The Best Way to Help Poor Children is sans Obama

This is a teaching moment here, and this is the purpose of this blog. We'll keep the individuals I'm referring to anonymous, calling them Carmen and Jeff.  Hang on a moment, and you'll see this post is a quintessential example of something I wrote about a few months ago.

Jeff said that he felt bad because many kids don't get much for Christmas. Their gifts from Santa entail simple things like shirts and pants.  And then their friends talk about what they got for Christmas -- bug things like Stereos, computers, video games, etc. -- the poor kids feel bad. So, he said, we ought to think of this, and give our kids more humble gifts from Santa, and make it so the big gifts, the expensive gifts, are from the parents.

So then Carmen says, "You have a point there."

I said, "That's a perfect example of why we need to get rid of people like Obama."

Carmen and Jeff look at me all offended, Jeff says, "This has nothing to do with politics."

Carmen said, "When I was a kid there was a republican in office, and we were still poor."

I didn't mean to get them so upset, and so I said nothing more. Later I'm sitting with just Carmen, and she said something about our paycheck, about how it's simply not enough money for us to get ahead. And I said, "Bingo. That's exactly what I was talking about.  People suck so much out of paychecks to help the poor to the point that now everyone is poor. That's what people like Obama want. They want victims."

Yes, it is to the point right now where we feel we can't get ahead.  My parents, and my grandparents, worked hard to get ahead.  They were never rich, but they could afford to buy a nice house with plenty of bedrooms for all the kids.  They had to work hard to get this, but they had it. Today, I work just as hard as my parents and grandparents, make about the same amount of money, and only make enough, after taxes, to buy a humble home where my kids are doubled up.

Look, allow me to explain.  It's easy to see the poor child and to empathise with him. This is what drives liberalism.  They count on you not seeing what is not seen, and that is all the money taken from hard working people to pay for all their government programs aimed to help these victims.

Yet it goes to show that the truth hurts, especially when you're referring to poor children who's parents don't have enough money to pay for gifts.  I was not meaning to sound like I don't care, but my point was that liberals feed into stuff like this. Liberals want poor kids, and they want people like you to feel bad for them, because that makes you all victims. Now, here me out here.

These poor kids are victims. Liberals like Obama need victims to survive, and to keep the democratic party going.  They say things like you are saying, "Oh, I feel your pain." And then they create programs to help them that someone else has to pay for.  And so taxes have to be raised on the hardworking people, the rich, the middle class, and also the poor.

On the surface people see Obama's programs come off as good.  They are helping the poor. They are making it so the poor can eat, have a roof over their heads, and so forth.  But what is not seen is all the money filtered from paychecks. By the time you get them they are so small that the value of the dollar goes less far than it did 40 years ago.  In other words, liberalism has made everyone poor. That's what they mean when they say they can create a euphoria.  Their euphoria, their world where everyone is equal, is a world where everyone is poor.

And you can say that when you were a kid you were poor and their was a republican president.  But that is not telling the whole truth.  Since the 1960s, since the death of John F. Kennedy, liberals have controlled the media, they have controlled what our kids learn, and they have controlled Washington. And I'm referring to democrats, but I'm also referring to establishment republicans like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and John Boehner.

These are the types of republicans who are also liberals.  Look, just last week presents a perfect example of what I'm referring to here.  In 2010 and 2014 republican voters, in landslide elections, put republicans into office who promised to oppose democrats, and to stop Obama.  Then they sign budget deals like the one last week where the democrats get everything they want funded and republicans get nothing.  Some say Obama got what he wanted with a fight, but there was no fight. Republicans just caved on everything.

Here's a better example.  In the mid 1980s democrat controlled New York was in a depression and about to go bankrupt.  Donald Trump was rich already, and so he had no personal need to invest in New York.  But he did.  By the time he was done, he had created millions of jobs for New York, and billions of dollars.  He had single handedly pulled New York out of a depression. And he was not a politician.  He created no government programs. What he did was encouraged government to get out of the way, give him tax breaks, etc., and he did what businessmen do: make deals.

So who do you think really cares about the poor: liberals or conservatives? Liberals are gutless people who say they care about the poor, and create programs other people have to pay for, such taxes out everything we buy or make, and in the long term make everyone poor. Conservatives look like they don't care for the poor because they don't offer them free programs, but they create environments where everyone has an opportunity to prosper, and where the dollar goes a lot farther.

In other words, even if those poor families made the same amount of money under a conservative government that did not include Obama, those few dollars that bought cheap gifts from Santa would have been able to buy more expensive gifts. So, you see, the best thing we can do for those poor kids is to get rid of Obama.

That said, I'm all for helping poor kids. It's called charity. And less money taken out of paychecks, the more charity people do. For instance, during the 1980s, when taxes and regulations were low under Ronald Reagan, charitable givings were at record highs. So, get rid of the Obama's of the world and poor kids will be far better off. 

Further Reading:

• 
  

Obama's naive view of world leads to horrible Iran deal

It's official that the Obama administration, mainly Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama, has brokered a deal with Iran, the country whose leader has proclaimed "Death to America."  So why is this deal so great for Iran and so horrible for America?

First of all, per Fox News, here is what the deal entails:

• Requires Iran to disable two-thirds of its centrifuges
• Export/ Dilute 98% of enriched uranium
• Submit to international inspections
• U.S/ E.U., lift economic and financial sanctions
• Access to $100 billion of frozen assets
• Eventual lifting of arms and missile embargoes 

The idea is that this is a long term deal to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  Micheala Dodge of the Daily Caller says this will not work because the deal only imposes temporary restrictions on Iran's illegal nuclear program.  After they expire, Iran will have better resources to pursue more advanced nuclear technologies and potentially build a nuclear weapon faster than would be the case had sanctions remained in place." 

The Heritage Foundation claims this is a bad deal and will take us closer to nuclear war for these four reasons:

1.  The deal leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure (most of which was obtained illegally by the way) largely intact.  We did not agree to inspections any day anywhere.  We ended up agreeing to inspections some times some places. We agreed to give up sanctions. Iran agreed to partially give up its uranium enrichment programs for research and development.  Its centrifuges and its ballistic missile program... will continue

2.  Sanctions relief could likely further destabilize the Middle East. Its' been estimated that $300-400 billion will now flow into the Iranian economy.  But that money isn't going to go into the pockets of the Iranian people, much of it will go into the pocket of the Iranian regime, and that means a lot of money can be funneled to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shea insurgents in places like Yemen. That will decrease our influence in the region but it will further increase that of Iran's.

3.  Iran's Arab neighbors in Turkey will now likely decide they need to begin uranium enrichment programs as well. That is only going to make a dangerous part of the world more unpredictable and more dangerous 

4.  This deal is temporary.  Eventually the freeze on uranium will go away, all the while Iran will end up doing its homework on how to eventually use that uranium to build a nuclear weapon. And that assumes that Iran waits. As we all know, Iran is a country that has broken its word before, and specifically when it's come to holding its bargain in nuclear agreements. 

David Horowitzs would add to this list:

5.  Iran was in no way required to reveal the previous nuclear dimensions of its nuclear program -- to come clear on its violations --  in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations.  This means that there is no way they can be forced to dismantle them. 

6.  The deal does not require them to shut down all uranium enrichment plants.  

7.  The deal does not require Iran to shut down its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant. Instead, it will convert it under a highly complex process. Even if it honors this pledge, its commitment to build new water enrichment plants expires in 15 years.  Yet only a naive fool will believe Iran will honor any pledge, as it has rarely done so in the past.  Yet Obama actually believes that within this time frame a president should be able to convince the Iranian regime against obtaining nukes.  Obama said this.  He is a fool.  Sorry to say that, but it's true.  

8.  After 15 years there are practically no Iranian limitations on anything.  So even if this deal works, even if Iran is honest and trustworthy, this basically throws the can down the road, so to speak.  In 15 years our kids may be forced to deal with a potentially deadly Iran, a nation that has already sworn to destroy America and Israel.  So it's easy to see why Israel is ticked about this deal, and very concerned about it. 

9.  Iran has not been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow

10.  Iran has not been required to halt missile development

11.  Iran has not been required to stop research projects that might help them determine how to develop a nuclear program faster

12.  The deal does not require the international community to work out a strategy to deal with Iran should they (or for when they do) violate the deal and try to develop nuclear weapons despite it. This pretty much assumes it's expected they will violate it.

I can also add one of my own.

13.  Inspectors were unable to stop North Korea from secretly building a bomb, and inspectors were unable to determine that Saddam Hussein never had them.  So how can we trust inspectors to stop Iran from getting them?

14.  Obama said inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear facilities.  According to Western Journalism, Iran can object to inspectors access to any site which starts a 14 day countdown clock for arbitration.  Then an additional 7 days is added for the joint commission to come up with a solution, which then gives Iran another 3 days to comply. That's 24 days for Iran to move and hide anything they don't want inspectors to see.

15.  The deal does not free any of the American hostages still held in Iran.  In act, Kerry said this was not part of the deal because, if it were, the deal never would have gone through.  You'd think America, the Greatest Super Power in the world, would have the upper hand in these negotiations, making sure that these Americans all came home as part of any deal.

16.  The deal does not require them to condemn terrorist organizations nor require them to stop funding them.

17.  The deal does not require Iranian leaders to stop saying hateful things about Israel and the United States.  It does not require it to stop calling for the death and destruction of Israel and the United States.

Or as Mark Levin said, Obama has set the stage for WWIII.  He has made it possible for Iran to get nukes, for the Turkish to get nukes, for Saudia Arabia to get nukes...  Levin said that Obama justified his actions in a statement by saying that Kennedy and Reagan negotiated with the Soviets.  He said, "The fool doesn't even understand the point: they negotiated with the Soviets because they had nukes, not because they didn't! The Iranians don't have nukes today, but they will tomorrow!"

Think about this.  If it is true that Obama truly is a lover of the Muslim religion and a hater of Christianity and Jews as some say (and it is on record that he does not support Israel), then this is clearly his opportunity to give the the grandest supporter of terrorism in the world the upper hand.  If that thought alone is not scary, I don't know what is.

The bottom line is that this is a good deal for Iran and a bad deal for America and the rest of the world. This is what the Heritage Foundation says, but it's also what most of the people in the rest of the world with an ounce of commonsense think as well.  

So why did Obama agree to this deal?  To understand this you must first understand how liberals think.  You must understand that conservatives believe people are born flawed, and so society is made better by improving the individual. 

 Liberals, on the other hand, believe people are born essentially good and only become corrupt in order to deal with the circumstances they have been dealt by society.  In the case of Iran, they are corrupt because America is a materialistic bully that sucks up many of the world's economic resources at the expense of other nations.  

So they believe, and this is what Obama and John Kerry believe, that if America and its allies quick bullying Iran with sanctions, that this will improve economic circumstances for all Iranians and send them on a path back to peace.  They believe this is the way to a euphoria on earth where there are no wars and everyone gets along. 

The problem with this liberal view is that it is wrong and naive.  People are not born perfect, and a perfect world is not possible because, as conservatives believe, euphoria is only possible in heaven.  People are born flawed, and the only way make people better is by improving their morals.  

Considering the Iranians have a religion that calls for the destruction of people who do not join their religion, the only way for the Iranian society to improve, or to join America as an ally, is to find Christianity -- and that will not happen.  

The truth is that most of the people of Iran probably do want peace with the rest of the world, and this includes both the United States and Israel.  However, the truth is also that Iran's leaders are totalitarian dictator thugs who have no reason to stop supporting terrorists, and no reason to stop calling for the death and destruction of all people and nations who disagree with them.  

The Obama administration is naive to these simple truths, and it is for this reason this is a horrible deal for both America and all of the rest of the world.  The fact that Iran is out there celebrating is a tel-tale sign that they signed onto this deal with a proverbial finger crossing going on behind their backs.  Perhaps that's why we can still hear the snickering coming from Iran.  Iran is the clear winner here, and is not set to obtain the nuclear weapons it has always desired to become a superpower in its own right.  

There are many democrats who oppose this deal.  However, there is a fear that they will not reject the deal because they do not want to be responsible for wrecking the legacy of the first black president.  They hope this leads to Obama winning another Nobel Peace Prize.  Considering that members of the media are already claiming "this is historic!", "This is landmark!", and considering that Yasser Arrafat, a terrorist thug, once won the Nobel Peace prize, you can bet your dollars that's where this is heading (even though this deal is the antithesis of peace).

Some say this is similar to Munich in the 1930s.

So the deal is good for Iran and thug nations in the Middle East, and horrible for the rest of the world.  Still, the deal can only be stopped if a majority in Congress agree to stop it, and then for congress to override the president's veto.  Let us pray hard that they do come together as one to reject this deal.

Levin said none of this ever should have gone this far. He said the Constitution, Article II, Section II, Clause II, clearly states:  "(The President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" So the Constitution says that two thirds of the Senate must concur with this deal.  

Levin said that rather than seek the approval of the Senate to ratify this deal that they never would have ratified in the first place, republicans let him just go out and do it.  And now they are forced to find the votes to override his veto.  Now Obama only needs one-third of the Senate to defend his veto.

So now, Levin said,  you are going to have republicans going on the media claiming they are going to do everything in their power to defeat this.  What they are not going to tell you is they allowed the democrats to create the scenario whereby the Senate is now rendered powerless to stop it.  This is the new precedent set by the Obama administration, and it's all the fault of republicans who allowed it to happen.

This also may have sealed Israel's fate.  Now, in the future, when faced with the decision of what to do when Iran is threatening to nuke Israel, Israel will have to decide whether or not to act.  And if it acts, it will be violating this treaty.  This will give the rest of the world the opportunity it has always sought to condemn Israel.

Look, Israel is a terrorist nation.  What that means is they don't follow the rules of war.  The supported radicals during the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers (National Review lists it at 1,000 military deaths since 9-11.  Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran has killed more Americans except for members of Al Qaeda.). So what makes people think they will now? 

This is horrible. It's horrible for those who believe the Constitution and the rule of law should be followed, and it's horrible for the future of this nation.

That said, this could be a great deal if Iran does everything it says it's going to do and the international world enforces it.  Do you think this will work?

Further reading:

• Heritage Foundation: The Iran deal is bad for America
• Micheala Dodge of the Daily Caller : Here's the truth about 6 of Obama's Iran deal claims
• Difference between left and right: part 1
• William Kristol: Weekly Standard: Special Editorial: Kill the Deal!
• David Horovitz: Times of Israel: 16 reasons the Iran nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe
• New York Times: Iran Deal Denounced by Netanyahu as 'Historic Mistake'
• The truth about the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
• CNN: Iran nuclear deal: What does it mean for Americans held in Iran
• Mark Levin: Obama just planted the seeds to WWIII
• Rush Limbaugh: It's All About Legacy
• Rush Limbaugh: Obama delivers victory to Iran
• Rush Limbaugh: Iran deal victory lap: Obama saves world
• National Review: The Iran deal is worse that stupid -- it's dishonorable
• National Review: Iran deal explained
• The Federalist Papers Project: How We Appear To Iran After Obama’s Nuke Deal Summed Up With These Cartoons
• Western Journalism: Watch: Netanyahu Goes On U.S. TV And Reveals What He Told Obama After Iran Deal
• National Review: Presidents Iran deal is the opposite of what he promises Americans
• Flashback: Networks Hailed Clinton’s 1994 Nuclear Deal with North Korea

I am not a racist because I disagree with Obama

So I'm on Facebook, and I read this: "What if Obama was white, would the creation of 200,000 jobs for several straight months still make you think his economic policies aren't working."

When I see junk like this, I have a hard time not responding.  So I didn't, but I will in this space.  Here is what I would have responded if I did.

So, are you implying I'm a racist because I don't approve of Obama's economic policies.  Let us investigate those 200,000 jobs. Actually, let's just investigate the 275,000 jobs created in June.  On the surface that number sounds great.  However, once you break it down, it actually doesn't.  Consider that in June the number of people employed full-time actually declined by 523,000, and the number of part-time workers increased by 799,000 (which includes those who wanted part-time and those who wanted full-time but could only find part-time).  So the 275,000 number is misleading in itself. It is in no way indicative of a robust economy.  Am I a racist because I chose to investigate the numbers the Obama administration releases? Am I a racist because I do the job the media refuses to do? 

There, that saves me from angering some friends.  Thanks.

Obama defends executive powers

Obama has been accused of executive overreach.  Some say that his use of executive powers is violating the separation of powers, which are meant to prevent one branch of government from getting too powerful.  Yet Obama defended his executive usage to move forward his agenda.

At a press conference at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit on Wednesday, October 6, 2014, he defended his use of executive power as a means to bypass gridlock in Congress.  He said:

"The American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done,"

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about in a previous column, where I discussed that liberals, or progressives, like Obama believe that it's okay to ignore the law if the ends justify the means.  It's okay to ignore the Constitution so long as the progressive/liberal agenda is moved forward.

Those of us who love and cherish the Constitution and the rule of law, which would include all presidents prior to Obama, would put the Constitution and the rule of law before themselves and their political agenda.

Once again, this proves the Limbaugh Doctrine, whereby the President believes he is not responsible for anything bad that ever comes out of his term as President. He is not responsible for the down-trending polling numbers: it's the republicans fault.

Here's what I have to say on the matter:  "It's better to do nothing than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing and let the people solve problems, than to risk signing something into law that has never been tested before."

In other words, gridlock is better than passing stupid laws.  There's a reason for gridlock, and that is to prevent laws from being passed that will trample on the natural rights of those in the minority.

Should Obama be impeached?

If the only way to stop a lawless president from ignoring the constitution and over-stepping his bounds is impeachment, and the opposing party takes impeachment off the table for fear of backlash from voters, then there is no means of stopping him.

David Limbaugh wrote a good column ("Democrats, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law") on this subject. He makes a great point that. He writes:

Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. As part of that, they will say that Republicans are guilty of precisely what they are doing. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

He added that while some conservatives would support a president ignoring the Constitution so long as the means was justified, most would not. He said:

But let me ask you to consider this: As a conservative, I would oppose judicial activism (roughly defined as the courts rewriting or making laws rather than interpreting them) to achieve conservative political ends. I don't know many liberals -- other than perhaps law professor Jonathan Turley -- who can make a similar statement.

It's not a matter of my (and conservatives generally) being more moral than liberals. That's not the point at all. The point is that we believe that preserving the integrity of the Constitution, as written and originally intended, is itself an essential end. 

We cherish liberty, and we understand the inextricable relationship between preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preserving our liberties. Anytime our constitutional system is undermined through egregious executive, legislative or judicial overreaches, our liberty is diminished.

He added:

When President Obama continues to act outside the scope of his executive authority and against the express will of Congress, he is, in effect, disenfranchising the people and thereby diminishing our liberties. When the courts rewrite laws to achieve their ideological or political ends, they assault the prerogative of the legislative branch and thereby further disenfranchise the people and popular sovereignty.

As a strong believer in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the doctrine of federalism and other essential limitations on government, I abhor judicial activism, executive overreaches and congressional usurpations, even if these abuses might be in furtherance of my political or ideological preferences. For to me, there are few more important principles than preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

Basically, there is no law to stop a lawless president. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a president from over-reaching as Obama is today is the honor system and luck.

We have been lucky never to have a Stalin or Hitler or Hugo Chavez or Obama elected to the office of the President. Plus, all previous presidents honored and respected the rule of law (the Constitution) basically on an honor system.

So, basically, the only thing preventing any of the previous presidents, those before Obama, from violating the rule of law was the honor system. Other than that, the only means of lashing out against a lawless president is to wait for the next election.

In this case, November of 2016 might be too far away. That gives the president another two full years to further ignore and trample on our great Constitution, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms. That in mind, I am not endorsing impeachment, but it should not be taken off the table.

Perry looking very presidential on immigration issue

A while back I wrote a post about how political analyst Dick Morris predicted that Rick Perry would be the next GOP nominee. Today, that prediction is looking great as Rick Perry is by far presenting himself as the most presidential.

Today Morris's prediction is looking good, as Rick Perry has sent the National Guard to protect the Texas border to prevent any more immigrants from trying to illegally cross in the hopes that they can get amnesty.

A while back Barack Obama made an executive order that families with children in America may come to the United States to be with their familes.  He is likewise trying encourage Congress to pass laws giving illegal immigrants amnesty.  This has basically encouraged unhappy Mexicans to illegally cross into America, or at least send their children this way in the hopes they'll be able to join them later.

It's been estimated that over 250 children are crossing the border every day. Many states are very concerned, petitioning the president to put a stop to this, as they cannot afford to house, school and provide healthcare for all these illegal children.

The influx become so pandemic it's scary right now to be an American.  Yet Obama does not see it as a crisis.  His response is to say "I'll look into it" or "it's the republicans fault because they voted against my immigration reform."

Of course former President George Bush is not off the hook either, as he was encouraged to put troops on the border to prevent such a crisis from occurring, and he didn't so either.

I think both Bush, and now Obama, do not put troops on the border because both of them fear that doing such a thing would cause Spanish Americans to prefer the other party.  Of course, by looking at trends, most of the people crossing the border are uneducated, and most likely to vote democrat regardless.

Both also did so under the guise that American has always been a state of open borders, something that is not true.

In fact, most people do not know this, but between 1924 to 1965 we shut down immigration. We closed the borders so that those who had arrived could assimilate and become American, which they wanted to do, by the way. They learned English. They became accustomed to American holidays. They wanted to become Americans.

Today we don't even ask that those who cross our borders assimilate. This was good, because America is better when we are one united nation (a melting pot) as opposed to a divided nation (a salad bowl).  United we can conquer any problem, although divided we fall.

Rick Perry looks good by sending troops to the border.  His move looks even better when you consider that a recent poll shows that greater than 70 percent of Americans believe we should secure our border and send illegal immigrants back home.

Further reading:

1. Perry: What you are doing is a crime
2. 77% want illegal immigrants sent home, 81% say it's a serious issue