Paul Ryan Will Probably Change Myspace as We Know It!

So, ever since Mitt Romney finally listened to the telepathic messages I’ve been sending him for at least a year and named Paul Ryan as his running mate, I’ve been bombarded on Facebook by my liberal friends posting links and missives decrying Ryan’s “plan to end Medicare.” Instead of going about destroying their DNC supported mistruths and flat out lies individually (and probably pissing off some people in the process), I’m just going to address it here.

First things first, Ryan’s plan will not end your Nana’s current Medicare coverage. It provides that anyone who will qualify for Medicare over the next ten years won’t have to worry about anything changing. That means that anyone 55 or older is fine. Add to that the fact that even if the Republicans pull off a complete sweep they would still need the house to pass these bills, then allow time for them to actually take effect (kind of like how Obamacare doesn’t take effect until like 2013). So, you can tack on another 2 years to that. So now, anyone 53 or older has nothing to fret about.

Secondly, the plan only allows for those entering Medicare to opt for either a voucher system and pay for their own healthcare with the assistance of vouchers or go the old fashioned way. Now, where have I heard this “vouchers will increase the costs and decrease quality” argument before..? Oh yeah, when the voucher system was implemented in DC area schools. Seems that a lot of people actually liked those things until someone canceled them. Oh well, got to keep the teachers unions happy. But I digress…

Finally, voting for the Democrats out of fear that Ryan “will change Medicare as we know it” is just plain illogical. Medicare doesn’t work. It is going to go bankrupt. It needs to be changed. Sticking our heads in the sand on this issue won’t work. There will be a day soon when there won’t be anywhere else to take money from to pay the few doctors how haven’t stopped practicing medicine by then. Then what will we do? Who is going to save Medicare from Medicare?

So, the next time someone tells you that we have to keep “Ryan from changing Medicare as we know it,” ask them why they’re so desperate to save something so fundamentally flawed that it can’t even save itself? Medicare is like Myspace. It worked for a while, but fundamental flaws led to its decline. It’s time to let it go riding off into that sunset so something better can take its place.


Quick Rundown of the GOP’s “Pledge to America”

From NRO

Major news today: House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” a 21-page document full of policies the Republicans, ahem, pledge to pursue if elected into power November 2.  Real quick, here’s a quick breakdown of their plans:


  • Permanently stop all job-killing tax hikes.
  • Create a 20% small business tax deduction
  • Rein in the red tape of federal regulations by requiring Congressional approval of any regulation that is estimated to cost the economy $100 million or more.
  • Repeal job-killing mandates like the $600 purchase reporting requirement for small businesses.


  • Act immediately to reduce spending by canceling any unspent “stimulus” funds.
  • Cut government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels (except for necessary spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.
  • Establish a hard car on new discretionary spending.
  • Cut Congress’ budget.
  • Hold weekly votes on spending cuts.
  • End TARP once and for all.
  • End government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  • Impose a net hiring freeze of non-security employees.
  • Root out government waste and sunset outdated and duplicative programs.
  • Reform the budget process to focus on long-term challenges like entitlement reform.


  • Repeal the costly health care takeover of 2010.
  • Enact medical liability reform.
  • Allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines.
  • Expand health savings accounts.
  • Strengthen the doctor-patient relationship.
  • Ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions.
  • Permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion.


  • Require that proposed bills be available for at least 3 days prior to being voted on.
  • Require a clause in every new bill that states the Constitutional basis for Congress’ power to enact the legislation.
  • Allow amendment on spending bills to cut costs, unlike the current ban under Pelosi.
  • Advance legislative issues one at a time.


  • Pass “clean” troop funding bills, unencumbered by extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel project clauses.
  • Refuse to allow terrorists detained in Guantanamo Bay from being brought onto American soil as well as publicly holding the Obama administration responsible for any attacks against American forces or terror attempts by detainees released by the administration.
  • Demand an overarching detention policy to ensure that detainees will be tried by military courts without extending American citizen rights like Miranda to said detainees.
  • Fully fund missile defense.
  • Require tough enforcement of sanctions against Iran.
  • Establish operational control of the border by fully funding and supporting the Border Patrol.
  • Work with state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws.
  • Strengthen visa security.

You can read the full Pledge here.

I’ll be back in a bit with my take on it.


Obama Supporter: “I’m Exhausted of Defending You.”

This has been floating around the web since yesterday, so here you go:

First, it’s kind of shocking to me that Obama’s team would allow this woman to get up there and appear to bring the President to task for his administrations flaws, shortcomings, and failures.  But then I listened to just the question she asked, “Is this my new reality?”  Taken in the context of her description of her situation, especially with this line:

I had been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people and I’m waiting, sir. I’m waiting. I don’t feel it yet, and I thought that — while it wouldn’t be in great measure — I would feel it in some small measure.”  So, when the question was submitted before the event, it most likely read something like “Mr. President, what have you done to ease the economic woes facing the middle class?

That’s a nice little softball of a question to start out the Q & A session with, “Mr. President, would you please go ahead and tell me about the things that you’ve done?”  And that’s exactly why it WAS the first question.  It’s just that the lady happened to throw in a little curve of her own by relating her personal story and the “I’m one of your middle-class Americans, and quite frankly I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now” line that really made this relevant.  You can actually tell that Obama was surprised by the statement when he seems to scoff at the idea that he needs defending (at about 0:36).  (Okay, maybe not a scoff per se, but at least a bit of a nervous laugh)

Then Obama responds:

It’s pretty interesting that it takes him nearly a minute to actually respond to the lady’s question.  I guess when you don’t have teleprompters there to read off of, forming a coherent thought might take a while.  (At least when they’re not out to ruin you…)  Then, when Obama finally does get down to actually attempting to answer the lady’s question, he glosses over her actual question to get back to the one he was prepped for (see above).  This lady was talking about her kids going to private school, money getting tighter, etc., and what does Obama respond with?  Student loans?

Okay, I’ll concede that one, because at least he tried.  The lady does have 2 daughters (1 of whom is close to college age).  But he completely lucked out on that one – what if the kids were in elementary school?  Then talking about student loans helping this specific lady (remember, she asked if this was her new reality, not the new reality for middle-class Americans, or even just Americans), would not really be relevant to things his administration has done that would help her.

Moreover, I don’t quite understand how channeling money that would go to educational lending institutions directly to students would really help all that much anyway.  The federal government (rightly or wrongly) already provides money, through said lending institutions, for college education.  Why would it be better to not do so through the institutions, which already have the expertise and experience necessary to do so efficiently and effectively, and instead use the behemoth that is the federal government to do so?  Wouldn’t that be a waste of money that would be better spent on giving individuals the opportunity to attend college? Anyway, just as much as this argument has nothing to do with Obama’s specific answers to the lady, neither did his next answer.

Obama then goes on talking about changes credit cards.  But the lady doesn’t even have a credit card! Oh well, it matters less that Obama actually answers the question the lady asked than it does for him to remember the speaking points his aides prepared for him based on the approved, submitted questions.  So, when this lady had clearly laid out her situation (at least for the most part), and her frustration with him, Obama merely laid out three things that his administration has actually done over the last 21 months for the middle class (I didn’t really feel like going into the third item, his administration’s invasion into the right of contract between mortgage companies and potential homeowners and the fact that they didn’t lessen the government’s invasion into the loan qualification process in the first place).

Now I can understand this lady’s frustration – she’s still his supporter, even though she’s exhausted, but when she asked him for more fodder to back up her support of him, Obama named three quick items that have been passed – to get more people into college (which I don’t actually think is a good thing anymore, but I’ll go more into that one day), to lessen the amount a credit card company can charge in interest on lines of credit and how they can go about changing those interest rates, and limiting the power of mortgage companies to try and deal with the fact that the federal government is forcing them to lend to very high risk individuals (namely by permitting ARMs and other mortgage schemes, i.e. 110% financing, etc.).  Where’s the rest?  I mean this guy has both houses of Congress in his hands, was elected with some “mandate of the people,” and the blessing of the world.  All he could do to help middle class Americans were three things, which most, apparently, can’t even feel?!  Maybe there’s something to say for the fact that, unlike their Presidents, Americans take the least amount of vacation in the industrialized world – they actually get things done.

Oh well President Obama, it’s nothing another vacay to a middle-class type of locale (like say, the Hamptons?) won’t help you recharge and figure out.  Then, maybe you could write a book about it and get it published just in time for your retirement party January 23, 2013.  Consider this my RSVP.  Oh, and I’ll bring the beer.


An Exercise in Hypocrisy

So yesterday, Obama came out and “implored” the Gainesville, Florida preacher that plans on burning a bunch of Qurans on Saturday.  In his interview on Good Morning America, Obama stated:

“I hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. . . . [T]his country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance.”

Now, Obama’s statement right there is actually pretty interesting.  Because isn’t our country also built just as much on the notion of freedom of speech?  Doesn’t Rev. Terry Jones have just as much of a right to burn the Quran as anti-war protesters have the right to burn an effigy of an American soldier as well as the American flag? Doesn’t he have as much of a right to burn a Quran as any other American has the right to burn the Bible or the Torah or any book by L. Ron Hubbard?  Amid all of this talk from Obama and his administration do they even realize that there are competing interests going on here?

They have to, don’t they?  It was less than a month ago that Obama came out and said that our “notions of freedom and religious tolerance” as well as the “right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country” almost necessitated the building of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

Who would have thought two years ago that Barack Obama, the Democrats’ poster child of progressivism and change, would twice in less than a month wax poetically about our country’s foundation of religious tolerance?  This from the same side of the political coin that seeks to eliminate the mentioning of God from our money, our pledge of allegiance, our courthouses; to remove Christian images from the public square, be it a nativity scene or Easter bunny; to use Orwellian double-speak to change our Christmas trees into “Holiday trees” (or were they Holiday bushes?)?!

That sounds really tolerant to me?  But, that is the latest political exigency adopted by Obama as he seeks to be everything to everyone kowtow to the Islamic world.  In each of these “controversies,” Obama has mounted his steed of flighty rhetoric and tilted his teleprompter lances in the hopes of currying the favor of the Fair Maiden Islam by vanquishing the twin dragons of Ignorance and Bigotry.  Unfortunately for Obama, his dragons are really windmills.  Even Don Quixote could see that.

This is because these controversies were never really about who has what rights to do what.  Just as much as the Park51 developers have the right to build a place of worship (or community center or whatever they’re calling it) according to local zoning laws just as much as Rev. Jones has to burn as many books as he wants (Quran or Torah or, perhaps, The Audacity of Hope?) only subject to local safety laws.  All this was about was whether these actions were really a good idea.

Obama seemed to recognize this though as he talked about how “as a practical matter . . . this stunt” was a bad idea.  Obama refused to go that far when talking about the GZM, but you can kind of glean him hinting at it when, in his statement on his statement on the GZM, he said that he wasn’t going to speak on the wisdom of the site chosen.  (Man, this makes Clinton’s “That depends on what your definition of “is” is” sound like Shakespeare/Theroux/Stephen King in comparison)  But, whether or not these two “controversies” (can it really be a controversy if most people are opposed to it?) were good ideas were questions that didn’t really concern Obama.

So, in his ever pressing desire to “improve relations with the Islamic world,” a logical straw-man has been erected in both: the rights of religious freedom and free speech and our “tradition” of religious tolerance.  For the GZM, it was Park51’s right to practice their religion that called for the construction of the mosque.  Everyone who opposed was just an ignorant bigot who was depriving them of their rights.  (And this is ignoring the red herring arguments about how far away the site is from Ground Zero proper, the fact that Muslims were killed too, and that mosques already exist closer to Ground Zero than the proposed one).  But, I thought Obama was a Constitutional Law professor?  The First Amendment says, in relevant part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Further, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First applicable on the states as well.

“Of course, that’s what President Obama just said – their right of freedom of religion was being denied by the people who opposed the Park51 community center.”  Thank you liberal drone.

What has been missing from this entire argument is the fact that the only thing we are guaranteed regarding religious freedom in America is the promise that the government (either federal or state) cannot hinder our free exercise thereof.  A citizen, if he’s not acting on behalf of the state, can oppose whatever religion he wants however he would like, within the law.  Don’t believe that Mormanism is right?  Feel free to protest their yearly conference.  Think Catholics in office will take orders from the Pope?  Don’t vote for them.  The Left, in its new found embrace of religious freedom and perceived tradition of “tolerance towards religion” has slipped a new right in – the right to practice Islam as you please, free from criticism from anyone.  This was the problem with the “religious freedom” arguments thrown around for so long over the last month – everyone knows that they have the right to build the mosque there.  The government didn’t do anything to abridge that right.  But there is a difference between having a right to do something and it being the right thing to do.

Yes, they have the right to wear it. That doesn't make it right.

This is what is so telling in regards to Rev. Jones’ plan to burn a bunch of Qurans.  Obviously he has the right to do so, but it’s just a really, really stupid idea.  “Wow, that’ll show ‘em, burn those Qurans good.  Take that al-Qaeda, maybe next time you’ll think twice about attacking us”.  Or maybe they could get a little threatening with it: “With the next attack against America, it will rain burning Qurans.  No Qurans will be left as we will spend millions of dollars to burn them.  We’ll do such a good job that we’ll burn down the printers that print Qurans.”  Idiocy, plain and simple.

But idiocy may be something, but it doesn’t justify everyone from the President and his Secretary of State to the general overseeing operations in Afghanistan denouncing it.  In fact, by even talking about it, the administration may have made things worse.  I guess sometimes things really are worse when exposed to the light of day.

But, where are the civil libertarians?  Where is everyone decrying the “fascist” attempts to silence free speech?  Nowhere, of course, because it’s just some crazy, Southern Christians that are being ridiculed.  Now, if it were some lesbian, Muslim minors being forced to have their headscarves searched, that would be something else.

Whatever Obama’s motivations may have been, his handling of these two incidents has proved hypocritical – even though they both have the right to do something in bad taste, he came down in favor of one Park51 in the GZM issue while against Rev. Jones concerning burning Qurans.  Meanwhile, those (like me) who are against both Park51 and Rev. Jones are forced to explain why we’re on Obama’s side on burning Qurans, but not on his side on building mosques.  It’s all about freedom of religion right?

No, and to borrow a phrase from the Clinton campaign:

It’s all about stupidity, stupid.

Harry’s Office

Can’t wait for September 22nd for the new season of The Office to start? Or do you just think the show hasn’t been as good since The Baby? Tired of Richard only posting videos of Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck (I’d link to ’em, but there’s just soooo many)? Well, I just ran across these thanks to a link over at The Daily Caller:

Harry Reid’s Office – Blunder Miffed from RightChange on Vimeo.

Harry Reid’s Office – Blunder Miffed 2 from RightChange on Vimeo.

Is it just me, or would a whole series of these leading up to November 2 be pretty awesome? And probably funnier than the last few seasons of the actual Office.



Ray Bradbury’s Turning 90, Hates Big Government, and Other Ruminations

So, it’s the start of another school year.  After taking a bit of a “sabbatical” as we’ll call it, I’m back and raring to go.  So that means I’m dusting the cobwebs of my good ole laptop and Microsoft Word and hitting the blogosphere again, the long lost prodigal son has returned!  But, unlike the usual postings, I figured I’d start off a little lighter today, as the transition back into school mode has melted off a year of baseball stats and World Cup fever, etc.  So, here we go:

Whenever I walk to school, I plug in my earbuds, hit play on Pandora (today the Social Distortion station), and start catching up on FoxNews and Drudge.  Usually, I’ll catch somethingbetween the two to entertain me on the six block walk (and it’s a pretty good tool to use to ignore the bums always asking me for change).  Hidden at the bottom of Drudge today was a headline that made me smile: “Ray Bradbury Hates Big Government: ‘Our Country is in Need of a Revolution.’”  Now many of you may be saying, “Ray Bradbury?!  Who the hell is that?!” or, like me, “Ray Bradbury is still alive?!  I could have sworn he died like 30 years ago!” Well, for the illiterate twits out there, Ray Bradbury is one of the most celebrated American writers of the last 60 years as well as one of my favorite authors.  As for the rest of us, yes Virginia, there still is a Ray Bradbury kicking around these days.  In fact, he’s celebrating his 90th birthday this week, which is the whole reason for the article linked to above.  In it, Bradbury chides Obama for his myriad of “emergencies” and “top priorities” at the expense of space exploration. Said Bradbury: “We should never have left there. We should go to the moon and prepare a base to fire a rocket off to Mars and then go to Mars and colonize Mars. Then when we do that, we will live forever.” He should know – he wrote “The Martian Chronicles” like 50 years ago, come on NASA, catch up

While I’m not quite sure about the whole “live forever” thing (though it’s apparently not that crazy of an idea according to an article in the May issue of GQ [yes, I subscribe]), it was kind of nice seeing the man who is responsible for creating some of the best fantasy writing to date, especially because it doesn’t deal with orcs and hobbits and vampires, come out and bring the O’Bumbler in Chief to task for limiting NASA from doing what it does.

But even greater was the fact that Bradbury went on to decry the size of the government: “There is too much government today. We’ve got to remember the government should be by the people, of the people, and for the people.”  God bless 90 year-olds!  xBut, what really made me want to talk about this wasn’t really the fact that Bradbury agreed with me, I mean, he’s a friggin’ genius, so it’s obvious he would agree with me.  What got me was a little link lower down on the page declaring that a “Fahrenheit 451” graphic novel had been published!  At first I thought “Heck yeah, that was a great book.  Maybe now a whole new segment of society will read it.  Hell, maybe even some kids will read it then discover the joys of reading.”  When I realized the irony of what I just said – reading a comic book that laments the loss of the written word and the rise of mass culture and the breaking down of everything into quicker and quicker bits for easier and quicker consumption.

Did Bradbury sell out?!  My mind began to race, thinking about what the world was in for if the book that predicted things like reality TV, the constant reduction in the length of communication, and the over-commercialization of our society at the expense of culture was suddenly transcribed into a more digestible comic book.  The author calmed some of my worries, stating that she actually had to read the comic book, instead of barreling through a black-and-white text like a bat out of hell.  Just then though, as I finished the article, I happened across another little link at the bottom of the page suggesting a differing view on the issue.

After bouncing back and forth a bit between “Ray Bradbury has signaled the beginning of the end” to “Bradbury is offering a life raft for culture” the author finally decides that Bradbury may simply be putting his story out there anyway he can, and instead of “F 451” being an anti-mass culture/TV/radio/internet treatise, it may simply be celebrating the art of storytelling.  Instead of the news headlines or commercials or reality TV shows the dominated the mass culture in “F 451,” the heroes decided to memorize stories to tell each other so that they won’t be forgotten.

Awesome, now I have to go back and re-write my Bradbury assignment from sophomore year in high school.  After I go take some Advil to deal with this headache caused by everything I thought about Bradbury, “Fahrenheit 451” and mass culture getting blown to shreds, melted together, and then thrown into a blender on high.  And on the dude’s 90th birthday week no less.

Review: South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson

Last week’s reading list included South Park Conservatives, the 2005 title from Brain C. Anderson.  Being a huge fan of South Park since the beginning, I had heard about this book for years, just never got around to reading it.  Well, although it was decent, I’m glad that I just now read it.  I must have thought this book was going to be more about South Park, how it’s rallied an entire generation of anti-liberals (as Anderson calls them), etc., etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda.

But, that’s not what South Park Conservatives is really about.  Heck, it took Anderson a few chapters to even get into South Park the TV show.  Instead, the book is actually an exploration of the boom of new media (talk radio, the internet, cable-news, and even conservative publishing houses) and how this new media is starting to right the bias that is rampant in the old media giants.  So, expecting an in depth analysis of South Park and its impact on politics and the society at large, South Park Conservatives treated me instead to a flighty mini-history on the rise of Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, and The Drudge Report.

Don’t get me wrong, the information that Anderson puts across in SPC is very informative and interesting.  Just not what I was expecting.  Overall, it was a good book, with pretty short chapters that I was able to breeze through in a night.  So, if you pick up South Park Conservatives, don’t expect thought-provoking theories on how Kyle and Stan represent the libertarian leanings of Matt and Trey or how Randy Marsh represents the kind of crazed left-wing nutjob that latches onto every single cause celeb.  But, that isn’t to say you shouldn’t pick it up, just that my pre-conceived notions on this book left me wanting more.


Oh Cap, Say it Ain’t So

Courtesy of

Apparently, good ole Captain America isn’t a fan of the Tea Party movement.  In a recent issue, Cap and fellow superhero The Falcon stumble across a protest in Idaho that Cap identifies as an “anti-tax thing.”  The Falcon, a black man, then replies that he probably wouldn’t be accepted there.  Drawings of the crowd included a sign that said “Tea bag the Libs before they tea bag you!” Now, the writer (a confessed liberal) has come out saying that he did not write the sign.  But what’s more telling is the fact that he has no qualms about the other things that he wrote or where the story took place.

It’s kind of disheartening to see that even Captain America has become fodder in the left-wing spin machine.  The writer tried to explain it away as similar to a left-wing protest depicted around the time of the 2008 election.  But a large gathering of people in 2008, chanting left-wing mush, could just as easily have been depicted as an enthusiastic crowd of support, rather than a protest.  (I personally don’t know about the prior depiction, I haven’t read a comic in 10 years – Richard, I know you have no life, did you catch that issue?).  Hell, January 20th of last year could have been described as one HUGE protest, except for the fact that they were cheering for Obama.   Why is it that when it’s a group of people resembling Tea Partiers it is automatically a protest?  Was the recent National Tea Party Convention a protest?  To me it seemed more like an exercise in mutual support and strategy, rather than the Tea Parties last Spring.  Sure, things were said against what the government has been doing, but it seemed more was said to inspire Tea Partiers across the nation instead.

And another thing, why did it have to be in Idaho?!  Is it just because those “crazy right-wingers” are only in fly-over-country?  If I seem to remember correctly, the biggest Tea Parties were in Atlanta, New York, and Chicago – hardly middle-America.  But, the author tried to explain everything away as just showing Cap and The Falcon what they were missing outside of their usual home – New York.  Exactly the Liberal thing to do – deny the existence of dissenters around you (or simply surround yourself with people who agree with you), then pin dissenting opinion onto those “uneducated, racist, yokels in the Midwest and South.”  That way, you can still feel intellectually and morally superior to those in the Tea Party.  Since “Hope” and “Change” haven’t quite worked out for the Democrats, maybe they should change their slogan to “Refuse to see evil.  Refuse to hear evil.  Refuse to speak evil.”  That fits with their true nature anyway.  Maybe if they did that, Captain America could get back to kicking some Nazi Commie Hippie Terrorist ass.

Cap doing what he does best

Check out the full story here.


Fear the Boom and Bust

This has already been around the web for a bit (including over at Parcbench and NRO’s The Corner), but I figured I should go ahead and post it here:


Obama on Race – Not Enough or Fast Enough for Some

The Congressional Black Caucus has expressed irritation that Obama hasn’t created programs “tailored specifically” to blacks.  Meanwhile other groups are saying that Obama has “failed to lead” on the issue of race.  Now, I’m not one to agree with Obama, ever.  But, as the “first post-racial” president, I’m glad to see that he isn’t simply handing down alms to blacks across the country.  Okay, I get it, he’s “black.”  I understand that a lot of blacks in the country felt that they would “finally” have the “upper-hand” if Obama won.  (An example is just how many times I was accosted in downtown Atlanta that “The President is BLACK, bitch!”)

But seriously?  As he says, he’s the president of the entire country, not just the “Black President.”  If he was white, and handed out programs “tailored specifically” to blacks, how would that look?  Moreover, how would it look if he was white and passing programs “tailored specifically” for white people?  Pretty racist I would think.  Even more outraging to me is the fact that these same “black leaders” claimed that if Obama was white, he would be trying to placate the black community by throwing programs/money/stuff their way.  Is that how they see the place of blacks in American politics?  As the prize cow to be wooed by the two parties?  Instead of appeasing to their values and ideals, whoever promises the most to blacks will be the one that secures their vote?  While this may be the way the Democrats have played politics since the 1960s (just look at the Great Society, one of the worst things to ever happen to the black community since slavery), I find it appalling that these leaders in the community have accepted this charade as the way of political life for blacks these days.  Rather than getting the black community involved in their communities and politics, these people are teaching them to simply hold out for the most handouts, which only further marginalizes them.

So, kudos to Obama for actually trying to pass laws for all of America, not just one specific race, to the detriment of the other races.  While I may not agree with anything you do, I do agree with the way you’ve chosen to do it.  (At least when it comes to race – except for that whole “Beer Summit” thing, that was just a dumbass move on your part).

Read the full article here.