Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Socialism…here we come!

“Live Free or Die” has become “live free, others will pay the bill.”

My family has been living in apartments for the last 8 years watching the housing bubble grow and grow. We make a very reasonable income, but we stayed (were forced to stay) out of the housing market, because it required an excessive financial investment with only a premise of potential return, and we felt it was only prudent and reasonable to avoid such risks due to the potential dire consequences.

Judging by the rapid and ever expanding bubble, and the bank’s offer of a loan we felt was well beyond our means, it seemed that not everyone was as prudent as we were. We realized we might be mistaken and could end up so far behind the market that we’d never catch up, but we decided we’d rather risk missing the market and postpone our dreams of owning a home than risk our family’s financial wellbeing and lose everything.

Then, what seemed reasonable…happened. The market that was skyrocketing out of control lost its momentum, turned, and began plunging back to reality. As we watched and waited for the market to naturally correct and get within reach of prudent would-be homeowners like ourselves, news of the bailout began to spread.

The bill was signed, and now the natural market correction is being unnaturally arrested. Houses will remain out of reach, propped up by the tax dollars of prudent citizens like us; unless of course we borrow beyond our means for a house that costs more than it may ever be worth and rush anxiously into an unstable market. Ironically, that's what got the market where it is today and what we've worked so hard to avoid.

How exactly does this promote or ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for my family? Prudent and fiscally responsible people like my family are the backbone of this nation and its economy, and this may be the straw to break this camel’s back.

I cannot see how this can possibly be constitutional. Where in the constitution is it guaranteed that people will be relieved of the consequences of their poor decisions? How is it constitutional for one group to be rescued from their own ignorant decisions and misfortune at the forced expense of another alleged free group?

If I am free, I choose not to give my tax dollars to such fiscally irresponsible behavior/endeavors.

Thursday, July 17, 2008


According to Nancy Pelosi, President Bush is a “total failure.”
"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

The Democrat controlled Congress’s approval rating is at 18%; down 5 points from last month. That’s a full 10 points lower than President Bush’s steady rating of 28%, yet Pelosi has the nerve to call the President a failure.

Pelosi’s statement epitomizes what seems to be the Democratic Party’s media backed strategy of divisive and subversive negative propaganda. The strategy has served the Democratic Party well, even making Obama look good by comparison to the excessively demonized President Bush, but at what price?

Only 16% of Americans have confidence in the direction the nation is heading. Is it because things are so bad, or because they have been hearing how bad things are for almost four years consecutively?

I was at a restaurant the other day and my waitress…correction, my rude waitress finally recognized my existence. She came over to the table, spattered with tattoos and with something stuck through her nose…and eyebrow…and lip…and ears…and who knows what else. I looked around at the bustling crowd and two things occurred to me. If the economy is so bad, why is everyone out here spending all this money, and if there are so many people out there without jobs, why is the bride of Frankenstein the best they can offer in terms of a customer service oriented face for their business?

There are two possible answers. Either the people who suffer are responsible for their suffering, and someone else is being held accountable; or things are not nearly as bad as we are being led to believe. The former is the Liberal Democratic political curse or platform (depending on your point of view), and the latter is the Liberal Democratic political strategy aided by complicit and politically biased media (what free press was meant for, I'm sure).

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Don't even think about "it."

Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams says of Barack Obama "I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.”

History thrusts him to think about “IT?”

What is “it?”

It must be giving in to the culture of oppression, or maybe it is rallying the divisive use/cry of racism and injustice to milk the loyalty out of an obligingly ignorant community. Wait, I’m trying to think like Barack Obama.

In order to understand it, maybe I should examine what Williams said: he doesn’t like Obama’s policies and he doesn’t like what Obama advocates. That’s it. It is suddenly so clear and unmistakably obvious.

It is completely betraying the truths that your life has been based on and that you’ve advocated to others, and completely following a path wholly incongruent with objective rationale and throwing your lot in with a media driven frenzy bent on making history rather than making a real difference.

Why didn’t he just say that, instead of trying to make it look like he thought it out and applied some sense of logic, or moral or political value to the decision?

To vote for Barack Obama because you’re proud that a black man has a chance to win the Presidency is to say that you aren’t genuinely considering what it means to be President. It’s to say that you are not looking past his skin color.

DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE! That is an insult to reason. His race should not make any of his politics more or less palatable. If you are considering his race at all, it is inappropriate.

If it was not about his race, any chance for him to be seriously considered as the nominee would have and should have been eliminated by his connections to and reflections of a culture that is completely contrary to the American mantra of justice and equality, by his overt displays of inexperience and cultural intolerance, by his almost complete lack of an articulated political platform beyond 'hope and change,' by his ignorant idealism and ineptitude with regard to foreign policy, by his continual political pandering and backpedaling, and by his demonstrated weakness in the polls in key states.

If nothing else convinces you that Barack Obama is not suited for the Presidency of the United States, just consider that he does not represent all Americans, he’s made it clear that he cannot and will not represent all Americans, and neither the Democratic Party nor the mainstream media will hold him accountable to represent all Americans.