Things to Keep in Mind When You Vote

The following is a collection of letters I have sent to the Santa Cruz Sentential. Although they have printed my articles in the past, recently they have had a partisan change were well thought out arguments from conservatives have been censored.

 Prop 37; What You Don't Know Will Save You Money!

Monsanto is telling us that cost of GMO labeling (Prop 37) will be over a billion dollars a year and an increase in grocery bills of $400 a year. What Monsanto doesn't immediately explain is where these costs will come from. One might think it's the re-labeling costs or expected litigation, which is not the case. The huge costs of prop 37 will be the result of consumers not wanting GMO food products. In other words Monsanto is telling you that it's best not to know you are probably eating GMO products than for you to make the choice to not to buy it if you don't want it! The billion dollars is the price Monsanto says it will cost for farmers to switch from growing GMO crops to non- GMO crops. Are you really going to buy the argument that it is best to vote to stay ignorant because it will save you money? 

When Job Numbers are Propaganda. 

 The September jobless rate that fell below the 8% mark to 7.8% is one of the most manipulated numbers in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lets look at the numbers; only 114,000 jobs (out of 12 million unemployed) was reported to the BLS. But a household survey showed 873,000 jobs. This immense job growth was accomplished through a mid-year "seasonal adjustment"; meaning this number was arrived at by multiplying the household survey preliminary numbers because October is normally a slow month for job growth. If the 873,000 number is true it would be the highest one-month jump in 29 years; this is obviously very doubtful. Either 342,000 people were "Raptured" or the BLS is grossly under-reporting job growth. There is a third possibility and that is the job numbers were specifically tweaked to bring the jobless rate below 8% to help Obama's re-election campaign.
Bureau of Labor Statistics is controlled by the Department of Labor which is an Obama Cabinet position. The secretary is Hilda Solis, an extreme left wing environmentalists who has been vocal in her disdain for Bush (43) and his Department of Labor that reflected a pro-business agenda. Solis revamped the Department of Labor as a more regulatory agency, working closely with labor unions and investigating and fining businesses for safety and environmental violations.

Obama; Fanning the Flames of Class Warfare 

President Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the rich at the same level as President Clinton. What is missing in this comparison is the fact that when Clinton raised taxes the US had full employment and the economy was healthy. To raise taxes now with massive unemployment and in the middle of a recession would be a disaster; even to a Keynesian (raise taxes during boom times and decrease taxes during recessions). Further as Paul Ryan stated in the Vice-Presidential debate, the revenue generated by a Clinton era tax increase would be a rounding error compared to the deficits being created by current president (Obama has admitted as much). The only way to create a health economy is through jobs; not the Presidents fuzzy numbers, lowering the unemployment rate by counting those that have dropped out of the job market, but real jobs; and a lot of them! 

Obama's Creates a Dependent Voting Block 

If the best the Liberals have is the latest Romney tape where he says half of America is on the public dole, than Romney is a shoe in. As Romney explained, the reason is all these Americans have been made dependent on Government. If you are dependent on government you want more of it; if you are not dependent on government you want less. The dependence is the direct result of government policies and the consequences of the welfare state. As Benjamin Franklin said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power."

The Banker Bookies Extort Government to cover Losses

With the election coming up, we need to look back to remember why the economy is in such a mess. If one looks at Wall Street and Investment banks as bookies it becomes quite clear . In 1999 under the Clinton administration, a 60 year old law was repealed that had forbid the Investment banks from being bookies. A good bookie will make sure that bets he takes are balanced out, so an unexpected win or loss will not wipe him out. But the Investment Bookies took in trillions of dollars (with a "t") of bets that the mortgage market would fail, believing it could never happen; so when the houses started to go down in value, the bookies looked like they were going to fail and had to stop lending money. The other effect was the glutted housing market sunk under water; wiping out much of the wealth of the middle class and stalled housing construction. The Federal Reserve stepped in and threatened complete financial break down unless the government cover the banks losses. The responsibility for this lies with the Congress (not president Clinton and/or Bush), as it was the Congress that voted to again allow Investment Bookies and has yet not voted to end them.

More Democratically Skewed Polls

This blog is a continuation of a previous blog of mine  Lies, Damn Lies and Opinion Polls

A recent article at the examiner.com , shows how CNN skewed their most recent poll the show President Obama 53% to Romney 46%. Lets start out with some facts. The way likely voters stack up is approximately 35.4% Democrat, 34% Republican, 35.4% Unaffiliated. So what was the break down of the CNN poll? 50.4 Democrat, 45.4 Republican and 4.2 unaffiliated (no that not a typo, 4.2%!). If the under-sampling and over-sampling are accounted for, suddenly the numbers are reversed; Romney 53% to Obama 46%.

 In another poll by washingtonpost.com resulted in register voters for Obama 55%/ Romney 40%; likely voters was closer with Obama 49%/ Romney 48%. But when one looks at the skewed sampling it once again shows a Democrat bias; 33% Democrat/ 23% Republican/ 37% unaffiliated. Once again the Republicans are under-sampled leaving results similar to the CNN poll after the skewing was accounted for.

The reason for these skewed polls is the belief by the liberal media that unaffiliated voters will vote for whom ever the polls show is going to win. It is a patronizing concept that has failed every time it is tried; but like socialism, the left is tied to failed belief systems and always thinking that if they can manipulate the citizenry to go in a direction they really don't want to go, they'll get it right next time.

The Gaffe That Wasn't a Gaffe

Last July Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney identified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Most of American press had a field day with this such as the Christian Science Monitor headline, Romney:  Another City, Another Gaffe. What makes "gaffe" even more interesting is that in 2008 Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama made the same Gaffe in front of a American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington! Of course it was not reported as a gaffe, because it isn't. By traveling to Israel and calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel, you are aligning yourself with Israel in the land dispute for Jerusalem. For decades the both Republican and Democratic platforms have included the statement that Jerusalem  is the capital of Israel to show support to the country. However this year is different; while the Republicans continues to back Israel with it's platform  “We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security,” the Democrat platform has removed any wording that would aline itself with Israel on the fate of Jerusalem , falling back on,  "the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians." What is really in question here is how the media could be so misinformed that it would call the Romney statement a gaffe; of course as an example of the media's continual distortion of the news to favor the liberal agenda, the the answer is self evident.

This article based in part on this Wall St Journal posting;
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/04/obama-attacked-over-party-platform-on-jerusalem/

Obama and His Economic Fairness

Four years ago the President Obama based his election on a promise of hope and change. Interestingly enough no one in the liberal media ask then candidate Obama what he planned on changing. Today there is little doubt that the American people feel more hopeless than they did four years ago. The change seems to be the consolidation of power for the executive branch, ignoring and actually voicing his disdain for the constitutional  separation of powers. While the huge deficits brought on by President Obama are certainly nothing new,  the rapid increase of governmental spending and debt has been mind boggling. Another issue totally ignored by the liberal media was candidate Obama's call for a “Civilian National Security Force;”   “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”No one even bothered to ask  why the US would need a federal civilian army that is as big and well supplied as the US Armed services,  yet the size of Homeland security continues to expand exponentially.

Now we have the President running on Economic Fairness. Most believe that this is a plan to raise taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth down to the poor, but as Charles Krauthammer explains,  "The tax plan on which the President is basing his economic strategy is a 4.6-point increase in the marginal tax rate of 2 percent of the population". The President has admitted in one of his more candid moments, that raising taxes on the rich is only for fairness not help the economy. This is the same as when candidate Obama said  for the purpose of fairness, he would raise the tax on Capital Gain even though it would reduce the amount of revenue collected in taxes,.

What can not be disputed is Economic Fairness is a brain child of Marxist communism; it is a call to end capitalism and the free market by using draconian economics to force equality. What made the US the success is what has been coined the Protestant work ethic (which has no real connection the Christianity); the Protestant work ethic  is based on hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one’s worldly calling and the lack of a work ethic has economic consequences. Economic Fairness says success via the law of supply and demand is simply not fair, so the government needs to mandate wages; not a Living Wages, which is only a minimum wage on steroids, Economic Fairness would determine the fair wage of every worker is only possible in a socialists society. Calling someone a socialist is neither a pejorative or a conspiracy theory, it is simply the belief in a certain world view of Economic Fairness.

Obama's War on the Middle Class Part 2

President Obama may make speeches to the contrary but suburbia is one of his main targets; suburbia represents to Obama all that is wrong with America. First the flight to the suburbs took with it funds that had been used to fund inner city schools. Second the lavish comfort of a single family in a suburban home is the kind of inequality and flaunting of capitalist success that runs contrary to his socialist’s roots and the gas wasted driving to and from the suburbs. The President has reacted by letting gas prices double in 3 years, a plan to increase taxes on those making over $250,000 and allowing middle-class healthcare to increase substantially . The president believes that except for the government elite, the preferred method of housing is small high rise apartments near ones work as the President has praised in China.

 The NYT recently performed an accidental act of journalism with an article titled Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many.

Remember those immortal words by Nancy Pelosi, “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it?”; well there has been more “find(ing) out what is in it”. Turns out when determining what is affordable healthcare Insurance, the IRS says the dollar amount should be based solely on the cost of a single employee and not his family; family insurance usually cost 3-4 times that of individual insurance. Healthcare advocates say this will result in millions who are currently insured, not being able to afford healthcare for their families or afford private insurance from the “State Exchanges” and will not qualify for any subsidies;  further those that are being priced out of their health insurance, will now have to pay a fine for not buying health insurance!. The Democrats who pushed the Healthcare bill through late on Christmas Eve despite the public’s dislike, believes this “interpretation” of the Healthcare law is wrong. But the IRS who has been tasked to implement ObamaCare, simply says their interpretation of the health care rules were drafted by, “our legal experts — career civil servants who are some of the best tax lawyers in the world,” and if the IRS runs out to be wrong, even though $70 billion @ year is already being gutted from Medicare, the cost of ObamaCare will once again increase substantially. In affect the ObamaCare, which was supposed to make healthcare available to millions of uninsured Americans, will take away affordable healthcare from millions of employed lower middle class families that previously had insurance but won’t be able to afford healthcare under Obamacare; and the uninsured will be primarily women and children which advocates say will “unravel much of the progress that has been made in covering children in recent years”.

This continues President Obama’s war on the middle class and perpetuates the belief that ObamaCare was designed to fail so the electorate will be more receptive to socialized healthcare. Apparently President Obama’s belief in the redistribution of wealth is not restricted to the rich, unless you consider those that make $30,000 @ year, rich.

If you're going to have a war, it's better if your opponent is unarmed.The recent mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin are beyond tragic; but the idea that somehow the lack of gun control is the cause, is political correctness at its worse and admittedly will not stop the killing. The simple fact is small arms make terrible mass causality weapons compared to what else is available to terrorists. In the United States with its gun culture, a semi-automatic firearm is the weapon of choice. However in countries were fully automatic firearms are common, terrorists use bombs. The reason is very simple; a bomb will kill and injure 10 times that of a firearm. Further, all that’s needed to stop an armed terrorist is an armed citizen. If gun control is taken to its logical extreme, we will have to rely on government to protect us, something the police admit they cannot do, as all they can do is respond after the fact.

Obama's War On the Middle Class Is Real

It is time that the American realize that Obama’s war on the middle class is more than just hyperbole. While President Obama continues to voice a need to protect the middle class, the results of his policies produce the opposite. First he defines the rich as making $100-200 thousand. Perhaps in Chicago this seems like a lot of money, but not in California where the housing market averages continue to hover around $450 thousand. Further he uses the similar figures to tax small businesses, seeming oblivious to the fact that a $300 thousand grossing business is one with 2-3 employees. During his time in office gasoline prices have doubled from $2.00 @gal to $4.00 @gal and gas prices are particularly hard the middle class and small business; big business and agriculture can simply increase prices to account for higher transportation prices but it will be up the middle class to pay these prices. Further Obama’s major claim that medical insurance cost would be reduced with Obamacare, but the opposite has occurred with insurance costs to the middle class increasing 50%-60%; when asked about this disparity the white house said we will have to wait until 2023 to see the reductions. Does anyone really believe that medical insurance costs in 2023 (long after Obama is out of office) will be lower than today?

So I guess one has to ask, why the President of the United States wants to gut the US economy of it’s greatest money producers. Well the reason is simple, President Obama is a socialist; and in socialism there are only two classes, the lower collective class with no individual rights and the upper class that rules with totality. In the United States it is the middle class that ended any hope of a socialist takeover, so President Obama continues to lay the ground work by raising prices and subsidize the unemployment of the middle class, by extending unemployment insurance indefinitely, until a majority of the citizenry is dependent on the government and middle class autonomy becomes something viewed by the majority as unobtainable. The President has also tried to show that it has been government that is responsible for the gains of the middle class with his infamous, “You didn’t build that” comment, as if need follows infrastructure and not the other way around. And how does the President’s agenda jive with the weakest post-recession "recovery" in more than 100 years? " The President has recently said, “We tried our plan and it worked."

The Left's Book Burning Party

MoveOn. org has a interesting video titled This Is How You Beat The Tea Party . The video is smug in its message but clearly shows how the left has embraced the "end always justifies the means" approach, voiced by their mentor Saul Alinsky,  “do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”. The video is about a Library in Troy, Michigan. The city needed money so they decided they would either have to close a library or raise taxes. An initiative was placed on a ballot to see if the residents wanted to raise taxes on themselves to keep their library. The Tea party in the area organized the no argument wanting no new taxes. The yes argument was the tax would be small in comparison to the cities need for the library; but it appeared the tax initiative would go down in defeat. Then suddenly these bizarre signs signs started to appear all over town and there was even a Facebook page for touting the burning of the library books.

Now of course the Tea Party had no idea where they were coming from nor did the city. But the postures went viral, all accusing the Tea Party of wanting to burn the library books; finally just before the vote a young group of socialists took ownership of the postures. They said they wanted to get attention in an audacious manner to swing the election to force a new tax, so they decided to put a vile face on the Tea Party and came up with the idea of portraying the Tea Party as NAZI’s. Well the tactic worked. By the time the true nature of the signs had come to light the vote was over, with most the voters voting for the new tax solely because they did not want to be associated with book burning even if it was a fallacy perpetrated by the left.

But there is nothing new here. The left can never present a true accounting of their agenda to destroy capitalism, so instead of presenting their socialist agenda, they demonize their opponents, usually using rhetoric that more closely resembles their actions than that of their opponents. Typical is the left crying racism any time someone disagrees with President Obama’s socialists policies. This of course continues a false paradigm ignoring the facts that it was the Democrats who initiated a Welfare scheme that subsidized poverty by making the blacks and poor completely reliant on Government handouts and the destruction of the black family by only paying unwed mothers or families that the father had abandoned. That's right, nothing to see here just MoveOn.

Fast and Furious; Not a Bush Operation

Operation Fast and Furious may be the downfall of Obama. In 2006 the Bush administration used an Operation called Wide Receiver to try and track US guns to those in the Mexican Cartel s that were looking to buy them; this was done in coordination with the Mexican Government. Here the guns were closely followed to their destination in Mexico to arrest the buyers while carefully tracking and seizing the guns as evidence; the procedure is called a controlled delivery and is a very common law enforcement tactic. Although arrests were made and no guns were lost, the Bush administration determined the plan was not productive enough and stopped it toward the end of 2007, or a year before he left office.

In 2009 the Obama administration initiated a program Fast and Furious (funded by the Obama stimulus) with seemingly the same goal as Wide Receiver, however there were significant differences in how it was run. First the guns were not tracked but allowed to “walk”, meaning about 2000 guns were allowed to disappear and fall into the hands of murdering Cartels with no one tracking the guns or identifying suspects or making arrests. There was also no coordination with the Mexican government who rightly complained of what seemed like a sudden flood of illegal weapons into Mexico from the US. The big lie that is being spread by the pro-Obama machine is just like Fast and Furious, Bush  (Operation Wide Receiver) let guns walk also; this never happened. Congress is now investigating this debacle and  has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and the President has now invoked Executive Privilege to keep DOJ documents on Fast and Furious from the Congressional investigation. www.nationalreview.com and www.americanthinker.com

The question now is what the President is trying to hide. Whatever it is it may produce another Constitutional crisis mush the same as Watergate. In my opinion I believe the there are three issues about Fast and Furious, any of which if made known could result in the downfall of Holder and President Obama. The first is the number of arms has been greatly understated. In May of 2009 President Calderon remarked to AP, We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico. Let me express to you that we've seized in this two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from United States, and I'm talking from missiles launchers to machine guns and grenades. In this short statement, it appears that there is much more that meets the eye in Fast and Furious. First President Calderon described the weapons as “machine guns” (he has previously described the weapons as military grade). The fact is machine guns or military grade small arms are not generally available in American guns shops. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, requiring a laborious background check and history. Even if someone qualifies for an automatic weapon in the US, the price is usually cost prohibited for anyone other than a hard core collector. As an example a civilian semi-automatic AK-47 can cost $800 to $1000; the same military grade AK-47 will cost near $5000. However if you buys a military grade AK-47 from a international arms dealers they are about $100-$200@. Because of this there is simply no way 25,000 military grade weapons could even be collected in the US never mind smuggled into Mexico. The only supply that large would have to come from the US Military itself or bought from an international gun dealer and made to look like they came from the US. One can imagine a Contragate style operation where US intelligence agents sold military grade weapons to Mexican Cartels in exchange for intelligence on Iran (it is believed that Iran has plotted with Mexican Drug cartels to carry out political assassinations).

The big lie by the Democrats, by the likes of Eric Holder, Jay Carney and Nancy Pelosi is blame Bush for Fast and Furious; that Fast and Furious was a Bush legacy operation. It's a lie, they know it's a lie, but as usual President Obama will take no ownership or responsibility for anything and the democrats just play along. Socialism is based on the the concept on the infallibility of government; that actions and information of and from government should never be questioned and should be accepted as necessary as truthful. This is what we are getting from the President and his ruling subordinates, their attempt to re-write history even as it's being made.

Why Liberals Have to Lie Part 8 (President Obama's Relection Campaign)

In recent Obama political commercials, we are starting to see the direction Obama campaign  will be headed his re-election bid. The over riding direction will again to blame Bush (43), but he also be typically deceitful claims about Gov Romney.

One Obama commercial makes a point that Gov Romney left the state of Massachusetts with an $18 billion deficit (pretty funny as the President is increasing the federal deficit by $1 trillion a year). However when one just takes a cursory look at the facts, you see once again it's the lies of the left. One fact is the $18 billion debt was $18 billion worth of voter approved bonds, the likes of which are capital improvements to pay for such things as road or bridge repair, to erect new buildings at the University of Massachusetts or to expand courthouses; further he inherited the same amount ( $18 billion debt) from the previous governor. There is also the statement that after Romney left Massachusetts as governor (2007) that Massachusetts had the highest debt per capita in the nation, however again it's worth noting that, "Massachusetts didn’t have far to go to reach the No. 1 spot. Massachusetts ranked second in 2003, the year Romney took office, according to Moody’s. And it was first in 2002". FactCheck.org

My second response is the below letter I wrote to the Santa Cruz Sentential 4/26/2012

It has recently been released that Obama was faced with two mutually exclusive agendas for his Presidency; end the recession or past ObamaCare; Obama choose that later, believing it would leave a more profound legacy. In doing so, the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 3 years. Bush managed to raise the deficit by $5 billion over eight years, including the 2009 budget that was shared with Obama; Obama has managed to increase the deficit another $5 trillion dollars in just 4 years. The end result is an economy (despite what you hear from the media) that is worse off than it was when Obama took over, with $5 trillion in additional debt. One may want to blame Bush for the recession, but if you accept the argument that a president has that much affect on the economy, you also have to accept the argument that Obama had the ability to use his political will in the first two years to bring the recession under control, when the Republicans did not have the ability to block passage of any Democrat bill. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to Ronald Reason whose enduring legacy was saving the US economy are the damage that was done by Jimmy Carter.

Third, it is time again to ask what exactly it was the Bush did to get us in this mess (this greatly simplified but still accurate). It certainly wasn't the increases in the national debt over the 8 years he was in office. Our national debt has been increasing every year since before Reagan and the country economy showed sustained growth. While I don't agree with the Keynesian economic theories, it is eactly what President Obama is doing hoping it will "kick start" the economy (this also rules out the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as causing the Great Recession as the end result was simply greater debt). As a matter of fact, most will agree that Bush had 7 1/2 good years and 6 really bad months. The Great Recession is the result of the collapse of the world banking systems as a result the Repeal of Glass Stegal (A bi partisan vote at the end of the Clinton Presidency), Franklin Reigns and America Dream Act and Alan Greenspan Chairman of the Federal Reserve reducing  Federal Interest rate to 1%  Nomenclature of a Sub-prime Meltdown  Because of these low interest rates large portfolio investors throughout the world were looking for a higher yield and like an unholy trinity, the three came together to destroy the world economy. Because these investment schemes were designed around an unending supply of homes to create new mortgages, the middle class was especially hard hit as they saw the value of their homes sky rocket and then plummet when the supply of buyers finally petered out and a glut of houses that could not be sold remained. So the middle class nest egg has now become an albatross around their necks. There is certainly enough blame to go around but since President Obama continues to complain that the problem is too big for his Keynesian plan to work, does it make any sense at all to reelect him?  Just saying.. 

Finally, I read a recent article that said President Obama’s “spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.” But when I read beyond the first paragraph, I found this is only possible if you accept a new normal for budget deficits.  As an example President Bush’s average budget deficit for his 8 years was about $500 billion until his last budget in 2009. The Bush 2009 budget had a $1.1 trillion deficit, plus $300 billion added by Obama. What Obama is now claiming is because his deficit spending is now less than the new normal of $1.4 trillion, then the rate of his spending is at an incredible slow pace. But if one accepts the 2009 budget is not the new normal and $500 billion remains the norm, then President Obama’s spending is higher than all other presidents combined.   

Yes, Obama is a Socialist

Please note that this post is a work in progress and is continually edited for clarity.

Perhaps it is human nature that there are still some trusting soles that don’t believe President Obama is a socialist (of course this is foolishly based on his words over his deeds).(1)  This rebuke is often followed by the fact the Wikipedia definition of a socialist doesn’t define the president (of course this is foolishly based on his words over his deeds). One also has to realize that the terms of a socialist state are not written in stone; even Karl Marx admitted that socialism would have a much better chance of working if the state allowed privet ownership of homes and some businesses. This dichotomy between what Obama says and what he does, would be by design if it is the President’s intent to incrementally create a socialist state against the will of the citizenry (in "The Death of Liberalism" by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr, the author refers to Obama as a stealth socialist); when one looks at an interview with then candidate Obama, one sees the evidence that this is what’s happening. In the interview, Obama said his intent would be implement a single payer health plan, however it is not what the American citizens want, so he would have to phase it in over time; and this is exactly what ObamaCare does. Obama has also said he favors the private sector to create jobs, but these are just empty words to placate those that are not paying attention (2). Certainly no other President has ever interjected the redistribution of wealth and stoked the fire of class warfare in every speech he makes; these being the two pillars needed to rationalize the need for socialism.

The next step in creating a socialist state is controlling every aspect of peoples lives (3); this includes what kind of lunch a parent can make for their child, how much ones allowed to weigh, what temperature you can set your thermostat, what you have to buy, what you can listen to on the radio and what you can see/read on the internet. All these and many more rights and freedoms have been discussed as needing government regulation; and Obama has created a large federal security force from what was a small contingency of airport security guards, to enforce his regulations. The President has also proclaimed the ability to circumvent the power of congress with administrative regulations and to ignore via executive privilege, the findings of the Supreme Court. The only thing separating the President from his socialist state are our freedom of speech and right to bear arms; both of which are being whittled down by Obama as we speak.(4) It’s time to take our liberty back at the polls; the alternative is unthinkable (5)..

(1) The basis of socialism is the unwashed masses make bad decisions based on individual needs. This requires a totalitarian government that has a better understanding of the big picture to direct the the masses from their individual needs to the needs of the collective determined by the government.

(2). President Obama is a living breathing example of the socialists belief in the big lie; "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The reason being most will be wary of a small lie because they do it themselves, but if a lie is the complete reversal of the truth it is much harder to accept that it is really a lie. With President Obama there is simply no correlation between what he says and what he does; in most cases they are actually diametrically opposed to each other. Here, the president has not followed through with any of his pre-election promises with the exception of ObamaCare (it was later released that Obama choose ObamaCare over fixing the economy for what he believed would leave a better legacy), which was passed with a one sided partisan vote late on Christmas Eve using a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation; a tactic Obama himself described as “Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate uh forever and uh what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian uh absolute power on on either side and that’s just not what the Founders intended.” Other broken promises include the use if signing statements, employing lobbyists, the ending of the war in Afghanistan and the need for bipartisanship with major legislation..What has become obvious by now is Obama does not feel constrained by the intent of the founding Fathers.

(3)There is an old saying, "to make a Republican made tell a lie; to make a Democrat mad, tell the truth." Socialists always promise more than it can deliver; and while capitalists tend to be more realists, the left calls them uncaring and draconian (while there are problems with capitalism, it would seem to make more sense to try and fix the problems of a system that has proven itself to be incredibly successful, than to scrap it for a system that has always failed spectacularly). Eventually the entire collective must be indoctrinated to believe they have no worth as an individual and their only worth is being a productive part of the collective; therefore all individual rights and ownership must be relinquished to the government. This process is not natural so a socialist government must create a false reality to rationalize the erosion of liberties in the name of safety. therefore the socialists must have a monopoly on the truth and control the flow of  information (it has become common place for left leaning students to protest and disrupt speeches and presentations they consider contrary to socialist thought; the concept of being open a all ideas and critical thought has pretty much been done away with by the socialists in academia, instead they mean to shut down all thought that does not propagate socialists propaganda).  While the US media seems to support the socialist view, the Obama administration has been pushing toward controlling the content of alternate radio and the internet. Without complete complete block out of non-controlled information, socialism will always be shown for the farce it always becomes.

(4). Socialism is a one size fits all form of government. While it  has shown some validity with small groups living in a commune, which requires each members abilities to survive and sharing similar goals and values . But even when socialism seems to be in it's best element, history shows (as with the Jamestown settlement in 1607) that allowing members of the settlement to keep any surplus goods to trade above  and beyond the what is given toward the collective (capitalism), increased the individuals production substantively. Without these incentives you have as some Soviet Union workers would say, "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." Socialism demands the end of individual needs and assumes everyone in the collective will work for the state (aka the collective) to the best of their ability. Further the watchers who nudge, direct and re-educate and have dominion over the members of the collective; they are required to be selfless caretakers of the grand cause of socialism. To control and watch the collective requires a huge bureaucracy usually divided into various bureaus, syndicates, agencies and now czars. But when someone is a watcher, or works directly under a watcher, they start believing themselves to be above the rest. This is why the larger government gets, the more corrupt it gets; as Lenin asked, "who watches the watchers?"

(5)When the re-education process fails it has always led to genocide, as over 100 million people have been systematically murdered in the name of socialism; China brags they starved 80 million Chinese when they went to collective farming under Mao Sedong and his cultural revolution, yet modern day socialists still quote Mao as if he was a philosopher and not the horrific and apathetic murderer of  millions. This very fact alone shows that socialists care more for their failed theories than even humanity itself. So be afraid; be very afraid.    

Why liberals have to lie Part 7; George Zimmerman

Once again we faced with the adage if you want to make a Liberal made tell the truth.

Much has been said about the George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin shooting with it's racism overtones. It should be noted however that Zimmermen has called 911 on over 40 occasions (over 8 years) on various race people that were suspicious in his mind, but only this one ended tragically. It is also obvious left is investing all their energy in trying to disprove Zimmerman's account, by simply fabricating worse case scenarios that Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down and executed Martin; a scenario that has absolutely no basis what so ever.

The following is a blog exchange from the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Media has created Trayvon controversy
Arlette Lees writes that "if Trayvon Martin had been white and George Zimmerman been black, Zimmerman would have been portrayed as the big black bully who killed a little white boy armed with nothing but candy.' " Wrong. If that had been the scenario the article would never had made it past the Sanford Herald Newspaper, which it shouldn't have anyway. The liberal media that controls the news of this country loves to pounce on black/white issues to create controversy. And once again they did it big time, by stirring up the black population of the country with an incident that has yet to be proven to be a race issue.

Blame the liberal media? Of course!
As predicted, the conservative response to injustice, racial profiling, and the killing of an innocent boy is to blame the "liberal media." Elwin Haddix claims that if the victim had been white and the killer was black the story would not have made it out of the Sanford Herald newspaper. Firstly, as a proud Liberal, I must confess, I agree with Elwin here, but of course for a different reason: Indeed, it would not be in the national spotlight because the killer would have been arrested and justice would have been pursued. The facts: A paranoid wannabe cop he made numerous calls to 911, armed with an automatic weapon, hunted down a 17 year-old boy and executed him. Self-defense? Really? Who followed whom with a loaded gun? Secondly, mainstream media liberal? Look at our local media and which corporate interests own most media outlets.


Next was another exchange regarding NBC editing the Zimmerman 911 tape specifically to make Zimmerman look like a rasicts. On another blog this is what was said (I also responded but the second response was so much better than mine, I decided to use it instead.

Poster #1 Assuming all the above is true (that NBC edited the 911 tape), according to the link you posted, NBC has also acknowledged this crap and is investigating it. I can count on one nutsack how many times Fox News has admitted a screwup and investigated it and I'll still have room to spare.

Poster #2 NBC edited (the) tape to make it sound racist to ignite an already troubling event. That is the lowest form of douchebaggery I have witnessed in my lifetime. Sorry but NBC takes the cake on this one. That is a complete lack of integrity and violates the rights of Zimmerman to a fair trial and even puts his life in danger. NBC did the same type of thing to the security guard that found the explosive device a while back. If I recall he sued them and won an undisclosed settlement. Bias is one thing (FOX) but outright deceit in editing to manipulate and misdirect is completely unacceptable. I don't care who you are or what side your on, the actions by NBC in this incident should infuriate you to the point of writing them and telling them this type of BS has to stop. (I couldn't have said it better and I tried)

Trying to tie it all together I sent this to the Sentential.

The left has gone crazy trying to disprove Zimmerman account of the Martin shooting. As usual they are creating scenarios that are not based in reality. The left cries out that Zimmerman was a paranoid wantabe cop that called 911 40 times! What’s not mentioned is this occurred over 8 years! That’s a watchful neighbor calling the police 5 times a year on suspicious subjects in the neighborhood and in all those incidents with suspicious subjects of all colors, there were no violent incidents? Why was this incident different? The left says Zimmerman hunted down Martin with an automatic weapon and executed him. Really? Even if Zimmerman has a machine-gun, which he did not, he only fired the one round that tragically killed Martin. All the known evidence and witness statements show the incident occurred as Zimmerman said and Martin attacked him as he was walking away. Still ABC News releases a tape proclaiming Zimmerman had no injuries, then had to back peddle and admit there were. NBC tampered with the 911 tape and released it as news; but now they're looking into it as if they have no idea how it could have happened (obviously this is a stall so they can come up with some believable damage control; good luck with that). All that’s obvious here is the left is once again telling one lie after another to manufacture facts that to fit their agenda. Nothing new here..

Individualism vs The Collective Part #1 "The Teachings of Jesus"

After returning from the Religious Educational Congress in Anaheim, I was reminded of several years ago when I heard Jim Wallis, the great apologist for Pol Pot’s massacre of a million Cambodians (Marxism for Christianity; Jim Wallis, Running With the Devil) and also an apologist for President Obama’s lack of a true Christian faith. Jim Wallis’ Sojourners and Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberation Theology are two good examples of Liberal Christian Organizations that are co-opting Christianity for their political purposes (a truer meaning of “using the Lord’s name in vain” is using God for your own selfish purposes, not necessarily cursing). In this liberals using Christianity to spread communism. Listening to Jim Wallis he will tell you that Jesus was a Socialist; the truth is Christianity and Socialism are mutual exclusive.

Throughout history dictators and kings have used the concepts of collectivism to control the masses. Then as in now, the leaders cared not for the welfare on any one individual, but the health of the peasants or workers as a whole; for from the peasants/workers came the armies that would be needed and the food grown by the collective farmers needed to feed them. Then along came Jesus and Christianity, where for the first time the individual was the most important the collective non-existent. President Obama has discussed the need for “Collective Salvation”, a belief system advocated by Jeremiah Wright and his Black Liberation Theology. Here we have an almost perfect parallel with the Bible and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. The infant church was being corrupted as teachers added complexity, new rules and necessary deeds to earn ones salvation. The pillar of Christianity rests on John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. In other words one is saved, by the grace of God, from eternal punishment for sin which is granted to those who accept by faith God’s conditions of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. More simply put, salvation is gods gift to the world as no amount of deeds could free the world from sin; this is what is referred to in Christianity as “God’s Grace”.

In Christianity, redemption (the paying of a debt) was Jesus’ death on the cross that paid for the sins of the world. However Jeremiah Wright has other ideas. Black Liberation Theology teaches that the white race must redeem themselves for the past oppression of blacks; apparently the sacrifice of Jesus was not enough and the white race will still have to pay off the black race to reach salvation. This best described in Galations 1:7-10 Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse. Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Jesus never spoke of collective salvation or collective redemption; in fact it was the complete opposite. Jesus spurned the idea of the collective, in the name of a personnel savior. The health of the collective was not a concern of Jesus, nor was one’s station in life or economic status; in the Lord’s Prayer we pledge to “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (apparently Jeremiah Wright would want to interject an asterisk in the forgiveness part). And of course what is either purposely distorted or lost with Liberal Christian Organizations, is that giving is for the sake of the giver, not the receiver. While Jesus repeatedly directed his followers to feed the poor (and the poor certainly benefited), it was for the sake of the givers repentance (the act of changing your ways to God’s ways) and individual salvation, that Jesus wants us to give; as Jesus said in Matthew 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Liberal Christian Organizations believe that communism (or socialism) would create a world according to the teachings of Christ, but the real teachings of Jesus are the bane of Liberal thinking. Jesus taught his followers since all are equal in God’s eyes, that material equality is insignificant; one should simply be the best at what ever their station of life and spend their energies helping others and loving god. To Jesus the collective had no meaning, because he was concerned about the saving the souls of individuals, not the health and/or control of the collective. I close with Jesus words in Mathew 23:13-15; words that could have been directed at Jim Wallis and Jeremiah Wright. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

To Make a Democrat Mad

As the facts start to come out it becomes very obvious that the entire contraception issue was manufactured by the White House. Rather than Obama face the wrath of the electorate as he is unconstitutionally trying to force religious institutions to pay for contraception and abortion, he has used the press to re-define the issue, not about the right to practice ones religious beliefs, but planting the fear that government is going to outlaw contraception It started in January when ABC news, seeming out of the blue queried both Rick Santorium and Mitt Romney if theoretically states could ban contraception. The issue has then latched onto by the Democrats, not only to to create the fallacy of losing contraception rights, but to also avert the attention of the American voter away from huge deficits and high unemployment (using the 1930's formula we are at 16%). 30 year old Sandra Fluke, long time abortion advocate, was recruited by the White House via ex-White House Communications Secretary Anita Dunn who now runs a PR firm. The Democrats tried to interject Ms Fluke at the last minute into a Congressional hearing on the Constitutionality of mandating birth control on religious organization; since Ms Fluke is not a Constitutional expert she was not allowed in. When the Democrats propped her up in her own hearing she introduced no facts, offering only anecdotal information, including an account of an unknown student/employee was denied contraceptive medicine for non-contraceptive medical purposes because Georgetown University would not pay for it. Turns out this is a lie, the Georgetown University health plan does pay for any non-contraceptive use of contraception medicine. As usual, if you want to make a Democrat mad, tell the truth.

Teacher Represents All Republicans as Stupid

One of the lefts favorite attics is to paint all conservatives as stupid. The reason is that it takes a great deal to manipulation of the truth to sell liberalism; aka socialism. So when Conservatives argue the simple truth, it is presented as too simplistic to be intellectual by the left. It is also a tactic of of the indefensible to attack the messenger, rather than try to defend their position; this is especially true of elitist teachers who's progressive world view is unchallengeable in the classroom, leading them to believe that they are intellectually superior. This was a letter to the editor to the Santa Cruz Sentinel responding to such a denigration of GOP messengers.

You (Santa Cruz Sentinel) recently published a letter to the editor from a teacher, Frank Drees. It is certainly not unusual for a teacher to be condescending and have an elitist’s liberal attitude, but I was somewhat surprised at how inane his argument was. “As a teacher it seemed as if 55% of my students came from broken homes and 44% were born to unwed mothers, something I've also read. As for the parents I met, most were as intelligent as a Republican candidate for president.” While I don’t have the room here to dissect such a condescending and liberal ego, lets at least explore the intelligence of the Republican Candidates. Not even considering their political backgrounds as State Governors, State and Federal Representatives, lets just look at their education.


Michelle Bachman; a BA Political Science from JD Oral Roberts University and Master of Law LL.M from William and Mary School of Law.
Mitt Romney; a BA English Brigham Young University and a JD/MBA (Joint Degree) fromHarvard Law School/ Harvard Business School.
Ron Paul; a BS in Biology from Gettysburg College and an MD from Duke University.
Tim Pauley; a BA in Political Science and a JD from the University of Minnesota.
Newt Gingrich; a BA in History Emory University, a MA in History and PhD in Modern European History from Tulane University.
Rick Santorum; a BA Political Science from Pennsylvania State University, a MBA from the University of Pittsburgh, and JD from the Dickinson School of Law of Penn State.