Should have seen this coming

So now President Obama has come up with yet another brilliant idea to "stimulate" the economy under his "We can't wait" campaign.  The big idea is to put money back in the pockets of struggling college students.  The plan is to cap students' loan payment rates at 10% of their income that extends beyond the poverty line and also limiting the term of the loan to 20 years.  Like most of the President's ideas, it sounds like a good plan, in principle.  But let's do the math, shall we?  If a student is accepted into a major university, we'll use George Washington University as the example, and gets a loan to pay for a Bachelor's degree, it will cost $212,000.  Let's then say that this same student, upon graduation, gets a public sector job making $25,000 a year.  After the poverty line level of  $10,890 is subtracted, their repayment amount works out to be $1,411 a year.  After 20 years, all things being equal, the total amount repaid works out to be $28,220.  Keep in mind the original loan was for $212,000.  That leaves $183,780 unpaid.  So who has to cover that cost?  You guessed it, the taxpayers, you and me.  But it gets better.  Obama will also allow students to refinance and/or consolidate their loans for more favorable terms, which would reduce the amount paid even further, sticking us for a greater percentage of the balance.  What's worse is, Obama has more authority than usual (not that that's ever stopped him before) in this department.  As a rider to the Affordable Health Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, the government now has full control of student loans.  So Obama doesn't even need to side step Congress on this one, because it's already been passed.  This will only make it easier on the students.  It does not adversely affect the universities, since they will have gotten their money up front.  Nor will this lower the cost of college tuition.  This hurts the taxpayers, many of whom had student loans at one time and paid them off in full because they didn't have this "proposal" at the time.  I stated in my last post that Obama was following the Cloward and Piven model of collapsing our economic system.  This is further proof that he is doing exactly that.  Obama is also doing this to appeal to young, struggling college students, a large percentage of his voter base that swept him into office in 2008, to in essence buy their votes for his re-election in 2012.  Hopefully, these students put some of that college education to use and realize that what may benefit them now will hurt them later and all the while this nation is suffering under the irresponsible, self-serving policies of this administration.  Please, college students, I beg you, tell me you're not so blind and stupid that you can't see through this.  This President must be stopped, his policies must be revoked, and above all, he must not be given a second term in office. 

We Can't Wait

President Obama is in Las Vegas today where he is changing his latest mantra - "Pass this bill" to "We can't wait" as in "we can't wait for Congress."  He is attempting to force banks to make loans with low interest and better terms to people upside down in their homes.  This has gone far enough.  Obama's bypassing of Congress is in direct violation of the Constitution.  We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.  Obama has shown nothing but contempt and disdain for Congress and the process by which bills become law in this country.  His "we can't wait" proposal would have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee these new loans to these people who are upside down in their homes.  HELLLOOOOO!!!  This is what got us into this mess in the first place!!  Either this guy is the biggest moron to ever hold the office of President of the United States of America, or he thinks we must be a nation bumbling idiots.  My money's on the latter.  I am now thoroughly convinced, Obama is doing this on purpose.  Read the following words very carefully:  Glenn Beck was right.  He was right about the Arab spring, he was right about the stimulus packages, and he's right about Obama being a Marxist who is following the Cloward and Piven strategy to collapse our economic system.  If there was ever any doubt before, there shouldn't be now.  Obama is doing all of this on purpose.  His solution to all of our problems is to spend more money that we don't have and pay for it on the backs of the rich, a plan which has been proven time and again not only not to work, but to make things even worse.  Now Bank of America has threatened yet another credit downgrade could occur if the national deficit is not seriously addressed and handled on a long-term basis.  I will say this loud and clear as an open letter to the federal government:  STOP THE DAMN SPENDING!!!!  We can't afford it anymore.  This government needs a crash course in prioritizing.  But I will agree with the President on one thing, we can't wait.  We can't wait until 2016 for this President to be out of office.  We can't wait to get all the reckless deficit-spending Congressmen and Senators, from both parties, out of office.  Obama should be impeached for his blatant abuse of power.  But since that is incredibly unlikely, We the People need to take care of it ourselves in 2012.

Are you kidding?

I just came across an article from the Seattle Times in which a veteran of the U.S. Air Force is "outraged" that her daughter is being asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day at John Stanford International School.  The school promotes multiculturalism which is what Haley Sides has tried to instill in her daughter, who is half-Jamaican.  Sides' husband was a Jamaican-born U.S Navy serviceman who died seven months after obtaining U.S. citizenship.  Ms. Sides said, "It pains me that a school that emphasizes thinking globally would institute something that makes our children think that this country alone is where their allegiance lies."  Even though reciting the pledge at the beginning of each school day is district policy, it has traditionally not been observed at John Stanford.  Stanford's former principal, Kelly Armaki, stated that the school would let each teacher decide whether or not to have their class say the pledge.  Her replacement, Jesely Alvarez, decided to change that policy, saying it was time to "move forward" in "following state law."
Now what has me so fired up is not that the school isn't following district policy, that's the district's problem.  Nor is it that the school gave each teacher the option of whether to say the pledge or not, although for me that decision is a no-brainer.  My problem lies with what Ms. Sides had said.  It infuriates me that a veteran of our armed services would be upset at a school that thinks a citizen's allegiance should be to the very nation that they are a citizen of.  Serving in our armed forces is the ultimate pledge of allegiance!  You're volunteering to put your life on the line in defense of our nation, our Constitution, our flag, and all the things that this nation stands for.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for free speech.  I respect Ms. Sides' right to say what she said, and I will go to my grave defending her right to say it.  I just find it incredulous that a veteran of our military is the one who said it.  If you are teaching your child to have a multicultural/global point of view, you must first have those views and beliefs yourself.  And if you have those beliefs, how can you take an oath to defend one nation over all others?  It makes no sense to me.  In my opinion, serving in any branch of the United States military is the ultimate expression of American exceptionalism.  I know, I did it.  There seems to be a real erosion of pride in our country nowadays and it makes me sad.  With all the freedoms and opportunity that this nation, and this nation alone, gives each and every one of us, how can pledging loyalty and allegiance to this nation be a bad thing?

Another war?

Last Friday, President Obama ordered 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to help the Ugandan government defeat The Lord's Resistance Army, a Christian extremist group accused of thousands of atrocities against adults and children in the region, that the Ugandans have been at war with since 1987.  Congress approved this last year when they passed "The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Ugandan Recovery Act", known on Capitol Hill as S.1067.  It was signed into law on May 24, 2010.  I have two questions;  First, why? and second, why now?  President Obama claims this action is in the interest of national security.  Really?  Unless the LRA is code for Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Islamic extremism, I just don't see the threat.  Unless Obama meant Uganda's national security, this is unfounded.  And if it's so urgent to help Uganda, why wait almost 17 months to send in troops?  Something doesn't add up.  When this bill was passed, we still hadn't even started our involvement in Libya.  Now we're involved in 4 separate conflicts against 3 different enemies.  What happened to his promise of ending our wars?  While Iraq and Afghanistan are easy to blame on George W. Bush, and rightfully so, Libya and now Uganda are squarely on Obama.  He can't blame anyone else for those conflicts, though I'm sure he'll try.  You can say to me, "Oh, come on, it's only 100 soldiers, and they're only advisers", to which I would reply, "yes, but it's a starting point."  And part of me can't help but think that this was done to take away the media's, and subsequently the public's focus of hot button topics like the GOP debates and embarrassing situations for the Obama Administration like Solyndra and the "Fast and Furious" gun-running scandal which may lead to the end of Eric Holder's time as Attorney General, and in my opinion it should.  I'm not going to say that this troop involvement in Uganda was politically motivated, but I'm also not going to say it wasn't.  It just seems odd that with everything going on that Obama sends troops into yet another country now when he's had approval for it for 17 months.  Just keep an open mind and realize that nothing is impossible and all reasonable options must be considered.  Whether you agree with me or not, you must admit the timing is awfully convenient.

Distracted Driving

Here in Nevada, there was a law passed recently that has been on the books in California for a few years now.  This law makes it illegal to drive while talking on your cell phone if you're holding your phone.  This is to cut down on the number of accidents due to "distracted drivers."  Ok, makes sense, right?  Sure, it's good to be safe.  But here's the problem.  We all know that cell phones are not the only source of distraction on the roadways.  So when drivers continue to be distracted even when not on their phones, what's next?  Eating?  Ok, let's abolish all drive-thrus.  What about business signs?  Billboards?  Freeway signs?  What about the ultimate distraction, children?  If we're trying to cut down on driver distraction here in Las Vegas, maybe the entire Las Vegas Strip should be shut down.  That's a five mile run of constant distractions.  So, let's see.  We have no cell phones, drive-thrus, billboards, business signs, freeway signs, children in the car, and the Las Vegas Strip.  But wait, I almost forgot radios.  What about those?  They may not always distract you, but what about when you can't find a song you like so you're constantly changing stations?  Or what if you find your favorite song and you're singing it at the top of your lungs?  Don't laugh, you know you do it.  So no radios either.  Ahhhh, a nice relaxing, distraction-free drive.  Sound extreme?  Have I gone too far?  Perhaps, but here's my point.  When you take away one freedom for the "public good" or in the name of safety or security (I'm looking at you, Patriot Act), where does it end?  It doesn't, that's my point.  Someone will always say, "It's a good start, but we need to go further/do more.  We need to ....."  The slippery slope is best avoided by never starting down it.  Use your own good judgment, keep your freedoms.  You know what's best for you better than anyone else.  Don't let anyone, especially the government, tell you different.

Wall St. Protests II - The Demands

After my most recent post on the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, I decided to dig a little deeper into the subject.  Much of talk radio likes to poke fun at the protesters saying most of them have no idea why they're there or what they're protesting.  While this may be true that the protesters have no clear idea of what they want, the organizers know very well what they want.  I have found a list of their demands from their website www.occupywallstreet.org .  They are as follows:

1.  Restoration of the living wage.  This can only be accomplished by eliminating "free trade" and imposing trade tariffs on imported goods and raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour.  Yes, 20 dollars an hour.

2.  Institution of a universal single payer health care system.  Obamacare, fully realized.

3.  Guaranteed living wage regardless of employment.  You get a paycheck whether you have a job or not.

4.  Free college education

5.  End dependence on fossil fuels and fast track alternative energy use.   Translation : Bye bye gasoline and natural gas.

6.  One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending NOW.  This means bridges, roads, etc.

7.  One trillion dollars in ecological restoration and decommissioning of ALL America's nuclear power plants.

8.  Racial and gender equal rights amendment.  Um, "All men are created equal?" Heloooooo.

9.  Open borders migration.  It's exactly what you think, NO BORDERS


10.  Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted & recounted in front of an independent & party observers system.  Yes, because we never of any corruption in other countries' elections.

11.  Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.  Globally.  No more loans, mortgages, credit card debt, national debt, country-to-country debt.  All gone.  Just like that (insert finger snap here).

12.  Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

13.  Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or any time representing their yea or nay vote on forming a union or having union representation.  English :  Card check.  Know who wants a union and who doesn't.  No anonymity.

The list was paraphrased slightly, but you can see it as it was written on the website if you wish.
Breaking it all down, this is communism, pure and simple.  All of these demands would lead to the collapse of a capitalist system and they know it.  Even the logo they use on the website is closely associated with communism/socialism.  These people don't want Wall St. or corporate reform.  They never did.  They want to completely destroy the American way of life.  And why?  Because it hasn't worked out for them the way they wanted it too.  Boo hoo.  Poor baby.  It hasn't worked out for me they way I wanted either.  Yet.  But I'm not about to give up on America or capitalism.  I would venture to guess most of the protesters on Wall St. don't want it to go away either.  I think they really have no idea what they're supporting.  I firmly believe that anyone who thinks communism is a good idea doesn't remember the oppression of the USSR or Cuba.  I do. I'll take capitalism win, lose, or draw.

The Wall Street Protests

For over 2 weeks now, demonstrators have taken to New York's financial district in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement in what is referred to by some as the liberal's version of the Tea Party. While the number of people in attendance is sketchy at best, we do know that at least 700 people have been arrested. How many Tea Partiers have been arrested at the various gatherings they have had? I'm not sure anyone has, but I think I can say that if anyone has it surely would not approach 700. And why is it that no Tea Party gathering has ever lasted longer than a weekend, let alone 2 weeks +? Could it be that they're just not as committed to their "freedom" cause as these fine people are to theirs? Maybe their passion just isn't as true. Maybe......awww, who am I kidding? Anyone who has ever been to a Tea Party event knows what they believe in and their passion and devotion is deeper than these people could ever fathom. The reason Tea Party events don't go on longer is most of us have jobs and families to get back to. People interviewed at the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations are protesting everything from corporate greed to global warming to "the man." Whoa, far out man. They are upset that big business and the banks received a government bailout. So am I. But this group is comprised mostly of liberals. Don't they know who authorized these bailouts? None other than the Democrat controlled Congress and the left's Golden Boy, President Barack Hussein Obama. Wow. Talk about hypocrisy. Oh wait, that's right, I almost forgot. It wasn't Obama's fault! It was all George W. Bush! Uh huh. While I will concede that some corporate corruption goes on, it is far from unanimous. The federal government has placed so many rules and regulations on business now that it's choking businesses into submission. Most of the signs I've seen say "Make the rich pay," "Tax Wall St." "The rich should pay their fair share." Blah, blah, blah. I've covered this before but it bears repeating. The top 10% of wage earners pay almost 70% of the country's tax burden and 47% of the population pay no taxes at all. In fact, the lower 40% of wage earners actually get more money back from the IRS than they paid in. So who's not paying their fair share? This protest is strongly supported by leftist organizations like Code Pink, labor unions, and celebrities like Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore. This is the same guy who thinks Cuba has the ideal medical care system and is a fan of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. That's all you need to know about how he feels about the American way of life. One of the more disturbing signs I saw read "Jump you fu**ers." It wasn't edited of course. I couldn't believe this. Can you imagine the backlash and the outrage if a Tea Partier had a sign that read, "Hey Obama, eat a bullet?" I can. But you won't see anything like that because the Tea Party doesn't wish for anyone's demise, we simply want to prevent the death of our republic.