Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Well we’re living in Obamatown
Tax and borrowing bring everyone down
We make goods and services we need
They make almost none, just consume and impede

He gave trillions to execs on Wall Street
Took that two trillion from you and me
They get bonuses and lobby the Hill
Change all the laws, small business is killed
And we’re living in Obamatown

Bureaucratic regs are being handed down
And they’re getting very hard to pay-ay-aayyy

Yeaaaahhhh Oh-woah oh

Had a friend who started up a small firm
But the State taxed away all that he earned
And it took away four full time jobs
He had to fold, pink slips and sobs

She’s a single mom who works day and night
With three daughters 40K’s very tight
But they took her health insurance away
She pays twice as much, under the ACA
And we’re waiting in Obamatown

With the threats of Holder pushing us down
And the moderate GOP crawl his way-ay-aayy

Yeaaaahhhh Oh-woah oh

Everybody had a pretty good shot
To get at least as far as their old man got
But something’s happening on the way to that place
They’re throwing a Communist Flag in our face

Well we’re living in Obamatown
And its hard to keep a good man down
But they’re taking oh so much away-ay-aayy


Read Full Post »

Headline today:  REPORT: Judge Who Sentenced Saddam Hussein to Death – Captured & Executed by ISIS

This is what happens to the rule of law under a President who tells outright lies to get reelected.  If people had looked beyond “you can keep your doctor”, and gas prices mysteriously going down 50 cents per gallon in “battleground states” in the months leading up to the election, they would have seen things the President has said that are true – that he wants to “fundamentally transform America” (and he’s well on his way), that he says he carries the “dreams of my father” (his father was a sold-out, vocal Kenyan national socialist) and that he hired a man to be energy secretary who three months earlier had said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  Well, Chu’s dreams of gas prices being the levels of Europe are now well on their way.  But the cost of our President’s desire to humble and lower the United States in the view of the world has been loss of the rule of law, both here and elsewhere.

I can’t express how ghastly the above headline feels.  What a step backwards.  Saddam Husein came to power through mass executions, the same type happening now as Iraq is being allowed to fall into the hands of radicals Islamists.  If you have any question what kind of people these are just bing “Saddam throwing people from rooftops”.  I’ve seen the videos.  This is pure evil.  The President’s attitude seems to be, “Well, this demostrates a failure for Republicans, and we should respect all Muslims, and the U.S. shouldn’t be a colonial power like Britain was in Kenya.”.

Seriously, can anyone offer any other explanation?

It’s sick.

Read Full Post »

Recently the NAACP of Missouri condemned the actions of a Rodeo Clown who wore a “President mask” of President Obama and then asked the crowd if they would like to see the President run over by a bull.  The NAACP didn’t just condemn this as a tasteless act against President Obama, they declared it, “a hate crime”.

“I think a hate crime occurs when you use a person’s race to depict who they are and to make degrading comments, gestures, et cetera, against them,” said the Missouri NAACP President Mary Ratliff.

In fact the Missouri State Fair Commission has now mandated sensitivity training for the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association if they want to participate in the State Fair.

The clown didn’t say anything racist, he only wore a President mask.  Haven’t these guys ever seen Point Break?  The NAACP themselves are the ones being the racist here.  And mandatory sensitivity training?  You might as well come right out and say, “Thought Police”.

It’s one thing to condemn blatant racism.  But assuming racism simply because a mask correctly portrays the visage of the President?  If the clown had worn a George W. Bush mask, or a Reagan mask, would the NAACP be condemning anti-white racism on the part of the clown for simply wearing the mask?  I don’t think so.

I don’t like to use the term race because for every trait of human variation – from the amount of melanin in skin to the amount of curl in hair or the color of a retina – you can find some family, some individual somewhere on earth with features that are on average right in-between, so that you can’t draw a line and say, “This is the white race,” or, “This is the black race”, etc.  Ultimately there are no races, there is simply the human race.

Many of us on the Right tend to think in such terms automatically, despite the Progressive media effort to portray conservatives as being racists.  I do not know the content of the Missouri mandated sensitivity training, however most sensitivity training addressing racism is usually itself based in racist terms that define a true absence of racism as actually being racism itself.  For example, there are the racial definitions found on the University of Colorado’s Student Affairs website.  (Note: since the time of writing UC has removed the definitions.  You can still find some of them at Oberlin College’s Multicultural Resource Center.)  The wording is extremely common at many education and government sites providing official definitions for racism (just google or bing a few of the phrases).

Some of the definitions are:

Passive racism: Beliefs, attitudes, and actions that contribute to the maintenance of racism, without openly advocating violence or oppression. The conscious and unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that supports the system of racism, racial prejudice, and racial dominance.

Cultural racism (racism at the cultural level): Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label People of Color as “other,” different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as the great writers or composers.

White privilege: A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities; A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non–white persons.

Horizontal racism: The result of people of targeted racial groups believing, acting on, or enforcing the dominant (White) system of racial discrimination and oppression. Horizontal racism can occur between members of the same racial group (an Asian person telling another Asian wearing a sari to “dress like an American”; a Latino believing that the most competent administrators or leaders are white, Native Americans feeling that they cannot be as intelligent as Whites, Asians believing that racism is the result of People of Color not being to raise themselves “by their own bootstraps.”

Did you catch that?  These common definitions say that simply happening to have very little melanin in one’s skin unconsciously contributes towards maintaining a system of white racial dominance.  In other words – according to these definitions – to be “white” is to be “racist”.

Furthermore, planning for the future, being opposed to socialism and even just speaking proper English are defined as acts of “racism”.  So to have traditional American values – individual liberty, classical education and economic freedom – is to be racist.

This is an attack, by way of slander, on the very principles that our nation was founded on.  Shortly after our colonies experienced the American Revolution, the French were having their own socialist revolution based on collectivism.  The fruit of our American Revolution was ultimately the most personal liberty and the highest standard of living for the most people – regardless of individual gender, creed or color – of any nation in the history of the world.  The fruit of the French Revolution was rivers of blood emanating from Madam Guillotine in Paris, and the leaders of the Revolution themselves eventually lost their heads.  France has gone through multiple governments and Constitutions since that time.

Indisputably, the American Revolution was based on Judeo Christian values.  You can read them in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…

In contrast, the French Revolution was based on schools of thought that ultimately coalesced into Humanism and Marxism.  Contrast the text from the American Declaration of Independence above to it’s counterpart in the French Constitution of 1793.

The aim of society is the general welfare. Government is instituted to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and inalienable rights. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.

Here is how De Tocqueville characterized the difference between the two philosophies:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

So the American Founding Fathers defined “equality” as equal opportunity and equal treatment under law.  The French and later Russian revolutions defined equality as equal social and economic outcomes which cannot be obtained aside from government control of individual’s lives and confiscation of personal property.

The equality of restraint in Socialism expresses itself in some of the arbitrary divisions which are taught in most sensitivity training.  “Classes” of people are arbitrarily defined and then pitted agasint one another with the goal of equalizing outcomes.  Members of some “classes”, regardless of individual economic income or condition, are declared as a group to be “opressors” or “haves” simply because of some trait like a lack of melanin.   Members of other “classes” are likewise declared as a group to be “opressed” or “have nots”.  If someone is a member of an “oppressed class” they receive differential treatment, even though differetial treatment is exactly what the Left claims to be trying to remedy.

It’s bad when arbitrary “classes” are defined based on a known trait such as skin color or biological gender.  It’s even worse when the “classes” are defined based on things that are matters of personal choice.  A person’s gender can be clearly determined by a simple DNA test, even if they are intersexed.  And a person’s general family can be determined genetically as well.  These qualities are what a person “is”.  But most sensitivity training would extend differential treatment to mattters of personal choice and positions of conscience.  For example, the State of California just passed a law allowing children as young as kindergarten (K-12)  to declare a “gender identity” different from what they actually are.  Should a 14 year old girl be made to shower after a volleyball game with a boy that has male genitals but “identifies” with being a girl?  In another example, in Washington State a florist is being sued because her Christian beliefs preclude her from knowingly selling flowers in support of a homosexual marriage.

The same University of Colorado website mentioned earlier also contains the following definitions, related to gender.

Sexism: A set of preconceived assumptions about the ‘proper’ roles, attitudes, and characteristics (especially physical) that men and women should have, typically working to the advantage of men over women; for example, the assumption that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’, or that men are ‘naturally aggressive’. Sexism can be identified by behaviour, speech, and the written word, and is criticized most strongly by feminists

Gender Expression: How one chooses to express one’s gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyle, voice, body characteristics, etc

Gender Identity: The gender with which a person identifies (i.e, whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or describes oneself in some less conventional way)…

Personally, I identify people based on thier biological gender even if they say they’ve adopted a different gender.  I refer to Chastity Bono as a “she” rather than a “he”.  According to the definitions above, I am sexist for doing so even though my convictions regarding gender come from my Judeo Christian heritage and the Bible (Genesis 1:27 NASB, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”)

What the Left is doing in mandating personal thinking – not simply condemning racism when it actually occurs, but assuming it and mandating Progressive re-education – is in principle the exact same thing that the Anglican Church did when it was by law the only church in England and the Catholic church did when it was the legal church of Spain.  It’s a shift backwards from Constitutional Republic to the Divine right of kings where the State assumes the role of declaring what personal thoughts are acceptable.

Indeed the State must assume all powers if social and economic outcomes are to be made equal.  Sadly, just as monarchical governments generally lead to a marjority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of lords, so socialist governments invariably lead to a majority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of social planners (usually with town-houses in Paris or personal “dachas” outside Moscow).  The only exception to this is socialist governments which have an unusual source of wealth (Norway’s oil) or governments which are squandering the still remaining fruits of past economic freedom and fiscal restraint (the first few years of the European Union).

Getting back to the rodeo clown and the Obama mask, in the U.S. the current trend towards government at all levels incorrectly adopting socialist language around racism and mandating sensitivity training is nothing less than a Progressive attempt to enforce a world-view which is clearly a respect towards religion.  You can’t control people economically and socially without trying to control their thoughts, which means favoring one world view over another.  With actions like these on the part of Progressives it has reached the point of being a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What we’re seeing amounts to legislating an official religious national church of Secular Humanism, based on blind faith in Metaphysical Naturalism.

Read Full Post »

The stories were broken today that the U.S. Federal Government has been data mining not only information from all private phone calls but also user data from all major U.S. internet companies.

The stories are at:



Here is why the U.S. Government has violated the 4th Amendment in mining information from phone calls and back-ending the servers of major internet companies to indiscriminately gather user data:  There is no probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

It works like this – Unless the Attorney General or someone else has testified to a judge the sincere belief that there is probable cause to suspect each and every one of the 312 million U.S. citizens of being individually guilty of committing acts of terrorism – and this would have to include the Attorney General making the oath and the judge issuing a warrant, they would need to have committed acts of terrorism as well – unless this has occurred, the Bill of Rights was violated because the 4th Amendment reads – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

No probable cause and no oath means that this administration has once again trampled on the 4th Amendment that it’s office holders were supposed to have sworn to protect and uphold.  Clearly the phone and internet data mining is a violation of the Constitution.

Read Full Post »

There’s a news story circulating that the Obama Administration has again rejected Indiana’s attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.  The text of a very forceful letter sent from the administration to the State of Indiana can be found here

The essence of  the letter is that Medicare and Medicaid funds going to a State means the State must provide medical services, and to the Obama Administration providing medical services means providing for abortions, period:

(page 18) “….In review, § 1902(a)(23) requires that state plans for medical assistance must: ‘[P]rovide that (A) any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required…'”  (page 20)”….the proposed SPA violates the plain text of § 1902(a)(23) because it restricts individuals from obtaining covered family planning services from entities that are fit to provide and deliver such services….”  (Letter from Health and Human Services Office of Attorney Advisor to the Indiana Attorney General, dated July 5, 2012; emphasized text is from the letter)

This line of thinking is not new for the Obama Administration.  Buried in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is legislation requiring private insurers of employees to pay for abortions in the form of abortifacients.  There are no ways to opt out and no exemptions for conscience or religious faith.  In order to employ someone or insure someone in the U.S., you are now being compelled to be complicit with abortion.  And this is part of a growing trend where in at least one case a military physician has been forced to refer patients for abortion against his personal convictions.

There is no moral difference between the Obama Administration forcing doctors and insurers to provide for abortions against their consciences and China forcing individual women to have abortions.  In both cases we are dealing with compulsory abortion.  In both cases the state is dictating and the individual must comply or face consequences that could include losing their profession, their way of life or even their freedom.  The United States has been lowered to having the same moral stance on abortion as the nation of China.

And this is the sad legacy of a President who in effect has introduced compulsory abortion to the U.S.

Read Full Post »

Recently Josh Bivens penned an editorial for CNN asserting that, “It’s OK to add to debt to grow jobs.”

In the past three and a half years we have gone 5 trillion into new debt and we’ve lost 4 million jobs net.  If we had simply used that 5 trillion to hire people directly we could have paid 20 million people 60 thousand dollars a year to each be employed for all 4 years Obama was in office.  Instead, we have minus 800 thousand employees per trillion spent.  (As Reagan said, “It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.”) 

Yet liberal academics such as Krugman and Bivens keep advocating Keynesian economic theories and asserting (paraphrase), “If only we had spent a little more money, then our theories would have all worked out…”  Economists like this always have a reason to offer for why reality is wrong and why their theories are still correct.  But we aren’t dealing with a theory here.  Minus 800 thousand employees per trillion dollars of debt spending is reality.

Read Full Post »

I saw two editorials today by liberal Keynesnian economists which leave me thinking they have completely lost grip with reality.  One was titled, “Obama Has a Jobs Plan.  Romeny Doesn’t.”  The other was titled, “It’s OK to Add Debt to Grow Jobs“. 

Let me make this very simple.  Obama’s Jobs Plan has only one number that counts.  In the past three and a half years that Obama has controlled the economy – and for two of those years he enjoyed the triumvirate of a Democratic House and Senate, and got pretty much everything he wanted – the nation has added a net gain of minus 4 million jobs. 

We have gone 5 Trillion dollars into debt and the number of Jobs we’ve grown is negative 800,000 positions per trillion dollars spent.  That is the truth.  

That is Obama’s Jobs Plan.

Read Full Post »