Black Interests

Since when do most black Americans prefer taxation, unions, and abortion?

Apparently Professor Adolph L. Reed, Jr. doesn’t just drink the Kool-Aid; he’s gone and drowned himself in it. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times Reed dismissed black conservatives as tokens. He went on to say that Republicans won’t gain any support from the black community until they take policy positions that advance black interests.

Exactly which interests are specifically black interests? Would it be the economy? Wait; is it the unemployment rate? Oh, I know, the national debt?

These are the issues surveyed Americans said were the most important. These were the issues Americans agreed Obama is weak on. These are the issues Republicans continue to try to address, and Americans felt Republicans were more strongly capable of addressing than Barack Obama. Yet, Obama won the election largely due to the unwavering support of the minority vote.

Once again, exactly which interests are specifically black interests?

Step back, professor, and let a black conservative give this a shot.

When was the last time black America actually communicated their interests? Take a close look. Usually when you hear about black America’s interests it’s guys like Reed speaking for them, and amazingly black America seems to be regurgitating the Liberal Democratic party line. When you go directly to black America, you often get something akin to an angry cry for help, an incoherent mixture of confusion and desperation that scarcely resembles Reed’s vision.

Of course, there is the conservative voice of black America, but that voice is ignored, drowned out, and marginalized by black leaders and liberal media. While black America obviously doesn’t actually identify with the Democratic Party, they will not be allowed to identify with the Republican Party.

Black America is completely deprived of their voice, but by whom.

If I were a political cartoonist, I’d draw a gathering inside a room with a sign above the door “Republican Party.” Outside the room, a guy wearing a Democratic Party pin would be nailing up a “No blacks allowed” sign as a large crowd of poor, dejected black Americans looked on in confusion and desperation.

In the crowd, a media representative turns to a confused onlooker and says, “Those guys are so racist.”

Gun Control

I fear my government far more than I fear my neighbor.

My neighbor and I are on even footing. Even if my neighbor gets the drop on me, it’s still “mono y mono,” but the state…the government…has clout, manpower, and firepower that I can’t match.

If my neighbor comes for me, he’s going to have his hands full. When the government comes for me, I don’t stand a chance…unless I am armed (preferably to the teeth).

The fact that we are even debating inhibiting law-abiding citizens' constitutional right to bear arms highlights the real problem: only the law-abiding citizens would be detrimentally affected by such a law.

Criminals will always plan and prepare to resist authorities, while law-abiding citizens resist criminals and will only resist authorities if/when those authorities become oppressive. So, by inhibiting law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms, we not only inhibit law-abiding citizens’ ability to resist criminals (increasing dependence on the state…wow, common Liberal/Democrat theme), but we also inhibit citizens' ability to resist the oppression of the state.

Logically, why then would the government want to deprive law-abiding citizens of their arms? Um, let’s see…1 + 1…

Of course, two things tend to contradict the notion that the solution to gun violence is to inhibit law-abiding citizens' constitutional right to bear arms. History tells us that man kills his fellow man by whatever means is available. History also tells us that governments have killed far more unarmed/disarmed citizens than any single man ever has or ever will. So, when/if the government takes your guns, while death will not decrease, at least we’ll be able to say fewer people died at the end of a citizen’s gun.

Ya know, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside…my internment camp…where I wish I could smuggle a weapon…any weapon.

It is ridiculous to focus on a heinous act such as the shootings in Connecticut and suggest that somehow the method makes a difference. I wonder if any of the parents would be comforted to find their child wasn’t actually shot, but was instead stabbed, beaten, strangled, or simply died of shock? Somehow, I think not.

Also, the tool that facilitated the act should not be the focus. If that was sound reasoning, after 9/11 we should have waged some sort of war on box cutters. If only Home Depot hadn’t had a sale on box cutters, thousands of Americans might still be alive today.

What about cars? How many people die every year in vehicle accidents compared to gun deaths? Are privately owned vehicles next on the list?

My brother was shot in the face by some low-life thug. It wasn’t the gunshot, the bullet, or the gun that killed him, it was the idiot that pulled the trigger because he lived in a culture that had distorted all appreciation of law, order, justice, humanity, and life itself. Take away the tool, and I can guarantee that same idiot, values unchanged, would have ended my brother’s life.

The gun is an inanimate scapegoat, unable to defend itself, but it is unfortunately and obstructively misaligned with the political ideology/agenda of many of the political elite and their media proxies. For many, guns are true empowerment, true freedom. When the government comes for me, and history confirms that they eventually will, I don’t want to be dragged away kicking and screaming, I want to go down with guns blazing.

They’d love to subdue and ultimately oppress us with laws, but I intend to make certain they have to do it by force.

Self Respect vs Being Liked, A Tale of Two Parties

According to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, 

“If we want people to like us, we have to like them first.”

I’m embarrassed. I must admit…this entire time I thought the goal was to lead responsibly. What a forehead-slapper. I suddenly feel so stupid. Forget balancing the budget or reining in spending. Open up a Twitter account and go on Late Night with David Letterman (sound familiar), and while the world’s problems won’t get solved…or even better…at least people like you.

Ah, that’s better. “They like me. They really, really like me.”

Exactly who is Jindal trying to make like him, and why would that require that he affirm Democratic propaganda that “Republicans are racist and hateful?” Way to go, Bobby, I think I’ll stick with the politically incorrect, yet painfully honest Mitt Romney, thank you. At least with him I can lose telling the truth and standing proud rather than lying (hint, play on words) on my back with no dignity left.

Former Commerce Secretary CarlosGutierrez has a more viable plan: direct appeasement. Since the Libs and their media cohort are going to corner (read as demonize) Republicans on illegal immigration anyway, if Republicans make it seem like acquiescence was voluntary, they might win some votes. Three cheers for “comprehensive immigration failur…reform” which includes amnesty. Hip-hip, hooray! Hip-hip, hooray! (Imagine the third one in Spanish.)

Pardon me if I don’t share Gutierrez’s confidence that all those entitlement-eligible voters are going to flock to the Republican ranks, but at least they will like Republicans

So, I get the making-people-like-you angle. After all, Barack Obama was an utter failure but because folks liked him (thank you mainstream media), they just overlooked his many, many, many shortcomings..for four years…wait, eight years. But why does “liking” people mean we have to lie to them or accept the lies they tell or believe about us? I’m pretty sure that’s a sign of low self-esteem.

While Jindal actually played right into Democratic propaganda (in his defense, it’s kind of hard not to, there’s a lot of it out there), he was actually stating a very basic and unfortunate truth: in our country, the liberal media will turn every Republican word to hatred, so you have to watch everything you say….even if it is the truth.

What’s that? Obama’s platform relies on anger? RACISM!

What’s that? We want to uphold the integrity of our system by verifying voter eligibility? RACISM!

What’s that? We didn’t know about the economy or Benghazi? FOUR MORE YEARS (...of someone else's fault)!

If you’re Barack Obama, the very words from your mouth and their intended meaning can be forgiven or just conveniently overlooked, because the media likes you. If you’re Barack Obama, you can campaign to be given a job, and then hold someone else responsible for failing to do your job…four years later, because the media likes you. If you’re Barack Obama, you can buy votes with divisive vitriol and be called a unifier, you can sell out another nation and be called its ally, you can surrender on two wars and be called commander-in-chief, you can sway in the direction of the wind and be called a leader, and you can have only Liberal accomplishments and causes under your belt and still be called “moderate”… because the media likes you.

Heck if you’re Barack Obam you can be born in another cou….um….let’s just leave that one alone. (For anyone reading, that’s not called conspiracy….it’s called humor…and freedom of speech; and there’s plenty more where that came from, so stick around.)

Seriously, Jindal makes a great point: if the media likes you, the public likes you. Then, nothing else matters. Get liked, and get elected. If the media doesn’t like you…aw crap.

Republicans lost because they weren’t liked by the media, and the media was willing and able to support Obama by steering the vote away from issues, accountability, international policy, and other pesky presidential stuff and make it about who the media…I mean, voters personally liked more…and…who could bring in the largest number of unconcerned voters. “Since you’re not using your vote, can I use it?” (congrats Obama).

So, the real question isn’t how do you get voters to like you; but if you can’t get the media to like you, how do you get voters to step outside the popularity contest, consider the merits of your position, and vote independently on issues regardless of party or media?

Great question, if I don’t say so myself. Romney and Ryan tried it and were doing well at it when Obama and his media supporters made a full court press to inject the emotional social issues and distract from things like the economy, Benghazi, and all four years of Obama’s presidency. And whaddayaknow, it worked. Yay!

…wait….bummer.

If focusing on the issues won’t get the job done, I hear trading vodka or cigarettes for votes works really well…ahem…or Republicans could try loading their policy up with entitlements that the voters won’t immediately have to pay for (at least not the targeted voters). Of course that won’t work unless it’s used in concert with a “they hate you” message, but you’ll need the mainstream media to back you. I think we’re onto something. This could fundamentally change the face of politics in Amer…wait….so true, and so ironically not funny.

Here’s an angle, Bobby. Don’t make popularity your goal; aim for respect…self-respect. Stop apologizing, shoot straight, and sleep soundly knowing you stood your ground and told it how it is. Compromise on opinions not principles, and stand firm until the end if need be.

You don’t have to agree with Romney’s decision to make the statement of fact, but if the only way you can stay in power is if the facts are colored or denied...

...you’re Obama, and the media likes you.

Who needs what change?

In a USA Today article titled "Black vote up for grabs in 2016 if GOP adapts," DeWayne Wickham quotes NAACP President Ben Jealous:

“The status quo, minus Obama, could be a disaster for Democrats in 2016.”

 Well, that’s refreshing.

Wickham goes on to interpret Jealous’s statement:

“In other words, without Obama at the head of the ticket, Republicans will have an opening to get a larger share of the black vote if they commit to a targeted effort to solve the problems that disproportionately afflict blacks.”

Of course, that’s not what Jealous’s statement says. Jealous implies that black voters recognize that the status quo is unsatisfactory, but voted in favor of “unsatisfactory” on behalf of Obama; however, they will allegedly draw the line once Obama is gone.

Furthermore, what problems are Wickham referring to: the rash of single mothers and fatherless children, violence in black communities and black on black crime, lack of proactive effort and reliance on outside forces (Democratic leaders) for internal problems, what? How are Republicans going to solve those issues for the black community?

Jealous has also been quoted saying the Democratic party 

“must quickly figure out how to motivate [black] voters who – if Obama is not at the top of the ticket – simply go away.”

Jim Galloway elaborates on this in the Atlanta Journal-Constituion:

“Republicans…must find a way to appeal to a significant number of black voters…”

“When it comes to issues such as civil rights and equality, 87 percent of African-Americans polled declared that GOP concern was either “just talk,” or simply didn’t exist.”

Mr. Galloway, like Mr. Wickham, attempts to legitimize the position, and he similarly fails to recognize that Jealous is plainly indicating that the black Democrats that mustered to put Obama in the White House voted along racial and party lines, as Obama and his party knew they would, and once Obama is gone those voters are likely to just go home rather than entertain voting again, period.

It is an ugly reality, but reality nonetheless.

Wickham’s re-interpretation, like Galloway’s, reveals the propaganda message used to put black voters beyond Republican reach: only Democrats care and strive on behalf of blacks in the U.S. Of course, black voters don’t ask, and Democratic leaders don't tell how or why the two most revered, iconic political and historical champions of the black community (President Lincoln and Reverend King) were both Republican; or why Malcolm X loathed the Democratic party; or why the values of the Democratic party are wreaking havoc on black communities; or why the Democratic policies have yet to provide promised prosperity and the perception of equality they so vehemently deny their black constituents.

Allow me to reiterate that the President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People admitted that black voters were solicited and mustered by their leaders to purposefully vote along racial and party lines for a recognized unsatisfactory status quo.

So, recap:

Democratic and black leaders point black voters in the direction of failure. Black voters pursue failure at the behest of Democratic and black leaders. Failure impacts black voters while entrenching Democratic and black leaders. Republicans get blamed for failure, further ingratiating black voters to Democratic and black leaders. Democratic and black leaders continue to “lead” black voters, and black voters continue to follow.

Yet, according to Wickham, Galloway, and black communities across the nation, it’s the Republicans that need to change.

It explains why black Americans voted so heavily for “change we can believe in”…twice (and it wasn't change at all).

Fair & Square?

Commenting about Barack Obama’s illogical upset victory, Paul Ryan said, "He won fair and square."

So, to have the main stream media firmly seated far left of center and campaigning for their preferred left-wing candidate is “fair and square?”

To buy votes through political payment policy is “fair and square?”

To depend on and strive for the masses to be misinformed is “fair and square?”

To undermine and sellout the integrity of the voting process for partisan gain is “fair and square?”

To shuffle hundreds of thousands of uninformed, ill-equipped voters willing to vote shamelessly along racial lines is “fair and square?”

To side-step accountability for four years and then use a biased media cohort to influence a government dependent electorate is “fair and square?”

To have little to no oversight of the impact of your own international policy and skirt the consequences for partisan political reasons is “fair and square?”

To fail in almost every respect and have your mainstream media backers distract voters with smoke and mirrors is “fair and square?”

For millions of people who do not contribute in the slightest to actually steer the ship while those who carry the lion’s share of the load are demonized is “fair and square?”

For the government to institutionally discriminate against a specific demographic of American citizenry on prejudicial grounds is “fair and square?”

To prioritize ideological beliefs above the national interests you swore to pursue is “fair and square?”

-----

There is no candidate in history so ill-recommended as Barack Obama, and four years of national decline proved it. There is no precedent to explain how such rank and obvious failure could be viewed so favorably as to induce allegedly informed voters to elect for more of the same. While inexplicable in almost every sense, Obama’s victory explains how free societies have been wooed to their own demise.

A professor once told me there are two sides to the political competition, and the media is the playing field, as well as the alleged referees. So, when the media is actually pulling for one candidate over another, who do you think will win?

I agree with Paul Ryan that, "[Obama] got more votes, and that’s the way our system works,” but let’s not kid ourselves.

There was nothing fair or square about it.

Twice Bitten

The most unsettling realization of the 2012 election is that Democratic political leaders knowingly used a complicit, biased media cohort to manipulate an uninformed, government dependent electorate to successfully put an inferior candidate in the highest office in the land as their ideological proxy…

…twice.

Many people will blame Republicans for not coming up with some sort of super candidate whose platform and persona are so commanding that no amount of propaganda can possibly convince any voter to choose another candidate. This is the equivalent of the Democratic voter base believing their elected leaders are serving the masses and will bring prosperity into the peoples’ perceived bleak lives…by simply taxing those greedy rich people. It’s exactly what the Democratic leaders want us to believe, because it will keep us from throwing back the veil and holding them accountable. Hence, after decades of undeterred party loyalty, many Democrats have yet to alter their situation in life, and the ones who have escaped their perceived “station” don’t have the slightest idea how they did it, or how to help others do it.

In case you logically suppose Democratic voters believe electing Democratic leaders is the key to success, I tested that one. I queried several Obama supporters about what they voted for: “Barack Obama.”

“No, that’s who you voted for. What was the central merit of his platform that motivated you to choose him?”

….

On one hand, I am relieved by the fact that many of Obama’s supporters are also unaware of any merits recommending him to the office of the President. It makes me realize I wasn’t blinded by bias, but I have logically and correctly concluded Obama was ineffective and undeserving of the office. On the other hand, it makes me want to pull my hair out in disgust because when Americans aren’t sitting at home too apathetic and complacent to exercise their right to vote, these imbeciles are casting their precious lot in the absence of rational thought or consideration beyond the immediate outcome.

As if they were watching some benign reality show, they emerge to get in on the latest trend, cast their vote based on hair styles, familiar fads, that cool one-liner, or some rumored injustice, simply to turn off their television and recede back into their materially and intellectually impoverished existence; unaffected by things like taxes, financial regulation, international policy, or national security.

(Forgive me, but has anyone ever supposed that this is the reason why so many of these folks have little opportunity or accomplishment in life, and it has nothing to do with Republicans?)

Then, like a bully sharing your lunch with you, drawing smiles from the teacher for his generosity and consideration, Obama graciously pledges to reach across the aisle to “work with both parties.” Oh, you mean like on Obamacare when you had the super majority and stuffed it down our throats? Pardon us, Mr. President (I think I just threw up in my mouth), but we’ve heard this one before, and unlike your constituents we aren’t falling for the same line twice.

Know What You're Voting For

Barack Obama’s entire presidency and ideology can be summed up in the fact that he championed the “right to health insurance.”

That right was translated immediately into an obligation to purchase health insurance. That obligation cannot be met by the lower socioeconomic masses, so the middle-class will inevitably bear that load. Only one group has the means to withstand the coming increases in costs and declines in benefits. I’ll give you a hint, Romney belongs to this elite group of individuals, along with Obama, and Pelosi.

Of course, though Romney, Obama, and Pelosi all have the means to escape the impact of the system, Obama and Pelosi ushered the system in, but only Romney will be held accountable for the system’s inadequacy.

You have a right to an attorney.

Actually the constitution says you have a right to due process and a fair trial, etc; however, the system has become so heavy laden with regulation and procedure that it is impossible for the common man to navigate the judicial arena, as is his right. So, the constitutional right as laid out by our forefathers has been whittled down to a cheap facsimile; you have a right to an attorney.

You have a right to an education.

No one can deny you an education, not even you. In fact, if anyone including yourself inhibits your attendance in school before the age of 18, there will be serious legal consequences. The right to an education has been transformed into a legal obligation. Beyond the age of 18, you are all but obligated to incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt only to end up in an economy growing only fast enough to score political points, or a government job.

So, similar to the right to health insurance, the right to an attorney and the right to an education are less rights, and more realistically legal obligations imposed by the state. Of course, while the state mandates that you spend a decade locked in academic institutions (instead of the work force) and that you use a legal middleman to pursue due process; the state is completely unable to guarantee equity in the mechanisms it has imposed. The result being that the quality of education and legal representation are in constant decline while the costs only increase, and only the wealthiest of Americans are able to cope.

Wow, déjà vu.

So, what do we do? Rather than change course, we simply cast off responsibility and blame, and we keep moving “Forward” toward inevitable failure, blaming the wealthy for being able to weather the inadequacies of our imposed system.

In case anyone thinks this is just a neat coincidence, let’s take one last look at the tax system.

We are obligated to pay our taxes, and the ever expanding government has little choice but to decrease the promised and even necessary benefits (social security, national defense, etc.) while the costs and spending continue to increase. The government absolutely needs more money to sustain the current model. That obligation cannot be met by the lower socioeconomic masses, so the middle-class will bear the load. Only one group has the means to weather the coming increases in costs and declines in benefits.

Sound familiar?

I’m not sure it’s socialism, but it is definitely not “The American Way,”

…and it damn sure ain’t “Forward.”

Real Change

Saturday, while stumping in Milwaukee, once again Obama promised an America where everyone gets a “fair shot.”

Wow, you mean an America where some random unqualified black guy could be President, even if he totally sucks and shouldn’t be President. Wait, isn’t that the country we already live in?

Unless I’m mistaken, Barack Obama is selling America something they already own. Worse yet, Obama is trying to sell America something he already sold them. (What does this tell you about America….and Obama?)

Here’s Obama (pot) calling Romney (kettle) black:

"In this campaign he's trying as hard as he can to repackage the same old ideas that didn't work, and offer them up as change."

One might mistake the above comment for an accusation against Obama, but while Obama is literally using the same old ideas, those ideas have never worked, he’s not repackaging anything, and he’s not offering it up as change. Obama is just saying “FORWARD” (read as Wishful Thinking & Status Quo).

Obama is like a bad GPS device that keeps reporting you’ve reached your destination. When you recalibrate, he just keeps directing you in the same direction, “Forward,” as if you’ll eventually just live with it and be like, “ok, sure…this is my destination.”

Oh wait, it’s not that the destination is bad; he just didn’t communicate it very well.

“FORWARD!”

Oh, that’s better.

I Hope we Change direction, because Forward just isn't getting the job done.

Obama (Jedi) Mind Trick

I was talking with a colleague who is vehemently intent on voting for Obama, and when I inquired why, the response began, “Because Romney.”

Ironically, the reason I intend to vote for Romney also begins with “Because Romney.”

I find it interesting that neither Obama’s record, nor his future prospect during a second term seem to be used to convince voters to vote for him. Voters are being asked to pay no attention to what Obama has done or failed to do and not to worry about what Obama plans to do; just fear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

The only thing that is more amazingly unbelievable than the strategy is the fact that many Obama supporters (including media) are actually accepting it.

Remember folks, fool you once, shame on him. Fool you twice, shame on you.

Blame Media...Specifically, YouTube

Based on the information available, it is unclear why the Obama administration would have chosen to actively avoid acknowledging the likely possibility that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

Sure, Obama used the words “act of terror” once in a sentence during an initial statement surrounding the event, but his administration specifically dodged owning such an assessment for at least 14 days afterwards (or rather after-words).

Such active avoidance was purposeful, but no one in the Obama administration will take responsibility to expose or own that purpose. Who made the decision to actively avoid acknowledging terrorism as the culprit, vice the video, and why?

The mainstream media’s satisfaction with the Obama administration’s Benghazi narrative is confounding.

During Abu Ghraid, the mainstream media frothed at the mouth at the opportunity to scandalously tie to the highest levels of the Bush Administration the unquestionably despicable behavior performed at the lowest levels of the military.

In contrast, with respect to Benghazi the mainstream media has refused to ferret out what the administration knew, absolved the administration of what it should have known, and have responded to the administration’s deplorable lack of answers with an equally deplorable lack of questions.

Discerning Americans cannot help but wonder how Obama’s international policy plays into the big picture.

Was it the video; a video expressing one crackpot’s opinion? Could a YouTube video really cause such turmoil?

If a simple video could spark regional unrest and instability, empowering our adversaries to strike out at our diplomatic representatives, I’d hate to think what damage could be done by the policies of a U.S. President who is more comfortable denigrating U.S. intent and integrity than acknowledging terrorism or Islamic extremism.

Maybe that’s what made the President and his media advocates so intent and content to blame the video.

“Rape is Rape.”

Barack Obama is clearly getting desperate to score points with women in his bid to retain the Presidency for his party.

Earlier this week, in an email to reporters, and also during a taping of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Obama revisited gaffs (or what some might call Biden-isms) by Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock and Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, both of whom oppose abortion even in cases of rape. Obama didn't need anything close to 28 days (more clear cut than Benghazi, I guess) to take advantage of Mourdock’s and Akin’s recent missteps to imply that Mitt Romney and Republicans somehow find rape acceptable.

At one point Obama capped off his stance declaring (self-)righteously,

“Rape is rape.”

Obama seems to imply that there is an unequivocal moral standard that can be applied to rape, elevating it to the most absolute categorization of evil beyond any discussion or debate. Well said, indeed.

It is puzzling (and revealing); however, that while Obama is willing to recognize and invoke such an absolute moral standard to the benefit of his personal political campaign, he is unwilling to do so on behalf of human life. Apparently, for Barack Obama, human life does not warrant such lofty moral consideration.

According to Obama, extinguishing a human life growing in the womb is merely a decision of “choice,” like dessert or ice-cream; “chocolate or vanilla?” Abortion for Obama is simply an arbitrary decision about food, fashion, fad, or fancy, which of course is understandably why he feels no law should intervene or infringe upon any woman’s exercise of such a trivial decision.

What a contrast that Obama is allegedly capable of such lofty, honorable concern about human dignity in one breath, and then completely, casually callous about human life in the very next breath.

It actually makes it very clear for those who are not wearing blinders or Roe’s colored glasses; for Obama, human life only has value in certain situations (such as when that life can vote…for him). I would surmise that Obama doesn’t believe human life is human life any more than he genuinely believes rape is rape. What Obama really meant is,

Rape is politics (just like an abortion is just a choice).

Do Over!

So, does anyone else think Barack Obama is that kid who wastes his turn and then starts making excuses to justify not stepping aside to let someone else try?

“Wait wait wait; that’s not what I meant to do.”

“Dude, I get another turn, that wasn’t my fault.”

“That doesn’t count, you messed me up.”

Amazingly that kid never sees any problem with blaming someone else and taking an additional turn, though that wasn’t the initial agreement, he obviously failed to get the job done on his first try, and nothing he did or says is convincing you he will be any better the second time.

And as you attempt to pry the controls from his steely, greedy, glory craving grip, he is doing his best to extend his arms to keep it beyond your reach, still trying to convince you that he deserves another try, “No, no, no…c’mon, really…I know how to do it…..just let me try one thing…..seriously, I can do it.”

Give it a rest, Barry…you had your turn.

The buck still hasn't stopped.

The more I learn about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, the more respect I have for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens as a true American hero.

He was well aware of the score. He knew the stakes. Most importantly, he knew he would very well lose, and still he carried on the diplomatic mission on behalf of his nation…and his President.

Of all the rhetoric and punditry I’ve heard, “sobering” is undoubtedly the best description of the recently released State Department cables depicting Ambassador Stevens’ accurate assessment of the environment and his very real concerns for his team’s safety. As Ambassador Stevens’ insights are sobering, the State Department’s and the Obama Administration’s lack of awareness and ostensible disregard for that insight is sickening.

So, what next?

What action can President Obama and Secretary Clinton endeavor to take that would be worthy of the sacrifice that they have asked of Ambassador Stevens? What foreign policy or campaign was worth the careless risk and callous loss of life?

During the second Presidential debate, President Obama made an effort to appear to be a leader and stated, “Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened [than I].”

Secretary of State Clinton not only works for Obama, she was hand picked by Obama, and she undoubtedly worked closely with him to develop his foreign policy, as well as the plan to implement that policy.

Those grounds alone are sufficient for a reasonable citizen to hold Obama accountable for every aspect of what happened in Libya, even if…especially if…as Joe Biden testified, the White House “did not know they wanted more security there.”

I cannot fathom that President Obama had no awareness of the security situation at all.

If Clinton did an extraordinary job as Obama claims, why was he unaware of the situation on the ground in Libya? If Obama sent Clinton out into the world to do his bidding and she failed, as his handpicked envoy, her failure is his failure. If Obama simply failed to interface with Clinton, Obama has little choice but to own that as his failure, too.

This is what it means to be a leader. You ARE responsible. Now own it.

Bin Laden is dead, and so is Chris Stevens. When bin Ladin was killed Obama was quick to take responsibility. When Chris Stevens was killed…

…not so much.

Medicare Choices?

I’m a bit confused on the Medicare issue.

According to Bill Clinton and CNN, criticism of Barack Obama on Medicare is unwarranted, and there is no reason to choose the Romney/Ryan plan, as it has a similar immediate effect on Medicare as the Obama/Biden policy.

Similar immediate effects, but a very major difference: the Obama/Biden plan is a government controlled, tax-payer funded, short-term solution (I use “solution” loosely)  that will need to be re-addressed again as Medicare continues inevitably along its acknowledged path to insolvency (not to be cliché, but visualize a can flying down the…well, you know), and the Romney/Ryan plan is a free-market model designed to spark competition and provide a long-term solution to Medicare within a dynamic market.

Seriously, there’s an actual choice here?

You’ll have to forgive me, but I’m working with the information given by Obama supporters, so I’m naturally a bit confused.

While briefly explaining the Romney/Ryan plan, a CNN correspondent indicated the free-market model would “in theory” promote competition and bring down prices, giving seniors more choices and greater freedom. In theory? Considering that free market dynamics have been proven to promote competition, bring prices down, and offer greater selection, why emphasize the word “theory?”

The correspondent went on to explain that the Obama/Biden plan would cut the over $700 billion from wasteful spending rather than benefits as the Romney camp had accused.

… what the…CUT $700 BILLION IN WASTE?

Why didn’t we think of that before? No wonder this guy is president, he can find his nose on his own face.

Really, that’s the master plan? Are we to believe no one has ever considered shaving the wasteful spending of Medicare, and there just happened to be over $700 billion in low hanging fruit just ripe for the picking?

If there was no mechanism within Medicare that considered wasteful spending prior to Obama taking office, then shame on him for not throwing that softball out there for Congress to crush over the 400 yard center field wall the day after he was sworn in. Way to go Mr. Unifier.

Obama, you’re fired!

Realistically, there are already mechanisms for cutting waste, and they have failed to impact spending. If CNN can be trusted on this issue and the Romney/Ryan plan is theory, then the Obama/Biden plan is a fairytale.

I must be missing something, because right now I am picturing Obama and Biden standing in an elevator and they keep lifting the “out of order” sign and pressing the button, while reassuring the folks standing in the lobby that they will send the elevator back down to pick them up.

Polite?

With regard to the first presidential debate, in an interview on the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," Barack Obama’s explanation for no new ideas, no answer to Mitt Romney’s challenges, and a complete and utter lack of substance was that he was “just too polite.”

I might have to agree with Obama on this one issue.

Often, when I have attempted to debate issues with liberals, when they lack ideas, answers, and substance, as Obama did, they make up for those shortcomings by yelling at me, calling me names, attacking my character, and either talking over me or storming off angrily without giving me an opportunity to rebut. Interestingly enough, their liberal counterparts watch and conclude they had held their own nicely. (i.e. Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan)

I hope that’s the strategy Obama uses at the next debate; I think that would work for him nicely. If not, he can blame me for the poor advice.

Speaking of blame, I think it’s worth noting that this may be the very first time I’ve heard Barack Obama take any measure of responsibility for some detrimental aspect of his presidency. Granted, it is a very backhanded admission, but it’s a stark contrast to the usual “someone else’s fault.”

Of course, while it was almost completely Mitt Romney’s fault that Obama did so poorly, in this case blaming the Republican might be too much like giving him credit. So, Obama would rather just chalk it up to “I wasn’t enough of a jerk.”

I’d beg to differ, but that’s a softball…and I’m just too polite.

Game Changing Debate

People keep asking whether the first presidential debate was a game changer. The answers are typically diplomatic, usually focusing on the dynamics rather than the answer to the question.

Please, allow me:

  Yes, it was a game changer…for certain…no doubt.

Prior to the debate, Barack Obama had the world believing that while “maybe” he wasn’t doing a very good job, there was no reason to believe Mitt Romney could do any better (what a courageous strategy). Romney’s performance went a great distance toward clearing the air on both points: there is no “maybe,” and Romney is the better choice.

I was amused and shamefully delighted by the response from Obama supporters; “What happened?” “Where was Obama?” “Why didn’t he….”

I saw the same Obama I've seen since 2007, and I heard the same dead accusations. Obama was the same soulless, broken record I expected him to be, and I brook no excuses.

The only difference between the Obama at the debate and the Obama everyone is used to was Mitt Romney standing right in front of him armed to the teeth with passion, conviction, knowledge, and good old-fashioned accountability. Obama was that guy at the bar talking a big game about his time in combat only to be suddenly confronted by an actual combat veteran.

Of course, it seems Obama’s struggles usually occur under those circumstances. On talk shows and in interviews, where his presence is enough, he does great. On the stump, on the road, at town halls, when he is simply orating, he’s just fine. When confronted by someone who would not be satisfied by a catchy phrase or too oft repeated slogan, however, Obama stumbles; and we have seen him on his face before.

Only the folks with rose-colored glasses are actually surprised, but of course since they aren’t concerned with his substance, their votes haven’t changed.

Equal vote, equal rights, equal taxes…period.

If you found yourself in a debate with the Ku Klux Klan, would your counter argument to white supremacy be “sure, whites are indeed the supreme race, but some non-whites aren’t all bad?”

I didn’t think so.

Why then do Republicans always begin discussions about America’s obviously broken tax scheme (as in confidence game), by acquiescing some measure of acceptable disparity in tax rates? Such appeasements completely undermine the constitutional argument of tax equity.

The political argument that those Americans deemed to be rich should pay more than other Americans is asinine. It’s the complete equivalent of arguing, “It’s not wrong to steal from the rich, they can afford it.” Never mind that stealing is wrong. The only thing more absurd than such arguments, are the masses who blindly give the government the authority to trample the rights of their fellow Americans.

Certainly all Americans cannot pay the same amount, but they can and should pay the same percentage. At the risk of straying off topic, I offer that we should tax equally at let’s say 10% across the board. Tax season would consist of one simple question: did you pay your 10%. The simplicity alone would likely save billions. Tax preparation services would be a thing of the past.

To those who would argue 10% isn’t enough, I say it’s enough if the American people say it’s enough. With ALL Americans paying taxes, when asked whether 10% would be enough to run the government, all Americans would be equally motivated to consider the full impact of that question. Furthermore, the government would be held accountable for spending within its means.

Currently, scores of individuals contribute little or nothing to the government coffers, and many take far more than they contribute. Meanwhile politicians devise scheme after expensive scheme to purchase votes, such as the political bribery of the tax argument to take from the alleged rich minority and give to the alleged poor majority. The staggeringly apparent conflict of interest is the beloved 800 pound pet gorilla that the mainstream liberal media adores beyond reason and objectivity.

One question: Where is the constitution in all this?

Equal vote, equal rights … graduated taxes?

Where are we headed, what’s with this hand basket, and why are we in such a hurry?