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).