Wednesday, July 30, 2014

We Used to Play British Bulldog

When I was in grade school, we used to play a game called British Bulldog. A group of us would get together during recess on the grass and dirt playing field. We'd pick one person who would be "it" and the rest of us would run from one end of the field to the other while the person who was it would try to tackle one or two of us. Those who got tackled then joined in the middle and helped to tackle the others on the next turn. We'd run back and forth until one person was left standing, facing a field of kids who were waiting to tackle him.

Then we'd pick someone else to be it and start all over again. And we'd do that through the entire lunch period and through the recesses during the day.

I wasn't the biggest kid on the field, but I learned something about myself by playing British Bulldog. I learned that I was pretty fast and I learned that I could carry three or four guys on my back who were trying to tackle me. I also learned that if I didn't win, I could have just as much fun tackling the other kids who always seemed to be the last ones who got tackled. I also learned basic strategy. If I was it, I learned to try to take down the biggest and the fastest kids first, so they could help out and quickly take down the rest of the kids running across the field. If I was a runner, I learned how to avoid getting tackled.

Those of us who played British Bulldog liked to tackle and get tackled. Sure, we skinned up our chins and elbows and knees and got bruised up, but we had a lot of fun doing it, and, I believe, we all survived the experience. Those who didn't like to play British Bulldog found other things to do during recess 

That was then and this is now. 

My daughter teaches at our local public school. The children have one major rule during recess - no running.

Let me repeat that - the children are not allowed to run around during recess. Ever. For any reason.

Why is that? Because, according to the school, running is dangerous. The school tried banning British Bulldog. The children found other games to play, like Red Rover. So the school banned Red Rover. Then the children would play tag. So the school banned tag. Then the children found something else to run around doing. So the school banned running.

According to the school administration, playing such games is simply too dangerous. The children might get a scrape or cut or a child's feelings may be hurt. Worse, a parent might complain.

Now the kids sit around and text or play games on their ubiquitous cell phones. Or they plug in to their iPods. Or they sit around and do nothing. And school administrators sit around wondering why kids are obese and disinterested in school.


We used to play British Bulldog. We had fun. We got banged up. We were allowed to choose between British Bulldog or playing some other game during recess. We were allowed to run.

In our modern culture of groupthink, of "compassion," of the socialist utopian ideal that everyone's a winner, we've allowed not only government but the most petty aspects of government, to inculcate those rules and regulations which lead away from liberty and freedom. Children are no longer allowed to run at school, let alone play British Bulldog.

Do we allow the power elite to dictate their peculiar brand of immorality, or do we rebel and restore the freedom to do as we will? Are we, as Americans, so selfish and complacent that we'd allow others to create this Brave New World while we sleep?

Let's bring back the foundations of freedom and liberty - the freedom to play British Bulldog on the playground.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Leftists in the Penthouse

Leftist dogma is like the penthouse suite of a high-rise building. The suite sits atop a majestic building, overlooking a grand vista. It holds a coveted spot, admired by some, envied by others, distrusted by many. From this grand location, it begins to look around, then decides that it's better than anything it can see below. It looks down on the rest of the world and decides that it has a better view than everyone else. Consequently, it decides to engineer the rest of the world to remake it in its own image.

Unfortunately, from its vantage point, it condemns anything that doesn't fit its view of the world. It cannot see the building's foundations, so it condemns the very base on which it stands. It starts to think to itself: "I don't really need that foundation. I'm way up here and it's way down there. It doesn't really suit my needs at the moment."

After a time, the penthouse thinks to itself that it not only doesn't need the foundation on which it sits, it thinks that the foundation is faulty. "If I could only get away from the foundation," it thinks to itself, "I would remake the world in the glorious vision I have of it."

One day, the penthouse decides to cut itself off from its foundation. It breaks free, then falls to the ground and crumbles into a million pieces. 

Modern leftism owes its very foundation to the principles of the establishment of the US - political as well as moral. It is hubris of the highest sort to deny those principles in order to remake the world in its own image.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Star Trek, Harry Mudd, and Liberal Logic

This past week, while trying to puzzle out once again the logic behind the Obama administration, I was reminded of the original Star Trek episode, I, Mudd. Harry Mudd is a con man who ends up on a planet run by androids who give him everything he wants, but trap him there in the mistaken belief that they are "helping" him.

In one of the final scenes, Kirk, Mudd, and the crew of the Enterprise defeat the androids by using paradoxes and illogic to destroy the logical mind of the central computer.

The final blow to the android representing the main computer comes from the Liar's Paradox. Kirk tells the android that Mudd always lies. That is a given. Mudd, in return, says "I am lying." The paradox comes from the problem that Mudd can't both be lying and telling the truth. Faced with such a paradox, the android's brain melts down and the computer dies.

Now back to the Obama administration. Obama is a master of paradoxes, half truths, concealments, double talk, and obfuscation. Whatever he says comes out as a paradox.

A case in point was his last round of un-presidential behavior when he refused to visit the Texas border with Governor Rick Parry, then claimed he didn't do so because he's "not interested in photo-ops."

It is obvious, however, that Obama is interested in photo ops, whenever, and however he can get them. It's also obvious from his photo-ops that Obama would rather drink beer and play pool than deal with the current crisis at the border.

We can assume that whatever President Obama says, as well as the rest of his administration, is a lie.

After piling enough of them, like the android from Star Trek, eventually our heads, and the country, will implode from the illogic of it.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Shameless Capitalism Explained! With Examples!

I've been making my way through Dinesh D'Souza's newest book America: Imagine a World without Her. I believe in supporting conservative media with my money, so it's a bonus that the book has something to say, as well as supporting the ideals on which the US was founded.

It's taking me a bit of time to read through the book, as I keep putting it down to think.

I know! It's shocking to most (especially my liberal friends) that I actually take time to think about stuff. But I digress.

D'Souza mentioned something early on in his book that struck me as true. Liberals and victims of liberal education don't understand economics. Instead, they rely on platitudes of socialist dogmas that view the world only in terms of class envy and economic disparity.

In other words, to liberals, the rich are evil because liberals are convinced that in order for a person to be rich, he must have stolen from the poor. Adam Smith debunked this idea over 200 years ago in his radical book Wealth of Nations.

Yet today in the US we hear ever louder and more shrill appeals to bring down the rich and elevate the poor. One tactic to promote this dogma is the trend to push for ever higher minimum wages, such as the group pushing MacDonald's to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour. These appeals ignore or are oblivious to the basic economics of supply and demand.

As I thought on the misbegotten calls for income equality, I thought about how money actually works to build wealth, and how much damage to the economy a substantial increase in the minimum wage would cause.

Here's an example.

Let's say that I'm an entrepreneur who runs a successful graphics design business. I charge my clients $100 an hour for the designs my company can produce.

From the outside, that looks like I'd be rolling in the dough in a short time and would become one of the hated "rich" people who sucks money and life out of the poor. I've been identified as one of the Rich.

But just as liberals don't understand wealth creation, they don't understand how businesses work.

Since I own the business and hire employees, I must also provide a workplace. Out of the $100, I have to pay overhead: the lease on the office, electricity, water, waste disposal, phones, office supplies, and so on. Let's say that takes about $40 out of the $100.

Now I'm left with $60. Yay! I'm still rich. Except that I have to pay wages to my receptionist and my design grunt. The receptionist earns minimum wage to answer my phones, so she takes about $8 out of the $60. The designer is specialized labor and earns $12.

That leaves me with $40, nothing to sneer at. For an hour's work, I can almost fill up a tank of gas.

But I have to pay taxes. There are corporate taxes and sales taxes, withholding taxes, and Workman's Compensation. Let's say that takes $10 from the total, leaving me with $30. There's my profit!

Except that I have investors, who gave me money to create a business so that I could afford to lease a space and hire workers. They did this with the hope that my business would be successful and give them a percentage return on my profits. They loaned me $100,000 to start, so it will take a long time to pay them back. They take ten percent of my gross to pay back the loan. That amounts to $10.

Now I'm left with about $20. That's still more than my employees make, but not by much. I have to pay federal and state taxes on that money (after paying corporate taxes). My rate is about twenty percent, which leaves me with $16.

Yay! I'm a rich man! I've exploited the workers! I've stolen their future!

Now let's see what happens when the law forces me to raise my receptionist's wage to $10 (or $15).

That comes out of my huge profit of $16, so now my hourly wage just dropped below that of my two employees. In order to support myself, I must raise my prices so I can get back to at least that $16 an hour.

My clients complain about the rise in prices and I lose business. In order to keep my business, I have to "downsize." That means that the receptionist has to go. With the receptionist gone, I can keep my clients happy and still make a living.

Too bad for the receptionist, but at least the minimum wage increased and there are always food stamps and welfare payments.

I know this example of the way economics really works is difficult to grasp, especially for liberals. According to them, I should ignore my investors (the other Rich) and be happy that I'm making less than my now unemployed receptionist.

After all, I'm one of the evil Rich people.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Liberal Vocabulary - A Handy-Dandy Glossary

Having a conversation with a liberal is easy, once you learn the language.

There you stand, minding your own business in an elevator or in line at the post office, when a liberal decides to strike up a conversation with you. During the conversation, you hear some familiar words that refer to ideas like rights and freedom, but in the conversation, they don't seem to make any sense to you. Never fear! I've compiled for you, gentle conservatives, a list of the most frequently used terms in liberalspeak with their definitions. Learn these few terms and you will be on the path to understanding what your liberal friends are talking about.

A Glossary Of Terms Used By Liberals

Abortion: The absolutely fundamental right of every women to choose. This is the basic right which completely guarantees the equality of the sexes and must be preserved at all costs. See Rights.

ACORN: A poor, benighted charitable agency that got mercilessly attacked by right wing nut jobs and was forced to close down because Republicans in Congress defunded it.

Anti-American: Anyone who doesn't agree with the current liberalized system of government. This includes anyone who likes the idea of capitalism, limited government, and many democratic principles. See Mob.

Barack Obama: The only president who has ever had the capacity to selflessly change America into a Utopian state. If Republicans, the Tea Party, conservatives, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the conservative mob would only leave him alone, he could finally work out the solution to governmental perfection. As it is, he's had to circumvent Congress in order to get anything at all done to forward his Utopian ideals. See Conservatives. See Glenn Beck. See Rush Limbaugh. See Mob. See Tea Party.

Benghazi: A place made up by Tea Party fanatics to show how racist they are in trying to derail President Obama's policies.

Bible: An ancient document that has absolutely no connection with modern reality, especially morals and legal codes. See Religion.

Bill of Rights: An outdated and forgotten list of ideas which have no relationship to the modern vision of rights and freedoms. The Bill of Rights only gets in the way of such things as denigrating religion, gun control, and creating a statist federal government. The Bill of Rights, like other ancient documents such as the Bible, no longer serve any useful purpose. See Bible. See Constitution. See Rights.

Birthers: Uneducated idiots who will stop at nothing to attack Barack Obama. See Barack Obama.

Borders: An arbitrary division of land that has no meaning with regard to Mexico, since the whole Southwest was theirs to begin with.

Climate Change: The idea that if you rename something and broaden its definition to be all inclusive, despite any relation to reality, you can still tax it. See Global Warming. See Taxes.

Compromise: What Republicans in Congress need to do in order to adopt liberal policies.

Conservatives: An evil group of individuals whose sole purpose in life is to block progress and to kill all blacks, women, homosexuals, and anyone who disagrees with them. See Republicans. See Tea Party.

Constitution: An old and outdated document that might have been good for something except for the enshrined dogmas of a past generation. It now has little relevance to a modern, sophisticated way of governing. See Rights.

Empiricism: The natural and inevitable end of the whole of Western Civilization, culminating in the United States, the most evil, racist, empire to ever be created.

Entitlements: See Rights.

Equality: The idea that individual rights must be suppressed and submit to the group mind. Anyone who disagrees with the correct group is considered anti-American or racist. See Anti-American. See Racist.

Evil: See Good.

Fairness Doctrine: The idea that some media have an unfair advantage over other media because it is Anti-American. See Anti-American. See Glenn Beck. See Rush Limbaugh.

Fair Share: The amount of money required from the greedy rich to pay off the national debt that George Bush created.

Feminist: Anyone who agrees that abortion is the absolutely fundamental right of every women to choose. Anyone, including women in power, who do not subscribe to absolute fundamental right of abortion are not considered feminists. See Abortion.

Fox News: A radical, right-wing media outlet, no better than the worst hack blogging. No one worth knowing actually watches Fox, and those who do drink deeply of the Fox Kool-Aid. See Free Press. See News.

Freedom: The right to do what liberals want, when and where they want, with no regard to the rights of others, even to disagree. See Free Speech.

Free Press: The government subsidizing of media such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but not such media as Fox News. See Anti-American. See Fox News. See News.

Free Speech: The right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to sue, harass, or intimidate anyone who disagrees with liberal doctrine. Free speech does not include the right to disagree with liberal doctrine. See Bill of Rights. See Politically Correct.

Gays: A group of people who self-identify according sexual preference, who only want to be treated as equals and to have their rights and will force everyone who disagrees with them to believe likewise. See Equality. See LGBTQQ. See Marriage. See Rights.

George W. Bush: Satan or the Great Evil One. He single-handedly destroyed the economy and led us into the worst war ever when he lied to the US. His national debt, foreign policy, executive actions, and illegal war dug a hole so deep, even Barack Obama is having a difficult time ebbing the flow of destruction. See Anti-American. See Fairness Doctrine. See Glenn Beck. See Rush Limbaugh.

Glenn Beck: Satan or the Great Evil One. See Anti-American. See Fairness Doctrine. See George W. Bush. See Rush Limbaugh.

Global Warming: The idea that a good crisis, even if it is not exactly supported by science, is worth all the taxes in the world to fight. See Climate Change. See Taxes.

Good: See Evil.

Government: The only institution that can properly create true equality for all citizens within a country. The more government, the better. Despite fear mongers, the American government can never become despotic as long as liberals are in charge.

Greed: A human vice that occurs when people form corporations, but not, for example, when people form unions, or are elected as a liberal to government office. Corporate owners are always greedy. Liberal politicians are always altruistic, working for the good of all people.

Harry Reid: The only sane member of Congress, without whom the Republicans would run amok and destroy all of the great work President Obama has done. He is also the lone voice protecting the world from the Koch brothers. See Koch Brothers.

Hate Crimes: The idea that crimes committed against individuals of protected classes are more heinous than the same crimes committed against conservatives. See Protected Class.

Healthcare: The government finally stepping in to make sure all Americans have affordable health insurance, free condoms, and free abortions. See Government. See Greed.

Hillary Clinton: The best hope for America to redeem its years of oppression and bigotry by finally electing a woman to the office of president of the United States. It is much more important to ensure that a woman, or a black man, gets elected to office, than it is to have someone who will actually help the country and promote its best interests.

Illegal Immigrant: A mythical creature. See Immigrant.

Immigrant: A potential Democrat voter. Immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are especially welcome in the United States because we're all Americans anyway. Plus, they ensure that Democrats will stay in power in order to continue creating the great Utopian society. These immigrants must integrate fully and immediately into the US social welfare system.

IRS: A group of poor, misunderstood people who are working hard every day to ensure that rich people pay their fair share of taxes. See Fair Share.

Koch Brothers: Two evil rich guys who greedily use their money to support the Tea Party and force poor, starving students to take low-paying jobs. If Harry Reid hates them so much, they must be the greatest threat to national security the country has ever known. See Harry Reid.

LGBTQQ: A community of gays and others who self-identify as protected class citizens to gain equality by forcing states to change marriage laws. See Equality. See Gays. See Protected Class. See Rights.

Marriage: The union of any two people for the purposes of gaining equal rights and protected class status. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with biology or with raising children. See Equality. See Gay. See Protected Class. See Rights.

Mob: Anyone who disagrees with modern liberalism and dares to speak up in a public forum. Also applied to those who speak against healthcare. See Healthcare. See Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

News: Anything said or implied by any news media except Fox News. For example, Balloon Boy and the death of Michael Jackson were news. The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Libya was not. See ACORN. See Fox News. See Free Press.

Photo ID: Racist concept that would keep legitimate voters away from the polls. Also a great idea to nationalize to create the Utopian ideal in order to ensure that rights are upheld by an all-caring government. 

Politically Correct: A misnomer from the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit the only, true way for all Americans to think. See Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Protected Class: The concept that some people are born more equal under the law than others, because they believe in liberal doctrine and self-identify with a liberal group. See Equality.

Racism: Attacks on anyone from any group who holds sacred the doctrine of liberalism. Racism really has nothing to do with race, because it applies to any liberal special interest group, including abortionists, homosexuals, and the transgendered. See Protected Class.

Religion: The freedom to believe in some sky-daddy, as long as such belief never enters into the public arena in any way, shape or form, since the Constitution guarantees a separation of church and state. See Bill of Rights. See Freedom.

Republican: A political party, often mistaken for conservatives, representing brainless toads whose only goal in the US is to prop up big businesses, destroy the environment, kill poor people and kittens, and block President Obama's agenda to create Utopia. See Conservative.

Rich: A nebulous class of conservative citizens who represent one of the major barriers to developing a Utopian society. This class must be taxed into extinction, unless, of course, the individuals adhere to liberal doctrine. Democrats with a lot of money are never considered rich.

Rights: Any thought or action liberals deem appropriate to a shifting society, with no regard to Constitutional enumeration, or public opinion. Also, any number of government mandated expenses or entitlements. Recognition of such entitlements as rights is central to liberal doctrine. See Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh: Satan or the Great Evil One. See Anti-American. See Fairness Doctrine. See George W. Bush. See Glenn Beck.

Sensitivity Training: The idea that, if caught early enough, conservatives can be turned into liberals or at least to discover the homosexual hiding within.

Separation of Church and State: The enlightened interpretation of the outdated 1st Amendment to the Constitution. No one who claims to be religious should be allowed to have a say in government or to speak up in public, except Muslims. See Bill of Rights. See Constitution.

Sex Education: When taught in schools, this is only possible means for children to learn how to properly use condoms in the belief that there is such a thing as safe sex. Before sex education, all children were at the mercy of their parents to pass along incorrect sexual mores and attitudes. See Marriage.

Tax: Redistribution of wealth. A means of controlling corporate greed and the rich. See Greed. See Rich.

Tea Party: A nefarious group of individuals whose sole purpose in life is to block progress and to kill all blacks, women, homosexuals, and anyone who disagrees with them. Usually associated with Republicans unless Republicans don't agree with Democrats. Then the Tea Party becomes the evil drive behind Republican power. Also known as teabaggers. See Conservatives. See Republicans.

The One: See Barack Obama.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: A group of people who, if properly educated and who would give up religion, would become liberals. See Religion.

Washington Redskins: A football team whose sole purpose is to denigrate Native Americans and be a symbol of US empiricism.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Offending the Innocents - Gay Adoption and the Destruction of the Family

BJ and Frankie, two homosexual men wanted to reproduce so badly that they arranged for a woman to be implanted with a fertilized egg (it wasn't her own), then waited nine months for their baby to pop out so they could claim him as their own. They named him Milo.

The gay community has gone viral over the publicity photos, showing how loving / caring / unselfish / happy / joyful / beautiful / hopeful / whatever / these two men are for really, really, really wanting a baby to prove that homosexual men can raise children.

As the men put it:
This is a moment of pure love and acceptance. Milo is surrounded by unconditional love and he will grow up knowing many different types of families and accept everyone (intolerant people included).
Because, of course, tolerance for homosexuality is the highest priority that parents can possibly teach a child. Just ask BJ and Frankie.

Most of the people who commented on the story about this unfortunate child go out of their way to gush over how beautiful the whole thing is. They go out of their way to express that two homosexual men buying a baby from a surrogate mother is possibly the most precious thing that has ever happened. (Of course they don't quite put it in those terms.)

All the positive comments talk about unconditional love or expressions of beauty, as if by the repetition they try to convince themselves that the immoral and the unethical are somehow good and right and beautiful.

The first thing that struck me with this whole promotion of "gay as the ultimate good," was the woman in the photo who had just given birth to her son. Yes, her son. We as a society have tried so hard to detach the woman from the responsibilities and care of our offspring, that we've invented medical procedures to ensure that adults, not the children, are the focus of procreation.

This woman had so little regard for children that she offered her body to be impregnated with someone else's fertilized egg, thus bypassing the entire sexual reproduction aspect of our biology as humans. She became an incubator for some other woman's egg.

How loving! How beautiful!

Then, with perhaps unselfish determination (helped along a bit by the hefty fee she can charge as a surrogate) she carried a child within her, only to send the little money maker along his way to his photo op, two dads, and a lifetime of indoctrination into the wisdom of homosexuality.

How amazing!

One of the dads donated some of his sperm to make the whole project come to fruition. It took modern medical procedures, scraping an egg from one woman, fertilizing it outside of the human body, and implanting it into a different woman, to produce a baby in order to hand it over to a couple of men to raise.

How caring!

It seems like a lot of effort to bypass biology in order to promote homosexuality.

The next thing that struck me was the absolute conviction among the gay community that children don't really need a mother and a father. In fact, comment after comment to this story included vitriolic hatred of heterosexual pairing and parenting.

Here's a quick example:
Before people start hating gay/lesbian parents, they should take a look at all the terrible straight parents that exist in this world. Fathers who leave their pregnant girlfriends, fathers who leave their family (with children) and to never talk to them again, mothers who leave their unwanted children, parents who mutually agree to leave their children, parents who beat up or even kill their own kids.
Basically, what these people argue is that because we have succeeded in destroying the family, the very foundations of our society, we should not judge others who want to live as homosexuals and have others make babies for them.

In other words, since the system's already broken, we have no right to criticize anyone for breaking the system even more.

How loving! How wonderful!

I realize only too well that in our modern society we have no choice but to accept families without moms or dads. But that should be the exception, rather than the rule. Single moms struggling to make ends meet should be uncommon, not the status quo. Fathers who run away from their responsibilities should be rare, and excoriated when they do abdicate responsibility. Parents who abuse their children will earn a special place in hell.

We have developed a selfish system, based not on the needs of the children in true acts of selflessness, but on the needs of the adults.

All who praised BJ and Frankie for their "unconditional love" praised them, not the child. The story was a story about the adults, not the child. The gushing attitude of these men's admirers spoke of goodness and lovingness, as if two men deciding to make someone else have a baby for them was the height of human endeavor.

That these two men and their photographer made this a public statement praising homosexuality proves that their actions were dictated by the selfish desire to promote themselves with no regard to the innocent child.

How sweet!

When BJ and Frankie decided to have someone else make a baby for them, they made the conscious decision to exclude a mother. Oh, I'm certain they'll try to make amends for that lack with one or the other (or both) pretending to replace the mother. They'll try everything they can to fill the void they know is there, simply because they decided to deny this innocent child the benefit of having a mother.

And that is at the heart of the big lies of leftwing dogma regarding homosexuality. We, as a people, must ignore our very natures as men and women in order to validate the selfish desires of men and women who willingly deny children a mother or a father.

Is this really in the best interests of our society, or is this a publicity stunt to once again attempt to convince people that adult selfish desires trump the wellbeing and consideration of future generations?

The truth is that children who are raised by both a mother and a father have a better chance to produce and nurture the next generation of children. Leftwing dogmas would preach that the opposite is true.

Families that lose a mother or father or both, rather than being the norm, should be the exception. The extended family can assist. Christian churches used to provide many social structures to help raise children to become part of a functioning society.

Rather than convincing ourselves by repeating overbearing and gushing platitudes that two dads and a surrogate woman give a child the best chance at becoming a good person, we should consider that perhaps, just perhaps, biology and thousands of years of social mores actually has something to do with producing the next generation of children.

Friday, July 4, 2014

How About this Independence Day We Celebrate by Opposing Government Tyranny?

How will you be celebrating Independence Day?

Signing of the Declaration of Independence

Washington Crossing the Delaware

Fife and Drum

Surrender of Lord Cornwallis

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Obama's Blame Thrower

In the movie Mystery Men, Dr. Heller invents a weapon called a Blame Thrower. When activated, it causes anyone in its path to start blaming others. The blame throwing gets more and more heated with no one taking responsibility.

This past week, Obama once again pulled out the Blame Thrower, taking aim against Republicans and conservatives, something he's been doing his entire administration. Here's his latest example from a speech given in Minneapolis:
We can't afford to wait for Congress right now. That's why I'm going ahead and moving ahead without them wherever I can. 
They're not doing anything, and then they're mad that I'm doing something. I'm not sure which of the things I've done they find most offensive, but they've decided they're going to sue me for doing my job. 
Obama's Blame Thrower tactics have now turned to disregarding Congress - the representation of the people of the US. Instead, claiming the moral authority of his own self delusion, he is now taken on himself the task of creating law.

What really ticks me off about Obama and the current administration is Obama's utter disregard, disrespect, and denigration for anyone in the US who doesn't think like him. This is the heart of neo-liberal dogma - the abuse and denigration of anyone who doesn't agree with the neolib agenda.

Obama accuses "the other side" of not being able to think for themselves. Doesn't this smack just a wee bit of duplicity? In effect, he's saying "If you agree with me, you're thinking for yourself. If you disagree with me, you've obviously been brainwashed."

There are few presidents in the US who have had such little regard for the citizens of the US. Barack Obama tops the list.