Tuesday, October 30, 2012

More Parental Guidance For The Admin

On April 9, 2012, I posted an overdue good, old-fashioned scolding for our current tenants residing in our White House. It obviously didn't take.

Our man-child amateur-in-chief has another lecture coming.

Barry, you didn't pay attention the last time. You need to go into a long time-out, starting on January 20, 2013. You need to have your toys taken away, to include your teleprompters, use of our helicopters, our SUVs, and our big airplane. You need to be separated from your friends in the West Wing until you acknowledge your poor behavior and correct it.

First, Barry, you have been lying to people. Stop lying. People are not better off than they were the day you took office. Unemployment remained above 8% for the majority of your term, only dropping because you set conditions such that people gave up even trying. Yet you have tried to tell people otherwise. It is your fault. Stop lying to people and telling them everything is fine.

Who do you think you are, Barry? You are not the ruler of the world. Your word is not law. That is the legislative branch's job, not yours. You do not have the constitutional authority to create laws with the whip of a digital pen. The regulations you have enacted and your refusal to allow US energy producers to use our land in order to produce fuels for our citizens is nothing short of despotism. How dare you?

Who do you think you are, Barry, lying and hiding the evidence that implicate Eric Holder in his incompetence and complicit participation in the murder of Brian Terry and over 300 Mexican nationals? How dare you? Take responsibility for your role and the role of your subordinates in Operation Fast and Furious. Admit your attempt to use that failed operation as an excuse to garner support to violate the Second Amendment.

Who do you think you are, Barry? You apologized to bullies. You bowed to the Saudi king. You bent to the will of the UN, attempting to make treaties that violate the rights of our citizens. Then you tried to hide it from the people. The LOST treaty, the small arms treaty, and the rest of the Agenda-21 treaties are violations of all this country holds most dear. You should have flat-out rejected them. Instead, you supported them. How Dare You!

 You giggled with glee singing "I got a secret", then compromised some of our most guarded secrets. You wasted our assets and broke our promises to many of them, including one who is currently jailed in Pakistan for his role in assisting the SEALs in ridding the world of our country's number one most wanted criminal. Then you go on to take credit for the work of others. That work started years before you even received your party's nomination to the office you currently hold. You refused to act several times prior, against the advice of those who do know better. You did so until you had a plan to remain blameless should something go wrong. That is not "presidential". Since the operation was successful, you've attempted to make yourself appear personally responsible for something you didn't even do. Were you there? Did you run the intelligence operations? No. In fact, rumors state that you regularly ignore those whose job it is to give you daily intelligence briefs. How dare you threaten the national security of the nation just so you can claim false glory? Who do you think you are?

Then we have the terrorist attack in Libya. Who do you think you are, Barry? Huh? How dare you attempt to blame it on a video? How dare you apologize for that video? Do you believe you have the right to speak for the maker of that video? Who do you think you are? You do not speak for me. I have my own voice. I am sure the creator of that video has his own as well. How dare you deny it was a terrorist act until the evidence that proved it thus was too well publicized for your denials to continue? Why didn't you act like a man and own up to it, and act presidential, from moment one?

How dare you tell rescue efforts to "stand down"? How dare you attempt to defame the brave SEALs who still made the attempt? Who do you think you are?

I know who you are, Barry. You are a spoiled brat who cries "it's not fair" when you are told you have to actually work for something. You are a spoiled brat who cries "it's not fair" when confronted to take responsibility for your own actions. Yes, Ann Romney had it 100% correct. You act more like an irresponsible child playing dress-up than you act like the President of the United States.

You lied. You covered-up. You pointed fingers of blame at a video creator and your secretary of state. You refused to act. You tried to keep adults from doing what needed to be done. As a result, an ambassador is dead, along with four others. How dare you?

Then Hurricane Sandy moves in to strike most of our great republic's east coast. What is your reaction? You invite reporters into the situation room so they can take pictures of you posing to look "presidential". You should have actually been presidential the past four years. You couldn't have your golf game interrupted while our embassies in the Middle East were under siege. But you move your campaign into the situation room so you can appear to actually do your job for once. How dare you treat a national disaster as a campaign stunt?

You are a disgrace. You are dishonorable. If you were one of my Soldiers back during my days in uniform, you'd be facing severe UCMJ action for your incompetence and dereliction of duty.  

Monday, October 29, 2012

Obama Politicizing Sandy To Appear "Presidential"

Left-wing pundits in the lap-dog lamestream media are spinning Obama's reaction to Hurricane Sandy.

The "super-storm" has been dubbed "Frankenstorm" due to its Samhain/Halloween timing and its combination of Hurricane Sandy with "nor'easters" originating in the North Atlantic as well as storm systems heading from the west. The "super-storm" may extend a more than 700 mile diameter and has already caused over 60 deaths in the Caribbean is expected to do the same as well as massive property damage along the eastern seaboard from Maine to Georgia.

Governors and Mayors have been issuing warnings as well as hopeful statements to citizens such as "Evacuate Now! If you don't, then do not bother to call police, fire, national guard, anybody for help. They won't come." 

Anti-soda-pop activist Mayor Bloomberg of New York City said "If you don't evacuate, you are not only endangering your life, you are also endangering the lives of the first responders who are going in to rescue you".

Obama cancelled his campaign trips. The alleged purpose is to manage the potential national disaster. However, we know Obama. He would cancel his trip only if his campaign advisers told him it was the best campaign move he could make. He is doing so in order to appear more "presidential".

If Obama had wanted to appear more "presidential", he's had four years to do so, including during his last presidential campaign. He failed to do so even then. He remained on the campaign trail and abandoned his job as a US Senator when the market crisis of late 2008 hit. John McCain left his campaign and returned to perform his duties as a seated US Senator. Obama, also a US Senator at the time, did not. He took flack for his decision during the early days of his administration.

This time around, he flocked back to Washington to meet with FEMA officials and get his bloated bureaucracy ready to react. Even PBS has published campaign pictures intended to make Obama appear "presidential". Of course, select lap-dog media reporters were invited into the situation room to capture pictures of Obama posing, in order to appear "presidential".

Obama did not act presidential in regards to most of his duties over the past almost four years. In regards to Operation Geronimo, he refused to allow action as many as three times, under advisement of Valerie Jarrett.

Obama mishandled the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, using it as an excuse to add restrictions on natural gas and petroleum harvesters, including those not doing so off-shore. That was one of the largest contributions to our current high fuel costs, which also cause higher consumer prices for everything from food to televisions.

Obama also handled strife and diplomatic conflict around the world, including the Middle East, by apologizing for everything the US has done in the past, and bowing. It isn't very presidential to have pictures of the leader of one sovereign nation bowing to the leader of another. In fact, it is usually a sign of surrender. Surrendering is not a way to appear presidential.

Obama used Operation Fast and Furious to demagogue the proposed UN treaty that is intended to remove our Second Amendment. The deaths of Brian Terry and over 300 Mexican nationals was used to promote an unconstitutional attempt to infringe upon our rights. To top it off, he abused his executive powers, claiming privilege in an effort to keep Eric Holder from facing the full weight of his crimes. That was far from presidential.

When our embassy in Benghazi was attacked, Obama scolded US citizens, telling us to be more tolerant of Islamic Extremists and terrorists. He pointed a finger at a citizen who produced a video, blaming him for the terrorist attack. He, yet again, apologized to threat organizations and nations, failing to appear presidential.

Now, more information concerning the terrorist attack the lead to the rape and murder of our Ambassador in Libya. Obama told military assets to "stand down" instead of acting, saving lives. Two SEALs refused order to stand down and attempted a rescue. They were killed in the process, reportedly eliminating as many as 30 attackers with their actions. Unlike Shugart and Gordon, who went in to attempt to rescue Michael Durant in Mogadishu, these two SEALs are being treated like thugs instead of the heroes they are.

Obama refused to issue the order to bump up the security of that embassy, despite intelligence reports and other indicators that screamed for the necessity to do so.

The complete failure of how he handled and reacted to the Libya attack was anything but presidential. It was the opposite of presidential. It was amateurish. The continuing attempts to cover the incident up by the mainstream media is nothing short of being accomplices in what, at the least, is criminal negligence.

That was the furthest thing from a presidential act.

If Obama, for once, actually does his job during a national crisis, it will be his first time since he took office, including his days as a US Senator. It is too little, too late. He should have been doing his job the whole time.

No, this isn't Obama putting his campaign on pause to handle a crisis. He is politicizing a natural disaster. This is just another campaign stunt. Obama hasn't stopped campaigning since he ran for office in the Illinois State Legislature. He hasn't left the campaign trail. he's moved it into the White House. That is not being very presidential, Mr. Obama.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Side By Side Comparison Romney v Obama

With the election less than 10 days away and early voting already underway, it is about time to do a side by side comparison of the two candidates so those still undecided can get a final look before they make their decisions.

So, here are where the candidates stand on the important issues facing the nation and the most likely issues they may face in the next four years. The coloring depends upon your political ideology. If you are pro-American and support the natural rights that the framers of the US Constitution held so dear that they are visible in every clause of that supreme law of the land, then you will find the green to be pros and the reds to be cons. If you think Marx, Mao, Moussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Jong-Il had the correct ideas (and you still think you can ride a rainbow on the back of a unicorn to a country called Utopia that is ruled by a benevolent dictator -- or you even believe in a benevolent dictator or oligarchy), it will be reversed.

Mitt Romney
Barack Obama
Executive Branch Experience
4 Years & 2 Days
3 Years, 10 Months,
Private Sector Business Experience
CEO of a Major Corporation
MBA from Harvard
Harvard Law School
Father was CEO of AMC.
Father was Gov. of MI
Father worked for civil rights
Father instilled a work ethic and ideals of personal accountability.
Mother was a devout socialist who hated the USA.
Father was mostly absent.
Father was not a US Citizen.
Father was a high-ranking socialist in Kenya.
Step-Father was not a US-Citizen.
Mother divorced Step-Father when he started to demonstrate he liked the US.
Grandparents were devout socialists who hated free-market capitalism and financial institutions.
Major mentors include the Communist Demagogue Frank Marshall Davis, Left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers, Racist Derrick Bell, and Racist Rev. Wright.

Economic Track Record
Saved Companies & Jobs
Promoted Expansion of Private Sector Businesses Through Lawful Financial Practices
Stagnated Federal Economy to over 8% unemployment for over 40 months.
Gave taxpayer dollars to numerous companies that went bankrupt as a result.
Lowest Workforce Participation Rate in Decades.
Highest Percentage of Population in Poverty since WWII.
Highest % of GDP spent on government programs since WWII.
Highest Contribution to National Debt of ANY president in history.
Health Care Reform
Executed Law In Massachusetts that reduced costs of healthcare in the state. The program still costs millions in man-hours to healthcare providers.
Mandated Nancy Pelosi to sponsor a 2,400+ page tax law that most who voted on never read.
Cut Medicare drastically.
Signed a law that puts medical decisions under the auspices of the IRS and a 15-member, non-medical panel.
PPACA is causing many employers to cut full-time positions in order to afford to pay employees.
Wants a program that puts your healthcare decisions under the authority of the government and not in the hands of the private citizens.
Plans To Enable American Prosperity
Romney’s 5-point plan to increase the economy and increase opportunities for growth of businesses, which will lead to increased employment opportunities.
Force  private businesses under the direction of the federal government.
Force private businesses to hire sub-standard workers so they will not prosper or meet full potential.
Tax those who are successful until being successful is no longer desired.
Take away the liberty of the citizens, making them dependent upon government programs to meet their basic needs instead of allowing them the freedom to pursue their own prosperity and happiness.
Destroy the private sector as we know it.
Plans for American Sovereignty
Increase Trade Agreements that will further enable private US companies and citizens to compete in the global market.
Diplomacy from a position of strength, both economic and military.
Take up a leadership role as an example for emulation.
Borrow money from our nation’s biggest competitor nations.
Apologize to threat nations, making the US appear weaker.
Shrink the military and cut constitutionally mandated defense spending until the US is no longer capable of defending itself or capable of providing humanitarian support to our allies.
Increase taxes in order to compel US-based companies to outsource production to other countries in order to make a marginal profit.
Support treaties with the UN that will relinquish our nation’s sovereignty with treaties such as LOST.
Support treaties with the UN that will strip away constitutionally guaranteed rights such as the Second and Fourth Amendments.
Education Policies
Supports the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Supports “School Choice”, which gives parents more options to increase opportunities for their children.
Wants the federal government to dictate education for all students.
 Wants to have federal government take over community colleges.
 Wants federal government to dictate the curricula for students, and take away students’ choice as well as parents’ choice.
“women’s rights”
Believes women, like men, are individuals.
All individuals, regardless of gender (race, religion, etc) should have the exact same opportunities to succeed.
Believes that outcome, success, prosperity is an individual issue, up to each person to succeed or fail on his or her own merits and effort.
Believes “equality of outcome” is evil and enables lazy to leech of the backs of those who achieve.
Is morally against abortion. Recognizes Roe v Wade.
Sees abortion as an elective procedure and personal responsibility, not the government’s role to force taxpayers to pay for them.
Wants women dependent upon the government to provide for them.
Wants women to see the federal government as their father-figure.
Wants to force men into slavery to pay for women’s elective surgeries (abortions).
Thinks a woman’s body belongs to the government who can decide what care to force upon it, what it will be allowed, and what it can be denied.
Pays female staff members significantly less than he does male staff members.
Wants women to equate voting for him as the same as losing their virginity to him.
Wants to force pro-life women to pay for abortions that other women are having.

Civil Rights
Like his father, believes that people are individuals and should have the liberty to fail, succeed, prosper on their own merits, due to their own toil, and to dispense the fruits of their labors as they see fit.
Wants special collectives to spur divisions over racial, gender, and sexual-orientation lines.
Believes for one of a race to succeed, his race must be dominant over all other races.
Supports national education standards that differ by race.
Promotes policies and rhetoric that makes certain demographics believe they are entitled to special treatment under the law.
Charitable Works
Donates millions to charity each year.
Does not claim all charitable donations for tax deductions.
Despite large charitable donations at high percentage of income, still paid over 14% in income taxes.
Pays capital gains taxes.
Gave very little, as a % of income, to charity.
Believes private charities are evil entities that are doing what the government should force citizens to do, through taxation, under government mandate.
Wants people to have an opportunity to succeed.
Wants to take away liberty.
Wants the government to have authority over your basic necessities.
Wants the government to have a say in how you earn/spend/save the rewards of your efforts.
Wants you enslaved to the government.
More people on government subsidies (housing, food-stamps, etc) now than ever before, making them indebted to the government and dependent upon government to make decisions for them.
Abhors personal accountability and responsibility.
The Pursuit of Happiness
Wants to lower tax rates, and increase the tax base in order to employ the Laffer Curve. This will generate greater federal revenue while reducing the per capita tax burden on individuals.
Believes in personal property.
Supports 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 10th  Amendments.
Believes that everything you own, and all the money you make belongs to the government, which just allows you to use it, at their discretion.
Supports UN treaty that will eliminate the 2nd Amendment.
Has no regard for 4th Amendment, directing invasive & unconstitutional searches (TSA, FDA, ATF, etc).
Has no regard for the 10th Amendment as proven by his suits against AZ, TX, FL, and NC.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Oh Yes He Did, And He Supports Obama

Mass-Market Media Mogul Ted Turner opened his big mouth and opined on a topic near and dear to most of my friends, my family, my associates, my nation, and myself.

He said that he was "thinks it is good US veterans are committing suicide".

Well isn't that a welcome bit of insight into the brain of a prominent leftist, especially one who so adamantly supports Barrack Obama's re-election and Obama's socialist policies that are destroying our country.

Like many on the left, Ted also failed history or he wants to rewrite it to reflect a false narrative devoid of the facts. Ted claimed that the military is an arcane concept that hasn't been necessary for over 100 years. He obviously cannot do the simple math that reveals World War I, World War II, the attempted genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, the genocide and atrocities in Africa, the attempted genocide of Kurds in northern Iraq, and the war in Korea were all less than one hundred years ago. Then again, Ted is a socialist that probably wishes Hitler had gone unopposed and taken over the world in the 1940s. He probably thinks Stalin would have made a better US President than FDR. Those are the only explanations for his comments calling the military an outdated necessity and veteran suicide a "good thing".

Then again, Ted Turner married another maven of anti-American and anti-Veteran sentiment, the socialist diva Hanoi Jane. It figures that his views concerning the brave men and women who put their lives on the line so he is free to earn his billions and to open his yap would be in a manner to dishonor their sacrifice.

I am not sure of the latest statistics. However, a few months ago, the trend was that as many as 18 veterans of the Global War on Terror were committing suicide a day. That is 18 heroes choosing to end their lives each day. the average daily number of attempts is over 30. Those statistics are a national tragedy and a national emergency.

To see what can be done to help our veterans in crisis, please visit STOP 18

Turner and Fonda both opposed the Vietnam War so fully that they wished pain, misery, and torture upon those patriots who fought in the war. Now they wish the same upon the patriots who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. For people who allegedly love peace so much, it is nothing short of hypocrisy that they revel in the suffering and suicides of our nation's proud heroes.

That is the attitude of the left, out there on full display.

Pragmatic View of Abortion and the 2012 Election

Like many, I am a fan of Joss Whedon's short-lived TV show FIREFLY and its big-screen finale "Serenity". Those who know the show will understand the words of Malcom Reynolds when I say that "I aim to misbehave".

One subject that I tend to avoid writing about is abortion. My views on the topic range from micro to macro. Depending upon which level I write from could cause quite a bit of misunderstanding and confusion. However, the whole picture comes down to my strong beliefs in free will, responsibility, and accountability. My personal morality also takes a role at the micro level. However, this rant is not about my personal (and private) views on the subject. But, I will make an exception to my usual avoidance and discuss the subject, to a degree, this one time.

In the wake of Richard Mourdock's statement concerning his personal moral belief involving abortion and rape, I felt compelled to write a little opinion piece to being people back to pragmatism and reality in these vital days before the election. This little rant applies to both sides of the aisle and will probably garner the ire of many in both camps. When people need a dose of reality introduced by percussive osmosis, it tends to upset those people.

First of all, I have seen Mr. Mourdock's statement misquoted by both sides of the aisle. Those on the left have done so the most, by misquoting him and stating things that Mourdock did not even say. Left-wing pundits said the words they are parroting, not Mr. Mourdock. It demonstrates your ability to research, make up your own mind, and think like a human being when you do so. 

The din of the hullabaloo over Mourdock's statement and the abortion issue in general is a distraction. It is intended to get you to vote based upon something that is not a political issue. It is a psychological deception operation being conducted to make you look at something other than the real issues facing us today. If you jumped into the fray, it worked and you were duped.  

The first truth to consider is a blend of facts and reality. We call this "pragmatism". Despite where along the political spectrum a candidate resides, Roe v Wade happened. That is a fact. The US Supreme Court over-stepped its authority and legislated from the bench in our nation's most evident example of judicial activism. That is a fact. The decision has been filed, and carries the weight of a legislated law. That is a fact.

Candidates may or may not have a stance on the issue. It is a moral debate that many ponder. However, the decision will likely not be overturned for a long time, if ever. It will require a constitutional amendment. Go and read the US Constitution. Within it is an article (Article 5) that directs the process to do so. For a quick refresher, let's look at the key points to the process. First, the amendment will require 67% of each house to vote in favor of the amendment. Then the President will have to send it to the states for ratification. Then 75% of the states must ratify it. Then it will be an amendment.

There are enough legislators who want multiple terms who will not put their political careers on the chopping block, risking never holding public office again. They won't vote for such an amendment. It would be stupid for them to do so. To do so when there are so many other actual constitutional responsibilities to take care of would also create a record of wasting time and resources to generate an amendment that will face such opposition among our citizens. Abortion is such a "hot-button" and sensitive issue that brings drastic passion from both sides of the issue that most state's will be reluctant to consider ratifying such an amendment. Most politicians learned their lessons in the history of prohibition. 

Kids, abortion is not a national issue in the 2012 election year.

Read that again and let it sink in nice and deep:  Abortion is not an issue in national level politics in the 2012 election year.

It isn't important in deciding who your legislators in federal congress will be.

It isn't important in deciding who the two elected members of the executive branch (The President and the Vice President) will be for the next four years.

Pick your jaws up off the ground and take a look at reality.

Read the words I typed. I did not say that the abortion debate isn't an important moral dilemma. It is. It is a great discussion for religious scholars, political demagogues, and people seeking  to set up charities. It is an important topic that so many, on both sides, are passionate about. However, it is not a political issue. It is not a legislative responsibility or power, according to the US Constitution. It is not an executive power or responsibility. It is a moral, ethical, scientific, and theological debate. The topic is of no more political importance than the debate concerning teaching either creationism or evolution in the privacy of your own home (any law that would dictate such would violate the First Amendment). 

First, every attempt to legislate morality has turned out disastrous for our country. Look at prohibition as a great example. The legislature amended the US Constitution to make alcohol illegal. How did that turn out? 75% of adults became criminals. Criminal organizations gained power to the point that they were taking control of many areas because they acted outside of the law. People were murdered over beer, run, and gin. Much needed sales and excise taxes were denied to our government at all levels, thus contributing to the misery felt during the Great Depression. Americans flocked overseas in a huge wave of ex-patriotism. The amendment was one of the most ignorant moves the federal government has ever made.

You cannot legislate morality. All you can do is establish just consequences for breaking the law. You cannot legislate morality. All you can do is insure that immoral and unethical people live with the full weight of their decisions. However, those moral decisions are still theirs.

Stealing is illegal, correct? Do those laws actually stop theft? No.

Murder is illegal, correct? Do those laws stop people from murdering others? No.

Gun laws do not stop gun related crime. All they do is insure that only criminals, who don't care about the law, have guns, leaving law-abiding citizens unprotected and defenseless.

So, if you think Roe v. Wade will be affected by the outcome of this election, regardless of which side of the political spectrum garners control, you are an idiot. Whether you are "pro-life" and believe that your vote will lead to a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion, or you are "pro-abortion" hoping to retain those "rights" granted by Roe v. Wade; the decision will most likely not be overturned anytime soon.

If the abortion debate and the status of Roe v. Wade is of high importance to you in this election, you are an idiot. It is not even an issue in this campaign.

The main issues are individual liberty, the US Constitution, national security, tax policies, the economy, the government dictating your health care, and allowing businesses the freedom and economic stability to do business, thus expanding the economy and create jobs.

If you oppose abortion, the best thing to do is to support a federal fiscal policy that does not give tax revenue to charities that support abortions. It's unconstitutional for them to do so as it is. If you are "pro-choice", support the same policy so you will pay less in taxes and enable  you to donate to the charities that support your cause. In either case, federal tax revenue should not be used.

If you support the federal government paying for abortions, or any other elective surgery, the simple truth is that you support (and are an accomplice to) armed robbery. If you want poor people to have money for abortions, go give them yours. You do not have the right to dictate that what I have earned should go to pay for some complete stranger's elective surgery. If you are "pro-choice", then you MUST support my choice to not have my property used in that way. Keep the federal government out of it.

If you are opposed to abortion, then support a candidate who will grow the economy and allow businesses to make money, hire people, and create jobs. Then those who want abortions because they can't afford to pay for that child will be more capable of doing so. If you support abortion, support that same candidate. Why? Well, that way you can pay for your own abortion without stealing my property or that of others.

If you support abortion as a form of birth control in order to keep the impoverished from taking more in food stamps and government subsidies to take care of those additional lives; then support the candidate who will scale back on government handouts and will, instead, bolster those programs at the state level where the constitutionally (10th Amendment) belong.

If you oppose abortion, vote for the candidate who will enable a society that more rewards paying for your own way and working. If those impoverished families have more working adults, they will have less time and less of an incentive to generate more welfare-babies.

Now, let's give one little reminder of how the left really views abortion. Take a look at China. China (and a few other socialist countries) regulate their populations by forcing families to have abortions after they have given life to their quota of children. That is why the left wants abortion to be state-sponsored. It is so they will be able to force you to have one in the future. If you are really "pro-choice", you do not want the government taking that choice away, including forcing abortions upon anybody. If you are "pro-life", then you really do not want state-sponsored abortion. In that case, your choice is clear -- do not vote for anybody left of center, ever.

Finally, if abortion is your only issue in this election season, you probably need to turn in your voters' registration card and stay out of the booths. It means you are ignorant about the US Constitution. There are issues that are political ones at stake. Abortion is not one of them. If you are pro-choice on the basis of "women's rights", the 14th Amendment forbids special rights for any demographic. If you are pro-life, it is unconstitutional for you to choose a candidate who will attempt to legislate a religious viewpoint onto anybody. If you are pro-choice, that very same argument goes to you as well. Atheism is, by definition, the religion of "no gods". However, with 23 million people out of work, executive regulations that inhibit economic growth and punish prosperity, a new law that established 27 new taxes (21 of them directly on middle-income-earners), a stagnated economy, a national debt crisis, and a failed socialist running for re-election; there are far, far more actual political issues to contend with this election year.

If you are pro-life, go give time or funds to a charity that helps with adoption or other alternatives to a suck-and-scrape. If you are pro-choice, go give your paycheck to Planned Parenthood. Both of you keep your hands off of other people's earnings. Go out and vote on the real issues and the best person to facilitate the American Dream of individual prosperity as a result of individual effort:  Mitt Romney.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

The Importance of United Nations Day

Displayed Proudly Above The Rest

That's Nice... But where is the US Flag?
Let's add this one as well.
October 24th is international United Nations Day. It is a day established to commemorate the forming of the United Nations in 1945. According to their own site, the UN was formed by force of charter on October 24, 1945 with October 24th set as the official international holiday in 1948. In 1971, the UN General Assembly decreed that all member nations must celebrate the day.

This year, Stevie Wonder will play a special concert just for the UN on its birthday. 

The current Secretary-General released this statement:

"We are living through a period of profound turmoil, transition and transformation. Insecurity, inequality and intolerance are spreading. Global and national institutions are being put to the test. With so much at stake, the United Nations must keep pace across the spectrum of its activities — peace, development, human rights, the rule of law, the empowerment of the world's women and youth." ~Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

The statement rings of pleasant goals for such an international coalition of diplomats.

However, the UN oversteps its charter on a regular basis.

The UN was set up to be a consortium in 1945. It's main role was to prevent another World War. The intent was to garner better and more efficient representation than its failed predecessor, the League of Nations. Those who ratified the charter did not want to give the body the appearance of being a one-world government. Yet, that has always been its secret mission, as was the idea behind socialist-progressive Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations.

The UN, just like its failed predecessor, was the brain-baby of socialist-progressives who sought to slowly bring the world under one governing body led by a small, tyrannic oligarchy. Over the past 67 years, the group has sought to slowly take a gradually greater and greater role in dictating how sovereign nations run their countries.

Allegedly, the UN was never given actual legislative powers, judicial powers (Articles 92-96 of the charter show otherwise), or a real executive branch capable of enforcing any "laws" without full participation of stronger nations. The UN also, allegedly, must remain non-invasive and not interfere in domestic issues within any sovereign nation.

However, in recent years, they have attempted to circumvent the sovereignty of several nations, such as the UK, Russia, and the US. Their method is through international treaties established not nation to nation but nation to the UN. Among these attempts is the group of treaties known as "Agenda-21".

Within Agenda-21 there are several treaties that should never be ratified by the US. First and foremost among those are the treaties that limit firearm ownership, ammunition purchases, or call for registration of any of the above by an international body. Our US Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon ownership of firearms and from infringing upon carrying those firearms. Our own country already violates the Second Amendment with an impunity that must be halted. However, the Constitution also states that treaties ratified by the US Senate also carry the force of legislated laws. Should those treaties be ratified, our Second Amendment rights will cease to exist. That is a threat to our national sovereignty that will leave our free, law-abiding individual citizens helpless to defend this great republic against tyranny, be it domestic or international.

Another treaty is the LOST treaty which limits our Naval forces, our international shipping vessels, and our international trade capabilities. A sovereign nation should not need permission from the UN to trade toasters for wool sweaters.

The UN wants peace only under the thumb of an oligarchy.

The UN wants to ban weapons from non-military, and wants to limit weapons employed by select militia. Eventually, they will seek to establish their own independent military force.

The UN states it seeks gender equality, yet their rhetoric is more against perceived glass-ceilings and promoting abortions in the US than they are opposed to sex-slavery, female circumcision, and stoning rape victims.

The UN seeks to tax sovereign nations in order to create international education standards, taking control over what your child is allowed to learn in school. They also seek to force children into schools even if the parents choose to home-school.

Though promoted as a diplomatic consortium designed to avoid future wars, particularly on the scales of WWI and WWII, their real goal is for the socialist/communist/progressive/Marxist/Maoist/despotic tyrannic world-domination.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Was There A Debate Last Night? (Romney v Obama #3)

Last night, October 22, 2012, hosted the third and final presidential debate of the 2012 presidential election year. The debate was set to cover foreign policy, national defense, and international relations.

On both sides of the aisle, pundits awaited, with bated anticipation, for more body blows delivered by Romney into Obama's still bruised ribs over the terrorist attacks in Libya that killed our ambassador and four others. However, Romney seemed reluctant to beat that dead horse into glue, thereby demonstrating a level of class and decorum. Obama, on the other hand, seemed to use issues more sensitive to his campaign and his failed policy of apologizing as a platform to conduct personal attacks, off-issue, towards Romney. Obama achieved little to nothing in doing so except to assist in dragging the debate off-topic and to effectively distract from the topics at hand.

Disappointingly, the debate sis not seem to cover many of the important topics we, as a republic of free individuals, face on the world stage. Among those topics avoided are, most importantly, items such as our the authority of the UN and their role in dictating our sovereignty, proposed treaties concerning disarmament, and the tyrannic Agenda-21 treaties. If brought into the debate, Obama would have likely lost the debate, hands-down. 

Again, we have a virtual tie with, perhaps, a slight edge given to Obama despite the fact that I disagree with most of his policies. 

In debate scoring, distracting off-topic actually earns negative points, as does following that rabbit down the hole. In that scoring, both candidates earned negative points throughout the debate. The debate seemed to head more into domestic economic issues and how they relate to international trade more than to cover actual foreign policy. I counted 15 total questions and graded each on a 10 point scale, granting negatives to personal attacks that had no statements of fact or data to support them. Both candidates were abysmal in their scores with Romney scoring 41/150 and Obama ending up with 26/150.

In many policies, both had similar ideas, making it a difficult topic to debate. The largest diversity between the two seemed to be in pacing, relations with out allies, definition of a global threat as something other than a military threat, military strategy, national defense, and negotiating from a position of strength.

Fact-checking is ongoing. So far, the facts state that Obama did not go on an "apology tour", since it took him several trips over the course of two years to do his apologizing.

Now it's time to get into the blow-by-blow. Despite the results my objective scoring system showed, there are other factors to consider. First, an incumbent president usually has an edge coming into such a debate due to already being in the position of highest diplomat for our great republic. Obama's record on foreign policy is not great. On the other hand, unlike domestic issues and the economy, he isn't as much of an obvious failure in this arena.

The first question concerned Libya and the terrorist attack there. Romney took this question, hands-down, without rehashing Obama's lies about his statement the day after and his blaming a video for two weeks until the evidence to the contrary went before congress. Romney addressed not only Libya, but the entire "Arab Spring" and the US role in the events in the Middle East. Romney highlighted the seeming ambivalence in dealing with al-Asad and his reign of terror in Syria. Romney brought attention to the fact Iran and Syria are strong allies. Failing to support the deposing of al-Asad in Syria is the same as being weak in regards to Iran, who is developing nuclear weapons capabilities. Romney stated we need to foster and support republican forms of government in the Middle East in order to promote peace instead of continuous cycles of violence, tyranny, human rights atrocities, to more violence. 

Obama used the question to first, again, spike the football for his personally killing bin Laden. Somehow, Obama believes that Afghanistan, which is north of India and Pakistan, is in the Middle East. Then Obama claimed that he did everything necessary to secure Libya and our embassy there, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Romney then retorted with a clear plan, this one a 4-point plan for the policy in the Middle East:

1. Support economic development & international trade for those who are in line with our policies
2. Support better education in those countries, fight against illiteracy, poverty, etc.
3. Support gender equity, no more discrimination against women and systemic abuses thereof, such as stoning a woman just because she was raped.
4. Support a rule of law, natural law and natural rights, not whimsical despotism followed by chaos and anarchy, followed by another left-wing despot.

Obama then redirected, attempting to marginalize the facts that Russia and China remain geo-political threats in the diplomatic and economic realms affected by PMESII-PT-based geopolitical threat analysis.

Romney reminded the audience that the topis at hand was Libya and the Middle East, not Russia, China, or Afghanistan. He then quickly addressed Obama's allegations to set the record straight.

Obama then went on one of his pointless and sophomoric "let me be clear" (it would be nice if he would actually do so instead of double-talking out of both sides of his mouth for once) rants that is off-base but sounds really smart for those who don't actually know a damned thing about international relations.

The next question covered Syria, Lebanon, and al-Asad's reign of terror. Obama cited his role in establishing a coalition of nations that are wagging their fingers angrily at al-Asad.

Romney countered stating that our policy in Syria is allowing a humanitarian disaster. Romney supports assisting the rebels in Syria to overthrow al-Asad then sending in teams to help Syria transition to a more constitutional republican form of government.

Obama then claimed he was already doing what Romney was proposing. He then attempted to spike the football for Qaddafi's fall in Libya, and claiming that the task of nation building in Libya is complete, despite an al-Qaeda affiliate group raping and assassinating our ambassador.

Still on the subject of Syria, the moderator asked about a plan to send military forces into Syria. Romney stated that should be only a last resort and that it does not seem necessary at this time. All Obama stated was that his policy was the same and that this is a point of agreement, not for debate.

Next, still keeping the topic on the Middle East, the moderator moved the subject towards Egypt. Here, both candidates mostly agreed. The only key difference was that Romney seemed to want a more vibrant diplomatic and economic effort to assist in Egypt's rebuilding of their government structure towards something that better resembles a form of constitutional republic. Romney also highlighted the facts that the US needs to be in a position of strength in order to affect such things. That strength needs to be both in military capabilities and in economic status in order to expand our national influence on the global scale, especially in the Middle East.

The moderator broadened the scope by asking each candidate for their vision of the US's role in the world. This question should have been either first, to set the tone for the debate, or last to summarize. However, it was placed in the middle.

Romney's statement was clear. The US needs to set the example of liberty, economic strength, and national security. In order to set that example, we need to be that example, then stand on our principles. Obama countered claiming that the US is stronger now than it was when Bush and congress declared war against terrorism, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. He claimed that he did it all, and that he needs to rebuild the US in a vision that sounded strikingly close to Marx's. Obama delved into domestic issues, stating that the federal government needs to take over local education systems, expand public sector teachers' unions, put the government in charge of private energy production companies, and reduce the national deficit by increasing taxes on those who earn in order to support those who don't.

Romney retorted by citing Obama's failed record, then restating his own 5-point plan for job creation and economic growth, highlighting his second point of increasing international trade and seeking out trade agreements that bolster opportunities for US businesses.

On this question, however, both candidates strayed from the topic of foreign policy. Romney did attempt to tie the domestic policies to our role in the world.

The moderator asked Romney how he could balance the budget without defense cuts, and how that would affect his foreign policy. Romney restated his domestic economic policies and his support of the 10th Amendment and cutting unconstitutional federal spending in order to support the defense spending that is mandated by the US Constitution. Obama attempted to state his incorrect math that fails to recognize the Laffer Curve. Obama stated that defense spending needs to be cut and that the next battle is in space. Romney didn't take this opportunity to hit Obama on the fact he gutted NASA and our space program. Obama also attempted to justify cutting our military and its capabilities to the point it can barely engage in a one-front conflict despite the fact that there are no more one-front conflicts in the modern world.

Here I interject a reminder that Obama not only has not made any attempt to balance the budget but has failed to even pass a budget. In fact, the US Senate is controlled by his party and has failed to pass a budget through that house even once during Obama's administration. 

Next came the topic of Israel and Iran. Obama correctly stated that economic sanctions have had some effect against Iran. He then stated that Iran needed to play diplomatic ball of face Obama. I guess he's going to bow to the Ayatollah as a sign of  strength. Obama then stated that Israel is his friend.

Romney countered by stating that Israel is a vital ally and that he would strengthen that alliance. On Iran, he stated:

1 - Continue sanctions that are in place and seek additional ones.
2 - Tighten the sanctions, enforce them, and extend them to any nation that deals with Iran
3 - Treat Iran's diplomats as pariahs until they get better
4 - Military Action is an absolute last resort if all other options have failed

The next question concerned what would be an "acceptable deal" with Iran.

Obama claimed that the lap-dog media is a credible intelligence service. He stated that the only acceptable deal is a cessation of nuclear weapons development. Obama then made veiled statements of support for a one-world government and a necessity to get UN permission to act as a sovereign nation. Obama also stated that newspapers have not yet reported any credible evidence of either development of cessation, but the clock is ticking on time Iran has to prove it has ceased development.

Romney stated the cultural views in the Middle East, and that Obama is seen as a weak leader in that region. Those who know the cultures of that region know this is a fact. Romney cited Obama's trips to apologize to North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc, while ignoring Israel and maintaining our alliance with that nation.

Obama stamped his feet and called Romney a liar. He stated, as proof, that "his media" reported no such things. He then tried to accuse Romney of investing in Chinese companies, despite the fact that, though Romney's trust may have done so, it is a blind trust, meaning it is managed without Romney's direct influence. Romney's rebuttal was that Iran has continued to produce fissile material over the past four years. Obama went to these nations and apologized to them on their national and local TV stations.

The moderator gave some hypothetical and unrealistic question. Romney stated as much, then highlighted Obama's record on foreign policy. Iran is closer to nukes and being a world-wide threat, looking first at the US and Israel. Violence and atrocities in the middle east have increased, not decreased. Al-Qaeda is, in fact, rebuilding, having squirted from Afghanistan to North Africa and back into Iraq, now that the US presence there is drastically decreased and unable to deter the return. Al-Asad is acting with impunity in Syria. The foreign country that holds the largest portion of our national debt is China, who is laughing at us. North Korea is exporting nuclear capabilities. Obama seeks to cut and weaken the US military. 38 Democratic Party US Senators went to Obama and asked him to fix relations with Israel and Obama dismissed them, playing narcissistic despot even to his own party.

Obama's retort was "I'm glad Governor Romney likes diplomacy", then tried to make Romney out to be a flip-flopper. Obama falsely cited flip-flops that, when fact-checked, turned out to be inaccurate claims by Obama. Obama then spiked the bin Laden football again.

Now the candidates moved onto the topic of Afghanistan and the 2014 withdrawal timeline. Obama's answer was another football-spike over bin Laden, then saying it's time to leave and to let Afghanistan sink or swim on its own without the US insuring conditions for success are met. He then stated that the funds spent on the war and the military need to then go to veterans. His next statement came across, to me, as though he said those funds needed to be put to use to force unemployed veterans to build new roads and bridges.

Romney's statement is summarized as though as long as we continue to meet the goals and set proper conditions in Afghanistan, withdrawing in 2014 should be on target. However, Afghanistan's stability is very important to the Central Asian region, especially with countries such as Pakistan, India, and Uzbekistan. Insuring the goals are met and conditions are set are more important than sticking to a date.

So, that brought the subject to that of relations and policies concerning Pakistan. The moderator even broached the possibility of divorcing from our treaties and agreements with Pakistan.

Romney flat out opposed divorcing from Pakistan and cutting off relations with them. His reasoning revolves around the number of nuclear weapons Pakistan already has coupled with Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives in safe havens in Pakistan. To further exasperate the issues with Pakistan is their own tribal instability and their dispute over the Kashmir region. Romney stated that we cannot walk away, but need to increase our support and influence towards a constitutional republic run by the citizens, not an oligarchy.

Obama had no real response other than to state that he agreed that we need to support Pakistan even though we may need to go after some bad guys within their borders without their permission, such as when Obama personally killed bin Laden.

That segued into the subject of using weaponized drones to attack threats to our nation.

Romney praised  the use of such technology. However, he also stated the importance of putting boots on the ground in order to hold that ground and keep it clear. That is a primary tenet of air-land battle as well as a key counter-insurgent and counter-terrorism tactic. In order to stabilize, first you clear, then you hold, and then you build while continuing to hold. You cannot insure the area is cleared nor can you hold the area without boots on the ground. Romney then stated that the use of drones does not do much when the foreign policy is one of apologizing. Drones do not sit down and work towards a rejection of terrorism or extremism.

Obama's counter-point revolved around respecting women, supporting a free market that is command directed under a framework of fascism, pushing for "democracy" instead of constitutional republican forms of government such as what the US Constitution established, and, again, spiking the bin Laden football, falsely stating that taking out one head of the hydra somehow killed the beast.

Next, the candidates discussed the greatest international threats to the US.

Obama stated that the largest threat is terrorism. He then claimed that China is a partner nation to the US and that federal committees need to be set up to regulate and increase investments in China. He then said that stiffer regulation covering imports from China need to be set up to protect people from tires that are below federal safety standards. He then claimed that any company that does business with China or outsources to any non-US country needs to be fined and taxed in order to increase federal control of manufacturing, education, and engineering. Obviously, Obama needs to read Atlas Shrugged to see a prophesy of how such policies will turn out.

Romney reminded the audience that, in our economic and government systems, government does not build businesses. China needs a safe global environment and strong US economy. Our country is their largest customer base. We can work with them only when our country is strong enough to take them or leave them. We are not in such a position due to Obama's policies. We do need trade agreements with China, and we have them. We need to actually enforce them. China's biggest threat to the US is that they steal intellectual property, violate patents, and produce substandard counterfeits. Russia is doing much of the same. We have threats outside of direct military threats. Those need to be addressed as well as those military threats such as al-Qaeda.

This begged a question over a trade war.

Romney correctly stated that we do have a trade war with China. Obama retorted by attacking Romney's blind trust which may have some investments with companies that deal with or outsource to China. Obama claimed that Romney called for the US auto industry to fail and collapse. Romney corrected this blatant falsehood by stating the proper role of bankruptcy and his proven proposal of government assistance after a proper bankruptcy procedure was in place. Romney then hit Obama's stimulus plan that invested in foreign companies that don't deal with the US, wasting taxpayer dollars in doing so, and those companies seeming to fail, making matters worse.

Obama called Romney a liar. However, fact-checking proved that Romney's claims were accurate and documented facts. Obama then praised programs that put more people on food-stamps. Obama called upon people to look at his record, which is one of failed policies especially in the realm of economics.

In closing remarks, Obama complained that there were too many TV commercials. He then claimed that prosperity is only attainable through government control of private businesses and the government dictating how much a person can achieve. He then stated that the US foreign policy needs to be such that it forces private citizens and companies to use wind and solar energy instead of fossil fuels. He also lauded the roles of Marxist unions, especially in education.

You can find a word-for-word transcription of the debate on NPR's website. Just beware of potential bias in their commentary since the current administration controls NPR's finances. 

Romney's closing remarks:

"I'm optimistic about the future. I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. I want to see peace. I want to see growing peace in this country, it's our objective. We have an opportunity to have real leadership. America's going to have that kind of leadership and continue to promote principles of peace that'll make a world the safer place and make people in this country more confident that their future is secure.

"I also want to make sure that we get this economy going. And there are two very different paths the country can take. One is a path represented by the president, which, at the end of four years, would mean we'd have $20 trillion in debt, heading towards Greece. I'll get us on track to a balanced budget. The president's path will mean continuing declining in take-home pay. I want to make sure our take-home pay turns around and starts to grow. The president's path means 20 million people out of work struggling for a good job. I'll get people back to work with 12 million new jobs. I'm going to make sure that we get people off of food stamps not by cutting the program but by getting them good jobs.

"America's going to come back. And for that to happen, we're going to have to have a president who can work across the aisle. I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. We've got to do that in Washington. Washington is broken. I know what it takes to get this country back. And we'll work with good Democrats and good Republicans to do that.
This nation is the hope of the earth. We've been blessed by having a nation that's free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the Greatest Generation. They've held a torch for the world to see, the torch of freedom and hope and opportunity. Now it's our turn to take that torch. I'm convinced we'll do it. We need strong leadership. I'd like to be that leader, with your support. I'll work with you. I'll lead you in an open and honest way. And I ask for your vote. I'd like to be the next president of the United States to support and help this great nation, and to make sure that we all together maintain America as the hope of the earth. Thank you so much."

In the wake of the final debate, Romney published this statement this morning.