President Obama's Suicide Pact with America

President Obama released his proposed budget for 2013 recently. Let's just say it seems familiar. Despite his promise to cut the deficit (not the debt mind you) in half by the end of his administration, he has been part of a government that has run, at his suggestion, record deficits of over $1 trillion each year. Well, no sense backing down from that now. President Obama's 2013 proposed budget puts the government in another $1 trillion hole (OK, $1.33 trillion, but hey, what's a few hundred billion dollars between friends). All this despite hiking taxes on everything but people specializing in reconstructive surgery of raccoon anal sphincters (whether or not the raccoons themselves will see a tax raise remains unknown, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi responded she would have to pass it to know when asked).

It's hard not to look at the path that this President and his Democratic compatriots have taken in the last three years and see anything but an intent to destroy the economic structure of the United States. Here's why. President Obama is not particularly smart (I know that runs against the grain, but I'm just basing that opinion off of the man's ability to speak off script combined with a refusal to release his college records and the lack of any published works despite being the editor of the Harvard Law Review), but he's also not an idiot. This means that, unlike the aforementioned Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D. Fantasyland) he knows that one dollar of government spending doesn't magically reproduce into $2.50 in economic spending.

Many liberals will argue that the national debt is irrelevant (see, e.g., Democratic strategist Bob Beckel and Professor Marc Lamont Hill) because, as America operates on a system of fiat currency rather than tying the value of the dollar to something real such as gold (as it was for the first 200 or so years of this country) means that if the debt becomes an issue we can simply devalue the currency through printing more money. I love when liberals argue this point, because it is the most anti-poor strategy that could possibly exist. Why? Devaluing the currency means rampant inflation, which essentially results in a redistribution of wealth from people who depend on cash to those who invest in commodities. Think of oil. Traded in US dollars, if the currency devalues, oil goes up in value relative to dollars, while the ability of the person holding dollars to buy refined gasoline decreases, meaning that the guy who has to buy gas to go to work can't afford it, while the guy running OPEC has doubled his investment. Thanks liberals. (Greg Gutfeld was probably right when saying most conservative policies seek to eliminate poverty while liberal policies seek to eliminate the poor, such as abortion for all).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the President knows these things and is not so ignorant as to simply discard them. If that is true, and he is not a flaming retard, it's hard to believe that this pattern represents anything other than the purposeful destruction of the United States economic system (which he's been pretty clear about not being a fan of, after all).

So this November, if you find yourself leaning towards voting for President Obama over anyone not named Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Mussolini, make sure you strap on that vest and that your trigger is working properly so you can enter that suicide pact with the President.

Chicago East

Chicago, Illinois, is well known for being one of the most corrupt cities in America, if not the most corrupt. No suprise, then, that President Obama, who claims Chicago as home, has shown a penchant for crony capitalism and corruption despite his claims of having the most open administration in history. I have detailed some of this corruption before in dealing with the GE connections and connections to lobbyists ushered in the back door of the White House in order to keep them off the books.

More recently scrutiny has been leveled towards the administration for its engagement in venture capitalism with "green energy" projects such as Solyndra which have failed resulting in the loss of publicly backed loans. Now, the Washington Post, not exactly a conservative paper, reports that $3.9 billion in public funds to 21 companies with ties to the Obama adminstration. This exemplifies the problem with a government that believes its proper role is to finance private corporations and pick winners and losers in the economy. Corruption is inevitible when power is exercised without checks or limitations. The solution is simple, returning to the constitutional boundaries given to government by our founders. When government doesn't run your life or your business, you won't feel the need to buy off an official to get a leg up.

Today's Recommended Reading

Ann Coulter who I believe is compromising her principles to support Mitt Romney because she believes he is the only remaining candidate who can beat President Obama (which sadly, is appearing more and more true) writes an interesting article distinguishing "Romenycare" from "Obamacare".

The Truth About Lies

I try very hard to ensure that anything I post on this blog is accurate. Not only that, I try to ensure that it is true. Of course, there is no way to truly verify an opinion, but allow me to explain. When I link to an article that I am using as a fact reference upon which I form my opinion, I usually have looked to make sure that it is reported not only on that particular web page, but also elsewhere, and, if possible, I go to the original source to verify whatever it may be and to place it in context. When I say that President Obama advocates an energy policy that would necessarily cause electricity rates to skyrocket, I don't want you to rely on me, I want you to see him say exactly that. Why do I mention this, you ask? (OK, you probably didn't ask, but really, that's a rhetorical device after all, and you're a jerk for pointing it out.)

I have noticed in the past and continuing, the practice of people supporting their arguments or accusing others of being incorrect by simply taking something completely out of context. This was once the exclusive realm of those in the media and politics but, with the expansion of techniques of communication and social media, it is now far more prevalent among the population at large. It wasn't a good trend before and it certainly isn't a good one now because it presents a difficulty in reaching what matters most : the truth.

We can disagree on what remedy is best for society but we first have to agree on the underlying truth of the problems we are discussing. We can't correctly quote Albert Einstein saying "God doesn't play dice" for the proposition that he believed in God (I'm not sure if he did or not). He was referring to, in conversation with Neils Bohr, the randomness of quantum physics (e.g. Schroedinger's cat). We can't (recent example on a friend's Facebook page) utilize quotes that are without attribution or taken out of context to promote the idea that the founding father's of this country were somehow atheists or deists when they espoused Christian ideals. Specifically the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature", which the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has been unable to find in any of his writings.

I can admit when I am wrong and abide the opinions of those who I do not agree with on the sole condition that we do not lie and, if we find that we have made a mistake and misrepresented something to be a fact which is not, to simply admit the mistake and step back to reconsider the argument. We will never have the ability to come together in this country if we will not concede those things which are facts (though, going back to the quantum physics angle, there may be no facts, but I digress, I think you get my point).

Freedom with Their Exceptions

A little Metallica nod in the title there. The statists believe in your rights. So much so that your right to birth control (I've yet to find that Amendment) trumps the right of others to practice their religion. I've written about abortion a number of times before (warning, if you click this link you may end up reading one of my better posts) and there's no secret that I think it is an abhorrent practice used for prophylactic reasons far more often than out of necessity or for rape and incest, which is borne out by the numbers. The Obama administration now has, out of the incredible magnanimity of the statist heart, that knows all morals before the ones you hold, granted the Catholic church and other religious organizations an extra year to violate their religions. The administration has, as part of the health care bill, mandated that employers provide free contraception (presumably because a condom costs more than your private insurance deductible, or the two bottles of Strawberry Hill you used to get laid in high school) including drugs that, according to some views, induce abortions. This includes faith based employers such as the Catholic Church, which, if you are not a member of, you most likely know because of the charity hospitals they established in your area. Strangely, they seem to work far better than state run charity systems.

The supposed right to not suffer the consequences of your choices (i.e. be stuck with a baby, STD or someone who calls too much) does not outweigh my right to hold my religious beliefs. I will not tell you that you can't do the things I don't believe in, but you shouldn't be able to force me through government to pay for things that I find to be against my religion. By the way, Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) how's that executive order working out for you? Oh, retiring?

Adam Baldwin is Reading This Post

Actually, he's probably not, because I think I gave him the site address ass backwards today. If you're not familiar with Mr. Baldwin, he is a) not related to Alec and b) best known for his roles in "Firefly" and "Full Metal Jacket". Mr. Baldwin is also a conservative actor who contributes to Andrew Brietbart's Big Hollywood website. The point of this post is not to be a fanboy. Mr. Baldwin is the first actor I've ever asked to have a picture taken with or for an autograph and he will likely be the last. I mentioned that I enjoy his contributions to Big Hollywood and gave him the likely incorrect address of this blog, noting that I had pretty much stopped posting. He told me "never stop doing good works". Not the most original line in history but a damned good reminder that I owe it to anyone who might stumble across my ramblings to tell the truth, give an intelligent and honest opinion, but most of all to do so with goodness in my heart. And to never stop doing it as long as I believe in these things that I feel are important to this country. So, I'm back, and will be trying to bring you commentary better than before.

Government, Making the Impossible Taxable

The EPA will collect $6.7 million from companies which supply motor oil for not mixing in pixie dust. Well, OK, it's not pixie dust, it's just a bio-fuel (is oil not from biological organisms?) chemical which doesn't exist. Imagine how much they could collect if they fined President Obama for what he thinks the powers of the executive are.