Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Getting serious about civil rights and race relations in wake of Ferguson

1 Dec

When I was 20 years old, I was once biking on the sidewalk on my way to Loyola University to study. Along the way, a policeman on a motorcycle tried to pull me over, calling me from behind. But because I was wearing headphones listening to my Walkman cassette player (for you whippersnappers who don’t know what that is, google it), I never heard him.

Finally, he pulled alongside me. I stopped and he told me I wasn’t supposed to be biking on the sidewalk. I told him I wasn’t aware that was a law. He replied that it was and that he was going to take me in. Seriously? Arrested for biking on the sidewalk? After a brief discussion about why I would get arrested for such a petty offense, he sarcastically asked me, “Do you speak English?” As an Asian growing up in a low-income, crime-ridden neighborhood, I was used to racism—even from blacks in that predominantly black neighborhood. But I never anticipated it from a policeman—people portrayed as heroes in the TV shows I watched growing up. I replied back, “Better than you.” With that snarky reply, he handcuffed me and ratcheted it extremely tightly—clearly in retaliation for what I said.

I was eventually released on my own recognizance (I believe b/c the other cops knew he overstepped his bounds) and I considered whether or not to file a complaint against the cop for excessive force and/or racism. I decided to drop the matter. That was not my only negative brush with cops either. But the moral of the story is that I personally experienced some of the same things that supposedly caused teenager Michael Brown to be fatally shot in Ferguson, Missouri (not to the same extent, of course, but similar in nature).

You might think that because of my experiences, I am outraged or saddened by the grand jury’s decision to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. You might think that I am joining the chorus of people who declare the legal system broken and that there was no justice for Michael Brown. You might think that when I read that King Obama is meeting with civil rights leaders about the Ferguson case, I’m excited and hopeful.

And you’d be wrong.

Did the grand jury really make the wrong decision?

If you think those things, you are being played for a fool. Everyone needs to calm down. Readers of my blog know that the Trayvon Martin case wasn’t at all what the media portrayed. So when this case came along, people with Minor Insights should know it’s time for caution instead of knee-jerk reactions.

Like the Trayvon Martin case, the media only served up one side of the story in the Michael Brown case. We never heard the other side of the story.

Like the Trayvon Martin case, the media only showed us the same one photo of the victim. In this case, an unintimidating neck-up picture of a chubby-cheeked Michael Brown wearing headphones at an arcade with little kids around. How many people knew that that chubby-cheeked teenager was 6′ 5″ tall and 290 pounds—the size of an enormous, hulking pro football lineman?

Like the Trayvon Martin case, the media portrayed Brown to be completely innocent—especially with the infamous “hands up” pose. How many people knew that Michael Brown charged at Darren Wilson, giving Wilson no choice but to shoot? How many people knew that Brown was at least an accomplice to a robbery of cigarillos just moments before the confrontation with Wilson? How many people knew that Michael Brown threw punches that landed square on Wilson’s face?

Brown completely innocent? If so, I’ve got some land in Florida to sell you.

After the grand jury’s decision, Darren Wilson gave an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that (finally) gave his side of the story. If you think Michael Brown and his parents got the shaft, you MUST watch the video. Even as Stephanopoulos tried to bait Wilson into saying contradictory or self-indicting things, Wilson was consistent in his story.

Then there’s the evidence that the grand jury saw. The evidence backs up Wilson’s story. How many people have seen the evidence? Nobody? Yet without any evidence, and without being a witness to the scene, thousands of people fell hook, line and sinker for the media’s portrayal that Brown struggled to get away from Wilson’s car and then was shot with his hands up.

Consider horrible Nightline anchor Byron Pitts. In one segment, he interviewed some people in Ferguson as they watched the Wilson interview and asked if any of them had been stopped by police. Everyone said yes. Makes for good TV, but does not make a good point. Just because police have stopped citizens does not mean the police are all racist pigs who are happy to shoot black people minding their own business. Pitts’ question is a red herring.

Pitts then ended the Nightline show by saying, “Darren Wilson had a chance to give his side of the story. Michael Brown does not.” Pitts conveniently forgot that the media has been giving Michael Brown’s side of the story ever since the shooting first occurred.

Three Minor Insights

I agree the system is broken—but not the way the protesters think. The system is broken in that the media is the one that is the jury to the American people. They don’t report the news objectively, trying to research and report both sides of the story. Instead, they report the most sensational aspect of the news—whatever will cause the biggest furor and thus draw the biggest ratings.

michael brown trayvon martinI also agree the Michael Brown case is like the Trayvon Martin case—but not the way the protesters think. LeBron James tweeted this drawing of Brown and Martin, insinuating that they both got a raw deal in the same way. But the evidence seems to indicate that if you were to look at the front of their faces in this fictitious drawing, they’d have devilish grins, knowing that they both got away with their respective acts of aggression and violence and yet are being lifted up as martyrs in the general public’s eye.

I also agree that America has a race relations problem—but not the way the protesters think. Protesters think white people have a racism problem when the reality is that many blacks too view things with racism as the reason. Many of the blacks I grew up with were very racist. In today’s age, much of the racism is hyper-fueled by the media (e.g., Stephanopoulos in his interview kept trying to bait Wilson into saying it was a race-related shooting). When a white policeman shoots a black citizen, many blacks automatically assume the cause was race. Sometimes race does come into play but you have to investigate each instance on a case-by-case basis; you just cannot automatically assume it to be true every single time.

Bottom line

If we really want to get serious about improving race relations, it’s critical to not be ignorant. The Ferguson neighborhood Michael Brown died in was a hood—no two ways around it, though most people don’t know that. It’s a crime-infested area and Brown himself has party to a crime just moments before his confrontation with Wilson. It’s sad when people gave Brown the benefit of the doubt instead of Wilson based on ignorance. But it’s even sadder when we loot stores, set cars on fire and make calls to “change the system” based on continued ignorance. Don’t be that person.

Is Obama the most divisive president ever?

21 Nov

Last night, in a speech that was televised by NONE of the four major networks in my area (hmmm), King Obama unwittingly did more than simply announce that six million illegal immigrants would not be deported—he also made himself unofficially the most divisive U.S. president ever. How so? Let me count the ways…

Divisive with Congress

This one is no surprise.

In his speech last night, King Obama said:

And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Ooooh. Snarky. Too bad snarky isn’t exactly becoming of the President of the United States.

One thing King Obama conveniently neglected to mention was that in his first term, the Democrats had control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So what is Obama’s excuse for not passing bills then?

Last night, Obama showed he is daring Congress to stop him—just two weeks after saying (apparently just ceremonially) that he would work harder to make compromises with Congress.

Divisive with Democrats

Several Democrats could side with Republicans against King Obama’s actions. According to the Washington Post,

Among the Democrats believed to be at risk are Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly. Angus King (who is an independent but caucuses with Dems) is also a question mark.

These must be the smart Democrats. If they know King Obama’s actions are not popular with the voting public, they would be wise to not support them if they want a chance to be re-elected.

Of course, we’ll see if they actually do defect. But the fact that they are “at risk” means there is hope (both for them politically and for us)

Divisive with the American people

King Obama also said this in his speech last night:

Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it. It’s been this way for decades. And for decades, we haven’t done much about it.

Well, if “everyone knows” the immigration system is broken, NOT “everyone” agrees that Obama’s approach is the best way to fix it.

According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, more people oppose Obama’s actions than support him (48-38). Another way to put it is that nearly half of America oppose Obama’s actions! Which, as John Hayward points out, means that King Obama is more interested in caring about foreigners than caring about Americans.

Divisive with the Hispanic people

The real shocker also happens to come from the WSJ/NBC poll. Here’s what NBC News reported:

Latinos are divided, with 43 percent supporting the action and 37 percent opposing it.

While the article mentions that it’s a small sample size, it’s still noteworthy in that there are many more Hispanics who OPPOSE Obama’s actions than we would be led to believe if we merely watch news footage on TV of pro-immigration Hispanics protesting. I, for all, thought ALL Latinos would embrace Obama’s actions. But they don’t! 

As Hayward theorizes, American Hispanics could be wary of all these illegal immigrants now being able to “come out of the shadows,” as King Obama put it, to compete for the same jobs as American Hispanics. The American job market is already fragile enough, with more people looking for work than there are available entry-level jobs, that American Hispanics perhaps realize they don’t need more competition for those jobs.

BTW, did anyone catch King Obama stereotype the jobs that Hispanics do? This is what he said in his speech last night:

Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?

That quickly spawned two new hashtags: #fruitpickers and #bedmakers. Hey, who said Obama isn’t a great orator?

Bottom line

The ironic thing about all of this is that Obama campaigned in 2008 in part on his image as a uniter: an upper-class black man from Harvard who can connect with whites by virtue of his class status and educational status and who can connect with blacks by virtue of his race. In reality, though, King Obama has proved during his six years in office to be arguably the most divisive president in history. And last night’s executive actions encapsulated in one evening the disharmony he has done to this nation on his watch.

Obama’s illegal immigrant executive orders usher in chilling new era of liberalism

20 Nov

Tonight, Obama is going to continue to pull the wool over the public’s eyes by making his case for using executive orders to prevent six million (that’s about an additional 2% to the U.S. population!) illegal immigrants from being deported, thus bypassing approval from Congress.

Why this has not caused outrage among my fellow citizens is cause for great concern. To paraphrase a famous quote, all that is necessary for the triumph of tyranny is for good people to do nothing.

If you’ve watched the movie The Matrix, you know that in this blog, I like to give you the red pill. If you prefer to take the blue pill, then stop reading here.

There are three significant problems with Obama’s actions tonight, any one of which by themselves should cause a public furor:

1) Obama the hypocrite

Remember November 5th?

That’s when President Obama said “I hear you” to the voters who resoundingly thumped his fellow Democrats at the polls across the country, pledging to work with Congress and forge compromises to get things done.

But buried among the news reports of the pie-in-the-Democrat-face results of the November elections was a reminder that he was going to use executive actions to protect six million illegal immigrants from deportation.

In other words, not one soul noticed Obama’s blatant hypocrisy. Out of one side of his mouth, he pledges to work with Congress; out of the other side of his mouth, he flips the middle finger to not only Congress but the U.S. Constitution itself to create new immigration policy without congressional approval.

2) Obama the dictator

Obama’s use of executive orders to reshape a major national policy reveals his taste for totalitarianism. The brilliance of the U.S. Constitution is the concept of checks and balances, whereby no one branch of government can become overpowering.

King Obama, however, has repeatedly expressed a disdain for the Constitution. He has said it is “imperfect” and “deeply flawed” and that we need to “break free” from the Constitution. So Obama does not want to follow the standard; he wants to do whatever is right in his own eyes. And if there is no standard, all you-know-what breaks loose.

While executive orders can, in rare instances, involve large policy changes with wide-ranging effects, the goal is always to have the government come to an agreement on such matters—which is more reflective of our democracy—rather than a unilateral decision by one person, which is more reflective of a dictatorship.

3) Obama forcing his morality upon others

One of the most common arguments by atheists and liberals is that conservatives want to “force their morality on everyone else.” Has anyone else realized that liberals and atheists are just as lustful in their desire to “force their morality on everyone else”? When Obama wants to force an immigration policy upon the nation without discussion, compromise or vote, isn’t that forcing his morality on everyone else?

Let’s not fool ourselves: the “forcing morality” argument does NOT apply just to conservatives. When gays want the right to marry, aren’t they forcing their morality on everyone else?

With these executive orders, Obama is making it abundantly clear that he wants to force his liberal morality on others.

Bottom line

I’m not against immigrants. My parents were immigrants. But they were legal immigrants. Our country is on a fiscal cliff and Obama wants to add to our nation’s fiscal burden by fast-tracking illegals, which in turn will only encourage even more illegals to cross into our borders. It is a pandora’s box and a slippery slope packaged in a trojan horse.

When people like Obama want to “break free” from the standard that governs this great nation and would rather do what is right in his own socialist eyes, we are in trouble.


Was Obama behind the Sandy Hook massacre?

22 Jan

obama-second-inaugurationI typically reject a lot of conspiracy theories that I’ve heard. But ironically, I’m about to propose one myself. You may think it has merit. Or you may dismiss it altogether and call me crazy. I admit upfront I have no conclusive evidence. But I believe this post will at least make you think. Which is what the point of this blog is all about because we are not your “average American”.

The theory

Some current Sandy Hook conspiracy theories argue that the U.S. government was involved but that the shootings were staged. I don’t believe these theories to be true. With the media that covered the event, I find it hard to believe that fake dead children could fool the reporters and other onlookers at the scene. I could be wrong, but that’s my take on it.

However, I think it is entirely possible that President Obama and the U.S. government were in communications with shooter Adam Lanza to perpetrate the shooting. Lanza removed the hard drive from his computer and smashed it to pieces, making it impossible “to learn whether Lanza communicated with others about possible plans to kill his mother and attack the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn,” as USA Today reported.

Why would the shooter care about people finding out what was being communicated before he performed the massacre? Lanza knew he would be dead, so it’s not like the data would be used to put him in prison or put him on death row.

Personally, I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if Lanza was simply covering up his tracks involving Obama and the federal government.

Why would Obama want to do that?

Of course, when evaluating conspiracy theories for merit, the first question to be addressed is “Why would that scheme/plan/theory be necessary in the first place?” After all, if there’s no benefit to carrying out such plans, then the theory immediately makes no sense.

In this case, I think this was part of Obama’s grander plan to implement a socialist agenda. That sound you just heard was of left-wing readers rolling their eyes at this point. But consider the aftermath of this tragedy:

– President Obama demands stricter gun control
– President Obama issues 23 executive orders on gun control
– President Obama’s approval rating jumps up six points from his post-election low of 50% in the first week of December
– President Obama now has more public support, thus gaining the upper hand in fiscal cliff negotiations
– President Obama indeed wins the fiscal cliff negotiations against the Republican House
– President Obama gets a free pass on the continuing investigation on Bengazi, which goes all but uncovered in the media
– President Obama can continue to ignore the U.S. economy, despite his campaign promises

Thus, Sandy Hook is doing more for Obama than 9/11 did for President George W. Bush.

One significant thing is different between Sandy Hook and 9/11: the results of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 united all Americans against a common outside enemy (terrorists), whereas the results of the Sandy Hook massacre divided Americans on a strictly-American issue (gun control).

Obama ordering the killing children?

It may seem absurd that the President would order the killing of children. And I admit it certainly sounds far-fetched. But as history as shown, socialists and communists have no problem sacrificing some people in order to advance their agenda.

Is Obama a socialist? In a near-two-hour documentary being shown free in its entirety on Vimeo, you see not only how socialist and communist goals are being achieved right under our noses, but that President Obama himself has been deeply influenced by multiple socialist and communist mentors. I cannot urge you enough to watch the entire video.

Consider this chilling statement Obama gave in his second inaugural address yesterday that drew applause from the average American in attendance:

“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”

That is the textbook rallying cry for socialism and communism: rather than inspire everyone to be rich (capitalism), allow the government to take from the rich and give to the poor so that there is equality for everyone (communism).

Is Obama a socialist? If you understand both history and his past mentors and associations, you know that there is no question about it. If you don’t understand history nor whom Obama has been influenced by, then you are doomed to repeat history.

Boldness for his “aggressive” second term

Obama’s Phoenix-like rising popularity following his Sandy Hook appearances has further emboldened him as he prepares for his second term in office. After all, he now has the support of the majority of Americans.

This was the Wall Street Journal’s headline today:

“Obama Vows Aggressive Agenda”

What is that agenda, you ask? WSJ reported:

“With specifics not usually offered in inaugural addresses, Mr. Obama promised to preserve government health-care programs, expand rights for women and gay couples, and press for gun controls, overhauls of the tax code and immigration laws, as well as climate change measures.”

This sounds eerily similar to the socialist, if not communist, ideals expounded in the “Agenda” documentary referred to above. Though the video was produced by a conservative Christian, you don’t need to be a Christian to see in this mind-blowing video that what is happening in America today is a deliberate process by socialists. And once you understand that, you can see for yourself how Obama’s self-proclaimed agenda for his second term is in perfect lockstep with the socialist and communist agenda.

Obama gains multitudes of useful idiots

Had he not had some defining moment that he could capitalize to win over the average American, Obama would be significantly harder pressed to push his socialist agenda. Sandy Hook has given Obama a new wave of useful idiots.

Take, for example, left-wing comedian Jon Stewart. In a video on Newser’s web site, Stewart mocks conservatives regarding Obama’s 23 executive orders on gun control. Stewart’s logic has so many holes that it would take another long post to cover. But in the end, I pity Stewart and all the average Americans who watch him, for Stewart is now Obama’s useful idiot in being an unwitting propagandist for Obama’s socialist cause.

One thing that I will point out about Stewart’s video is that he intentionally picked the benign executive orders in order to lampoon conservatives. Never mind that the first four executive orders have serious importance:

Here are Obama’s first four gun control executive orders:

1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”

2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”

3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”

4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

These four executive orders have everything to do with privacy, the federal government’s ability to sync its network of databases with the federal background check system and with state databases, and the federal government’s subjective power to deem someone “dangerous” and thus unable to possess a gun.

Um, “funny” how Jon Stewart intentionally did not mention that in his skit.

The rest of the executive orders are just smoke-and-mirrors because they contribute nothing to preventing gun violence. In fact, none of these 23 executive orders would have prevented any of the mass shootings in recent memory.

Blogger areyoustillalive made a similar argument how this is an invasion of privacy.

So if these executive orders don’t help prevent shootings, then what are they for? As I mentioned earlier: privacy and more government power.

In other words: bigger government and smaller rights for individuals.

None of this would have been possible for Obama without Sandy Hook. And the timing of Sandy Hook, in terms of happening before the fiscal cliff showdown and well before the start of Obama’s second term, was impeccable.

Recall that the timing of Osama bin Laden’s assassination was also magnificent: Obama’s job approval ratings instantly jumped up seven points during that period of high unemployment in spring 2011.

Things that make you go hm.

On the other hand, waiting for a Sandy Hook-like situation to organically happen on its own is a crapshoot with extremely low odds of reality. So it would be in Obama’s best interests to orchestrate it himself, though I have no proof of any of this.

It’s alternatively possible that Sandy Hook and Obama are all part of God’s judgment of our country.

Or it could be both.

But it all does seem to add up when you put all the individual pieces of the puzzle together. I wouldn’t be surprised if this conspiracy theory were true. And you shouldn’t be either.

A couple years late, but Bears rightly fire Lovie Smith

31 Dec

The morning after the Bears were eliminated from the 2012 NFL Playoffs, head coach Lovie Smith was fired.

Thus started one of the best days of 2012.

Many so-called Bears fans mourned Lovie’s firing.

“A man of integrity.”
“A great man.”
“I don’t get why they fired him.”

And plenty of variations of the same ideas.

Lovie Smith is a big Barack Obama fan. And I automatically lose all respect for Lovie right there.

But leaving politics aside, the Bears absolutely made the right move to fire Lovie Smith. In fact, it could be argued the firing came two years too late.

But here are the reasons why firing Lovie was the right thing to do:
– failed to make the playoffs in five of the past six seasons. That’s a 0.167 rate for making the playoffs the past six years.
– he lost 8 of his last 9 games against the Packers. Beating the Packers was Lovie’s self-proclaimed #1 goal.
– the Bears finished 28th in offense this year. Can’t blame Mike Martz this year, pal.
– the Bears finished 28th in offense this year despite a franchise quarterback, a Pro Bowl receiver and a Pro Bowl running back.
– the Bears offense has finished higher than 23rd just once in Lovie’s nine-year tenure with the Bears.
– For those who argue it’s not Lovie’s fault the team has a bad offensive line, recall that Lovie said: “We feel like our offensive line is as good as any other out there.” Clearly Lovie has no idea how to evaluate offensive line talent.
– Lovie is a poor evaluator of talent in general. He also said of tight end Kellen Davis: “He can do anything the good tight ends in this league can do.”
– Lovie is a poor evaluator of talent. He said of Devin Hester: “Devin can be a No. 1 receiver in this league.”
– Lovie is a poor evaluator of coaching talent. He fired accomplished defensive coordinator Ron Rivera to hire his good ol’ boy buddy Bob Babich, whose ineptitude made him last only two years before being fired.
– Lovie couldn’t even get in the playoffs last yearn despite what could be a league-record three former head coaches on his coaching staff (Mike Martz, Mike Tice and Rod Marinelli).
– Lovie is one of the worst fourth-down coaches in the league (26th in 2012, 31st in 2011, 31st in 2010, 26th in 2009, 26th in 2008) as well as possessing one of the worst replay-challenge records in the league.
– For all of the praise about Lovie as a “great man”, other coaches repeatedly turned down offers to join his staff. Mike Martz was one of the last on Lovie’s list for offensive coordinators, and current Giants defensive coordinator Perry Fewell famously refused to even interview for the job that went to another Lovie buddy in Rod Marinelli.
– The Bears failed to make the playoffs this year despite a 7-1 start. No Jay Cutler season-ending injuries to blame this year. No Matt Forte season-ending injuries to blame this year.
– The Bears’ 10-6 record this year is a mirage. Lovie’s Bears were 2-6 against teams with winning records this year. The Bears had the fortune to play eight games against bad teams with a combined record of 43-84-1 (a stunningly bad 0.341 winning percentage).

The bottom line is that if you consistently do not get your team in the playoffs, you should not be coaching. It’s as simple as that.

Sure, Lovie Smith will find employment elsewhere in the NFL. My condolences to whoever that poor team is that hires him.

Illinois lawmakers seek to grant driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants

26 Nov

Tomorrow, Illinois lawmakers convene for their post-election lame-duck session.

The Illinois State Assembly is entirely in the hands of the Democrats, much like the United States was when Obama won the 2008 election.

The governor is a liberal Democrat. The state senators are Democrat-controlled, as are the state representatives.

When Obama took office in 2009 with a Democrat-controlled House and Democrat-controlled House, he made his agenda social-oriented rather than economic-oriented, such as repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and enacting Obamacare.

Now after the 2012 elections, the state of Illinois appears to be following Obama’s footprints. That is, many items are on the state agenda, some of which are economic-oriented (such as dealing with the burgeoning pension debt) while others are social-oriented (such as gay marriage)—and so far, it appears that the social policy bills are taking priority over economic policy bills.

One particularly loony social issue that is on the Illinois state agenda is revisiting the twice-failed idea of allowing illegal immigrants to receive driver’s licenses.

What part of “illegal” in “illegal immigrants” do these liberal lawmakers not understand?

Why would lawmakers want to grant any kind of legal status to people who are by definition in the country illegally?

In their own words, these lawmakers say they want money. “Economic growth,” explained Governor Pat Quinn.

That is, Democrats are happily willing to prostitute themselves—and the people of Illinois—for money.

Currently, immigrants without a Social Security number cannot obtain a driver’s license. And of course, illegal immigrants do not have Social Security numbers.

The Democrats’ idea is, according to a press conference and statement by Quinn and Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, to fast-track a bill that could give licenses to as many as 250,000 people who are driving but haven’t passed a driving test or, in many cases, have no insurance.

Naturally, these liberals will try to deceptively market this idea as something else. “This is a safety issue,” Quinn initially explained before admitting the money factor.

Liberals also argue that immigrants who can drive legally are more likely to work and otherwise contribute to the economy.

Newsflash: illegal immigrants already work. Heck, some of these same politicians probably hire them for themselves. But illegal immigrants who work do NOT add to the economy because they are simply taking the place of legally qualified workers.

It’s also uncertain whether this move would indeed make roads safer. From a practical standpoint, many illegal immigrants already drive very carefully because they know that causing an accident is the easiest way to be detected and subsequently deported.

But furthermore, passing a driver’s test clearly doesn’t mean drivers are safe drivers. If that were true, there should not be ANY accidents since the vast majority of drivers are people who have passed that highfalutin driver’s test.

Apparently, these liberals don’t know that there’s a big difference between knowing the rules of the road and being a safe driver.

And these liberal lawmakers are truly naive to think that illegal immigrants would also be willing to happily fork over thousands of dollars to pay for car insurance when they are barely scraping up enough money with their low, under-the-table wages.

But despite all the missing logic, this bill has the support of all the biggest liberal names in Illinois politics: Quinn, Cullerton, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and House Speaker Michael Madigan.

And despite the state’s much more pressing need to cure its fiscal woes, this absurd social policy bill is getting fast-track treatment.


Because this is how the Democrats tap into the growing Latino vote: by selling their principles for votes. It’s ok to circumvent immigration laws if it can get you re-elected.

As Crain’s Chicago Business blogger Greg Hinz wrote:

Democrats like Messrs. Quinn, Cullerton, Emanuel and Madigan — and President Barack Obama — owe Latino voters a ton after the recent election. It’s payback time — and that’s how politics works.

Principled voters should be outraged. If you live in Illinois, write your own state senator and representative and tell them to vote down this ludicrous bill.

2012 Presidential Election: 7 Thoughts On Obama’s Victory Over Romney

7 Nov

I’m usually an upbeat, optimistic person. But Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney last night sent me into a prolonged funk before I eventually fell asleep.

I’ve since come up with seven Minor Insights about last night’s results. They don’t cure my depression—but they do actually explain it.

1. Obama is living in a fantasy world

Towards the end of his victory speech, Obama said:

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

This echoes a portion of Obama’s keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the one that truly launched his political status. It sounds so dreamy, doesn’t it?

Yes, but more like, “Keep dreaming.”

Look at this map:

Clearly, it is a collection of red states and blue states.

More than that, it’s a collection of sharply divided red and blue states.

Obama won 26 states; Romney won 24 states.

The fact is that the nation is more divided than ever. No amount of Obama huffing-and-puffing will blow that house down.

2. Obama’s win was smaller than in 2008.

The liberal NY Times declared (screenshot, left) Obama had a “clear victory.” But was it really?

Sure, Obama had a sizable electoral college victory. But that electoral victory—if you include Florida, which is still not officially declared as of this writing but is leaning the President’s way—shrunk (332-206) from his 2008 victory over John McCain (365-173).

The popular vote tells a much different story. Obama won the popular vote—but barely. As of this writing, he has 50% of the popular vote while Romney had 48%. This is down from a 52.9-45.7% margin in 2008.

Even in Obama’s home state of Illinois, his winning margin shrunk. He won 57.3-41.1% this year—down from 61.9-36.8% in 2008.

Other highly liberal, electorally-rich states like California and New York also voted less for Obama last night than in 2008.

The typical phrase the day after the election is: “the people have spoken.” Well, yes and no. The people have spoken but they speak two different languages. 50% spoke one language, and the other 48% spoke a different language.

So unlike the 2010 congressional election, the 2012 presidential numbers decisively show this was not a “mandate” win. The nation was deeply divided about whether to send Obama back to Washington D.C.

3. Obama has rough sledding ahead

Obama’s victory celebration will be short-lived.

First, the so-called “fiscal cliff” is fast approaching, where the President and Congress must try to avert another financial crisis that would send the economy back into another recession.

Second, he’ll need to fix the economy and jobs. Obama’s plan to spend on education in order to fix the economy is a red herring. Education doesn’t fix the economy because there are currently no jobs for graduates, no matter how smart or dumb they are. And Insightful people know that construction jobs are just temporary jobs.

Third, the issue of taxes will also likely take some of the spotlight in 2012. In referring to exit polls where six in 10 voters said that taxes should be increased and nearly half of voters said taxes should be increased on incomes over $250,000, as Obama has called for, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told CNN:

“It’s very clear from the exit polling that a majority of Americans recognize that we need to share responsibility for reducing the deficit.”

Perhaps this hike in taxes upon citizens is what Obama meant in his victory speech when he said:

“The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us together through the hard and frustrating, but necessary work of self-government. That’s the principle we were founded on.”

Why people would want to pay (in taxes) for government overspending (causing the enormous deficit) is beyond me. If the government has fiscal diarrhea, then the government needs to clean its own toilet, not the taxpayers.

Furthermore, Obama will divide some of his attention on critical foreign issues all around the world. From Russia—who Obama secretly said he would have “more flexibility” in his second term to do things—to Pakistan and Afghanistan—where Obama’s secret wars are still being waged behind the public hailing of the Iraqi withdrawal—to growing tension over Iran’s nuclear weapons labs, to the crisis in Syria and the growing republic of Islam in the Middle East as secular dictatorships fall, it will be interesting to see how Obama positions the United States globally in this second term.

And he’ll have to do all this with the bipartisanship that he failed to accomplish in his first term.

4. The nation appears to be trending more left on social issues

As popular culture and Hollywood continue to present only-favorable representations of gays while routinely mocking family values, when it comes to social issues, voter values will slowly shift more towards Democratic values.

We saw a bit of that with the gay marriage ballot initiatives that won last night—the first time gay marriage has won at the ballot box.

Furthermore, Obama has a vested interest in the immigration issue—particularly allowing as many Latinos into the country as possible since Latinos tend to be heavily Democratic voters due to government welfare programs.

For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, one policy decision that gave the White House one of its biggest electoral jolts was Obama’s June announcement of an executive action that would halt the deportation of many young illegal immigrants. It may not make fiscal sense but it sure makes great political sense—especially since the Latino community is growing in key battleground states like Florida, Nevada and Colorado.

And marijuana was approved for recreational use in two states—Washington and Colorado—on Tuesday.

Historically, the nation swings one way or another in different decades, so hopefully, things will eventually balance out over time and trend back to the right.

5. Paul Ryan did not contribute much to the Romney campaign

Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan had only two things on his to-do list once he accepted his vice-presidential nomination:

  1. Rout Joe Biden in their debate
  2. Bring Wisconsin under the Romney column

He did neither.

Though Ryan didn’t fail against a typically arrogant Biden in their debate, he didn’t expose Biden as the buffoon that he is—despite Biden giving him a few opportunities on a silver platter.

And Wisconsin was somewhat in play to the end, polls had generally shown the state going to Obama—which it eventually did.

Ryan also tried to assure seniors that Medicare was important to him, using his own mother as proof, but it’s uncertain whether voters believed that message.

Should Romney have picked Ohio Senator Rob Portman instead of Paul Ryan? Would Portman have helped Romney carry the crucial state of Ohio? We’ll never know.

But we do know that Ryan did not help the Romney campaign much—if at all.

6. Republicans do not need a more moderate candidate

Romney was as moderate as you can get. McCain before him was also known as an independent (remember McCain being labeled a “maverick”?).

So finding a centrist candidate isn’t the Republicans’ main problem. They’ve done that and failed.

Sad to say, I don’t think a Tea Party candidate is the answer either—at least not in the short-term, given the Tea Party candidates couldn’t even the primary election. Perhaps down the road when America starts to get fed up with liberal policies currently employed by Obama.

I’m not sure what the answer is but I don’t think it would hurt to have a younger candidate.

Romney is 65. John McCain was 72 when he ran.

In contrast, Obama was 47 when he first ran for president. Bill Clinton was 46 when he defeated incumbent then 64-year-old George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush was 56 when he barely beat 52-year-old Al Gore.

I’m not necessarily saying age is the trump card if all else is equal. But for all the political wisdom that elder statesmen like Newt Gingrich have, it may be possible that in this age of social networking dominated by younger voters, younger candidates have more appeal.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Florida Senator Marco Rubio are not only young but they also represent minorities—two growing voting segments of our nation.

7. Many Democratic voters do not have any voting sense

The far-left liberals actually make sense when they vote b/c they are voting for their leftist social values.

But those voters who are not left-wing liberals but still vote Democrat? Them, I don’t get.

For example, on ABC’s Nightline, Terry Moran interviewed a guy in Wisconsin who said he lost his job three times in three years. Moran surmised, “You should be the perfect Romney voter.” Yet the voter insisted he was going to vote for Obama—the author of the economy that has failed to give this man a stable job!

Exit polls showed 60% of voters said the No. 1 issue they voted for in the election was the economy. Yet 50% of voters voted for Obama.

How can it be that a president who spends like there is no tomorrow—thus making the economy worse—still gets the vote of 50% of the the people?

That’s like sticking your finger in an electrical socket, saying safety is your No. 1 priority…and then sticking your finger in the socket again.

What’s more, there are a record number of people on food stamps. People may not know that the food stamp program was championed by Democrats, starting with Leonor Sullivan. Democratic President Kennedy initiated the first food stamp pilot programs. And Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson and House Democrats passed the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

Problem is that food stamps shackles poor people into a system that will forever imprison them in being poor.

Just this past Sunday, a very close friend of mine on food stamps encouraged me to sign up for food stamps. “Free money,” this person told me. “You’d be a fool not to take it.”

This is the legacy of Democrats. Yet voters don’t realize the sad irony of crying about being poor yet voting Democratic.

Here’s another example of nonsensical Democrat voters. In Illinois, U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. coasted to an easy win—despite not working for the past half year. Apparently, his constituents don’t care if anyone is actually doing anything for them.

Want another example of nonsensical Democrat voters? How about Derrick Smith? The former Illinois state representative was indicted, arrested and expelled from his seat due to a felony charge of accepting bribes. Yet Smith won easily (62%-38%) over an independent candidate endorsed by the governor and secretary of state.

I guess it’s not completely surprising given that, as one person on Facebook commented, these same people voted for Obama.

But seriously, some people just shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Slimy Tammy Duckworth takes Obama approach to election against Joe Walsh

6 Nov

Death and taxes may be the only certainties in life, but Democrats using sleazy tactics to win elections is inching its way up the list too.

The fight in Illinois for a Congressional seat got slimier about a week and a half ago when Democrat Tammy Duckworth refused to pull her campaign ad accusing Republican Joe Walsh of being a “deadbeat dad.”

Walsh’s three kids and Walsh’s ex-wife both have praised Walsh as being “a good father.” Walsh’s 25-year-old son even went so far as to call a press conference specifically to renounce the phrase “deadbeat dad” on his father, and called Duckworth to pull the ads.

Duckworth said, “No, I’m not going to do that.”


This from a candidate whose campaign ads call herself one who “always” has “honor”.

Duckworth’s definition of “honor” apparently has an exception for politics.

But if you think about it, Duckworth—who lost a prior congressional bid in 2006—is simply using an Obama campaign strategy of exaggerating an opponent’s personal problems.

I hope people see through her sleazy campaign and she loses the election because of it. There’s nothing honorable about slandering someone’s personal life.

2012 Presidential Election: 11 Reasons Romney Will Defeat Obama

5 Nov

As the election winds down to the final hours, some Romney supporters I’ve talked to think that Obama has taken the momentum.

For the record, different polls show different results.

The liberal Huffington Post chose to focus on the final Pew Research Center election poll showing President Barack Obama with a ‘modest’ 3-point lead over Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, Gallup shows that Romney holds a 1-point lead over Obama. Thehill.com also reports that all other polls have the two in a dead heat.

Bottom line on who has the lead: no one really knows.

Polls may or may not be accurate, and I’ve had my share of incorrect predictions in the past since it’s not easy to predict other people’s behavior. But as we come down to the few wee hours before the big day, here are 11 reasons why I think Romney will win the 2012 Presidential Election:

  1. Independent voters. In the three most significant swing states (in terms of electoral votes), Romney has a significant lead over Obama among independent voters in Florida, Ohio and Virginia.
  2. Senior voters. Romney also leads Obama among senior voters in these same swing states. Anecdotally, I’ve spoken with seniors who are livid with Obama for the frequent Medicare benefit cuts during his administration. Seniors may not know what Romney will do with entitlement programs, but they already know what Obama has done with such programs and they are incensed.
  3. Young voters. 51 percent of people ages 18-29 turned out to vote in 2008, second-highest turnout ever, and they voted for Obama over John McCain by a 2-to-1 ratio. Four years later, these same young voters are disenchanted, disillusioned and discouraged. They’ve seen Obama fail to deliver on his promise of being a different kind of politician. The Washington Post reported that Obama has been “infantilizing” these young college grads by forcing them to move back in with their parents due to the depressed economy. Many young voters may be disappointed enough to not vote this time around.
  4. State flipping. With Indiana and North Carolina, Romney is likely to flip two of the 12 states that went for Obama in 2008 that are currently toss-ups. If Obama retains the four states he easily won in 2008 (Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and Romney wins the three biggest swing states (Florida, Ohio and Virginia), then Romney would have a huge 266-253 lead in electoral voting. At that point, Obama would need to sweep the three remaining swing states—Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire—to win, while Romney would just need to secure one of those three to win.
  5. Black voters. While Obama reportedly still enjoys 96% support among blacks, that number still is going to take a hit. Some evangelical black voters who supported Obama in 2008 are no longer supporting him in 2012 due to Obama’s support for gay marriage. In additiona, a coalition of over 3,000 black pastors have publicly stated they will not stand with Obama this time, and it’s safe to assume that many in their congregations will follow suit. Even non-churchgoing black voters have expressed exasperation that despite a black president, [the quality of life for blacks] is “in the same spot as when Bush was president.”
  6. White voters. In 2008, McCain won over white voters by 12% over Obama as many white voters flocked to Obama’s camp in an attempt to lay claim to history. But this year, all four major polls show Romney is leading Obama by more than 20% over Obama, which—if it holds true—would be the biggest margin for that segment by any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan.
  7. Jobless voters. During the time that the unemployment rate hit a staggering 10.0% in Oct 2009, Obama’s singular focus was to direct the Democratic-controlled Congress to address health care rather than to address the economy. Even with unemployment still standing at 7.8%, voters remember that Obama’s priorities were in the wrong order when he had a Democratic-controlled Congress for two years.
  8. Obama’s inexperience. The biggest criticism of Obama in 2008 was that he was inexperienced. McCain warned voters that America did not want a president who would be learning on the job; that America needed someone who knew what he would be doing from Day One. Four years later, America has reaped what it has sown. Being just a senator—and a junior one at that—Obama had little experience. What’s worse, senators, unlike governors, never lead anything. Senators can introduce bills but they are just one of 100 others just like him. Senators cannot dictate policy, make executive decisions or balance budgets. Romney, on the other hand, has the experience. Not just any experience but diversified and successful experience. He’s led businesses. He’s governed a state. He led it out of a budget deficit. And he led the Salt Lake City Olympics from a budget deficit into a surplus.
  9. Evangelical voters. Obama’s policies have been overtly against evangelical beliefs, from the president’s contraceptive mandate with no religious exception to his endorsement of same-sex marriage, and there were a surprising number of evangelicals, such as in battleground Iowa, who were romanced by the smooth-talking Obama in 2008 but are re-considering this time around. And Obama’s policies have also aggressively eroded religious freedoms, causing evangelical voters who voted for Obama in 2008 to vote for Romney in 2012.
  10. Foreign policy disasters. For a guy who is still trying to fool voters in these frenetic last campaign hours as a guy who will tell the truth, the Obama administration to this day still hasn’t told the truth about Benghazi. uperstorm Sandy may have rescued Obama from media attention on new damning evidence about Benghazigate, but so has the liberal media—CBS was caught trying to rescue Obama by not reporting his lies about Benghazi. Obama points to the assassination of Osama bin Laden as his foreign policy trump card but the reality is that al-Qaeda and Muslim fundamentalism is much more far-reaching than a singular Osama bin Laden. Rest assured that a new bid Laden-type leader will rise to fill the void left by bin Laden’s death. A much bigger issue is Obama’s minimization of Iran’s nuclear weapons program while simultaneously reducing our own nuclear weapons. Romney’s commitment to a strong American military is a clear contrast to Obama’s foreign policy.
  11. Newspaper endorsement flipping. With today’s blogosphere, newspaper endorsements don’t carry anywhere near the weight that they used to. Still, it’s significant that, according to one source, Romney flipped 12 newspaper endorsements that had gone to Obama in 2008 and that, according to another source, Romney flipped 28 newspaper endorsements.

So has Obama taken momentum? No. There is a lot of bleeding that Obama still has to try to stop. It’s like plumbing with multiple leaks. You may have stopped one leak, but there are ten others.

And little wonder. Obama represents failure. He represents deceit. And he represents inexperience.

Hope and change turned out to be smoke and mirrors.

A record $16 trillion debt. Lowered national credit rating. An even more crippled economy. The first-ever endorsement of same-sex marriage from a president. Heck, the U.S. even was the first site eliminated from 2016 Summer Olympics contention despite Obama’s personal involvement.

We want four more years of this utterly depressing state of the nation?

Hope and change is now on Romney’s side.  Hope that a man with a proven track record knows what it takes to turn this country around. Hope that we won’t have to settle for more of the last four years. Hope that America can stand tall and proud again, rather than floundering in a sea of incompetence.

Romney isn’t the perfect candidate but he is far more prepared and far more equipped to handle the challenges that face this great nation than Obama. We have seen what Obama has done, and we don’t like it.

November 6th is just hours away. Call me an optimist, but let’s make a vote for a fresh start, America! Let’s vote for Romney!

2012 Presidential Election: Why Obama’s campaign is floundering as time is running out

26 Oct

Today’s Chicago Tribune article described how Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are going about their campaigns.

Romney focused on the economy.

Obama focused on a rape comment some other Republican said, and also unsealed some private records.


Is it any surprise why Romney is now surging ahead of Obama in some of the latest polls?

Let’s take a closer look and see why the Obama team is flopping around like a fish on a fishing boat.

Reason #1: focus on women’s issues

When Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock said that pregnancies resulting from rape were “something that God intended to happen,” Obama seized the issue.

Romney had supported Mourdock prior to Mourdock’s terrible comment, so Obama has raised the issue everywhere he has gone—from a Jay Leno appearance to the campaign trail in Richmond, Va, saying:

We’ve seen again this week, I don’t think any male politicians should be making health care decisions for women.

Abortion is far beyond the scope of this post so let’s just say this: the reason this tactic is a failed strategy is because Obama is preaching to the choir.

That is, women who support abortion have already decided to vote for Obama. Hammering on this issue at this point in the race isn’t going to drive away swing voters from Romney or draw new voters to Obama.

Romney has wisely made a one-time repudiation of Mourdock’s remarks and ignored repeated questions on the matter afterwards. That dealt with the issue without making it a persistent problem.

Instead, Romney addresses women’s issues a different way than Obama does: he continues to hammer away at the economy theme. More specifically, that  women fear lost income/jobs—for either themselves or their husbands—as a more significantly more important and realistic issue for their families than discussions of rare cases of pregnancies as a result of rape.

Even on women’s issues, Obama can’t be trusted

We talked about Obamnesia in a previous post. But the President has Obamnesia about women’s issues too.

Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama declared, “The first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”

[But] in a press conference on April 29, 2009, President Obama said that although he supports a woman’s right to choose, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act was “not highest legislative priority.”

Remember, Obama promised that the “first thing” he’d do as president was pull American troops out of Iraq. But he also promised the “first thing” he’d do as president as sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

As president, Obama did neither of those as his “first thing”—or his second thing, twentieth thing, or fiftieth thing.

In fact, the Freedom of Choice Act isn’t even in Congress anymore.

[And for the record, the ballyhooed Iraqi troop pullout—which some describe as an illusion (read: non-transparent) because there are still 17,000 American military people there, some of which were simply renamed to not sound like troops—didn’t happen until nearly three years after Obama took office.]

Reason #2: focus on unsealing private records

In the past, a major strategy—highly immoral, mind you—of the Obama campaign team has been to doggedly unseal his opponents’ private records.

Obama’s team does this for the sole purpose of smearing them through exaggerations of what is in those sealed records.

Ann Coulter—whether you like her or hate her, you can’t deny the facts she presents—shows how Obama used this sleazy campaign tactic in his past elections.

This too says a lot about Obama.

This time, the Chicago Tribune reports that “previously sealed testimony related to the Staples founder [Tom] Stemberg’s divorce was released Thursday in which Romney…created a special class of company stock for Stemberg’s then-wife as a ‘favor’.”

Surprise, surprise. Gee, I wonder how—and why—that happened.

To Romney’s credit, he is ignoring this too. In his Friday address to an Iowa crowd, Romney kept the heat on the economy while admonishing Obama for campaigning on “the smallest [issues]”:

Four years ago, candidate Obama spoke to the scale of the times. Today, he shrinks from it, trying instead to distract our attention from the biggest issues to the smallest — from characters on Sesame Street and silly word games to misdirected personal attacks he knows are false.

Reason #3: Not appearing presidential

During the last two debates, the American people saw a bitter, combative and snide side to President Obama. He’s still in that mode on the post-debate campaign trail. And we continue to see that un-presidential side of him in the cover story of the latest Rolling Stone magazine, where:

Obama dismissed his GOP rival as “a bullsh***er.”

The ironic thing is that, as we’ve discussed, the same could easily be said of Obama.

But the President of the United States shows how classless and un-presidential he is in using a vulgar word to describe his political opponent as if Obama was at a local tavern.

The bottom line

Obama knows he has no standing to campaign on the economy, or even on foreign policy—the two biggest issues a sitting president typically campaigns on for re-election. That explains why he rarely talks about those two subjects on the campaign trail.

Rather, Obama has recently been campaigning on scatter-brained small-potato issues and smear tactics. For a campaign whose official slogan is “Forward”, there’s nothing forward-thinking about his campaign stumps.