In the absence of many significant political races in 2013, much ado has been made of three. Chris Christie is leading his race by roughly 24%. The special election for New Jersey's open U.S. Senate seat has passed - and now the national media is focusing the Virginia Gubernatorial Race. This race is of much more importance than most realize. Virginian politics have been paralleling those of the nation for the past few elections. Virginians voted in favor of Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Virginia's representation in the U.S. House is majority Republican, while both Senators are Democrats. Virginia's current Governor is a Republican; however, Virginia is the only state which doesn't permit consecutive terms for incumbent officeholders, hence the current election. Furthermore, Virginia's 2008 and 2012 Presidential Election popular vote percentages were virtually identical to the national popular vote percentages. Northern Virginia, basically a rapidly growing suburb of Washington D.C., is turning increasingly blue, while rural Virginia typically votes Republican. 

    These commensurate traits and results lead one to look to this election to take the political temperature of the nation heading into the 2014 midterms. After all, Democratic strategists are claiming that the "Republican Government Shutdown" has obliterated the Tea Party's popularity and divided the GOP. Republican strategists are claiming that the Conservative base is more fired up than ever over the recent barrage of Liberal vitriol, stands united in the face of BO's failed policies and perpetual scandals, and will out-show the left in 2014. History agrees with the Right-Wing pundits and tells us that a second-term President's midterm will experience a poor turn-out from his base. Chris Christie is doing well in a blue state - but remember, he shared the big hug and has earned respect in New Jersey for his efforts post Hurricane Sandy. The Republican Candidate facing Cory Booker in the New Jersey special election for the open Senate seat lost, but only by 11 percentage points, a respectable showing by all accounts in a very blue state. As auspicious as all of this sounds, the combination of current polling and marginal-at-best outrage render me apprehensive. I've informed readers throughout my articles of my past political apathy. In the early stages of President Obama's first term, when the ACA was heavily promulgated and the economy should have been making remarkably larger improvements, I felt a duty to research and educate myself on political matters. The pervasive disregard for politics among everyday Americans is incomprehensible given the state of our economy and the insidious precipitation of socialism. To the left's credit, I do see a divide among the conscientious Right-leaners. This isn't limited to the establishment Republicans in Washington who were bashing Ted Cruz either. I see this daily. I'm sure it has much to do with the fact that Conservatives are free-thinkers, versus liberal sheep who follow their leader in a hypnotic trance; but it's more. I see Libertarians arguing with Christian Conservatives, Tea Party Patriots constantly trying to defend their message against moderate Republicans. Why on Earth would we not unite to take back the country? Do we not see that Democrats, regardless of their special interest, ALWAYS stick together? I'm reading posts where people are openly stating that although they are fiscally conservative, they refuse to vote Republican because of this or that. Really!? So you'd rather give an election away to a Communist (at heart) because a Republican accepted a corporate donation that he shouldn't have, while Democrats are receiving the types of funding? This makes absolutely no sense! No two of us see eye to eye on every single issue. It's impossible. 

    This leads us back to Virginia. Republican Candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, had been trailing by double digit numbers against the popular former Democratic Committee Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, until a couple of days ago. The October 30th Quinnipiac University Poll showed McAuliffe enjoying only a four point advantage, 45-41. Link below:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1971
So where are the other 14%? Surely not undecided,,, If you said supporting a third party candidate, you were correct! Libertarian Candidate, Robert Sarvis, is pulling in over 9%. 4% are undecided, with 1% voting for someone else. In Quinnipiac's poll, they break down their pool of likely voters into many subgroups. Among their polling questions, they inquired of Sarvis supporters which candidate they would support if Sarvis were not in the race, with what party they identify themselves, as well as other demographical qualifying questions. If Sarvis were not in the race, Cuccinelli would have only trailed by 2 points, a statistical tie (with margin of error). As is normally the case with third parties, Republicans disproportionately lose more voters than Democrats. If any of you are old enough to remember the Clinton elections, especially the first one against H.W., you understand the impact a third party can have on an important election.

    It's not my intention to come off as a Two-Party System zealot. I'm in favor of having several parties with varying agendas from which to choose. Personally, I identify with the Tea Party (generic), I'm a Christian (while I am against removing everything Godly from public and despise the secular war being waged against Christianity{Freedom "OF" Religion folks, not "FROM". Let me have my Commandments, Christmases, Crosses, and "In God We Trust" 's}, I don't believe in injecting faith into politics for Constitutional reasons) and have gradually been leaning toward many libertarian viewpoints. In other words, no actual party is perfect for me so I could see myself voting for something other than Republican. I'm also in favor of campaign reform to curb the power of the primary two parties. This would foster the relevance of additional parties, but that hasn't happened. For now, what I can't do is hand over an important large-scale election to a far-left Liberal by; voting for a write-in, a third party who trails horribly in the polls inhibiting a Conservative win, or not voting at all. With different factions of the Right (who are involved) seemingly conceding to the polarization of President Obama, is there a way to convert to a multi-party friendlier political system without giving every major election away to Democrats? No. Is it inevitable? Possibly. Libertarian and Tea Party bases are feeling more and more exasperated by the GOP. While many are energized to get out and vote, many are also indifferent, feeling they are not represented. This may be why (as well as IRS oppression of the Tea Party) Republicans had poor showing at the polls in 2012 despite the situation our country is in. If establishment Republicans keep playing into the hands of Obama and the mainstream media in their attacks against their conservative base, we may see a true split. Democrats would have no incentive to ever reform campaign policy. By the time the nation could react appropriately, it would be to late.
 
    

    As I scroll through the comment section on blogs, or browse through the multi-partisan political posts on my friends' Facebook pages, I become more cognizant of the polarization consuming our nation. There have been many eras throughout our nation's short history, in which radicals on both ends of the political spectrum were miles apart - The left has always had their activists; whether it be Anti-War Hippies, Pro-Choicers, Communists, Gay Rights Marchers, Grievance Extorters (from the 90's on), Environmentalists, etc. Many of these groups had, at least at some point in time, legitimate grievances that mushroomed into esoteric, out of touch, mantra. On the right we've always had the hyper-religious factions fighting against any iniquitously perceived progression (can you imagine if women still had to wear bonnets and dresses to their ankles?), or the staunch capitalists who believe there should be zero regulation on businesses, or zero taxes or assistance to the poor. But NEVER have the contrarieties been so vast and adverse as they are now. Why?

Polarizing President

     Barack Hussein Obama came into the 2008 primaries promising "fundamental transformation". Historically, when the economy sinks into depression, the opposing party gains control with Change propaganda. It was no surprise that Democrats took power in 2008 after the crisis of 2007. But why BO? After all, the beloved Hillary was his opposition and almost a shoe in. In my last article, I spoke of the importance of BO's race in regards to his media coverage. As we've seen, if you criticize or disagree with Obama on a regular basis, you're donned a racist. The President understands and embraces this, for it stifles his critics. This is why you won't experience the unifying persona we enjoyed with Ronald Reagan. In a battle of a 'historic first', black won over female. The media were so bound to prove that we were no longer a racist country, that they catapulted BO as their darling and won the primary for him. Typically, when any candidate runs, they're demonized for any shady past connections, have dirt dug up from all points of their life, have their family's pasts exploited, their religious affiliations scrutinized, and we end up deciding the leader more on the basis of "lesser of two evils" than of merit. Unfortunately, the media were so enthralled in the hype of the first black president, they ignored all of these. This immediately sparked skepticism among curious right-wingers, but their findings were ignored by the mainstream and dismissed as "conspiracy theorists' montage". Without looking very far (just into his autobiography Dreams From My Father), it's found that although his father abandoned him at a young age, he feels a duty to fulfill his father's dreams. What were his father's dreams? He was an anti-colonialist, he hated imperial powers, and was a socialist economist. While colonialism isn't an issue in the United States, being a successful, elite, capitalistic, exceptional superpower is. This is ideologically "unfair" to third-world countries everywhere. Also from his own book, BO was admittedly mentored from the age of ten, by cardholding Communist, Frank Marshall Davis. At certain points in time, these facts alone would have sufficed in one's being the recipient of FBI surveillance, not two successful presidential bids. 
    Also prevalent in BO's history was his associations with radical left-wing organizations and extremists. Without speculating on the extent of relationships and influence, its safe to say that BO was associated with, and admired, Communists, Democratic Socialists, and even left-wing terrorists (e.g. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn). What does all of this have to do with polarization? The answer: Divide and Conquer. You see, all intelligent Socialists and Communists understand that the American people will never allow an abrupt transition into Socialism. Socialism is not inherent to a Conservative to any extent. And although Socialism is the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party, it has never been able to admit that. After sporadic military involvement for almost a century in defense of democracy and opposition to fascism and communism, an earned stigma is attached to the phrases "Communist" or "Socialist". Any further (New Deal, welfare, etc. Once in place, they never go away) adoption of these policies must be through rebranded terminology and nefarious tactics cloaked in the appearance of justice and equality. As Americans, we have been programmed to pride ourselves on success via superior work ethic and pride in self-reliance. It has worked. We are the greatest nation in history. Accepting entitlements has always had negative connotations associated with it. So many aspects of our culture must be changed in order for the Democratic Party to dominate. So how can this Chicago Community Organizer divide an entire nation in order to conquer it? After all, our Constitution contains built-in defense mechanisms for tyrannical plots and personal liberty. For answers, look no further than Vladimir Lenin. Marxist-Leninist tactics no longer resemble falderal, but simulate a surreptitious reality.

"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective 
agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses."   - Lenin

    'Freedom of the Press' has served a much more important role in our nation's success than most realize. Despite generally taking a liberal stance (if you have any doubt, just Google the Media Research Center and read their reports), the media have always taken an important adversarial position to White House Administrations. The Press have served as a de facto referee for 'We the People'. While we have taken this fore granted, Administrations have not. Even lack of transparency has been called out in previous Administrations. Observe the Bush 43 treatment regarding transparency over the Patriot Act. It was brutal in comparison to any treatment this one has received and this is THE LEAST transparent, most dishonest, stonewalling Administration in history. I have long suggested that this was due to the Obama-Media love affair. But recently my attention was called to a former CNN anchor/whistleblower, Amber Lyon, who is exposing the mainstream media for being "bought" by the Administration, as well as Muslims and others. She also pointed out the unprecedented number of attacks the Administration has carried out against journalists and the exorbitant quantity of whistleblower penalizations as a scare tactic to discourage crossing the Administration. Apart from this, for the first time in history, this Administration is openly critical of any news outlet who accosts them. White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, has on several occasions, vilified Fox News and Rush Limbaugh; as well, the POTUS himself has openly instructed people to ignore Fox News, Conservative Talk Radio, and bloggers. When BO, or other high profile Democrats, utter talking points, they are simply taken at face value and regurgitated to the masses. The Press is key to success in all other aspects of imposing his will. This is literally the consummation of Lenin's quote.

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency." -Lenin

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie (middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.' -Lenin

    We have long been a capitalist nation with limited government regulation. While government involvement wouldn't exist in a pure capitalistic economy, greed makes oversight necessary. Once the (as close as possible) ideal degree of government involvement had been reached, our middle class grew to desirable levels and has been sustained (until recently) for quite some time. Still, this does not fit into the utopian narrative envisioned by socialists and communists for centuries. There will always be an upper class, and there will always be poverty. Social justice within their ideology doesn't allow for this to be embraced. Class must be abolished completely. It is utterly unfair for someone to work hard, achieve their goals in life, and have more; meanwhile the poor, and lower-middle working class, have much less. When the middle class descends into poverty, class warfare is eminent, leading to an ideal situation for implementing socialism. A rich few are easily overcome by poverty in droves. According to Lenin, the way to destroy the middle class is through tax increases and inflation. Previously implemented entitlement programs, infrastructure, defense, and big government in general are expensive. This money comes from us, the People. As more programs are offered, the government grows, and tax revenues must increase. The impoverished can't pay them, so the burden falls on the middle class and businesses. In our specific situation, the middle class is fed up with taxation. Any mention of new taxes is met with abrupt resistance. As for businesses, our corporate tax is the highest in the world! Liberals will inform you that corporate tax rates were at their highest point in the 90's. But income tax and corporate taxes aren't the only method of revenues at the government's disposal. Most items you purchase are laced with taxes at multiple levels, some aimed at the consumer, and some meant for the producer, passed on to you. Cigarettes, gasoline, alcohol, and many other items contain excise taxes. With manufacturing gravitating overseas, tariffs are often paid on products. These taxes aren't limited to the federal level, it is supplemented by state and local taxes of many forms. Obamacare, according to a Grover Norquist article (complete with citations) in Newsmax in 2012, has over 20 new taxes, some that went into effect as early as 2010. Then there are enormous fines the EPA imposes on factories, collected by the Department of Treasury. Unfortunately, the EPA doesn't need a Congressional law passed in order to impose fines, the POTUS can dictate new regulations via Executive Order - Obama does this. Still wondering why our POTUS has done nothing for our flailing economy? As wealth decreases, dependency on government increases. When government expands, it rarely contracts.
    Then there's inflation. While tax hikes of most kinds directly affect inflation, other factors contribute as well. The major contributor is the devaluation of the dollar. In case you haven't heard, we are over 17 trillion dollars in debt, not including unfunded liabilities. Just as with credit cards, you always want the lowest possible interest rates to save money. We currently enjoy outstanding interest rates. Usually as you increase your debt limit, you reach a point in which no one will raise your ceiling or loan you anymore, or your rates will rise if loaned at all. We have long surpassed this point. Our affordable rates are being propped up by fake money. That's right, we print extra money every day. We are devaluing our dollar on a daily basis, driving us closer to the abyss. When the dollar collapses, the fall of our middle class has arrived. Capitalism will be blamed. Socialism will be promulgated as the only viable option remaining.

"Socialized medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State." -Lenin

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it." -Ronald Reagan

    Wow. These two quotes say it all. This time, no one is listening. I'm not sure about you, but every time I speak out against the Affordable Care Act, some liberal declares, "So you have something against the poor getting healthcare coverage? I don't know why Republicans hate poor people so much!". BO has succeeded here. For more on the perfect rebuttal for this, please read my previous article http://acuminouspolitics.weebly.com/1/post/2013/09/government-shutdown-stunt-which-side-of-our-side-is-right.html.
"But it's not socialized medicine it's a mandate!". Obama as well as several Democratic leaders have openly admitted that this was a transitional step into a single-payer system.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one." -Lenin

    If you're a liberal, you're probably venting about reasonable constraints on guns. As a strong-minded constitutionalist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is as much for protection from the government as from an intruder. Every example of tyranny our forefathers warned us of, is manifesting today. If today it's AR-15's taken, then tomorrow it could be an all out firearm ban. No thank you.

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of Atheism." -Lenin

    Judeo-Christian faiths have been under fire since before Obama's rein. However, in the past, Presidents have spoken up for religion. They've defended Israel. They've embraced their faith. Instead of speaking up for Christianity, Obama has criticized faith. In 2006, he mocked the Bible saying this, "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy? Which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith. Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount? A passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.” How about the "clinging to their guns or their religion" comment during the 2008 primaries? Does this sound like a President who respects the religion of more than three quarters of the nation? Religion is now being portrayed in a fanatical sense. It is only invoked by Democrats when they feel they can sway Conservative Christians or when its convenient. People are more easily persuaded if they do not answer to a religion first. Christianity isn't the only allegiance under fire. Patriotism is suffering attacks from all sides. Again, because if one answers to country before government, they will be more inclined to stand up for their beliefs. Look at how the Tea Party is being portrayed. Their motto is simply "Less Taxes", "Limited Government", and "Fiscal Responsibility". That's all reasonable, in fact it's all Constitutional. So why demonize them? Because they're a legitimate threat!

"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik (Communist) forever." -Lenin

    One word: Indoctrination. The liberal agenda has always been an prominent part of the Academia. College professors are often aging hippies or brainwashed liberals who view conservatism as "old-fashion" and for "white's only". They mistakenly feel that their view is the one which assists a student with critical thinking and opening their mind to new ideas. While seeing the point of view of other's is important for overall understanding and learning, radical views shouldn't be romanticized to the point of intransigence towards a pupil's beliefs. This is no longer endemic of only higher education, it is now permeating into grade school with Common Core, developed in 2009, with its liberally biased curriculum. Apart from teaching social acceptance (versus tolerance), Socialist agenda has recently been discovered by a watchdog group. In one second grade lesson, students are taught about farmers/land owners and workers/non owners, and asked if the situation is fair. The teacher's guide instructs them to tell the class that it is not fair. WHAT?! Also of worry are issues such as changing the designation for our form of government from a Constitutional Republic (no, we're not a democracy) to a Democratic Republic. The main point in this is to veer the nation's reliance away from the Constitution (which this POTUS has proclaimed is faulty, and he hasn't respected), in which every major office and the military is sworn to protect. The transparency in Common Core is even worse than this Administration's. Some teachers have claimed that they were even forced to sign a contract stating they would not reveal the curriculum contained in Common Core to outside sources, including parents.

"Accuse others of what you do." attributed to both -Marx  -Lenin

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." -Lenin

    Both of these quotes epitomize, both; this administration and their actions, and the ethics associated with socialistic views. First, if Socialism is such a grand economic system, why must the entire public be deceived? Interchangeably, I ask the same question of most Democrats. Have you ever noticed that informed Conservatives can make an irrefutable case by only using facts. No spin, no recapitulation of partisan discourse, just plain facts. Liberals must use the pity argument, social justice, and demagoguery in order to win an argument. Unfortunately, the disinterested and uninformed public has been heeding their fabrications more and more. 
    Specific examples with this administration have been rampant. In fact an entire book could be written covering only the lies and false accusations. These range from covering up the targeting of political enemies with the IRS, to calling the Tea Party a hate group and a coalition of New-Age KKK rednecks. If you follow politics at all, I'm sure you don't need a list from me.

"The goal of socialism is communism." -Lenin

    This is his end-game. 

    As for the polarization of America: when the economy is great (as it was for almost three decades, thank you Reagan!), politics is less important. People mainly associate their worldview and ideology with their own lives and those around them. Falling into a Moderate or Independent category is more commonplace because little attention is paid to partisan politics. Most only hear rhetoric and understand recent job performance around election time. But when things get tough 'We the People' hearken. Those of us with more Conservative values shift right. The Liberals and special interest moderates slide left. This is usually when a strong leader emerges, provides a clear non-controversial plan, and unites us. BO hasn't done this. The Democrats decided that while they have power, they were going to push through the most radical policies for their base, tearing apart any remaining cohesion in the nation. He has since chosen to further alienate Conservatives, attacking our beliefs at every turn. The apathy for the well-being of our nation has been ever-so-apparent to those paying close attention. Democrats are more concerned with maintaining power than positive results. The problem is that the President, not the Speaker, not Fox News, not Rush, not Hannity, not We the People, but Barack Obama has the bully pulpit. His voice is the only voice heard by many oblivious Americans each day. Many have no idea what is truly happening to our country before their very eyes. And without opposition, he sounds sane. Without a Sean Hannity playing back recaps of lies, they never know he's lying. Without intervention, they'll never know what is coming. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I believe Obama is a Marxist-Leninist, as his past, associations, and affiliations have suggested. This is horrifying - and this is why we need to take back the country now!

Please like our page on Facebook,   Expose A Liberal to Common Sense

        After four and a half years of arguably the worst presidency in our nation's history, Barrack Obama is still standing, albeit not as tall. His approval rating is low, at 44% according to RealClearPolitics latest poll average, but not nearly as low as it should be. His disapproval rating is high, at 50%, but nowhere near the heights it should be. For anyone paying attention, one must have asked him/herself dozens of times, "What is this idiot thinking?", "Why would he say that?", or "Does he really think we're that gullible?". Over the past year we've suffered through the worst scandals since the Nixon administration. Yet, there's no outcry. The mainstream media and other Obama supporters brush the accusations off their shoulders like a bad case of dandruff, and oddly, President Obama is re-elected and practically unscathed. Recently we've had the situations in Syria, in which the administration resembles a schizophrenic absent meds for a few weeks, and the government shutdown where for the first time in recent history, the president has utterly refused to negotiate solely for political reasons. So is he incredibly naïve and idiotic? Or are all of these actions calculated, precise, and ingenious? If so, why? The answer is both. Many believe that BO sincerely believes in the ideological nonsense that he constantly pedals to the American people and is therefore acting from a stance of pure benevolence. Conspiracy theorists claim that he's part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a budding sprout of his late father's anti-colonialist socialist seed, set out to bring down the evil imperial giant we call home. I agree with neither of these theses. Every move he has made has been carefully planned, but its for two reasons: POWER and LEGACY! Since modern Democratic policy cannot thrive in a working-class, tax paying, law abiding, capitalistic, majority ruled, common sense environment; Democrats have struggled with attaining significant power for decades. The only way to accrue support and build a sustainable base, is to deceitfully chaperone Americans into Democratic-led government fueled by entitlement dependency. As for the basis of my naivety claim; the fact that he is overestimating the longevity of his positively perceived legacy in the public eye is the evidence of this. Right-wingers will abhor him no matter what, so his focus is to be the new JFK or FDR. His stated goal was to "fundamentally transform America". He has, thus far, succeeded, but history won't be as kind as the present compliant media. 
    If he's so horrible, and he's purposely deceiving the nation, how is he getting away with it? Here's where his brilliance shines. BO has recognized and mastered manipulation of 4 factors that are key to his political success. Each factor interacts with it's counterparts. Here they are, listed in order of importance:

1. SLEIGHT OF HAND! Yes, he's a master magician and the media is his audience. This factor will be discussed at length.

2. RACE! The mainstream media is undeniably left-leaning as is, but throw in the potential for appearing to oppose Obama due to his race, and you find an extremely obedient and submissive media. 

3. ERIC HOLDER! Integrity, honesty, fairness, and transparency, all mean nothing to this administration, or even the Democratic party. Although appointed by the President, the Attorney General typically isn't politically motivated. The legal field tends to think in terms of law instead of party. If a problem within an administration arises, as was the case with Bill Clinton, an honest and professional AG will appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation against itself or the administration. BO must have learned something from the Clinton era mistakes; keep a loyal AG and turn nothing over to a special prosecutor, no matter what!

4. A DISINTERESTED / UNINFORMED PUBLIC! As I've mentioned in previous articles, I was never fond of politics until the 2008 election. Suddenly the economy had plummeted and every politician's decision became increasingly important. When the 2012 Primaries were in full force, I decided that full devotion was in order. Being informed was only logical with a five year, lame, nonexistent economic recovery degrading our nation. Surprisingly, many still won't pay attention. And the mainstream media refuses to inform.

    Sleight of Hand: Per Wikipedia, Sleight of Hand is one of the primary set of techniques used by magicians. Of the principles of Sleight of Hand; misdirection(distraction) and simulation are the most common and effective. With misdirection, the magician distracts the spectator by maintaining their focus somewhere other than where the trick is actually occurring. Simulation is the portrayal that something has happened that actually didn't. 
    For years now, I've wondered, despite the obvious bias within the media, how BO perpetually keeps all of the administration's scandals under the radar (for the most part). How does his constant flip-flopping, failure to fulfill promises, and blatant lies never receive proper notoriety from the media? Of course race and the disinterested public come to mind, but much of this avoidance of accountability is indebted to his purposeful design. BO can take any accusation, briefly address it, ignore it, call it a phony scandal when it comes up again, and it goes away! At times he was even capable of shifting attention to another scandal in order to shift focus. After hearing H.W.'s "Read My Lips" comment as a disinterested pre-teen (who hated the evening news) so many times that his lie was my only association with him, it seems unfathomable that BO could get away with so much. In mid-August, with the return of congress approaching, the debt-ceiling negotiations, De-fund Obamacare rallies, and the Benghazi anniversary all around the corner, I asked myself what he would do next. Surely he can't avoid negative coverage again, then he did. He diverted attention would be a better way to put it (notably with help of Republicans De-Fund strategy this time). While Congress was away, he went campaigning around the country again, speaking of phony scandals, and rallying supporters for what he knew would be continued gridlock from those pesky Republicans. The second chemical weapon attack in Syria passed (since his "Red Line" comment) and that negative coverage commenced. Obama then turns to Tea Party bashing to take the focus off again. Every scandal has preceded an act of Sleight of Hand, successfully! 

    Race: Regardless of your feelings about Barrack Obama's performance, the historic accomplishment of his becoming the first black President was hair-raising. Voting him in for a second term, however, was idiocy. The irony here, is that regardless of his fallacies, his presidency will eternally be revered as iconic. This is due, not only to his race, but to his controversial, but epic, accomplishment of passing universal healthcare legislation; a failed liberal endeavor for several generations. I truly believe that this intimidates the media. Not only is he a Democrat, but he's black! Imagine the unsavory hate cards that could be pulled by this administration and other critics if a news organization dared to confront them from an adversarial position (which is the mainstream media's job). Sadly, you don't have to. Google Obama's comments regarding Fox News or Rush Limbaugh and you'll see what it would look like. Fortunately for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, their ratings speak for themselves. They are in a position to exploit the comments for what they truly represent; hate-mongering. Other outlets are not. They forever cower to the perceived expectation of political correctness, this has drastically inhibited their ability to fulfill their oaths to the proverbial journalistic 'code of ethics'. It's an outcome that should shame many, but seems to affect few. 
    It is not only the mainstream media bowing to King Obama's destructive ideological recitations, but its also his Democratic colleagues in Congress. In spite of difference of opinions among Democrats, they stick together. Many would say that this uniformity is partisan design, but I'm not so sure. I sincerely believe that their conformity stems from fear of Obama, for the same reasons the media fears him. BO has utilized race divisively.

    Eric Holder: This is the area that no one has seemed to pick up on. Remember when Holder was under fire for lying under oath to Congress; not once, but twice! Pundits throughout the media predicted Obama would be accepting his resignation anytime. I, however, strongly doubted this. It never happened. Barrack Obama understands the importance of loyal servants in all the proper places. He almost lost it over Benghazi with Hillary. Had she not had 2016 on her mind, I believe she would have thrown him under the bus. A damaging blow to Obama right now, is also a damaging blow to Democrats in the 2014 and 2016 elections. But why is Holder so important? Holder holds the key to impeachment. Any other administration, with the IRS ordeal alone, would be facing impeachment. Most Attorney Generals care enough about their overall legacy to not cover for a President. Holder and this administration are different. As long as they are appeasing their far left, radical base and minorities, they are happy. Holder will not allow independent counsels anywhere near the administration. Democrats learned their lesson after Ken Starr ravaged Bill Clinton, converting a simple Whitewater Investigation into an enormous sex scandal leading to impeachment from the House. Rest assured, unless more whistleblowers come forward, we will see nothing of these scandals until after the 2016 elections.

    A Disinterested/Uninformed Public: Finally, this area befuddles me. I understand not taking interest in politics when all is well. Since Reagan, the country maintained a robust economy with only slight recessions every few years, until 2008. Why would such a large segment of the population not gain interest while policies have directly affected the lives of millions of Americans all around them for the past five years? Personally, I found it irresponsible to simply listen to a debate, political ad, or a news segment where opposing points were made, without researching the facts of their claims. I found that in almost every case, Republicans lied or misrepresented their claims far less than Democrats. Political Correctness has taken a toll on the public's interest as well. Democrats have performed adequately in stereotyping Republicans. When someone is struggling, it's hard to look at the core causes and vote against free help from the government, regardless of whether the assistance is unsustainable for the nation or not. Democrats view us as heartless, what they don't understand is that we would love to help everyone with everything. We simply have the common sense to understand that this creates dependency and that our economy will inevitably crash if we don't change our spending habits as a nation. 
    Barrack Obama understands this. He knows that his speaking platform as a president is far larger than that of Republican Congressmen or other politicians. He knows that the uninformed citizen will hear snippets of his orations, but likely not of others. He banks on this. Combined with the previously explained factors, he has created an almost untouchable regime. 

    So is Barrack Obama an idiot or a genius? He's a genius, naïve, but a genius. He has succeeded at controlling public thought and involvement at a level we've never witnessed as a nation. Only We The People can stop him. It takes each and every one of us speaking out, every day, informing the misinformed, exciting the complacent, supporting one another, and researching and sharing our knowledge with all. People will get tired of seeing your Facebook posts, or of your complaining, but we must not be silenced. We must perpetually present irrefutable arguments and bring as many as possible into the light. Share, share, SHARE!

    Ted Cruz's admirable 21 hour speech on the Senate floor deploring ObamaCare has gripped attention from both sides of the political spectrum. He arose as a new leader, standing somewhat alone, as a voice for the more conservative portion of America which has felt unrepresented since the days of Reagan. More conservative Americans have felt under assault with the sweeping liberal policies that continue to be imposed - despite their overwhelming failure and projections of catastrophe for the near future. To make it worse, we are forced to watch the most scandalous administration since Nixon continue to prance about unscathed with the cloak of a racist, biased, and just as scandalous Department of Justice; an Internal Revenue Service continuously targeting its enemies to no account; and an obedient and idolatrous mainstream media. Basic fundamentals of Conservatism, such as Constitutional Rights (practically the entire Bill of Rights), Small Government, and Capitalism are under an apparent all-out assault and it appears that no one has the courage to take a hard stand, despite the possible political implications; but Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee have been stepping up to the plate. Instead of a positive reception by most political pundits and fellow politicians, many seem to want to rein them in. All of this ado has been headlining a supposed split within the GOP and the new far right faction taking over the party. So is the party leaning more to right? Is there room for moderates?
    I'll start the answers by saying that there's nothing wrong with a rightward shift. I've been in business management for most of my life, I can tell you that conservative fiscal policies produce the only environment in which businesses can survive in our nation. Most of these "Enormous, Evil, Highly-Profitable, Bottomless Pit of Money" businesses usually have a surprisingly small profit margin and any additional expense can put many organizations out of business. It's my opinion that any Republican should take a strong stand for conservative fiscal policies with low (not no) regulation. As a Christian myself, I respect any politician who stands up for conservative social policies as well. I do support, however, the party shifting more to the middle on social issues. When we only say "no" to everything, we shut out potential voters. When 50-60% of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriages, there's much to lose by firmly saying "no". I admire Rand Paul for his willingness to veer away from the party's typical stance and open the door to a legal union at the state level, which would help with the poor inclusivity perception that we currently maintain. The newest generation coming into voting age have been indoctrinated with acceptance and inclusion. If we don't give on the social front a little, we stand to lose a lot. Newt Gingrich was jeered by his counterparts in the GOP Primaries in 2012 for having the nerve to say that their stance of deporting ALL illegal aliens, even when brought here as children, wasn't realistic and would only hurt the GOP's perception. He voiced an opposing view, and his popularity shot through the roof for weeks. In fact, the immigration bill drafted by the Gang of 8, and advertised by Rubio, sounded much like Newt's plan; only the Gang of 8's plan lacked the assurance of border security and added a ton of perks inserted by Schumer. With the exception of abortion (I, nor any Christian, can support murdering an unborn baby and calling it "Women's Rights"), people actually like to see the GOP bend a little on social issues. In a dying country with a withering economy that's obviously drifting leftward socially, we are in danger of becoming a 'party of the past' if we don't make minor adjustments. 
    Democrats would not exist if not for minority sects of the population. Think about their voter base. They target (and are rapidly expanding by design) the poor, minorities, women, non-Christians, young voters, and unions - practically any specialty group that they can use to offer perks and demagogue against Republicans. The current Democrats in power have learned the importance of divisiveness. This is why you see the President constantly in campaign mode. I don't recall ever seeing an administration conducting themselves in the blatantly unprofessional and partisan manner in which this one does. But you know what? They have it together. Their message rarely varies from Dem to Dem. They all vote the same way. They refuse to negotiate. They all use the same tactics and they couldn't care less what a right-winger may think about what they say or do. It's working for them. They've concluded that the days of compromise are over. For that reason, Republicans must get it together. This hardnosed, new Conservative/Tea Party group that is stepping up, THEY ARE EXACTLY what the party needs. I personally hope they relax a little on the social issues by 2016, but they're exciting the base. The veteran members, regardless of how moderate they are, should jump on board for now. They obviously don't read the blogs, look at social media, listen to Talk Radio or their constituents. While the fighting-out of exactly what the new party represents will ultimately occur, they need to perform in harmony in the public eye. Work out differences behind closed doors. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others almost appeared jealous this week. They reminded me of my eight year old ADHD son when he feels his three year old brother is getting too much attention. I'm also becoming very fond of this "libertarian strain" that Christie warned everyone to avoid. With all of the Constitutional assaults being exposed, the "slippery slope" concept is proving true. I find myself leaning more and more toward the Constitutional Conservative/Libertarian ideology each day. Tea Party groups are energized again, and will most likely ramp up as the 2014 midterms approach. I do believe that we are witnessing the birth of the "New" Republican Party. My only hope is that it isn't so far right that it can't be inclusive. But these Conservative and Libertarian strains are definitely paramount to the party's future. Embrace it!
     

    Unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past few days, you've indubitably learned of the looming threat of government shutdown on Capitol Hill. Conservative members of Congress, who like most of us, are still begrudged over the surreptitious, partisan passing of the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare). The House of Representatives have voted over forty times to repeal the law, but with a Democratic, loyal, idolatrous-to-Obama but defiant-to-the-People Senate, they have thus far failed. Half the nation has yet to have been convinced of the benevolence of Obamacare since its passage, despite the left's rhetoric and false claims of 'granting the right of healthcare to all Americans'. This number has grown rapidly over the past few weeks as enrollment approaches. Many efforts to overturn the law have gone unheeded, including the Supreme Court ruling in which Chief Justice John Roberts decided to swing the vote regarding the constitutionality of the law, declaring the penalty for not enrolling in Obamacare a tax, instead of a mandate. One sure way to rid the nation of the law was to win the Presidency in 2012, or possibly even the Senate, but we failed at that as well. After the unconscionable loss, many seceded, thinking there were no other options available to right this devastating wrong. For once an entitlement is in place, it is virtuously impossible to remove. In fact, it historically grows with time. When we had all but given up, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, came up with an alluring alternative to defeating the law's implementation.
    According to Senator Lee's suggestion, the House holds the pen for the Constitutional 'purse', and without the oxygen of funding, Obamacare would suffocate. Many across the nation felt a revival of sorts with this revelation. The Tea Party, Right Wing radio hosts, and the furthest right of Conservative pundits jumped immediately on board, bringing many avid followers with them. Many of the more moderate, and self-proclaimed practical Republicans, immediately began criticizing the idea, stating that the liberal media would eat them alive for even hinting at the notion of allowing a shutdown over Obamacare. The last partial shutdown, invoked in 1995 by then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, has been the pinnacle of talking points among these critics. So are the moderates simply weak? Are the Far-Right Conservatives too gung-ho and overreaching? 
    Allow me to admit, before I start my journalistic self-debate of the issue, that I signed the petition to defund Obamacare a few weeks ago. Many of the same arguments were proposed then, but I genuinely hate the law, and applaud the last ditch efforts to do something about it. But is it temporary suicide for the Republican Party? 
    The "FOR" argument: The law IS A DISASTER! We are presently enduring the most sluggish economic recovery in our nation's history. The last comparable recession was in 1980, by 1982, the great Ronald Reagan had brought us well out of the recession. His policies would maintain economic fortitude for decades to come. Reagan understood the importance of the role of businesses in the economy. Without business, there are few jobs, without an abundance of jobs, there are less tax dollars (and more need for them with increasing levels of poverty), without ample tax dollars, there is a snowball effect that stagnates recovery and increases deficit. Shortly after a recession, unemployment (U3) numbers typically peak. The numbers then rapidly descend after jobs become available and new small businesses begin to open. President Obama has seen a slow drop in unemployment, but for the first time, we are seeing other indicative numbers go the other way. Obamacare is, in large, to blame! The U3 Unemployment percentage is only representative of those who are "active" in the workforce. In other words, when an unemployed person's benefits run out and they are no longer applying for benefits, they drop off the workforce, and are no longer factored into the U3 percentage. When unemployed individuals drop out, the percentage of the unemployed falls, even though they were not employed. So where are the jobs? Many companies are laying off employees, only hiring part time employees, or simply not hiring due to mandates in the law for businesses to provide coverage to all full time employees above a certain number of employees. Since most businesses operate with a small margin of profit in order to remain competitive, there simply isn't room for more bureaucratic costs. This is resulting in a part time workforce, which isn't reflected in the U3 Unemployment numbers. I hear those on the left denying this statistic nonstop. Not only has the Bureau of Labor confirmed this in several reports, but I see it on a personal level. My wife manages a Home Improvement warehouse. The company operates over thirty locations, each location is slightly smaller than a Lowe's or a Home Depot, yet they operate with two salaried managers, two full time employees, and the few others with whom they are allowed to operate, are all part-timers, often working there as a second part-time job. Two years ago, almost all of their employees were full time, and there were more of them. 
    Democrats will demagogue. I've heard so many references to Republicans being mad over everyone having access to healthcare over the past few weeks. There is one thing that I don't understand about all of this. Our nation's population is over 300 million people. The intent of this law is to increase the percentage of Americans with healthcare coverage from 84% to as close to 100% as possible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), over 30 million people will remain without health insurance after Obamacare kicks in. With close to 10% remaining without coverage, we will only increase the percentage of insured by 6 or 7%. Keep in mind, many young Americans do not have insurance because they feel they don't need it and therefore don't want it. Earlier I wrote about the U3 Unemployment and how there were less people in the workforce due to giving up on a job search. There are two other metrics used in measuring labor statistics which do reflect participation and part-time employment. The U6 Unemployment reflects the underemployed. This would include most part-timers. The U6 finally dipped below 14% last month. When BO took office, the rate was 14.2%, In previous years, we've seen as low as 6.5%. Another important number is the Labor Force Participation Rate. This covers those who have stopped looking. We dipped to our lowest point since August of 1978 for this number last month. We hit 63.2%, in recent years we've enjoyed as great as 67%+. This number alone is over 4% of the population, factor in the additional unemployed or underemployed who are participating in the workforce, and that adds at least another 6%. In what world would anyone with "common sense" pass and implement a law destroying the livelihoods of over 10% of the nation, weaken our country's economic stature in the global market, and annihilate opportunity for generations to come, in order to provide health insurance coverage to 6% of the nation, many of whom don't want it in the first place? But hey, at least that 10%+ will have access to healthcare, right?! Or was that not what the Medicaid and Medicare entitlements were designed for?
    The "AGAINST" argument: Republicans WILL BE blamed in the event of a government shutdown! No matter how you word it, how you pitch it, you and I are not the mainstream media. As they did in 1995, they will blame it on Republicans. I was quite surprised over the weekend to hear most of the Fox News hosts and pundits already blaming them as well. Many Republicans are upset with Cruz and Lee for having no apparent endgame. I heard them questioned about this over the weekend. Personally, I believe they do have an endgame but aren't idiotic enough to announce it to the other side before the game even gets into the second quarter. As for 1995, I heard these two and others touting the success of the Republicans in the1996 elections after Newt took his debt ceiling stand against President Clinton over budget cuts. Republicans endured a net loss of six seats between the two houses, and lost a presidency that they should have and were, by all accounts, winning. President Clinton's approval rating took a dive, but heftily recovered. Newt did succeed in passing a balanced budget, but history has shown Clinton to be credited with the very plan he was against. 
    President Obama has been self-imploding over the past few weeks. Even his admirers in the mainstream media haven't been able to prevent a substantial dip in his popularity. An issue such as this, would be just what he needs in order to boost his popularity again. With the 2014 midterms around the corner, that's the last thing that Republicans need. Republicans fare well with military, but I'd be willing to bet that if their paychecks stall due to an apparent political maneuver that they and much of the nation will turn on them as well. Some of the nation has finally been opening its eyes to Obama's demagoguery and games, this would provide perceived validity to many of his claims.  
    I don't have a perfect solution, but I do admire what the Senators have started. My only hope is that there is a reticent endgame. I'm sure that Speaker Boehner would not have gone along with them if he weren't in on an inside plan. If there's no end game with a one year compromised delay, a retreat if the Dem's won't budge, or some Red State Senate Dem's secretly in their pocket, then they need to back off now. I, as do many, pray for the day that Republicans take back over Congress. I'd hate for that to be postponed a few years over a whim.

    A few months ago I received one of several blanket e-mails from Newt Gingrich. This particular correspondence regarded CNN's Crossfire returning after an eight year hiatus. The show historically aired for half an hour, with one right-leaning and one left-leaning host, and commensurate guests. The guests fielded questions from the hosts deliberating one specific topic the entire show in front of a live studio audience. The show canceled shortly after an on-air debacle resulting from heavy criticism from sole guest Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show. In this particular episode of Crossfire, Stewart accused the hosts of not purporting debates, but facilitating political hackery. The new version of the show brings new hosts but does not broadcast with a live studio audience. There are four hosts who will alternate depending on each night's topic. The debut, tonight, featured former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Obama Deputy Campaign Manager, Stephanie Cutter. Their guests were Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, Robert Menendez, and Senator Rand Paul. I always find it interesting and educational listening to Newt. His immense expertise in history is emphatically intriguing. If you've ever listened to Stephanie Cutter, you probably know that she can be very condescending, pompous, and deceptive. What about tonight? Did the show live up to the hype?
    Tonight's topic was the crisis in Syria. Newt came out of the gate throwing clever, jovial jabs at Cutter regarding the Obama Administration's handling of the situation in his intro. Then came the heavily spun, rhetoric-spouting response from Cutter. She proceeded by asking Paul the first question, and the rest... Outright annoying! For the remainder of the half hour, Cutter interrupted, was snide, and played host and guest answering every question. Menendez managed to remain professional, but interrupted Paul a few times himself. A la Presidential Debate of 2012, the Republican representative was interrupted, double teamed by moderator and opponent, and forced to listen to his counterpart take up to twice as much time presenting his case. It was quite annoying. As usual, Democrats were arrogant and disrespectful, while Republicans were courteous and professional. 
    In all, Rand Paul spoke 10 times to Robert Menendez's 11. Paul was afforded only 7 minutes and 9 seconds, compared to 9 minutes and 31 seconds for Menendez. Chairman Menendez was only interrupted once while Paul was interrupted during 7 of his 10 responses. During one of Menendez's longest rants, Newt rightfully attempted to interject just in time for the camera to catch Cutter grabbing his arm, as to say, " Quiet, let him finish!". 
    If I want to watch irrational liberals rabidly bash conservatives with little to no opposition, then I'll flip the channel to MSNBC. It seems that each occasion in which I grant CNN an opportunity to prove their centrist/non-partisan coverage claim, they disappoint me. I highly anticipated this show in hopes of spin being rooted out by revelation of indisputable statistics, historical data, and all the other manners in which the rationale of conservatism trumps leftist ideology. So far, I'm disappointed. It seemed that the majority of the bloggers commenting on CNN's website were discouraged as well. Hopefully the feedback won't go unheeded and the show will impose stark improvements. I'll give it another shot or two. If a vast amelioration isn't apparent, the show won't last much longer anyway.

    While the debate warms up in D.C. regarding the crisis in the Middle East, I decided to take a break from current events and write a generalized article. I will be providing sufficient evidence to convert any left-winger with an ounce of common sense (I know, two attributes of which are rarely synonymous) to at least consider becoming a fiscal conservative. But first, a little back story... 
    I wasn't always a Conservative, or at least I wasn't always aware that I was. Like many, in my early years, I declared myself a Democrat. I am a white male, in my mid-thirties, raised in the South. Before the Great Ronald Reagan came along, that meant you were a 'Southern Democrat'. I recall asking my 'Mama' after hearing talk of Democrats and Republicans on the news, which we were (as though a party affiliation were hereditary). She informed me that we were Democrats. I asked why, she responded that Republicans were for the rich and Democrats were for the poor. I had to have been around four years old when I made this inquiry from our side of my grandmother's duplex home. This was around the time that 'The Gipper' was leading our nation into one of the most impressive and stable economic recoveries in our history. 
    Fast forward ten years- I was a typical, MTV-watching, non-political teen, living in our middle-class home that my mother and step-father purchased. I remember Bill Clinton being portrayed as this relatable, sax-playing, down to earth presidential candidate for the Democratic party. After what seemed like an eternity of hearing, "READ MY LIPS" repetitively uttered from Bush 41's mouth throughout the media, Mr. Clinton seemed like a breath of fresh air. After all, the evening news reminded us daily that unemployment was creeping up and that we were on the brink of a devastating recession. When Clinton won the presidency, my step-father proudly placed his "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Bush!" sticker on his truck. I was confused. I asked my mother why they supported Bush because she was a Democrat. Without any recollection of my Q & A from a decade earlier, she smugly said, "No I am not!". With politics rarely discussed in our home, I didn't push the issue. With a descent economy and no devastating recessions, politics were hardly discussed in any facet of my life. Although a Christian, raised with traditional Southern values, the word 'liberal' sounds so much more suitable for a teenager than does 'conservative'. Held down by so many rules and laws, freedom is something for which a teen longs. As a youth, liberalism is easily confused with liberty. When you hear the words, one would think that conservatism would constrict liberties and liberalism would grant some sort of newfangled freedom that we all yearn to know. The truth is actually quite the opposite.
    Fast forward again ten to twenty years- As an adult, I embarked upon a successful career in retail management. I subsequently realized and mastered the important skill of people development; from hiring suitable people, to proper training, motivating, and eventually celebrating their successes. When the economic downfall of 2007 struck, the once lush business climate became a highly competitive exertion where only the most disciplined triumphed. For the first time in 2008, as did many, I finally started paying a little attention to politics. At thirty years old, for the first time, I researched what it truly meant to be a Democrat or a Republican, what different candidates stood for in each presidential primary, and the true meaning of conservatism and liberalism. What I found was that my evolution mirrored that of my parents. I was, and always had been, a conservative. As most people age, pay taxes, witness abuse, fraud, and dependency in relation to entitlements, we tend to levitate towards conservatism, embracing the values and beliefs that we possessed all along, but didn't react to because it wasn't "cool". Have you ever, while reading over a pre-employment questionnaire, thought about the personality/work habit questions in terms of political beliefs? Whether for an entry-level or a management position, all of the most desirable responses coincide with conservatism. That's not to say that liberals can't make great employees or managers, but decades of research and experience (in business and pre-employment testing) practically solidify conservative principles as a staple for a prosperous business environment. 
    Fast forward, for the last time, to 2011-2012. With failing economic policy, a stagnant recovery, and an unpopular healthcare law poised to proceed if President Obama was not replaced, my interest in politics crested. Somehow, President Obama, the Democratic party, and the liberal-biased mainstream media, made a case to the massive under-informed portion of our society to re-elect today's Jimmy Carter, and here we are. One of the more entertaining aspects of being more political, is the banter with liberals. As stated, I truly believe that most voters were low-information voters. These have usually bought into the liberal rhetoric which stereotypes conservatives as rich, racist, sexist, Bible thumping, anti-Medicare, white men. But there are a portion of Obama supporters who can make a well-articulated case for liberalism in spite of what common sense should tell them. Somehow they can find an excuse for every failed Democratic policy, maintain BO's art of blaming Republicans for his own failures, or nefariously cite each occasion a Republican congressman chose to vote against a outwardly benevolent bill, but did so due to specifics in the bill's content. You hear of Conservatives making the red state vs. blue state case, but rarely give more than one or two examples. You'll also hear of Liberals making obverse cases. You can corral dozens of lists from both left-leaning and right-leaning websites demonstrating their points, but it never provides undeniable facts, nor compares all 50 states. This should put an end to that.
    As common citizens, what do we look for in a thriving economy? What does a successful U.S.A. look like? I've narrowed that down to two measurable parts: percentage of debt to GDP and unemployment percentage. Debt is looking awfully scary at the national level. It's unsustainable and this president AND his party would love nothing more than to keep driving it higher, while building dependency, which builds the Democratic voter base. Don't be fooled by the U-3 unemployment numbers that are touted by the mainstream media and this administration. If you've never looked into those numbers, do so, and you'll find that it is immensely misleading. This number includes ONLY the unemployed who are filing for unemployment benefits. It does not represent those who gave up looking and are no longer in the workforce, who are no longer eligible for unemployment, or are underemployed (part time). The number that represents this is the U-6 unemployment number. This number has demonstrated nowhere near the improvement that the U-3 has fallaciously shown. According to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website, when BO took office in January of 2009, the number was at 14.2%. The latest release for July of 2013... 14.0%. With the U-3 number showing slight improvement, this signifies two things. Many have given up on finding gainful employment. And because of Obamacare, we have morphed into a part-time workforce. 
    Taking all of this into account, what would be a fair way to compare conservative fiscal policies to liberal fiscal policies? How about real time, parallel comparisons of states nationwide? The coming doom of Obamacare is affecting every state's economy, but liberal policies, if so detrimental, should show in individual states' performances. For the debt statistics, the latest and most thorough compilation comparing all fifty states I could locate was a 6/14/2010 article entitled "50 States in Debt" on by The Daily Beast.  
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/06/14/50-states-in-debt.html#slide50
I was hesitant to use this article due to the age, but after considering the timing of Obamacare legislation and the Tea Party shifts of state legislatures and governorships in 2010, I realized that it would be perfectly suited for the purposes of an accurate evaluation. The color recognition of a state is commonly considered how the state voted in the past four or five presidential elections (red for Republican candidates and blue for Democratic candidates). While this is important, the governorships and state legislatures have much more impact on a state's economy and policies, pertaining to a state's ranking compared to other states, than a president at the national level. In essence, the governor and state legislatures are the president and Congress at the state level. For the purposes of this article, Dark Blue will represent a clean sweep of Democrats in all branches of state government and past four presidential elections. Dark Red will represent a clean sweep of Republicans in all branches and past four presidential elections. Blue or Red will represent states with predominately Democratic or Republican voting habits. Purple represents a perfect split. With presidential elections this would be two of four for each party. In overall consideration of Blue or Red designations, governorships and state legislature-makeup carries more weight than presidential election history. In all, there were 23 Blue states, 23 Red states, and 4 Purple states. In totality, there were 15 Dark Blue states and 13 Dark Red states. One notable state, which is considered Dark Red, is Nebraska, who is the only state with a unicameral (non-partisan) state legislature. Statistics were also gathered for 'Right to Work(RTW)' and 'Union' states. At the time of The Daily Beast article, there were 22 RTW states, there are now 24. I desperately desired to include cost of living vs. real/adjusted income for the purpose of comparing RTW and Union states. However, most online calculators and comparison charts include other non-related factors skewing the state ranking or only provide information based on cities, not states. It's my belief that due to the vast difference between some rural and urban areas' cost of living statistics within the same state, that true cost of living data is difficult to gauge accurately statewide. Unemployment numbers applied were from the latest Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website for the month of July 2013. First I will address debt to GDP percentage rankings, then state unemployment rankings. State debt per capita was considered for use, but ultimately lost out to debt to GDP percentage. Those statistics would hardly be representative in totality to a state's economic analysis considering some lesser populated states have very robust economies.
    
Here are the stats!
    
DEBT
    The top 16% of responsible states with the lowest debt to GDP percentages were astonishingly all RED! Of these 8 states, 6 were Dark Red states. The top 3 states were sequentially Dark Red, followed by North Carolina who had a Democratic state legislature (split after 2010 elections) and had voted Republican in 3 of the last 4 presidential elections, but has a Republican governor. Wisconsin, with a Republican governor and a split legislature after the 2010 elections, was the highest ranking Blue state at number 9. Pitifully, the highest ranking Dark Blue state was Washington(state) at number 16! 
    The top 12% of responsible states were all RTW states, with Ohio being the highest ranking Union state at number 7. Out of the top 15 states, 13 were RTW!

    The bottom 14%, the most irresponsible states, were not only Blue, but DARK BLUE! Indiana was the lowest ranking Red state at number 43. Indiana has voted Republican in 3 of the last 4 presidential elections, has a Republican governor, and had a Democratic state legislature until it split after the 2010 elections. It was not a RTW state, but has since enacted RTW legislation. The lowest ranking Dark Red state was Oklahoma, at number 41. 
    The bottom 14% were also all Union states. Louisiana, a Red state, was the lowest ranking RTW state at number 42. 

    The top 50% of all states consisted of 17 Red, 6 Blue, and 2 Purple states. 16 of 22 RTW states were all in the top 50%. 

    The bottom 50% of all states consisted of 6 Red, 17 Blue, and 2 Purple states. Only 6 of 22 RTW states were in the bottom half.

UNEMPLOYMENT
    The unemployment percentages do not mirror the debt statistics as far as individual states are concerned. Some states toward the top of the 'Debt' list are near the bottom of the 'Unemployment' list. The percentages are, however, even more devastating for Blue states and Union states. Purple states, which were middle-of-the-road in the debt rankings, averages a deplorable ranking of 36th in unemployment. For the purposes of this article, U-6 numbers are utilized. State rankings have no considerable variance between U-3 and U-6 numbers.

    The top(best, lowest unemployment percentage) 8% of states for unemployment are Dark Red states. Iowa is the highest ranking Blue state at number 5, with Vermont being the top Dark Blue state, tied with Utah for number 7. Six of the top ten states are Red states. With only 13 Dark Red States, the Dark Red group averages an astonishing rank of 16th. 
    The top 14% of states for unemployment are all RTW states. RTW states also hold 8 of the top 10 spots. Purple state-Nevada is an enormous exception, holding the worst unemployment percentage in the country, following close behind are Dark Blue states California, Oregon, and Illinois. 
    
    Six of the bottom nine states are Dark Blue and Union states. Dark Blue states hold a disgraceful average rank of 28.5. Union states hold an average ranking of 26.6, compared to 23.3 for RTW states as a whole.

    Notable: While Red states and RTW states have dominated in both areas, regional location seems to be having an amply higher impact on the unemployment numbers. The western portion of the country, as well as the Southeast, are home to 10 of the bottom 14 states for unemployment. In the West; Nevada (50), California (49), Oregon (48), Arizona (t-41), and Washington (t-41) are all representative of a western employment catastrophe. In the Southeast; Mississippi (44), North Carolina (t-39), Georgia (t-39), Florida (38), and South Carolina (37) all seem to be suffering a regional plight as well. These southeastern states also account for the majority of the RTW states in the bottom 50% of the list.

    


    I rarely agree with 100% of what any candidate or public servant represents. For that matter, I rarely agree with 100% of what anyone else I've ever met believes. It's important, when thinking about a candidate, to keep that in mind. Find the candidate with whom you agree the most. Oftentimes liberals vote Democratic based on a particular social issue. Sometimes they've fallen for the reprehensible demagoguery spouted by the likes of our current president and his administration. If the ability to kill an unborn child or to marry someone of the same sex is more important to someone than living in a prosperous, free nation, you're probably not going to get anywhere. Just prior to the 2012 elections, I was debating a very intelligent, old friend of mine who is involved in the LGBT community. After he failed miserably at providing a plausible argument for liberal fiscal policy, he resorted to "Human Rights", offering that nothing was more important than equality. I simply informed him that I wished him luck if BO were re-elected (for he never promised Gay Marriage anyway, but simply eluded to a slow evolution happening from within him, in order to make sure he didn't lose the LGBT vote), and asked him just how happy he and his partner would be in the meal ration lines knowing they were able to be married. Remember that no matter what, liberals are, and forever will be the antithesis of rational thought. While it would seem common sense to any levelheaded individual that conservative fiscal policies are essential to our nation's recovery, don't be surprised if you still can't convert them. The evidence, however, is irrefutable. You WILL win the argument! Good luck!
    
    

    Just for the record, I typically despise the foreign policy aspect of politics. Its typically boring, has no impact on our day to day lives, and deals with peoples across the world with drastically different cultures and beliefs from our own. Not to mention, they NEVER WANT OUR HELP, with the exception of monetary assistance (which I loathe!). As you may have heard over the past few days, President Obama has stated that he will most likely conduct a small scale missile strike against Syria in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's apparent use of chemical weapons on civilians last week. This was the second major claim of Assad's alleged use of weapons within the past few months. The Syrian Civil War began in 2011. When questioned over one year ago regarding possible U.S. involvement, President Obama declined to offer assistance with only one exception. He stated that his red line would be if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people. Since the first alleged use, BO has received a ton of criticism from the right over his empty threat. Although distancing himself from the original comments seemed to work in the mainstream media (the way it always appears to go for him), this second attack received more exposure. Criticism swelled over his show of weakness. So what's the problem if he backs up his words? That will silence the critics, right? Wrong! Foreign policy and diplomacy has been a disaster for this administration. We've lost a ton of respect throughout the international community. This was to simply be one more failed area for the Obama administration. Now, it appears it will inevitably be a foreign affairs disaster.
    First off, the situation in Syria contrasts immensely from what it was in 2011 or 2012. Reportedly, the makeup of the civilian opposition has now increasingly become infiltrated with al-Qaeda affiliated groups. These groups are looking to impose sharia law on the people of Syria, becoming an even more oppressive state for women and Christians. In other words, if we didn't know one year ago who we would be helping rise to power if we assisted the opposition with a regime change, we know far less now. Its quite possible that the situation could turn out worse than before. 
    Second, president Obama has yet to reveal a plan. He has simply stated that if he decides to attack, that it will be limited missile strikes at strategic targets. It will only last a couple of days. He has no plans to put 'boots on the ground'. He has no intentions of aiding the rebels with the ousting of the Syrian President. And he hasn't decided when the strike will happen. Ok, when did we start announcing our military strategies to our enemies? Does this not seem nuts? Former military officials are almost hyperventilating on television when discussing this president's slipshod lack of strategy. As usual with this administration, ridiculous leaks have transpired which even demonstrated where the strikes were to occur. Basically, you don't announce what you are going to do, where you are going to do it, to what extent you are going to do it, and for how long you plan on doing it. Assad has reportedly been transporting weapons stockpiles, and may even be placing human shields at suspected strike locations. This is nonsense. If we aren't assisting anyone in Syria, should we even be striking? NO! 
    Third, is Assad's calling of BO on his bluff a serious reason to get us militarily involved in a conflict of which we have no interests? The bottom line is this; if BO had no plan for how we would react if Assad did, in fact, use chemical weapons, then he shouldn't have made the threat. He should have simply replied, "No.". Not, "No. But...". He said it, so why not simply apologize for misspeaking and not drag us into another military conflict? Yeah right! Has he apologized for anything else? If he can't handle Sean Hannity calling him out every night, then he shouldn't have taken the job... twice. Didn't this man run for office, in part, on how silly the war in Iraq was? At least military intelligence thought that weapons of mass destruction were present. How many times was Bush 43 threatened regarding the prospect of acting unilaterally? Then-Senator Biden even threatened impeachment! This is quite possibly the most hypocritical moment of this presidency.
    Politics aside, here comes the most frightening part of this entire ordeal. Who will this potentially affect? In regards to a U.S. attack, threats have flown from numerous leaders against numerous countries. Iran and Russia are primary allies of Assad and his regime. Iran, while asserting escalated effort to bolster nuclear capabilities, has threatened an attack against Israel if we strike. Israel is in panic mode, bracing for attacks. Russia has reportedly mobilized warships into position in the Mediterranean. Individuals associated with the Assad regime have made vague threats aimed at the U.S. and Israel. Obama may fire a few bombs at empty buildings, Assad absorb the attack, refrain from future use of chemical weapons, Obama save a little face, and everyone go back to business as usual. But what if Assad does retaliate? What if he fires at our ships? What if an ally of his fires at our ships? What if Assad's sole purpose of "crossing the red line" was to goat us into an attack in the first place? What if Israel is attacked? Potentially, what if Russia does get involved, or Iran does actualize full nuclear capabilities? What if they, or Russia, decide to use them? Jordan and Saudi Arabia are close allies with the opposition, what if they are provoked into the conflict? We could potentially see a region-wide war! In a wild conspiracy-theorist type way, we could even see a nuclear war. Is all of this, or ANY of this, really worth President Obama being able to puff his chest? For me, the answer is no. No because of the plausible repercussions. No because we can benefit nothing from attacking. And no because President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry have all bashed President Bush for years for our supposed senseless involvements in Middle Eastern conflicts. Now, President Obama may unilaterally, without Congressional approval, inadvertently drag us into another war.
    

    Yesterday, many of the surviving family of Martin Luther King Jr., entertainers, union/group leaders, and politicians, assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. to speak at the commemoration of the "March on Washington" from 50 years ago. The grand finale of the event was a speech from President Obama. As one would expect and hope, many speakers praised the progress we have made as a nation regarding the Civil Rights movement. There were many emotional reflections on the abuse, police brutality, opposition, anguish, even death that these leaders suffered, and on their relentless endeavors of freedom and equality. Without the leadership of Dr. King, many of the speakers would never have reached their respective levels of prosperity. The leaders of the 60's were soldiers who risked their lives, some made the ultimate sacrifice, for the rights of Americans. They earned and are deserving of respect paralleling a soldier who fought in a foreign war.
    Dr. King contrasted greatly from those who are considered civil rights leaders today. He held no hatred or contempt for whites, he simply asked for equality. He didn't preach violence, he preached peace and love. It would be hard to imagine living as a black American in those times or earlier. It would be even more difficult to fight against a centuries-old establishment, or to envision loving your oppressors. MLK Jr. was one of the great orators in history. His speeches could be felt in the soul. When you listen to him speak, you hear the pain and suffering of an entire people, you sense the intelligence of a gifted man of God, and you feel the compassion for all mankind. That's something that doesn't happen when so-called civil rights leaders speak today. There was one agenda for MLK; fair and equal opportunity for all. 
    Noticeably, there were no Conservative speakers. Allegedly, four or five were invited, but all had prior engagements. The result was a liberal agenda free-for-all! Many speeches started on the right path, then veered off into a political rant. Most were campaigning for the Democratic Party, with pathetic attempts to disguise it as Dr. King's posthumous disappointment in current national affairs. Several made references to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case and the Stand Your Ground Law. Another common theme was the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the strike down of certain Sections of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965. Among others were gun laws, immigration reform, raising minimum wage, inner city education, and minority unemployment. All of these have been at the center of controversy as of late, but was this really the proper venue for most of these? No! It is despicable that the left expects such political correctness and open-mindedness concerning their agendas, but spit in the face of conservatives and moderates who may have wanted and expected an un-biased, historical, motivational speech from the first black president of our nation, among other influential Americans. Their actions merely perpetuated the constant hypocrisy of this president, his administration, and their cohorts.
    As for the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, the hype originated around a lie. I could write an entire book about this case and what triggered the nation's reaction, but I'll try to keep it in perspective to the blog. The fact that an unarmed teen, with no apparent malicious intent, walking home from the store, lost his life, is a tragedy. I, and any other fair-minded individual, feel that way. However, we can also put race aside, and make our personal judgments based on the known facts. Sanford Police was conducting their investigation and had no evidence supporting an arrest. Mr. Zimmerman claimed that he acted in self-defense. Not only did evidence not prove otherwise, it actually supported his claim. The grievance industry, who hadn't had much to complain about for quite some time, caught wind, and this seemed like a juicy steak ready for the taking. They had (who was thought to be) a white, armed man, killing an unarmed black teen, and he hadn't even been arrested! After the release of Zimmerman's 911 call, MSNBC, basically an extension of the Democratic Party and the NAACP (Al Sharpton is actually a host there), doctored the tape to make it sound as though he was disgusted that a "black punk" was about to break into a home, and that "they always get away". Mr. Zimmerman's attorneys announced after the ruling that they would be filing a lawsuit against MSNBC on his behalf. When listening to the call in it's entirety, the call was in no way racial, and at first Mr. Zimmerman wasn't even sure of the suspicious character's color. However, with the doctored tape sparking outrage, the damage had been done, and the national spotlight was on the case. In spite of the lack of culpable evidence against Mr. Zimmerman, in order to appease the public from whom growing pressure was mounting, they had scheduled for the case to be presented to a Grand Jury, seeking their ruling on indictment. Before that could happen, the governor assigned the case to a special prosecutor, completely bypassing the Grand Jury. The State of Florida had a weak case that never should have been tried in the first place, and the jury's verdict was not guilty. As the case gained overwhelming popularity and facts were revealed, it became obvious that there was no proof Mr. Zimmerman had broken any law. Since the media and the grievance industry were already heavily vested in the vilification of George Zimmerman, they couldn't simply abandon the case. If he wasn't in the wrong, then the "law" must be wrong! Right? Much attention turned to that evil, racist Stand Your Ground Law. The so-called civil rights leaders labeled the law as some sort of free pass for the white man to kill black children (although they had supported use of the law where it didn't even apply in prior cases). Oddly enough, in Florida, blacks invoking Stand Your Ground rights have a higher success rate of utilizing the law than whites. The law, designed to allow self-defense without retreat or obligation to flee, is a fundamental right. Who doesn't want the ability to defend themselves in case of an attacker. Could you imagine being attacked, shooting the perpetrator for fear of your life, and being arrested and charged with murder? That is absurd, backwards, and displays the perpetrator-rights frame of mind of this administration and the grievance industry. These very groups were at one time, and still should be, advocates for the victims! 
    Next, the strike down of certain Sections of the Voting Rights Act. The portion of the Act that the court found unconstitutional and no longer necessary, was the mandate for certain Southern, historically racist states, to seek permission from the Department of Justice before changing state voting laws. In those times states passed voting laws in order to suppress minority voter turnout. These laws were inconceivable and included provisions such as I.Q. tests for registering to vote. For many years, these states, which no longer look to suppress minority vote, have been blocked from adopting reasonable voting laws, such as requiring a Voter I.D. The Department of Justice has blocked these laws on the grounds of suppressing the minority vote, when in reality, these laws are common sense (a word I'll be using often in my blogs). A government issued I.D. is required for the most basic of acts; buying cigarettes, boarding a plane, applying for government benefits, driving a vehicle, and on and on and on. So why then wouldn't our most important responsibility as a citizen (along with serving jury duty) require us to show an I.D. in order to curb voter fraud? If you can't travel to your local DMV once, then how are you going to get to the polling precinct once every two years, four years, or ever? This is quite possibly one of the most senseless objections to a law that you'll ever encounter. The left also claims that voter fraud doesn't exist and this is a form of trickery by the right. If you can come closer to eliminating fraud and enhancing fairness for all, then why wouldn't you? Not that it would have made any difference in the 2012, but do you remember the percentages by which Obama won in certain urban areas around the country? Over 100% in one Philadelphia precinct. No fraud there, right? An unfathomable 98% and 99% in certain Cleveland districts, again, no fraud? How about the conviction of the lady who worked as a poll worker in Ohio who voted several times? It does exist, and it may be more rampant than we'd like to believe. Before you discredit voter fraud as a right-wing conspiracy theory, think about those statistics. There are also those that debate the number of illegal immigrants (undocumented, whatever is considered P.C. this week) who voted in 2012. Shouldn't we at least deter voter fraud? 
    Gun laws. Uh oh... I'm from the South. Most there cannot quote many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, but they can all tell you about the second one. Although I'm ok with tightening up gun show sales laws and the formulation of mental health statutes, I'm even better with leaving it alone! "Guns don't kill people, other people do" may be a slogan, but its true. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be punished on account of a few mentally disturbed (that would have found a way to carry out their acts regardless of access to a weapon) or of thugs that aren't carrying legal in the first place. 
    Manipulation of the nation's minimum wage is a no-brainer. It causes inflation. Period. The assertion that businesses, who exist with the sole purpose of maximizing profits, will take an increase in their most controllable expense lying down, is incredible. Not to mention, jobs paying greater than the minimum wage will likely not increase proportionately, putting anyone earning salaries above minimum wage in an even worse situation when inflation inevitably converges. 
    Inner city education and minority unemployment, all unemployment for that matter, have been shouted from the rooftops by the right for the past year. Suddenly our nation's CEO has realized this? The travesty here is that he neither accepted accountability, nor offered a solution. Every move the Republicans make to improve these are blocked. Republicans in Louisiana are the most recent on the right to attempt implementing a school voucher program, to have the most divisive, corrupt, and ideological Department of Justice  in our nation's history block it. Why would our race-baiting Attorney General block the bettering of children's educations, primarily those of minorities? If you come up with a solution to any problem that doesn't entail throwing money (that we don't have) at it, this administration wants no part of it! Unemployment is a direct result of our stagnant recovery due to this administration's fiscal policies. Again, I'll use the phrase "common sense". President Reagan turned a devastating recession around within two years. The country's economy thrived, with the natural exception of slight downticks, for 25 years until the housing and credit crisis of 2007. Why you would not repair what was broken, and move on with what worked, is beyond me... Instead, BO has pushed through a socialized healthcare plan that is converting us into a part-time workforce, further stalling our recovery, and trampling on our Constitution. He refuses to even consider the postponement of the Plan despite the government being miles from ready for full implementation.
    Several factors contribute to disproportionate minority unemployment. The unpopular consensus, which calls for accepting personable responsibility in place of predicating systemic racism, is the breakdown of the family. The entire nation is suffering from this catastrophe, but it is hitting hardest in the black community with over 70% of black children being born out of wedlock. This hits in many areas of development. Youth, without proper guidance, will often not place sufficient emphasis on schooling and education. Their relationship building skills will be less inclined to be healthy. They will be more impressionable with less desirable influences. Hip-hop culture will more likely serve as a role model to the adolescent than someone of positive character. These factors, in collaboration with a skeptical economy the past seven years, make one's chances of living a successful, productive and advantageous, somewhat grim.  
    As for the King family, I wouldn't bemoan them for expressing their views at this commemoration. But I cannot understand these leaders, especially our president who has missed many opportunities to properly address racial issues. He constantly plays the role of the Divider, not the Leader. When he is a leader, he comes across as the leader of a race or a political party, not as We The People.