Santorum has dropped out of the race for the Repos nomination which most likely means Obama will face the gelded Romney for his re-election.  A contest that won’t be a contest.  The headlines the day after the election will read, “Obama Gets Four More Years!”  Take it to Vegas.

I almost think it’s a set up.  True conservatives should be angry.  All you liberals should be dancing with Obama, because you are probably going to get your wish:  The Union of Socialist America (USA) is about to be born. 

The gelded Romney doesn’t have what it takes to beat Obama. 

Romney’s weak and too eager to please anyone he meets.  You can see it in his face, in his eyes, in his puppy dog smile that begs, “Did I do good master?”  He’s eager for approval—that explains his shifts in positions on issues.  If he had a tail he’d be wagging it in eager anticipation of your acceptance.  How can your respect someone like that?  How can you trust someone like that to lead us?

Obama will talk circles around him—destroy him.  Obama is the master of oratorical misstatement.  He can twist facts and figures and convince voters they are true.  HE is the ONE!  I predict the popular vote will be about 52% Obama; 48% Romney.  It’ll only be that close because Obama is so badly screwing the country there will be some people who will vote for Romney out of desperation—it won’t be enough.  If the economy gets better the spread will be even more.

What’s the real problem?

The problem is not Barack Obama.  He is only the symptom—the outcome of the problem.  The real problem is the American People.  Our culture has become so shallow and unwise as to vote him into office.  Voters are swayed by short, unsubstantiated sound bytes that, standing on their own without proof, seem to make sense and roll off the tongue.  However, when properly investigated, and tested against unbiased facts, are found to be false, or incomplete, or at least misleading. 

The problem is the majority of American voters today have been educated in a substandard system that allows them to accept shallow sound bytes as fact without further thought.  Today’s voters cannot be bothered to investigate the sound bytes, because they lack the attention to detail required.

(Am I hurting your widdle feeeelings?)

America’s citizenry is a sea of narcissistic, shallow, undisciplined and naïve fools.  Let me explain:

• Many will vote for Obama because they are on the government’s dole and have a serious conflict of interest.  If government programs were cut they would not get their free ride. 
• Others believe everything should be fair and can be made fair by passing another law.
• Some are just too lazy to learn the facts and think for themselves and Obama has charisma and is likeable and they’ll vote for him because he “looks good.”  It’s that shallow—he looks good.
• There are a few hard core “True Believers” who consciously want to make America like Europe, Greece or Cuba. 
• Others completely believe Obama and the things he says are true and will never doubt him—ever. 

It’s the voters—stupid!

So don’t blame Obama, or even the Demos for our problems, unless you believe the liberals engineered this culture (a possibility, but not the subject of today’s lesson).  Blaming the Obama is blaming the prince of the fools. 

The real problem is the fools who made him prince.

The USA Today newspaper headline (Friday, April 6, 2012) read “Ax falls hard for 1 in 10 in House,” eluding to a Republican mandated budget cut for office expenses for all members of the House of Representatives who have oversized staff and elaborate spending habits.  The article reports the cuts “apply to everyone, but some senior Democrats could be the hardest hit because they have the highest spending rates.”

Most Americans have cut more than 6.4% from their budgets, why is it so difficult for these pork barrel Demos to make a 6.4% adjustment?

I believe it is because in every part of their lives these fat politicians only know how to spend-spend-spend: 

• Most are wealthy in their personal lives, either through inherited money or insider trading income after they take office, so they have not learned to control their spending urges in their private lives.
• They arrive in Washington and quickly become accustomed to siphoning off taxpayer’s money to spend as they see fit.  They like spending taxpayer’s money because that’s a true expression of power—take taxpayer money and spend as they wish. 
• They build up a huge, highly paid staff to jump at their every beck and call, fulfilling their every whim—another manifestation of power. 

Politicians are addicted to power and spending, so how can you expect them to voluntarily cut back on either?

Based on the USA Today article, the Demos must be worse than the Repos.  According to the article, every one of the top ten spenders in the House last year were Demos.  Eight of the bottom ten (those who spent the least money) were Repos.  I believe that fact alone tells you a lot about the true nature of these parties.

To be fair all except one House Member stayed under the $1.5 million (approximate) budget allocated to run their offices.  The one who was reported as not being able to stay under his budget is John Lewis, D-GA.

Why do most politicians stay under the budget allocated?  I think because they must pay the overspend from their own, personal pockets.  So when the consequences hit them personally they have a different viewpoint about spending than they do with taxpayer’s money.  These politicians don’t mind going over budget when it’s our money, but it’s a different story when it’s their own money—another telling fact about the nature of politicians.

Is personal debt the solution to deficit spending?

What if every dollar of deficit spending approved by the House was proportionally charged against the districts of the Representatives who voted for it?  So the debt would be allocated to each district to be repaid with higher taxes in that district.  If a Representative did not vote for the budget with deficit spending, his district would not owe for it and not pay higher taxes. 

If your taxes kept climbing every year because your politician insisted on spending money we don’t have for things we could live without, how long would you keep voting for him/her?

Would these spend-crazed politicians be so generous with their spending programs if the additional funds were coming from their district’s (voter’s) pockets?

I know, it’s just another dream that can’t happen because the people with the power to make it law are the ones to who it would apply.  It’s called “Conflict of Interest.”

California's Employment Development Depart (EDD) reports the “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate was 10.9% in February 2012, unchanged from the rate in January.  The EDD also reports California’s unadjusted unemployment rate was 11.4%.* 

California’s unadjusted UI rate was only 6.4 % when Obama took office in January 2008.  It almost doubled in the first year and hasn’t gotten significantly better in the following two years!*

In the meantime, the United States Department of Labor reports the national unemployment rate for February 2012 was 8.3%, (also unchanged from January).  When Obama took office the national UI rate was 7.8%.*

This means California has really suffered under Obama’s care compared to the rest of the country.

*(Sources:  California’s Employment Development Department’s website and US Department of Labor’s website).

Obama claims the economy is “bounding back!”

Could Obama be ruining the nation to justify socializing it?.

I don’t know the answer to that; however, when Obama took office in January 2008:

(Sources:  California’s Employment Development Department’s website; US Department of Labor’s website; US Government Accounting Office website; National Association of Realtors website, et al).

In recent speeches Obama has blamed Capitalism for our economic problems and suggested larger government spending is the solution.

Why did I single out California?

Answer:  55 electoral votes—winner take all—if Obama gets 50.000001% of the popular vote in California, he gets all electoral votes.  In effect the other 49.999999% of the voters will be cancelled out as if they voted for Obama even if they would rather die first.  Doesn’t matter if they vote for someone else or stay home their vote will go to Obama. 

Is that Democracy?

No!  but it’s a Constitutional change worth making.  We should have “One Vote Equals One Vote.”

The idiots don’t care.

The idiots who will vote for him won’t even know about these numbers, or that he is playing them (see previous article), about his lies, or care what he will do in the next four years to change America once he is re-elected. 

They just like him…He looks good and talks good…and it’s fashionable to vote for him.

SEOUL, March 26 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Picture of Obama as he spoke thoswe words.

According to the report, “Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.”

Reportedly the exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together during the global nuclear security summit in Seoul, Korea.  He was unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

The comments were apparently referring to U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield in Europe and the US.

Obama also said, "This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility…"  With those words, he sounded confident he will win a second term and confessed that afterwards he will be free to do as he wishes with the United States.

A different but related story.

This weekend I was at a backcountry restaurant where I heard a waitress state, “I don’t trust any Republican.  They’re all a bunch of liars!” She went on to say she voted for Kerry because she trusted him…

Put these two together what do you have?

You have the basic dishonesty of our current president who is saying publicly (except when he’s caught unaware on camera) what the US voters want to hear to insure he is re-elected.  However, after the election he will spend the next four years of his presidency implementing his master plan for America with impunity. 

In his own words, "This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility…"

How does the Waitress’ story fit in? 

Well that’s the way many people in the US think.  They believe on faith that all Demos are good and all Repos are bad and are liars.  They will vote this way without questioning their beliefs or listening to any other truth. 

This is why the USA could be in very deep trouble….

You may be seeing the birth of the Union of Socialist America—The new USA.

Since the days of the first tribal caveman chief, government has attempted to control the people—take away freedoms.  The Magna Carta was created in 1215 A.D. to formally resist loss of freedom, and then ever since there has been a constant struggle; man against government—freedom versus power.  It seems, today, we are slowly losing the battle.

Where do politicians get their power?

By taking freedoms away from the people.  That’s what power is:  stealing freedom—telling the people what they must do, must not do, and how to do it.  Each law passed, each regulation implemented, is one more insignificant increment chipped away from our rights as citizens.  It all happens in such small increments we don’t notice, but when looked at over a long time the results are significant—oppressive.

Tiny increments.

Each time a new law or regulation is imposed we adapt.  Sometimes we shake our head or mumble, but we adapt and move on.  Each change taken on its own is small and can be endured.  Politicians—those seeking to steal our freedoms know this is true, so they make changes in tiny increments, taking a long term approach to gaining more and more power over us. 

The irony.

Ironically, hundreds, if not thousands of Hollywood movies have addressed man’s struggle to win his freedoms against an unjust or tyrannical government.  I say it’s ironic because that same Hollywood supports the very left wing that is the biggest thief of our freedoms.  It’s the left wing that wants to give us more government programs, more controls, and tax us more—take away freedoms.

Another irony is that most people don’t understand that every government benefit program also takes away freedom in the way they may live their lives.  Programs that give you something also take away your freedoms before you may qualify by dictating what you may do or how you must live.  By offering a benefit the government limits your actions—more lost freedoms. 

There are no free lunches

Government programs cost money.  Where does the money come from?  From taxpayers kiddies.  The more money government takes from your income, to spend on these programs, the more freedom to decide what to do with that money you lose—another freedom stolen.

We know it’s bad, but we can’t stop doing it.

Also ironically, polls show that over 80% of the people are unhappy with the way the government works and serves us, yet these same people continue to vote for the politicians who are likely to create new laws and regulations to add new controls over our lives.  Whenever a citizen rises up to put a stop to this cycle—to run for public office—and tells us he or she will reduce the size of government, reduce the taxes, and reduce the laws and programs that control our lives, we viciously attack the idiot, spending millions of dollars to destroy him/her.

The government allegedly passes these laws and regulations to protect us against the evil people in the world who would infringe on our rights, on or our health, on our safety…

The argument goes, “We must infringe on the rights of a few people so that the many may benefit.” 

This justification has been the battle call for centuries by those who are chipping away at our freedoms.  They tell us new laws are for “the good of the whole.”

At what point do all of these laws, in aggregate, become barriers to “the good of the whole,” out weighing the alleged benefits they are intended to provide?  When the laws are so controlling and oppressive everyone is breaking a law everyday, or so restrictive people are frustrated, unable to live their lives freely, is the government serving the people or itself? 

When do the People say “Stop!”?

You may have a chance in November, but I’ll cover that next time.