Featured Post

Abortion is The Evil of our generation

So yesterday I came across a rather  appalling article  that tried to make it sound like states having increased abortion restrictions were ...

Monday, July 30, 2012

A perfect example of immoral leftist activism

I just read an article about a "World Naked Bike Ride" in St. Louis.  What't the purpose of this bike ride?:
“protest oil dependency,“ ”raise awareness of cyclist rights,“ and advocate a ”positive body image” by taking to the streets of St. Louis on their bicycles.
 So, let's take a look at a few points...

First, they're "protesting" and "raising awareness" (two buzz phrases used by activists) by.....riding on their bikes naked throughout St. Louis.  So how exactly does this accomplish these goals?  Are those repulsed by the vulgarity of someone biking naked through the city supposed to immediately get what they're protesting?  And if they do, are they also supposed to go "Oh hey, wow, yeah. I'd never thought of these issues if you hadn't ridden stark naked on a bike in front me!"  More likely, people will just be like "What the hell?", get mildly irritated at the flashy (fleshy?) display, then move on with their lives or maybe even call the cops.   in other words, cycling naked through the city does just about nothing to forward these "causes".

Second, such an activity highlights a very annoying, disturbing, yet predictable trend among leftist activists; which is to deliberately find something morally objectionable, flaunt it publicly, then attach a cadre of "causes" to the activity in order to justify its use.  It's intended to "open our eyes and minds" to their causes and urge to "think differently".  Which, of course, is just arrogant intellectual self aggrandizing garbage.  It reminds me of those stoners that always have these awesome "mind blowing" ideas to solve the world's problems....except they're ideas that are almost always terrible and/or have been tried by actual smart people who, you know, actually do things to find that they don't work.  Oh wait, chances are the people that thought up this bike ride are probably those same kind of stoners.

Third, I'll go out on a limb and say no one cares to see these people naked in public.  Perhaps that's their point, but it's a pretty dumb one. Repulsively shocking someone isn't going to gain you any followers.  There's a right way to raise awareness and actually do something.  Riding through the streets naked isn't it.  It's childish to say the least.

And lastly, evidently some people brought their children to this event.  This is the disturbing part for me.  Instead of instilling some proper morals into their kids, these parents are taking them to highly inappropriate activist activities, teaching them that extreme, ineffective activism is important.   It's irresponsible and a good reason why this country is in the moral decaying state it's in.  If it's ok to cycle through the city naked to "protest" and "raise awareness", then what else is ok?  Damage property? Steal? Public sex?  

The sad thing is leftists do this kind of activism all the time.  If you want to point to an example of ideology that is flawed and destined to fail, this type of activism is a good one.  


Thursday, July 26, 2012

Obama and the real racism in America...

Racism.  Just mentioning the word is tantamount to setting something ablaze.  Some people will flee, not wishing to confront the fire.  Some flail about wildly and panic.  There are even some who willfully throw gasoline onto the blaze while there seem to be very few who try to find a way to put it out.  Knowing this, I'm still going to put this out there because it needs to be said.  I know others before me have said it, so this isn't some self glorifying "courageous" speech, though I think saying this does take a certain amount of courage.

It's been almost 50 years since the Civil Rights Act.  A monumental achievement for our society (which was pushed by Republicans I might add).  Yet still, to this day, we have cries of racism whenever any opposition to a minority, blacks in particular, is raised.  We have cries that our education system is racist.  We have cries that Voter ID laws are racist.  We have cries that laws made to enforce immigration policy are racist.  Heck, there are cries that our nation itself is just inherently racist.

The truth is yes, those examples do point to racism.  But it's not the acts that are racist.  It's those that are crying racism that are the racists.  Welcome to the age of anti-racism racism.  What? How can someone that's anti-racist be racist?  That doesn't make sense, right?  You're right, it doesn't.  You see, here's the irony:

Many anti racists are so hyper focused on eliminating any racism levelled against a specific race, that they themselves have become racist to other races in the process.


And even more ironically, they end up being indirectly racist against themselves.  For example, education standards have been lowered across the country because they're deemed as racist since blacks and latinos statistically score lower on tests.  So think about this a moment.  These are objective tests.  That everyone has to take.  Yet, because an ethnic group scores lower, it's clearly racist.  What does say about that race?  It's soft bigotry because it's pretty much admitting that blacks and latinos aren't smart enough to pass the same tests that whites (and asians and other ethnic groups) pass.  That's much more racist than the initial charge that the tests and standards are racist.

Another example is voter ID law.  A very common sense law to reduce voter fraud by asking people to prove who they are when they vote.  The fact that I don't have to prove who I am when I vote just baffles me.  Considering it's our most sacred right and the only power we have to control our government, one would think enshrining its sanctity would be of the utmost improtance.   Yet, because supposedly the law would affect a disproportionately larger percentage of blacks and latinos, it's racist.  Again, look at what this is doing.  It's pretty much admitting that blacks and latinos live a lifestyle where they don't care enough to have an ID even though an ID is needing for other more mundane activities.  It's admitting that these people don't live a responsible enough life to have their own ID.  Again, racism against the race they're trying to "defend".

These anti-racist racists have been adept at cowing the majority into feeling guilty over supposedly oppressing a minority.  While again, yes, this stuff DID happen in the past.  That was almost 50 years ago.  It does not exist at even a fraction of the extent today.  But yet, due to using the guilt card over and over, we have federal and state programs which give exclusive perks to races that commonly will only be available to one race or simply just exclude whites.  How is this not racist?

If there was a scholarship fund set up just for white students, there'd be an outcry.  Yet, the same exist for blacks and latinos.  And then, what about the asians?  I don't seem to see many, if any, asian specific programs out there (though I admit there could be).  And even if they were, from a statistical standpoint, it doesn't seem like they need it since they're able to get in on their own individual merits just fine.

And now the reason I bring this all up:  our 44th (and current) President of the United States, Barack Obama.  Any time someone opposes Obama or his administration, they're painted as racists.  Heck, I'll even admit that just a couple years ago, I was one of them.  When Mitch McConnell declared that his goal is to defeat Obama and make him a one term president, it was very easy to believe that it was a senator from Kentucky simply saying, "Get that n***** out of the White House!"

Yet, as I started to learn more about Obama's past and his current policies, I can see why many politicians were opposed to him.  Simply put he IS the most radical president this country has ever had.  And ironically, it's mainly because he's black that he was able to get elected.  Whoa, hold on, yes I know this statement is controversial.  But hear me out.

Look at Obama's 2008 campaign.  He ran on "Hope and Change".  This is where the racism comes in.  First, anyone who opposed Obama was immediately called a racist.  As my girlfriend at the time said "It's about time we let someone other than a crusty old white man run the country".  And despite my pointing out his zero substance rhetoric or his ties to Jeremiah Wright, I was considered racist for opposing him.  This was so effective, it led to the McCain campaign shying away from the admittedly daunting task of vetting our country's first black presidential candidate.

In concert with this, it was because he was black that allowed him to run on an idealistic rhetoric that never came under as heavy scrutiny as it would have should a white candidate tried to run on it.  Because he was black, the standards that we placed on all previous presidential candidates were lowered because holding him to those same standards would be racist.

You may think that's racist of me to think so, but tell me how a presidential candidate with:

  • A publicly communist mentor (Frank Marshal Davis) who was on the security index such that if the US ever openly went to war with the USSR, he'd be placed under immediate arrest as a security threat.
  • Connections with two of the most infamous homegrown terrorists, self described communists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. 
  • Membership in the New Party, a progressive (aka socialist/communist) political party
  • a belief in Critical Race Theory that believes minorities should receive preferential treatment over the majority race.
  • a racist pastor for 20 years (Jeremiah Wright) that said in a sermon "God Damn America!".  
  • openly admitted to smoking marijuana in the "choom gang" and also doing cocaine in high school.
  • a firm belief in Communism during his college career
Would have been able to get elected, let alone nominated, if they were white?  It's very doubtful.  While one of these on their own might not be enough, all of these together form a distinct image of a man that doesn't hold to traditional American values.  Even though Communism/Socialism's stigma has faded in recent decades, Americans have historically (and rightfully) rejected the doctrine and their candidates. 

The Leftists knew this.  They saw how even a liberal "war hero" like John Kerry could be defeated at the polls.  They needed a candidate that could be shielded from such criticism.  So, riding the anti George Bush wave (which they're still riding today btw), it set the stage to place a candidate that could preach a simple rhetoric and be virtually immune to scrutiny thanks to the anti-racism racism in this country.

And once again, if one looks at the whole situation, one has to really see who the real racists are: the Leftists.  They exploited their candidate's race to get someone into office to push their radical agenda.  How does that speak for blacks everywhere that their most redeeming quality is not their own individual merit, but the color of their skin?  It's denigrating to say the least. 

While I think it's great that we were able to elect a black president, it'll forever be tarnished as a racial exploit by the Left.  And that in itself is a shame of far greater magnitude than that of any true racists out there that might have opposed Obama because of the color of his skin. 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Ok, so let's talk about gun control...

What happened in Aurora, CO - commonly known as the Batman, or Dark Knight Rises, shootings is a tragedy first and foremost. Innocent lives were lost and the lives around them are devastated.  The wound is still raw and shocking.  We should definitely take time to mourn the lost, comfort those around them and pull together in support of this tragedy.  That should always be our primary reaction.

As with all things though, eventually the grief and suffering will turn to anger.  And that anger needs a target.  And while the blame should be squarely placed on the individual who perpetrated this horrendous act, there will be many who will dig further by blaming what allowed this murderer to do what he did.

While determining what allowed, enabled, and motivate this man to mass public murder is a complex fit of factors and circumstances, there will inevitably be the cry for further gun control.  As Mike Grunwald of Time Magazine says:

It’s telling that the people who get paid to analyze politics recoil at the notion that its practitioners should connect it to real-life pain. They think they’re covering a sport, an entertainment. But politics matters, because policies matter. “Obamacare” and “gay marriage” are not just issues that might play badly with swing voters or turn the tide in Virginia; they’re issues that affect people’s lives. Gun control and the Second Amendment are issues, too, and now seems like a pretty good time to talk about them


And he's right.  Since guns did affect lives here, we should talk about it.  So I'm going to give my feelings about it.

Gun control, like many leftist policies, has the right intent - being to reduce violent deaths at the hands of deadly weapons (in this case, guns) - but doesn't seem to think much beyond that.  It's right in line with many leftist kneejerk feeling based reactions to tragic situations that cause a ton of negative feelings.  There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce violent deaths and reduce suffering.  The problem is, taking away guns has other serious risks associated with it.  And also, taking away guns may not even reduce violence related deaths.

First, let's assume we're all aware of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution that gives American citizens the right to bear arms.  There's a very key message here that is part of the American fabric:  We have the right to  defend ourselves.  What's this mean?  It means several things.  It means that we don't have to rely on someone else to keep us safe.  It gives us the power to ensure our own safety.  And most importantly, it keeps us from becoming victims to oppressive government regimes as well as to common criminal evil.

This is where gun control really becomes a problem.  Who's going to go through the legal channels to acquire a gun?  That's right, upright, law abiding citizens.  The people that, out of any group, should have the guns.  Who isn't going to go through legal means to acquire a gun?  That's right, criminals with intent to use the gun for evil.  So the only thing gun control does here is make it harder for the good people to get weapons to defend themselves while having little to no impact on those who don't care about obeying the law.  Remember that criminals and the more repulsive parts of society prey on the law abiding citizen.  So by making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns, they instead create more victims for the truly evil people (again who don't give a damn about gun control laws) to prey upon.  And also while I don't think our government is going to slide into a totalitarian regime any time soon (if ever), I can say that the 2nd Amendment pretty much implies the rights of US Citizens to fight against oppressive regimes should they somehow manage to take power.  By giving us that right, it takes away a potential tool of control (coercion through threat of violence) that can be used by the government.

Furthermore, it's debatable whether gun control will even solve the problem.  Let's even pretend that somehow gun control was able to remove every single gun from everyone in the nation (criminals and normal citizens alike), this doesn't mean there'll be an end, or even a significant reduction, in violent deaths.  Why? Because those intent on violence will find other tools to use.  Next thing you know, knives and cutting objects need to be regulated because of all the stabbing deaths.  Heck, maybe people will just start building home made bombs.  And while yes, a gun is quite an efficient tool for killing, it's definitely not the only one out there.  If people are really intent on killing other people, they will find a way to do it.  A gun just happens to be the best way.  But take that away, and they'd find other weapons.

Gun control is only treating a small piece of the equation.  It won't solve the problem and can lead to more people being victimized.  Yes, there are some weighty down sides to making guns as available as they are.  This tragic shooting is one of them.  So was Columbine.  And Fort Hood.  And the Tuscon shooting.  But, if I had to choose between these potential evils and the possibily of losing my right to protect myself, I'm always going to choose my right to protect myself.  Without the right to protect myself, I'm essentially just a potential victim waiting to be victimized.  Though these incidences are indeed tragic and painful, I find being powerless to protect myself a far worse situation.

Friday, July 20, 2012

NBC targets For Profit colleges .... for making profits.

Rarely do I watch mainstream media news.  Reason being is I just get sickened at their clearly leftist leaning agenda.   The sad thing is that it's quite effective. People watch this.  The arguments sound objective and reasonable as they demonize their targets.  Last night was an exception for me as I was watching a story on NBC, who didn't fail to disappoint by demonizingt "evil, greedy, for profit colleges".  It took me a moment to catch the slant, but it wasn't hard to spot the flaws in the report.

If anything, this story truly encapsulated many core leftist fundamentals:

  • Profits are immoral and evil
  • Manufacturing victims
  • Absolving accountability
The gist of the story went like this:  

These "for profit" colleges are targeting low income people in order to attain the usually higher student loan/Pel grant money they have access to since that maximizes their profits.  The students are then stuck with high student loan bills and commonly default on them, which then sticks the US taxpayers with the burden.  There were also statistics that show that these pro profit colleges get a larger proportional share of student loan money vs traditional universities.  Makes those colleges sound like greedy capitalist pigs, right?  Well, that was the intent. 

But let's take a step back here. 

Granted, perhaps the colleges are getting too much money.  I'm not fully absolving them of blame.  But the rather galling part of the story was how it ignored the other two parties involved in this problem: the student and the government.  

Let's look at the student.  Unless there's some very evasive and shady practices, students should know how much their degree is going to cost them.  There's documents to sign which should outline the total cost as well as what the potential monthly payment would end up being.  My point is that these students knew what they were signing up for.  They're adults at this point, so they should have the capability to determine whether or not this is something they could afford.  Just like the housing crisis, where it seems no one is placing any responsibility on the people who signed on for loans they just couldn't afford, this story doesn't even consider that poor choices by the students play a key role in this issue.

Now let's look at the government.  They're the one handing out the loans.  My very own (much to my chagrin) Senator Tom Harkin was featured in the story about he plans on going after these for profit colleges for exploiting students and getting too much tax money.  Which baffles me considering that it's the government that's giving them the money to begin with!  You know, if you wanted to curb so called "abuse" such as this, shouldn't you examine the entity that's actually giving them the money??  Maybe, just maybe, the policies currently in place aren't good?  It's ironic too.  Because going back to the housing crisis, the lenders were demonized for giving out loans to people who didn't really qualify.  By that logic, since the government is the lender in this case, shouldn't a large majority of fault be placed on its shoulders?

Furthermore, let's actually look at these for profit colleges.  First off, there's no secret agenda for them here:  they want to make money.  It says so right in their classification.  They don't try to hide it.  Now, if they were only concerned about money and didn't provide a quality education, then that's a serious issue to address.  But, as far as I can tell, the education these students are receiving is on par with what can be received in a university.  The story even had a guy who graduated from the Art Institute laud the college's education.  While the star victim in the story meekly muttered "and I don't know if I got a quality education", the story pointedly did not even go down that road beyond that weak statement.  

Anyway though, these colleges provide a quality education.  And they're also trying to make as much money doing it.  Where are they making the money? From the government.  Just like any business anywhere else, they will look for the best way to maximize profits legally.  What these colleges are doing is not illegal.  They're doing exactly what the federal government is allowing them to do.  They're not exploiting any loop holes.  They're not be deceitful in either their intent or operations.  They're just getting as much money from the government as they're legally allowed to.  Again, just about every business operates this way. So again, whose fault is this really?

I'll acknowledge that the rising cost of college makes it fiscally prohibitive to many people.  In fact,  you can even look at these for profit colleges in a more positive light when you look at this way:  Would you rather receive a college education with a high amount of student loan debt or not be able to go to college at all?  For many people, the former is the only option.  

But getting back to rising cost.  If one wants to claim these colleges are charging too much, then there's two very important follow up questions:  
  • If these for profit colleges charge too much, then what about the increasing prices among traditional universities?
  • If these colleges are charging too much, then why isn't the federal government doing something to stem the flow?
Remember, these colleges are operating in their natural business, economical state.  The aberrations here are the students' poor choices and the federal government lack of fiscal oversight for these loans.  In fact, I'll have to say free money in most forms is a terrible idea.  Because it's never really free.  Just who benefits and whose accountable becomes disconnected, which can create problems like this.  Benefits and accountability should always be directly linked.  

For example, if they want these colleges to be more thrifty with the money they get from the government, they might consider putting the burden of repaying the government on their shoulders (and this goes for all colleges, not just for profit).  This would in turn make these colleges turn around and put students into contract to pay them.  So while the students still utlimately have to pay the loan, the institutions now have their butts on the line which will lead to them to making more fiscally responsible choices regarding who they sign up for student loans and how much they ask for.  Who knows, it could also force them into lowering costs now that their free money pipeline is gone.  

Anyway, what we have here is just another example of the leftist media pushing an anti capitalist agenda by trying to demonize a business for making money.  They ignore the other contributing factors to the problem because it goes against their liberal ideology.  

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Romney's Tax Accusers can be an advantage for him..

So, the big hubub in the political news cycle lately is Romney should release more of his tax records to prove he's not a felon.  This is utterly ridiculous.  Sure, let's make up potential criminal charges because Romney put his name on some SEC documents.  "He could be lieing! He needs to prove his innocence or he's hiding something!"  Ok, let's take that train of thought and apply it to Obama.

Obama has readily admitted to smoking marijuana and doing cocaine in high school.  Therefore, *gasp* he could have sold drugs!  That's a felony!  Obama should produce proof that he didn't sell drugs or he's clearly hiding something!

Let's try another one:  Fast and Furious killed 300 Mexicans and border patrol agent Brian Terry.  There's heavy evidence that high ranking members of the Department of Justice were involved.  There's some very interesting circumstantial tidbits that it could go up all the way to the White House.   And, instead of releasing the documents for the investigaion, Obama shielded them with Excecutive Privilege.  So, by the logic used against Romney, it's clear that Obama's hiding something and that he could be guilty of a crime, right? He should release those documents to prove he's not a criminal!

Do you see the hypocrisy here?  Good.

Ok, so far, Romney's response has been sort of meh.  He's right about the "always wanting more and more".   And he's definitely right that he's done all that the law requires of him.  But here's the kicker:  The message is not selling.  Heck, I agree with him.  He shouldn't have to.  But his often robotic "I've followed the law" response is very bland and dare I say, lifelessly corporate.  So while his accusers want more info to lambaste him as an evil rich guy, he's standing his ground by giving a pallid response that a stereotypical rich guy would give.  Needless to say it's not good.

It's not working and it makes him look weak.  As I said in the previous article, he needs to lead.  And like it or not, this news cycle, by virtue of the Romney campaign and Romney himself doing such a terrible job killing the narrative, needs to be dealt with head on.  Evading the media traps is effective if you're good at killing their narrative before it picks up.  But if you don't decisively knock it out, it'll just grow back stronger and you'll be forced to deal with it.

This is where Romney's at now.  He needs to deal with it.  And this is a great opportunity for him.  It could also potentially be a watershed moment for his campaign.  How so?  By doing these two things:


  • Calling out the media (not Obama) on perpetuating this story that has been debunked repeatedly, even by left leaning fact checkers while refusing to cover anything that has to do Obama's outsourcing billions of dollars (our tax money!) to jobs overseas.  Remember, this whole Bain thing started with the outsourcing deal.  Romney, not his surrogates. needs to call them out on this.  Don't steer back to your policy message so quickly, Mitt, slam them back to make them look like the ridiculous biased vultures many of them can be.
  • Change the narrative to a call for transparency, offering to give up these tax records if Obama will also be more transparent, particularly regarding executive privilege on Fast and Furious.  He can use this as a lever to expose the hypocrisy.  They're calling him a potential felon for not producing his tax records while the president himself refuses to even release his college transcripts.  He's brought it before, but he needs to actually call him out and set the tone that "Fine, you want to play it this way, put up or shut up".
Both of these things serve two huge purposes.  Because there's so much focus on this, drawing attention to the hypocrisy will force the media and Obama campaign to either address it or, as they usually do, slink away and let the narrative finally die.  And more importantly, it'll show Mitt Romney has a backbone and is vehemently throwing the left's hypocrisy right back in their faces. He may end up having to release them, but the point is that he's doing it on his own terms and not capitulating to sleezy leftist slander  tactics.  

The last part is so important.  If he just gives in without a fight, it'll be demoralizing.  The Obama campaign and the media will recognize the weakness and exploit it.  He cannot capitulate.  But his current defense is tepid.  It needs to be bolder.  Anything less is a campaign failure.



Monday, July 16, 2012

Earth to Romney: It's (more than) the economy, stupid.

James Carville famously coined the "the economy, stupid" phrase as an internal reminder for Clinton's successful unseating of Bush 41.  It's been famously referred to over and over about how the economy is almost always the number 1 issue important to Americans.  Anyone following the Romney campaign can almost envision there's a similar sign hung in Romney's Boston campaign headquarters.   It's painfully obvious when you see Romney doing his best not to get baited by the liberal media by steering his responses back to the economy.  It's a good tactic to keep out of the weeds, so to speak and has served him well at times.

But, there's only one problem:  It's more than the economy, stupid.  There's two factors why this is and it's important to understand both.  

First, look at the context of the phrase's original use.  It was used by a Democrat against a Republican during the recession that hit in 1991/1992 almost right after Desert Storm.  Remember, in most elections, the battle is to get to the votes of those fickle fence sitting independents, centrists, and warbling members of the opposing party without alienating your entrenched base.  In 1992, these would have been independents, slightly right of center and/or disenfranchised Republicans.  A message about the economy was more likely to resonate with them.  And if the result can serve as a conclusion, it did.

But now, let's take 2012's context.  You have a Republican trying to defeat a sitting Democrat.  So who are the fickles? Independents (of course) and warbling/alienated Democrats.  And while the economy is good sermon for the congregation (aka republicans) and can sway some independents, that tactic by itself will not be able to sway Democrats enough to break party lines.

Second, and even more damning, is that the Blamer-In-Chief, along with his cohorts, has been sticking to the Blame Bush plan from the get go, riding his unpopularity to absolve themselves of accountability in the eyes of their liberal followers.  And while a conservative whose more used to taking responsibility for their actions might point out that at some point, he has to take the blame, that doesn't fly too well with liberals.  Liberals/Leftists, in general, are quite adept at dodging accountability.  Not only dodging their own accountability, but are more readily accepting of another liberal's shift of blame.  Especially if the blame targets a conservative.  And polls, which tend to have a leftist bias, show that most of the country still blames Bush for the economy. It's a very convenient and effective excuse.  

It doesn't matter how many facts or numbers Romney throws out.  Those that are sold on the Blame Bush strategy will just attribute it to Bush.  You can point out some specifics that place blame squarely on Obama's shoulders, but it won't matter.  Because every president makes mistakes.  And when a president is tasked with cleaning up the insurmountable mess Bush left behind (in their minds), there's bound to be failures.  This is enough for those warbling Democrats to write off the economy as an issue.  Thus, for the Romney campaign, it has to be more.

I'll point to the wisdom of two men I admire greatly:  Dennis Prager and Arthur C. Brooks.  Prager writes that feelings are the most important thing to a leftist.   They base their decisions on how it'll make them feel.  Brooks points out that in order to win the free market debate, advocates have to elicit a moral argument that will resonate more than numbers will.  Combine the two asserations and you get that Romney needs to appeal to leftist feelings (aka the moral argument) if he wants to sway them to his side.  Continuously spouting numbers that leftists will handily just write off as Bush's fault is a tactic that will fail on its own.

And how does do this?  Through his character.  Looking like a stuffy business man isn't cutting it.

Obama has been compared to Jimmy Carter on numerous occasions; both being labeled ineffectual.  It's an inevitable comparison seeing that this is the first time a Democratic president has been in trouble for re-election since Carter himself.  And so while Obama has met that ineffectual criteria (with even more troubling characteristics than Carter ever had), the issue is Romney is definitely no Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had charisma that made people like him and captured the hearts of many Americans.  He wasn't called the Great Communicator because he was good at parroting his campaign's talking points.  He was called that because he was able to communicate with the country effectively.  He also had the courage to say what he thought was right, even when his advisors in the government advised him not to say things like "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." or call the Soviet Union an "evil empire".   It showed that he was a leader.

That's what Romney needs to do.  He needs to LEAD.  Leaders inspire.  Leaders have the courage to do and say things that no one else will.  While being a business man gives him great economic credentials, it's not inspiring.  A president has to be more.  Being better at minimizing damage than McCain isn't going to win an election against a likable incumbent.  I'm not saying he should try to emulate Reagan.  But what I am saying is that a presidential election is ultimately a referendum on all fronts, including character.  If there's any job on the face of the planet where only the highest standards are accepted, it should be the one that serves as the unofficial leader of the free world.

People want to see Mitt's courage and character.  Enough with the business stuff; we know Romney has the business savvy to enact smart fiscal policy.  It's close to time to take the fight to the liberals and show the people that Mitt Romney is not afraid to stand up to the decrepit leftist tactics being wielded against him.  Another man I admire to which I'll always quote: As Scott Walker said, you need to have courage to do the right thing.  Take the gloves off, Mitt (pun semi intended).  Lead your campaign like a boss.  America is waiting.

Monday, July 9, 2012

The conservative struggle - why this election is so important

While the implementation of Obamacare should worry every freedom loving American enough to rouse them to vote and has become the center piece of this election, I wanted to take the time to explain more on why this election is so important.  While Obamacare is a good focal point, this election goes beyond that.  It even goes beyond our struggling economy and astounding national debt.  While the Romney campaign is making this election a referendum on Obama's dismal record, there's a deeper ideological battle going on.

Many people complain about the "radical" and "divisive" Tea Party.  They're too combative.  They're too hostile.  They're responsible for the huge political polarization that exists today.  And while it seems the media , leftists, centrists, and even some "traditional" Republicans are content to paint them as the "right wing nut jobs", the truth is there's a very good reason why the Tea Party exists in the first place and why it is seen as being so controversial.  The reason is after Obamacare passed, they recognized the struggle going on and the dire position America was in.  We had, for all intents and purposes, an internationalist/socialist President that enjoyed a majority in the House and Senate that had a similar leaning.  Obamacare is the biggest power grab and overreach of the federal government since FDR's New Deal legislation was pushed through after cowing the Hughes Supreme Court into submission by threatening to pack the court with a leftist majority.  This type of legislation was a huge red flag that the federal government was pushing America in a direction that most Americans are opposed to.

And the problem?  Playing nice wasn't getting them anywhere.  In fact, "playing nice" was what got Obama into the White House to begin with.  McCain (along with a complicit media) caved to the pressure of playing nice and failed to vet a president that has an alarming amount of radical ties that would make even the most reserved American have serious doubts.  So the Tea Party saw the threat for what it was and knew not only was this current government bad for the people, but we were in a deeper ideological struggle.  And thankfully, the American people responded by ousting 63 members of the House, narrowing the Senate gap, and electing several like minded state governors (like Scott Walker).  

The point in this is that while people may bemoan and lament the political polarization of this country, the fact is that this polarization is a natural phenomenon due to the increasing drift to the left of current politicians (mostly Democrats, but some Republicans as well) at the time.  Being a "centrist" just wasn't enough.

Because, you see, the hardcore leftists are using a strategy that follows the teachings of Saul Alinsky: " Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people".  By being passive, non challenging, and friendly, they slowly push their own agenda without raising alarm.  It makes them look objective and reasonable, making anyone who vocally opposes them look like the irrational instigator while at the same time being able to hide their own radical agenda in plain sight.  In other words, the Tea Party really had no choice if they wanted to be effective (which evidently worked).


Ok, so we're in a deeper ideological struggle.  Got it.  Is that why this election is important?   While yes, it's more about what the election means to this ongoing struggle.  While it will continue to go on afterward, the results will be a turning point for either side.  It's about what's at stake.


If Obama wins:

  • Obamacare will almost assuredly take hold.  Even if conservatives control the House and Senate, the power of veto would require a 2/3 passage in both House and Senate to override.  Since Carter, there's been a total of 4 vetoes overridden against a Democratic President out of their combined 70 total vetoes, so it's very highly unlikely.  This is the beginning of socialized medicine.  And Vladmir Lenin (you know, the guy responsible for Communist Rusia) said "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State".  Let that sink in.
  • It will also prove that an election campaign based on lies and distraction is enough to win over the American people despite a President having a very dismal record.  It affirms that the Alinsky tactics work and that truth isn't as important as shaping perception.
  • It signals that more Americans want big government than personal liberty.  This is an important signal, because...
  • It gives Obama and his cronies free reign to fully enact the "fundamental change" he promised.  It's what the American people want, so that's what he's going to give them.  Checks and balances be damned.  Whatever he says is what the people wants.  This is not hyperbole.  He's already done this a couple times at least.
Bottom line is we'll become more and more like a global socialist state.  And the uniqueness that is American liberty and free markets, two things that make this country exceptional on the world stage will fade away.

However, if Romney wins:
  • Obamacare has a stronger chance of being repealed.  It'd still need to pass the House and Senate (which is why all congressional elections are important), but instead of a veto wielding president we have a president waiting for the repeal bill to hit his desk so he can sign it.  It will allow us to come up with better solutions that fix the real problem (seedy relationships between hospitals - not doctors, medical and pharmaceutical companies, employers, unions, and insurers) and allow free market competition to breed lower premiums and costs.
  • It will show that people recognize the deceitful tactics of the left and have had enough of them.
  • And it also shows that we value liberty and American exceptionalism's opportunities over a "nanny state".  
  • It brings us back to common sense and allows us to fix the problems that have been in place for a little over a decade now.  
Bottom line here is if conservatives win, it'll be a turning point for this country as we pivot back to the vision of the founding fathers and reject the failed policies of socialism.  That we recognize the deceitful tactics of the hardcore leftists and are unquestioningly reject them.  It's a victory conservatives sorely need.  The battle against socialism and is never ending, but we can never give up the good fight.

So why is this election so important?  It's because it's a battle for the heart of America itself.  Don't be fooled by those crying "Alarmist!".  Remember that's what the left wants: for you to be docile, lethargic, and "nice" enough not to raise opposition.  It's an uphill battle for conservatives because we've lost so much ground.  Just keep in mind that if we do nothing, they win.  




Sunday, July 8, 2012

Obamacare - Why it's bad for America

Welcome to the last article in a series about Obamacare and its impact on the elections, and the future of this country.  Previously, I've talked about why it's important.  I've talked about the tactics liberals generally employ in a debate.  And I've talked about what to expect when discussing Obamacare with a liberal.  And now, in this final article, I explain why Obamacare is bad.  Some might say that I should have had this one first.  But I beg to differ.

Consider this article the bullets for your battle.  Then consider the previous articles as the tactics of the enemy and an instruction manual on how to use the bullets.  If given the bullets first without knowing what to expect from the enemy or how to effectively use the bullets, it's possible for someone to plunge head first into a situation confidently armed with their new ammo, only to get in a situation they weren't prepared for where they just toss their bullets limply at their foes.  They have no idea how to use the bullets effectively and are floundering from an attack they didn't expect.  They lose the battle and become discouraged while at the same making it harder for them to make further engagements with the enemy.

Knowing why Obamacare is bad is very important.  But the goal is to capture the hearts and minds of our liberal friends and family.  If we're not prepared, we won't win.  So by holding off this article until last, I'm hoping that it will create a strong mindset that I think is imperative for victory.

Now, down to the brass tacks:

Why Obamacare is bad

Ok, so you know what to expect, but knowing why Obamacare is bad is important.  You can't win a battle or debate without at least having some rudimentary knowledge of why it isn't a good thing.  Remember that you'll get challenged by the bleeding hearts so if you don't have a solid reason why you're opposed, they'll have no other recourse but to think you're either uncaring, racist, a sore loser, or all three.

They lied to us - it IS a tax.

Obama is on record saying the mandate is not a tax.  Democrats throughout its passing swore up and down it was not a tax.  Yet, the oral arguments of the case before the Supreme Court tried to say it was a tax. And now via Chief Justice Roberts' ruling, the only way the mandate is constitutional (aka legal) is as a tax.  On top of the mandate, the bill has quite a few taxes hidden away among the 2,700 pages. Thanks to Roberts, the mandate has been called what it is:  a tax.  Remember Obama promised he would not raise the taxes of the middle class.   Yet, the mandate as well as the other taxes combine to be the biggest tax hike in history (70% of the increased burden of Obamacare will be shouldered by those making $120,000 or less).  They knew how toxic the word tax is, so they avoided it at all costs.  They did their best to make it not look like a tax.  But now, the truth is quite plain:  the mandate (and other provisions in Obamacare) is a new tax on the middle class.  In other words, they lied long enough to get this to pass and now can conveniently "disagree" with the Supreme Court's ruling.  This is outright deceit and very Alinsky-esque in nature.  Any politician that had a hand in passing this bill is complicit in the lie.  For added bonus here's a list of the House Democrats that voted for Obamacare and one for the Senate.

It will increase healthcare costs, not lower them.

A common conservative mantra is that increased regulations means increased costs.  Here's how it works:  The government tells a company they have to do this, this, this, and that to comply or else pay a steep fine.  In order to comply, the company must spend resources and time to adhere to the regulations. Resources and time cost money.  And in some cases, there's just a tax the companies have to pay for various reasons.  And do you think the companies just absorb that additional cost?  Heck no.  They pass it right along to the customer.  Just look at states where the obligation to pay sales tax is placed on the seller.  The purchaser buying the product has no obligation to pay a sales tax, yet they end up shouldering the burden because the seller passes that tax right along to its customers.  Most increases in a business' operation expense is translated into higher cost of their goods and services.  Insurance companies and hospitals will operate no differently.  And usually, free markets tend to self regulate businesses on how much cost they pass on to a customer.  If the price is too high, customers will turn elsewhere which forces the business to look at reducing their costs elsewhere to reach a cost the customer is willing to pay.  Yet, because everyone must have insurance now, there'll be less incentive for an insurance company to reduce its costs elsewhere.  For a more in depth look at how Obamacare will raise costs, read the heritage foundation's report.  But the bottom line is the increase in regulations and the taxes hidden away in Obamacare will ultimately increase health care costs for the end user, us.

Government costs

It's estimated, by today's standards, to cost at least $200 billion a year by the time Obamacare is fully implemented.  And this isn't really replacing any expenditures we have in place now.  Where's that money going to come from considering we're already in a down turn economically?  A costly program like this will lead us to the problems we're now seeing over in Europe, which  by the way, has socialized medicine.  Coincidence?   What's been clear to me is that the more bureaucracy there is, the more something will cost and the less effective it will turn out to be.  Again, it's a resource thing.  The government's going to need to hire a ton of people to keep this thing going.  And who do you think is going to foot the bill?  That's right, us.

Federal expansion of power

While this one is the most alarming for conservatives, it's a hard sell for liberals.  Why? Well because many liberals WANT big government.  They want big brother to take care of them, so they'll do what big brother tells them to.  While being able to tax an individual just because they were born should be quite alarming, the bottom line for liberals is they won't care since they're being taken care of.  The problem with this is, as Thomas Jefferson so adequately put it "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases " So while the free ride's cool now, it won't be so cool once the government wants you to do something you don't like.  And then what will you do?  There's nothing you can do because they can take away everything they've given if you don't march to their tune.  This is the fear the founding fathers had about big government and why they were so adamant to push individual liberty.  

The bottom line is if they can tax us for having a heartbeat (heck, they tax us even after we stop having one), then there's currently no limit on what they can justify as a tax.  Who knows, they could tax people who don't  purchase a federally approved stepometer (one conventiently manufactured by an Obama campaign contributor's company) and also tax them for not reaching so many steps in a year.  And why? Because it's been determined that walking/running/jogging makes you healthy and will drive down health care costs.  Think that's ridiculous?  Just keep in mind that liberals are the "we know what's best for everyone" kind of people.  And so if they consider it "for the good of the country", then that's all that's needed as justification.

Final Thoughts


Thanks for reading through all these articles.  I have a lot to say on this topic because I recognize it as being the most important topic this election year.  And this election year was already shaping up to be the most important election since Reagan unseated Carter in 1980.  In fact, I think this election is even more important than that.  At least back then we didn't have a radical, un-American president doing his damndest to squash the American dream and make America feel bad for being American.  As I've said, there is a strong ideological battle being fought.  It's pulled me into its ranks over the last few months and I'm suspecting a lot more people are feeling the call.  Don't ignore it.  Don't be made to believe that we're overreacting lunatics.  That's what the opposing side wants you to believe.

Keep in mind, they currently have the advantage.  Their agenda has had the strength of motivation building up for decades.  They have the media in their pocket.  And all they have to do to win is to trick us into remaining indifferent and to lose hope.  Stay strong and remember this is a battle worth fighting.  This is the struggle of our generation.  It's a struggle difficult to fight against because it is so damn easy to give into indifference and pawn the political burden onto others.  But know that one day, this indifference will catch up to us.  And I think it's a lot closer than many may realize.



Saturday, July 7, 2012

Obamacare - What to expect from Liberals

Welcome back to the third in a series of articles revolving around Obamacare and its relevance to this year's election.  Previously, I've talked about why Obamacare is important to these elections and also prepped you on the tactics liberals use when debating.  In this article, I discuss the arguments you can expect liberals to use and how to counter them.

Remember, that we are in an ideological battle this election.  As many conservative pundits and politicians have (rightfully) said (even before the Obamacare ruling), this election is a choice on which way America wants to go.  Do we want more government in our lives or do we want to return to the vision that our Founding Fathers had?  It's a battle to convince people that the latter is the correct course to take.  

Just remember though:  There are people on the "other side" of this battle.  And while their stances might be frustrating, or heck, they might even be rude and condescending to you, they are still people and many times will be people you care about. 

Keep this one maxim in mind:  Insults, name calling, and belittling argument will polarize a nation.  Calm, thought out, mature conversations will bring us together.

Keep it civil.  Even when (or especially when) the "other side" is insinuating that you're stupid and/or heartless.  Keep it civil.  Demonstrate genuine love and compassion in your arguments.  It will resonate, even if you don't see it firsthand.

With that said, here's what to expect:

U Mad Bro? - The non issue approach

The simplest counter to the Obamacare issue for liberals will be to make it seem like  a non issue by making you look like a "raving mad far right lunatic" (distract and discredit).  Expect when you bring up the issue for them to call you a sore loser (discredit) or that it's not a big deal since the supreme court says it's fine (distract).  The bottom line is they'll try to make you look like a spaz or look dumb "Ugh, you're STILL going on about Obamacare????".

Case in point: My very own Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa 2nd District) said in an interview that he believes the Iowan people want to "move on" now that it's been decided by the court.  (You'll be hearing more from me about my local congressional race in the future).  Naturally he wants to say that because he knows how dangerous shining the spotlight on Obamacare is not only for him but for every politician who supports it.

How to counter it:  First off, remain calm.  This is a tactic meant to piss you off, which only allows them to show how their point was proven.  Don't take the bait.  Smile.  The goal here is to force them into a debate about the issue by framing their lofty, whatever type arrogance as cold, uncaring indifference.  An example would be, "I didn't realize that worrying about the biggest tax hike in history meant I'm a sore loser".  You can pretty much use any one of the main Obamacare points that I'll list in the next article.

Just remember that this approach is characteristized by a smug, lofty arrogance.  The key is turning that mindset into a liability.

What about the children???  The bleeding heart approach

If a liberal decides to engage in a debate about Obamacare (and believe me, many love to do this just show off how smart, cultured and educated they are), the number one tactic they'll use is touting Obamacare's altruistic goals:  Healthcare for everyone, lower healthcare costs, sticking it to greedy insurance companies, free pony rides for kids up til the age of 26.  Their goal here is to make you look like an uncaring jerk.  "How can you be a decent person if you oppose free pony rides for kids???"   This is an all too common liberal tactic in just about anything.   Their pandering talking points are always awesome and frames the argument that'll put you at a disadvantage if you fall for it.

How to counter it:  First off, remain calm.  Once again, they're deliberately trying to fluster you by insinuating something that they know is false about you (that you're an uncaring jerk), knowing full well the audacity of the implied accusation will tick you off.  The key to countering this is getting the debate away from arguing over the reform's altruistic aspects.  It's key to move away from the what to the how, to show you do generally agree with all the nice things Obamacare is trying to do, but not agree with how it's trying to accomplish it.

Despite claiming to be more pragmatic than conservatives, the irony is that many liberals are far more ideological and shallow when it comes to practicality.  They have all these great ideas to better the world, but   hardly ever work out how to accomplish those goals.  Many do not like the notion that money, business,and economy are the driving factors for any change.  Things like resources and cost are only minor details that get in the way of their lofty ideological goals.  They look for the magic bullet to those problems which almost always turns out to be Big Government; which they've enshrined as this limitless well of resources and power able to make the world a better place by sheer will alone.  Like Nancy Pelosi said "we have to pass the bill first to find out what's in it", the details are a mere afterthought.  This is important to remember when encountering bleeding heart liberals.  Convicting them of their lofty fantasies is the wrong way to go, but trying to anchor their goals with real world pathways and constraints not only counters their altruistic rhetoric, but it also can convey your sincerity in tackling the issue close to their heart by showing how much thought you have put into solving the problem.

You don't like it just because he's black!  The "conservatives are all racist bigots" approach

This is both a discredit and distract tactic.  By claiming you're racist, they're discrediting your credibility and then distracting by moving the debate away from Obamacare and about you being a racist.  Class and race division tactics are commonly used to shut conservatives up and it's been quite effective.  Even John McCain in 2008 was cowed by this pressure when he refused to vet Obama.  Naturally, the tactic is ridiculous in accusation.  The cunning part is how well it will shield the liberal's vulnerabilities while changing the debate to a battlefield liberals are far more comfortable in fighting:  the racism theater.

How to counter it:  First off, remain calm.  If you haven't figured it out yet, remaining calm is the key to any debate.  The moment you lose your head, you've lost your credibility and will be conveniently filed away as another "right wing nutjob".  While acquiring that label at some point is just about inevitable, the less opportunity you give them to substantiate their claim, the more the claim will look like bigoted overreach on their part.  Anyway, second thing to do is to not fall for the trap.  Do not get suckered into a debate about race.  Keep the debate where it belongs:  on the bad policy that is Obamacare.

Here's a little tidbit that could help you along the way:  Liberals, for just about a century, have been trying to push socialized medicine.  Teddy Roosevelt (of the progressive party), Harry Truman, and the Clintons have all pushed for socialized medicine and it's been defeated in Congress every time.  This points to a clear precedent that the American people historically do not want socialized medicine.  And if polls are any indication today, this trend still strongly holds true.  So the opposition to socialized medicine has a long history in this country that had nothing to do with a black president since, up until Obama, socialized medicine has only been pushed by white politicians.  So without the race factor, there was no outcry, meaning it fell back onto the merits of the policy itself, which has been rejected by Americans for about a century now.

Auto Insurance is mandatory, what's the difference?

I've seen this argument used.  Even Obama himself (it's at the 4:15 mark) has used this line.   If you're required to get auto insurance, why not health insurance?

How to counter it:  This one's pretty straightforward.  The difference is the details.  The key thing to note is citizens are not required to get auto insurance unless they want to drive.  You see, there's a choice.  People are not required to drive a vehicle and in a number of cases there are viable alternatives.  Therefore driving is still a choice and if you make that choice to drive, then yes, there are requirements.

However, with the health insurance mandatax, there is no choice.  They are putting a requirement on you just for being born and living.  The only way "opt out" is to die and I'lll go out on a limb to say most people would rather not do that.  What it boils down to is you have no choice in the matter.  You pay for insurance, or suffer a penalty.

In Summary

For any debate, liberals are expecting you to be bigoted, narrow minded, and uninformed.  And it's not that we all are. It's just the way most conservatives are wired to take a straightforward, no nonsense approach.  Admittedly, we're more prone to rely on our "gut check".  While this isn't bad, because those with a strong moral compass usually have a moral and strong gut check, if we've any hope to win the battles we need to win, we have to be armed with knowledge and a temperament that won't scare away our liberal friends and family.  Remember that this is ground we're trying to gain back, so we have to go places and fight in a way that we're not necessarily accustomed to doing.  As Reagan said, "there is a simple choice, not necessarily an easy choice".  Keep that mind and have the courage to fight these battles.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Obamacare - Know Thy Liberal

This is the second article in my series about Obamacare.  The first explains why Obamacare is important to the upcoming elections in 2012.  This next article briefly covers understanding how liberals do battle in arguments.  This isn't a comprehensive list by any means.  Nor is it something I stole from a book.  From my observations in dealing with liberals over the course of my life, these are the general observations I have made.  Granted, what's described below isn't necessarily exclusive to liberals, as they can be attributed as common tactics among any debate, but liberals, given that their agenda isn't very popular in the US and that they're more accustomed to having to defend the indefensible, are commonly seen using these tactics - especially against common no nonsense conservatives.

With that in mind, one thing I want to set clearly:  We are in a battle, folks.  It's not the type of battle you may be used to hearing about.  It's an ideological battle, one that's been waged ever since the inception of this great nation. One that conservatives have been slowly ceding ground.  One that, if not for the foresight of the Founding Fathers that recognized the inevitable slide to corrupt central power by inserting fail safes into the DNA of our nation, we'd have succumbed to socialism/communism/progressivism a long time ago.  It's a battle that pits individual liberty against "group think" central control.  

The battle itself is going to take place in the homes across America.  The battles between you and your liberal relatives and friends.  It's important for us, as conservatives. to be ready for these battles.  And unfortunately, due to conservatives generally having an honest, straight forward, no nonsense nature, we typically haven't been doing that good in this front.  Below are some basic tactics liberals are known to use in these battles...

What to expect from Liberals - Know Thy Enemy

As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War:
If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win numerous (literally, "a hundred") battles without jeopardy.
Seem a little harsh to call your friend or relative "the enemy", right?  And I agree, you should not treat them like your enemy.  But understand that yes, as a liberal/progressive, they are your ideological enemy.  There's plenty of liberal minded people that I love dearly.  It's important to make this distinction.  The battles we're waging are conversations and debates.  They may get heated, but also remember there's a person on the other side and not just some nameless enemy.  Though knowing that, if you want to win the battle, knowing what to expect from them can help you tremendously.

Here's what I call the "4 D's" that liberals commonly employ in a debate.  In these examples, I thank Attorney General Eric Holder and the Departmentof Justice for providing examples of them during this Fast & Furious debacle.


  • Distract - When a liberal is confronted with an issue that they know is indefensible or shaky ground at best, they'll try to redirect the debate to something more solid for them to work with.  It's usually an issue where they believe they'll have the moral upper hand or where it'll damn the opposition of doing the same "bad" thing.  A prime example of this is how Eric Holder tried to get the Oversight committee to talk about Wide Receiver instead of Fast & Furious.  In essence, he was trying to move away from talking about him onto someone else.
  • Distort - Liberals love to distort the truth.  It's what more commonly referred to as "spinning".  In their mindset, it's not really about the truth, it's about the perception of it.  So by distorting the truth, but not outright lieing, they can shape the perception to something that's favorable to their agenda.  AG Holder in this example, attempts to claim that the letter on Feb 2011 that falsely claimed the DOJ had no knowledge of F&F's gunwalking tactics wasn't exactly false.  He tries to take a simple truth, that the letter was a lie, and twist it so it doesn't look like a lie any more.
  • Deflect - The little brother to distract.  Deflecting involves taking a potential "hit", but mitigating its damage by being as vague or ambiguous as possible.  By deflecting in this way, it shields them and also allows them to draw upon that deflection later to either distort or distract afterward.  The DOJ's attempt to cover Holder's distraction tactic by blaming a previous AG under the Bush administration by claiming it was inadvertent (despite being quite explicit) is an example of deflection.  They tried to downplay Holder's obvious attempt at distraction by claiming he didn't mean to do that (when in fact that's exactly what he tried to do).  
  • Discredit - This tactic is commonly woven into other tactics, but can stand alone on its own.  The premise is simple:  By reducing your opponent's credibility, it makes their arguments, no matter how much truth they have behind them weaker.  By damaging their credibility, they can also question the validity of even the simplest statements.  Sticking with the F&F motif, all the democrats claiming chairman Issa is just out to score political points via witch hunt is an attempt to discredit him despite ignoring the time table and the gravity of the Fast & Furious scandal.
As you'll see in the next article, these tactics are employed in a variety of ways when liberals argue with someone opposed to Obamacare.  It's important to recognize these tactics to avoid falling into their trap.  

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Obamacare - Why it's so important to this election

Over the next few days, I'll be releasing more articles regarding Obamacare.   I was initially going to have this in one article, but it became so massive that I decided to break it up.  I already have posted my initial reaction to the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling where I discuss the impact of Roberts' unprecedented ruling.  This first article talks about why Obamacare is important in these upcoming elections.  Future articles will talk about how liberals argue, what to expect from them regarding Obamacare, and also why Obamacare is so bad for our country.  Anyway, let's begin...

So it's been a week since the unforseen ruling that upheld Obamacare.  Hopefully we've all had our freak out and are ready to plow ahead.  Say what you will about Roberts' decision, the bottom line is he essentially punted this issue back to the political realm, forcing We the People to do something about it.  And if the past week has been any indication, it definitely has.  The decision has once again ignited the Tea Party and other like minded conservatives to fight against Big Government and its ever encroaching power over individual liberty.  That ruling has established the rallying cry for Republicans going into November, including Romney who immediately declared he'd work to repeal Obamacare from Day 1.  Coincidently, donations immediately started pouring in for Romney at an unprecedented rate.

Republicans will use Obamacare as their rallying cry to not only invigorate their base, but to also hopefully pull in Independents and conservative Democrats (yes, they do exist) to their side.

So make no mistake: this will be the dominant issue of the 2012 elections.   Not only the general election, but every congressional election.  Because in order to repeal Obamacare with expedience, Republicans need to at least hold the House and recapture the Senate, needing to win at least 14 of the 33 seats up for grabs.

But why is it so important?  If you look at Obamacare as a whole.  What it wants to do.  How it plans to do it.  How it passed.  How it was sold to the American public.  All of it.  When you look at it, it's a quintessential example of the liberal and progressive philosophy and agenda.  And what's the liberal agenda? Whats the end game, essentially?  It's controlling every aspect of an individual's life that they believe should be controlled.  Keep in mind, it's almost always well intended.  You are required to workout three times a week for a total 3 hours to stay healthy and are not allowed to drink more than 15oz of soda in a week in order to stay healthy.  You are required to watch the government funded news update at 7 every day to stay informed of important federal announcements and events.  You are required to purchase health insurance to lower the overall cost of health care.  See? They have your well being in mind and know what's best for you.   Sure, those look like extreme examples, right?  Right now, perhaps.  But remember, all it takes is the right justification, the right gradual nudging, to make someone open to such suggestions.  That's why it's important.  This is a huge push of that agenda.  It's important for those that truly believe in individual liberty to fight back.

No only that, but the nature of the legislation leads to a natural polarization between candidates.  Standing for Obamacare means you're for big government (as described above), are ok with increasing taxes on the middle class (70% of the tax increase will be shouldered by those making $120,000 and less), and are ok with the deceitful way with the bill was passed (claiming it's not a tax when it's only constitutional as a tax on top of the dumbfounding "We have to pass it first before we know what's in it" line by our favorite former Speaker Nancy Pelosi).  Any candidate supporting it is complicit with those and definitely must explain themselves.  Because one piece of legislation touches on a variety of political fronts that matter, it will be the center piece of just about every election.  

In the upcoming days, I'm hoping my articles will help prepare you for the battles to come.