On the Benghazi Coverup

This administration has to go.

I'm sick and tired of hearing breaking news on all the ways we, as the American people, have been lied to.

I'm sick and tired and thinking back to all of the deception and deceit in the aftermath of the Benghazi raid.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens...

Just today, we learned that the CIA safe house requested help three times that night.  Three. Times.  And yet, what were the people told?  They were instructed to "stand down."  Their fellow Americans were under and attack and they were told not to lift a finger and ignore bloodshed nary a mile away.  Fortunately, a few good men ignored those orders and evacuated the consulate.  Then for hours afterward, the CIA safe house came under repeated attack by organized assaults from men using automatic weapons and indirect fire support.

Yet, despite being in a region where they were surrounded by assets to assist them, the men in Benghazi were left to die.

They.  Were Left.  To Die.

It is really any wonder that more did not perish.  This is beyond heinous.

...Sean Smith...

There were repeated attacks on the consulate and an attempted assassination of of the British ambassador in the months preceding the attack.  Then the state department goes ahead with a withdrawal of security from Libya, despite the concerns of Ambassador Stevens himself.  In fact, the ambassador asked for additional security the day of the attack.  Within hours, he was dead.

We know that the White House knew of this attack in real time.  People were watching it in the situation room via a drone and there is no chance the president was not aware of it.  For the next week, his administration blamed an idiotic YouTube video and he himself prattled on about it for longer.  He and the Secretary of State stood before the coffins of the men who died because their negligence and blamed the video.  They literally disrespected the four men who died in Libya by obfuscating and lying before their flag draped coffins.

...Tyrone Woods...

And then, on top of that, the man who created the crappy YouTube video no one had heard of until September 12th, was arrested.  No one with common sense believes it was over a probation violation.  This man and everyone who collaborated with him on the video have been demonized, attacked and defamed on the international stage.  And then he was imprisoned for exercising his free speech rights.

And now the parents of the slain are coming out on media outlets that will have them and telling their stories of their meetings with the president and the Secretary of State.  They themselves recognize they are being lied to by those people.  Lied to their faces.

...and Glen Doherty all perished in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

At this point, I am at a total loss of what to think.  I know this sounds crazy, but did the White House want these people to die?  How can you not agree to send aid of some sort?  Of any sort?  As more comes out, the more despicable and guilty the White House looks.  And I seriously doubt anyone believes Secretary of Defense when he tells us that one doesn't deploy military forces without a clear picture.  I'm no military genius, but I damn well know that military forces all across the world throughout history have entered situations without a clear picture to save lives.

And then, of course, there is the media.  Except for Fox News and conservative media outlets, no one has reported on the constant news regarding Benghazi.  No other media outlet has sought out of the truth about just what happened there.  There have been few questions and little pressure/  Every single member of the mainstream media should lose their jobs.  Immediately.  They are corrupt and they deceive us.  The president doesn't need to take over the media to make it cover him.  They do it of their own free will.

I am tired of people, who I am supposed to trust, lying to me and trying to keep me ignorant.

Enough is enough.

On Riot Threats

Lately, I've been hearing some chatter on social networks of people threatening to riot should Romney win the election.  Now, any other year, I would have considered such threats as the ramblings of sore losers.  Indeed, threats to that effect are normally just bluster of dubious legality.

But this year, I'm slightly more inclined to lend credence to the threats.  The conditions seem conducive to trigger at least some incidents of violence for the following reasons.

1) President Barack Obama is the first black man in the White House.  Unfortunately for the country, opposition to him has been consistently (and abhorrently) white-washed as racist by his surrogates and supporters, no matter the substance or intent of said opposition.  This has inflamed racial tensions greatly over the past few years, particularly with the rise of the Tea Party and the vitriol hurled at it.  Considering the occurrences of race riots in the past, this seems like a perfect excuse to incite new ones.

2) On a related note, the constant demonizing of Mitt Romney has had a similar effect.  Many of his opponents don't view him as just opposed to Barack Obama.  Many see him as flat out evil.  They see him as a big business, "vulture capitalist" out to hurt people for his own benefit.  Or because he's a sadist.  Or something.  The end result, however, has been a sharp inflammation of class tension in the country.  That could also be a catalyst for violent reaction pending an Obama defeat.

Remember how these folks degenerated into a mindless mess?

3) Occupy Wall Street is still a recent phenomenon.  Although they professed not to be friends of the president, Obama is still far closer to their world view than Mitt Romney's.  Their constant calls for government assistance for their problems certainly indicates they are much farther away from conservatives much closer to progressives.  Additionally, their proclivity for the destruction of private property makes riots the perfect activity for them.  Finally, I may or may not be going out on a limb by saying that some former occupiers may be seeking out a reason to create a resurgence after the rather inglorious and quiet death their movement suffered earlier this year.

4) All of this ties into one unsettling fact that has become increasingly evident this campaign season: Liberals have come totally unhinged.  Not a day passes by where I don't see some (apparently insane) leftist cursing out conservatives and threatening their lives.  Stories of leftists vandalizing the signs and property of Romney supporters have become increasingly commonplace.  Threats against Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's lives are constant (and likely keeping the secret service occupied).  There are even children being booed live on national television.  While this most certainly has happened before, and the obviousness of these incidents may be amplified by social media, these incidents seem to be getting very little play in the media at large.  Thus, the incidents' significance is diminished when they would not have been had they been directed at Barack Obama instead.

This sort of behavior, in addition to being illegal and frightening on many levels, also indicates a higher level of tension among those who fear the president may lose.  I believe that many liberals and progressives are recognizing a possible collapse of their worldview in America.  After four years of President Obama, it has been demonstrated that economic stimulus doesn't work, no matter how many people say it "saved us from another depression."  The push for national healthcare is unpopular and the bankruptcy of European nations due to cradle-to-grave entitlements is proving it does not work.  Bigger government is being shown not to work and this is sending many of its advocates off the deep end.

Now, I pray that my fears after unfounded.  As I said before, this is not the first time people have threatened to do stupid or silly things in the event of an unfavorable election outcome.  Most who do just sink into a brief, sullen depression as their electoral hopes are crushed.  At the same time, I fear conditions are ripe for people to actually carry out their idiocy on the rest of society. 

All I can say?  Pray for America and hope I'm wrong.

On the Final Presidential Debate

Okay, the third and final debate is finished.

Thank you Lord! I swear my head was going to explode if I had to go through another one of those.

Now, for my serious analysis.

This debate was "all over the map," to use a term those of us viewing it heard often.  I suppose the best place to start is how Mitt Romney acted during the debate.  He wasn't nearly as aggressive as he was in the previous two debates.  This probably benefited him more than hurt him.  He's in the lead and the national polling is trending strongly in his direction.  Indeed, many states (including my own) which were trending for Obama are drifting rightward.  By not taking risks, Romney avoided a blunder that could have blunted that momentum.

On the other hand, by playing it safe, Romney lost many good opportunities to hammer home points against the president, particularly on Libya.  While I agree with the analysis that says he shouldn't have over-pressed it, he hardly pressed the issue at all.  He lost ample opportunities to also bring in other international issues, such as the Eurozone fiscal crisis.  He also failed to differentiate himself from the president on many issues, which was dangerous, in my opinion.  Part of the reason many are voting for him in the first place is because he is different from Barack Obama.

Romney also skillfully brought the discussion back to our economy at home, however.  By mentioning that in order to be strong abroad we must be strong at home really resonated with me and many others.  It really brought home just how weak the United States is perceived abroad.  It rendered the President's counterargument ineffective because his record remains indefensible.

The president, on the other hand, was suitably punchy.  Again, however, he was forced to defend a record that was indefensible.  He was helped by Romney's lack of aggressiveness however.  It made some of his arguments stick better in people's minds.  Yet, as Romney was roused out of his non-aggressive posture, the president was slowly forced to start backing down during certain exchanges.  Additionally, he seemed petulant, occasionally angry and condescending.  In particular his crack about bayonets and "boats that go underwater" was utterly ridiculous and behavior unbecoming a president.

As for the moderator...Bob Schieffer was, much to my pleasant surprise, the best of the four.  Using the Lehrer-style, he rarely interrupted, but didn't allow himself to be trampled by the candidates.  This made him stronger and more effective than Lehrer.  He seemed to lose control when the debate veered into the economy about half an hour in, but by not taking control right away, it helped illustrate just how important the economy is in this election.

So my verdict?  Romney won.

"No surprise," you're probably saying.  You shouldn't be.  The president can pretty up his arguments and record all he wants.  It has no substance.  The country is, at best, just as weak as when he took office.  Frankly, the prolonged period of weakness means that we are in fact weaker than that day.  Romney was calm and in control, despite an annoying lack of fangs, but that fact didn't hurt him.  Of the two on stage, he looked presidential and that is to his credit and certain to help him.  Additionally, his arguments were well-reasoned and didn't generate into talking points that sometimes meandered completely off-topic.

With the last debate behind us, we have fourteen more days until the election.  Fourteen more days until we can decide where the country will go.

Let's do this, America.

On the First Black President

There's something that has been weighing on my heart lately and now seems as good a time as ever to mention it.

I am very, very disappointed in the administration of President Barack Obama.

"Yeah, no kidding," you're probably telling yourself right now.  It is not a secret I find the current administration contemptible.  However, by disappointment, I refer to nothing more than a deep, profound sadness.

When I was a little boy in Irvington, New Jersey, I attended a school that was, as I recall, majority minority.  Thus we always had presentations regarding the heritages of various minority groups.  We even had a yearly assembly for Kwanzaa (even then, I was confused by it).

One thing that always seemed to stick in my mind, though, was the suggestion that we could, one day, have a black president.  We were told the usual childhood encouragement ("If you work hard, one day, you could even become president!").  I was taught about our nation's racist heritage and how we had yet to have a black man in the White House.  The racism never really stuck.  Historical racism stayed just that for me: historical.  However, for a long while, there was a little place in the back of my mind that always hoped to one day see a black man in the Oval Office.

Perhaps ironically, I eliminated that though at the beginning of 2008's primary season, long before Barack Obama became a viable contender for the presidency.  I had come to recognize that it did not matter what the person in the White House looked like.  Only their character mattered.  So I found myself immune to his charm and his teleprompter-based style when Sentator Obama ascended as the candidate of the Democrat Party.  That immunity kept my eyes open as I saw all the warning signs of radicalism, despite the media's shameless attempts to hide it.

Yet, on election night 2008, when it became clear that Barack Obama had won the presidency, I saw my Facebook page explode with friends who were excited to have made history.  Indeed, on the inside, I felt a small resurgence of pride in that a black man had just been elected president of the United States.  Like most conservatives, I resolved to give him a chance, despite my apprehensions.  Those feelings were driven, in part by that old spark of pride in seeing a black man ascending to the White House.

That spark has made the past four years all the more painful, disappointing and shameful.  Instead of being a beacon of hope and positive change, the past four years have been dismal with exploding debt and economic stagnation.  The president, instead of bridging divides between Americans, has intensified them and viciously attacked those he does not like or sees as convenient targets.  He has forced legislation through congress and ignored the Constitutional limits on his power time and again.

Despite his actions yielding negligible or bad results time and again, Barack Obama refuses to take responsibility.  He blames his predecessor constantly, even after being in office for four years.  He spends more time golfing and hobnobbing with celebrities than he does in intelligence briefings.  His office is empty more often than not as he speaks at rallies filled with screaming fan boys and girls, rallies that are far easier than than fielding questions from the press corps.

I feel that Barack Obama has been robbed of his sense of personal responsibility.  A man with no real accomplishments, he has been handed nearly every position he has held in life.  Some will say he excelled in college, but he has never released his transcripts.  Judging by how peculiar that is and a lack of real accomplishment in his professional life, that leads me to believe he did not do well at all.  Penning no papers on the Harvard Law Review, considered intellectually lazy as an adjunct professor and voting present more often than not in elected office, he is little more than a self-entitled shell.

Now that lack of accomplishment in his life has returned to haunt him as he is unprepared to take responsibility for his failures or defend himself against true challenge to his worldview.  And now, as his campaign appears to sputter out, latching on to internet memes week after week in a desperate attempt to stay afloat, all I can feel is a profound disappointment at how far the hope and change of 2008 has fallen.

I often hear older black people say they were taught by their own parents and grandparents to be a "credit to their race."  They had to endure racism and thus had to work harder to achieve and succeed.  Yet now, the president seems to be nothing but the antithesis of a "credit to his race."  In the end, the first black president, whether he wins re-election or not, has been everything he should not have been.

And it is a shame.

Conservative Musings: Times Five?!

Yes, that's right, times five.

Honestly, every week, there are enough good articles and columns that I could make a blog post many pages long to showcase all of them.  However, for reasons of both practicality and wanting people to read my writing, I tend to select what I think are the best few and run with them.

However, due to a lack of updates for this (well, last) week, I figured I would instead treat you to columns from some of the best minds conservatism has to offer and save myself mentally for the coming week.


First off we have a column by Dennis Prager.  I value his opinion highly, particularly when it comes to discerning the difference between leftist and Christian doctrine.  For those of you who wish better understand how Biblical faith differs from modern liberalism/progressivism and how the former is corrupted by the latter, I point you to this man for enlightenment and understanding.

This week, his column delves into Vice President "Laughin' Joe" Biden's answer to the abortion question at the VP debate.  In particular, he explains just how his answer is self-contradictory and reveals how his answer is evidence of leftist hypocrisy when it comes to the treatment of Christian faith in America.  Part of me wants to just take the article and analyze it right here and now, but as that is not my purpose, I'll leave it to you to click through and read it for yourself.

You can read Dennis Prager's article, "Joe Biden's Religion: Catholicism or Leftism?" here.

I'd kill for context right now.  Then again, it's just funnier without.

Next up we have Jonah Goldberg.  Columnist, Editor-at-Large of National Review Online and occasional Fox News contributor, Goldberg is many things.  Normal is not one of them, which also qualifies him as one of my favorite conservative columnists, whose name isn't Sowell, Williams, Coulter, Limbaugh...you know, I think you get my point.  For anyone who wants a little humor with their political commentary, make sure to give Goldberg a read and never stop.

In this column, Goldberg discusses how the spin of the Obama administration really obfuscates just how poor the nation is doing economically.  Indeed, he manages to explain it all using a bit of allegorical story that involves manure.  Believe it or not, it's not as crass as it sounds.  If you don't believe me, click through and learn a little about just how poor the economy is right now, without the administration spin.

You can read Jonah Goldberg's column, "Obama's Economic Spin: A New Pony or Manure?" here.


Next up we have David Limbaugh.  Again.  It seems I just can't post this man's columns enough.

This week, he delves into questions that just aren't asked of the president.  At all.  Often when President Obama is asked questions, they are either softballs or "in the moment."  By the latter, I mean that the questions deal with only the situation that is occurring at that particular moment, like Benghazi.  Such questions are never contextualized to previous events in the president's tenure.  Limbaugh does a little of that and so much more in this article.  If you think this president is hard to question or criticize, perhaps this article will open your eyes.

You can read David Limbaugh's article, "A Few Questions I'd Like to See President Obama Answer" here.


Our next article is one by Walter E. Williams, whom you may remember from the first "Musings" post.

This time around, he discusses poverty and its causes.  Is it caused by society or is it caused by a variety of factors?  And is blaming society a) accurate and b) the correct focus?  There's a lot to be said, but I'll save my personal arguments for another day.

For now, you can read Walter E. Williams' column, "Poverty Nonsense" here.




Finally, we have Thomas Sowell.

This week, he merely wrote some random thoughts on the passing scene.  So enjoy comments on everything from entitlement to Joe Biden to baseball.  There's really nothing to say here.  But maybe you'll run into a thought-provoking question or two.


Read Thomas Sowell's "Random Thoughts" here.


 

And that is that!

A Small Update

A announcement for all of you: I have recently begun adding Google Adsense ads to my blog.  As such, for those of you with adblockers, I would ask that you disable it on my blog so that the ads will load for you.

I won't be posting anything particularly deep for the rest of the week (I'm feeling slightly burned out after that debate), but look forward to a rather large "Musings" post tomorrow.

Until then, thank you for keeping up with my blog and I hope you continue to for the future!

On the Second Presidential Debate

Well, the night is over.  Over a little later than we expected.  Ah well.

So, how do I score the debate?

Well, first off, President Obama was punchier, which I appreciated because he was less prone to meandering and made himself more compelling to listen to.  That being said, I have to mark him down for repeatedly deceiving to the American people in the debate.  His attempts to claim credit for increases in oil production were shameless and despicable.  Additionally, his claims that he has helped coal are preposterous as nearly every coal miner in the nation will tell you.  His continual trumpeting of green energy is likewise a farce, as the billions of dollars lost from funding companies that are not economically viable show us.

Additionally, the president's assertions on Libya are clearly false.  The president never directly referenced a terrorist attack on 9/12.  Indeed, he seemed to refer to Cairo more than Benghazi that day.  And no matter how you cut it, his administration lied for the following week and then tried to lie about its lies the week after.  Obama himself still blamed the video two weeks after the fact.

Which leads me to Governor Romney.  He blew his argument on Libya by getting bogged down in specifics.  However, I believe that is the only place he truly failed tonight.  Otherwise, he was concise and on point.  And when he could point out Obama's record, he did so to devastating effect.  Liberals may wave off those arguments, but Romney brought home the fact that the country has not improved over the past four years and has instead been mired in the valley of the recession.

As for the moderator...Candy Crowley was not Martha Raddatz, but she was much closer to her than Jim Lehrer.  She glaringly interrupted Romney a few times, particularly when it saved the president.  Additionally, for someone who wanted so many questions to be asked, she took up a lot of time with her follow-ups.  Additionally, she contaminated the Libya question by siding with the president instead of letting the conversation go and letting the viewer judge.  Indeed, she has conceded that the governor was, essentially, correct, after the debate.  She allowed Obama nearly three minutes longer to speak and selected questions that seemed to all have a liberal preconception.  That forces me to mark her down as a failed moderator because she failed the audience in that format.

In the end, how do I score the debate?  Tie to possible edge for Obama on style.  The president's performance tonight, while certainly better, was still not great.  He achieved perceived dominance mostly by being aggressive without being substantive.  On substance, Romney blew the president away.  Romney kept his cool and held his own, except for the unsteadiness during and following the Libya question, though he dodged a couple of other questions noticeably as well.  The aggressiveness back and forth between the two was probably more detrimental to both than not.

Three more weeks and one more debate.  Foreign policy, you're up to bat!

On Thomas Peterffy

Last week I was treated to this video:

It is an advertisement by billionaire Thomas Peterffy, who explains what life was like for him under socialism and his fear that America is now on that track.

I saw articles on this advertisement on both CNN.com and The Washington Examiner's website.  Unfortunately, I also did something that I usually regret: I read the comments for the stories.  Particularly on CNN's article, this was somewhat maddening, yet highly enlightening.

First of all, the CNN article is titled "Rich, worried and buying ad time."  That title is already biased because it focused on the fact that Peterffy is rich.  Indeed, it is the thing most likely to stick with people who see the article, particularly the more progressive-minded.  After all, to them, being rich is wrong and evil.

Let us check out a few examples of those comments below:

Oh ho
Mr Pettrfy if you cared so much about American society couldn't you use the money you are Spending on ads to further good social causes, such as cancer research, scholarships to name a few? You are such a hypocrite your motive is simply greed!! We do not want America turning into a third world country full of only too types of people. The super rich and the poor. No thank you. Look at countries like Canada and Austria that have good social programs. Where is the decay in those countries? Their people in general are affluent better educated and healthier than Americans. Come November the answer will be No! to you and that snake Mitt Romney. Obama 2012!

Sniffit
$10M?
$10M...hmmmm...a $10K raise for 100 middle-class employees or maybe some increases in benefits or maybe a few minutes worth of political advertising containing demonstrable misrepresentatiions in hopes it gets me more tax cuts...hmmmm........

Sorensen
Please Mr. Pefferty – get a life and go study social sciences. You obviously have no idea what socialism is.

Now, what's wrong with these comments?

None of them actually address what he's saying.  Instead of arguing against what the ad tells them, they attack him for his wealth, thus completely missing, if not proving, his point.  Instead of understanding that he would have had no opportunity to be as successful as he has been in socialist Hungary, they complain that he's not doing what they want him to do with his money.  If anything, they're demonstrating jealousy at Mr. Peterffy's wealth and success.  Instead of being glad for his success, they are demonizing him for using his wealth as he sees fit.  They call him, essentially, evil for wanting to defend that wealth, even though he earned it.

Sorensen's comment is the most arrogant and wrong.  Peterffy grew up in a socialist nation and saw what it did to people.  His ad points out that it mired them in poverty and stripped them of the will to work because no matter how much they worked, they would never improve their station.  It would sap their initiative to improve themselves and their lives because socialism demands that everyone be the same and, after a point, the government would take their success from them.  Sorensen, however, seems content to live in a little bubble, where academic studies of socialism, that do not conform to reality, are the norm.  And that bubble makes him arrogant enough to essentially imply that a man who experienced it is ignorant and uninformed.

Now for the gem in all of this:

Heli

Dear Mr. Peterffy...I too came form a socialist country, czechoslovakia is where I was born and grew up. I have been in the USA for the past 21 years, have worked two jobs the entire time I have been here, Paid MORE taxes precentage wise than you, have been paying healthinsurance for myself and my three boys just to get a bill after we go to the doctor, have NEVER been eligible for foodstamps or welfare because I have a greencard. I have NEVER been handed anything but I promise you one thing..I am a proud parent, work hard and go hungry many many times. I embrace where I came from and understand what it means not to have basic like bread and milk..BUT I guarantee you that if I ever become rich like yourself, I would NEVER spend millions on an ad but rather send that money to my home country to help the others I left behind who are still hungry!! Maybe, oh just maybe you should do that as well.

Now, I'm not questioning this person's credentials.  Unless it is proven otherwise, he or she is from Czechoslovakia. However, his/her argument is, again, a sob story that actually doesn't address Peterffy's (well-founded) concerns about creeping socialism.  It sounds like Heli has worked hard to live, but how does that make Peterffy's greater success wrong?  And again, at the end of his/her comment, Heli complains that Peterffy isn't doing with his billions what Heli wants Peterffy to do.  That's not an argument.  It is, like the people above, pointless demonizing.

Something I find sad about those who connect to socialist ideals (like wealth redistribution and the demonizing of the rich), let alone actual socialists who seek everything from Western European quasi-socialism to full-blown communism, is how they fail to notice how history utterly refutes the socialist model.  The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own widespread poverty and oppression.  The Western European model is collapsing as people riot in the streets of Spain, Portugal, France and Greece, seeking more government largesse as their nations go bankrupt.  Not only have those people been sapped of the desire to work for their success, they are blind to the impending national bankruptcy caused by that very largesse.

So in the end, who actually has a meaningful argument: Mr. Peterffy or his critics?

On Choosing Life, Pt. IV

This is part four in a series on abortion.  You can read Part I here, Part II here, and Part III here.

Abortion is not merely about the procedure involved, of course.  There are many related issues, a few of which some friends of mine have reminded me of.

For example, one asked me why it had to be political at all.  That question only works when one looks at abortions as purely about personal choice.  When one side views abortion as murder, political involvement is inevitable because it becomes a legal issue.  If abortion is indeed the murder of unborn children, as opposed to a mere medical procedure, then it transcends the realm of private life into a procedure that should be illegal.  If abortion is not, the argument works.


This is also related to the people who oppose abortion personally, but harbor no desire to see it outlawed.  Many years ago, when I was going through puberty, I held a similar position.  The problem with this perspective is that it is, in essence, someone who starts thinking about the subject, stops midway through, but uses the partial thought as a position.

The problem is, why do people oppose abortion?  I have never heard a cogent argument against it that does not recognize the right of the baby to live.  Indeed, being pro-life means recognizing the baby has a legal right to live.  Therefore, it is contradictory to believe that abortion is wrong personally, but then be comfortable allowing others to abort.  If that is truly a person's position, what does that person stand for?  He or she holds two positions that conflict on every level.

There are, of course, those who defend abortion on the basis of the "burden to the state," particularly in the case of the impoverished and the young, the people who may not care for their children well or give them up for adoption.  I believe this argument to be unjustifiable.  To view an unborn child by whether or not it will cost the government or society anything is to place the government before the lives of its citizens.  To use this line of thinking is to suggest that because someone, anyone, has the potential to be a "burden" on government, their lives are worth nothing.  It suggests that these people, unborn or otherwise, do not have any value as human beings because the government/society "must be burdened" with their care.

Such thinking bears an eerie and unsettling resemblance to that of the eugenicists of the early 20th century.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (the largest provider of abortions in America today), believed in the use of abortion to "stop the multiplication of the unfit," ostensibly those whose existence is "detrimental" to society.  As a racist, she believed the unfit included blacks.  However, like many of her contemporaries, she also believed that the unfit included those with mental and physical disabilities.  Germany's Nazis took the concept to its logical end, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of the disabled (alongside millions of others considered unfit).

Now, am I calling those who see the cost to government as a compelling argument Nazis?  No.  However, I am saying that line of thinking is dangerously close to the disregard for human life expressed by eugenicists and Nazis.  That's just my opinion, of course.

Something I hear few people mention regarding abortion is the effect it has on women.  Abortion does not only affect the status of one's pregnancy, but also has the potential to have serious health effects outside of that.  One would be hard-pressed to learn that, however, as statistics on those effects are uncommon.  Often, the argument is that because abortion is legal, it is now safe.  However, that safety is never defined as few discuss the risks associated with abortions in the first place.

Abortion is treated so casually these days, I am fairly certain that most women who pursue them are oblivious to the potential physical and psychological risks associated them (whether people on the pro-choice side realize it or not).  I was most certainly never taught about these risks before becoming solidly pro-life.  And now many would merely dismiss what I know as pro-life propaganda.  For example, this short (and cited) summary from the Family Research Council helps to reinforce what I believe are the dangers associated with abortion.  Yet even that summary uses language that is not particularly definitive due to a serious lack of studies, despite abortion's legalization nearly forty years ago.

I could go on, but at this point, I am reaching 750+ words and could probably find enough material to give this series another two or three articles.  As such, I will move on from this and hope to present a new topic next week.  I hope that "On Choosing Life" was informative and thought-provoking.

On the Vice Presidential Debate

Okay, now that I've waited a bit after the debate, it's time for me to respond.

Note: I just chose this picture because it looks cool.

First off, if you were following my Twitter feed (if you weren't, shame on you), you may have noticed I was very, very irritated at Joe Biden.  On the one hand, he came off more forceful and perhaps slightly more convincing, even when he was wrong.  But his constant smirking and laughing came across as condescending, particularly as so much of it was during serious discussions.  He came across, sadly, as a jerk and it was obvious.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, as very meek and unassuming.  In fact, he was too meek and unassuming. While Biden was jumping all over him and interrupting him, he let it happen far too often.  The same went for the number of times Martha Raddatz blocked Paul Ryan from rebutting specious charges from the Vice President, which frankly is not right.

Which leads me to the debate's big winner: Jim Lehrer.  This debate proved, above all else, that allowing the candidates to talk to each other is a superior debate format to one where the moderator feels that he (or she, in this case) should be part of the debate.  Frankly, there should have been a separate timer for the amount of time Raddatz spoke, because she should not have been speaking for more than a couple of minutes.  But on more than a few occasions, I heard her interrupt and change the subject, more often than not when it aided Biden.  That should not be happening.  On the other hand, I feel it could have been worse, but Martha Raddatz definitely gets a thumbs down.

To my actual verdict, I call it a draw on substance.  Ryan definitely put his wonkishness to good use, reciting numbers and details off the top of his head with ease.  Biden's counter-arguments appealed, as usual, to the heart and glossed over reality more often than not.  His aggressive rebuttals helped make Ryan look cowed, however.  On style, however, Biden, as Steven Crowder put it early in the debate, "came out swinging and punched himself."  He looked like a jerk and sounded like a jerk.  I'm sure many independents tuned out when he reached "critical mass" at 10PM.  I almost did out of frustration.

In the end, it helps the bases and does little for independents, though Biden definitely turned them off with his oafishness.

On Stephanie Cutter

Today, Stephanie Cutter, President Obama's deputy campaign manager, said something so outright despicable, she should lose her job right now.  She suggested that the reason the murders of four Americans in Libya has become so major is that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have politicized it.

She is suggesting, somehow, in some way, that the Romney campaign is responsible for the Libya story.  That this story would not have made headlines, despite the Obama administration having lied about and obfuscated this blatant lapse in security.

This tells you everything you need to know about this campaign and this administration.  This has nothing to do with four dead Americans.  It has nothing to do with laziness and a clear lack of caring on the part of the administration to protect American lives to protect their "Middle East Reset" narrative.  No, it is all about politics.  However, it isn't Romney or Ryan talking about it that politicizes it.

It is the administration's and its campaign's callous disregard for American lives.  They don't see the men who died.  They only see how those deaths affect their political fortunes and futures.  Yet, they point to people asking legitimate and important questions and cry "politics."

Psychological projection at its worst and most heinous.

For Your Information....

I will be live tweeting during tonight's VP debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan.  If you're interested, keep an eye on my Twitter feed as I react to the back and forth!  Let others know and help me increase the popularity of my Twitter feed!

On What is at Stake

We are now four weeks out from the election.  Considering everything that has happened in the past month, let alone the past year and half, I rather wish there wasn't another four weeks.

So, as the day looms ever closer, the question is, what is at stake?

I believe the best way to answer this question is to take a look at the past four years.

Do we want another four years of a stagnant economy, where the norm for unemployment is 8%, millions are out of the workforce and millions more are settling for jobs well below their capabilities?

Do we want four more years of swelling food stamp rolls and poverty rates, as people, who were once forging ahead in life, suddenly fall back as the economy fails to recover for years and years?

Do we want four new years of an administration encouraging people to go on entitlements?

Do we desire another four years of $1 trillion+ deficits for years to come?  Where the administration, almost as a bad joke, presents ten-year budget proposals that increase the national debt by nearly the same year after year?  Do we want an administration that will not take its profligate spending seriously, doesn't even care to know the numbers and pass that spending down to the young, to people of my generation on, to deal with and collapse under?

Do we need four years of an administration that continues to look at the growing entitlement crisis, shrug its shoulders and say, "Nah, I don't wanna deal with it."?  Must we endure an administration which, by creating a vast new bureaucracy and a massive entitlement, has proven it neither sees the looming cliff of entitlement spending nor the effects of an entitlement society in Europe?

Do we deserve four more years of an administration that recklessly throws money at companies it likes and demonizes those it does not?  An administration that ignores the failures of those companies, all the while calling them our future? 
 
Do we want another four years of an administration that rams legislation through on purely party line votes?  Legislation that radically transforms the private sector in ways the government should have no power to?  Moreover, do we want an administration that ignores congress at will to wage secret wars in foreign nations and enact rules and regulations that the Constitution provides no authority for?

Do we want four more years of an administration that "spikes the football" continually about lone successes, but continues to ignore ongoing threats?  Do we want a White House that goes so far as to allow those threats to do us harm, then do nothing about them?  Even worse, do we desire an administration that will lie to the American people about the truth and attempt to cover up their own lies weeks later?

Do we need a president who, for another four years, believe he's a celebrity?  Should the man in the White House be more interested in fundraising, golfing and hobnobbing with celebrities?  Or should he instead be spending more time in his office, ready to deal with the nation's crises and meeting with foreign leaders?

Do we want a president who absolutely refuses to take responsibility for his policy failures?  Do we want a president who, instead of changing course, desires to spend more on those failures?

Do we tolerate a president who desires to divide us, the American people, along lines of race, class and gender?  Whose mere existence encourages people to call all who oppose him racists?  Who says that the rich are the cause of all of our ills, no matter how much their success benefits us all?  Who claims that his opponents hate women and minorities, despite no real evidence?

I don't think we do.


I believe this, is what is at stake in this election.  If you are willing to accept all that I mentioned above as an acceptable situation, then by all means, vote to re-elect the president.  If you think that we, as a people, can do better, then vote to remove this president from the White House.

To see the words I believe President Obama should be saying to the American people, see this article by David Limbaugh.

Conservative Musings: Times Two! (Three!)

As another week comes to a close, I suppose I'll entertain you, my readers, with some good reading material from the week.

The first features the return of David Limbaugh.  I point to this article primarily because it has a more in-depth analysis of the presidential debate than I had on Thursday.  If you want a solid understanding of just what happened Wednesday evening, give this piece a read.  It helps, in particular, solidify just why Barack Obama's performance was so terrible.

You can read David's Limbaugh's article "A Debate Rout of Herculean Proportions" here.



The second piece is an excellent analysis of leftist hypocrisy on free speech by Victor Davis Hanson.  I keep a close eye out for his articles as they are often very insightful.

This article focuses on the liberal obsession with multiculturalism (the idea all cultures are of equal value, regardless of differences between them), but notes how often it conflicts with their professed beliefs on free speech.  As the title says, more often than not, the left allows the idea of multiculturalism to trump the ability to freely speak one's mind, particularly criticisms of another culture.  Instead of reading me rambling, however, you should instead read the article and see for yourself if it makes sense.

You can read Victor Davis Hanson's article "Left Wants Multiculturalism to Trump Free Speech" here.


Finally, I bring to you Ann Coulter.  "Wait," you're probably asking, "you actually listen to that shrill harpy?"  I answer that question with "Well, I more read than listen, but yes."  The fact of the matter is, Ann Coulter is not nearly as bad as she's said to be by liberals.  While she can most certainly be a little too direct and, thus, sometimes turn off potential readers to what she says, it doesn't make her writing any less true.  Why her style of presentation should make her any less readable is beyond me and sounds more like an excuse to avoid, rather than confront, honest opinion.

This week, Coulter deals with the the brilliant minds at the cable network MSNBC.  Yet, to anyone who pays attention to the words of the article may realize that many of the things that she discusses in the piece not only apply to commentary on that network, but to far too many on the left as well.  If you don't believe me, read Coulter's article, then compare it to this article I wrote back in August and ask yourself: is this assessment of analytical behavior on MSNBC truly inaccurate?

You can read Ann Coulter's article "MSNBC's Motto: Lean Racist" here.


That's it for the week.  Just four to go until the election!

On Today's Jobs Report

I hate being skeptical.  It generally causes people to look at you like you're weird and maybe even a little crazy.  As a conservative in politics, it makes people think that you just hate the president or are just pessimistic.  And yet I heard today's jobs report and it confuses the heck out of me.

On the one hand, the U3 unemployment rate dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%.  Sounds like good news, right?  The economy is rebounding, good times are ahead!  Then I found out the economy added a grand total of 114,000 jobs.

In previous months, such a number was unlikely to budge the number by .1%, let alone .3%.  Indeed, most of the time the number shifts at all is due to people leaving the workforce and therefore not being counted in the U3 number that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases.  I was even further confused when the U6 unemployment rate, which includes people who are underemployed (part-time) and discouraged (dropped out of the work force entirely) remained steady at 14.7%.

So the question is, why has there been a significant drop in the U3 number if the amount of jobs added, by all accounts, is just as paltry as in previous months?

 From what I understand, it is due to a sharp increase in part-time employment, or people settling for jobs beneath their capabilities or needs.  For years, the primary economic indicator used by the BLS is that U3 number I've been referring to.  And as I'm sure some of you caught, that does not include people who have stopped looking for work and those who want full employment, but can't find it.  The fact of the matter is, the economy has only marginally improved since President Obama took office.  Unemployment is really a full seven points greater than what we're being told.  Even if the underemployed are discounted, the unemployment rate is still 10.7%.

And if you still don't believe me, ask yourself: have things gotten significantly better in the past three months?  Can an actual improvement in the economy explain this jump?  Gas is still high.  The fiscal cliff is still looming.  Obamacare/Affordable Care Act is still threatening businesses' bottom lines.

While I don't believe, like former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, that the numbers were rigged, I do believe they are being presented in a way to benefit the president.  I'm not a believer in coincidences; the more timely the "coincidence," the more I believe it planned or fraudulent. 

At best, this report is a statistical aberration that will get revised later.  The drop in the U3 percentage neither fits the pattern of the past few months or the number of jobs created.  At worst, it is indeed a lie, timed to boost the president a month out from the election, after anemic and pathetic growth numbers the past few years.  I favor the former.

For some more (and likely superior) analysis of today's numbers, check out this analysis from the American Enterprise Institute.

On the Denver Debate

Last night was an interesting.  Surprisingly, I got through it without muting it or swearing at the television.

(For the record, you could see my live reaction to the debate on Twitter last night.  If you were not, shame on you. *shamelessly hawks the Twitter account*)

While it most certainly worked to Mitt Romney's advantage, at the same time, I found President Obama's performance not only lackluster, but disappointing.  The entire time, he seemed disinterested and bored.  He rarely made eye contact with Mitt Romney and constantly put on a smug smirk when Mitt Romney spoke.  A few times, he pleaded with his eyes for Jim Lehrer to move on and even verbally asked him once.  He was pensive and petulant, constantly rambling instead of being concise and on point. 

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, came across as strong and forceful.  He was prepared for almost any eventuality.  When the president rambled off topic about things like jet owners, oil companies and Medicaid (in an unrelated question), Romney was ready to counter each point.  He was concise and he was fluid, moving from point to point and explaining his plans and ideas effectively, considering the time limitations. 

Opinions are mixed on Jim Lehrer's moderation, but I approve of it greatly.  As I wrote on Twitter last night, I was far more keen on just letting the men talk uninterrupted than trying to focus on the debate "segments."  I'm a little on the fence regarding Romney stopping Lehrer from changing subjects, but as Obama's primary focus was on Romney and Lehrer frequently tried to change the subject right after Obama attacked Romney's plans, Romney had every right to demand a rebuttal.

I've heard some argue that because he hasn't been challenged in four years, like most presidents, Obama was off his game like his predecessors.  I don't agree with this assessment simply because he was only ever challenged in a serious manner by Hillary Clinton, which was akin to a blip on the radar in '08.  He otherwise seems to express a disheartening disinterest in his job.  Others say that Obama is luring Romney into a sense of complacency, something I don't discount, but easily countered by Romney staying on his toes.  Even if Obama is sharper in future debates, if Mitt Romney is as sharp as he was last night, he'll merely match Obama instead of outclassing him.

So in the end, the debate did wonders for Romney, giving him a massive boost and showing Obama in an extremely poor light.  There are two more debates between the candidates and I'll be interested to see how they go.  However, for now, the point is clearly and decisively Romney's.

I intend on live tweeting at least the VP debate and the next presidential debate (we'll see if I get bored for the last one).  As such, I shall shamelessly hawk my Twitter feed again (despite doing it just at the beginning of this very article) and hope to have a few followers watching me next go around.

On This "New" Obama Video

Yesterday, The Daily Caller revealed a "new" tape of then-senator Barack Obama in 2007 doing everything from praising his former pastor Jeremiah Wright to claiming that the Hurricane Katrina response was driven by race to using a dialect that he normally doesn't use in public.

The question is, what do we make of this tape?  It is not what you think.


You see, the contents of the tape really are not important.  If you have been paying attention to Barack Obama and have been willing to accept things that may not necessarily be nice or pleasant, you already knew about this.  Not this specific video, but this general line of thinking that he displays in it.  If you are an Obama supporter or are just inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, you're not going to believe it, think it's not a big deal, make excuses for it, or just ignore it.

On the other hand, do not think I am saying this tape is not important.  If it has gotten just one less person to vote for the president, it has done its job.  What he says in this tape makes him out to be both a liar regarding Jeremiah Wright and a racist regarding his Katrina remarks.

However, what makes this tape truly important is that it reinforces what I wrote back on Monday on the subject of media bias.  This tape was uncovered back in 2007 as clips from it have been floating around for that long.  Clips, normally lacking in the inflammatory and despicable commentary, have been viewable and commented on for years. 

What was missing back then was a serious media response to it.  The "mainstream" media should have talked about this speech, the full speech, non-stop.  Barack Obama should have been disqualified by this video, which should have been seen over and over again on evening newscasts.  The man's words in this speech show every quality we do not want in a president.  Indeed, they are qualities he has shown continually as president, with his sneering contempt for those he dislikes and his attempts to divide Americans based on race and class. 

Yet again, we have an example of the mainstream media failing us, the American people, for failing to show us Barack Obama's true colors.  Again, we have been shown an example of a lack of curiosity and desire for the truth.  I call again for us to not give that media our business until they begin to do their jobs and tell us the truth.

If you wish to watch the full Obama speech, just click on this link here and go to the third page.  If you are viewing it to see what the fuss is about, I ask one thing: Approach it with an open mind.  Drop your preconceptions about Obama or conservatives and just listen to the words.  Then ask yourself if this is what you really want as president for another four years.

On Choosing Life, Pt. III

This is part three of a series on abortion.  You can read Part I here and Part II here.

Late-Term/Partial Birth Abortions

While this is fairly uncommon, there are people who defend abortion up until the moment of natural birth.  Thus, it is worth mentioning.  At this late stage in pregnancy, killing the child inside of the womb (whether by saline injection or chopping it into tiny pieces) is impractical.  As such, late-term abortions usually require slightly different methods.  Right now, I refer to the "intact dilation and extraction" method. After artificially inducing labor, the baby is partially delivered, but not fully so as not to "technically" qualify as childbirth (thus, avoiding charges of infanticide).  The brain is them suctioned out of the base of the baby's skull, causing it to collapse and you have a freshly dead infant.  There are of course, other methods, but this one seems the most heinous.

However, even more important than the method used is the child being killed.  As I explained in the previous piece, abortion is not justified because each child is a human being and thus has intrinsic worth.  Often, this worth strikes people at this late stage, when the child is also now also physically recognizable as a human being.

It's hard to justify any medical procedure that requires the dismemberment or lobotomizing of developed children all in the name of "choice," "health" or "freedom," all things violently robbed from the dead child.

Medical Necessity Abortions

One might wonder why I would consider abortions performed out of medical necessity in this piece.  After all, there's no way I could oppose this sort of thing without being some sort of horrible person.  You would be right.  However, I also do not consider these procedures abortions, even if they technically fall under the definition.

It all boils down to intentions.  For what I consider abortion, the primary intention is the ending of a pregnancy, whether because of personal or economic reasons.  Health can be a concern, but is not the chief concern.

Medical abortions on the other hand, have a primary thrust of health, such as the pregnancy threatening the health of either mother or child or both.  Considering the child is being kept long enough to determine this, it suggests that the child is wanted.  Often, the news that the pregnancy needs to be ended brings extremely difficult decision-making, but not because the child is unwanted.  It is for this reason that I do not believe that medical reasons qualify as abortions, as these would happen with or without legally allowing them.

Rape and Incest Exceptions

(I'm just going to refer to this as the "rape exception" from here on.  I'm not really quite sure why incest gets tacked on.  Barring consensual relationships, incestuous sex is usually rape.)

With this topic, this piece enters some tricky ground.  I hear liberals constantly browbeat conservatives, claiming we have no heart when we do not believe in exceptions for rape.  Suddenly, we are all woman-hating Todd Akins who want the woman to suffer more from her rape by bearing the child it has created.

In the past, I used to be very unsure of where to stand on these grounds.  On the one hand, I believed that abortion was murder and, on the other, I most certainly did not want to hurt women who were violated in the most heinous of crimes.  However, I recently read an article that really cleared things up for me, planting me firmly on the side against "rape exceptions."

If abortion is killing innocent life, then the child is dying for the rapist's actions.  The child neither committed the rape nor asked to be conceived by a rapist.  In many ways, that child is a victim too, as that stigma will be attached to it, whether the child ever finds out or not.  Someone will know the child was conceived through a gross violation of something most people hold sacred.  However, in killing the child that results from rape, it punishes the child for the rapist's actions.  The child, in essence, receives punishment for that which is earned by and should be meted out to the rapist.

And when that child is allowed to live, maybe, just maybe, he or she may grow up to become greater than the legacy that created him or her.  Perhaps that child may one day grow up, not as a reminder of the crime inflicted on the victim, but as an example that even the greatest injustices can give rise to even greater hope.  That, I believe, is why the child should be allowed to live.

I will (hopefully) wrap up this series later this week, addressing various topics and concerns that have come up as I thought up the past three articles.

On the Failing Media

Well...it's Monday.  And what am I talking about?  Not what I want to talk about, that's for sure (though I suppose it is rather morbid that I want to talk about abortion).  However, I feel that it is absolutely necessary that as many people as possible talk about what is happening in America and the world.  I have this eerie sense that not many people are aware of what has happened in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

You see, when the attack in Benghazi occurred back on September 11th, the president referred to it as "terror" in his remark the next day.  That would be the last time for a week, when the official narrative would try to eliminate any and all references to the attack being a pre-planned act of terrorism.  The following week, after Ambassador Susan Rice was trotted out on all of the Sunday political talk shows to repeat the claim, the White House abruptly changed its story.  Most notable was Press Secretary Jay Carney, who went from claiming that the White House didn't know enough to claiming that it was "self-evident" that the attack was terrorism (thereby implying that it was obvious).

Despite such a dramatic shift in messaging, the media ignored it.  Back then, amusingly, the administration could have plausibly denied having sufficient information to make a judgement call on Libya.  Granted, the claims of a "mob protest getting out of hand" were, at best, silly, since the act being terror was "self-evident."  It didn't help that it had been determined that there was no mob outside of the consulate.  The organization and armament of the attackers did not help much either.

Then last week, it came out, first from The Daily Beast and then confirmed by Fox News Channel, that intelligence agencies had determined the assault a pre-planned terrorist attack within twenty-four hours.  This, unfortunately, suggests one thing: the administration's original narrative was known to be a lie from the beginning and they intentionally attempted to deceive us, the American people, by blaming the video and abridging the freedom of speech of its maker.

How did the media react to the blatant lying and rights violation?

Why are so few people asking how this could happen?

Well, actually, it didn't.  Silence on the networks that weren't Fox News.  No big cover stories on major newspapers.  The only reporting last week on the new information regarding the Benghazi attack came from Jake Tapper of ABC.  The mainstream media deceived us.  It did not lie, per se, but it failed us by not informing us of truth of the administration's actions.  This is a betrayal of the highest order in a land where the media is free.  They are willingly self-censoring themselves with such omissions.

So, what do we do about it?

In the past, we believed that the media would filter information for us.  They wouldn't tell us stories unless they were true and factual.  That they would tell us the truth when there were people in high places that needed to be held accountable.  That they would keep us informed of the world around us.

Not anymore.  Now it is up to us to be our own filters.  It is up to us, as American citizens, to discern and learn the truth for ourselves.  If the mainstream media is complicit in its attempts to deceive its viewers, then they don't need us reading or listening to them.  We must learn the truth for ourselves from sources that may be unorthodox.  However, orthodoxy is not important in the struggle to be informed and learn the truth. For it is your responsibility to learn the truth and learn that which the media hides from us with its silence.

We live in a dangerous time when our sources of information willingly ignore and obfuscate the truth.  It threatens our freedom when we are not told the truth about the actions of those in power.

Yet, we must always remember that we have the freedom to not bow to the deception.  We must be vigilant and demand the truth, seeking it out ourselves when necessary.  To do any less would be to surrender our rights as American citizens to those "above" us.