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.