The Gun Debate (Here We Go Again)

The horrific events of last week in Connecticut notwithstanding, there are facts that cannot be ignored.

One trained person with a firearm inside that school could have saved lives.  I find it interesting that there are dozens of fire extinguishers in every school and yet I can't recall the last time students were killed in a school fire.  I suspect there are licensed concealed firearm holders on the staff at that school, just like the ones who were present at Virginia Tech.  Unfortunately, they were not allowed to exercise their right to their own personal protection, much less the lives of the students and other faculty.  It's sad that we trust educators with to be responsible adults with their Concealed Handgun Licenses until they step foot on school property.  It's sadder still that we trust teachers with all aspects of our children's lives, but not to protect them when they need it most.

So now the rage is all about increased gun control.  Recent history clearly illustrates that if absolutely restrictive gun laws worked, Chicago would be the safest city in the US.  Indeed, Chicago's homicides outnumber US troop deaths in Afghanistan. Gun control will not solve this problem.  Crazy people control will. The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in1994.  How many of these incidents have happened during its time?  To say that guns are the cause of these senseless deaths is to say that spoons made Oprah fat. 

Guns aren't the only or even the most prevalent killer.  The Murrah Federal Building was destroyed and hundreds were killed with common lawn fertilizer. No one seeks to ban fertilizer.  209 children drowned in backyard kiddie pools between 2001 and 2009.  No one seeks to ban kiddie pools. 
5,080 people were killed by automobiles in 2010.  None of these victims were passengers or drivers.  Still, no one Seeks to ban automobiles.  What if the shooter had used a car to mow down a group of kids on the playground?  Would Obama seek to restrict automobile usage?

If drivers are speeding through a 65mph zone at 80mph, lowering the speed limit will not slow them down.   Strict, consistent enforcement of existing laws will almost guarantee compliance.  The same applies to firearm laws.

If people genuinely wanted to protect children in schools, specific staff would be discreetly armed and well trained.  History proves that a "Gun Free Zone" sign will not keep a criminally minded assailant from doing harm any more than a lock on the door would keep a burglar from breaking in.

These are common sense statements to anyone without a hidden agenda.  The hidden agenda is the issue here.  Search who said the quote below and you'll get my point.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Dear Mr. President

Way To Go Michigan!

Right to work!  Right on!!

Workers in Michigan can now work without being forced to pay union dues if they don't want to join the union.  No longer will they be forced to pay dues that can be used to support political candidates that they don't support. This makes perfect sense to Texans and several other states who have had this basic right for years.  Apparently, it didn't to many union workers and their union management.

The reason is obvious for union management.  Their gravy train might get derailed.  Most union workers have no exposure to the costs associated with the luxury of being in their union because their dues are taken from their paychecks before they ever see them.  I would love to see how many union members would continue to pay their dues if it was not deducted from their checks and they had to actually write a check or hand the cash over to their union reps.  I dare say most all of them would opt out.

The fireworks are just beginning to spark in Michigan, but this is a good start.  I'm holding my breath to see if an activist judge will try to invalidate the State's decision.

INFAMY!

The End Is Near!

The news is abuzz with impending doom and the threat of the end of the world.  No, I don't mean December 21st and the Mayan calendar.  I'm referring to December 31st and the so-called fiscal cliff.  I won't bore the enlightened readers here with an explanation of the term.  If you aren't already aware, read up on it here.

For President Obama, this isn't about saving the American economy; nor is it about fairness and protecting the middle class.  This is about Obama getting his way - without compromise.  Some say that the Democrats won the election and such behavior is one of the spoils of victory.

The President had both houses of Congress in 2009 and spent the entire year pushing Obamacare, which was passed without a tax rate hike.  The fact that the President is now proposing significant tax hikes during a recession is a clear indication that he is either clueless about basic economic principals or is just being intellectually dishonest.  Personally, I believe both.  Intellectual honesty and fairness would include a flat tax proposal.  I'm honestly trying to see his point of view on this, but intellectually speaking, I cant get my head that far up my own ass.

Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean said the following:  "the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it’s a good start.  But we’re not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes.  And if we don’t do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.”  I find it interesting that Dean doesn't see spending as the problem now.  Maybe I shouldn't.  I mean after all, Dean is a "progressive" liberal and what we're talking about here is other peoples' money.  Obama's goal is to re-define the middle class, just like he re-defined "millionaires" as people making $250,000 per year.  Rest assured that your support for raising taxes on the evil rich will also be your support for your own tax hikes and you will be reminded of your willingness to ask others to pay their "fair share" when Obama makes the same demand on you.

When it comes to the economic impact of taxes on the economy, Obama and modern liberals sure could learn a great deal from this guy:

Given the acknowledged (by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office) fact that the revenue collected from the tax hike on "the rich" will only cover eight days of interest on our debt, it's clear that Obama's tax hike is nothing more than class warfare.  No one should be surprised here.  Class warfare was a foundation of both of Obama's Presidential campaigns.  It's a rare example of a politician actually doing what he said he would do.  But I digress.

Obama sent his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to meet with House of Representative leader John Boehner with a plan to raise taxes now and a promise to find cuts to the budget in "the future".  Does anyone else see the irony in Obama sending Geithner (who failed to pay his own taxes) to pitch a plan to raise ours?  While I trust a Marxist to keep his promise to raise taxes, I do not trust him to actually cut budgets and entitlements.  If you believe these tax hikes will not affect you at your income level, then you were probably naive enough to vote for Obama in the first place.

Imagine two scenarios:

1. You tell your boss that your spouse refuses to stop spending more money than you earn and you demand he give you a raise.
2. Your boss tells you that his spouse refuses to stop spending more money than he earns and he has to cut your pay.

Obviously either scenario is bullshit.  Unfortunately, #2 applies to us all.  As long as our government continues to fund pork projects like shrimp on treadmills, robotic squirrel snake bate, and ketchup viscosity comparisons, we can't expect any real fiscal responsibility from Washington DC.  Of course, programs like these have been instituted and overlooked by leaders from both parties for generations.  Only one leader has the authority to go after them now.  But he won't.  Government pork programs employ government workers; union workers.  Union workers are entitlement voters and entitlements are a class warfare stable mate in Obama's political strategy.

In pursuit of reaching a deal, Obama has the Senate but lacks support in the House of Representatives. Republicans need to present a plan; not just respond to Obama's scheme by shaking their heads.  If an alternative plan is proposed, Democrats will have to respond lest they accept responsibility for not reaching a deal before the 31st.  Who am I kidding?  Democrats accepting responsibility for anything is about as likely as Obama releasing his college transcripts.  Nevertheless, I predict John Boehner will fold like a paper doll.  He's demonstrated that he has about as much he has about as much backbone as a bowl of Jello.

I believe the only way America will see any substantially effective cuts is if we let Obama enjoy his victory spoils and allow the U.S. to careen off the fiscal cliff like Thelma and Louise's 1966 Ford Thunderbird.  Will it hurt?  Absolutely.  Will it make a difference?  I believe so.  Politicians from both parties will point fingers at each other but in the end, Americans will remember who was in office when the country took an even steeper nosedive.  Whether they remember by the midterm elections or the 2016 Presidential election is yet to be seen.  I'd like to think that we as a country are bright enough to learn our lesson faster, but then we did reelect Obama in the first place.  Maybe I'm the naive one.

Thanksgiving 2012

I usually loathe the holidays and have been quoted as saying I would rather take a sleeping pill before Thanksgiving and wake up in January than suffer the rough the season.  It's different this year and I haven't quite put my finger on the reason why.  I crawled into the attic today to gather the Christmas decorations and I actually enjoyed it. 

I have friends who will experience their first holiday season with the absence of loved ones lost this year.  I know how you feel and my heart goes out to you.  All I can say is that it does get easier.  In my case, I suspect it has something to do with having my granddaughter around.  I might not ever figure out why.  I've decided not to second guess it this year.  I'll just roll with it.

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

The Election

Where am I going and what am I doing in this hand basket?

I wish I could say I was surprised at the outcome of the Presidential election, but I'm not.  I really wish I could comment on Obama's loss, but I can't.  Notice I didn't say "Romney's win".  I was never a Romney fan, but when the only alternative was Barack Obama, Sun Tsu's well known axiom comes to mind.

Nevertheless, America has voted and it did so in record numbers.  In fact, Ohio and other states had voter turnouts exceeding 100% of the registered populace!  I predicted voter fraud would bubble to the surface after the election and it appears to be doing so in various forms.  Still, whatever fraud can be proven will not be enough to overcome the slight popular vote margins Obama received.  Liberals can celebrate the fact that Obama will be re-inaugurated in January.

Rush Limbaugh said "America voted for Santa Clause instead of work".  Hate Rush if you will, but this was a pretty astute observation.  The sad fact is that more Americans would rather receive five dollars per hour for doing nothing than ten for doing legitimate work.  My mother raised me to be self sufficient and accountable for not just my own actions, but for my own success.  I have done my best to do the same with my sons and so far, they're on the right track.  Obama's America is an entitlement America.  This administration's goal is to create a society so dependent on the government that they can't even envision creating their own success and wealth.  College graduates today don't need to worry about actually achieving anything on their own because the message to them is clear that government has got their back.

I predict it won't be long after the celebrations are over before those riding high on post election euphoria will begin to experience a post election economic hangover.  The President has clearly stated publicly that his policies will drive up the cost of common resources that all Americans need.  The President' comment on electricity rates is below.  In 2008, Steven Chu (Obama's Energy Secretary) stated "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

All Americans need electricity.  All Americans buy gasoline. Almost every aspect of our lives depends on gas and electrical power.  We drive to work.  We drive to play.  Even those who refuse to work have to go cash their welfare checks.  Everything we buy is transported in the US by rail or truck.  Many people said in exit polls that they voted for Obama to stick it to the wealthy.  If you're one of those people, you're the ultimate example of cutting your nose off to spite your face.  You're also a tool, but that's obvious to everyone (except for maybe you).  You will pay the same price for gas and electricity as those to whom you stuck it.  The meager margin of cash you might have after paying your bills (assuming you pay them) will be even more meager when you're paying $5.00 for a gallon of gas.  Just remember YOU voted for it.   The election was not just Romney's loss, or even my loss.  I see it as America's loss.

So now what?  What about the Republican Party?  As an independent, I see it this way.  The Republican party has its place, but it needs to refocus its energy and its policies.  Exit polls also highlighted a fear among voters that Romney's religious values.  I find this about as rational as prayer, but I digress.  If "morality" could have ever been legislated in America, it would have happened during the Reagan years.  The fact is even the most religious among us don't give a shit about stalwart Republican issues like abortion and gay marriage.  Romney himself was pro choice in years past.  I actually like Joe Biden's comment when asked how he reconciled his stance on abortion with his Catholic faith.  Biden stated that while he shared the Catholic church's stance, he did not see it as his responsibility to force it on others.  The Republicans could learn a lot from Biden on this one. 

Democrats want the government out of our bedrooms, but insist on forcing religious organizations to bow to their policies on birth control options and on being in our kitchens limiting our salt, fat, soda sizes, etc.  They hail the smallest microbe found in a drop of water on the planet Mars as proof of extraterrestrial life, yet deny that a fetus on earth is "alive" until some gestational time has been reached.  Republicans claim to want smaller government, but insist on enforcing "moral " issues like abortion, drugs, and marriage eligibility.

Republicans need to refocus.  I believe Obama would have been decidedly defeated by a candidate who ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism absent of all the morality bullshit.  I believe also that this is because those Americans who actually work for a living would prefer to keep more of that they earn.  It's said that the Hispanic vote was key to Obama's win.  The Hispanics I know work much harder than I do and and more than many liberals I know.  They work their asses off.  I don't recall ever seeing a Mexican on the corner with a sign begging for money.  The republican party might stand a better chance in 2016 if they accept reality and adjust their platform and reach out to a hard working, family oriented demographic like Hispanics.

My plan for the next few years is to further apply the lessons I learned in "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.   Read it before you roll your eyes (if it's not too late).  You just might find there's more to it than the title.  I turned 50 years old a couple of weeks ago and the lessons my mother taught me are applicable now more than ever.  I'm keeping myself physically fit because although I'm fortunate to have a job where my health insurance only costs me $6,000 per year (whether I use it or not), I'm far too much a realist to believe that Obamacare won't negatively impact it.  I believe in my Second Amendment rights and I am taking advantage of them while I can. I have also significantly increased my savings this year with a focus on measures to keep the government from looting the fruits of my labor and redistributing them to the ever-increasing moocher class.  After all, I am a proud producer and regardless of who my President is, I know what's mine.

I believe things will be very different in this country in the next few years, if not months.  I don't expect the House of Representatives to stand their ground against the Democrat controlled Senate and a compliant mainstream media certainly won't help.  If you voted for Obama, I'm happy that you're happy.  I predict however, that you will feel more like I do sooner than later.

No, I'm Not Pouting

I've been out of the country with no access to email or even a cell phone.  While I had a wonderful time, I'm conflicted because I left you people for a week and you re-elected the Marxist.  I have plenty to say about that, but not till I dig out from under the pile that accumulated on my desk and in my email inbox.

Election Day

Not to speak, is to speak.

Not to act, it to act.

Not to vote, is to vote.

Vote.

Surprise! October Has Passed!!

What gives?  We're into November in a general election year and there's no sleazy Democrat desperation campaign stunt to reveal some astounding news to embarrass the Republican candidate.  Still, as desperate as the Obama campaign is at this point, it has become clear to me why there wasn't an October Surprise.  The concept of the October surprise is to guard some little known salacious information about the opposing candidate and then spring it on the public late in the election cycle.  With George W Bush, it was his DUI arrest during the 2000 election.  It didn't work.

The President's surrogates like Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Stephani Cutter are about as sleazy as anyone in the history of politics.  Both have been caught in lies red handed with video and audio proof and of course, the mainstream media ignores it.  If there was supposed to be an October surprise, it's logical that it might have come from them.  Wasserman Shultz's reputation is so jaded that I see little chance of anyone taking anything she says seriously.  Stephanie Cutter has demonstrated that she is arrogant enough to make a go of it anyway.  Cutter served on Ted Kennedy's Senatorial campaign against Romney in 1994 and it's a given that if there were any dirt on Romney, it would have been brought to light then.  Romney has had an eye on the Presidency for years and if his Mormon upbringing wasn't enough to keep him somnolently boring and squeaky clean, his political aspirations were.  If there were any dirt on Romney other than him crating his dog, Cutter would have exposed it back in 1994.

So we're into November with less than a week to go and the October surprise window of opportunity has passed.  Maybe the surprise was that the sleaze level had dropped to its lowest possible level prior to October.

The Company You Keep

If you vote(d) for Obama, You're in good company.

Down to the Wire

Well, the brunt of the campaigns are over and the debates are behind us. All that's left is for Americans to perform their Constitutional duty and cast their vote. I voted early last week because I will be out of the country on election day. I usually enjoy the event of voting on the second Tuesday of November. I enjoy the crowds, the banter, and hearing everyone's opinions. The county I live in leans heavily to the right, so the conversations are predictable to say the least. When I cast my vote last week, there was no line and no other people. In fact, the room was empty except for two little old ladies who were serving as election monitors.  Apparently the UN didn't see a need to send observers to Rockwall County. I was in and out in a snap, which seemed odd in an unremarkable way.  What seems more odd is the idea of being out of the country when the election takes place.    One of the most significant events in our Country's history - potentially setting the stage for the complete exchange of our government - could be set to take place and I'll be abroad.  My being home won't make any difference.  It just seems odd to me.

To say the least, my political comments on this blog have been less than unbiased.  I used to say that there were things about President Obama that I liked.  After seeing the way he and his surrogates have conducted his campaign, I can no longer say that.  The President himself said that if you don't have a platform of accomplishments to run on, you sling fear and lies about your opponent.  It's reminiscent of the way Thomas Edison behaved in the late 1880s with Nicoli Tesla in the Battle of Currents.  A popular figure with the American people, Edison used to media to spread misleading "facts" about Tesla and his theory and in the end, Edison himself lost his company over it.  His electric chair stunt backfired on him and he wound up figuratively zapping his own ass instead of displacing Tesla.  The Obama campaign has lived up to his statement with its own lies about Romney in everything from taxes, claiming Romney was responsible for a woman's cancer death, and many others I need not detail. 

After seeing the way the President and his administration have handled the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy and the murders of our staff there, I can only think of bad things to say about the man and his ambitions.  People seem to forget the fact when Obama called on the Navy Seals, they killed Osama and when the Seals called on Obama, he let them die and attended a Las Vegas political fund raiser the next day. This week, Obama is all over the White House Situation Room feeding the mainstream media images of him acting presidential during the Hurricane Sandy aftermath.  Too bad he didn't spend adequate time there on September 11th. It's sad, really.  As I said in a previous article, I really wish I had someone to vote for rather than against.  But I digress.

One thing that makes me smile through all of this is the knowledge that the American system will play out, just as it was designed to by our framers in the 18th century.  I have confidence in the concept of our electoral system.  I defended it in the military, I appreciate it, and I participate in it.  I feel fortunate to have won the genetic lottery that placed my birth in this country as opposed to the one that Obama was born in.  (I'm kidding!  It was too easy.)

While I have confidence in the concept of our system, I know there are those who not only lack that confidence, but loathe it.  There are some for whom their own political gain - or the political gain of those from whom they seek favors - means far more than preserving the legitimacy of our system of government.  While I have been very vocal about my feelings regarding the candidates, I have yet to predict a winner.  I truly believe the majority of Americans know in their hearts exactly who and what Obama is and that they will cast their ballots accordingly.  I believe Romney has done a fair job of showing America that while he may not be the best answer for America's troubles, he is the best choice we have now and he most certainly isn't the greedy, evil man Obama's campaign has made him out to be.  I have confidence in these things.

The thing I fear most is organized voter fraud.  There are many who feel that getting it their way supersedes such patriotic silliness as abiding by the Constitution.  They justify their actions by claiming that they are for the collective good.  They are influential and they have the mainstream media on their side.  Their actions in Wisconsin during the Governor's recall election are evidence of their connections and their capabilities.  Fortunately, the informed people of Wisconsin turned out in numbers so significant, that the fraud - blatant as it was - was ineffective.  I won't predict a winner here, but I will predict that voter fraud will be a major issue in the days and weeks following the election and I hope the informed people of America turn out like they did in Wisconsin.  I'm not simply pre posting sour grapes here.  I just know what I know and I suspect much of America will also know soon.

Nevertheless, I can do nothing about it.  My hopes are high.  My fingers are crossed.  Most importantly, my ballot is cast (just once).  All I can do now is wait and see.

A Resurrection I can Believe In

Last Sunday, I was fortunate to participate in an event that just might have me believing in the power of resurrection.  At 2:00 in the afternoon, I met up with Ken, Jeff, and my lifelong friend Stuart at Jeff's house, sat down at my drums, and played.  It had been almost six years since I've played with a band.  The others have been playing together in a band Called 508 Park as well as separately in other projects.  I had hardly picked up my drumsticks since I parted ways with the guys in 2007.  I'm sure that fact was obvious to the guys on Sunday, but they were positive and encouraging as we stumbled through a selection of tunes from performance set lists that Ken printed which dated back to 2002.  After a few hours, I felt like I had regained some of my chops and even remembered a few of the licks I used to throw down in the tunes we played.  I felt pretty goods as I drove home after four hours behind the kit.  So good in fact, that I dare say that if the synergy I felt was shared by the other three, then it would appear Code Blue is back.

I wrote three entries about Code Blue in my Alaskapade blog last year.  If you're really interested, they can be found here:

Code Blue   |   Code Blue Part Deux   |   CB III, The Final Act

Don't look for any upcoming gigs; not this year anyway.  We have a tremendous amount of work to do before we can even begin thinking about hitting the boards again.  Foremost, we need a singer.  But before we can embark on that trek, we need to tighten up our sound so as to be at our best when we bring vocal candidates in.  Janis Joplin once said "audiences like their blues singers to be miserable."  After rereading the history of the band from the above links and mulling it all over, I've come to the conclusion that blues singers (especially the women) like their band to be miserable too.  That isn't a sexist statement, it's just commentary based on our own past experience and that of damn near every band whose members I got to know.  Still, we want to recapture the dynamics that we once had and a mix of male and female vocals is the best way to accomplish that.

So off we go.  After all, I need something else to keep me busy.  Look for updates here, a web page, and all the other promotional hoopla that goes along with the wannabe rock star life.

Your First Time

When Your 15 Minutes is Up

I commented on Sandra Fluke in an earlier post and interestingly enough, all but two comments were positive from readers who actually agreed with me.  If her performance in Reno last weekend is any indication, her fifteen minutes is up.  Fluke addressed an underwhelming crowd of about 10 people on Saturday at a north Reno Sak ‘N Save.  Imagine the money spent on airfare, five star  accommodations, local transportation, and multi course meals - all for an audience of ten people.  Perhaps America has grown weary of Fluke's whining about not getting paid to to what the rest of us are perfectly willing to do for free.

Dabate III - Yawn...

Maybe I had my hopes up too high, but I expected more from this debate.  Prior to September 11th, 2012, foreign policy couldn't have been any more boring a topic for the average American.  Bob Schieffer hit the candidates with a softball version of the Libyan debacle right out of the box and once again, Romney bunted.  I believe the first time Romney failed to engage the President on the assassination of our embassy staff was an oversight.  I'm not so sure this time.  In fact, I believe it was a calculated measure on Romney's part.  I believe Obama wanted to engage Romney on the topic and Romney knew any response with the slightest hint of aggression would be viewed with distaste from the public.  While this might prove to be a smart move over the next two weeks, I wish Romney had at least labeled the Obama Administration's handling of the attack as the incompetent debacle that it is.

The rest of the debate was pretty dull by comparison to their previous clashes.  Romney clearly looked more comfortable.  His demeanor was stable through the entire ninety minutes and he maintained his usual smile from start to finish.  He behaved presidential and demonstrated that he would not have his feathers ruffled by a political opponent.  President Obama was a different story entirely.  His intense stare, tightened lips, and turning back and forth were difficult to ignore.  I have to admit I get a kick out of the "how dare you" look the President gives off when he's being challenged.  The President's condescending comments about horses and bayonets was not only unstatesmanlike, it was incorrect.  Our Special Forces operators in Afghanistan have been conducting their operations on horseback for years and our Marines still train with and carry bayonets.  He could have taken the high road and used a better analogy, but he didn't.  We all know that everything this president does and says (absence of teleprompters notwithstanding) is carefully scripted.  His appearance of condescension is to me a prime example of Obama's diplomatic demeanor and why our adversaries view America as a weakened nation.

I felt like Bob Schieffer handled this debate at least as well as Jim Lehrer handled the first one.  He allowed the candidates to engage, but reeled them in when he needed to.  Unlike Candy Crowley, Schieffer left the interruptions to the President.

I would love to be able to call a clear winner here, but objectively speaking, it really appears to be a draw.  Romney rode the wave of his momentum from the first two debates into this one and played it safe, tempering a reported hawkish reputation towards war and relating the issues to the economy whenever he got the chance.  He clearly exemplified a knowledge of the world affairs questions posed to him by Schieffer.  Obama needed a knockout punch to stop Romney's momentum and that just didn't happen.  He stood by his decisions and actions as President over the last three years without backing down.  The conventional wisdom dictates that since Romney isn't the President, a draw gives him the win.  It should be noted that conventional wisdom isn't always wise; it's just conventional.

The post debate polls were very interesting.  The respondents to the Frank Luntz polls claimed the President won on the foreign policy issues, but that Romney won on the economic issues.  However, most of them emphatically stated that the economy was far more important to them than foreign policy and added that we can't influence the world abroad if we don't have our affairs in order at home.  So maybe it all comes down to the old Clinton campaign motto:  "It's the economy, stupid!"  We shall see in two weeks.

Round III - The Battle in Boca

Round three, finally.  As much as I anticipate the debates, I'm glad they'll be over after tonight's face-off in Boca Raton, Florida.  Even if Bob Schieffer manages to keep the candidates focused on the planned foreign policy topic, it ought to be an interesting show.

President Obama's track record in foreign affairs is about as successful as Sarah Palin's enforcement of sexual abstinence in her home. The President himself might label it "less than optimal".  I'm looking forward to seeing how the President spins the debacle that is the Benghazi terrorist attacks.  Attacks is plural here because our embassy was attacked and a forty foot hole blown through the embassy wall prior to the 9/11/2012 event.  Perhaps the "protesters" saw a preview of "Innocence of Muslims" back then.  Regardless, no effort was expended on beefing up security after this first attack even after other western countries' embassies were being attacked and they were sending their staff home to safety.  The idea that the US simply decided to draw down a security presence in Libya in an effort to normalize relations with a government that in all actuality doesn't exist is naive at best.  I'll go as far as to to give the President the benefit of doubt and nod my head to the draw down policy.  However, I'm still scratching my head as to why the President opted to bomb Libya while Congress was on recess without any apparent consideration for the consequences and clearly no plan whatsoever for a cohesive policy after the dust from these bombings settled.   Apparently, America failed to learn anything from our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  The President was busy getting loaded in college with his Choom Gang (his words, not mine). But I digress.

These two Libyan actions send a clear signal that the President's three years in office give him absolutely no edge over Mitt Romney when it comes to foreign affairs.  The experience card has been unsuccessfully waved about by David Axelrod and other Obama surrogates in recent weeks.  One need only remember that Senator Obama had ZERO foreign policy experience when he took the Oath.  Axelrod should fold.

In 1925, Calvin Coolidge said "the chief business of the American people is business."  Given the fact that America exists in a truly global economy, I believe Coolidge's statement is more profound today than ever before.  After all, if the world doesn't respect our might and recognize our resolve, then they will not respect our rules, nor recognize our role in the global economy.  Romney's job tonight is to make sure America gets that message.  President Obama's job tonight is to do his best to keep Romney from making that point by labeling him a war monger and a greater threat to global peace than Iran.  If Bob Shieffer behaves like Candy Crowley, Obama might succeed.  Obama can (and likely will, again) claim he took out Osama Bin Laden.  He owns credit for that decision, hands down.  But be that as it may, an objective thinker will consider how many times we were successfully attacked abroad by Al Qaeda since the original 9/11 under George W. Bush and compare that to how many times since we took out Bin Laden.

When I consider the poll numbers before the first debate and compare them to what they are now, I'm convinced that Americans are brighter than I might have given them credit for; or at least they're paying more attention.  For months before the debates, the President's campaign was successful at labeling Romney as a greedy, out of touch elitist whose interests were without consideration of the average American.  To his credit, Mitt Romney has largely succeeded in changing that perception through the debate process.  If Romney can remember this time (he seemed to forget in round II) to drive the Libyan debacle point home and connect it to a pattern of foreign policy mishaps, apologies, and bows, he can pretty much drive the final nail in the President's foreign policy experience position.  How that plays out in the actual vote is yet to be seen.  While I just gave the average American credit for paying attention lately, I'm still not convinced the moocher class can see past their outstretched, upward facing palms to connect the dots that are America's foreign policy and America's ability to continue to fill those palms with taxpayer cash.  I hope I'm wrong.

Obama / Romney II

I've been buried in work and have had little time to comment on the upcoming (now past) second Presidential debate.  Actually, it turned out pretty much as I expected.  Romney held his ground against an opponent who actually showed up this time.  President Obama was visually (if not factually) more aggressive than the first go round.  Candy Crowley behaved pretty much as objective as anyone could reasonably expect from a CNN correspondent.

A few brief observations:

Despite Obama's improved overall performance, he came across more indignant than ever.  I was pleased with the President's comments on the Second Amendment and I hope he was sincere when he made them, his education ramblings thereafter notwithstanding.  I wish Romney would have pointed out that we don't need tighter gun laws.  We need to enforce the ones already on the books.  After all, if drivers speed through a 55MPH zone at 75MPH, lowering the speed limit to 45MPH is not going to slow these drivers down.  But I digress.

Romney missed several opportunities to spank the President with factual responses to nebulous comments.  He took a play out of George W. Bush's playbook in his handling of President Obama's constant interrupting when he told him that his insistence that the President stop interrupting him was a statement, not a request.

Crowley was probably the worst moderator in the history of Presidential debates.  A moderator should never stand up for either debater. Their job is to be as ineffectual as possible to the outcome of the debate.  Crowley's interjections and cut-offs were blatant.  I believe her selection of the questions submitted by the attendees was reasonable, with the exception of the ones on women's salaries and a comparison of Romney to George W. Bush.  While the glass ceiling is always an issue for women, it isn't exactly a standout issue in this election.  Having Romney answer a question on the differences between he and President Bush held no consequence for President Obama.  It basically gave him two minutes to pontificate in a response and not be challenged for not answering the question - since the question had nothing to do with him.  This was a conscious choice on Crowley's part.  I thought the question Crowley held for the end was a good choice.  Allowing each candidate to speak for two minutes to dispel misunderstandings about them provided a nice finish.

The media calls it a win for President Obama and given his past performance, they may be right.  After all, any performance remotely lucid on the President's part was all an adoring mainstream media needed to make that call.  I think that had Romney been allowed to finish some of his comments, the mainstream media would have been forced to settle for a draw, lest they be exposed (again) for their liberal bias.  The President was given four more minutes than Romney was, but without a teleprompter, that time was pretty much useless.  I would like to see the numbers on how many times Romney was interrupted not just by the President, but by Candy Crowley.

The final debate will focus on foreign policy.  Given Romney's knowledge of foreign affairs and the President's inability (or unwillingness) to accurately address the question on his administration's handling of the Libya terrorist attack, the Obama will most certainly have his hands full.  I just hope Romney makes it interesting and seizes the opportunity.

The VP Debate

Well, that was interesting.  I figured Vice President Biden would outperform his boss by a long shot.  I figured Congressman Ryan would stand his own with the elder and more experienced Biden.  Ryan was confident and resolute with his comments.  Biden was a more adept speaker in this forum than he has been in months, if not years since his 2008 debate against Governor Palin, a much less capable opponent.  Unfortunately, Biden cut his legs off at his knees with his arrogance, dismissive nature, interruptions, and uncontrolled laughter.  Ryan handled himself well and maintained his composure despite Biden's awkward behavior.  Ryan behaved like a Statesman.

I respected Biden's answer on the abortion question and how he reconciles his policies with his spiritual beliefs.  I thought his response that his faith dictates his beliefs, but he doesn't impose those beliefs on others was an honest one.  Hard right Republicans could learn a great deal from Biden on that front.

In the end, both candidates appeared equally qualified to do the job.  I wouldn't call the debate a draw because to me, that's a copout.  I give the advantage to Ryan based on his ability to maintain composure and stand toe to toe with a much more experienced statesman.  Ryan stuck to the questions and spent far less time attacking Obama than Biden did attacking Romney.  Ryan's close was much stronger and heartfelt than Biden's.

When I consider the behavior and decorum of both parties' candidates, I'm much more impressed with the Romney/Ryan ticket than I have been.  Obama entered the stage for first Presidential debate with a cocky swagger and then failed to display enough respect to even look Romney in the eye as his debate performance quickly sunk.  Romney came across polite, sincere, and gracious.  In last night's debate, Ryan behaved much like his boss did a week before.  It was Biden's smug, condescending nature that stood out and watered down his otherwise impressive performance.

I found myself considering which pair I would prefer representing America in front of an adversary like Iran or Venezuela.  Biden's smug confidence might resonate with the hubris of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chávez, but Obama's persistent apologies would negate any gained ground, imagined or genuine.  I believe stern politeness coupled with a dignified eye contact would better project America's position and intentions.  Regardless of the media's interpretation of who won or lost these two debates, it's clear which pair of candidates demonstrated those traits.

Vice Presidential Debate

Well, the day Joe Biden has been dreading is upon us.  I'm not talking about his next prostate exam. Indeed, given his role in the Obama Administration and the probable result of his frequent gaffes, a finger up the poop chute might be the highlight of his month by comparison.  Of course, I'm referring to Thursday's Vice Presidential debate against Paul Ryan.  The intellectual deck stacking here is so lopsided that I'm reminded of the Battle of Chancelorsville in 1863 where the Union forces outnumbered the Confederates by over 70,000.

After his boss' inept attempt at standing toe to toe with Romney, some might say the pressure is on Vice President Biden to pick up the Democrat flag and run with it.  Likewise, Ryan is most assuredly feeling increased pressure to live up to the standard his boss set in the first debate against President Obama.  All those aspects considered, I say advantage Biden.  After all, expectations for Biden are about as high as President Obama's morale on the morning on October 4th.  His gaffes won't really be a factor either.  Everyone, especially the media and apparently his own boss give him a pass, saying "oh, that's just Joe."  I can only imagine the vitriol Romney or Ryan would have been subjected to had they made the "they gonna put y'all back in chains" comment.

Despite my previous post on this topic, I'm not completely convinced this will be a cakewalk for Ryan.  While Ryan is clearly a brilliant financial thinker with a youthfully sharp mind and a firm grasp of the issues, Biden possesses decades of public service and has experience from dozens of high profile debates.  Recent gaffes aside, he is clearly more comfortable off prompter than is President Obama.  I remember when an older and wiser (albeit different) Ryan delivered a beating to a younger, cocky, and probably stronger Robin Ventura. When I replay the video of that famous baseball clash in my head, the age and treachery versus youth and skill analogy comes to mind.  It should be on Paul Ryan's mind too.  Another thing that comes to my mind is the fact that despite the Union and Confederacy soldier counts in the Civil War battle mentioned above, the Confederacy won that one. 

Warning Over the WARN Act

The US Department of Labor website defines the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) as a program to protect workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.

Liberals and labor unions love the WARN Act.  In fact, when Obama was in the Senate, Democrats introduced a bill requiring employers to give even more notice to employees about impending layoffs.  In Obama's home state of Illinois, the WARN Act applies to companies as small as 75 employees.  I suppose I would love such a law too, even as a Libertarian.  I've been fired and laid off more than once and never received any such notice.

Apparently, the Obama Administration isn't so fond of WARN legislation anymore.  The looming threat of sequestration has politicians on both sides of the aisle scrambling to place blame, to spin public opinion, and to do pretty much anything except be accountable for creating the National debt that caused the mess in the first place.

The timing of the Presidential election and sequestration have created an alignment of planets that is highly unfavorable to President Obama and those who support him.  Workers in the defense industry are among the first to be impacted.  One might think that people working for Defense contractors might lean towards voting for conservative candidates who traditionally believe in a stronger American defense.  After all, it's not like their jobs depend on it.  Yet, working onsite at a defense related company, I see many pro Obama bumper stickers on the employees' cars.  I attribute this to the influence of labor unions which, in the case of the company at which I have been working, are very prominent.

One might reasonably expect a responsible and accountable Chief Executive to do his best to broker a deal that could actually avoid sequestration from taking place. Instead, what we have is a President who, rightly fearing voter retribution, is strong arming employers into ignoring the WARN Act altogether and not give their employees the legally required notice of their impending layoffs.  As if this weren't a hard enough slap in the face of these affected workers, The Obama Administration is even promising to pay the cost of litigation these companies will most assuredly face for breaking the law.  The sad reality is that many of the impacted workers aren't likely to comprehend for themselves that the debt our government has incurred - has just cost them their jobs.  It's a given that their unions aren't going to tell them either.  That said, it's even more unlikely that these same workers will see the irony of the Obama Administration's willingness to incur increased debt from paying off lawyers for defending the these companies who were given expressed permission to break the law over which they are being sued.

You will be hard pressed to find any of this reported in the mainstream media as anything remotely negative to the Obama Administration doesn't meet their political leanings.

Some Might Say...

This is how most of America feels Romney handled President Obama in last week's Domestic Policy Debate.  Some might say this is how the Republican Party handles the entire country.  In either case, I thought the photo was pretty damn funny.

Unemployment Numbers

Today's unemployment numbers are a Godsend to the Obama campaign.  The problem (for thinking people) is that the numbers are misleading.  The unemployment rate is comprised of multiple components including the number of people working, people looking for work, those who have given up looking for work, and those who never bothered to look in the first place.  These components yield the Workforce Participation Rate.  What makes today's number misleading is the way the pundits view and spin the Workforce Participation Rate.  When fewer people are essentially available to work, the numbers are skewed dramatically.

Look at it this way...

You have a sixteen ounce glass that represents the Workforce Participation Rate and this glass has four ounces of water in it.  Therefore, the glass is only 25% full and looks pretty empty.

You have another glass; four ounces this time, with three ounces of water in it.  This glass looks pretty full at 75%.

There's no more water in the four ounce glass.  It just appears to be more full by comparison.  The reality is the available amount of glass has shrunk, just like the available amount of participants to work has shrunk.  The 114,000 jobs that were added were primarily Federal, State and local government jobs, the salaries for which are paid by you and I through taxes.  If all factors are considered, the real unemployment rate is 10.7% as opposed to the 7.8% being crowed about in the news.  These are Labor Department numbers; not mine.

When laymen look at the numbers (or swallow them as spoon fed by the mainstream media), it's easier for them to think we're getting better when the reality is we're not even getting by.  I suppose the good news for the Obama campaign is that it's easy for them to spin the appearance to look favorable to an uninformed audience who can't (or won't bother to) tell the difference.

Choom Gang

I wonder if these guys ever cut an album?

The Day After

I bet the entire Obama campaign slept like a baby last night.  That is, they woke up every hour, realized they were full of shit, and cried.  I'm sure Romney slept well, at least after he left the hospital after having the hemorrhoids removed from his toes that he contracted from kicking Obama's ass so hard.  Dennis Miller said it best: "Obama better hope that a "kicked ass" is covered under Obamacare"

I woke up this morning thinking Obama should heartily thank his prep team.  Not his debate prep team, of course.  He should thank Jen Psaki and her peers for prepping the media for his dismal performance in the first debate.  Tactically speaking, lowering America's expectations was probably a smart move on their part as that was about the only aspect of the debate that worked out in their favor.  It was widely reported that John Kerry was Obama's practice debate opponent.  If that's true, I suspect Mr. Kerry will have significant free time in the upcoming weeks.

I particularly enjoyed this debate, not just because of Romney's performance, but because it was a genuinely engaging debate.  Most debates are simply a series of carefully prepared remarks with no conversational flow.  This one was not.  Jim Lehrer is being chastised for not maintaining control of the candidates.  Lehrer behaved like an NFL referee (the real ones) whose job is to be as invisible as possible and not impact the game.  I believe Lehrer masterfully saw what was unfolding before his (and America's) eyes and handled it accordingly.  Still, the mainstream media is excoriating Lehrer, saying his actions (or lack of therein) intentionally favored Romney.  Do anyone really think PBS was in Romney's corner?  News flash:  PBS has never even been in Romney's zip code.  

So now the race is on to assess blame - on anyone but Obama himself.  Al Gore offered a great excuse: altitude.  Said Gore, “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust — I don’t know.”  Really?  We are talking Denver here; not Mount Everest.  Gore's theory is even less credible than those with which he attempts to substantiate his global warming hoax.  If Gore's assertion was right, the Broncos, Nuggets, and Rockies would all be undefeated at home.  Interestingly enough, nobody has blamed George Bush for Obama's performance.  Not yet, anyway.

The voices of the mainstream media (echoing from deep within Obama's tank) are trying to pin Obama's poor performance on Lehrer, on Obama taking Romney too lightly, and on Obama's having been too busy running the country to prepare. The reality is that Obama didn't lose on any of those.  Obama lost to facts.  President Obama has never had to face the facts and be accountable for his policies and actions (or lack of therein).  He's been surrounded by sycophants for five years and no one has dared challenge him, lest they suffer the wrath of Valerie Jarrett.  As such, he had no defense of his dismal first term and offered no new ideas for a second.  We all know the popular definition of insanity.  Not to heed it here would be...well, insane!

The behavior of both candidates was telling.  Romney behaved Presidential.  He was cheerful, confident, and genuine.  When Obama spoke, Romney looked him in the eye.  When Romney spoke, Obama looked down, shook his head, and sighed in Gore-like disdain.  I get that because I could never look my mother in the eye when I was full of shit either.

Both men share a pretty close educational pedigree and their debate performance made it easy to see who actually got an education versus who just got a few degrees.  Romney's background and debate performance was reminiscent of a man who has embraced the teachings of people like Adam Smith.  Obama's past (and present) and debate performance resemble that of a man who has embraced the teachings of people like Frantz Fanon.  After watching both candidates last night, ask yourself which of them you would want to represent America's interests in a face-off against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Democrats and the mainstream media have spent months painting Romney as an elitist.  Romney's performance went a long way to combat that.  He spoke to the American people without condescension and he masterfully explained the faults in the Dodd-Frank Bill in terms even I could understand.  Romney's performance exemplified the way Calvin Coolidge served as an early twentieth century mouthpiece to explain to America how capitalism works.  Very effective.

I have to give Obama credit for not bringing up Romney's comments on the 47% who pay no taxes.  Tactically speaking, that was a smart move because the Romney campaign has owned that statement from the beginning and Americans who actually think for themselves know what Romney meant.  I believe Obama was well aware that Romney was prepared to address any salvos thrown his way and the only way Obama could win on that topic was not to raise it.

Looking forward, I expect the mainstream media to get REALLY ugly with attacks, not facts.  This may prove effective as significant portion of the American public responds more to (or at least comprehends) salacious accusations than they do genuine facts.  Since the Democrats can't campaign on any of the issues that truly matter without taking a black eye, I expect a serious increase in racial attacks, Mormon attacks, class warfare attacks, and even attacks on capitalism itself.

The Democrat spin doctors were undoubtedly up all night formulating responses that will most certainly fail to present Obama's debate performance in anything remotely resembling a victorious light.  They have to try because even the replacement NFL refs couldn't give this win to Obama.  Dollars to doughnuts they're doing their best to generate spin to a degree that the Theory of Spectral Rigidity will come into play and reverse time itself.  If they do, perhaps they can back up time far enough to give the Texas Rangers another shot at the division.  But I digress.

The good news for the Obama campaign is that America is now somewhat distracted from the Libyan terrorist attack and the rapidly uncovering cover-up.  President Obama can't run from that one for long though.  The Foreign Policy debate is October 22nd.

Against the Ropes

President Obama:  From the first minute to the end of the debate.

The Great (?) Debate

The first of three Presidential debates is tonight and I for one am excited.  Will it be great?  Who knows?  Although the planned topic is domestic policy, I seriously doubt either candidate will stick to the format.  Nevertheless, President Obama off the teleprompter is always interesting.  As such, the Obama campaign is already floating a strategy of lowering expectations for his debate performance.  I can't imagine it being any lower than his Presidential performance.  After all, he can't brag about the economy, gasoline prices, or foreign policy, and there will be no one in the crowd to apologize to.  So I predict Obama will stick to the class warfare line as it resonates well with a voter populace who lacks a worldly perspective to see through it.  That combined with the tactic of running from the record he can't possibly run on will prove to be a politically safe strategy.

Obama Campaign press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters "He has had less time to prepare than we anticipated." It's difficult to schedule significant blocks of time when you're the president, regardless of your party."  Remarks like this are why I would be kicked out of the Press Corps.  I can't imagine not cracking up after hearing this statement when I consider the rock star party schedule the President has kept the last few weeks.  If he is ill-prepared, it certainly won't be because he was busy meeting with world leaders at the recent UN conference, dealing with the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy, attending his daily National Security briefings, or working with Congress to get Americans back to work.  But I digress.

I really don't expect Romney to do any better than Obama.  Like Obama, I believe Romney is intelligent, accomplished, and honest. I can already hear the comments: "Obama honest?"  Yes.  He laid out his plans to fundamentally transform America early in his 2008 campaign and I believe he has openly pursued that goal.  The people who work for him are filthy liars, but I believe that President Obama has essentially been honest with the American people.  Back to Romney's performance.  While I find Romney intelligent, accomplished, and honest, I also find him boring.  He generates about as much excitement  as that sock dipped in flesh we call Nancy Pelosi would in lingerie.  America as a country suffers from ADD and expects excitement from its candidates.  You just don't get that from a guy whose Prophet claims to have read the divine Word out of a hat.

So while Romney might deliver the best answers - or at least the most pragmatic and honest ones, I don't expect the mainstream media to remotely acknowledge it.  PBS' Jim Lehrer is a pretty good moderator, but I would love to see both candidates try to stand up to Chris Wallace.  I doubt either would sign up for that one.

Tune in.  Listen.  Be informed.

Art vs. Hate

I suppose this could have been included in my Fairness Voter Guide entry,but it's a rainy waste of a Saturday and I'm bored.

Say, did you hear about that obscure anti-Muslim video on YouTube that was responsible for the murders of six Americans in the middle east?  It's embedded below if you want to watch.  Honestly, I didn't because my concern for the "my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend" argument can be measured in micro give-a-shits.

Seriously, once again the global double standard is being applied up for Muslim tantrum throwers around the world.  I find it interesting that the infamous Piss Christ image is again being displayed in New York City.  Apparently Mayor Bloomberg approved the display because the piss quantity is 16 ounces or less.

A friend sent me this link.  Take five minutes to listen to what this man is saying.  It's profoundly obvious, yet needs to be repeated.

Atlas Shrugged Part II

If you didn't have the balls to see the Part One, you probably still don't for Part Two.  After all, if Alfred E. Newman's motto was "What? Me worry?", then the liberal motto ought to be "Why face facts?"  Based on the book written by Ayn Rand and released in 1957, The Atlas Shrugged movie series is an accurately frightening reflection of the effects of collectivism on America today.

Transforming great books into great movies is tough.  Some of the best novels ever written have been absolutely mangled by the movie industry.  View almost any film based on a Stephen King novel and you'll see my point.  Nevertheless, the producers of Atlas Shrugged have done a masterful job of interpreting a very long and very complex novel into a movie that can be understood my the common person without insulting the intelligence of those who actually read the book.

If you haven't already, take the time to see Part One.  I plan to watch it again just before seeing Part Two.  Then check out Part Two when it hits theaters.  See the movie parts and compare the scenarios played out in them to what is happening in America today.  Even if you disagree with the Objectivist philosophy within, at least you'll be among the informed.  If not, well, never mind.  After all, why face facts?

Part One is available on Netflix and its trailer is below.  The trailer for Part Two is beneath Part One.

Voter Guide Pop Quiz

Did you do your homework?  Based on the four voter types I described, which class of voter do you think this person belongs to?

Shrug's Guide to the 2012 Presidential Election - The Fairness Voter

I suppose this entry could also be entitled The Class Warfare Voter.  Agree with me or not, you can't argue the truth of the following points from the year 1916 by the Rev. William Boetcker:

• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
• You cannot build character and courage by destroying mens’ initiative and independence.
• You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they should do for themselves.

This election more than any I can personally recall had been riddled with the stench of class warfare.  What's sadder is that there are so many Americans who are gullible enough to fall for it.  The Obama campaign (with the mainstream media's complicity) has waged a deliberate crusade to divide the country into common people and elites.  I find it interesting how President Obama considers himself a man of the common people when the commoners he hangs with are people like Jay Z and Beyonce, David Letterman, or the ladies of The View, but I digress.  Obama attended the most exclusive and expensive private school in Hawaii; the most expensive state to live in the union.  His college pedigree includes Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law.  Romney isn't from an impoverished background either, but at least he isn't faking it now. Clearly, both men enjoyed a privileged upbringing.  Personally, I prefer to consider their accomplishments and contributions as grown men and citizens over any genetic lottery winnings that might have influenced their formative years.

Romney has built real businesses, created real capital, and actually stimulated the economy.  He signed his checks on the front.  As a "community organizer", Obama spent taxpayer money on urban projects in some of the poorest communities of Chicago (while living in one of the most exclusive communities).  He signed his checks on the back.

Did Bain Capital close some businesses?  Of course.  Businesses are in business to make money, period.  A dieing company is a drain on all the ancillary businesses it supplies and buys from.  If it can't meet production obligations to its customers, those customers and their employees suffer.  If it can't meet it's supplier payment obligations, those suppliers and their employees suffer.  It's an economic ripple effect that the short sighted, the narrow minded, and those with a subjective agenda people simply refuse to comprehend.  Before you attempt to tie Romney to the exporting of jobs, consider Jeffrey Immelt and do your own research.

Last year, Romney gave $4 million to charity; 29% of his substantial income.  We know his church demands a minimum 10% tithe by doctrine.  I have no idea where the other 19% went and it's really none of my business.  I suspect that wherever it went, it was better used than it would have been had he sent it to the government instead. Among other charities, Obama gave $54k to Reverend Wright's racially intolerant Black Liberation Theology church.  When I consider the messages routinely taught by both churches, I'm convinced America was better served by Romney's giving.

So much of the class warfare debate surrounds taxes.  The solution is simple:  Flat tax.  There is no fairer way to collect taxes than though a flat rate with very limited deductions that are equally applicable to all taxpayers. Just as with the voter identification debate, anyone not for a flat tax system has a hidden agenda.

Defining "fair" is difficult at best.  To me, "fair" means a standard - equally applied across the board.  Politicians have a difficult time with the equal application part of that equation.  Labor union support is a prime example.  President Obama's health care initiative was forced down all Americans' throats, except for the major unions.  Apparently, their members get the same preferential treatment members of Congress get, which excludes them from the health care mandate.  Fairness exemplified.  Interestingly enough, there is nothing fair about labor unions, which beckons the question: if labor unions are so great, why not make participation in them voluntary?  Again I digress.

So just what do liberals consider to be fair?

Fair is me and millions of others in the the 53% working fifty to sixty hours per week to have a significant portion of our earnings conscripted and given to a substantial and capable portion of the non tax paying 47% who refuse to earn an income for themselves.

Fair is the fact that I, like many others, am forced to take a drug test to earn money that will be looted from me by the government and given to people who have no obligation to take a drug test in order to maintain their eligibility to receive it.

Fair is the fact that myself and many others have an obligation to support the children of poor parents, while those parents are under no obligation to stop producing children until they can afford them.

Fair is a man wearing a baseball cap with a cross on it being forced to remove the hat to pass through a TSA screening point while a man wearing a turban passes straight through that same screening point without interruption.

Fair is the obligation placed upon tax paying Americans to support the offspring of illegal immigrants while border state governments are forbidden by Federal law to deal with the illegal immigration that is at the root of the problem.

Fair is the government schools in New York having the right to dispense the morning after pill to your fourteen year old daughter, but you as the parent not having the right to send that same daughter to school with aspirin or Midol.

Fair is the intolerance Christianity suffers at the hand of Muslim extremists around the world.  No need to elaborate there.

Fair is using over $667,000,000,000 (that's 667 BILLION) of taxpayer money (from the 53% who pay) in a failed stimulus scheme that created "or saved" 2.4 million jobs.  According to the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by President Obama, the stimulus yielded what should have been an average salary of $278,000 per job.

Fair is the mainstream media's complete ignoring of President Obama's abysmal record in office while questioning Romney's qualifications.

Fair is President Playtex's overt foreign policy ineptitude being passed off as "bumps in the road" while an American Ambassador and two Navy Seals are dead.

If you disagree with my fairness statements above, re-read the four maxims at the top of this page.  Then, read "The Law" or "The Candlemakers' Petition" by Frédéric Bastiat.  If you still disagree, then once again as stated in previous installments to this Voter's Guide, your choice on the ballot is clear.  At lease you'll be an informed voter.