Obama Finally Explains His Dysfunctionality

Says Obama: speaking about Fathers Day ... .."When fathers are absent, when they abandon their responsibility to their children, we know the damage that does to our families."

Well my good friends and fellow citizens, not only do we know this without having to be told by the Messiah, but we also know that such damage to the family can then itself lead to the coming into adulthood of a damaged man who will later damage the country and liberty. So then, is it here where we find the reason that Obama is off-center and charging pell-mell over the abyss with us all in tow???

Says another article about Obama on knoxnews.com "He implored fathers everywhere - and the kids when they're older - to be involved in the lives of their own children."

Tell me now, WHY, just why, should I be involved, for it is YOU that are involving yourself in every aspect of my family and indeed are trying to take over my role.

Why should I bother to hold a job, if I can get the government to rob others so as to pay me money.

Why should I save money to cook breakfast for my kids, for if I drink it all up at the liquor store, I know that the government will give my kids breakfast and lunch?

Why should I bother to teach my kids morals, when my lack of teaching begins to show, I can just claim race or some disadvantaged "youtism" and get free housing or food or a host of other giveaways?

For those neural network kind of people out there, the question is stated as "Why should I do XYZ if in sum there is attenuated negative back-propagation?

Remember, it takes a Village -- NOT!

Obama to Ration Health Care

From Good Morning America, 24 June

OBAMA: The measure of the quality of care is not quantity, but whether or not it is making you better. What we've said is, let's put out the research, let's study and figure out what works and what doesn't.

SAWYER: Will there be a board making Solomonic decisions about best practices --

OBAMA: What I've suggested is is that we have a -- a commission that helps -- made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best practices.


Hey Obama - Cato speaking here - we already have someone to determine best practices. It's called your family doctor and his team of specialists. What does a committee know about the best way to treat me? What you really want is someone to ration and distribute "best practices - someone to determine the best economy of practice (aka rationing/treatment delay tactics), not what is the best medical treatment practice.

There is no other reason for a higher "commission". Typical liberal, using words that say one thing, but meaning another. Tell you what. You tell me exactly what this commission will do, then we'll see if the American people want it.

Note from Boulder Colorado

Just spent a few days in Boulder, CO. Pretty City with plenty of Kool-Aid to go around. Here is an example. They have a beautiful downtown area called Pearl Street. Take a street with old buildings on either side, block off the traffic, put in brick pavers and plant trees, with few sculptures, etc and you get a very nice outood shopping park with musicians, jugglers, singers, artists ... and a few "beggars and street bums" thrown in for a little seasoning.

Here is the incident that made it all come together. I was walking along and a fellow who was lost asks me if I knew which way was Broadway. I said " I am from out of town too and I don't know either."

We continue walking and about 10 feet later we pass by a raggy looking dude with greasy hair and groody fingernails, sitting down near his backpack holding a sign " Homeless - Please Help".

As we pass by I pointed to this bum and told my fellow wanderer "Hey, why don't you ask that homeless guy ... the one sitting right there next to his $1,500 mountain bike. I bet he knows."

Only in The People's Republic of Boulder

A Letter to a Tea Party Oganizer

Name Redacted,

Thank you for your work (and everybody else's) on the event (Tea Party) and for your speedy reply to my letter about prohibited signage. Welcome to the world of herding cats.

OK here goes -

I understand that some feel that "the cause" should attempt to end run the Catie Couric's of the world, but running away from the liberal's propaganda machine is equivalent to trying to negotiate with them. THEY will not negotiate with us, and until we learn that we should not negotiate with them, we are stalled. We should speak our mind and should stop being afraid of how others in opposition want to paint us.

Fear of confrontation, I think, is the problem with "conservatives" and the reason why they are at a disadvantage whenever they engage the left. The left is NOT afraid of confrontation, nor are they interested in debate or civility. Indeed, confrontation and Orwell Speak is THE tool in their very effective arsenal, and confrontation has ALWAYS been their tool of change. Is Carvill, or Obama thru his minions, afraid of confrontation??? Not hardly.

Concerning "debate", the left's idea of debate is where the other side stays quiet and listens to whatever venom the left wants to spew. Indeed, part of the left's agenda is keeping the other side "pacific" and nice, and your attempts to de-Obamanize the Tea Party event plays nicely into their hands.


So then, regardless of how many "Obamanuism" signs are kept out of the event, it WILL be painted however Couric et. al. has to paint it so as to get an anti-obama "juice" onto the story. I reiterate, an anti-Obama slant of the event WILL be made by the media and in a broad sense of things, until the media gets the message that we, the majority of Americans, indeed have the stones to voice it to the rooftops that We DO Want Obama To Fail, then we are going to have a hard road to walk.

BTW - Obama (the personification of his ideology) IS the problem and to "walk across the aisle" or be non-partisan is fatal. Obama (individually and thru his group of counselors) sets the agenda and is a radical Communist/Socialist/Collectivist. He is the figurehead for the "spend your money so as to reshape society into his image" ideology. He is Wilson and Roosevelt and Bush all rolled into one. He is the one that proposes the budget and he is the one that signs the appropriations bill. It was not Pelosi, Reed, or Congress that told Joe the Plumber that he intended to '.... spread it around". Don't get me wrong, it is not just Obama, as the congress and millions of others are lockstep with the Obamunism ideology, and it is they that constitute the vast left wing base that is pushing all this stuff though, but, back to the signage, that does not mean that Obamunism should be off limits.

In this regard on the signage, I find it odd, if you do not want "negative play", for it to be OK for the logo for the event to be the Alamo wrapped with a snake threatening to strike. Gee - if that image is not filled with emotional overtones of "... let's make sure the government knows that We the People are ready, and will strike in rebellion if they push us too far", I do not know what is. Frankly, I am surprised it made muster, for it is much more threatening to the government eyes that will be at the rally than any "Obama Lied - The Economy Died" signage, and I venture to guess that the group is now, because of the connotations of the event being near the Alamo, and because of this "militia-ish" logo, on some government watch list - and that I am going to be photographed into some database along with you and all the other attendees.

Returning to the spending - You say congress actually spends the money .... Actually, Congress does NOT spend the money. Essentially, all they can do is to appropriate it. Yes, it is appropriated for various broad based initiatives but after that it is spent essentially as the president and his executive branch wishes, mostly because the appropriation is made pretty much according to what the president proposes.

That (the imperial presidency) is one of the things that WE the People are fed up with. THAT - resistance to Obamanomics and Obamunism - is what is embodied in the "prohibited" signage and THAT is what We the People are Resisting - Obamanomics, Obamunism, Statist, Collectivism, etc. We are not hacked off about the spending (spending is just a proxy), we are hacked off about the underlying philosophy that gives rise to the spending (and we are hacked off that this philosophy is found in the Rebublicans and the Democrats.) Making it about "spending" is deflection from the real issue.

I do agree that the Congress Republicans & Democrats are the problem and I go further in saying that many of them need to be changed out. For example, when we have the likes of Lamar Smith, John Cornyn, and KB Hutchison voting for the first $700 billion bailout then we have a problem. That one practically put me in my grave.

As to the last part of your reply - the "Please go somewhere else ...". That is not in comportment with the American spirit and reeks of the same problem that we all have with the left - they use every attempt to silence and shutdown and do not want to listen to, or allow, the expression of any divergent view. How do they do that?? - by exclusion and by claiming ownership and thus control of the idea. Not to put too fine a point on things, if it does not get partisan (via signage like what you "prohibit", good vs evil, then the collectivist juggernaut will not be stopped. Our American system is all about partisan and the sooner we start knowing that fact, then the sooner we will be able to stop the infection. Do we really think that the collectivists and statist, when they say bi-partisan, mean it. NO, bi-partisan to them means that you have agreed with them, and your eschewing of expression of views not your own seems a bit in the same vein that is practiced by the leftists.

As to the second of the last part of you reply ".... that we all agree on the spending problem." Agreement on the spending problem covers up that the problem is not a spending problem. The problem is an infective, cancerous ideology.

Focusing on spending also covers up the fact that until we address the real issue we will never be able to change things. For example, if we all agree on the spending problem, will we be OK with the administration running GM as long as they do not do it using too much money??

THIS is what Beck is trying to say - that the overarching problem and cancer is corruption of thought as to what the American system is supposed to be. It is not spending, it is collectivism and Statism. - Beck calls it Fascism - Statism is a better term in my view. Spending is but a symptom of the disease.

Anyway, rest assured, I am not out to rain on the event, I am not an agitator for the other side, and I laud what is being done. It needs to be done. You are making a good difference.

Producers, Not Looters

I wear one of those screen printed tee-shirts that has some nice logo-looking artwork on it. Around the logo art is the tag line "Rearden Steel - Producers, Not Looters" and from time to time as I am out and about, I am asked if Rearden Steel is the company that I work for.

Now, those that know me know that I do not work for Rearden Steel - and those that really know me know that indeed in a way I do.

I especially like getting this question from the young people who are clueless about the past and therefore about the present, and , if I am lucky, and one of these seems a likely candidate for rehabilitation, I proceed to ask them they have ever heard of Hank Rearden. If they say that they have not, then I tell them:

"Hank Rearden was a fellow that believed that the money he earned belonged to him, and not to you".

When their eyes go big, and if I sense a glimmer of intelligence, I bring it home to them by asking, direct to their face, as they are standing there handing me my triple grande venti vanilla mocha Frappuccino sissy-boy drink:

"You have a job, right?"
"You work hard at your job and earn money, right?"
"You do not think that the money you earn belongs to me, right?"

Seeing in their eyes the beginnings of understanding, I then close the deal by telling them:

"Ah, I can see that you are getting it. OK - Hank Rearden was a fellow that believed that the money that YOU earn belongs to YOU, not him, or anybody else, and especially not to the government so that they could go out after confiscating it from you to give to some lazy bum on the street that did not want to work to earn it."

With that, they give me my drink. Another one saved!

~ PS - Blame this one on my friend Rick - he made me do it.