The danger is that Obama will likely be more dangerous as a person after his presidency. He is a socialist without question, and once he no longer has the trappings of the White House to limit his mouth, he’ll be a radical paid spokesman receiving $200,000 to $1 million speaking fees for the next 40 years traveling the world and doing massive amounts of damage against capitalism. He will do what his terrorist insurgent mentors always wanted out of him—to destroy that “God damn Imperialist America” as Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers might have said to him as a young community organizer smoking cigarettes and quoting Saul Alinsky for fun within the Chicago social scene.
I knew he was a liar as far back as 2007 when he first started talking on a daily basis. Of course there wasn’t much of a track record back then to go on—it was just a feeling. I gave him a slight chance—as I was skeptical. I certainly didn’t vote for him but I wasn’t ready to turn the American flag upside down either. I was hoping that Obama might actually open up the regulations on stem cell research as he indicated—but that campaign utterance went away quickly during the opening months of his presidency and so did my hope that I was wrong.
My first job out of high school was as a car salesman. It allowed me to make adult money right out of high school and I was good at it. But it has a reputation of drawing unsavory characters to the profession for a reason. I came to know several. One car salesman had the same compulsive tendency to lie as Obama does, and he was successful—he made a lot of money off the job. I once watched him sell a car to a couple and actually had sex with the wife of the man buying the car while they were waiting to go through finance. The couple was desperate for money and were paying nearly sticker for the car and the slick liar of a salesman offered to take a thousand dollars off the price if the woman would perform oral sex on him. The young wife and cash strapped husband agreed—it made them feel the wife was worth a lot of money and actually injected them with a feeling of pride that she would be worth so much. I went to the lobby to buy a Coke while all this was going on and actually asked the guy how he felt about it. I was curious after all; I couldn’t fathom doing such a thing. But the husband justified it believing that the thousand dollars knocked off the price would be good for his family. The salesman had presented such a strong case through lies and deceit that the couple didn’t even question that they could have gotten a thousand dollars knocked off the price just by asking—because the markup on the car in 1986 was about $3,500. The dealership could have knocked $2000 dollars off the sticker and still made $1,500, which was routine. But the salesman thought the woman was attractive and told me ahead of time what he was going to do without even speaking to the couple. I watched him take the reluctant couple from “just looking” to the backseat of his car in the back lot within three hours. The couple did everything the salesman told them to do—he had complete control over their minds until they left the dealership parking lot. In the car business that type of behavior was known as being “strong.” A good salesman would do the same to his own mother—and that’s how we judged one another. The salesman was a complete caricature of reality—there wasn’t anything truthful about his life and I never believed anything he told me—other than when he knew he could manipulate someone with his immense ability to lie. He dressed like a million bucks, wore lots of gold, always had a slick suit—but he had a serious cocaine habit and lived in a dump. I actually took him home once and was shocked that his apartment was a dive. I would have expected an expensive condominium with the amount of money he made. But he couldn’t hide his true self from reality. He lied, and lied, and lied until it eventually caught up with him.
Obama won’t reach such a fate as he has now been shielded from reality. He has been given celebrity status by the political elites—so he will always have money thrown at him to further falsify his value. He’ll never have to deal with his habitual lying. He’ll be paid more for it. Just this past week he bought the Magnum P.I. house in Hawaii which is just the beginning for him. As a communist he will be given a microphone and a stage to utter his lies and nonsense for decades to a public just as naive as that wife mentioned. But when you peel away all the gold and tailored suits, there is just a pathetic little boy in there raised by scum bags and rudderless—careless adults lacking a strong father figure.
In these clips Glenn Beck has presented a compelling case over the last four years. The evidence is so clear that nobody can dispute it. And I put them here for preservation so that when history asks, it will be known that some people tried to warn the world. There is nothing that can be believed from Obama. He is a caricature of reality—a puppet for insurgency against a capitalist enemy. He is a made up person who is nothing but an actor, an empty vessel when there isn’t a speech writer or teleprompter around. He is a person who will say and do anything to fulfill the strategies of his creators. And those creators are domestic terrorists—and have been from the beginning. The Obama lies are meant to hide that reality. But not everyone has bought it—unfortunately most of America is in the back seat of a car hoping to get $1000 knocked off the sticker price—when they could have had it all along just by asking—and not being seduced by a soothsayer who is only an image of what comes out of his mouth.
I was listening to Pat and Stu on The Blaze Radio Network when Glenn Beck rushed into the studio to interrupt their show declaring with great excitement that he had just driven one of the new Model S Tesla dual motor cars that accelerated from zero to 60 in 3.2 seconds. Beck offered anybody who wanted to test drive one of the new cars by Elon Musk a free ride which immediately sent the radio crew into tapes so they could take Beck up on his offer. Musk has been proving himself to be leaps beyond the current automobile offerings. I have been complexly turned off to electric cars viewing them as environmental wacko projects—because electricity is still largely generated by fossil fuels. However, the magic of the Model S and the rest of the Tesla product line is the dual engine concept which removes all the mechanical linkages which inefficiently drop power dispersal in conventional cars. The Tesla delivers power exactly where it’s needed achieving supercar acceleration in a car that is priced like a regular luxury car. Watch Stu’s test drive in the following video.
One of my favorite and deeply personal movies is the George Lucas production Tucker: A Man and his Dreams. In that classic film Preston Tucker invented a car that was far superior to the products being put out by the Big Three–Ford , GM, and Chrysler in 1948. Tucker is certainly one of the people I most admire and he was about the age I am now when he was trying to get his Tucker car off the ground. Otto Kerner was a US attorney who on behalf of the Big Three attacked Tucker for making his revolutionary car “too good.” Kerner was later jailed for three years and fined $50,000 for 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and other charges for stock fraud. The result was that Tucker’s cars featuring a 5.4 liter Franklin 0-335 aircraft engine with hydraulic vales, fuel injection, torque converters on each of the rear wheel—disk brakes, a padded dashboard, self-sealing tubeless tires, and an independent springless suspension—was stopped before it even got started. At the time it was an incredible car about thirty years ahead of its time. The Big Three rather than compete with Tucker looked to bury him, literally suppressing automotive development for nearly a half century thereafter. Only now are they finally starting to climb out of the stalemate technologically that they have been under for so long. Tucker never went to jail, but he never got his car to production either.
Elon Musk unlike Tucker was much wealthier going into the project and was able to achieve market domination in the electric car market while the Big Three were reeling from years of mismanagement and stagnate technological development. At the same time foreign offerings were starting to finally bore Americans. Musk using American ingenuity and the benefits of capitalism launched a new car company that has put on the road a car far in excess of the current offerings. It is technically well ahead of its time and is setting a new standard.
Even as I write this roller coaster season is coming to Southern Ohio where I live. I love the technology of roller coasters and have watched them evolve from wooden roller coasters to the sleek new metal coasters. The electric current launches common now in the best of them make it seem like the logical next step for personal transportation. But it took Elon Musk to actually use the technology in a way that should have been applied decades ago. Tesla’s technology is only state-of-the art because the technology involved was purposely underdeveloped to protect the industry of old. Yet the direction of General Motors didn’t save them from going bankrupt before 2010. The direction of the old cars just doesn’t meet the future, and they failed as a company. In amusement parks new technology comes out all the time to unleash new sensations to thrill parks. The same enthusiasm should have been carried over into personal transportation—but it wasn’t—leaving the door wide open for someone like Musk.
And Musk isn’t alone, just a few days ago I wrote an article about the new self driving Mercedes, and of course Richard Branson is emerging into the market. Both Branson and Musk are also building companies that are punching the reaches of space—so it is natural that their automotive companies are going to push the limits of previous mediocrity. The race for the best between Musk, Branson and the rest coming into the field of play will change the way we all transport ourselves around and I’m excited to see how it transpires.
With the electric car power is not so easily lost to where the tires hit the road. I can easily see a day where the very power that makes them run could be cheaply produced through Thorium energy leaving cars that never ran out of power—no matter where on earth they are. Power creation is another field of endeavor that has been deliberately suppressed by the previous generation. For the same reason that traditional coal power was kept over the emerging technology of Thorium Tucker was destroyed so to protect the Big Three—but to what result? The big companies failed anyway, just as the current energy creation companies will—its only a matter of time before someone breaks through the deliberate suppression of better methods using competition to drive human beings toward advancement.
It was exciting listening to Pat and Stu during the Tesla portion of their show. It was unscripted and their enthusiasm was noticeable, and contagious. In just a few weeks, I have been largely won over by The Blaze and their coverage of this emerging technology. If I could have a car that goes from zero to 60 so quickly without the noise and violent expulsion of energy—I’d take it. If it’s truly better, it should replace the old, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is something we should all embrace and thank because it is yet another example of the wonderful attributes of capitalism and the excitement that comes from minds un-tethered from the rules of engagement established by criminals like Otto Kerner. When people like Elon Musk have success, like he is with his Tesla Company—I smile a bit to myself at a victory Tucker predicted would happen. Musk is doing what Tucker couldn’t—and that makes me very happy to see someone—ANYONE—doing it.
I have learned more about Israeli politics over the last couple of weeks than I had learned in the years prior combined. It started with the Netanyahu speech in front of the United States Congress and ended with the historic elections of this week. The great mystery for me was why Obama was so concerned about the Israeli elections, and why he was so insulted that Bibi was coming to America just a few weeks prior to the election. The revelation was that Obama was working against Netanyahu all along trying to remove him from power with the support of a leftist labor party influence. Now that Netanyahu is back in power, the two state solution in Israel is off the table. Obama and his supporters openly support the Arab Palestinians whereas Netanyahu and his conservative Likud Party are refusing to be divided up as a country. This explains a lot about Obama’s actions. Here is how Fox News reported the situation:
(Josh) Earnest acknowledged Wednesday that the U.S. would have to “re-evaluate” its position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in light of those comments. But he stressed that Obama believes a two-state solution is best. And State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki clarified that the administration “absolutely” will continue to push for this.
Further, Earnest chided Netanyahu’s Likud Party on Wednesday, saying the White House was “deeply concerned” about divisive language emanating from Likud. He said the party had sought to marginalize Israel’s minority Arabs, an apparent reference to social media posts the Likud distributed that warned Israelis about the danger of high turnout by Arab voters.
“These are views the administration intends to convey directly to the Israelis,” Earnest said.
Even worse, like a little baby, Obama refused to call Netanyahu and congratulate him on his election victory. His behavior is really unprecedented and reveals to what extent Obama and his army of progressives wish to change the world into something else. Netanyahu certainly didn’t refuse Obama because of the rhetoric the President uttered in his previous elections—the divisiveness and anger incited by the former community advocate and Saul Alinsky student. Much of the divisiveness in America currently is a direct fault of Obama—yet Netanyahu spoke well of the American president in public when he clearly didn’t need to.
The actions of Obama and the media in the wake of the Netanyahu election point directly to the greater strategy of modern progressives throwing their influence behind the two state solution of a perceived peace in the Middle East. They wish to carry the Middle East into the world before the Sykes-Picot agreement where their president of Woodrow failed epically in the region through the Treaty of Versailles. Now they wish to erase that error as if it never happened—and that means in this case the destruction of a Jewish nation bit by bit.
Ideologically driven, Obama can think of nothing but the aims of progressive influence. Using the same storm the border tactics happening right now in America where foreign influence and money shape American politics for the worse—the same has been going on in Israel with a quiet insurrection by progressives against conservatives like Netanyahu. Obama placed his bets against the Prime Minister. And he lost—and he’s upset about it—enough to make a national incident out of protest. That’s how radical and the media that supports Obama—truly are. They are radical to the point of meanness, and then they wonder why America is a divided nation.
The difference between us in America now are that some of us refuse to be lied to, and others go to the Obama lies like moths to a flame—hell-bent on their own destruction. So the nation is split down the middle between the lazy and stupid and the righteous and wise. Obama likes the stupid and hates the intelligent—because the later sees through his schemes. And it appears that the very same divisions are happening right now in Israel over an election that most Americans thought was inconsequential—but it wasn’t—was it?
I want to see the presidency of Hillary Clinton explode right out of the gate. I can’t stand her, I am certain she is a crook and a criminal—and she is an embarrassment. I want nothing to do with her or her sex addict husband. I don’t like her life choices, I don’t like or respect her family, and I don’t want her sitting in my White House embarrassing the United States more than it already has been under President Obama. Hillary is a liar and a hypocrite and shouldn’t be elected to a pooper scooper position because she would screw that up. She is an idiot.
However, many hearing my utterings would accuse me of being a sexist. After all, they have accused me of things like that before when progressive types found they couldn’t win an argument laced with facts against me, which is the usual playbook for liberals. When they can’t win, they just call names that have no reflection in reality. Because in actuality, I have no problem voting for minorities or women into the presidency—as long as they are smart. And such an example of one such person is Carly Fiorina. I’d vote for her in a New York second. Why you might ask dear reader—well because of positions like this one:
Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite on women’s rights,” says Carly Fiorina, a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president. “I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women’s rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights,” Fiorina said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity.”
“What counts is, what have you done? What have you accomplished?” she said. “And in particular, what have you, Mrs. Clinton, accomplished on behalf of the American people? Have you kept us safer? No. What have you accomplished, honestly, on behalf of women and girls — which she talks a lot about.”
I am glad that Fiorina said what she did about Hillary because if a man had said something to that effect in today’s progressively politically correct world, it wouldn’t have had the same impact. I’m not a big guy on titles. Even when I hold important titles, I often deliberately downplay them—because I honestly hate them. If I were president, I’d be much more like Jefferson than any other—I’d have a tendency to wear a robe and slippers to the front door of the White House just to show that I don’t care about the “power of the position.” That holds true for every situation unless I’m dealing with a culture that expects titles as a means for communicating with them. Personally I hate titles, and I hate people who think they’re important.
At the core of the problems with Hillary Clinton is her love of titles—thus the reason I hate her. It’s also why I truly admire Carly Fiorina. People like Fiorina should be president. People like Clinton should be condemned. Hillary Clinton has done nothing in her life but brown nose and hook herself to the stars of others as a second-hander collecting titles along the way that she could pad a resume with. Yet all along, she never learned anything except to deceive and fluff her own pillow with perception instead of substance.
The very reason I hate Hillary Clinton is because she wishes to inject herself into my life, into my politics, and into my country’s reputation without offering anything substantive as far as a qualification than a parade of titles in her wake. And that doesn’t impress me. It’s good to hear smart women like Fiorina calling out stupid for a change. Just for that—I’d happily vote for Fiorina if she finds herself as one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination. I wouldn’t do so because she’s a woman either—I’d do it because she’s more qualified—and that’s the only criteria that matters.
A few years ago I spent a good part of a summer vacation on the balcony of a condominium reading the Ayn Rand books that my son-in-law had recently bought for me—particularly her collection of essays on capitalism. For as long as I had been alive capitalism was always portrayed as evil, which I never bought into. Yet nobody ever offered any competing theory. Even my favorite character from Star Wars, Han Solo was an unfettered capitalist without any apologies provided. George Lucas by the end of the original trilogy wanted to make Han into a more compassionate person who saw the errors of his ways—and thought about others more than himself—but I never personally bought into that theory. I’ve always seen capitalism as the way to making better things from nothing and had a far superior moral platform to project goodness than the altruistic sacrificial victim of yesteryear. After all if people are asked who they like more in Star Wars, Han Solo or Luke Skywalker who do you think they’ll pick? The results are well documented—just Google it.
I spent much of that summer thinking about those books as they provided a support that was found no place else in favor of capitalism. People like Milton Freeman were before my time, Walt Disney died when I was a little kid, and John Wayne was only fondly remembered in old movies. Reagan pretended to embrace capitalism as a continuation of his spokesman job he had at GE—but there really wasn’t anybody openly defending the morality of capitalism—and there needed to be. After all, from the world that I know people like Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and many others like them are doing far more for people than the person who sacrifices their time and energy at a soup kitchen helping the poor. While donating time is a nice thing to do for people down and out—the cause of why people are down and out in the first place is the real issue that needs to be explored—not the result. Capitalism has in it a morality which deserves a hero so that people can understand the value.
Even stories I really like, such as Robin Hood, and Zorro have in their underlying value a kind of socialism—the villains are the rich, the protagonists are the poor. Batman who is a direct evolutionary character of Zorro was like Don Diego a wealthy man who took his gained assets acquired through his family’s success and did good to fight crime. But what always bothered me about Zorro and Batman is that they inherited their wealth; they didn’t do as Elon Musk did and make it from nothing into becoming one of the most influential people on planet earth. Without Elon Musk and Richard Branson where would the world really be? The wealth they create for the overall economy makes it even possible for people to donate their time to a soup kitchen for the poor. The inventions of the wealthy create spare time and resources so that something can be given back. Without that infusion of wealth, Harrison Ford wouldn’t be able to donate his time to left leaning causes.
Harrison Ford is my favorite actor—maybe just a bit ahead of Clint Eastwood. Ford made a lot of money as an actor because American capitalist culture had expendable income to go see his movies in a darkened theater. He has turned around and done a lot of great things with that money. Individually he became a private pilot most notably crash landing his crippled vintage craft into a golf course saving the craft, people and even himself in a way that defies the actions of most Hollywood actors. But Ford is also a very giving person to the poor, to environmental causes, and to virtually everyone in his life. He is a person who is easy to respect. But what would he be without George Lucas creating the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films? He would have been just another actor jumping from job to job. Lucas used capitalism to create wealth not just in monetary value, but in philosophy. Without the creation of capitalism all the good things that Ford does in his private life would go nowhere. If he didn’t have excess as a result of his success, he’d have nothing to give away to others by his own volition.
That is why capitalism needs a real hero—and unapologetic champion. I had started formulating that champion years ago in my own character of Cliffhanger. In my novel The Symposium of Justice it is eluded that the protagonist made all his wealth by winning a lottery ticket. However, this is a falsehood created by his political enemies who are protecting their old money political connections from the reality of what Cliffhanger represents—creation and justice. Most people who win the lottery are broke within a few years because they lack the internal value as people to support the sudden infusion of wealth. Unlike people like Elon Musk, most people lack the ability to create wealth, so they assume that it’s a finite resource open for equal distribution discussion. But they are dreadfully wrong. As the Cliffhanger series The Curse of Fort Seven Mile continues to evolve over the coming installments it becomes quite clear who and what Cliffhanger is and why people who can perform such creation are so important to society.
When I was in high school I was the only kid who actually wore a t-shirt featuring Howard Hughes on it. I’ve always liked Hughes and Harrison Ford’s recent plane crash reminded me a lot of a similar incident that Hughes had, in the same area years ago. Hughes was extremely rich, and did a lot of really good things with his money—particularly advancements in aviation that simply would not have happened without his actions. He was an eccentric whose mind ended up collapsing on itself, but the world is much better off because of his life than without it. Yet thousands, even millions of people flash upon the earth in a lifetime and disappear just the same and nobody notices. Is that fair? Aren’t they equal to Howard Hughes? The answer is no. The ability to create something from nothing is more important than equal distribution of fairness.
This brings us back to that summer in Florida with the Ayn Rand books. She was on to something and to my mind she broke through the first layer of an important revelation. In philosophy this is called the creation of Objectivism. I agree with most of the tenants of Objectivism. However Ayn Rand was a lot more socially liberal than I am. She was much more permissive on drugs and sex which hurts her position on capitalism. It allowed liberals to attack her as a product of excess greed and selfishness, which is an inaccurate assessment. The books of hers that I read were very valuable because what she was doing was on the cutting edge of a new way of thinking, so context is needed. Capitalism needed champions, and she officered them particularly in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Other than those characters there really aren’t any other champions of capitalism in novels or movies—with the rare exception of Harrison Ford’s film characters particularly Han Solo. In almost every other circumstance, most notably the man everyone loved to hate in the 80s television show Dallas—in JR, or Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard, rich people are evil and need to have something taken from them and given to people supposedly repressed and in need of equality.
The truth of the matter is that people who don’t have things are in that condition by choice most of the time. The big difference between people like Elon Musk and the typical volunteer at a local soup kitchen is that one creates wealth that enriches our entire culture and the other just does good deeds. Both are important, both may be good men, but only one makes something from nothing which leads to good options for everyone. The creation of Space X is more important than a local charity asking people to throw money into a hat for the needy. Space X creates expendable income to toss into the hat. Without it, there is nothing to donate to the needy.
The efforts of my new Cliffhanger installments are to further this exploration into the morality of capitalism in a way that has been utterly ignored. Ayn Rand started the process and did a lot of great work along that line of thought, but there is much, much more to do. This Cliffhanger project will likely go on for many years but already the stories feel like a continuation of the type of material I wanted to read more of after that summer vacation in Florida. After I ran out of those Ayn Rand books I wanted more, but since she died in the early 80s, there was nothing more to read. But there needed to be. So it is up to us in this new generation to expand on those arguments and further peel back the mysterious goodness of capitalism and to properly define why collectivism is a vile evil—even when its been told to us for centuries that it’s the only path to redemption. These are difficult subjects, but they need to be explored—and through Cliffhanger—they will be.
I do not agree with Libertarians or Democrats in any way about drug use. I am to the right of the political right regarding drugs—even alcohol. I enjoy an occasional beer or wine, but nothing excessive, ever. I can understand a beverage with potent abilities not abused. I have at times drank whiskey to mend a wound, or to drown out a cold so to thin my blood, break a fever, or dump the results of a battered body recovering from a sickness. But smoking, sniffing, or injecting some intoxicant into a body is just something that makes no sense to me in any way. I would argue that cultures like those of India, the Native American and every shamanic culture in existence who use marijuana or other chemical means to achieve some measure of visionary enchantment are cultures so stoned that they are easy to conquer and have no choice but to be a culture of pacifists. There is a reason that peace-loving hippies and counter-culture losers advocated marijuana use along with their peace signs—it’s because they don’t want anybody to kick the shit out of them while they are intoxicated. Substance abuse is no way for a culture to achieve any measure of success in any fashion.
In Ohio there is a push to legalize marijuana which of course I’m 1000% against. The reason is that dope makes people stupid; it functions best to turn off their brains. To that effect, an excellent example of what drugs do to people can be seen by the antics of Robert D. Collins seen in the following video.
Robert D. Collins, 39, of Alliance, Ohio, was recently arrested and charged with misuse of the 911 system as well as possession of drug paraphernalia, a police report states.
According to the Alliance Police Department, Collins posted bond and appeared in court on March 6 for his arraignment. Court officials said Collins retained a public defender.
Collins in a fit of rage after his “old lady” stole his cocaine actually called 911 to tell on her. I first heard this story while listening to Doc Thompson on The Blaze Radio Network and at first I thought it was a skit he and his partner Skip were performing on air. But it was in fact a true story. Collins was just that stupid, obviously mentally impaired by years of drug abuse—everything from casual marijuana use to cocaine. He may be the extreme example of what drugs can do to people who use and abuse them, but he represents an increasingly consistent percentage of the population who aspire to the intellectual aptitude of this mighty example of grey matter impaired by years of bad habits.
When Ohio attempts to make marijuana legal, the voters need to remember Robert D. Collins and his “old lady” in Alliance, Ohio as an example of what drug use can and will do to the minds they impair. There is no excuse for deliberately destroying a brain or any thinking activity. Yet the drug culture is all about such destruction and is the primary reason I will never support drugs in any shape or form.
Apparently Joe Biden was upset with the March 9th letter that forty-seven Republican Senators sent to the Islamic Republic of Iran explaining how the American Constitution works in the United States. The concern is that President Obama is in nuclear negotiations with Iran which anybody with just a few coherent thoughts knows is trouble. Obama has been proven incompetent—so there is no trust in someone like him negotiating anything with one of the biggest sponsors of terror in the world. That’s like asking a 2-year-old child to beat the heavyweight champion in the world in a fight to the death. Hey, anything can happen—but likely, the child will lose the fight. Obama can’t be trusted to organize how much to tip the pizza guy, let alone arms negotiations with Iran, so the GOP had to remind Iran that no matter what they came up with the President, that it would require Congressional approval to make it valid. American presidents are not kings and cannot do anything without the backing of the larger Republic—and for good reason. Past American presidents have overstepped their boundaries, Woodrow Wilson for one and his Treaty of Versailles involvement, along with a host of others who followed who clearly were behaving like part of a monarchy instead of a Constitutional Republic, are guilty of trying to prop themselves up as kings in America. In the past Presidents were given a bit of a pass out of respect to the Oval Office, but with Obama, that respect has been destroyed by his own actions. He didn’t give any respect to Congress or members of the GOP, so he’s not getting any free passes for the sake of the office he holds. He’s clearly an idiot, so it’s important that Iran understand that everyone in America isn’t as stupid as President Obama.
Yet Vice-President Biden knowing full well the mistakes of the administration that he’s a part of came to the defense of his President saying, “this letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.” Well, the VP is wrong. The White House’s defense on this matter is to basically say, “but other presidents overstepped their authority, so we should be allowed also.” That type of behavior has made the United States weaker, so any action that pulls these renegade presidents back under control of the Constitution needs to be implemented to build again the strength of the American Republic.
Biden continued, “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary—that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our commander-in-chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.” Well, the reason is that at no point in those thirty-six years was there an American president as bad and incompetent as Obama is. The guy went from a community organizer with a questionable background who spent his personal and professional time with open terrorists, and America is supposed to sit back and let him negotiate with a country with known terrorist support against the West. Obama was elected because of the color of his skin, and he lied about a lot of things to get into office. Once there, he changed his positions and covered his tracks at every juncture, and this is the person Biden thinks should have unfettered ability to strike a treaty with a terrorist loving nation wanting nuclear technology? Sorry, that’s not how logic works.
Too many people enjoy the pageantry of monarchs. It’s one of those ridiculous European fantasies where kings and queens ruled with absolute authority. But that’s not how it was ever to be in the United States. Over time, our roots to Europe have pulled our society back into the ritual of tabloid worship of leaders and royalty, but that doesn’t change the fact that those assumptions are incorrect. America doesn’t have a king or a queen and if the Constitution is followed, it never will. Many presidents have pushed their Constitutional limits, particularly the progressive Republican in disguise Teddy Roosevelt when he attacked the railroads with his anti-trust busting antics and built the Panama Canal with deals that clearly violated the Constitution. In the end, the masses supported those endeavors so it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and Presidents have been openly violating the Constitution ever since. American Presidents with the exception of Calvin Coolidge and maybe a few others have pushed the limit more and more expecting the other houses of government to just sit back and let them do anything they wanted—as a global statesman on par with kingship. Finally, the radical activist lawyer and community organizer Obama has went too far, and the Senate is doing their job of pulling him back to reality.
The fact that Biden stated in all his vast history of government work that he’s never seen such a thing take place only speaks to how long the Senate has not done their jobs properly in checking the power of a White House President—no matter who they are. Pleading ignorance is not a viable strategy to eliciting treaties from foreign rivals like Iran, and essentially Biden is fighting to maintain the right of a fool to do massive destruction to American foreign policy just to maintain the façade of kingship at the White House. Sorry, Joe. With all your years in government, you should know that’s not how things are supposed to work. And given how stupid the VP’s statements are, I’d at least trust him to tip the pizza guy. But as to the president, absolutely not—I don’t care how stylish it is to have a man of color in the White House—I can think of a lot of dark-skinned Americans who I’d vote for as president in less than a second. But Obama is not one of them, because—he’s an idiot.
It is well worth your time to listen the Glenn Beck podcast from Friday, March 6th 2015 shown below. He just returned from a trip to a speaking engagement in Silicone Valley and reported a bit of what is coming from their perspective. The technical innovations coming online in just the next couple of years will revolutionize the world with invention that is inconceivable to the rest of society—and it will be stunning. But, with change comes a falling away of the old way to make way for the new, and it is what that new looks like that is of concern—and why you should listen closely. Please do so now.
The most stunning portion of the radio commentary was the report that it is likely there will be periods of unemployment up over 50% in our various market sectors coming soon—which is often the by-product of technological breakthroughs. Jobs that serviced the old world will be eliminated as new technologies emerge and hire. The gap in that process is something that government fantasizes it can control and manage. However, all they can do is drag out the process with protections from the Department of Labor to hold on to the old ways with mandatory union protections for government workers. Even as the innovators in Silicone Valley are building the technology that will shape the future the National Labor Relations Board on April 14 will begin to require businesses to surrender lists of their employees’ phone numbers and personal email addresses to union organizers in an attempt to spread the cancer of collective bargaining and lack-luster productive effort. It will be those kinds of jobs that will be in that 50% reduction as technology will eliminate their need.
As a matter of fact, much of the technology coming out of the “Valley” now has done nothing but destroy the old means of control. For instance, I spent a good deal of my weekend listening to various lectures on the Biblical Nephilim which would have not been possible a decade ago. Of course not all the information is correct, but it allows me to hear what underground science is trying to present beyond the controls of the mainstream attempting to protect their federal grants. Technology has given many aspiring scholars and adventurers a platform to launch their own investigations deregulating the gate-keepers who used to hold back such information. The Tea Party movement and current pressure on government spending is a direct result of this technological frontier that we are currently riding. Much of what we do as a society now by-passes completely the needs we have for government, especially in Congress and the Senate. The President any more is becoming more of a useless spokesman position from what it once was because news and reaction is available to the world at lightening speed, and it just takes government too long to react to it.
Dynamic presidential candidates now have traction where they wouldn’t have been given a seat at the table in a previous time. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker can get coverage because they can sidestep the party bosses for really the first time in history. It is the government losing its control which provoked them to support Net Neutrality—so they could get their foot in the door. But even with that, the door is changing around their foot so rapidly that their cumbersome union driven reaction cannot meet the speed of business, and they are finding themselves drastically left behind.
Much of the trouble of our current age is the remnant mentality of the old hippie world. The next America and its leaders will be my age—they grew up listening to Bon Jovi, Van Halen and Judas Priest and they are impatient. They grew up in the Reagan years with the illusion of unfettered capitalism and expect immediate gratifications. What Glenn Beck reported from Silicone Valley is that those innovators are not crazy liberals, they are something else completely. They aren’t the stuffy old GOP either. They are capitalists, and they expect quick results—they do not have the temperament to deal with a sluggish government and the process of protecting jobs just to keep jobs at the cost of innovation.
My age bracket is coming into leadership. Thus far they have mostly gone along to get along, but now that they are about to be in charge, the old way of the hippie won’t stand much of a chance in this new world of innovation. Americans from my age on down to the modern youth may lack the morality of old, which I value—but they do things fast, and expect instant satisfaction. Companies that survive will have to be light on their feet and quick to respond to market trends—they won’t have the ability to drag out processes infinitely just to keep butts in seats of employment. If a president like Rand Paul or Scott Walker makes it through, it’s likely that entire departments of the government will be eliminated and the current deficit spending that is going on will stop—immediately. Revenue gains in GDP won’t be measured in unemployment numbers; it will be in actual cash, and profit. Riding the wave of next generation of technology with tax cuts and incentives to get government out-of-the-way of innovators is the way of the future—and people better get ready for it.
So there is a lot to be excited about, but there is also a lot to be scared of. The world will change—but in the end, it will be for the better. The bad news for liberals is that their grip on politics is dying quickly. Scott Walker just signed into place a law that makes Wisconsin a right-to-work state—which opens the door for technology and fast-moving companies to move into the Midwest. Michigan is already a right-to-work state, and now the heart of the progressive movement Wisconsin is moving in that direction. It’s only a matter of time before the rest of the country follows—because they’ll have to.
It was great to hear that Glenn Beck has more in common with Silicone Valley than they do with some old politician like Barack Obama. That is something I wasn’t sure about, but hearing from them through Beck means there is some serious hope for the future. They know what that future is, and Glenn Beck had a bit of a preview. That future doesn’t come without pain, but it will be better for us all in the end. And we have a generation presently from a new age that likes to fight, and they will fight for freedom once they understand the argument. The old world has distorted that argument. But once that ruse is discovered thoroughly through technology, they will lean toward Silicone Valley instead of the old politics of the Belt Way. That will be a change dramatically needed, and welcomed by a new age of wonderful innovation.
To understand the extent of radicalism and activism coming out of the Obama White House littered with vast contradictions which gives away their intentions all one need to do is look at their recent move to ban .223 ammunition by calling it armor-piercing. Yes, the same administration that showed open disdain for the police in Ferguson, Missouri and most recently in Staton Island outside of New York is suddenly concerned about police officers and wants to protect them from bullets that haven’t been used in such a case in over 10 years. Now isn’t that proactive of them?
Opposition to the Obama administration’s proposal to ban a popular bullet is gaining steam in the House of Representatives, where more than half of the lawmakers have signed a letter opposing the move.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it wants to ban popular .223 M855 “green tip” ammunition because the bullets can pierce bulletproof vests used by law enforcement. Although the ATF previously approved it in 1986, the agency now says that because handguns have now been designed that can also fire the bullets, police officers are now more likely to encounter them. Some 239 members of the House have now put their names to the letter opposing the ban, which they say would interfere with Americans’ Constitutional rights.
Again Obama as a member of the pin headed intelligentsia movement believes that government is the answer to everything. The only real resistance that people have to stand up against an encroaching out of control government with an entire military at its beck and call is the Second Amendment. There is a reason that it’s the very next thing behind free speech created on the Bill of Rights so to ensure a free society. While I hope it never happens, I would never want to be vulnerable to a dictator like Obama who wants to treat the White House like a king’s throne and issue dictates while sucking on grapes with one leg tossed over a chair like a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. Property owners have to maintain the ability to protect their private property from invaders both foreign and domestic and that’s pretty much the end of the debate.
After the Obama administration used its Department of Justice to fuel the communist backed insurgency in Ferguson against the police, they don’t get a free pass to suddenly declare that they want to protect them from armor-piercing bullets. It is now well beyond refute that Obama’s White House has been the most anti-police administration ever to be president—so its not even believable that they are concerned about the lives of police when they’ve fueled the flames of anger that have actually killed police in places like New York after the Staten Island debacle and openly injected themselves into the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.
I live in an area of the country where the crime rate is extremely low. Now why do you think that is dear reader? It’s not because of the police, because we don’t even have a police department—it’s because nearly every home within ten miles of my home, which houses over 100,000 people—has an AR-15 or some variation of firearm—just in case they should need it. If there was a need a small well-equipped army could be gathered together in a day and cast upon insurgents, whoever they might be—and that is the key to the Second Amendment. Yes, we have the military, yes we have the police, but if they fail—because they are government employees after all, there is nothing left to protect people from aggression. The reason crime is low in my neighborhood is because everyone respects each other and no group of thugs can terrorize normal people because the guns make them the great equalizer. Only in places where guns are banned does violence increase and people live in terror. Places where there are lots of guns tend to be peaceful, their governments run better knowing they can’t gain leverage over the population through force, and economic activity can umbrella under such stable conditions.
But if there was in the future an even more radical president than Obama, such as the return of the Clintons or some other dynasty driven radical who decided they wanted to kill off their political rivals—which there is history of such activity, and those killers show up with armaments to perform the task under government backing—you can’t engage them with a cap gun. You need to have equal or superior firepower over your potential enemies to equalize the playing field.
To demonstrate the task lets study the behavior of a typical male 27-year-old police officer working traffic. He pulls over a car load of football players all in excess of 6 foot 3 out celebrating a recent victory. They have been drinking a bit, but nothing too crazy and speak coherently to the officer. The officer will treat the guys with respect because if he startles them into violence, it might get ugly, so he says sir a lot, and thank you for their cooperation, and the traffic stop will usually end with a warning and possibly an exchange of Facebook account information. The cop will go home that night with four new friends that just might get him into the next big game for free. Believe me, I know how the system works, as of this writing I’m almost 47 years old and I have still been pulled over more times by the police than there are years on my life. I’ve even been an employer to cops who thought they were really cool and actually left me to perform my next example. Say the same cop pulls over four girls coming back from the same game. The cop sees the girls have been drinking so they are a little flirtatious hoping to get out of a potential ticket. The cop knows that he has complete command of them backed by the law so if he wants to accuse them of some danger, he can pull all of them out of the car and frisk them to his heart’s content. Under the law, he knows the girls must do as he commands or they will be subject to resistance. So he threatens them with arrest which scares them and being girls obviously overpowered by a larger police officer with a gun, they submit, which feeds the ego of the cop. He then makes a deal to have the girls perform oral sex on him so they can get out of the ticket—which they do. After the cop goes back home drunk on power, the girls find some way to hide the information from their boyfriends and parents giving them a shameful secret they will have to suppress for the rest of their lives. What was the difference in the two cases? The football players would have likely beat the hell out of the cop if they detected they were being abused. The girls obviously wouldn’t stand a chance giving power completely to the cop.
Governments are always on the outlook for power. They want to be in control, which is why they are in government to begin with. The personality type who ventures into government employment tends to enjoy some variation of this control behavior over others. The ATF is certainly prone to such stories as the provided example, and they are prone to influence from radical presidents. The ATF has been involved many times in presidential invoked terrorism, Ruby Ridge comes to mind, the Waco incident, and obviously under Obama, Fast and Furious. It is nothing for some politician like Obama to designate someone, or a group of people as a threat to their careers and to send in a government agency like the ATF to remove that threat. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. And when it does, the target will want their .223 ammunition.
There is no such thing as a free and peaceful society without guns. Look at the rest of the world and that becomes very evident. Where guns are banned, violence is up, where there are the most guns, economic activity and personal living conditions are greatly improved. Those who want to impose gun control want to control the population at large by taking away the tools that make people equal to the potential insurgents. And the Obama administration so far is the worst that America has seen in this regard. But imagine a worse regime. I thought Bill Clinton’s presidency was bad. Obama has moved the needle much further to the political left. But imagine a world where Obama looks like a conservative? It is for them that something even more powerful than the .223 ammunition will be needed, because they will send their government agents to enforce their will. And all that stands between tyranny and freedom is a gun rack and a lot of ammunition.
A lot has been said over the first week of March 2015 about the Saturday Night Live skit that divided the Internet over the controversial Dakota Johnson short involving ISIS taking her away from her father. When I first saw it, I laughed hard, not because of the ISIS reference which seemed to soak up all the attention, but for another reason. In the skit Dakota Johnson speaks to her father played by Taran Killam as if she were being dropped off at college. It was a touching kind of thing that we have seen before in so many romantic comedies. But just as the young daughter leaves her teary eyed father for what looks like the last time she says, “Dad, it’s only ISIS.” That’s when the audience realizes that the father’s little girl is not going off to college, or moving out on her own, she’s joining the high-profile terrorist organization which is actually happening to some families.
Many thought that ISIS reference wasn’t a joking matter; others defended the skit as a bold act of defiance. That’s not what I saw.
I have raised two daughters and had to marry both of them into families of their own. I know what it feels like to let a daughter leave your care. For me, it was much harder because I was excessively close with my daughters. I was not a “hands off” dad, we always did a lot as a family together so we were unusually close. The biggest rage of my life was in watching young boys come to my house to take my kids on a date. I tried really hard to understand that the process was a natural part of children growing up, so I internalized a lot of it for the sake of everyone. One time though I nearly killed a whole car load of those little scum bags when they picked up one of my kids at 11 PM for a date, one of the boys with their shirt off. It was not the kind of courtship I had spent many hours of my life preparing my daughter for. It wasn’t necessarily her fault; it was the culture at large. The young boys she had to pick from were just so terrible that if she spent her whole life looking for just the right guy that her daddy would approve of, she’d be an old spinster to this day. But from my perspective nothing good happens to a girl past 12 AM especially in a car load of guys on the prowl. So I have had my experiences and they were miserable at best. My kids were good, so there wasn’t much of that. If they had been bad kids its highly likely I’d be in prison over some anger management issue now.
I know it’s unfair so I try to be sympathetic to the young boys who weren’t raised by me. They didn’t know why I was so mad, or what I expected because they were raised with far different backgrounds—so I kept my self from being overly intrusive—largely because that dating phase is the last step in raising children—and at that point you better be ready to trust your children. For insecure parents not confident in the tools of intellectual aptitude they have given their children they must worry about their kids doing something stupid. I never felt that way; my issue was always that the boys tended to have a biological interest in my daughters as opposed to a genuine respect for their cerebral matter. Those boys wanted to satisfy themselves at the expense of my many years of hard work, so I took it as a personal insult that they’d show up at my house treating my girls like a piece of meat to be conquered. One little slug actually had the gall to argue with me in my living room about Chick-fil-A and its position on gay rights. Well, Chick-fil-A in my house is sacred, so I didn’t need some little progressive snot-ball ignorant to the ways of the world telling me anything. To this day the Xbox he was playing when we had this discussion is something I still hold a grudge against. We still have the old unit because it has a lot of treasured games on it, but I no longer like it, because it reminds me of that kid.
Daughters never really get over their relationships with their dads. They may go for great periods of time without talking, but if they have strong fathers who spent time teaching them things, there is a bond there that lasts entire lifetimes. I know very hard-core women in their declining years who still love their dads who have long since died. I know even more women who had bad relationships with their fathers who turned out to be screwed up messes. A father is a very important job to a daughter and it is one that I always took very serious. Never too intrusive, but protective to their very souls—not in the type of neurotic fashion so prevalent in modern comedies, but in ways that only literature has managed to even remotely deal with.
So watching Dakota Johnson step into the back of an ISIS truck is exactly the way I felt every time my daughters left the house with a pack of boys destined for trouble. And the nonchalant manner that the skit ended, “Don’t worry dad, we’ll take it from here,” is precisely the way modern males see such daughters—as objects of possession and conquest destined for their penises—and it angers every cell in my body. Every young man felt just as the Saturday Night Live skit showed as my daughters dated. They were all terrorists to the hopes and dreams I had for my kids and were dangerous.
The SNL skit would have had to go to some common extreme such as ISIS to paint the feelings that most dads who really care about their daughters feel when their children leave home. For boys, it’s different. You smack the young tike in the back of the head and congratulate him for having a woman or two on his arm throwing themselves aimlessly at his whims. Boys get congratulated for winning races, and throwing touchdown passes in games of conquest which girls are just one part of. So raising boys is easier.
Girls are the most precious creatures on earth and the world needs many more of them who are good, and it takes good dads to help make good girls—and it’s a hard job. So I laughed at the skit not for the controversy, but for the potent exposure it had of such a raw truth. For me, every young boy who wanted to date my daughters might as well have been a member of ISIS—an aimless terrorist hell-bent on ideological destruction laughing at me and damning death to America. That is exactly how it feels. But the story doesn’t end there. There is much more that comes after and for that, dads are still needed—probably more so than less. And it takes a lot of personal understanding and confidence to embrace that role when there isn’t any glamour or glitz to the job of being a good dad.
That brought up another question I had for which there is no answer. I grew up loving Don Johnson, Dakota’s real dad in the television show Miami Vice. I always liked him as an actor. So I was curious how he could attend the Saturday Night Live broadcast and actually make fun of the fact that his little girl had just made Fifty Shades of Grey showing herself completely nude to the world. She was so naked in the movie that they had to have a makeup person insert public hair on Dakota Johnson to be true to the spirit of the best-selling novel. How could Don Johnson perform that skit and even make fun of it? Even in jest? I suppose some people play good dads, and some people just aren’t. And that’s also why I’m not an actor. I couldn’t do that for all the gold in the world. You can’t grow up loving and caring for a young daughter all your life then revel in her public exposure and dissemination all the while casting jokes. There was a lot wrong about the SNL evening staring Dakota Johnson, but it wasn’t the ISIS skit itself. It was the theme of dads and how they are a dying breed in our culture disrespected and ridiculed by a progressive society. And I’m not OK with that.
