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?

So much for unity.

First, allow me to admit I did not listen to the entire State of the Union address…or any of it for that matter. I’ve never been one for pep rallies, and I’m allergic to malarkey. I did, however, catch a few of the sound bites, courtesy of CNN and FOX, confirming for me the SOTU is a strain of the plague and to be avoided.

In the CNN bite President Obama urged unity, while in the FOX bite he renewed his class warfare on the rich.

Now, I know main stream media claims FOX is biased, but FOX simply played the words that Obama spoke. CNN also only played the words Obama spoke. So, the question is which message was the truth.

I think it’s pretty easy to realize the typical “rich folks need to give more” is not a message of unity. How exactly do you get credit for crossing the aisle when you only crossed over to try to pick someone’s pocket?

According to Obama, CNN, and the rest of the left, unity is defined as the rich ponying up their dough to the state. I can’t imagine why that would constitute an insurmountable ideological obstacle to unity.

I’ll cut CNN some slack this time and chalk up their interpretation of the SOTU to optimism, rather than propaganda.

Ushering in Righteous Racism

What would you call an organization which held at its foundation the mission of advancing a specific ethnic/racial group?

The KKK?

What about a specific sex?

Chauvinists?

I know, let’s call it the “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion,” the latest addition to the Financial Regu...hey, what does that have to do with finance? Anyway...the “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion."

PERFECT! Because everyone knows that if you deny a white male a job or opportunity because he’s a white male, that’s neither racist nor sexist; after all, he’s just a white guy.

Of course, this type of popular bigotry is endorsed and practiced all across the nation, even in the White House, but it's all good because the black guy won.

A wonderful example of such institutionalized “popular racism” is the NAACP, yes that is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People…that’s the National Association for the Advancement of non-whites (for those of you who think the NAACP might have something to do with college sports).

In case you don’t know where you’ve heard of the NAACP before, that’s the group that has recently attacked the Tea Party for racism; just watch the news for a few seconds, I promise they will run the spot again.

People wonder why this country is so stuck on racism. It’s because we purposefully refuse to put it behind us. We enjoy nursing our wounds and flaunting them for pity or guilt induced acquiescence. And let’s face it, racism still has a place in this nation; the race card has value.

Just ask the President.

Obama's Watershed Moment(s)

Obama was almost right about one thing:

“…it was also a watershed moment in how change is made.”

America has officially seen the day where the voice of America was ignored in favor of propaganda. We have officially seen the day when Americans spoke out and big government ignored us in its own interest. We have officially seen the day when freedom took a back seat to entitlement. We have officially seen the day when our own government, with the help of a complicit state advocate media, undermined the very constitution that this country was founded on.

Obama missed the boat ever so slightly. We’ve seen change made exactly like this in numerous dictatorships and pseudo-democracies all over the world, but this is truly “a watershed moment in how change is made”…in the united States of America.

Of course, since we saw this with the stimulus bill, too, maybe the watershed moment isn't that it occurred, but that this method of stuffing "change" down Americans' throats is becoming the rule, rather than the exception. Now that is indeed change, but if we continue on this path, Americans will soon discover there is no hope in this kind of change.

Because I Say

In case you doubt that many politicians live in their own little world according to their own rules and reality, check this out.



According to Senator Harry Reid (D), paying taxes is "voluntary." I'd like to say that he was referencing an earlier time, except I don't recall any time or place in the history of any culture when taxes were voluntary. The very notion of tax implies force or strain, so I’m not sure where Reid is coming from.

Perhaps he’s referencing the notion that our elected representatives were allegedly doing our bidding (according to their job descriptions) when they proposed and passed laws mandating alleged free citizens to surrender their income so it might be doled out according to the political expediency, whim, and fancy of the elite...er...I mean, enlightened...class.

If all it takes for taxes to be considered “donations” is Harry Reid’s creative phraseology, it is no wonder the current administration is able to follow the current path and call it constitutional; because they say so.

When the definitions of freedom, prosperity, and justice are wholly bound by the subjective constraint of authority, that is the true mark of tyranny.

The Government...with a capital "G"

The Government is officially justifying itself; of the Government, for the Government, by the Government.


The public outcry against the Government exerting control within private industry is repeatedly justified by pointing out that “they (private industry) took TARP (bailout) money, so now the Government has the right.”

So, the Government proposed the use of taxpayer funds to rescue (bailout) private industry. Taxpayers overwhelmingly responded to their elected officials indicating our majority disapproval of the concept. The Government proceeded over public outcries and objections. Later, the Government starts exercising unconstitutional influence over private industry. The taxpayers object, but are told that because the private industry took bailout money, the Government now has a justifiable stake granting it otherwise unconstitutional authority.

So, if the Government had heeded our voice and not forced the bailout on us, then the Government would have heeded our voice and not forced private industry to bend to its will?

Now I understand.

Initially, the Government, by its own authority, usurped our freedom unconstitutionally because the Government deemed its will superior to the will of the people. Then later when the Government overtly extended its unconstitutional reach into private industry, the justification was the Government’s original usurpation of the people’s will and constitutional rights.


How is the Government doing this? They have a conman at the helm, the media in their pocket, and they have bought off the uneducated masses with empty populist promises of redistributed wealth.