President Obama and the Great Misdirection

Here we stand, America.  Our nation is at a crossroads.  Our economy is weighed by trillions of dollars of debt and hanging by the loose threads of a big, fat, red deficit.  Our Attorney General is involved in one of the biggest scandals resulting in the loss of American life just to prove “current gun laws do not work”, and he’s getting away with it.  Not to mention he’s spending his free time bringing ridiculous lawsuits against states (see:  Arizona) and certain individuals in those states (see:  Sheriff Joe Arpaio).

We’re rooted in numerous wars overseas, unemployment hasn’t been below 8% in three years, the housing market is still struggling to pull itself together, and we apparently were lied to about al Qaeda’s supposed demise.

Our president is taking the time this week to weigh in on a crucial issue that will surely lead our country into prosperity, break us from the chains of debt, and pull us from the brink of disaster we’ve been narrowly avoiding for years.

It’s not a new stimulus package.  It’s not even a filthy new bailout.  It’s gay marriage.  Because, apparently, America does not need a solution, it needs merely to focus on a socially divisive issue that will get us all flustered, angry, and loud.  If the masses are screaming at each other about a practical non-issue, then maybe he can swoop in and save the day by claiming whichever votes he thinks he’s suddenly won.  And in his mind, “saving the day” is equivalent to “getting re-elected”.

“You see… it’s not so much about the economy or the jobs or what-have-you. It’s about the gays. Wait, no, it’s about marriage and equality. Something like that. Where’s my teleprompter?”

While our heroic president prevaricates on gay marriage in the hope to win a few more votes, the rest of us are stuck in the real world facing foreclosures, 8.1% unemployment, and the possibility of losing loved ones overseas.

But this will come back to bite him.  America has already professed its non-acceptance of gay marriage, as 30 states have constitutional amendments or other provisions banning it.  Whether this is a good thing or not is for God to decide, not me.  But what I do know is that Obama’s sudden attempt to pander to the incredibly loud, incredibly whiny minority will fail, because he will not overcome the momentum of the people.  He is only a man bound by his office and restrained by our influence.

Besides, we all know he’s lying anyway.  Apparently, only a little pressure is required to speed up the process of “evolution”.

It seems, Mr. President, you can only hear half of us.  Don’t worry — you’ll hear the rest of our voices come November.

Also posted on Constitution Club.

Obama’s “unprecedented” court misshaps

“Unprecedented” has become the President’s catchphrase.  His addiction to this word is overshadowed only by an intense narcissistic personality disorder, which only serves to fuel his addiction.  Everything he does is categorized as “unprecedented”, whether it be his televised “town hall” meetings or the way he butters his bread in the morning.  By the way this man talks, one would think he’s the first and only President of the United States.

Despite his fabricated grandeur, the President has become notorious for his rather high profile failures in the Supreme Court recently.  In an “unprecedented” display of a lack of professionalism, he verbally assaulted the Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union Address. Now he’s reaping the consequences, and the most he can do is continue his hollow blathering and empty threats against the Supreme Court.

Granted, it’s not likely the Supreme Court is tearing his legislation apart because they were insulted by his comments two years ago, but I can’t imagine they’re not giddy with excitement at the prospect of turning the tables on him.  Lately, it seems the Court is the only branch of government actually doing its job and basing their decisions on the content of the U.S. Constitution.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama can only offer platitudes like “I know it [the Affordable Care Act] will be upheld because it’s constitutional” and “a rejection would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”.

Perhaps the only unprecedented aspect of this presidency is that we have a man in office who claims to be a “constitutional scholar” but apparently has never studied the document.

Now his administration shows its ignorance in the Arizona v. United States case.  Even Sonia Sotomayer, a liberal who still panders to the Democratic party, questioned the reasoning behind bringing a lawsuit against a state trying to enforce the law.  The Obama administration’s only defense of such a ridiculous move was that “For each state … to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress’ goal: a single, national approach.”

Right… the single, national approach is to let Mexico invade the United States and win every election in the future for the Democratic party by granting them the illegal right to vote.

Obama and his cronies have ignored the needs of the United States citizens.  Instead, they side with the raving lunatics from Mexico who arrived here illegally and pay no taxes.  We hear no suggestions from the left that these criminals should “pay their fair share”, and yet we are assaulted with arguments to give them the “right” to protest the policies of a country in which they have no citizenship status.

Is it so crazy that the Supreme Court doesn’t like this lawsuit?  Is it really all that difficult to comprehend that a state has every right to aid the Federal government in its duty, with or without their explicit permission?  Once again, the liberal agenda is exposed as one that constantly changes the rules to favor its own ends.  Forget the means by which they are achieved, because only the results matter.

Thankfully, we have a Supreme Court that is still neither “conservative” nor “liberal”, but one that carefully scrutinizes every case and weighs the ramifications against the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps the only thing more ”unprecedented” than Barack Obama’s addiction to the word is the density of the air between this president’s ears.

[Also posted on The Constitution Club]

Mitt Romney may clinch the presidency — for Barack Obama

With the recent reports that Newt Gingrich will be suspending his campaign on May 1, the way is now paved for Mitt Romney to stomp out the libertarian base of Ron Paul supporters and move forward on a full campaign toward the presidency.

I want to support Romney, mostly because he’s Just-Not-Obama, but there are some things about the man that terrify me.  First and foremost, he has been hailed by the left as the “only adult in the room” during the debates (more specifically by Robert Shrum, a Democratic campaign adviser).  It is this approval of the left that may be the death of any Republican nominee, and every conservative should be wondering why we want any leftist-approved person running for the presidency.

The liberal-biased media has held to a steadfast strategy of choosing the least conservative Republican candidate and giving them the spotlight.  Prominent liberals then focus on this person and offer platitudes about how they are “middle of the road” and are most certainly the best pick for the Republican nomination.  Then, when that candidate receives the nomination, they are utterly destroyed by the same media and pundits who previously approved them.

We saw this happen with John McCain in 2008.  Hailed as a “moderate Republican” in the primaries, he was described as “too old” and “too conservative” by liberals during his presidential campaign and was devastated by a huge turnout in black voters and young voters.  His “moderate” stances led to his downfall, and I’m sensing déjà vu this year.

Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if the Republican leadership wants to maintain this status quo of losing elections, but I can’t imagine to what end.  Or perhaps they’re simply opting for the candidate who appears the most presidential and is the most charismatic, but that theory doesn’t explain McCain’s selection in 2008.  The seemingly only viable answer is that the media has such a stranglehold on America that it influences even the party it does not favor.

Romney does seem to have some fight in him, already having launched several attacks against Obama’s dreadful record.  And yes, he is incredibly charismatic and well-spoken, which arguably won the presidency for President Zero in 2008.  But although he has a chance at winning the Big Prize of Presidency, his perceived flip-flopping past may come back to haunt him in a big way — because when it comes to elections and politics, perception is reality.

In the end, I may not personally vote for Romney because either he is not conservative enough or carries too many big government ideas.  But I can tell you this, anybody else will be a significant improvement over the destructive and divisive policies of President Barack “Zero” Obama.

The New American Bloodsport

Every election year makes me thankful I don’t have cable television in my home or frequently listen to the radio.  If I did, the contraptions likely wouldn’t survive the year, suffering massive blunt force trauma as punishment for failing to filter out the vile spew we call “politics”.

But it’s managed to trickle its way into my otherwise calm and content household.  Hulu now includes a pro-Obama ad during its shows, and NBC shares the same ad when Survivor is on our little magic laptop box.  Thankfully it’s not a negative ad — which would have probably led to the demise of my wife’s laptop — but it’s definitely not something I want to see.  Ever.

It’s made me wonder how and why politics has become so pervasive in our society, and why it has become so filthy and violent.  Then I realized — football and hockey are becoming so bogged down with extensive rules that they no longer give people the thrills they crave.

I'd vote for Maximus.

As a homo sapien society, we need pain… we need violence… we need blood.  And we need it all wrapped up in one convenient, easy-to-deliver package.  And in America, we need that package to be easy to enjoy.  The intensity of our high must heavily outweigh the effort expended to achieve it, else it is a wasted effort.

Politics is America’s new bloodsport, social media is the new Coliseum, and the average American is the new Coliseum spectator.  Every gaffe, insult, misstep, and blunder our political leaders make is met with unforgiving waves of criticism that threaten their careers, their families, and even their namesake.

And politicians seem to like it.  Instead of encouraging the public to formulate their own thoughts and do their own research, they hand out negative advertisements like Christmas gifts.  Only these gifts aren’t filled with chocolate and happiness; they’re brimming with vitriol and hatred and empty “facts”.

We may even be witnessing the most politically negative era today.  According to NPR, the number of negative ads has risen — and continued to rise — since 1980.  The linked article only talks about Republicans, because NPR doesn’t believe Democrats are capable of saying nasty things, but you get the point.  Reagan and Bush, Jr. didn’t use any negative ads in their campaigns, and it doesn’t matter who started the problems and filled the political cesspool because now we’re all swimming in it.

And what kills me is that Americans are enjoying it.  They love seeing families of politicians put on the spotlight.  They love seeing skeletons pop out of closets.  They love Herman Cain’s sexual exploits.  Obama said something to a Russian leader that referred to the election?  Crucify him!  Santorum said something about Romney that may or may not have been cruel?  Crucify him, too!  (Although one can hardly feel bad for Santorum — this man is a whirlwind of madness.)

If they weren't so negative, maybe they could defeat Obama.

In the end, none of these candidates from either party is a good role model.  None can bring the U.S. back to its Constitutional roots (except maybe Ron Paul, but let’s face the facts here — he’s not going to make it).

The pendulum of the perpetually enraged masses swings so quickly from one end to the other that I’m beginning to forget what we’re even arguing about.  I guess that’s the point — none of these candidates are qualified for the Presidency, so they spend their time creating diversions and attacking everybody and their moms so the American people will gobble up the bloodsport like Romans in the 1st Century.

And we love it!  We just can’t get enough of it!  I guess every society needs something to justify their unnecessary hatred for other people.  South Americans have their soccer, Arabs have their religion, and we have our politics.

Censorship is for sluts

The entire debacle started a week or so ago with Rush Limbaugh’s comments stating that Sandra Fluke was a slut and/or a prostitute.  Of course, those were the only two words mentioned on major news networks, and those are what the leftist media has latched onto in their new struggle for censorship and hypocritical behavior.

Let’s start with something even more shocking:  Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt!  I bring this to the front of the argument because it only furthers my point that LIBERALISM IS A NATURAL HYPOCRISY.  The very theory is hypocritical, and now it has fringe groups who take the hypocrisy to a brand new level.  Bill Maher receives little to no recourse for calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” — and no feminist groups rallied behind her, either — but Rush Limbaugh is seen as a “danger to women everywhere”.  According to left-wingers, Bill Maher is protected by the First Amendment, but Rush Limbaugh is a scourge of the earth who must be silenced and expunged.

To start, Sandra Fluke is a complete idiot.  She stood before the Democrats of Congress and testified:  “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.”  She wants the government — funded by taxpayers — to pay for her contraception!

What about men?  I guess bringing that up would be “sexist”, right?  God forbid I get the same benefits a woman would.

Let’s look at Rush’s “outrageous” comments:  “What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.”

Am I missing something here?  What is the definition of a person who accepts money for sex?  A prostitute!  How is this any worse than calling Sarah Palin a “cunt”?

Once again, we see that it all depends on which end of the political spectrum you fall.  If you’re not one of the mindless liberals who eat up everything the government tells you, you’re obviously a racist, sexist, ageist, speciesist, classist pig!

Whiner-in-Chief Obama even called this thief (yes, I’ll call her a thief for wanting to spend our money on her contraception — so now she’s a slutty thief) to encourage her and tell her that the remarks made about her were repulsive and unfortunate.

Hey, check out this post I wrote detailing Obama’s hypocritical, alarmist, and insulting comments.

When will Obama call Bill Maher and ask him to apologize?  The answer is never.  Because Obama hates Sarah Palin — and if I were a liberal, I would generalize and say he hates all women.

As it turns out, Rush Limbaugh apologized today.  I think it was a mistake.  It’s more of the same — a conservative speaks his or her mind, is steamrolled by the media (in its attempt to silence the opposition), and backtracks.  The only comment Rush should have apologized for was saying Fluke should post her sex videos online.  Now that’s repulsive.

Ugh, what makes me most distressed by this whole escapade is that the imbalance in left-wing propaganda gets me so riled up it makes me appear Republican.  That’s pretty repulsive, too.

Post-Survivor Observations

It has been nearly two months since I last wrote in my blog, but certainly not since I last wrote.  I participated in “NaNoWriMo” this year — short for “National Novel Writing Month” — in which the goal is to write a novel of 50,000 words in a span of 30 days.

Somehow, I managed to succeed.  I cranked out at least 2,000 words a night, which explains my sudden absence here.  And then, not satisfied with only 60,000 words, I continued writing with the goal of 80,000 words and eventually reached a little over 90,000.  I now have a full first draft of a novel and will begin editing it in the next few weeks.  The break from it should allow me to approach it objectively, something I can’t do at the moment because the novel is “my baby”, so to speak.

Anyway, I thought we’d kick the blog back into gear by starting with something a little less controversial than usual.  Survivor ended a few weeks ago and the winner was given a $1,000,000 check, setting the stage for a new season (which seems will have a few twists in the way the game is played).

This season wasn’t the most exciting; in fact, with Coach’s presence, it was probably the most “honorable” season I’ve seen.  No big backstabs, no huge blindsides, and no big fights throughout the entire season, which is unusual for Survivor.  You put 18 people on an island together with no rules and no food and there’s bound to be social problems — or so you would think.  But not this time.  The players were generally respectful which, while refreshing for reality TV, did not make for a very interesting season.

Also, it was the most religious season I’ve seen.  Never before have so many players been so open about their Christian faith (we had Matt Elrod in season 22′s Redemption Island, but he was less vocal about it), and it was certainly a huge motivating factor for all the players — even those who weren’t religious.

“Coach” Wade – The Mystic

  Coach was a huge surprise — and a huge hit — this season.  I was completely incorrect in my predictions of his performance.  He wasn’t strung along by anybody and ended up controlling practically the entire game, which was a stark contrast to his entrance (being snubbed by everybody on his team save Edna).  However, this worked against him in the end when the other players viewed his leadership as “manipulation” and “backstabbing”.  Granted, Coach did tell many different people he would take them to the final three and in the end had to renege on his promises — but that’s Survivor.  This isn’t a charity contest, and his hypocrisy was probably ousted so quickly only because he carried on about “honor” so much.

In the end, I feel Coach got a bad rap and should have won this season.  I found myself rooting for him because he was making an honest effort to do the right thing without acting like a loon which was marred his performance in past seasons.  He was much more reasonable, level-headed, and likable this season.  Not once did I hear him refer to himself as the “Dragonslayer”, and whenever anybody referred him as such, he blew it off.  It’s clear he genuinely wants to take a different track in life, and I was sorely disappointed when he didn’t take home the grand prize.

Brandon Hantz – The Closet Sociopath

Brandon was another surprise this season.  At the beginning, he came off as psychopathic and under control of his “inner demons”.  Even Coach alluded to his “demons”, saying that he was suffering from their influence.  Throughout the show, though, Brandon made it clear he just wanted to play an “honorable” game alongside Coach, and he was incredibly open about his faith.  However, as Sophie pointed out toward the end of the show, he truly believed any of his mistakes could be waved away with a simple apology.  God may work that way, but Survivors certainly don’t.

In the end, it was his clinging to his “honor” game that cost him the game.  He gave up his immunity necklace to Albert, a weasel of a player, and was thus voted off.  Surely, he knew that he was going to be voted off — the expression on his face revealed this fact — but he should at least be commended for his attempt to do the right thing.  I won’t quickly forget his defense of Cochran after he decided to join the Savaii tribe post-merge.

The reunion show was difficult for Brandon.  He described his family as not being so welcoming upon his return; in fact, according to him they said he was a disgrace.  This was punctuated by Russell Hantz’s comments during the live reunion that Brandon had “played the game all wrong”.  As if Russell knows anything — he’s lost what, twice now?

In the end, I was sympathetic to Brandon.  He clearly comes from a dysfunctional family and doesn’t quite have a grasp on what is “normal” yet.  I think he grew in a positive way from this experience.

Dawn Meehan – The Bipolar

Dawn did break away from her “craziness”, but she ended up being a minor player.  She was voted out 10th and became the third member of the jury, beating out Jim and Keith.  Once the tribes merged, she didn’t stand much of a chance; the former Upolu members successfully steamrolled the former Savaii members, including Ozzy.

Jim Rice – The Troublemaker

Jim was everything I predicted him to be:  charming, weaselly, selfish, and conniving.  All of these aspects, however, made him a good player.  He likely would have gone much further — but would not have won — had he not been forced to face the full weight of the Upolu tribe after the merge.

His attitude toward Cochran was despicable and certainly received his full come-uppance once the tribes merged.  In a satisfying twist, his downfall came at the hands of Cochran’s switch.

John Cochran – The Overconfident Kid

I was right about Cochran on all notes.  He started out soft-spoken, overconfident, and weak.  He remained rather weak throughout the first half of the game, his fate generally in the hands of others.

However, there was some fight in this kid.  He managed to stay alive for quite a while, and once the tribes merged he pulled off probably the biggest move of the season.  Afterward, he questioned if he had done the right thing; in my mind, it was unequivocally the best move he could have made.  He avoided the tiebreaker (which consisted of drawing rocks), entered into an alliance with Coach, and probably most importantly made it clear to his former tribe mates that they were not in control of his fate.

Cochran was probably the most interesting player this season, and did grow as I had expected.  He was the low man on the totem pole throughout the entire season, but he managed to overcome most — if not all — adversity and pulled ahead of his former tribe mates to become the fifth jury member.

Mark Caruso – The Nice Guy

Not much to say about Mark Caruso (“Papa Bear”).  He was the third to be voted off, likely due to his poor performance in challenges.

Sophie Clark – The Winner

Sophie was definitely not in my top 5 — or even my top 10 — players who I thought may have a chance to win.  I figured she would hang around on Coach’s coattails, do poorly in challenges, and eventually lose her stride and go home.

However, she managed to fly under the radar and performed surprisingly well in the challenges.  Overall, her attitude and intelligence gave her the lead.  During the last few days, it became clear she was not accustomed having her character called into question, and the final tribal council was quite difficult for her.  She nearly burst into tears and her voice was shaky the entire time; despite this, the jury voted for her over Coach (who they found hypocritical) and Albert (who they found overtly conniving).

Did she deserve to win?  I think the answer lies in the fact that she did win.  Anybody who wins Survivor deserves to win it.  That’s how the game goes.  She wasn’t in my list of favorite players, but I certainly didn’t dislike her, either.

This season was, in all, uneventful, but managed to retain my interest.  I’m looking forward to next season, in which the two tribes will live together (the preview portrayed their living arrangement as a big treehouse, which could be interesting).

I think it’s in Survivor’s best interest to refrain from pulling in any past players — it’s time for some fresh blood, and I think the game works best when none of the players know each other.

An economic-beer analogy

I thought I would share this excellent analogy with my readers:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Written by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.

“Occupy Wall Street” – Making the rest of us look normal

“Occupy Wall Street” members understand pepper spray.

I’ve discussed in a previous blog that “Occupy Wall Street” is doomed to fail because it is unable to present a clear goal or a clear set of demands.  As more and more evidence of their unwillingness to cooperate with law enforcement surfaces, it is becoming clearer that not only will this movement fail, but it will be viewed with the same amount pity and general disgust as the ’60s and ’70s protests.  Woodstock is remembered by a few as a “good time”, but most of society believes it was just a bunch of hippies gathering and making fools of themselves.

“Occupy Wall Street” is evidently no different.  Over 700 arrests have been made already, and the movement is still in its infancy.  Compare that to the light sprinkling of Tea Party arrests over a matter of three years — a quick Google search of “Tea Party arrests” gives no solid number and the Wikipedia is silent on the topic, but it’s clear that “Occupy Wall Street” has already outmatched its conservative rival on the number of members willing to break the law.

No Tea Party member ever tried to overturn a police vehicle or scatter trash.  No Tea Party member ever defecated on a police car.

"Please don't arrest me, officer. I didn't crap on your car."

The unruly mob that makes up the selfish, vile, unsanitary “Occupy Wall Street” movement is incredibly tragic.  If these people wouldn’t act so crazy and repulsive and instead focus on real solutions, they could actually get together and solve something.  Instead, they’re just a bunch of whiny hypocrites who lust for the wealth of others.  These are people who have been failed by the public school system — they recognize a very real problem, a very real injustice in our country, yet have not been provided the emotional intelligence or the critical thinking skills to overcome and solve them.

Liberals should not expect their street representatives to be any different than a bunch of maniacal loons, not after the brainwashing they’ve been put through for 12 years (and possibly more if college was attended).  Now Democrats and other liberals have a more troublesome problem — how do they distance themselves from this group of psychos while maintaining their liberal stance?  In the end, they will likely fail, and I wouldn’t put it past them to actually attempt to hijack this movement.  If they do, they will seal their own fate for 2012 because it is apparent they do not stand for mental stability.

Unlike “Occupy Wall Street”, the Tea Party is at least favored and desirable to the Republican Party.  The Republicans have been trying to hijack that movement for years, and for good reason.  With a clear goal, clear solutions, and normal people unwilling to break the law filling its ranks, the Tea Party is much more mentally stable and desirable to mainstream America.  The Democrats should be vying for their votes, too.

Thankfully in my part of the world, good ol’ Colorado, the mayor of Denver has not been pushed around by these ruffians.  There are reports that police in riot gear aren’t dilly-dallying, and are instead forcing lawbreakers off the streets.  As the linked article states, when did Tea Party protesters ever gear up in anticipation of fighting off the police?

Never, because they’re not lawbreakers.  The only group that will (and quite possibly already) successfully hijack the “Occupy Wall Street” movement are anarchists.  These people are not 99% of the population.  They’re bored college kids who were taught in school that the only thing worth working for is other people’s cash.

In response to all the “I am the 99%” photos circulating the ‘net, I’ve taken my own:

The bottom line is this:  We Americans have never experienced hunger, starvation, frigid cold, civil unrest, fiscal tragedy, or war.  None of this has transpired in most everybody’s lifetime.

“Occupy Wall Street” is comprised of frustrated children who cannot cope with the difficulties of the real world.

My stance on the issues

I realized the other day that I may not be living up to my goal of consistency as well as I could be.  I’ve always tried to abstain from negativity and instead focus on solutions, and my most recent blog entry regarding the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors mentioned that an ideology based solely on what one is against will never find traction.  Yet, my entire blog has been dedicated to those solutions and ideas of which I am against. An effort in mild hypocrisy, to say the least.

I like to think my mantra, if I had one, would probably be something like, “I do not tell others why they are wrong; instead, tell them why I am right.”  Needless to say, I haven’t lived up to this ideology with this blog, and it’s time to change that.

If I were elected president tomorrow, my policies would likely be as follows:

Immigration

My first move would be to try to abolish Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship.  As we’ve seen since its inception, nothing good has come of it — instead of allowing us to easily handle the illegal immigration problem, we are forced into a corner because families are torn apart when illegal immigrants are deported but their children are not.

Our border with Mexico would become heavily regulated and monitored.  Nobody would get in or out without the United States government knowing about it.  If needed, a wall would be erected.

All illegal immigrants found in the U.S. would either be deported or slammed with heavy fines and a catch-up on their taxes.  For example, if a family entered the country illegally in 2008 but weren’t caught until 2012, they would be required to pay back taxes for four years or face immediate deportation.

Any illegal immigrants arrested for any crime would immediately be deported back to their country of origin — no questions asked.  Some say this will cost more than imprisonment, but sometimes the principle behind the act is more important.  Besides, with a strong border, this will only be a temporary problem.

Despite my harsh view on illegal immigration, I do believe a reasonable path to immigration should be offered.  Those who wish to become citizens must be offered some type of visa while they study our laws, history, and customs.  However, if they do not become a citizen within a certain timeframe (say, two years), they should be deported.

Our attention to the Canadian border should not be dissuaded by the focus on the Mexican border.  I don’t think a wall is needed, but terrorists may think it’s easier to enter from the north if there aren’t any walls.  I would pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and place them at our borders, including Canada’s.

Social Security (Medicare/Medicaid)

These government programs would be abolished almost immediately.  The U.S. government has not kept its promise in leaving this investment alone.  Instead, it has dipped its hand into it, withdrawn from it, and perverted its original intent.  I’m not saying it was a bad idea; I’m saying it was a bad idea to entrust it to the government.

I wouldn’t even try to offer a plan to privatize it.  Under my administration, this program would disappear.  A private corporation or individual could pick it up if so desired, but the government would no longer play a part in people’s investments.

Executive Agencies

The United States’ executive agencies, which are formed by the president, are overused and wasteful.  My administration would take a close look at many of these agencies, determine which ones weren’t contributing to the success of America, and cut them.  The Department of Education is a prime example.  It has thrown money at America’s schools, providing incentive to rich communities while demotivating the poor, and has accomplished nothing.  Instead of throwing money at an agency (which in turn throws money to states), any taxes gained for the purpose of education would be divvied out to the states based on population.  Ideally, no money would be given to the states, and they would regulate education themselves.

Abortion

The federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion.  The states should determine their approach on abortion.

War on Drugs

There should be no war on drugs at a federal level.  This is another state issue.  Any taxes levied for the purpose of countering drug use should be given to the states, in which they can more appropriately decide what’s best for them and how to spend it.

If I could not persuade the remainder of the federal government to discontinue its war on drugs, I would at least send the money to schools to educate children on the dangers of drugs.  Money spent on removing drug runners and leaders only results in more drug runners and leaders.

Health Care

The federal government has no place in providing or forcing citizens to purchase health care.  No such power is given in the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause hardly applies.

That being said, it is not unconstitutional for states to draft their own health care laws or offer a public option, and I would make no effort to restrain them from doing so.

Homeland Security

The PATRIOT Act would be immediately abolished.  TSA would be removed from airports, but the funds originally given to them would be appropriated to these airports to fund their own security.  I would likely make it mandatory to have security at airports, and while I would enforce moderate regulation, I would not send government agents to perform security checks.

Gun Control

I believe that the right to own a firearm is God-given and inalienable.  However, I do see the reasoning behind restricting incredibly effective weaponry such as assault rifles and machine guns.  Class III licenses would still exist as well as background checks.  However, restrictions would be no different from one area to the next.

I would also ensure that no state’s attempt to subvert this right would go unnoticed or unpunished.  Inner city citizens have every right to defend themselves as those living in rural areas.  Any bans on handguns would be immediately lifted.

Jobs/Economy

If it hasn’t been obvious, I believe the federal government is not a source of job creation.  My focus would be the removal of many government jobs, sending those who lose theirs out into the “real world” to produce real goods or services.

I would provide incentives for manufacturing in the U.S.  Green jobs would take no priority over other jobs, and the federal government would provide no subsidization of such jobs.  They have not been proven to be efficient, and as such do nothing to help the economy or job creation.  Besides, we remember what happened with Obama’s support and funding of Solyndra.  Taxpayers’ money funded bankruptcy.  That wouldn’t happen under my administration.

I believe the best way to “fix” the economy is to allow the free market to operation with minimal regulation.  Naturally, some regulation is needed to ensure an even playing field (i.e. antitrust laws and monopoly laws are some of the most important to date), but I believe an administration friendly to U.S. businesses is nothing if not helpful.

Church and the State

Laws preventing judges from posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses are in direct violation of the First Amendment.  That being said, laws preventing judges from posting quotes from the Koran in their courthouses are in direct violation as well.

Separation of church and state is important, but we must also be careful to avoid approaching this idea with overzealous energy.  Too much separation ensures the violation of free speech, but not enough results in the propagation of one religion over another.

Naturally, there are many more issues that a president would need to think about and act upon.  But these are typically the issues that determine who gets voted in.  I think taking proactive steps to remove the government’s role in individual lives is best since it is inherently inefficient, and that moving more toward a capitalistic free market that allows success and failure (i.e. no Wall Street bailouts) is the best way to create a level playing field for all Americans.

My core value is freedom, which all Americans deserve, whether they truly understand what it is or not.

Occupy Wall Street – Doomed to Fail

The “Occupy Wall Street” protests have risen up out of the ashes of stupidity and banality.  This is apparently the liberal attempt to make a movement with as much impact as the Tea Party, but it will assuredly lose momentum quickly (remember the “coffee party” a few years back?).  This is because they have absolutely no idea what they’re even trying to accomplish.  With broad, sweeping statements like “we oppose corporate greed”, they cannot hope to reach any goals.

The main problem with this movement is its inherent negativity and failure to promote anything other than “solidarity” (whatever the hell that means) and “democracy”.  Their web site speaks of joining forces with the people of Greece, calling them heroes for shutting down their own government.

Nevermind the fact that Greece was demolished by its own reckless spending on welfare and other goodies for the populace.  If it’s true they shut down their own government, it’s because they’re nothing but a bunch of spoiled, whiny brats who threw a tantrum when told they could no longer have their freebies.

Do I disagree with the “end corporate greed” mantra?  Of course not.  But I believe we also need to end government greed.  Somehow it’s acceptable to these people that the government takes my money and “redistributes wealth” because I don’t have the “right” to keep what I’ve earned.  That’s the kind of thinking these people embrace, and it disgusts me.  End corporate greed, but start with the greedy politicians in bed with them.  And yes, that means both Democrats and Republicans.  Let’s not forget Obama bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry.

The Tea Party has offered viable solutions and candidates touting those solutions.  “Occupy Wall Street” has offered nothing but children who are crying for their freebies.  If this is the American dream, then the dream has been crushed by selfish, overindulgent fools whose only goal is to spend others’ money.  This is not the America I believe in.

How many Tea Party demonstrators have been arrested in the past three years?  Certainly not as many “Occupiers” have been in the past three weeks.  Tells you a little something about the liberal mindset and its inability to hold itself to the same standards.  Violence and defiance are no-nos, unless of course it’s for a cause they support.

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement will continue to cause trouble, defy the police, and when arrested, they will cry foul.  They will plead for the First Amendment, when it is they who have trampled upon it by neglecting the right to peacefully assemble.  When that fails to win over detractors, they will cry racism or gender discrimination or whatever societal plague they fancy at the time.

This is liberal desperation, pure and simple.  Obama is a failure and these people simply cannot accept it.  Instead of facing truth and plain, simple facts, they resort to skirting the issue and pointing the blame elsewhere.  Typical liberal tactic, and it will fail as it has in the past, over and over again.