Sheila Jackson Lee Once Again Shows Her Class and Intelligence

A proposed bill to ban sex-selection abortions and defund any organization that performs them was voted down in the House of Representatives by Democrats though under the rules it would have required a 2/3 vote.  Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D. TX) summed up the reasonable opposition to this horrible bill by saying it would result in women being dragged out into the streets by their hair.  This heroine of the women's health care movement was the same lady that ignored a female town hall participant explaining her struggles against cancer.  She further stated that this bill means the GOP wants women to go back to the days of coat hangers.  That this person continues to get reelected is a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes.

Stop Questioning My Lies!

Senator Scott Brown (R.? Mass.) (closest thing we'll get to a conservative out of that liberal state), made an offhand remark about candidate Elizabeth Warren (D. Cherokee Nation) claiming she based her assertions of native American heritage on comments from her parents by saying his parents told him lots of things that turned out to not be true (i.e., Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Keynsian economics).  Ms. Warren reacted as could be expected, lashing out at Mr. Brown for calling her parents liars.  Which, if her claims are legitimate, they were, or at least mistaken.

The gist of this is that the false claims of Elizabeth Warren, which she says are based on her parents (and Aunt Bea, who managed to shake free of Opie when he made Apollo 13) representations, can't be questioned, because her parents are off limits.  By the way, my dead great grandfather told me I was six three and physically fit.  You can't question that.

You May Be Right, But You May Be Wrong

This is my first Billy Joel reference, but hey, it's hard to work these things in.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional.  They were right.  But their reasoning was wrong.  DOMA is unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to be discussing marriage.  This is a matter that should be left to the states.  Republicans shouldn't be trying to define marriage any more than Democrats should.  Aren't there slightly more important issues the federal government should worry about.

Reminder : I Don't Pick These Ads

Today I noticed an ad on this blog for an anti-Scott Walker site.  I've noticed several pro-Obama ads as well.  I don't choose these ads.  I am hoping Scott Walker wins the recall election and Obama gets recalled in November.

From the Horse's Mouth

Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis is leaving the Democratic party. A look at his official web site addressing his future prospects as a politician is revealing. Mr. Davis, who was an Obama campaign co-chair, accuses the Democratic party under President Obama of divisiveness, assaults on religious freedom, and poor economic policies. Mr. Davis sounds like he was a conservative all along, it just took a radical for him to know.

The Real War on Women

Disturbing video from LiveAction.org shows an employee of Planned Parenthood who notes that she's a parent who has had two abortions of her own, guiding a person through the steps of what she should do if she wants to abort her child because it is female.

Last I checked, no Republican accused of conducting a war on women has ever advocated killing one, much less told someone how to do it.

I Wasn't Aware the Ability to Lactate and Take an Exam at the Same Time Was a Qualification for the Job

Massachusetts Democratic Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren was the first 1/32 Cherokee by cheekbone to breastfeed from a papoose while scaling the Washington Monument to take the bar exam at the same time. OK, to be fair that's only partly a fair criticism (though it is more than 1/32 fair). As you're probably aware by now, Ms. Warren has been claiming to be part Cherokee for years because her Aunt Bea used to comment on her grandfather's high cheekbones. Now, video comes out where she's bragging that she was the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in the state of New Jersey. I could be wrong here, but I'm almost certain there was nothing I had to submit to the bar to clarify if I was lactating or not. I may have gotten the male application though.

Only in politics do idiots like this come to the fore. I'm almost rooting for her to win because I can't wait to see the next moronic moment this "academic" is going to have.

Captain Foreign Policy Does it Again

President Obama, supposedly the smartest man on the planet and someone who amazingly gets away with not being criticized often for his atrocious foreign policy missteps, has stuck his foot in it again. President Obama referred to those infamous World War II Polish death camps. You remember when the Poles invaded Germany and started killing all the Jews, right? Neither do I.

President Obama managed to make this comment while awarding the Medal of Freedom to a Polish resistance fighter. The Polish Foreign Minister called the comment a matter of "ignorance and incompetence". The matter was so offensive and egregious that the Minister suggested the White House should apologize and noted that the Polish Prime Minister would address the matter Wednesday.

Ignorance and incompetence. That would be a fitting motto to replace hope and change for the Obama campaign.

U.N. Ambassador to State of Idiocy Appointed

The United Nations, an organization so impotent even Viagra won't help, is also well known as the place where an insane dictator can get his rant on for a few hours, making its credibility somewhat suspect. Luckily, the UN has decided to embrace the image of incompetence, appointing Robert Mugabe as the ambassador for international tourism. The former dictator of Zimbabwe has been accused of ethnic cleansing (i.e. mass murder), rigging elections, repressing opposition media and bankrupting his countries economy. There's nothing quite as enticing in terms of a vacation as having an adventure. And what could be more adventurous than running for your life from a murderous dictator?

Well done, U.N. Next I assume you they will appoint Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the representative to the Jewish people.

I Had a Feeling This Was't Kosher

Former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner (D) resigned in disgrace after sending pictures of himself in flagrante delicto to female Twitter fans of his.  Despite having acknowledged his transgression and never blaming anyone else for his actions (apparently breaking from the Bill Clinton legacy), there are those who believe the whole thing was a right wing conspiracy brewed up by Andrew Breitbart.  Weinergate is the modern vast right wing conspiracy to a select few who feel that whatever lay beneath the underwear in his photos was not a Hebrew National.  Luckily, they are a select few and given the confluence of his actions, his name, and their idiocy, they make for a good joke.

The He Who Smelt it Dealt it of Political BS

White House spokesman Jay Carney has floated a new Obama campaign theme, President Barack Obama, fiscal conservative. I'll give you a few minutes to clean up whatever you just spit out after reading that. That's right, the Obama campaign is running with the blatant lie that President Obama has been fiscally responsible. Now, I'm not going to argue that prior Republican presidents have been fiscally conservative by any stretch. That's often hard to do when Democrats renig on their promises to make cuts in exchange for tax raises as they did with President Bush the elder and Ronald Reagan.

But Mr. Carney called it "BS" to listen to people who think President Obama has been spending irresponsibly. The President, ever one to assure that the truth is stringently adhered to, said he couldn't understand how Republicans have been "bamboozeling" people into believing they are the party of fiscal responsibility and the Democrats have to come in to clean up their mess. In fact, he further went on to note that since he became President, federal spending has risen at it's lowest rate in nearly 60 years. Amazingly, he got all of this out without his pants catching fire, being struck by lightning, his nose growing into a pole vault, or bursting into laughter.

Where, pray tell, did they get support for such an insane proposition? The Wall Street Journal's Market Watch contributor Rex Nutting. Perhaps he should consider knocking the last four letters off his name.

The problem with Mr. Nutting's figures? He places all 2009 spending on President Bush. This includes the stimulus (which we all remember President Bush passing, right?), the bailouts, the propping up of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, TARP, etc. Mr. Nutting ignores these one-time spending items and just calls them part of the last Bush budget. That way, the additional $1.45 trillion is considered the baseline for comparison of Mr. Obama's non-emergency spending budgets. This might explain how the "0.4% budget increase" Mr. Nutting finds somehow resulted in an additional $5 trillion in debt, more than President Bush racked up in eight years. Fact is, the budget has increased at a whopping average of 8% per year according to Charles Krauthammer.

But never mind all that, President Obama is a fiscal conservative, unicorns exist, puppies fart gold dust which is collected by the Fed to back up the dollar, I'm Shaquille O'Neal...well, you get the picture. I probably shouldn't be too upset about this. It's not like the President isn't lying most of the time.

Pulling the Blanket Out From Under Them

As I listen to President Obama give a speech regarding the race to exit Afghanistan, I note one thing. A person who lives in Afghanistan is not an afghan, Mr. President, they are Afghani. Please stop calling them blankets (though nifty blankets they would be). This is reminiscent of President Kennedy referring to himself as a doughnut when saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" rather than "Ich bin aus Berlin".

That Color Isn't Blue, It's Salty!

The best way to win an argument when you're wrong is to ensure that your opponent can't bring up the fact that you are wrong. Democrats have mastered this tactic. When news broke that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a long time associate of President Obama, claimed that he was offered $150,000.00 by an associate of Mr. Obama to stop preaching until after the November 2008 election, the liberals engaged in their usual smokescreen, only in an even more disturbing manner than usual.

Democrats took to the airwaves claiming that any discussion of an attempt to bribe the Reverend was actually a discussion of President Obama's religious views. They immediately followed by saying that if religious views are on the table, then Mormonism is also up for discussion, and they were free to smear Mitt Romney with arguments regarding his religious beliefs. Never mind that his was all in reaction to a report that an ad might be run (that's two degrees removed from something actually happening).

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure no religion considers bribing a preacher to shut up because he's a racist, anti-semite and generally loathsome piece of crap and might cost you an election a central tenet of the faith. The point of the story is about the bribe, not President Obama's faith (which I believe is about as apparent as his academic record). But, as always, because a liberal cannot win an argument on the merit of the illogic they use to come to conclusions, they resort to changing the argument and threatening their opponents if they bring up the actual argument.

Today's Recommended Reading

John Stossel writes for Human Events on economic freedom and fairness.

An Ego that Transcends Time

President Obama is such a great President, that should you want to read up on the biographies of prior Presidents on whitehouse.gov, you'll still read about President Obama.  In fact, every U.S. President since Calvin Coolidge (excepting Gerald Ford) has had items added about President Obama in their biographies.  I guess it makes sense.  I often get the sense from him that he thinks he is the culmination of the last century of United States, if not world, history.  I don't know if I believe the rumor that he actually doesn't have ears, that's spare ego flowing out of his head that inflates them, but I'm willing to listen.

Today's Recommended Reading

Mark Steyn writing for the National Review brilliantly exposes the Islamic war on free speech and any of those critical of them in examining the case of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.  It is truly frightening to thin that the United Kingdom, once the bastion of free speech, denied Wilders entry into the country not because he posed a threat, but because Islam posed a threat to him.

A Tyrant's Tactics

If you have the unmitigated gall as a private citizen to donate to the Mitt Romney campaign, beware, the Obama campaign will attack you.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama campaign websites have accused Romney campaign donors of being "less than reputable" and specifically of accusing businessman Frank VanderSloot of being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement".  This is about as disturbing as a campaign tactic can be in a free society.  This is a tactic to suppress dissent, to quiet the opposition through fear.  Mr. VanderSloot has suffered a loss of business.  Private investigators are reportedly investigating his divorce.  At least Russian President Vladimir Putin has the courage to arrest and kill those who dissent against his reign.  The Obama campaign has an enemies list and will seek to discredit large donors who oppose President Obama's run for another term.

This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard of from a campaign.  The idea that private citizens who are not public figures should face contempt like this discouraging them from participating in the political process is the same as having the New Black Panther Party standing outside of a Philadelphia polling place with weapons threatening potential voters without reprisal.  Oh, wait.  There is a difference between a donor like Bill Maher, Karl Rove, or George Soros, who routinely inject themselves into the public forum and are fair game for criticism.  This is a man who did not seek attention.  All he did was give a donation.  It was a large one mind you, but what difference should that make?  If you send $45.00 to a political campaign, are you fair game?  Worse yet, we've all made mistakes in our lives and some of them are public record.  Would you think twice about donating to a political campaign if you knew someone might bring up your decades old DWI, an offhand remark you made on a paper when you were in high school, the allegations of an ex-girlfriend from years ago that is still bitter over how things ended?

The only purpose of this tact is to keep people from donating to those opposing President Obama through fear of being smeared.  That is about as disgusting an act as I've ever seen.  In truth, it's only a step short of rounding up the dissidents the way a dictator would.  This is not a tolerable act in a free society, and I encourage the reader to share this so that people know.  We should all be watching out for this kind of censorship, no matter the source.

Bravely Sitting on His Hands

As pundits, journalists, foreign officials and celebrities began to fall over themselves heaping praise on President Barack Obama's decision to come out in favor of gay marriage (and in the process bravely admitting to the American people that he has been lying to them about the issue for three years), they uniformly fail to note that he also said that states should be allowed to ban gay marriage, meaning he effectively made an announcement akin to endorsing strawberry ice cream (note how he said personal opinion, not policy).  Meanwhile, on a substantive issue that pretty much everyone can agree with (though I can't imagine it would have all that much true impact), the president continues to refuse to sign an executive order which would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identification.  But hey, he's heroic.  He'd pat himself on the back but his hands are firmly placed beneath him.

Look at the Shiny Keys! They Make Jingly Noises!

Democrats have launched a masterful strategy for the 2012 election season that Republicans are falling flat on their face over.  Every week there seems to be a new announcement from Democrats which starts a discussion about social issues.  And every time Republicans pounce on the issue and suddenly we have idiotic journalists asking questions at debates about contraception.  Meanwhile, the economy, which is the question we should be addressing, get shoved on the back burner.  Democrats paint Republicans as fascist religious nuts who want to yank the condom of your penis mid-coitus and hang gay people in the streets.  Democrats use the issues to frighten everyone because they can't run on their record or their actual ideas.

In truth, this is what Democrats have been doing for years and they do it well.  If you argue with them that a policy is bad they won't defend the policy, they will tell you a Republican did the same thing, as if two wrongs makes a right.  I'm surprised they haven't simply started bringing grenades to debates so that when someone challenges them they can just throw one in the crowd to distract the audience.  I'd probably do the same if my positions defied logic and reason.

Obama Endorses Multiple Spouse Marriages

As I noted in a previous post, today, President Obama stated that he is in favor of full marriage for gays while firmly stating that he plans on doing nothing about it as states routinely vote against extending marriage to same-sex couples.  As I state regularly, I am a conservative libertarian.  But I am against states legalizing gay marriage.  Let me explain the case against liberty.

President Obama explained that he is a strong supporter of GLBT rights (and who doesn't love a good GLBT, hold the mayo, slightly toasted, no crust, brown mustard, really brings out the Gouda). So what happens as the logical extension of marriage to same sex couples?  If we allow gay marriage, do we then have to allow bisexuals, whose defining quality as a group is an inability to decide who they want to screw (unless of course it's both simultaneously) to marry one of each gender?  How about polygamy, which in many societies was both a form of slavery of women and institutionalized incest and child abuse?

This is not a slippery slope argument.  This is the experience of countries that have had to deal with the arguments which stem from the state sponsored approval of gay marriage.  Canada has faced challenges on its ban on polygamy with arguments based on its approval of gay marriage.  If being married is a right, what happens when you can't force your pastor to marry you?  Can you sue him?  A biracial couple has already done so in Louisiana.  There are roughly 20 states that do not ban bestiality.  Some people claim their religion includes pairing up with animals as spouses.  Are they being discriminated against?

The easy answer for people is that we have to recognize gays' rights to marry.  The hard answer is that the truth is there is no right to marry.  The examples I've noted above may seem of the slippery slope genre, but how about something a little more grounded in normalcy.  In Louisiana you cannot marry your adopted child, ever.  Woody Allen anyone?  States disagree as to which degree of cousin a person can marry.  States regulate marriage, it is not a right and never has been.  The church can deny you be married under their sanction and force you to go to another church.  You cannot force a church to marry you.  The only right involved in marriage is the right to assembly.  You may freely cohabitate as you wish, but do not expect the state to place the color of authority on your union unless it chooses to do so (i.e. Texas recognizes common law marriage, Louisiana does not).  Marriage is a matter of public policy to be determined at the local level.  The Defense of Marriage Act was an ill conceived move by social conservatives and I believe it was unconstitutional.  Similarly, any federal legislation granting a right of marriage is inappropriate.  I'm not a big fan of the states stepping in on regulation of marriage, outside of some general safety concerns, and I think it should be a matter for the churches.  I also think that legislation shouldn't prevent gay couples from having access in hospitals or otherwise.  But there are consequences to all state actions, especially those that presume to create rights.

Rights are those things inherent within us, within our very being.  They do not require others to exercise and government doesn't need to pretend to create new ones (which are invariably rights to products), it needs to protect us from infringement upon those that exist.  Modern society cries to government for redress and "rights" that are thinly disguised privileges granted by government that take from one person and give to another.

Please address all complaints to the comments below.  I'm told that's hard to do.

He's So Vain, He Probably Thinks This Post is About Him

Today, video from an interview with President Barack Obama was released in which he personally endorsed gay marriage, while reserving that it should be up to the states to make any laws regarding marriage.  In other words, the President said nothing, though I will discuss the gay marriage issue and what I believe was indicated today in another post.  The only shocking thing about the announcement (other than his position sounds awful libertarian, which means it's not his actual position and I fully believe he thinks it is a civil right which the courts should protect under the Constitution) was how he referred to the gay troops "fighting on his behalf".  And here I thought they fought for the country.

Now at first blush, this might seem a bit overly critical or nitpicking.  However, viewed in President Obama's own historical context, it is just one more example of the massive ego carried by our President.  Let me first note that most politicians when speaking in the context of the military or law enforcement intentionally tries to avoid using "I" in lieu of giving credit to the guys on the ground.  Police, military and firefighters are incredibly sympathetic figures.  As such, any slight, perceived or otherwise, which tends to remove credit from them in favor of focusing the attention on the politician is typically seen by the public in a highly negative light.

President Obama routinely uses the first person singular when referring to military accomplishments.  In a recent ad released by the Obama campaign to attack Republican candidate Mitt Romney, none other than former President (and all around stand up serial rapist) Clinton remarks about how brave the decision to kill Osama Bin Laden was, noting specifically that if the Navy Seals had been captured or killed, the downside for President Obama "would have been horrible for him".  I kid you not.  Luckily capture and confinement by thuggish regimes usually works out well for our military.  Just ask John McCain.  Don't ask him to raise his arm above shoulder level when you do it, though.  What incredible hubris that a man is so self-obsessed (and the people around him so worshiping) that they don't notice this is the egomania of a tyrant-king.  And then the ad has the nerve to suggest that Mitt Romney would have somehow chosen differently.

But again, even this second slip is not an isolated incident.  In fact, his references to how he killed Bin Laden (must have been a hell of a shot all the way from the White House safe room) are so ubiquitous that Saturday Night Live had a skit about it that was dropped before the show went live this week.  This is not a show particularly noted for making fun of liberal presidents.

The President's tendency to take direct credit for the actions of others is a sign of his massive ego and sense of self-entitlement.  It's a personality trait I noted early on in his campaign for President and even at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  It's a result of what I believe to be a life directed by others towards the goal of being President one day.  It's how a mediocre student becomes the President of the Harvard Law Review.  How an unknown who lost his first run for the state legislature goes from a first term state legislature with a record of voting "present" to a United States Senator who spends his entire time in office campaigning for President to the surprise Democratic nominee to the first European socialist to hold the office.

Carly Simon, warm up those pipes, I've got a song in mind.

Julia is a Miserable Worthless Dependent Person Thanks to President Obama

Liberals no longer shy away from the description of a cradle to grave welfare state that takes charge of every aspect of a person's life, the Obama campaign is openly embracing the idea.  Enter the launch of "The Life of Julia", a campaign advertisement designed to show how Papa Obama's policies will impact every part of the fictional title character's life.

We first meet Julia at age 3 when the all-powerful and wise President Obama's Head Start program saves Julia from a life of mediocrity by preparing her to do exceptionally well at nap time.  Never mind that Department of Health and Human Services issued a report in 2010 on a multi-year study finding no statistically significant discernible effect by the program in it's ambitious goal of "preparing children to do better at school".  Considering studies going back to 1985 had found the same thing, it's not much of a surprise.  Meanwhile, that mean old Republican Mitt Romney and his cohort Paul Ryan want to take 20% away from the useless program.  So the moral of this first panel is that women should vote for President Obama for spending large amounts of money on a program that has no benefit to them.  Strong argument.

The next time we see Julia, she is 17.  Presumably, Julia has made it the last 14 years without getting knocked up by some random guy because the all seeing, all knowing President Obama made sure that every employer in America paid for contraception as part of the insurance program (which they dumped when they realized it was cheaper to pay the Obamacare fine than comply with the mandate) provided to her parents, which will cover her until she's old enough to get free hot flash medication as a result of menopause.  She's likely about to embark on her future education at a small liberal arts college where every professor is going to teach her the evils of capitalism due to President Obama's Race to the Top program.  The President's Race to the Top program is so perfect that the website The Huffington Post, which openly bemoans the lack of a communist presence in the United States government, posted this article.  Liberals hate the program because it is based on results rather than need.  It is tailored to teaching to standardized tests as a result.  Meanwhile, schools, afraid that their unionized teachers are so incompetent and incapable of firing, along with teachers afraid of school closings, have conspired to manipulate test results to ensure funding.  On the other side, the Great Satan Mitt Romney, is accused of a rather vague "would cut educational funding in exchange of tax cuts for millionaires (who our math-challenged President seems to think is anyone making over $250,000.00).

At 18 President Obama promises more goodies.  Up to a $10,000.00 (according to the site, Forbes puts it at $2,500.00 and awful confusing) tax credit for tuition paid by parents on behalf of their eligible college students.  Never mind that it is far more likely their kid is on financial aid because the tax credit and student loans are so available that everyone goes to college, pushing up the cost.  Then of course, there is the Pell Grants, which the evil Mitt Romney wants to steal from women so they have to stay home and cook, that horrible man.

Next, Julia is 22 and needs surgery.  President Obama has generously ensured that she will remain on her parents insurance up to the age of 26, as noted above, which they lost due to the Obamacare mandate, and it too expensive because the insurance company has to cover everything up to, and including, changing the air filter in you car.  No mention is made that she would have still been covered under the old rules.  Mitt Romney, who wants women to die early and quickly, would repeal Obamacare, causing all women to shrivel away and die, because they are incapable of taking care of themselves without the government.

At 23, President Obama has managed to dictate the rate at which her employer pays her, regardless of her actual skills through the Lily Ledbetter Alliteration Act.  This has made her nothing more than a potential lawsuit to the employer, who sees a person who has relied upon government her whole life for everything she's done and is incapable of accomplishing anything.  That bastard Mitt Romney hasn't said anything about the act President Obama signed.  That's some damning evidence right there.

At 25, the omnipotent President Obama has dictated the market rate for educational loans, making it easier for the government to eventually absorb the vast bulk of her student loan debt that she will never pay back, because she can't get a job as long as she has to make what the government says she has to, making her a lawsuit waiting to happen.

At 26, the benevolent President Obama has ensured that she won't see the direct cost of birth control (i.e. $400.00 or so a year), so she can feel free to screw every man she sees and make sure her employer is forced to cover the cost.  This is what President Obama thinks of as a health care decision because, as with most democrats, the most sacred sacrament is the holy rite (right?) of abortion and pregnancy is a disease men inflict on women.  Mitt Romney, who, as opposed to our constitutional scholar President, has actually read the Constitution, would defend the right of religious people to practice their beliefs rather than being forced to provide morally objectionable services and products.

At 31, Julia got pregnant, apparently having failed to make it to the store in time for the abortive Plan B pill her insurance was forced to cover.  Luckily, Obamacare is ready to start raising the child with her.  Mitt Romney wants to kill women's babies.

At 37, Julia's child is firmly entrenched in the government's programs to raise him with ineffective programs which waste taxpayer money.  Mitt Romney is putting sugar in the school bus's gas tank.  At 42, Julia, who never managed to set aside any money of her own, despite the government providing everything for her, wants to start her own business.  While she qualifies for an SBA loan, no one will give one to her because the Fed has left the interest rate at 0% in a decades long attempt to stave off the effects of government policy which effectively promote the idea that government spending is the only way to stimulate economic growth.  Because of this, the government is the only entity paying out at a decent percentage rate on loans, so the banks have all their money tied up in bonds.  Mitt Romney hates small business and, did we mention, is evil.

At 65, Julia would enroll in Medicare.  However, Medicare went broke went Julia was 4.  Luckily, President Obama successfully demonized attempts to reform Medicare by saying those plans would "change Medicare as we know it", i.e., make it solvent.  Luckily a bankrupt Medicare looks exactly like what Julia has known her whole life.

At 67, Julia retires.  As it was when she was 42, she never set any money aside because everything she has done in her entire life was subsidized by her lord and savior, President Obama.  Luckily, she is eligible for Social Security.  Unfortunately, that went bankrupt when she was 23.  Fortunately, President Obama managed to demonize the idea of means testing, reform, and the option of privatized accounts so that no one ever attempted to make sure the fund stayed solvent.  All this, despite state government employees who have been allowed to use private accounts consistently outperforming Social Security.  Mitt Romney hates old people and wishes they would die.

We have an advertisement by President Obama where he blatantly panders to the idea that his idea of government is to have a cradle to grave entitlement society.  It's disgusting, but it makes sense because the entitlement society keeps liberals in power for the rest of your life.

 

Occupy Paranoia

A representative of the Occupy movement, Harrison Schultz, who calls himself one of the organizers and was one of the people in New York's Zucotti Park is being interviewed by Sean Hannity this evening.  So far, he has accused the New York Police of having sent rapists, people who had sex in public, defecated in public, and used drugs in public to discredit the Occupy movement.  Anyone who takes these people seriously really needs to give up their right to vote.