A gun control lesson for Liberals

I've tried so many times to try and explain to liberals why their views on gun control are so misguided. But I just don't seem to be making much headway. Perhaps I'm using too many big words. So for those of you who have a similar problem educating your libtard friends, I'm going to try here just one more time.  If you're going to make an argument with a lib about gun control, it's best to come well armed. Pun intended. Try these next time.

"People are being killed by guns."

Yes, they are. (Then again, even more people are being killed by cars.) But ask yourself, who is doing the killing? Mostly people who didn't get their guns legally. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Is it working? Nope. Last year over 500 murders were committed in Chi-town.  Chicago Police say the influx and usage of illegal guns is of "epidemic proportions". Their words. Those murders aren't being committed by legal gun owners. Why aren't the gun laws there working? The criminal element doesn't care about laws. That's why they're criminals. Heroin, pot, crack and prostitution are also illegal. Yet in most places you can get all of them in about an hour from your home. Prohibition was illegal too. How'd that work out?

"A child is more likely to die or be injured by a gun when it's in the home."
Uh huh. And you're more likely to fall down stairs in a split level home than a ranch home. But the number one cause of children's death in the home is accidental drowning. That includes drowning in bathtubs, pools, toilets and buckets. Yes, buckets. On average, 87 children a year will drown in a bucket. Do you want the government dictating bucket diameter and liquid capacity? The number one place children die is in an automobile accident. We've got plenty of laws regarding cars. Of course, we could ban cars, then no child would die in a car crash.

"But if only the military and Police had guns, we'd be safer."
Britain banned private ownership of guns in 2005. Gun crimes increased 500%. Again, the criminal element will always get their hands on guns just like illegal drug, etc.  All this does is disarm the law abiding public. Does that make you safer?

"Nobody needs a 30 round gun magazine."
Says who? Nobody needs a large V8 engine or motor home. Nobody needs a 60 inch plasma TV.  Nobody needs a 3000 sq. ft. home either. For that matter, no one needs a plethora of specific things. Who gets to decide? A large capacity magazine can be used in hunting or self defense. Besides, a 30 round magazine in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone. A 7 round magazine in the hands of a criminal or nut job is quite dangerous. I can fire my personal 15 round magazine, drop the empty, reload a second 15 round magazine and empty that one in about 25 seconds - on a bad day. That's "30" rounds. But I'm no threat to anyone whose not a threat to me.

"Assault rifles should be banned."
Good News! Assault rifles are banned for private ownership. The fact is the rifles you see depicted in the news (AR-15's) are not Assault Rifles. (And no, "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for Armalite, the company who developed the piece) A true assault rifle would have to be a fully automatic weapon. Meaning if you keep the trigger depressed, the rifle keeps firing. (Think machine gun) Those weapons have been illegal for private ownership since the 1930's. You must pull an AR-15's trigger every time you want to fire a round - just like every other firearm.

"But those assault rifles look so intimidating."
So does the hot blonde at the end of the bar. So? You can paint racing stripes on a Pinto but that doesn't make it a race car, does it. The so-called assault rifles you speak of just have the look of a true military assault rifle. A black plastic stock vs. a walnut one doesn't make the rifle anymore murderous.

"The 2nd Amendment is antiquated. You don't have to hunt for your dinner anymore."
Read virtually anything by the founding fathers regarding private gun ownership. Washington, Mason, Madison, Jefferson. Not once do they mention hunting quail. They were very adamant - guns in the hands of the people keep them safe from both criminals and a tyrannical government. They mistrusted government which is why they wanted it to be limited. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure why that's so difficult for some people to grasp?

"But the founders never imagine multi-round magazines"
They probably never imagined rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks and drones at the government's disposal either. So what's your point?

"There are just too many people killed by guns."
The number one manner in which people are killed in the U.S.is car accidents - 40,000 a year. Over 3500 children are aborted every day. Nobody can defend themselves with a Chevy Malibu or aborted fetus. But I can defend myself with a Ruger 9mm.

"Wouldn't limiting magazine capacity make sense?"
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo seems to think so though. Magazine capacity there is now limited to 7 rounds. I'm sure the wack jobs and criminals will pay heed to that new regulation. Right? What happens when someone is killed by a 7 round max firearm? Do we reduce capacity to 5? Then 3? How about only allowing single shot muskets?

"Why does the NRA fight these regulations? They appear to make sense."
Things aren't always what they appear to be. Laws designed to keep us safe, usually don't. They just restrict us and create the illusion of safety. What happens after magazine capacity is reduced? The anti-gun crowd is already targeting specific firearms. It wont be long before they'll want to restrict certain caliber guns. South American countries do. They don't allow calibers higher than what the military uses. Say good-bye to .45, .40 and 9mm guns. Before you know it, we'll only have guns powerful enough to kill backyard rabbits and that's about all. Though the bad guys will still be able to get all the firepower they want. Gun confiscation will not come in one swoop. It will be incremental. And every right lost will be a right lost for good.

Maybe none of these arguments will work. Libs are like Windows 8. They come pre-loaded and it's difficult to uninstall certain programs. If nothing else, you'll enjoy that stupid look on their face when they have no legitimate comeback.













 

Send money, guns and lawyers. But mostly the first two.

Today former Senator and Lerch impersonator, John Kerry brought a welcome basket of goodies to the Egyptian leader, Mohamed Morsi. First he tucked a check for $250 million in Morsi's pocket. And as if that weren't generous enough, the Obama administration is giving (yes, giving, not selling) 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abram tanks. Hey, Libs! Just think how many poor Detroit kids we could send to new schools with that money? Yeah. So, we give money and arms to a Islamic - Fascist regime with strong factions who hate us, Israel and virtually everyone else who don't require their women to cover their faces in public. What could possibly go wrong?
Seems to me I remember the Democrats talking big chew about how the weapons we gave Saddam Hussein in the 1980's could be used against us during the Gulf War. Suddenly an epidemic of amnesia sweeps Washington.
Now, admittedly I don't possess the incredible intellect of our Commander-in-Chief, but for the life of me I can't see the advantage of arming a country with an extremely shaky government with modern weapons of war. Plus I don't think the new tenants care much for the neighbors named, Israel. So, we're arming a potential adversary of our best friend. Could someone please explain it to me?  And isn't this kinda' like nation building?
 Apparently Barack and his Democratic party henchmen don't trust you with a 15 capacity magazine for your 9mm handgun, but thinks it's all lolly pops and sunshine to give the Muslim Brotherhood tanks. The President and his allies wants a national background check on any American who purchases a gun. Seems to me they neglected to do a proper background check on the new Egyptian regime.

These are the people Obama DIDN'T trot out when discussing gun violence.

If you want to make a political point, there's no better way to do so than by parading victims in front of the cameras. At least that's what Obama thought tonight during the "annual reading of the TelePrompter". Parents of children who were killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting were trotted out to elicit sympathy for the President's gun control plans. While everyone sympathizes with the grieving families, this sort of theater has no place when discussing serious legislation regarding the 2nd amendment. But if you are going to have a serious discussion, and if you are going to use people as props, why not include people who have had all kinds of experiences with guns and violence?

For instance, we didn't see 71 year old Samuel Williams who defended himself and everyone in an Ocala, Florida Internet Café on July 18, 2012, when two thugs stormed in, brandished a gun and attempted to rob patrons at gunpoint. Mr. Williams withdrew his legally concealed pistol, fired at the armed intruders and potentially saved lives. (The goons ran out of the establishment like scared rabbits) They were later apprehended.
Nor did you see Debi Keeney, 47 of Highland, Missouri. She shot an intruder who forced his way into her apartment at 3 a.m. and threatened her 55 year old wheelchair bound sister. Debi didn't much enjoy watching her sister turn blue as the assailant choked her sister while demanding money - so she shot the SOB. Must have come as quite a surprise to the guy.
You also didn't see the Loganville, Georgia woman whose house was invaded by 32 year old Paul Slater. Mr. Slater, who has been arrested 6 times since 2008 and was recently released from prison, thought it would be a good idea to use a crowbar and break into the home's front door. He was mistaken. The woman had her two small children at home. She withdrew to a home office area in an attempt to hide from Slater. He entered the room and she promptly fired 5 shots, several of them entering Paul's face. Oooh! Unless you're Superman, that's gotta' hurt!
Last June in Phoenix, Arizona a 14 year old boy who was babysitting his siblings ages 8,10 and 12 shot a home intruder. The 37 year old intruder was armed but never got a shot off. The teen grabbed his father's 38 revolver and shot the scumbag as he charged the boy. This happened in an upper-middle class neighborhood at 4:30 in the afternoon. The youngster didn't appear during the State of the Union address either.

In all of the above mentioned instances, the potential victims used guns to save either themselves, loved ones or innocent strangers from imminent carnage. But such usage of legally owned firearms wasn't even mentioned. This President much prefers the adoration of victim hood. Those innocents in Connecticut last December were victims. But he wont discuss the non-victims I just did, because they don't fit into his arguments and ideology. Facts be dammed. While we mourn the loss of innocent life, we apparently don't celebrate the saving of innocent life when a gun is involved. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Yes, it can take a life. But so can a hammer. And last year more people were murdered by hammers than so-called assault rifles. Yet no one is considering limiting the sale, size or weight of hammers. Well, not yet.

Think your vote counts? Think again.

 

The Electoral College. It's suppose to give the appearance of an obvious winner by way of awarding states in total to the Presidential candidate who manages to get one more vote than the other guy. My state, Pennsylvania has recently begun discussions about awarding our electoral college votes proportionally. A few states currently do this. And I've come to think it makes a lot of sense. The map above represents the county by county votes for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Gov. Romney is represented in red. If you didn't know any better, you might assume he won handily. He didn't. Although he won the majority of counties, we don't award electoral votes by winning counties. Neither am I suggesting we do. But if you live in Pennsylvania like me and you voted for Mitt Romney, your vote was ignored. Never mind that millions on Pennsylvanians voted for Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor was awarded "0" electoral votes. In other words, our votes were ignored. There's no other way to look at it. Had votes been awarded proportionally, Barack Obama would have received 12 electoral votes and Mitt Romney, 8. Sounds fair to me. Mr. Obama didn't earn 100% of the votes, so why should get them?

Republicans have virtually no chance of winning states like California and New York. These two electoral laden states give Democrats a tremendous advantage in national elections. It's no wonder the Dems don't want to make any changes. They're already calling possible proportional distribution of electoral votes "vote rigging". Uh huh. What they really mean is, the system as it currently works to their advantage. So why would they want it changed? As it now stands, Florida and Ohio usually decide Presidential elections. Virtually every other state is pretty much spoken for. So why bother voting if you don't live in the Sunshine or Buckeye state?

Even if proportional votes were awarded in every state, Barack Obama still would have won in November - though it would have much closer and more accurately represented the voting wishes of the American populous. Plus every voter in every state would have their vote actually matter. So proportional voting isn't about changing election results, it's about registering and making every one's vote count. That's usually the Democrat's rally cry. But not in this case because it doesn't work to their advantage. I could make the argument that NOT to enact proportional distribution of electoral votes is racist. (There's that word) Think about it. Philadelphia has a large black voting population. Pittsburgh is overly represented in a similar way. Blacks vote consistently and overwhelmingly Democratic. Because of a large population in those two cities, as they go - Pennsylvania goes. Since Republicans do quite well in the state outside of those two regions, white votes go unrecognized and therefore - unrewarded. Philly and Pittsburgh essential decide who gets all 20 electoral votes. Hardly seems fair, does it? Proportional votes would solve this problem.

The status quo in politics usually wins. So I'm not optimistic these changes are on the verge of happening. Still, the GOP currently holds the Governor and state assembly's in the Keystone state. So if it were ever to happen, now would be a good time. And if the Dems have taught us anything, it's that once you obtain political advantage - use it!

Is it finally time to ban cars?

Carnage. There's no other word to describe it. Each year 40,000 Americans lose their lives on America's roadways. Approximately 95 every single day. Of that 95, at least 5 are children under the age of 15. That means that the death total of the Newtown school murders is achieved every single week via an automobile. Yet there are no protests to ban cars, limit the amount of cars a person could own or reduce the number of cylinders a car should have. After all, who really needs a 350 horse power engine, right? I checked the Constitution. There is no mention of the right to keep and bear a motorized vehicle. A ridiculous comparison? Well, you may think so but if the real reason behind gun control is to save lives and not disarm a responsible gun owning populous, we should be seeing massive protest in favor of "car control". But we're not.

An adult or child is far more likely to be injured or lose their life in a car accident than by a firearm. That's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. So if the fact that a child is more likely to drown in a bucket in their own home, than injured by a gun. 30 children a year die this way. What are we to do? Limit the width and liquid capacity of buckets? Almost 1000 kids a year will drown in various ways. Most within their own home. Tragic? Of course. But we already have a ton of federal, state and municipal laws enacted to keep children and adults safe from drowning. Laws don't save lives. Only common sense and personal responsibility can do that.

Some are willing to accept the fact that accidents do happen. And that no matter how hard we try, innocents will die in car accidents, boating accidents, drownings, falls and various other ways. I'm one of those people. We can and must try to limit such deaths. But we must also admit there is a limit as to how much success we'll have. Common sense and acts of God cannot be legislated. Dissolving or altering the Constitution cannot wipe away human error or change the human heart. We have to live in the real world not a theoretical one. The theoretical world would tell us that banning all firearms would make us safe from gun violence. But reality would suggest that banning or making certain activities illegal don't work. Prohibition failed miserably. Even today, though cocaine, marijuana, heroin and prostitution are all illegal - all of them can be had within and 20 minutes of where you live, no matter where you live.  Laws? Those who engage in such activities don't give a damn about laws. You think they're going to follow gun laws?

We live in a dangerous world. Acts of insane violence cannot be stopped by well meaning, though ineffective laws anymore than speed limits or stop signs reduce car accident deaths. Human nature and human error will interfere with the best of our intentions. Just as selfish drivers will blow through stop signs, exceed speed limit or tailgate at high speeds - so will those bent on destruction use a firearm to inflict carnage. It is not popular to use these analogies, but it is correct to do so. And because I know there are those who will use such weapons in their efforts of destruction, I choose to remain armed. For the same reason I purchase car insurance hoping that I never have to use it, I buy guns. Disarming or limiting my capacity to defend myself does not keep you safer. But going after those who would be dangerous to both you and I, would. That is where our efforts must be focused. Happy motoring.

The Constitution: Is it outdated for the 21st century?

Liberal "nut wank" Bill Mahr notwithstanding, some have questioned the relevance of the U.S. Constitution in modern times. After all, it was written by men (and only men) at a time when the populous was mostly uneducated and unsophisticated about matters of government and individual rights. (some things haven't changed much). While the Declaration Of Independence is the flowery manifesto of American independence, the Constitution is the user guide how to make the American experiment work. Written at a time when the leading technology was bees waxed candles, the nuts and bolts workings of the constitution are timeless. Sadly, I've even heard a few conservatives question the relevancy of the constitution these days - to the point of suggesting it may be time for a new U.S. Constitution to reflect the changing times. They are wrong.

We need not attempt to create it's successor. The constitution is the blueprint for national and individual success. But the constitution is not a "living document" as some would have you believe. It is stone. It cannot be re-interpreted for the convenience of the moment or partisan political whims. For instance, the founders knew the failings of human nature. That's why the 1st and 2nd amendments are what they are. Freedom of speech (and religion) along with the right of free men to bear arms, are the two most important amendments. They knew that a free society, a Representative Republic as we are, would require individual freedoms to protect its longevity. And they feared that a tyrannical government, even a freely elected one, could run roughshod over the people. The people would need the tools to make certain that didn't happen. And if it did, the people would have the means to throw off the shackles that enslaved them. Those two amendment guarantee and make certain that ability lies with the people.

The problem isn't with the Constitution. It's with those who find the Constitution too restraining. Well, it's supposed to be restraining. While it allows for new amendments when required, it has rock solid purpose and clearly definable law. Amendments are not to be added or changed willy-nilly. That's why it requires the government to run the gauntlet of procedures in order to change or add an amendment. The Constitution is specifically designed to restrain government, not promote it's expansion. It exists to limit the power, size and scope of the federal government. Hence, the 10th amendment which reserves significant power to the states - which the federal government has usurped in the last 100 plus years. Take some time to read the 10th amendment, then tell me if you think the federal government has overstepped it's intent. Uh huh.

Unlike other country's constitutions, ours doesn't approach the rights of the people as being granted by the government. The founders recognized that any right that can be granted by the government, can be taken by that same government. They understood that rights granted by God, cannot be taken by man. Hence the phase unalienable rights. The approach was different from anything prior. The constitution also lays out the format for electing officials, which branch of government has what powers and the mechanisms for a functioning republic. It is often clumsy but it does work. And it would work much better if certain people would let it alone. The current President uses Executive Orders as a way to bypass congress which is clearly the legislative branch of government. The President's ability to use Executive Orders and actions were never intended to circumvent congress and create defacto law. Sadly, he's not the first Chief Executive to do this.

We have been given a great gift. That gift must be protected from those who would use it for partisan purposes. And to do that properly, it must be understood. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But you don't have to be one to appreciate the simplicity and grandeur of our constitution. It's really quite a simple read. The founders meant what the said and said what they meant. It's written in ink and paid for in blood. And designed for a free people who will cherish and protect it. It will endure long after you and I are gone just as it was intended. Written for the ages, it requires no rewrite. It just needs to be followed.

7 is the new 30. At least where guns in N.Y. are concerned in New York

New York state Governor, Andrew Cuomo (D) announced sweeping new gun control laws in his state. Among the new laws was one that limits a gun's magazine capacity to 7 rounds. If you've been wondering what the "safe number" of rounds in a gun is - apparently it's "ten" - at least according to the New York Governor. Empire State residents can now rest easy. Your neighbors will no longer be menacing you with a 30 round magazine in their rifles. Of course, this new law doesn't apply to the criminal element of New York seeing how they have been very disrespectful to gun laws to date.

My semi-auto Ruger 9mm handgun holds 15 rounds in it's magazine. If I wanted to, I could fire those 15 rounds, drop the magazine, insert another and rip off another 15 rounds in about 2 seconds longer than a full 30 round magazine could. This legislation was intended to make citizens feel safer. Well, do you? Of course not, because its all window dressing. A law abiding citizen with a 30 round magazine is a threat to no one - except someone intent on harming him. However, a criminal with a 5 round magazine is a threat to all of us. Then again, so is a criminal with a knife, harpoon, bowling pin, coffee grinder or spatula. There is no safe number of rounds in a magazine in the hands of a demented person, gangbanger or punkass criminal. Your elected officials would have you think otherwise.

Along with some states, the Obama regime will attempt to force more gun laws in an attempt to reduce violent gun deaths. Unfortunately, the overwhelming amount of these new regulations will be aimed at the law abiding gun owner - not those who are actually committing these deaths. Chicago had over 500 gun related deaths in 2012. How many do you think were committed with legally owned firearms? Very, very few because gun laws in the windy city are among the strictest in the nation. Its the criminal element that is causing these deaths. And so-called high capacity "assault weapons" account for less than half of 1% of ALL gun related deaths. Yet you would be led to believe its astronomical. Why are they so focused on these weapons? Facts are stubborn things, seldom reflecting the viewpoint of the anti-gun lobby. But they are facts non-the-less.

Some don't understand why a large capacity magazine is necessary. For me, the argument is simple. If 30 round mags are made illegal, gun deaths wont go down because as stated prior, criminals don't obey laws. Limiting people to 7 round mags wont help either for the exact same reason. Eventually some well meaning liberal politicians will suggest that only 5 round magazines should be legal - with the same results. When these efforts fail - and they will, what will they want next? I shudder to think. And that's why the line must be drawn here.

Its been estimated that criminal activity is thwarted anywhere from 1 to 2 million times a year in the U.S. just by an armed citizen presenting a firearm in their defense. Liberals will say that number is grossly exaggerated. Fine. Then even if we use the "official" number that law enforcement uses, we're still approaching 500,000. (The discrepancy is that often people don't "report" their experiences to law enforcement) You may wish to remain unarmed and that's fine with me. But I will not surrender my constitutional rights - none of them and especially the 2nd amendment. It is the one that assure the others will survive. Nor will I rely upon the reaction time of the police to come to my aid should I need them. The amount of time it takes the Police to respond to a 911 call is 14 minutes. My bullet travels at 1200 feet per second. When time is of the essence, which one would you want to rely upon?

Senator Obama voted against the 2006 debt ceiling. Cites "failed leadership"

A long, long time ago  (2006) in a galaxy... well right here, Senator Barack Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt limit. But it gets better. He cited the "failed leadership" of the current administration. You can't make this shit up. Fortunately, we don't have to. Barry keeps forgetting that the Internet forgets nothing and we have access to it. But also voting against it back then were a couple of rodeo clowns with the last names of Reid, Biden and Schumer. Their reason? We just can't keep spending above our means. Then they vote for any and all kinds of spending when one of their own gets in the big house. But a trillion here a trillion there, next thing you know we're talkin' real money.

Now Obama uses fear (yes, again) to get what he wants. And what does he want? Spending. More spending. He's as predictable as he is consistent. At today's press conference he tells America that if the debt limit isn't raised, seniors may not get their Social Security checks and veterans may not have access to the care they deserve. At no time did he say that he and members of congress wouldn't get paid. (Gotta' have priorities)  The GOP offers to raise the debt limit but they want some spending cuts. Barry says "oh noooooooo". Can't reduce spending now. Millions of non-tax paying Americans are depending on him spending money we don't have. We have a $16.3 trillion national debt. A $1.1 trillion budget deficit and he says we can't cut a dime. Nope!

In government's infinite wisdom, departmental spending is automatically raised 5% each year. Do you get a mandatory 5% raise every year? The GOP wanted to reduce the mandatory increases. The big "O" said NO. The federal government just can't do without that additional yearly increase. Nope! They just can't! Not that they tried, mind you. Obama will demonize anyone who wants to reduce spending and who else would that be besides those dastardly Republicans. I still can't believe more than half of America voted to re-elect this train wreck. But from what I've heard, there's a coronation, err, uh inauguration next week. And you're paying for some of that too. Hey, it's only money.

Liberal hypocrisy finds a home in suburban New York.

Two New York county suburban newspapers decided to get cute last week and post the names of legal gun permit holders. Fabulous. They article was named "The gun owner next door. What you don't know about weapons in your neighborhood". 44,000 people are licensed to own handguns in the three counties mentioned. (Permits are not necessary for shotguns and rifles there) This was done in an effort, so the story goes, to make Putman and Westchester county residents safer by being more knowledgeable about who has guns in their neighborhoods. Of course what would really make those residents safer is to know who the illegal gun owners are. But alas, illegal gun owners, i.e. gangbangers, rapists, thieves, carjackers, convenience store robbers and home invasion perpetrators don't register their guns. (That's why they're called "illegal". See how that works?) 

This was an effort to embarrass and expose people who have committed no crime other than legally exercise a specific constitutional right - which apparently annoys these two suburban newspapers. But these papers actually put every non-gun owner in Putnam and Westchester counties at risk. Now the criminal element knows exactly which homes and families are not defended. Should any of these non-gun homes be robbed or homeowners attacked, I hope the homeowners attempt to sue the newspapers for putting them at risk. As for me, I wouldn't mind at all if my local newspapers printed my name as a gun owner. In fact, they could print that I also have a concealed carry weapon permit. That way the vermin out there would know I'm not an easy mark. I might be armed today. Or perhaps I'm not. They've got a 50-50 chance against me. And should they attempt entry into my home, their ratio at success drops considerably.

These newspapers would find it insulting if an organization of an opposing viewpoint were to list the names and addresses of citizens whose activities they opposed. But in a moment of ultimate hypocrisy, the newspapers have employed armed guards to protect them since the names were listed. Even though no actual threats were made. Liberal hypocrisies. They're everywhere. You don't even have to look hard.

Can we finally say the "S" word?

The handwriting on the wall was so easy to see. So legible. But so many just didn't want to see it. I have resisted using the "S" word for four years but no more. Now I shall call him exactly what he really is. I say it loud, proud and without reservation. "Barack Obama is a Socialist!"  If anyone had even the slightest of doubts, it was vanquished today when he agreed to increase spending by $680 billion and taxes by $60 billion. We are now guaranteed $1 trillion annual deficits forever - something unheard of before the Emperor Obama's reign. George W. Bush was criticized by Obama for having a $480 billion deficit. That looks pretty tame now, doesn't it. Barack Obama doesn't care a wit about deficit spending. It doesn't even show up on his radar of concerns. He is only interested in expanding the size, scope and intrusion of the federal government at any and all cost, so he can continue his "social justice" campaign.

The rich, now defined as those making over $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes but so will you. The Payroll tax hike will cost you more. Obamacare taxes will start showing up everywhere starting January 1, 2013, costing you more. Taxes are increasing in hidden places that will affect middle America like never before. But hey, this is what 51% voted for and elections have consequences. Obama promised a class warfare. You just didn't expect you would be part of the class he was waging battle on, did you? Every campaign based on fear needs a boogieman. For Obama, that was the rich. They weren't paying enough and he was going to make sure they did. Well, he got his tax increases on the rich and you weren't even collateral damage. He planned on taking up your tax burden all the time. After all, anyone with half a frontal lobe could figure out that hiking taxes on the top 2% wasn't enough to balance the sheets. In fact, that wouldn't even come close. So you had to kick in some bucks too. But here's the kicker - even with the increased revenue, he's still going to increase spending by $680 billion and borrow 46 cents of every dollar we spend. Up from 40 cents just 2 years ago. And he ain't done yet.

 The Emperor has no interest in controlling spending. He never did. His agenda is to spend us into social justice nirvana. By the end of his reign, our national debt will exceed $21 trillion. Just to jog your memory, it was $9 trillion when he took office. When the debt reaches $25 trillion, many economists say that's the level at which our debt will be unsustainable. Hyper inflation will take over. Drastic measures may need to be introduced and I can guarantee you these are not measures anyone is going to like nor want. At least you got free birth control. I hope it was worth it.

The myth of the high capacity gun magazine

NBC News personality, David Gregory got into a little hot water Sunday, when he displayed a 30 round capacity magazine while interviewing NRA President , Wayne LaPierre. Oooh. That's a big no-no as Washington D.C. outlawed gun magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Mr. Gregory could be in some trouble as NBC claims the magazine wasn't purchased on their behalf for the news show. Is it his own magazine? David is not very pro-gun. So where did he get the magazine? Is it his own? Did he buy it "hot" from the streets. He got some splain'in to do. But I doubt a good liberal like David Gregory will get into much trouble. Somehow he'll walk away from this without even a slap on the wrists. But the bigger question here is about the high capacity magazine itself.

30 rounds. Who needs 30 rounds readily available, right? Well, in places like D.C., N.Y. and California, magazine capacities are regulated and may not exceed 10 rounds. That should be much safer. The logic being employed here is that some nut job couldn't be able to reek as much havoc with magazines that held less ammunition. As a semi-automatic gun owner whose gun magazines hold 15 rounds, I can assure you that I and most people could fire the 15 rounds, eject the empty magazine, reload another magazine and fire an additional 15 rounds in under 20 seconds. 25 seconds on a bad day. The difference is that I as a responsible gun owner am no threat to anyone not threatening me. A misguided nut job can inflict mayhem with one 30 round mag or two 15 round clips. If you think even a 15 round mag is unwarranted, then how about a 10 round one? The time it takes to empty three 10 round mags is longer - but not by much. Perhaps we should max out magazine capacity at 6, like the ol' six shooters of old West. Then again, maybe single shot muskets would be safer yet. Of course we won our Independence from a major world power using muskets, so perhaps they're too lethal as well.

The amount of rounds readily available in any firearm is inconsequential. Its the person using the firearm that matters most. Robert Kennedy was slain with a eight shot capacity .22 caliber gun. His brother, Jack with a 5 round bolt action (non semi-automatic) rifle (Only 3 shots were actually fired). Abraham Lincoln with a single shot Derringer. Martin Luther King died at the hands of a relatively small caliber "pump action" rifle. While large capacity magazines get a lot of attention, they are seldom used in robberies, home invasions or most criminal activities. The tragedy in Connecticut was an exception. Tragic, yes. But still the exception. over 400 people have been murdered in Chicago this year. None by high capacity magazine guns. The criminal element prefers smaller capacity handguns. So-called assault weapon inflicted deaths account for less than 2% of the total gun related deaths. So why is such attention given to what is obviously a minor role player in gun related deaths?

Well, large capacity magazines are scary. And an argument as to who may actually need one is an easy to make - just like a scary looking rifle some insist calling a scary name like "assault" rifle. If you're looking to make inroads into eventually disarming America, you start with the easy low hanging fruit. Once you can ban one type of gun or one kind of magazine, the ball is easier to keep rolling. Next will be certain types of handguns. Certain kinds of rifles, so on and so on. Then one day you wake up and the Feds tell you how long your butter knives are allowed to be. Yeah, it may sound ridiculous. But so is the myth that says we'll all be safer with guns that carry less than 10 rounds.

Amid tragedy, the anti-gun lobby promotes a misguided agenda.

 

 

A madman. Mentally sick perhaps. But definitely a madman. One can only imagine the mind that would plan an attack upon the most innocent of us. 28 people murdered. 20 of them children, their lives snuffed out far too soon. What could motivate someone to such a heinous act? We may never know. In the days and weeks that follow, more information will become available. Though nothing that is learned will change the events and loss of today. And nothing learned will make a bit of sense - because nothing learned could ever validate the act. His motivation known only to him.

It didn't take long for the anti-gun lobby to use this tragedy to advance their agenda. Already they call for more gun control. More limits on weapon purchases. More limits on how much ammunition can be bought. More limits on concealed-carry permits. More this, more that. But nothing they propose would make any difference because nothing they propose will limit evil acts by evil persons - motivated by thoughts so unfathomable, good people could not imagine them. While true, a gun can inflict more damage than most other weapons, more children die each year in the United States by drowning in backyard pools. Yet I hear no outrage that suggests banning pools or at the very least, limiting how much water can be introduced into a pool, or how many pools an individual can purchase in a given month. More children will die in car accidents this year than by guns - far more. And sadly, more children will die this year at the hands of their parents. And in the overwhelming majority of those cases, death wont be administered by a gun. Then why the preoccupation with firearms?

The right to bear arms is sacred. The founding fathers thought so highly of it, they place it only second behind the right to free speech in our constitution. They understood the necessity of a free people to be able to defend themselves against a criminal element and a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said should he have only one option - he'd choose the right to bear arms over the right to free speech - knowing that the second amendment could secure the first, but not the other way around.

Disturbed individuals will perform disturbing acts. These acts will occur with or without the aid of a firearm. The Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 took 168 lives. Yet no gun was employed in the tragedy. A rental truck and fertilizer did the deed. Evil, deranged individuals will find inventive ways to reek pain and destruction. In 1978, Reverend Jim Jones was the author of 914 deaths by suicide, 200 were children. They willingly followed a madman into death. In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children in the family bathtub. In 1994, Susan Smith drowned her own kids by driving her car into a lake, falsely claiming she was carjacked. And these are the high profile cases we've heard about. Many more never get national or international acclaim but their acts are just as shocking and gruesome.

 Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number. Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success." Lesson learned? Bad guys don't like an armed populous.

In Pearl, Miss., a gunman who killed two students and wounded seven at a high school was stopped by an assistant principal, who rushed to his car and got his gun. The assistant principal, running back with his .45, spotted the rifle-carrying shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal held his gun to the shooter's neck until police arrived.
 In Salt Lake City, a man purchased a knife in a grocery store, walked outside and stabbed and critically injured two men. He was threatening others, when a store patron with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun, forced the attacker to the ground and held him until police arrived.
 In Grundy, Va., a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension at Appalachian School of Law shot and killed the dean, a professor and a fellow student. Two students, both off-duty peace officers, ran to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to halt the attack.
 No one knows whether Aurora would have turned out differently had there been an armed patron or two inside the theater. But at the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, where 32 people died, there was a no-guns policy – just as, apparently, at the movie theater in Aurora.

Most schools have a "no gun zone" policy and post signs that say so.  While that may seem to make sense, it doesn't. Crazy people bent on destruction don't give a damn about signs. Those signs just limit sane people from defending themselves and others. Over the next few weeks and months, we'll see proposed legislation at the state and federal level meant to keep us safe from gun related deaths. But what they will produce are new laws that law abiding citizens will be forced to follow and reject nut jobs will ignore. The new laws may make you feel safer but will have little positive effect except to disarm those who should remain armed and vigilant. As for me, I choose to remain armed. I use my firearm as I use my car insurance. I hope never to use or need it. But would not think of moving through life without it.

Obama holds us all hostage. And the ransom is $80 billion

Unless you're living on the dark side of Saturn's moon, Titan - you must know that unless the President and congress agree to a new tax and revenue plan before the end of the year, all of our taxes will go up on January 1st. The President has laid out his plan. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, $80 billion in new stimulus spending in 2013, $600 billion in new spending programs and a clever budget gimmick that allows the administration to claim money NOT budgeted and NOT spent on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan to be counted as "savings". In addition, the Emperor er, uh President wants congress to give up their constitutional power to authorize a debt ceiling limit, so he may spend monies above what congress authorizes. Constitution? He don't need no stinking Constitution. I'll say this for the guy - he's got balls.

The big sticking point for Obama appears to be on the tax hike for the top 2%. He wants to take their top tax rate up from 35% to 39%. Since nobody feels sorry for rich people who pay the majority of federal taxes, it hard to garner any sympathy for them. The top 1% pay 37% of the fed's tax bill. The top 5% pay 51%. Still, it's not enough for Barack. If their rates are returned to 39%, it would generate an extra $80 billion a year in federal taxes - roughly enough money to fund the federal government for a week. Hardly seems worth sending us over the cliff for a lousy $80 billion. But Barry says he'll do it. So we're all in jeopardy of having our taxes go up over a stinkin' $80 billion. So what's that all about anyway?

Well, Mr. Obama knows that increasing taxes on the rich wont have any beneficial effect on the country's balance sheet. In fact, it will probably hurt employment opportunities, costing companies revenue. But he's all about "fairness". If I had a dollar for every time I heard him say the word fairness when describing taxes, I could afford to pay the budget deficit myself. He was re-elected on the "fairness platform" and now he's got to reward his legions by following through on that class warfare promise. In exchange for increasing taxes on he job creators, Obama has promised Republicans that he will maybe, probably, perhaps and most possibly make $400 billion in unspecified cuts somewhere down the road...perhaps. All while not addressing entitlement programs that currently have $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities - in other words, money that is promised to people alive today for Social Security and Medicare and other entitlement benefits. News flash: We don't have $60 trillion and neither do the top 2%. It's so bad that if the government confiscated ALL the wealth of people making over $250,000 a year, it would only fund government expenditures for 4 months. Perhaps now you can see how raising taxes on the top 1% or even the top 52% wont solve our financial problems.

The GOP wants to keep the middle class tax rates intact as well as the top 2%. They also want to eliminate numerous tax exemptions and loop holes in exchange for keeping the top rates where their at. In addition, they want to address the entitlement mess by raising Social Security & Medicare eligibility ages for future retirees - just like the President's bipartisan Bowles-Simpson plan suggested. The Republicans also want to lower benefits for the wealthy and possibly employ means testing for the rich in an effort to extend the viability of those programs. You'd think Obama would embrace an offer like that, seeing how he hates the well-to-do so much. But no. He's got his sights on that not-so-massive $80 billion in extra revenue.

This tax situation has exposed Barack Obama to all those who are willing to open their eyes. He has no plan to preserve Social Security and Medicare for future retirees. No new ideas on how to resurrect a stagnant economy unless you like wasting more borrowed money for stimulus. Demonize the rich and play to the poor. Tax more. Spend even more. If this is what you voted for last month - you're an idiot. Sorry. Your class warfare plans won an election but cannot salvage a national fiscal nightmare. Maybe electing a guy who actually had a successful history in business would have been a better choice after all. Even though he was rich.

Gun sales soar post-election. But why?

 

Two weeks ago, I went to the Lehigh County Courthouse to apply for my concealed weapon permit. Yep, it's come to that. Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels threatened. The clerk at the Sheriff's office told me that the day following the November 6th elections, a record for conceal and carry permits set an all time Lehigh County record. Then on Thursday, the record was broken again. On Friday, Thursday's record was broken. I asked the clerk why she thought that was? She said since the explosion of requests directly followed the election - there may be a correlation. But being a government employee, didn't want to elaborate or offer personal opinions. Uh huh.

Two months earlier I bought a new 9mm semi-automatic pistol. I noticed that the gun sales at Cabella's that day appeared to be quite brisk. When I brought that to the gun dealer's attention, he peered over his reading glasses and said; "Yes.Yes, it has". Then added that the majority of the sales were to new gun owners - people who say they have never owned a gun before nor thought they ever would. Sturm-Ruger Firearms, the company that made my 9mm, saw their stock soar. Orders became so fierce that the company announced it will halt taking orders until they catch up on production. And Sturm-Ruger is not alone. Somethings obviously going on here. But what? I've I have owned numerous handguns since 1982. Everything from 22's to a 357 magnum. I enjoyed shooting them and I used them as home protection but sold all of them by the mid-nineties.  But about a year ago, I began seeing things I didn't like. And I bought my first handgun since 1992.

I see the tumult in places like Greece and elsewhere, where a government on the brink of bankruptcy sends people out in the streets. I see a $1 trillion annual deficit here in the United States, up from $480 billion just 4 short years ago. I see an America which refuses to take this economic ticking time bomb seriously. Witness the 2012 Presidential election where a candidate with a horrible economy gets re-elected anyway, by promising even more social spending and wealth redistribution - all paid for with money we don't have. I see violent crime up. And much of that crime by people with no apparent fear or care to their victims. It is quite possible I believe, that we as a nation and then the World, may experience a global financial meltdown. Should that happen, the have-nots will not be content to continue to do without. And they will come looking for those who have. And when they do, they may not ask politely. A family member of mine had an attempted break-in at their home. The attempt came while they were asleep in their beds. Only a late night bathroom visit interrupted the potential intruder. And they don't live in an inner city environment but rather an upscale rural development. My neighbor's home just two doors away had an attempted break-in last year. And this is before any financial crisis. My home is alarmed and now it's armed. The recent power-outages saw people do without the basics for weeks in some cases. Hurricane Sandy victims are still without power and basic services. If the government can't deal with the events of a natural disaster, what will they be able to provide in the event of a much larger catastrophe? I also recently bought an AM-FM-SW radio that operates on solar and crank power in the event of another natural or not so natural disaster. Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I was a Boy Scout once and I do believe in being prepared. But if I'm overreacting then so are millions of other people.

In the event of a disaster, you need to be able to rely upon yourself. Calling 911 may do you no good. And what seems improbable now may become reality tomorrow. On September 10, 2001, no one imagined that commercial aircraft would be used as missiles. What else may be improbable? And when the improbable happens - will you be able to provide your own security and safety? I'd rather not have to answer that question after an event. And neither should you.

Who is the Latino voter? And what does he want?

In the post-election scramble to find out why a sitting President with Barack Obama's dismal record can re-elected, many are pointing fingers at the emerging latino voter. To be sure, latinos are increasing in numbers and therefore, impact upon local and national elections. But who exactly are these latino voters? First of all, "latino" can mean people with ancestry from countries as far and diverse as Mexico, Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Honduras. Certainly, they can't all have the same agenda. And what is the makeup of the latino vote? In the United States it's mostly Mexican at 65%. Puerto Ricans are 2nd at 10%. The remainder follow in single digits. Most of the Mexican voters are congregated in the Southwest United States. There weren't enough Mexican-American voters in the states Romney lost that could have turned the election.Yesterday, someone suggested to me that Mitt Romney would have won the election had he chosen American born latino Florida Senator, Marco Rubio as his running mate. On the surface, that sounds plausible. But the reality tells a different story.

First, few elections are turned on the Vice-Presidential pick. This one would have be no different. I mean, honestly if that were the case, who would elect anybody with Joe "gaffe-a-minute" Biden on the ticket? Yet, America did. Twice. Secondly, Marco Rubio is of Cuban decent. That doesn't translate well to American-Mexican voters, even though most whites think any Latino in a storm will do. He probably would have secured Florida but that wasn't nearly enough to change the election results.

Many think immigration reform or lack of, is what dooms Republicans. Wrong again. Remember, Barack Obama's crackdown on illegals had sent more illegal aliens back home than Bush ever did. But that didn't seem to hurt him. Besides, Obama promised immigration reform since before he was elected in 2008 and produced nothing. No reforms at all. In fact, after the election it wasn't even on the administration's radar. Clearly, the latino voters weren't upset enough about that.

Regardless of what Republicans do, they seem to lose the latino vote. In 2004, the GOP garnered 44% of the latino vote. In 2004, it dropped to 31%. This year, it fell to 27%. Do they hold the GOP responsible for Obama returning their brethren back home in Border Patrol vans? Perhaps. But granting some sort of amnesty to the illegals doesn't seem to serve the GOP either. In 1986, then President Ronald Reagan essentially granted amnesty to 2 million illegals. Did that action make latinos friendly to the GOP? Nope. The percentage of latinos voting Republican has dropped every year since then. So how does an immigration reform program that asserts any form of amnesty help the GOP? Answer: "It doesn't". But the bigger question remains - what do most latinos want and is the Republican/Conservative ideology the place they can get it?

I hate to lump so many diverse people into any category. Its not fair. However, I believe that latinos are the "new blacks" of the Democratic party - voting almost exclusively Democratic. The numbers show I'm right - though I wish I weren't. Generally speaking, latinos like a significant portion of blacks, are currently on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to earning power. And like a lot of people who have limited income - they tend to vote where they're going to get the most financial assistance. The Democratic party has done quite well in creating and enrolling this segment of the population, then seeing to it that they become dependent registered voters. This isn't racist. These are the numbers. Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. About 95% nationally. In Philadelphia, Obama got 99%. In 59 of Philadelphia's precincts, Romney got 0%. That's almost statistically impossible. Yet it happened.

I hear a lot about the GOP having to "reach out" to latino voters, though I have no idea what that means. If that means that Republicans have to offer more social programs in order to get their vote, then why have a GOP at all? Either the party stands for something or it doesn't. We can't and shouldn't try to out-Democrat the Democrats. They're the pros at the give away system anyway. Latinos have to see the GOP as a party that offers a way to individual excellence and advancement. Again, I'm not lumping all latinos together anymore than I'm lumping all black voters. But the numbers are the numbers. And until we find a way to get the generic latino voter to see that his future is best served by a Republican agenda - we'll continue to see the percentages drop even more. And lose national elections.

Election 2012. How Obama won. And what it means.

                                                                         
The 2012 Presidential election is in the books. Although many of my conservative friend's emotions are running from disbelief to anger. I'll try to make sense of what occurred on November 6th.

First of all,  we can now conclude that a President's on the job record means virtually nothing.  There is no other conclusion to be drawn. Record deficits, mounting debt, 25 million unemployed, 47 million on food stamps, have become acceptable to the majority of Americans. Could you have imagined a President of either party ever getting re-elected with a record of failure like this? Yet he did. Even a still unexplained non-responsive to an embassy attack is fine. Such is the world for the Obamabots. But it goes much deeper than just the idolization of a political figure.

Barack Obama and the Democrats successfully navigated the rocky waters around our economic woes, by changing the terms and subject of the election. Instead of focusing on a failing economy, unkept promises and crushing debt - the story line was changed to bogus arguments concerning class warfare and a brilliantly fabricated 'war on women'. If they could divert enough voters attention away from the obvious concerns of the day, they might win. Sadly, most voters are not that sophisticated and therefore easy to manipulate with 30 second sound bites and a media acting as cheerleaders for the President.  So what's in story for us now?

The makeup of the American electorate is changing. The percentage of married, middle class white voters are being reduced. That drop is being filled with mostly, the emerging Latino population - much of which is being courted by the Democratic Party which promises yet more and more entitlement programs paid with borrowed money. But that only explains part of the problem.
Regardless of race and ethnicity, far too many people are looking to government to solve their problems. Simply put, people like 'stuff '. And they don't seem to care where the money comes from to pay for it, as long as it comes from somebody else higher up in the food chain. That explained why the class warfare tactic worked so well. Forget the fact that returning tax rates back to pre-Bush era for those making over $200,000 will only yield an additional $80 billion a year, when our annual deficit is now $1.1 trillion.

Social Security will go broke by 2032. Medicare's life span is much shorter - 8 - 12 years. No one seems to care. Apparently, rationed government health care is better than paying for it. ObamaCare is now unstoppable. It cannot be dismantled. The next 4 years will see it implemented.  The CBO estimates it will add $1 trillion to the national debt in the next decade. I'm betting that number (as with most government estimates) is off by double that amount. Romney offered solutions. Obama offered fear. Fear won.
With America's changing demographics and dependency attitude, we may never see another Republican President. The electoral map is too difficult to navigate. While Republicans can still hold and grow in congressional and state offices, the Presidency will elude them. Leadership is everything and the agenda will be set by liberal Democrats. America's path is now set. By the end of Obama's 2nd term, the national debt will be at or near $20 trillion. More Americans will be willing to bow at the alter of the federal government for nearly everything. Taxes will be raised on everyone - killing job growth. Annual budget deficits of a trillion dollars will be the new norm. To this scenario on November 6th, a majority of Americans said - "Ok" whether they understood it or not.

This election was the deathblow I fear America cannot recover from. We're blindly headed towards a Western European Socialist-style state. As with most dire changes, it happens slowly, almost undetectable at first. Then before people notice, it becomes entrenched. We are now on our way to Greece, Italy and Spain. Sadly, it didn't have to be this way. But truth became too bitter a pill to swallow for most. Better to enjoy candy on the way to the gallows, I suppose. When the wheels do start coming off just remember, those evil conservatives tried to warn you. But you were sucked in by promises of  everything paid for by the top 1%. But hey, no matter how bad things may get - at least you got your free birth control.

An open letter to the undecided voter

The 2012 Presidential election is drawing near. And although there have been a total of 4 debates, numerous interviews and a plethora of information available on the candidates, some out there have yet to make up their minds. I'm just a guy with a blog. But that makes me no greater nor lesser an "expert" on politics than  the numerous professional talking heads who differ with each other on nearly every subject. The time draws near. Your vote will matter. Let's review.

First, lets have a brief history lesson. With Barack Obama's 2008 election, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives became in control of the Democratic Party. For the first two years of the Obama administration, the President had his way with every piece of legislation. ObamaCare. DONE! Stimulus package. DONE! Omnibus spending package. DONE! For the first two years of his Presidency it was complete one party rule. And Obama had one hell of a party. Yep, he got everything he wanted. But a funny thing happened on the way to "Recovery summer, 2010". The economy stalled and became stagnant. Unemployment rose. Food stamp usage rose along with it. The GDP plummeted. And who did Barack blame? George W. Bush. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to blame all of my problems on someone else. It makes me look weak and small - an affliction the current President doesn't suffer from. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the country rebelled and gave one of the largest thrashings ever to a party in control. The GOP gained 65 seats, close to a record. Regardless, the blame game continued into 2011. Unemployment rose yet again, Food stamp usage climbed . Poverty approached levels not seen in years. And household income dropped  $2200.00 a year.

In 2012, we saw productivity fall yet again to 1.3% down from the 3.3% it had been two years prior. In fact, it has fallen every year since 2009. 2012 was also the year the administration achieved the dubious honor of 40 straight months of unemployment over 8%. In August, 365,000 simply quit looking for work and food stamp usage rose from 32 million Americans in 2009, to a now staggering 47 million Americans. Real household income dropped $4400.00. The Democratic held Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years.  The budget deficit was $480 billion when he arrived on the job. Under President Obama it has more than doubled to $1.1 trillion. Also in August, the National debt hit $16 trillion up form the $9 trillion when Mr. Obama took office. All of this, he would have you believe, is either not his fault or is a rousing success story.

In order to gain ground with the women vote, President Obama dictated that health insurance companies provide free contraceptives. To continue to have the Gay vote in his pocket, he announces that he is now for Gay marriage after declaring the exact opposite every year since his arrival on the scene in 2007. At the beginning of his administration, Obama claimed he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Its still open - and with an expensive soccer field manicured for the detainees.

Perhaps you voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 because you thought he was a trans formative figure. Perhaps you didn't like George W. and thought the junior senator from Illinois was a breath of fresh air. Maybe you thought it was a good time for the first black President. Or maybe you had you own good reasons. But 4 years later, can you really make the argument that the country is in better shape than it was? Has the agenda Mr. Obama put in place made the country a better place for businesses to grow, achieve and hire? Do you honestly think that asking the top 10% of wage earners to pay some more, will balance an annual  $1.1 trillion short fall? Social Security & Medicare are in serious difficulty. The President offers no plan on what he would do to solves these massive problems. None. Entitlements are not something he wishes to address or trim. He'd rather play the class warfare card and hope no one notices that he has had an epic fail at an epic cost. We deserve better than pretty speeches, old rhetoric and failed policies revisited. We deserve someone who has actually created jobs in the private sector and understands that those jobs are created by risk taking individuals, not government. We deserve someone who will address the hard issues and take a stand to preserve the institutions we rely on. We deserve a leader, not a theoretical tactician whose political agenda is to divide in order to pursue his goals. We deserve Mitt Romney. To choose otherwise at this point, is to deny reality in favor for bland, outmoded slogans. Barack Obama has had his chance. It is time to move forward... without him.