A Nation of Dependents

First, it was Newt Gingrich saying President Obama was the "food stamp president."  That invoked howls of racism (naturally) from the loony Left.  If you can't argue on the merits of an issue, lets bring out the old, reliable "race card," right boys and girls?  Now, we have Mitt Romney stating, "...over the past three years, Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an entitlement society.".  There is a lot of truth to that statement, as well as to the food stamp comment by Gingrich. Forty-six million Americans will receive food stamps this year.  That is a 44% increase from 2007, one full year before Obama took office.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49% of American households contain at least one person receiving benefits from some form of federal entitlement program.  In the first two years of the Obama Regime, Social Security Disability rose up by 10%.  I suppose it is safe to say many Americans, faced with no job prospects under Obama, are opting for disability payments.   Obama has even aided in the much hated "corporate welfare" that Democrats and "Occupy Wall St." anarchists like to rail against.  Federal grants to the "green energy" sector have quadrupled to over $18 billion in 2009.  Yes, that's right, Occupiers.  Your beloved Messiah is a corporate welfare specialist.

It is crystal clear what President Obama meant when he stated he wanted to "fundamentally change America."   He is turning the United States of America into a nation of dependents.  It is an old strategy by Socialists.  Make the electorate completely dependent on the federal government until they no longer care about being an "electorate."  We will become a nation of serfs, dependent upon the almighty federal government for everything.  If this movie sounds familiar, there is a good reason.  This same Socialist experiment has been tried before in the Soviet Union, the satellite countries behind the Iron Curtain, Cuba of today, Venezuela of today and on and on.  This movie does not end well for the serfs.   But, you know what is really sad?  There are literally millions of Americans who want this system of government.  They no longer care to try to make their way into the world on their own.  They want the government to take care of that little problem for them.  If Obama is reelected, they may well get their wish.  But, to those who want this, to those who think we must "change" to wealth redistribution, I say, be careful of what you wish for.  You may get it. 

Obamanomics: Fundamentally Changing America

There are those who believe they now know what Obama meant when he said, "...fundamentally change America."  Leaving aside, for the moment, the crushing national debt (which loony liberals think is irrelevant since we print our own money...LOL), high unemployment, Obamacare which is causing insurance premiums to dramatically rise.  Instead, lets take a look at the cost of living in this country under Obamanomics.  Since President Obama took over, gas has risen 83% (from $1.79/ga), ground beef has risen 24%, bacon has risen 22%.  Even that American favorite, ice cream, has risen nearly 20%!  That, my friends, is change you can believe in!!!   The good news is that milk and eggs have barely risen over 2%.  I guess there is some good to Obamanomics, right?  I doubt anyone really believes that, especially those that have not been able to find a job for the past two or three years.  Those "Shovel ready jobs weren't quite as shovel ready as we expected."  You find that funny?  President Obama did. 

I am typing this up just prior to the State of the Union address last night.  But, I am willing to bet President Obama will take credit for "green energy jobs creation" (Solyndra anyone?), unemployment falling down to 8.5% (without taking into consideration the huge number of people who have literally stopped looking for work or no longer eligible for unemployment insurance), and working to reduce the national debt on the backs of the U.S. military, while exempting Departments of Education and Energy.  Gee, I wonder why?  Could it have anything to do with unions?  Maybe, maybe not. But, the fact of the matter is that Obamanomics is an abject failure.  The President's hardcore belief that big government is the answer to all our nation's woes is not working.  Government does not create jobs.  Government creates debt.  In regard to the latter, President Obama has proven that Obamanomics is a resounding success.  Somehow, I don't think you'll hear the President mentioning that success in the State of the Union speech. 

Are Illegal Aliens A Race?

 

 
One of the things that always amazes me about the open borders crowd is their quickness in playing the race card with illegal aliens (I know saying illegal aliens is not PC, but I do not care...get over it).   My answer to this charge is always the same, "When did illegal aliens become a race?"   I was not aware there is a race of people called "illegal aliens."  Where do they come from?  Is this the lost tribe of Israel?  Are they from outer space?  The Republican Party is being castigated by some Hispanic zealots who say it is racist to not welcome and grant citizenship to these "undocumented immigrants."  Ok, let's use your terminology for the moment.  Are all "undocumented immigrants" Hispanic?  If you say yes, you are a liar.  If you say no, then you are spewing false accusations (i.e. racism playing a part in being anti-illegals) since you agree not all undocumented immigrants aka illegal aliens are of Hispanic origin.  In fact, if I were Hispanic, I would consider it an insult to say someone is "racist" concerning illegal aliens.  By design or ignorance, Hispanic leaders dish out the racist insult to anyone wanting a halt to illegal aliens from entering this country.  By saying it is "racist" to do so makes one think all illegal aliens are Hispanic.  That is patently false. 

According to a Pew report (admittedly in 2005, so numbers have possibly increased), 56% of illegal aliens were from Mexico.  22% of illegal aliens are from other countries in Central America.  Let's say that is, conservatively speaking, 80% now.  What about the other 20%?  They are made up of illegal aliens from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada, and about 3% from Africa and other countries around the world.  So, how can it be "racist" to be against any type of benefits for illegal aliens unless they consist of 100% Hispanic, 100% Asian, 100%  Canadian, etc?  The fact is that racism has little to do with being against illegal immigration despite what the open borders zealots want you to believe.  They love to hide this inconvenient fact that just because a large majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, then being against illegal immigration must be due to racism.  Does this racism charge extend to Asians?  Canadians and Europeans as well?  So, to follow their (il)logic to its conclusion, you must be a racist simply because you are against illegal immigration regardless of nationality of the illegal aliens involved?  A white American can be racist against a white Canadian now?  A legal Hispanic can be racist against an illegal Hispanic now?  The lunacy of such logic is mind blowing.  

The fact of the matter is that the majority of legal ( naturalized and native born) Hispanics in this country are against illegal immigration also.  They did it the right way.  They resent such "Hispanic leaders" as La Raza (The Race) speaking on their behalf.  To want the rule of law to be enforced is not racist.  The open borders crowd knows this.  But, facts are something that the Left has always hated.  The Republicans should not let these screaming banshee's from La Raza and the rest of the Socialist crowd intimidate them with the race card.  It is nonsense and they know it.  But, the race card fits their agenda.  So, expect the open borders zealots, Democrats and union leaders to keep playing the race card leading up to the Presidential election in November. 

Sick Leave Hiatus

 
As you may know, this is the cold and flu season.  I am a victim of a bad cold right now.  I am miserable and although there is much I want to discuss, I just can't think coherently enough to put my thoughts into print right now.  If I can't do my best on a post, I would rather not put out anything other than this sick leave hiatus.  I'm feeling pretty bad right now.  Hopefully, by this weekend (I post on Wednesdays and Saturdays), I will be well enough to post more of my right-wing rants.  But, for now, I'm going to take it easy for a few days or a week until I recover fully.

Obama Military Cuts

It never fails.  It never fails whenever a Democrat becomes President, his first target of opportunity (pun intended) is cutting the military.  This goes as far back as John F. Kennedy, to Jimmy Carter (when we did not have enough trained personnel at times to send ships out to sea) and now on to President Obama or perhaps we should refer to him as King Obama with his recent power grab from the Senate.  President Obama has ordered hundreds of billions in military cuts.  These military cuts now make it impossible to fight an Atlantic and Pacific theater war at the same time as we have been able to do since WWII.  With this President fixated on drones to do the fighting, he seems to forget that without human ground troops, you can not fight a truly offensive war.  In other words, you can not carry the war to the enemy effectively with simply the use of drones.  President Obama has let the success of drones against al qaeda  in Afghanistan blind him.  Sure, I recognize we live in a new age where high technology will take more and more of the work from our military.  But, there is simply no substitute for boots on the ground.  Drones can't take prisoners, drones can't take military positions and hold them.  Don't think for a moment our enemies have not taken notice of these military cuts.

I can assure you Russia, China and, of course, terrorists around the world have cheered President Obama in his ongoing effort to completely gut the military machine that has made the USA the most feared military power on earth.   I've seen this before.  I recall another Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, whom Obama has been compared to before, doing the same thing to our military.  It took President Ronald Reagan his entire first term to bring our military up to strength.  Decimating the military is always a dream for the Democrats and the Progressive wing of that party.  It appears that dream is close to being realized.  President Obama has put this nation at risk with these draconian military cuts.  Of course, since the House is controlled by Republicans, President Obama is going to have hell pushing these cuts down the throats of Conservative lawmakers.  It will be another fight in which Obama will attempt to come across as trying to cut the debt by cutting back our ability to make war.  He will try that.  I suspect it will not work.  Americans want to feel safe, even with a Democrat in the Oval Office.  This will be fought tooth and nail, no doubt.  What President Obama and Democrats in general have never understood is you take a chance of war breaking out when you are weak, not when you are militarily strong.  Why do liberals find that concept so difficult to grasp?  You negotiate from positions of strength, not weakness.  Do you think China will listen to a weakened America in any dispute in Asia?  Not likely, not likely at all. 

Andrea Mitchell: Iowa Too White

You know, the really sad thing about liberals is that sometimes their biases and outright racist views are exposed without them even realizing it.  Such is the case with NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.  She stated on the Sunday edition of the NBC Night News  that Iowa is..."Too white, too evangelical, too rural" to adequately represent the rest of the country.  That may or may not be so.  But, let's take this point of Mitchell's even further.  Is Detroit too black, too drug infested, too urban to represent the rest of America?  Most people would consider that a racist question at it's heart and soul.  Suppose Andrea had said that?  What would have been the reaction?  I think we all know she would have had her ass fired so quickly her head would still be spinning.  But, because many in Iowa are white, it is considered politically correct to say this.  I thought we were suppose to get past color.  Sure, I realize the context in which her remarks are taken.  She was speaking about the average voter in Iowa is white, Christian and lives in an urban area.  But, her assumption is that most Americans are not like Iowa.  On what does she base this uneducated, unsubstantiated remark?  And just what is the average American voter like? Like all liberals, she doesn't feel like she has to be held responsible for what she says.  Nothing will happen to her because this callous remark was about white people.

It reminds me of the similar remark that Obama made during his 2008 campaign about people in the Midwest.  Then Senator Obama stated, "And it's not surprising then that they (Midwest) get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."  The amazing thing about that statement is that Obama got away with it.  He not only got away with it, he won despite making such an atrocious remark.  There is very little difference between his remark and that of Andrea Mitchell on Sunday night.  Yet, both get away with it and get a pass from the news media.  If you condemn a conservative for making a racist remark, then you must equally be outraged by racist or bigoted remarks from liberals such as Andrea Mitchell and her idol, President Obama.  But, that has never been the case in the political landscape of this country.  Fairness is not in the DNA of our politics.