Repeal is now the only option

So, the way I understand it, they struck down the individual mandate, re-defined it as a tax, and upheld that.
So ... in effect, they re-wrote the largely vague law right there in the courtroom and upheld a law that was never passed. The word "tax" appears nowhere in the law, and the Administration and its party explicitly denied it was a tax (otherwise it wouldn't have passed) ... until it was challenged in court (which stunned Nancy "Are you serious?" Pelosi) when it suddenly "became" a tax after it was passed. Hence, we apparently really do have to pass a law to find out what's in it.

That is not the way it's supposed to work. Next step, repeal!

Cornfusing and conflicting reports coming in on Obamacare ruling

The individual mandate survives as a tax?

Then they need to re-write the bill and vote on it again. This is not how we make law in America. Cobble together a framework that serves as a blank check for regulators, lie to the public about what it is and isn't and how much it will cost, and rush it through without reading it and hope nobody objects too strongly and if they do, throw it up to the courts to re-write the law? No!

Yeah, I got a problem....

The Department of Justice announced it has set up a telephone hotline and e-mail address for the public to report potential civil rights concerns related to the implementation of the Arizona SB 1070 provision requiring immigration status verification during certain law enforcement encounters.

The transcript of the recorded message:
  

"You have reached the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. If you are calling about the immigration law in Arizona, SB 1070, or the immigration law in Alabama, HB56, or any other immigration law, press 1 for English, [or press 2 for Spanish]." 

Yeah, I got a problem with Arizona SB 1070.  It shouldn't need to be implemented.  The federal government is responsible for the enforcement of immigration law.  The federal government is responsible for the security of our nation's borders.  Arizona has graciously offered to assist the federal government.  The federal government not only refused the assistance, it is actively attempting to thwart Arizona's efforts.

So how about several million people a day call the hotline and tell the Justice Department about our concerns?

Hotline Number: 855-353-1010
Email: SB1070@usdoj.gov

Hucksters

Ad on facebook this morning.   Care About Wildlife?  The EPA is considering a new rule that would help them protect wildlife.  Tell them to do it!

Wildlife?!   I care about wildlife!   Where do I click????

I'll just mandate that wildlife is, you know, protected!   Make my voice heard, and stuff!

So you click through to a National Wildlife Federation page that informs me what I need to know.   And what that is is that evil power companies that provide the electricity to power my electric car and iPad have been evil-ly dumping unlimited amounts of industrial (double plus un-good!) carbon pollution into "the environment".

And the EPA is considering bold new standards limiting industrial (that's probably not the electricity that powers the blower fan in my central heat and air, no.  It's industrial!)  carbon (which is different from the carbon I breath out as well, I'm sure) from power plants!   (But only industrial ones.)

This would be a critical victory for wildlife in the fight against melting icecaps, climate change, and environmental destruction (oh my!).

And look, there's a photo of a swimming polar bear just to drive the point home.  (Wait a minute, I saw a buffalo on the original link.  Is this bait and switch?)

What you can do.  Oh boy!  Here it is.  I'm gonna save a polar bear!

Why you can sign the statement below by filling out the form.

I support the EPA's standards limiting industrial carbon pollution from power plants. These standards would be a step in the right direction. It's time to start taking better care of our environment and the creatures that inhabit it. 
I support clean air for the future of our environment and our planet's wildlife!

And if you don't, you're a wildlife hater!  A clean air hater!   A ....  what, why is my electric bill so high?   Those greedy power companies!  They should be socia-nationalized!!!! Like our health care!!!!

And look, it turns out that polar bears actually swim 30 miles regularly, and have been known to swim for 10 days straight for more than 400 miles!   That clearly means ice caps are melting due to global warming, and that the polar bears must be doooomed.  DOOOOOOMED!!!!!  Doooooooomed!

Never mind that, even in the article it states:

‘That these bears can swim such long distances might mean that they are not as vulnerable to being stranded at sea,’ said the USGS in a statement.

and

‘They appear to be moving continuously. But whether that’s affecting survival, we don’t know.’ says Anthony Pagano, lead author of the study.

Despite the fact that polar bear populations seem to be doing just fine (and that's not Obama saying it, either) and there's no evidence that there's a negative impact on the survival of polar bears, the article nonetheless concludes:

 The bears cannot survive without the sea ice and use it to hunt seals, their main food source.

Scoring Cheap Points With Liberal Friends

So I'm perusing facebook, and I see Morgan made a comment on one of his friends' statuses.  And I read the status.  It says:

”The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

I know from past experience that this particular friend of Morgan's is no Limbaugh fan by any stretch of the imagination.  And I also know from past experience that this friend is no ideological liberal progressive.  All I can figure is he gets a kick out of political quick hits that make him appear even-handed (and therefore by false corollary even-headed) to his liberal friends.

Now, in the past ... I kept seeing quotes like this from Rush.  And every time I checked them out (his full transcripts are always available online, for free) I found they were taken out of context.   So finally, for a couple of months I subscribed to Rush's premium service.  Listened a lot.  Got  a good feel for what Rush was about.

What I found was a guy who uses lots of hyperbolic sarcasm in somewhat entertaining ways to make his points.  I decided in the end that Rush is not my thing..... but he's not a bad guy.  And I don't believe for a second that Rush believes the only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them, nor is he itching to use them.

But then I saw another status post, this time from Glenn Beck.

”When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.” ~ Glenn Beck

Glenn also uses a healthy dose of sarcasm in his shows, and I think with much better success than Rush. Glenn's definitely more "my thing", except when he gets too sappy. Even then I don't typically disagree with his sentiment. I just think it's too sappy. At any rate, anyone who has spent any time actually listening to Glenn Beck knows that this is not how Glenn feels about 9/11 victims families. Matter of fact, I vaguely remember that show. There was much more to the discussion than that. It's way out of context.

There were several from Jerry Fallwell.  I'm not a Fallwell fan, but some of them shouldn't be to shocking.  Such as:

”Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.” ~ Jerry Falwell

I assume this is being presented as dumb, but Jerry's a Christian minister, at least that's what I've been led to believe, and Christian Ministers (and lots of other Christians and non-Christians), regardless of how many of them fail to live up to the standard, believe that prostitution is wrong and soliciting prostitution is wrong and the only legitimate place sex has is within the confines of a marriage.  It's not "dumb", it's just his moral belief.   And to listen to the left, we're supposed to be tolerant of moral beliefs.

Then a similar one from Ann Coulter which we see trotted out all the time.  She said:

”We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.” ~ Ann Coulter

Once again, duh.  If Ann's a Christian, and by her account she is, she believes it is the correct path.  As Christianity was born from Judaism and is considered by Christians a continuation of that historical religious path -- a continuation with which Jews do not concur ... then one necessarily believes that the Jews have missed a big step. This is obvious to anyone who understands religious conviction.   But in our mamby pamby world, religion is viewed as a quaint cultural artifact, not something that anybody actually really believes.  Of course, in that context, it would sound absurd.   But again, tolerance would demand that she gets to actually believe in what she, you know -- actually believes, and since the left abhors ridicule based on religion ... unless, of course, that religion is a Christian one.... ...  ...

”The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” ~ Pat Robertson

Of course, we all know that all feminism is about is equal rights for women, because that's what feminists tell the media all the time.   And there may have been a time that this was actually true.  But the movement, like so many other movements that started out as good things, has been hijacked, and alas, I think it would be pretty hard to argue with Pat here after hanging out on a few feminist blogs and message boards these days. Those who think what he said is far out clearly haven't.

”Trees cause more pollution than automobiles.” ~ Ronald Reagan

Apparently talking about smog.  He is taken to task in a Wiki article over this, which states, in part: 

"During hot weather many tree species release volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, notably terpenes and isoprenes[4] (pine pitch is a terpene). Other VOCs that contribute to GLOP include gasoline, kerosene, paint, paint thinner and other industrial solvents. 

Reagan's statement was disingenuous because volatile organic compounds produced by trees do not cause pollution any more than the sun causes pollution. Reagan might as well have said, "the sun causes more pollution than automobiles do". Photochemical ozone pollution is created when automobile and power plant pollution is broken down by strong sunlight in the presence of any number of volatile organic compounds."

So what they're saying here is things that occur in nature can't cause pollution, and it's ridiculous to say that they do.   But then we see this:

”Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” ~ Rep. Michelle Bachmann

Well you know, you can't have it both ways.  Either things that occur in nature are or aren't pollution.   Here, again, trees (decomposing ones) actually do release lots of CO2 (and methane) into the atmosphere.  Far more than we do.

When this was pointed out to our intrepid friend, he responded:

the simple point is that too much c02 isnt good. lol

Oh.  lol.  "Hey, it was just a joke, don't take it so seriously." [But do take Limbaugh and Beck's sarcasm seriously.  Clearly, they're evil.  And I'm awesome for pointing it out!]   And I guess Reagan and Bachmann aren't afforded the luxury of making their simple points.

the simple point is that too much c02 isnt good.

Well, you know.... neither is too much oxygen.  Or water.   Or beer.

Michelle's simple point is that carbon dioxide is a necessary atmospheric nutrient to plant life, contributes to the greenhouse effect that makes life as we know it possible at all on our planet, and occurs at a rate of less than four ten-thousandths of one percent in our atmosphere, having increased by a little over one ten-thousandths of one percent in the last 150 years or so.

Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.” ~ Jerry Falwell

Ok, again, not really a Jerry fan here.  The ask no questions part I get.  The first half of the simile, on the other hand, is a lousy one through and through.   Score one for the friend.

”I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.” ~ George W. Bush

One of the big charges from the Left on George Bush was that he is arrogant.  One of Bush's better qualities is that he is not.  He was often self-deprecating.   He had respect for the office he held, and for his duties while holding it, but he did not transfer that respect to his person to elevate his ego.  For an example of that, see the current White House occupant.

There were more ... but, you get my point.   If you completely remove context from things people have uttered, you can make it sound like they believe what they do not.

If I see a quote by somebody, I pretty much always go out and get the context to make sure that that's what the person probably actually meant before I take them sternly to task over it.

Ism

Obama, who was raised by socialists and influenced by their socialist friends and sought out Marxist professors, worked for the extremely socialist leaning ACORN, and appeared as a speaker sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America, but is nonetheless, as everyone knows, NOT a socialist ... and if you say he is you're a crackpot conspiracy theorist, also sought the endorsement and joined the [socialist] New Party, yet not only denied it later and actually had people smear anyone who suggested that he had, ironically, as a smear-er.

I was out commenting on a post of Morgan's on HKB, and as often happens when I'm commenting on something Morgan brought up, it turns out I have something to say.  It had to do with this thoughtful story, and the side issue of why it doesn't so much matter to me whether Obama is a Socialist or a Fascist.

 The main difference between fascism and socialism is the degree of ownership the government has over the means of production. With fascism, it's "yeah, well you technically own it, but we get to tell you what you can do with it and how much of the proceeds you can keep". Which isn't quite as ownershippy as a free market system, which is what we have. Not that some government regulation is needed in a free market system ... but the regulation should have more to do with protecting others' property rights -- whether it be public property (air, streams, water, national parks) rather than how much of your profit those with their paws on the levers of power get to swipe to buy friends and influence and yachts they keep in states with lower property tax rates ... for instance ;-)   ... or others' private property (no swindling people, and honor your contracts) and the like.

I've said somewhere before that capitalism isn't a system, per se. Not a consciously designed one, anyway. It just falls naturally out of human nature. These other "isms" are attempts at changing what humans are, and they run contrary to our nature. Our inner nature will act as a resistor to their imposed currents, and we'll heat up like light bulb filaments and burn out. Every. Time. They're just too opposed to what we are, which is imperfect, fallible creatures who, like all other creatures will work to make things better and easier on ourselves given the opportunity.

Capitalism uses the force of the stream and natural law channels it constructively. The other "isms" say "to hell with this stream, it causes erosion and floods" and they attempt to replace it with an ugly pipe which isn't worth flowing through. Then eventually the pipe strains under natural pressures and starts to spray water out every which way, and then it bursts. See Greece. Spain. Wiemar... and hopefully not coming soon to a theater near you.

The Demise of the Tea Party has apparently been greatly exaggerated

Apparently, according to Steve Kornacki at Salon, we're the biggest problem in Washington!

Since I think Washington is the biggest problem in Washington, I say if we're the biggest problem Washington has, that's probably a good thing.

May I have your attention, please?

Apparently, we do.   May I direct your gaze to Madison, WI.

Thank you,

The Tea Party

The Roots of Natural Law

I'm now reading Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit" (you can too, for free).   Ran across this and thought I should bookmark it for myself and others.

[David] "Hume noticed clearly the connection of these doctrines to freedom, and how the maximum freedom of all requires equal restraints on the freedom of each through what he called the three 'fundamental laws of nature':  the stability of posession, of it's transference by consent, and of the performance of promises."

Personal Property, Free Trade, and the binding nature of Contracts.

These are the things that Libertarians and Social Conservatives can rally around.  This is why there's  a Tea Party.

Rock The Vote Redux

"Liberal strategists have convinced themselves that if we just got everyone to vote, the people would force through policies held at bay by our antiquated and undemocratic system.  Hence the various schemes to return the franchise to felons, lower the voting age, or let people vote online.   Not surprisingly, these efforts are invariably aimed at constituencies they have good reason to believe will vote Democratic.  What it says about the Democratic Party that boosting the ballots of the criminal, the less educated, and the lazy will deliver liberal policy victories is something to ponder.
[..]
But at a broader level this obsession with expanding democracy by making it easier to vote is deeply unhealthy.  Making voting easier is synonymous with making voting cheaper.  Do we really think the level of democratic discourse would be greatly improved if people who could not otherwise be bothered to vote are afforded the opportunity to do so on their iPhones during a commercial break of Jersey Shore?"  - Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches

Hyperbolic Heroism

I just saw another post on the Obama Gay Marriage thing... an excellent Ramirez cartoon, and it made me think of that Time magazine cover again, and why it made me laugh, and how it sums up this whole ridiculous identity politics thing and the heroes liberals cast themselves as.


Here we have Obama's smug mug on the cover of a major national magazine, a [fallen] American institution, with this shot of our proud narcissist in chief, with the headline "The First Gay President".  He does not look comfortable with the title. :-)

Here we have the first real black president, but he can't be called that because liberals had already dubbed the very white Bubba president Clinton "The first black president", and our first actual black president, who is by all accounts and evidence decidedly not gay, claims the title from whoever the first actual gay president might be.  And these are the very liberals who insist that no white male [or probably female for that matter] could possibly be sympathetic to, say, a latino because they're not [wise] latinas.

Apparently he's also our first Cherokee president, along with his ardent supporter "nobody ever got rich on his own" Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom can actually show they have a drop of any American Indian blood in them anywhere .... and then you see it clearly.

They're not about lifting up the minorities they claim to be lifting up.  What's important is the victimhood.  It's so important they'll lie about it, or bestow it upon their heroes, to bless themselves with the power they believe they wear on behalf of the downtrodden.

Because it's really not about the downtrodden.  It's about the mantle.

GM.  Gay Marriage.  Hmmmm.... coincidence?  ;-)

The Bain of Obama's Philosophy

Obama, in Chicago yesterday:

"When one is president, as opposed to the head of private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits, your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we’re paying for their retraining…. My job is to take into account everybody not just some. My job is to make sure the county is growing, not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now. And so, to repeat, this is not a distraction, this is what this campaign is going to be about.”

No.  When one is president, one's job is NOT figure out how everybody in the country has "a fair shot", especially the way you, Mr. President, define "fair" (that would be in the Marxist sense).   Your job is to worry about the general welfare, not the individual welfare.  The individual's job is to think about his individual welfare, and that of his family and of his immediate community, and so on up to larger and larger social circles.  It's a bottom-up thing.  Not a top-down thing.

The Things We Do for Love

"Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together."

Thus sayeth, it seems, Barney Frank and others.

Sounds great, but like most nuggets of progressive psuedo-wisdom, it really falls apart upon cursory inspection.  I mean, everyone does not agree on "the things we do together", so "we" means whoever agrees with "me".   And if  "we" decide to force our will on those who disagree ... which is ultimately what government enables ... then government is simply the name we give to the thing that lets us force others to do the things "we" choose to do together.

Which doesn't sound nearly as sexy.  But it's the truth.  Instead of the Barney (and I mean the dinosaur ... wait, that's not much of a distinction, either is it ... oh well) "I love you, you love me" mamby -pamby crap Mr. Frank et. al. spew.

This is why the Marxists for whom they thinly disguise their admiration have always ended up killing massive numbers of those who disagree with them.   Not only does it physically reduce the dissenters numbers, it gets most of the rest of them suddenly on the bandwagon.

At any rate, it is for this reason that we have a Constitution, and it is why it is important to distinguish between a democracy and a democratic republic.    The Constitution lays out the rules by which we may decide on what to do together, and spells out what things the government is allowed to do to facilitate it.   Which is ultimately the catch 22 of government.  It has in its very nature an inherent conflict of interest.  Which there's no real way of getting around, unless We the People insist on keeping it  honest.

And aren't kept from keeping it honest.  

Which is why we have the second amendment.

Patriotism

Reading Jonah Goldberg's latest, "The Tyrrany of Cliches" ... which I HIGHLY recommend.   It's an easier and shorter read than Liberal Fascism (and by his account much more fun to write), and it's peppered with wisdom and humor.

But this chapter I've just hit on ... "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson ... one of the first fun things he points out is that... there's no record of Thomas Jefferson ever having said this.  Plus Jonah goes on to say that even if he did say it it wouldn't make it any less dumb.

He gives an example of a soldier who falls on a grenade to save his buddies, and someone saying "hey, that guy sure was patriotic.  Almost as patriotic as that college professor who, from the comfort of his air-conditioned office called the Marines 'baby killers' and 'war criminals'".

he brings up John O'Sullivan's observation "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.  Treason is the highest form of dissent.  Therefore, treason is the highest form of patriotism.  QED."

But what tipped the scales and actually made me come here to post was this paragraph:

"When America elects a left-wing president, the tendency for conservatives is to like the government less and the country more.   This is because liberal presidents want th change America while conservative presidents want to change the government.  And when America elects conservative presidents, the Left tends to express its love for government more (and lament how it is being discredited by conservatives) and its fondness for America less."

I liked it right away, but had to put the book nook down for a second to let that sink in, and I just said ... "wow".   "Wow".   Like when you see an Escher drawing flip.  To conservatives, America is an ideal, a philosophy of how to look at what the balance of liberty and governance should be.   To the Left ... America is the government.   When they don't like the government, they don't like America.  When they like the government, they like America.  

Again, it's like those women who love you so much they want to change you into something completely different.  To the left, not only is the government "America", it is the means through which they want to make "America" what they want it to be.... which is distinctly not what America (see above paragraph) is to conservatives.

It's like rain. On your wedding day.

After Martin Bashir goes on a half minute tirade spelling out allegation after searing allegation about Mitt Romney's religion while chastising a Republican group for considering an ad pointing Rev. Wright's tirades and Obama's choice of churches  -- Joan Walsh, oblivious to the irony in her response says "Well, this is 'Hate Porn', Martin, it's just 'Hate Porn'".

(yes, I realize there's nothing ironic about rain on your wedding day unless maybe you specifically moved the date to avoid a day when you thought it was going to rain.  It's just a cultural reference.  Yeah and a pretty lame one.  But this is my blog :-) )

Chicks on the Right

They're smart.  They're pretty.  They're pretty smart.  They wear red-bottomed heels.  And they're Bill Whittle fans.

So ... why not give them a visit?

Chicks on the Right

They're Right.  Conservatism does need a makeover.  But not because the chicks are dumpy.   Chicks know makeovers.  Have at it!

Election Distractions

• The war on women
• Dog-Gate
• The war on bullies
• The Bain of Romney's existence
• The "evolution" of Obama
• The first "gay" president
• The "second" black president
• The likability factor
• The Jesus Jammy Factor

.... believe me, the list will grow.   None of it important.  Not that there haven't been some great responses from  this side of the political divide to many of these.  And I'm not saying that it's not worth briefly addressing the stupid sideshow, especially if it can devastatingly highlight how stupid the sideshow is.

But the conversation must always quickly and soberly be brought back to, in this day and age of rampant government excess --

What are the views of the candidates on the role of government, and which one aligns more closely with original intent?   That's it.   No matter how many people Romney fired or how many gays feel good that Obama thinks the government should bless them. No matter how many involuntary haircuts Romney and his friends gave to other kids when they were young and brash, no matter how many girls Obama bullied when he was little. No matter where the Romney's dog rode on family vacations or what seasoning was used on Obama's canine delights ....

What do they think the role of the Federal Government is, and how closely do these views align with the original intent of the Constitution?

If that's the question ... and it ultimately is the question -- there's NO contest.   Obama loses big.  

Which means two things.

1. People need to be at least briefed on what our Constitution is and why it says what it says, and
2. People need to be reminded again and again what the real question is, every time another distraction is brought up.

So whatever headline the Obama campaign coordinates with the MSM headline writers tomorrow, sure, fire a snark back at them if you've got one, but right back to the question:

What do they think the role of the Federal Government is, and how closely do these views align with the original intent of the Constitution?

Because if that's the question we're asking, we're having the right discussion.

Who is surprised?

I predicted this as soon as I heard the announcement.  Didn't think it'd make a magazine cover this quickly, but it shouldn't surprise me.   These people are coordinated, there's no doubt about that.  After watching the "War on Women" thing, the "Mitt Romney is a Bully" thing ... Journolist was just a bold symptom of this phenomenon.

On the other hand ... looking at this picture, and the headline, and the fact that we know he is not, in fact, gay ...

This could backfire on him.  Big time.  :-)

Zombie Disconnect

Can I say it?

I don't get the Zombie thing.  At all.  

And some of my best friends love it.

Call it Zombie Disconnect.

Bias? What Bias?

Mark Halerpin shows us why the Obama Campaign is so confident.  Only not the way he think's he's showing it.  The real reason is that the Obama Administration still has most of the MSM in it's back pocket, as he shows so readily in the article.  It's a huge and largely free -- extension of his campaign staff.  It's what got him elected in 2008, and the Mark Halerpins of the world are doing their best to see that it happens again.

After you've read the article, your takeaways are --  Obama: "Hip", "casual", college-style ["dorm room"], and is "vibrant" and "stylish" has a campaign that "hums" for long hours and run by 20 somethings who have "uprooted" themselves from their lives in Washington to work on something "worthwhile".

Romney, on the other hand has Super PACS (but apparently Obama does not) filled with money from "conservative" "millionaires and billionaires" (while George Soros and Obama's other wealthy liberal donors and Wall Street tycoons ... not mentioned) that will be laundered through banks and such and "shuttled" through "balance sheets" and "targeted" to "battleground states" (words which, when they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin et. al are "violent" rhetoric) and will have "right wing" "plutocrat" supporters. Obama's supporters, on the other hand, apparently bear no such lables, as it's just understood that they're reasonable centrists with no discernible political leanings. No "left-wing" supporters to deride.  (Does "left-wing" even exist in their vocabulary?  Probably not.  Relative to where they are, there is no "left" -- which tells you a lot about where they are.)

We get a laundry list of potential Romney controversies spelled out, but apparently there is nothing controversial about Obama's record and rhetoric worth mentioning.

Bias? There's no bias in the media. Why do you ask?

Julia Ghoulia

Of course, under Barack Obama’s plan, the Small Business Administration’s real budget completely collapsed when China decided buying more of America’s debt to fund this creepy cradle-to-grave fairy tale leaving America to buy the other 60% of it’s debt by printing dollars Weimar style. This was a 100% drop rather than the relatively modest but at least somewhat fiscally responsible 20% the Obama campaign claimed Mitt Romney "might" have cut programs "like" to possibly avoid the economic catastrophe that we kept moving "Forward" to instead.

Inflation went through the roof, and Zachary died of dehydration and malnutrition while Julia stood in line in front of the now closed government handout office. All the people she might have hired were put  in the same boat, and America looked a lot like a third world country.

Under Mitt Romney, we gained a few more years to avoid this fate by not spending as much money we don’t have to buy votes from people like Julia. Ever read Cloward and Piven? Get enough people on the government dole, and cause a [Socialist] revolution?

But Obama's not a Socialist, no.  Just had a socialist mother and grandparents and mentor in Frank Marshall Davis before his college career that he's kept completely secret with the help of a compliant media that cheers him on, then worked as a  "Community Organizer" for a heavily socialist-leaning Saul Alinsky inspired organization, launched his political career in Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn's livng room and went to Reverend Wright's gospel of social[ist] justice church for 20 years, appoints self-admited communists and socialists to cabinet positions, has the support of the Socialist Party, had campaign offices where the workers had large Che Guevara posters on the walls ... and wants to lead Julia by the hand cradle to grave with Other People's Money, the OPiuM of politics.  Oh, and if you connect this absolute spray of dots, you're a racist conspiracy theorist who hates poor people.  So let's move FORWARD, shall we?  Over the cliff.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said ... "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

Well that's not the only problem with socialism, but it is certainly one of the bigger ones.