some material gain, as with the con men, and sometimes it is done to fill an emotional need within the person.
     There are those individuals who brag about their non-existent virtue as a means of controlling other people. If one can establish that they are virtuous, then it follows that everything they do and say is beyond reproach. Their decisions cannot be questioned because they originate from the well of purity that they themselves have told you they posses. This is the case with the statist mentality of many who practice the religion of Leftism.
     Many have surmised that statists want larger and larger government so that they can gain access to bigger chunks of taxpayer money and more control over their daily lives . Both of these are true. But at the very core of every statist, is insecurity about the supply of virtue within themselves, and they assume a similar lack of supply in others. As a means of saving people from themselves, the statist convinces people to allow them, with all their virtue, to make basic decisions for them. They convince people to abdicate their responsibilities, thereby not only giving the statist material control over their lives, but moral control. Because without responsibility, one has very little virtue and therefore will fall victim to those who they perceive to have more. It really is the confidence game, but executed on millions of people at a time. It has been a decades long process by the Left to remove virtue from society through government policy, and then bestow upon themselves the title of, "The Virtuous." This allows them to run the biggest con in history.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

America's Cool Hand Luke Moment

     In the Paul Newman movie from the 1960s, "Cool Hand Luke", the rather authoritarian warden of the work camp would proclaim to a prisoner, "Git yer mind right" just before he put them in "the box." The "box" was the 60s prison movie genre version of a sensory deprivation tank. A prisoner would be given a stay in the "box" commensurate with the seriousness of the rule he broke. Paul Newman's character, Luke, spent alot of time in the "box". As a child, I thought sitting in a box by myself was preferable to swinging a pick ax out on a hot road for 12 hours a day. But then I was a strange child. I digress.
     After a prisoner's stay in the "box", he would emerge half-dead but with "his mind right." I thought about this movie after the recent election, and how we as Americans have to spend time in the "box" to get our minds right. The "box" I'm talking about is the one created by President Obama and the Democrats. It is constructed of chronically high unemployment, credit worthiness crushing debt, a drowning pool of Federal regulations and the ruination of the best health care system in the world. Not to mention the emotionally draining rhetoric of class warfare and the community organizing strategy of divide and conquer. The President and his thugs are waiting for us to emerge from the "box" with our spirits broken and ready to accept their authoritarian work camp environment.
     But the other way to look at the "box" and its subsequent "mind righting", is that we need to spend time in isolation from prosperity and liberty in order to learn our lesson. We can emerge from the "box" with a determination to change our situation and escape from the work camp of Liberal policy. This is the approach that Luke took in the movie. Throughout his many ordeals in and out of the "box", he never lost the will to escape in an effort to separate himself from the clutches of the warden and his henchmen. Even if Luke had to act as if he was broken, he played the part so as to gain the trust of his captors and, when they least expected it, he would escape again.
     We can learn much from the fictional character of Luke. He valued his freedom more than anything, even as it turned out in the end, more than his life. Luke's original crime was stupidity, getting drunk and cutting the tops off of parking meters. But like us, even if it meant spending time in the "box", he wasn't going to abandon all hope of being free. He struggled to rehabilitate himself, not from the stupidity of his crime, but from the frivolous treatment of his freedom. We too have treated our freedom frivolously, and we have brought ourselves to the cusp of losing it forever. But like Luke, we must get our minds right. Not in the acquiescent resignation of acceptance, but in the renewed spirit to fight with our final breath, if necessary, to fully restore our liberty.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

A Day For Giving Thanks

     The national holiday of Thanksgiving was first suggested in 1789, by George Washington. It did not reach its lofty national status until the 1860s. But the orgins of Thanksgiving predate George Washington's recommendation by more than 150 years. The first Thanksgiving, as legend has it, was celebrated by the pilgrims who settled the New World around the dawn of the seventeenth century. They were thankful to God almighty for the blessings bestowed upon them in their new home, thus making Thanksgiving one of the only remaining national holidays with roots in the spiritual world. Even Atheists celebrate this national day of thanks, although I always wonder who it is they are thanking.
     Many myths about the first Thanksgiving persist, the most widely held one is that the pilgrims had such a bountiful harvest because of the farming skills taught to them by the local natives. Actually, even though the pilgrims received some valuable farming information from the natives, they weren't totally helpless and it wasn't the kindness of the native population that saved them from certain extinction in the New World.
     Governor Bradford originally set up the colony to be a co-op, where the harvest was shared equally among all the colonists. Not only was the harvest communal, but so were the houses and other structures, no matter who was responsible for their construction. Mr. Bradford quickly found, as everyone does who implements this type of system, that the work was not being accomplished. With no personal incentive to work hard and own the fruits of their own labor, even these puritanical and spiritual people succumbed to the sloth that is inherent in a socialist system. I recall an episode of the sitcom Taxi where the Reverend Jim, a 1960s burnout, talked about a commune he lived on. He said they farmed and raised animals and everyone did their own thing. When asked why it disintegrated, he said it turned out every one's thing was sitting around getting loaded. Reverend Jim's fictional commune and that of the first pilgrims didn't share a problem with drugs and alcohol, but did share human nature. And human nature teaches that if everyone is getting an equal share, even the more industrious will not put forth their best effort.
     Governor Bradford solved his problem by splitting up the land into plots over which each family had complete control, and benefited from the harvest of their land. This led to an over-abundance during the harvest, which they were able to share with the native people. They were also able to pay off, ahead of schedule, the overseas investors who sponsored their trip. They learned a valuable lesson about how working in one's own self-interest benefits the entire society. This is because there is more motivation to work hard when the individual is able to keep the fruits of their own labor.
     There are many things for which to be grateful on this day. Gratitude itself is the essence of a happy and well-lived life. If you find yourself in good health, be grateful that your health isn't poor. If you find yourself in poor health, be grateful for the opportunity to improve your condition. If you have enough money to pay your bills and be generous with others, be thankful for that blessing. If your paycheck runs out before your bills or you are unemployed, be thankful that you live a country where these conditions don't have to be permanent. No matter how dark the hour may seem, their is always some sliver of light for which to be thankful. And finally, be thankful for those pilgrims long ago who gave us the basis for the freest, most prosperous and exceptional nation in the history of the world.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.
    

The Sound Byte Republic

     At various times, I have read parts of "The Federalist Papers." These are a series of articles that appeared in various newspapers that explained the Constitution to the common people in an effort to get their support for its passage. I am always struck by the obvious attention span that early Americans possessed, unlike today's Americans, who not only get their information in sound bytes but think that way as well. John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton authored "The Federalist Papers," and their expectations for a certain level of critical thinking skills among their readers is in clear evidence throughout.
     It would be unfathomable to these early Americans that their descendants, just a few generations removed, would accept a few short sentences as an explanation for multi-thousand page tomes of legislation. Or that 21st century Americans would elect a President on the basis of two words, or re-elect that same President as a result of a campaign based on the juvenile and shallow. Our ancestors would be appalled at the lack of substance in our news, the importance placed on the frivolous in our society and the unwillingness that many modern Americans have to not only provide for their own basic needs, but to think for themselves in any meaningful way.
     I believe the sound-byte culture began as far back as the 1950s, when television started to make its way into the typical American home. With TV becoming a permanent member of the American family, it's very essence, the immediate resolution, became a way of life for many Americans. Generations of Americans existed in a world where sitcom families solved all their problems in half an hour and the hero caught the bad guy in one hour. Of course this isn't reality, and most early TV watchers knew this instinctively. But as successive generations grew up with TV, then the Internet, our public figures began to speak in sound-bytes, and we accepted it because we had been conditioned to accept quick, well-packaged solutions to our problems.
     People of the sound-byte republic don't have to look any further for answers than the few words contained within the byte. There is no need for sound-bytonians to read long cumbersome books or study the wisdom of the ages that is readily available to them at their fingertips . In fact, there isn't any need to think or question, all will be answered by the wisdom of sound-byte. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "You can have ignorance or liberty, but not both." The people of the sound-byte Republic, at least for the time being, have cast their vote for the former at the expense of the latter.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

What Really Motivates Democrats?

     While I was driving to work yesterday morning, I was listening to my favorite moderate on the radio, Bill Bennett. I like Bill, but he suffers the same affliction as every Republican who converted from the Democrat party, they never quite take the final vows. The only former Democrat, I can think of, who avoided this condition is Ronald Reagan. The incomplete conversion consists of the annoying habit of accepting the premise of the left on a certain topic, even if it is incorrect. Man-made global warming is the most obvious example of this in the modern era.
     This morning, Mr. Bennett proffered the question to his listeners as to whether or not they would agree to a Fiscal Cliff deal that would have meaningful budget cuts, but would also raise the tax rates on anyone earning over a million dollars. His point was that if you allow the Democrats to inflict a little pain on the rich, they would be satisfied and go away. But what he fails to understand is that the beast will need to feed again, and it will feed on progressively lower wage earners until it arrives at the middle-class. Not only that, but the higher rate is not going to hurt rich people, only their ability to provide the jobs needed for those who aren't rich to become more wealthy. Mr. Bennett also assumes that the Democrats aim is to hurt the rich in some classic David and Goliath struggle, where the giant represents the rich and Democrats are David, slewing the giant for the sake of the people. I have news for Bill Bennett and anyone else who entertains the same theory, the Democrats aim is not to hurt the rich, but make it harder for the middle-class to support themselves, therefore becoming dependent on an ever-expanding Federal government.
     The Democrats know that the fastest way to create jobs is to make it easier on job-creators, and inversely, the best way to kill job growth is to take money away from the private sector. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the less money government takes out of the hands of the rich, the more they can invest in business, which spurs economic activity and thus creates jobs. Most Democrats understand this concept, it's not some well guarded government secret. What they also understand is the more people move from poverty to wealth, the less need there is for Democrats and their big government programs. And this creates an environment where it is harder to justify higher taxes and subsequently mitigates the power and control over the governed that Democrats crave with every fiber of their being. 
     Republicans, like Bill Bennett, make the mistake of assuming that Democrats share with Republicans the motivation to do what is best for the country. Democrats are motivated by statist ideals and holding onto as much control over as many people as possible. We as Republicans ignore this fact at our own electoral peril, and more importantly, at the peril of a free nation.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

The Lefts Objectification Of Women

     I first became aware of the lefts hypocrisy and phony outrage over womens' rights during the Clinton administration. I was stunned at how quickly and stridently the National Organization for Woman, as well as other groups that claimed to represent women, defended Bill Clinton during his many scandals involving his utter disrespectful and disgraceful treatment of women. But then Democrats are immune from criticism for their sexist behavior, a case in point is Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd. These two fine upstanding public servants use to regularly hit on waitresses and barmaids, suggesting the three of them make a "waitress sandwich."  I'll let the more mature reader draw their own conclusions. But the defense of Bill Clinton, probably the only president ever accused of rape, by groups claiming to represent the best interests of women, was beyond the pale of normal hypocritical behavior by the left.
     For those who are not convinced that the left demeans and objectifies women, you must have not been conscious during the recent Presidential campaign. The Obama re-election effort, as it related to women, consisted of reducing them to their reproductive organs. This objectification of women by Democrats reached its absurd pinnacle with a slogan on the official Obama campaign website. The slogan told women, "Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend On It." Isn't this the very definition of objectifying women? Refusing to acknowledge that women are concerned with more important issues besides birth control and abortion, is not only objectifying them, but insulting their intelligence. It's the very male behavior and attitudes that women have fought to overcome for hundreds if not thousands of years.
     Democrats treat women as they do all their various constituency groups, keep them in a well-defined box and never let them stray outside of it. The boundaries which construct the box are created and decided upon mostly by Liberal white males. They are the ones who tell the members of the various groups what they must think in order to be considered a member of that group. If you doubt what I say, just consider how Liberals treat black, women, Hispanic or gay Conservatives. They are regularly called traitors to their groups and are demonized in some of the most despicable ways imaginable. The reason is clear, Democrats inculcate victimization in the members of their various groups, which then require government intervention as a salve to soothe the effects of the perceived injustice. Members of those groups who are self-reliant are an enemy to the Liberal goal of an ever expanding Federal government. This expansion of the State at the expense of the individual is the real goal of Democrats. It destroys individual initiative and creates a bland and soulless society where everyone is just a cog in the wheel of the State.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

The Man Who Wasn't There

     I saw a Coen Brothers movie a few years ago about a barber who gets involved in blackmail and murder, but instead of being an active participant in his life, he is a passive observer. At the movie's conclusion, we as the audience know as little about the barber as we did at the beginning. I have recently thought of our President, Barrack Obama, as the barber. He floats through the ether of reality without ever touching the solid ground of participation.
     One of the Universities that Barrack Obama attended was Columbia, although 300 of  his would be classmates, have no recollection of the future President. In fact, there is no public proof that he ever attended class. He was made President of the Harvard Law review, but inexplicably never published anything in that prestigious journal. He sat in a pew in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, having the good reverend marry him and his wife and baptize his children, but had no idea the man was a rampant anti-American racist. As a representative in the Illinois legislature, he voted present more than any other person in the history of that esteemed body. He claims that unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was just a guy in the neighborhood, but began his political career in the terrorist's living room.
     The Man Who Wasn't There persona persisted once Barrack Obama became President. He didn't know how bad the economy was, even though he spent the entire 2008 campaign claiming it was the worse economy since the Great Depression. He claimed no knowledge of the Fast and Furious gun -running scheme created and put into action by his administration. The program killed hundreds of Mexicans and two U. S. border agents. The President then claimed Executive Privilege to keep classified what he didn't know. He also said he didn't know about the increased security requested by the ambassador of Libya, or that the attack was anything but a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. And Now the President says he knew nothing about the affair in which his Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus, engaged. Even though the President's own Justice Department and FBI knew of the affair for months, they apparently didn't think a possible security problem with the Director of the CIA was worthy of a Presidential briefing on the matter.
    The exit polls from this past election would suggest that a majority of the voters still blame President Bush for the worst economy in 70 years, four years after he left office. But then who can the voters blame? Certainly not Barrack Obama, after all he is The Man Who Wasn't There.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations-Day One

     Friday was the first day of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations between President Obama and Congressional leaders in the House and Senate. The two sides came into the meeting with Republican leadership in the House and Senate wanting to cut spending and raise revenues without hurting small business. The President and Democrat leadership from the House and Senate wanted to continue the class warfare they have been waging for the last four years. The President and Congressional leadership from his party understand that raising rates on the top wage earners will snag over a million small businesses that file as individuals. This will cause more unemployment and add more pain to an economy that is already on life support. It also will not catch the millionaires who are not paying taxes now, the only way to do this is through the Republican plan of reforming the tax code. But raising rates on the top earners is the most transparent way for the President and his party to show the faithful that they are punishing the rich for, well, being rich.
     Both sides exited the meeting on Friday afternoon saying that it was constructive and that a "framework" for a deal was reached, whatever that means. The President, as he always does in public, seemed cooperative and willing to compromise. But with negotiations of this kind, it's more important what is said behind closed doors, which is why I think the Fiscal Cliff show should have been public. There is no national security issues or classified information being discussed, it's all about the math. I assume that the President didn't want a repeat of the health care meeting held early in his first term, when Paul Ryan made him look unprepared and foolish.
     I expect a deal that will include no real cuts in spending, but reductions in the rate of growth. The Federal budget hasn't been cut, in any meaningful way, since President Reagan. Any "cuts" since then have simply been smaller increases in the growth of the budget than previously planned, and this reduction is then characterized as a cut. This is why the Federal budget increases every year without fail. As for the tax side of the deal, I would expect that the Republicans will cave on higher rates, even if it is in the form of allowing the Alternative Minimum Tax to snag more taxpayers, which in essence will harm the middle class. Any increase in tax revenue that doesn't come from tax reform, will hurt the struggling economy and lead to more unemployment. I heard someone say recently that higher taxes don't keep the rich from being rich, they prevent the non-rich from becoming rich. This concept is the basis for Democrat power, because the last thing they want or need politically is a nation of self-reliant rich people.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.
    

Don't Expect Much From Petraeus Testimony

     Today is the day that the now disgraced former Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus, will testify about the Benghazi affair. It has been made clear that there will be no talk of the other more salacious affair that has come to light in recent days. The testimony will proceed behind closed doors, for reasons that aren't exactly clear. Many on the right are hoping for a bombshell testimony from Mr. Petraeus, that at most will lead to the removal of Barrack Obama as President, and at the least will neuter the President's second term.
     I hate to put a crimp in any one's optimism, but I highly doubt either of the two aforementioned scenarios will come to fruition. Acting Director of Central Intelligence, John McLaughlin, has already held the administration's line on Benghazi, and I don't expect the former director to do any different. Many on the right think General Petraeus will recant his previous statements, made shortly after the attacks, that they were a spontaneous riot in reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. It seems that the administration's story now is that when they said the attacks were in response to the video, they were telling the truth based on the intelligence they had at the time. I would be very surprised if the former CIA Director made any testimony to dispute this story. Especially in light of the fact that it would have been his agency that provided the bulk of the "faulty" intelligence.
     Another reason I don't think David Petraeus will stray to far off the administrations plantation, is he doesn't want his personal life to be thrown into anymore turmoil. He knows, I would venture to say better than most, the power that the administration has to instruct the FBI to conduct searches of his and his family's homes. The image of the FBI carrying boxes and computers out of the former Director's house would destroy any shreds of a reputation that he has left. The administration also has both the ability and the inclination to alter or eliminate completely the former General's pension. He knows that as bad as things may be for him and his family at this time, the administration can easily make his current problems seem like a few ants at a picnic in comparison.
     With the administration controlling most of the levers of power, I wouldn't expect the Benghazi affair to result in anything more than a few resignations and some hand-wringing about changing procedures to avoid a repeat of such an event in the future. This may sound cynical, but I've learned not to expect much truth and justice in the new American way that exists in the age of Obama.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

Shame On The Catholics

     Let me begin by saying that I was baptized a Catholic when I was a baby, and spent 12 years matriculated in Catholic schools. Until the age of eighteen, or there about, I attended mass weekly. I still believe in some of the Catholic teachings and values, the problem is that the Church has abandoned those very same values they claim to hold dear.
     This most recent Presidential election is a prime example of the Catholic abandonment of core values. Fifty percent of Catholic congregates, as well as some clergy and others in the Catholic religious life, voted for Barrack Obama. This support of a man who, while in the Illinois legislature, supported a law which legalized infanticide, is in direct contradiction to Catholic teachings, not to mention all codes of decency. Further abandonment of Catholic values is illustrated by Catholic support for Barrack Obama, even after he announced his unwillingness to enforce the Defense of Marriage act, and his subsequent position of lending Presidential approval to gay marriage. One of the most serious sins committed by the Catholic church is its support of Obamacare which, once passed into law, was used as a sledge hammer to shatter religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
     I have always wondered how people who say they are against abortion, contraception, gay marriage and a host of other issues which construct the modern-day Democrat party, can vote for that very same party. I even know a nun who voted for Barrack Obama, which is antithetical to the vows she took when she entered religious life. She said she voted for him to ensure the continued support of the poor. But even if one believes that government should be engaging in charity, contrary to the Constitution, the roles of the poverty-stricken have grown by 20% and food stamp participation by 70%, during President Obama's first term. Furthermore, minorities and woman have higher unemployment and are streaming into poverty at a much higher rate than the general population. So if you claim to have concern for minorities and the poor, why would you support politicians whose policies cause more suffering among these communities. The outcomes of more poverty and higher unemployment are predictable results of policies that have a long history of failure, in this country and throughout the world. Europe should be an obvious and spectacular example of the folly of the kinds of policies that the President has and wants to implement.
     What my nun friend and other Catholics who vote Democrat don't seem to understand is that there is no biblical mandate for government to confiscate wealth from one segment of the population that has earned it, and give it to another segment that hasn't. The call to charity in the bible is a personal one, which implores individuals, not governments, to help the less fortunate. It is the wealth created by free market capitalism, not the wealth confiscation of government that feeds political greed, that allows for a more compassionate society.   

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

Democrat-Sanctioned Discrimination

    Yesterday the President met with union leaders and Bono on the fiscal cliff crisis. The sage advice on economic matters from Bono and union thugs was so important to the President, he had to meet with them prior to his meeting with Speaker Boehner this Friday. I believe President Obama is sending a clear message that, to his way of thinking, any fiscal cliff deal has to include more spending, not less. Expect the deal to provide the President's union supporters with a fresh supply of billions of taxpayer dollars, while expanding the federal government in the form of some new social program for the "poor". The question is whether or not Speaker Boehner and House Republicans will allow such a deal to come to fruition.
     The idea that the Democrats want to raise the tax rates on the very segment of taxpayers that already shoulder the lion's share of the total tax burden, is discriminatory. According to the latest IRS data, the top 10% of wage earners pay a whopping 70% of the total Federal taxes collected in this country. And still the Democrats say the "rich" aren't paying their fair share, which is true, they are paying more than their fair share. Raising tax rates on only certain taxpayers, i.e. "the rich", in my opinion, is the poster child for discrimination.  Discrimination is the treatment of an individual or group of individuals based solely on their membership in that group. Someone has attained, through their own hard work and meritorious behavior, an income that government determines to be too high.  This individual is then singled out to have their tax rate increased, while the rest of the population sees no change in their rates. This is the very essence of discrimination, but it is Democrat-sanctioned discrimination, so it is entirely acceptable. You see, Democrats aren't opposed to discrimination, only the perceived discrimination that they think will garner them votes on election day and a reason to confiscate more taxpayer money for their pet projects.
     It is ridiculous for the President and the rest of the Democrats to talk about raising revenue through higher tax rates on the rich. Even the most optimistic predictions from the administration itself, shows that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate will only generate 40 billion dollars a year in additional revenue. This amount is about 1% of the total budget, which illuminates the need for less spending, not more revenue. According to the government's own data, Federal tax revenue has recovered to pre-recession levels, but spending has expanded far beyond its former unsustainable highs. Which is illustrative of what Conservatives have been saying for years, that sending more money to Washington is like providing a crack addict with more crack.
     John Boehner and the House Republicans need to stand firm on raising no one's tax rates, but rather reform the tax code to generate more revenue and cut spending in order to balance the budget. Both Republicans and Democrats know the economically sound course to take in order to achieve the stated goals. The road block to fiscal probity is the Democrats unstated agenda of union payoffs, expanding government and continuing the class warfare tactics that won Barrack Obama a second term.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.
    

The Fault Lies Not In Our Politics, But In Ourselves

     The dawn of every new election season is accompanied by a vociferous clamour from voters, bemoaning the low standards of our politics. As if they have no hand in choosing their own representatives in government. After all, isn't our politics just a reflection of our culture, which is the wellspring from where our politicians originate? And if our politics is corrupt, isn't the well that is the source of that politics is also tainted?  In this most recent election, the voters rejected the candidate who ran a positive and uplifting campaign, in favor of the one who ran a campaign that produced the highest percentage (86%) of negative ads in Presidential politics. No intellectually honest person can make the case that it was the decent-minded that re-elected Barrack Obama, but rather those voters in the the clutches of the Jerry Springer mentality. It is their continued acceptance of lower, and lower political standards, as well as societal standards, which have poisoned the well. What the late Daniel Patrick Moynahan called, "Defining deviancy down."
     This phenomenon occurs daily in offices, warehouses and other places of employment. You may have even experienced it yourself, i.e. some one who is totally incompetent gets a promotion and you are left scratching your head. Many times the incompetent possess only one skill, selling themselves. I have worked for companies where the promoted actually have a long record of incompetence and failure. But they have the ability to politic and cause the people who control the levers of power to advance them into positions for which they aren't really qualified. The incompetent seem to possess the ability to make people feel good about providing them with whatever they need to be happy.
     It is not only work places and politics where the phenomenon of rewarding failure is practiced. One can see it in our schools, where students are given credit for "trying", even if their results are empirically wrong. Rewarding incompetence is a corollary to the self-esteem movement that has infected our schools specifically and our culture in general over the last 25 years. We teach our children that getting it right is not as important as feeling right about themselves. Which runs contrary to human nature that teaches self-esteem through actual accomplishment. The Liberal mindset that artificially doles out self-esteem, causes those raised under it to believe in rewarding behavior that doesn't merit the reward, like promoting the incompetent. This practice is in no short supply with much of modern day parenting. How many times have you seen a young mother give an unruly child a treat, just to mollify them? Or allow their child to be disrespectful to others all in the name of letting the child "express" themselves?
     The antithetical to rewarding failure is punishing success, and it is a necessary part of the former mindset. In the last 40 years we have seen a gradual move in our society towards punishing success, which has accelerated almost immeasurably in the last four years. This mindset has become so ingrained in our society that we just re-elected a President, not based on his dismal record of failure, but on his ability to convince people to hate those more successful than themselves. When we reach the place as a society where success and competence have been bred out of us as a people, then the world we will have created will be a soulless and dark place where there is no room for feeding the human spirit through real success, accomplishment and excellence.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

Where Have All The Heroes Gone?

     Last Friday afternoon General David Petraeus, director of the CIA and former commander in both Afghanistan and Iraq, announced that he was resigning his position in the wake of an extramarital affair in which he had engaged. This was shocking news, at least it was to me, about a man who is a West Point graduate and had served 37 highly distinguished years in the U.S. military.
     I first became aware of General Petraeus in the opening days of the war on terror, in the early 2000s. He was the architect of the surge in Iraq, which transformed a losing situation, into one which saw the U.S. and its allies gaining a major victory. His strategy was later implemented in Afghanistan, although much less competently so under the current administration than it had been  under the previous one. I remember the decorum, grace and class he brought to bear when he was called a liar by then Senator Hillary Clinton, during a Senate hearing in which he was testifying. I also remember his many media briefings, in which he was subjected to barrages of ignorant artillery fire from empty-headed "journalists". He successfully illuminated the foolishness and complete lack of intelligence that passed for media fact-finding, while still maintaining his decency and honor.
     General David Petraeus was, in every sense of the term, a great American hero. But now a lifetime of dedication to a concept of service to a cause greater than self, has been marred by a selfish act. Forever more, the rather hefty record of service to a grateful nation has been mitigated by one single act that is so undisciplined and selfish, it's hard to imagine that it was committed by the same man who served his country with such honor and distinction. I think it is illustrative of the frailty of the human character, and educative of the absolute necessity for constant vigilance of decency and honor and an ever-present awareness of the ability of selfish acts to affect the lives of others.
     I have questioned why General Petraeus was such a hero to me, and why his downfall, in some small way, became my own. The answer is that I saw in him the qualities and characteristics that were in such short supply within my own character. I think this is one of the driving forces behind hero worship, the embrace of those qualities in someone else that we wish we had in ourselves. I choose to look at David Petraeus as an inspiration, to emulate the qualities that brought him such distinction throughout his years of service. But I am also more keenly aware now more than ever that no one is immune from the forces of deprivation that destroy the decency within us, and we must all engage in the daily pursuit of becoming our own heroes.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.
    

Let Us Count Our Blessings

     Now that I have come in off the ledge after last week's election loss, and it's an unusually warm and sunny November day here in northern Ohio, I have decided to look at not what we have lost, but what we still have left. The voters decided to return control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. It is now up to those Republicans to use their last vestiges of power to stem the bleeding from a second Obama term. We also have a brand new Tea Party candidate by the name of Ted Cruz in the Senate, representing the great state of Texas. Not to mention that the Tea Party and other grass roots Conservative organizations are not going away. They are committed to the long term struggle of rebuilding liberty and fiscal sanity in this country. Most of all, we still live in the greatest country ever devised by the minds of men in conjunction with the laws of God.
     This past week I had to remind myself of the most dire times in our history, and as strong-willed Americans do, we overcame adversity and became victorious over the forces which sought our destruction. George Washington's troops at Valley Forge, many without shoes for their feet in the dead of winter, so believed in the cause of liberty and their commander that they fought heroically to bring honor to both. The American Revolution in and of itself is an unbelievable tale of a rag tag group of farmers and businessmen defeating the most powerful army in the world at the time and gaining their independence. We, as freedom-loving Americans, were able to emerge from a civil war, an even stronger nation than before. A war which resulted in 600,000 deaths by the hands of their own countrymen  We've been through depressions and natural disasters which have claimed an untold number of human lives and an incalculable amount of wealth. We have been through countless wars and even attacks on our homeland, none of which has dampened the furor with which we claim liberty and freedom for ourselves and all men.
     Indeed we have been blessed, and we must use the strength of those blessings and the moral probity that comes from our gratitude for them, to ultimately triumph over the forces that aim to mitigate our liberty. We are not being asked to storm the beaches at Normandy, or march for miles barefoot through snow and ice. We must simply dedicate ourselves to never losing the gratitude for our blessings of liberty. Those blessings that the founders fought, died and impoverished themselves for to ensure future generations would enjoy the benefits of this exceptional country. We can do no less to honor them than to dedicate ourselves fully to the cause of defending the values and principles that they so eloquently outlined in the founding documents they bequeathed to us and to all men.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

The Legacy of Chief Justice Roberts

     With the re-election this week of Barrack Obama, any hope of saving our health care system from ruin has been extinguished. By the end of his second term (those words are bitter herbs in my mouth), Obamacare will have its cancerous tentacles deeply rooted in every aspect of health care and beyond. But more than any one person in particular, Chief Justice John Roberts will go down in history as being responsible for destroying the best health care system in the world and serving a severe blow to the cause of liberty. Of course, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and left-wing advocacy groups crafted the Obamacare bill. And the President, using his bully pulpit, lied about virtually every aspect of it.
     But it was Chief Justice Roberts who saw the obvious unconstitutionality of the law, but didn't have the courage to resist the onslaught of an administration-led public intimidation campaign against him. He had initially voted to strike the law down, but in the intervening time between the preliminary vote and the final one, he changed his vote. The administration, including President Obama, engaged in a community organizing public intimidation campaign of Chief Justice Roberts. There is no doubt that even a civics high school student reading the Constitution, could make the determination that Obamacare came nowhere close to passing Constitutional muster. It was Justice Kennedy, of all people, who said that if the government can compel people to buy health care through the individual mandate, then there is no limiting principle that exists on government. The entire basis of the Constitution is to limit the authority of the Federal government.
     So now we are trapped with a law that is designed specifically to put health insurance companies out of business so that government can swoop in and fill the role of single-payer. This is the goal that President Obama has publicly stated in the past. Once the government is paying for your health care, it will be involved in every aspect of your life under the guise of controlling costs. Not only that, but with the cost for Obamacare already tripling, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the strain put on the economy is going to be devastating. Expect wait times to see a doctor to go from days to months, especially if that doctor is a specialist. The simple fact is that more doctors are leaving the profession because of the new law. This will strain a system that was already seeing thousands more doctors leaving the profession every year than were graduating medical schools to replace them. This lack of supply will necessarily lead to rationing, and yes, death panels which will decide who lives and who dies.
     So this, and so many more untold tragedies, is the legacy of Chief Justice Roberts. I don't know what is in the mind of the Chief Justice and whether or not his conscience has punished him since his decision. But I do know he took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and he has broken that oath and permanently stained both his reputation and his legacy.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

Don't Fear The Cliff

     This is the position in which John Boehner and House Republicans find themselves in the context of the fiscal cliff negotiations. If they cave into the President and Harry Reid and allow the current tax rates on high earners to expire, whatever crumbs they get in return will be blamed for the economy continuing its downward slide. However, if they stand firm on no tax increases for anyone and push for tax and entitlement reforms, and the fiscal cliff occurs as a result of no deal being struck, the economic demise will be blamed on "those obstructionist Republicans." A rock and a hard place would be desirable to the current position in which the House Republicans find themselves. Seemingly, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
     My strategy, if I were Speaker of the House, would be to stand firm on tax policy and entitlement reforms, or give the President and Harry Reid everything they want and let them own it. The former would allow the economy to expand and grow, creating more tax revenue, and the latter would cause tax revenue and the economy to decline further, but without Republican fingerprints. In order for option one to work, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans can't fear the coming cliff and being blamed for its economic effect. For option two to work, they can't fear the backlash in their own party. Either option would require a well articulated public campaign.
     The fiscal cliff, for those who aren't aware, comes January 1, 2013 when the Bush era tax rates expire and every ones taxes will rise, including the taxes on capital gains and dividends. Added to this tax increase are the automatic cuts in defense and entitlement spending that were the result of no deal being reached by the super committee that was created by the debt ceiling negotiations in August of 2011. But how bad is the ensuing economic malaise from the fiscal cliff, compared to what is going to happen as a result of the President being successful in his agenda? Every study that has been done on tax reduction shows the biggest economic gains are made from cutting the top marginal tax rates, little benefit occurs from cuts in lower rates. We can extrapolate from the data that the opposite is also true, i.e. when you hold lower tax brackets at a lower rate and allow top marginal rates to increase, you slow economic growth and receive less revenue to the Treasury. As for the automatic cuts in defense and entitlements, the former is something that is going to happen under a second Obama administration anyway and the latter needs to happen, but probably won't in the next four years.
     If the Republicans make any deal that includes an increase in any tax rates, it would be tantamount to kicking the can down the road, thereby stunting any economic recovery. Now is the time for a well-articulated campaign to save the economy through policies that actually have a history of working. One thing is clear, this past Tuesday's election gave a mandate to House Republicans. The House Republicans were returned to power by the voters after having spent the last two years passing budgets, jobs bills and tax and entitlement reform bills. The President spent the entire campaign, not exalting his ideas and accomplishments, but convincing the voters that he wasn't Mitt Romney. The President's mandate, if one exists, is to not be Mitt Romney. It's time for the House Republicans to pick up the mantle of their mandate, future elections be damned. If we don't solve our debt and economic problems now, it will matter little who controls the empty shell of government that remains in the future.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

My Final Word On The Election Results

     My angst over the re-election of Barrack Obama was compounded by some on the Conservative side blaming Mitt Romney for the loss. Some on our side tried to make the point that Mitt Romney didn't embrace the Tea Party enough and pandered to the Republican establishment too much, and that's why Barrack Obama still holds the Oval Office. But Mitt Romney is the embodiment of the American value of achievement through a strong work ethic. He articulated, fairly well in my opinion, the promise of America enshrined in our founding documents. No, the fault is not in our candidate, but in our culture.
     A culture where over 50% of the people don't understand how and where prosperity is created in this country. A culture where over 50% of the people don't understand that it's been the private sector in the U.S., working in an environment dominated by freedom not government involvement, that has been able to produce wealth and advancement that has progressed the human condition more than any nation in history. A culture where over 50% of the people think that government exists, not to protect our God-given rights, but to create new rights for everything from health care to housing. A culture where over 50% of the people believe that they do not possess because others do, and they have no problem empowering government to confiscate wealth from those who have earned it and redistribute it to those who didn't. Yes, our problems are bigger than whether Mitt Romney kept his distance from the Tea Party or didn't appear on some Conservative talk show.
     As a nation, we elected as our President a teleprompter over a real flesh and blood substantive man. I guarantee you that Mitt Romney's life experience and value system is more aligned with the vast majority of Americans than is the life experience and value system of Barrack Obama. And yet, over 50% of the voters in this country elected a man President who has a proven track record of implementing policy that is destructive to their own value system. This fact means that a majority of the people in this country either have a death wish, or they have been dis-informed by the very sources whose Constitutional duty it is to disseminate the truth to the people. Ignorance in this country is not by accident, it has been a deliberate political strategy by those on the left to gain and to hold power over those they have inculcated with it.
     The election on this past Tuesday is proof positive that the left's decades long strategy has paid off. I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would trade their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Over 50% of the people in this country made the conscience decision on this past Tuesday to trade their liberty for the government promise of security. Which as we all should know isn't worth the paper upon which it is written, just ask Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who were brutally murdered by terrorists as our newly re-elected President and members of his administration sat and watched, and did nothing. Good luck extracting their empty promises of health care and jobs from the wreckage of their rhetoric.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

An Open Letter To Obama Voters

     So you voted for Barrack Obama, again, to be our President and you're celebrating your victory today. You're emailing and calling all your Conservative friends and rubbing it in, as if it were a sporting event in which you each supported different teams. But it's not a sporting event, it's the fate of our country that hung in the balance of this election. You made your choice against traditional American values as outlined by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but in doing so you have also earned the responsibility to explain your decision to your children and grandchildren.
     Someday you must explain to your children and grandchildren why over 70% of their earnings are being confiscated by the federal government to pay for health care and other social programs. Additionally, you will have to explain to them why their grandparents and great-grandparents are being rationed to death by a health care system that now allows bureaucrats to choose who lives and who dies. You must explain why as Americans, even if we had the money, we can no longer travel anywhere abroad for fear of being kidnapped and murdered by Islamic extremists. You must tell your children and grandchildren that the decision you made in the 2012 Presidential election has lead to the terrorist attacks they now have to endure as they live their daily lives. Your children and grandchildren will know that it was your decision to re-elect Barack Obama that has caused a high percentage of their peers to be without work most of their adult lives, requiring them to live off a tiny pittance provided by the government. You will have to explain to your children and grand-children that in the free days of their country, people had access to as much energy as they wanted, anytime they wanted it and didn't have their energy rationed to them by the federal government. You, and you alone, will have to explain to your children and grandchildren why, when the liberty that heroes of the past spilled their blood to defend, you couldn't summon enough courage to vote in defense of that liberty. You will have to explain to your progeny why you chose the empty promises of a nanny-state over the liberty and prosperity of an opportunity society.
     Someday, if your ignorance hasn't completely blunted your senses, you will realize that this one decision will have had dire consequences that will span generations. You will have to explain to your children and grand-children that the liberty and prosperity enjoyed by over 200 years of Americans, was voted away by you for purely short-term and selfish reasons. God help you when your children and grand-children look at you with despair in their eyes and ask why you condemned them to a dark and desperate future where their only subsistence depends, not on their own ambition and drive, but on crumbs from an ever-expanding government. This is the country and the world you have left, not only for your own descendants, but for the descendants of all Americans. So celebrate your grand accomplishment. How does it feel?

Click here to check out my political song parodies.
    

We're All Socialists Now

     This is not the blog that I thought I would be writing this morning, nor was it the one for which I  had the least bit of preparation. The words do not flow easily from this heavy heart. The re-election of Barrack Obama extinguishes the flames of hope and optimism I had that the United States of America was not lost, and that her people would once again choose to live by the principles and values enshrined in their founding documents. The shackles of leftism, at this moment, seem too strong for the forces of liberty to break.        
     The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have resoundingly said they no longer want the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness, but want  an all-powerful government to dole out happiness in amounts they have determined to be fair. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country support the destruction of the best health care system in the world and replacing it with government rationing and less individual choice. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country are not interested in employment or economic growth but rather in undeserved benefits paid for by some magical government money that doesn't depend on a growing private sector. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country think that a man who wants to reduce American strength and refused to protect the lives of Americans serving abroad, is going to somehow provide protection for them and their families. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country accept the victim status attached to them by the left and want to give the Federal government the authority to redress their perceived grievances. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have lost faith in themselves and their communities and instead have foolishly invested their faith in big government.
     There is going to be much analysis of last night's election in the coming days and weeks. But analysis won't change the reality that things are going to become much more oppressive in this country over the next four years, as they have over the last four. This President is hell-bent on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends, both actions will deplete us even more as a nation. Expect new edicts from the President that will regulate free speech out of the Internet and radio, as well as yet undetermined areas of our lives. Expect the world to become more chaotic as President Obama weakens U. S. military strength, and the forces of evil in the form of radical Islam become stronger. Expect even more debt and higher and higher taxes to pay for the President's ever-expanding portfolio of social programs. And finally, when there is no more wealth to squeeze out of the producers and give to the non-producers, expect Greece-like insolvency and riots. And the once great nation of the United States of America will no longer be exceptional, which is the true dream of Barrack Obama senior and one which the son will bring to fruition, thus making the father very proud indeed.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

Another Time For Choosing

     It's election day, and I am reminded of something that Ronald Regan said in his now famous speech for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign entitled, "A Time For Choosing." Towards the end of the speech he said, "We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."  Those words, uttered almost 50 years ago, couldn't be more apropos to the next 24 hours. For those who think that I am being overly dramatic or exaggerating for political effect, consider how far down that road to a thousand years of darkness we have traveled in the last four years.
     Four years ago, or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought it possible that our government would have a 32% ownership in General Motors, or any other company for that matter. And furthermore, that the Executive branch of our government would void legitimate ownership of that company's debt, i.e. the bondholders, and give that equity to the President's political supporters in the unions. We would have never thought that our President would close GM car dealerships, not because they weren't profitable, but because they were owned by Republicans.
     Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would destroy the financial industry with a law that had written into it special provisions for a dozen of the biggest financial institutions. This law, known as Dodd/Frank, has decimated small community banks and credit unions because they can't afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant. Hundreds of these smaller institutions have been closed in the last four years, simply because they can't afford the price of government intrusion into their business .
     Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our President, the first black man to be voted into that office, would divide us even more along racial lines. By attacking as racists those who disagree with him on the right policies for this country, he slashed open this nation's wound of racial disharmony that was well on its way to healing forever. But he didn't stop at race, he divided us along lines of wealth and poverty, male and female, gay and straight, young and old, religious and non-religious and in hundred more ways to voluminous to list here. We never would have thought that our President would actively pursue a policy of divisiveness to further his own political agenda.
     Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would, using bribes and threats to Congress and with members from only one party behind closed doors, craft and pass a law that allows the Federal government to confiscate one sixth of the U.S. economy that is comprised of the health care industry. Furthermore, we would have never thought that under that same law, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Federal government would be given such authority over the lives of the governed as to allow it to compel individuals to purchase a product in the form of health care insurance.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.
     Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government, under control of a radical President, would deliberately implement policies that would slow growth for the purpose of increasing dependence on government programs. That these policies would decrease middle-class wealth by 40% and middle-class incomes by $4500 a year. And furthermore, that our government would engage in such fiscally irresponsible behavior as to add more national debt than any other administration in the history of our great country. This debt threatens to crush us and make us weaker at home and around the world.
     Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought that our President,  in a candid moment he didn't know was being recorded, would speak words of appeasement to the Russian President, saying he would have more flexibility to reduce U.S. nuclear strength after he was re-elected. We would have never thought that any President, Republican or Democrat, would show such weakness abroad as to not defend U.S. sovereignty or American lives, and would actually sit and watch while an ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered.
     Yes, I think we have indeed made great strides down that road to a thousand years of darkness. And the further down that road we travel, the more the entire world will be plunged into that darkness. America is the last best hope of man on earth. Today we can give rise to that hope by changing the course we are on and by replacing our President with one who believes in the American hope and will lead us back to the road of light and prosperity.

Barrack Obama-The Democrats Hindenburg

     Beginning in 2004, when Barrack Obama gave the keynote address at the Democrat National Convention, the party faithful have seen him as the Democrat's version of Ronald Reagan. With his great oratory skills and political savvy, he was going to lead the Democrats to political dominance that would last for decades. Mr. Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential election brought to fruition this lofty narrative and put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican party. Or such was the belief among many Democrats.
     A funny thing happened on the way to decades-long political dominance, actual real-life governing got in the way. It was bad enough that Barrack Obama had absolutely no experience having actually run anything, but he surrounded himself with people who had the same lack of this very important skill. He, and the country at large, soon found out that you can't simply govern a nation with lofty, well-read speeches. At some point, if he wants to be successful, a President has to persuade members of the opposite party in Congress, and the public at large, that his policy ideas are right for the country. Barrack Obama had no ability to this end and from the start of his administration governed by fiat. His Presidency quickly became persona non grata among the voters, and in the 2010 mid-term elections, they sent a clear message by handing control of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans and giving them 5 more seats in the Senate. In fact, the Republicans gained the most House seats than either party had in any previous election. But even with this resounding rejection of the President's policies, especially Obamacare, Mr. Obama ignored the will of the people and continued to govern against it.
     And now we come to the end of the 2012 election cycle, one which has shown the American people a President who is not only un-presidential, but mean-spirited and a true political bully. But more than that, the President has lead members of his own party to behave in a like-wise manner. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, but instead he has fundamentally transformed his own party from a group of well-meaning, albeit at times wrongheaded, public servants to a group of opportunistic and thuggish community organizers. The rank and file Democrats thought they were getting in Barrack Obama a Reagan, but instead received the political equivalent of the Hindenburg.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

Why Obama Will Lose On Tuesday

     When Barrack Obama loses the Presidential election this Tuesday, it will be for two main reasons. One, he just can't transform the souse ear of his policy failures into the silk purse of re-election victory. And the second cause of his loss will be a poorly run campaign. I know some of you are thinking, "But Axelrod and Plouffe are the geniuses that ran Barrack Obama's successful 2008 campaign." Well, a high school student council campaign would have won in 2008 against John McCain, who at times looked like he didn't even want the job.
     The biggest problem for President Obama is not that he is a big government Liberal, which he most certainly is, but that the voters see him as dangerous to their individual liberties. Especially in light of the public statements he has made, which are antithetical to our system of government and the Constitution. In a 2002 radio interview, Barrack Obama called the Constitution a charter of negative rights, because it only said what the Federal government can't do. In other words he doesn't want to see any limiting principle enforced on the Federal government. Since becoming President, Mr. Obama has publicly expressed envy for the power possessed by China's Communist leaders, lamented that the founders wrote a Constitution which made change difficult and has expressed a desire to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) and make laws himself without the laborious legislative process.
     But back to the poorly run campaign. The Barrack Obama re-election campaign has been chaotic, veering from Bain Capital attacks to Mitt Romney's tax returns to Mitt Romney's 47% remark to Big Bird to Mr. Romney's binder comment in the second debate and then back to the Bain Capital attacks. The President's campaign has done everything it can to avoid talking about Barrack Obama's dismal record on the economy, energy, the debt and foreign policy (especially the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi which killed four Americans, including our ambassador). All that has been left to them is to attack Mitt Romney, which I think has back-fired. It has made the President's campaign look negative and week, while Mitt Romney's effort has been seen by the voters as uplifting and positive. Someone should have told the Obama campaign that voters don't like electing a President that is a gloomy Gus. But then they were committed to the low road upon which they set themselves and nothing was going to make them change course. Not being able to adapt to new information and changing situations is what made President Obama a horrible failure as a president, as well as giving him a losing campaign.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

The Stars Shine...For Themselves

     Last night (Friday November 2, 2012) celebrities that included Sting, Bruce Springsteen, Christine Aqularia, Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Mary Blige, Matt Lauer, Jon Stewart and others put on a show, ostensibly to aid Hurricane Sandy victims. But as is the case with most benefit concerts, the result was to show the largess of the celebrity participants, not to meaningfully improve the shattered lives of the intended beneficiaries. As the victims of the hurricane were desperately searching for water and dumpster diving to feed themselves and their families, the celebrity benefit prostitutes were backstage guzzling bottled water and eating smoked salmon. Don't get me wrong, I think helping out those who have been victims of natural disasters is a good and decent thing to do. I just don't understand how it helps a storm ravaged area to disrupt it with celebrities and their security details and entourages, just so they can feed their own egos on stage for a few minutes. Couldn't the same amount of funds, or more, be raised if each celebrity quietly donated a chunk of cash. But, of course, this wouldn't allow for the attention-starved celebrities to go on stage and say, "Look at me! I'm a good person!"
     The benefit concert for the victims of  Hurricane Sandy is illustrative of the Liberal mindset of intentions over results. The left doesn't have to show any positive results from their actions, as long as their intentions are good. Well you know what they say about good intentions paving the road to ruin, or something like that. These celebrity participants in the benefit concert won't entertain the idea that there is not one person who is going to donate money to hurricane victims because of their performance last night. Consider the ego of someone who thinks, because they sing a song or make a  statement at a benefit, there will be millions of people who will see the light and donate to improve the lives of those effected by the storm. Wouldn't it benefit the victims more if these celebrities, in  addition to donating money themselves, quietly lobbied their other celebrity buddies to write a check to the relief effort? But this method, while more effective in the stated goal of helping storm victims, would preclude the public display of the compassionate celebrity riding in on their white horse, singing a song and rescuing the wretched and hungry from their dire circumstances.
     In the end, it is not about politics or ego, it is about living your principles. To this end, I give you the example of the late Harry Chapin, who I probably would not have agreed with politically, but never the less I respected his dedication to his principles. Harry performed over 200 concerts a year and donated half the proceeds to causes he believed in. He did this year after year without fanfare or bragging. The Hurricane Sandy benefit participants disappear in the shadow of the memory of a real humanitarian like Mr. Chapin.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.
   

October Surprise-A President Doing His Job

     The idea of an October surprise in Presidential politics started with the election of 1988, when Democrats accused George H. W. Bush of having flown to Iran before the 1980 election to make a special deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages until Ronald Reagan was safely elected President. Of course, the story was proven to be a complete fabrication by the Democrats. Other October surprises did have some basis in truth, illustrated by the revelation a few days before the 2000 election that years prior, George W. Bush had been charged with a DUI. The whole idea of an October surprise, some revelation that has an important impact on the outcome of a Presidential election, is really more myth than reality. Usually practiced by Democrats, October surprises have rarely had an impact on elections, but there is still an unexplainable mystique about them.
     Some have suggested that the October surprise assigned to this year's Presidential election is hurricane Sandy, more to the point, President Obama's response to hurricane Sandy. Let's examine the President's actions closely. He flew to and over some storm devastated areas, mainly in New Jersey, and promised quick government aid. He received the slobbering endorsement of Republican Governor, Chriss Christie, who is trying to ensure his own re-election next year in a predominantly Democrat state. The dog-looking-for-a-bone response of a Governor from a state in turmoil aside, the President did nothing that wasn't commensurate with his job description. And yet, the expectations for this President have been lowered so much, that even doing his job for a couple of days earns him high praise. There are even those deluded few, on both sides of the political spectrum, that think his performance was so spectacular that it will sway voters away from Mitt Romney next Tuesday and re-elect the President. That would not only be a surprise, but a miracle. Considering that his storm performance has done nothing to bring down chronically high unemployment, increase the slowest GDP growth in decades, reduce the ever-expanding food stamp roles, reverse the growing number of people in poverty and reduce the historically high debt and deficit that threatens to make the country insolvent.
     Another aspect of the President's storm-related political pandering is his promise to speed up the process by which government operates in order to get aid to stricken areas as quickly as possible. My question is, "Why can't government always work that way?" Why not have a government that is streamline and employs efficacy in everything it does, as Mitt Romney has suggested and Barrack Obama has criticized throughout this campaign. It seems to me that the real October surprise is that when things really need to get accomplished, President Obama has endorsed Mitt Romney's government model. So why would the American people elect a part-time practitioner of better government when they can have as President the man who designed it and would employ it on a full-time basis?   

Click here to check out my political song parodies.