Today I went and voted, and surprise surprise, I had some trouble.  When I went in to vote they tried to tell me that I was registered for Columbus Georgia, even though I left there in 2007 and have voted in Fulton County since then.

Guys, today is our last chance to get rid of Obama.  We must get rid of this man.  If we don’t get rid of him then this might very well be the last meaningful election we have, if not the last election we have.  This man hates everything our country was founded on, and he hates our country.  He is out to destroy our way of life.  This man thinks he’s a world president, so much so that he even holds a UN office even though it’s 100% illegal for him to do so.  He is working to put drones over the whole country to spy on us and take down citizens wherever he wants.  He has already put through NDAA which shows what he thinks of the Constitution, and he has already tried to cut deals with the Russians.  If we don’t get rid of him then there is no hope for this country.  Get out there, and vote this commie internationalist out of office.

For a long time I have suspected that at least half the Obama supporters do not even know what Obama stands for, and among those that do there are a good deal of party loyalists who do not understand how the policies will affect the.  As I have said before, the Democrats want to fill the country with people who will believe them when they say a dog is a duck. 

If you are going to vote you should at least know what the candidates stand for, and how their policies will effect the country.  If not, then for the love of everything that is good don’t vote.

Just look:

Well tomorrow is the big day, and I cannot over-emphasize how important it is to have this man gone.  How anyone can still be a fence sitter at this time is beyond me, but I am going to go over a few of the highlights of Obama just to have it fresh in everyone’s mind before the election.

We are dealing with a man who apologizes to our enemies.  Romney correctly called his trip throughout the ME an apology tour, and of course the liberal media insisted that it was not but calling a dog a duck does not make it a duck.  The fact is he apologized for US behavior to people who hate us.  This man thinks he is a world president.  He wants to be a world president.  Listen, the president has no business apologizing for America.  I would make no apologies if it were me.  We stopped Hitler and the Japanese.  Without us everyone in Europe would be speaking German today, and everyone in East Asia would be speaking Japanese.  Without the US there would have been no one to contain the USSR.  Without us Saddam Hussein would still be alive and killing.  It doesn’t matter if someone else doesn’t like us, that’s their own bloody problem.  If I were president and someone was talking smack about the US or saying that we owed the world I would tell them to talk to the hand.  But not Obama, because his loyalties are to the “international community,” which means the UN and Islam.

Obama has his faced shoved up the hind end of Islam.  One can see it in the range of actions he has taken, from apologizing to Islamic dictatorships, to bowing to the Saudi King, to refusing to meet with Netanyahu, to arresting Nakoula Besseley Nakoula in the dark of night to appease moon worshipping savages around the world.  Also, let’s not forget that the movie had jack all to do with the attack on Benghazi.  Obama and Hillary blamed it on the movie for two weeks before admitting it was a terror attack to commemorate 9/11.  In the meantime they issued an attack on our most important freedom, the freedom of speech and expression by arresting Nakoula Besseley Nakoula.  BTW, what happened at Benghazi was absolutely criminal.  Maybe there was incompetance at every level of that incident, but it was most certainly top down incompetance.  I know Obama put on some “righteous anger” about this being used to campaign against him, but, Obama, you made a FUBAR out of the situation, you deserve to be held accountable.  Bumbling dolt or seditious traitor?  I don’t know which he is. 

Obama has no sense of economics, or if he does then he is deliberately doing the opposite of what needs to be done.  You cannot spend your way out of debt, neither can you borrow your way out of debt.  No one things this on a personal level.  No one says, “Oh, I have some college debt, let me pay if off with a credit card that has an even higher rate of interest,” or “Oh, they are foreclosing on my house, let me spend more money.”  Anyone who thinks like that on a personal level is an absolute retard, and yes, I said retard.  So why vote for a many who applies those irresponsible fiscal policies on a national level?  YOU CANNOT BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT.  “But Obama is going to raise taxes,” you might say.  Yes, he is going to raise taxes and he is going to still spend the money faster than he gets it.  Washington is an economic black hole.  Also, do you like the gas prices?  They have more than doubled since Obama has taken office.  Anyone who is supporting Obama should be happy to pay $4 to $6 a gallon for regular unleaded gas, because these high gas prices are his fault.  How can I say that?  Because he has consistently blocked domestic drilling, and he blocked the pipeline from Canada, while on the other hand he donates money to countries like Venezuela to help develop their oil industry.  If Obama wins this time we can expect gas prices to go up some more, and you Obama supporters should like it, because you voted for it. 

Fast and Furious was absolutely criminal.  What business does the government have giving guns to Mexican drug lords and gangsters?  So many Mexicans were killed because of that, and so were a few Americans.  The President of Mexico even put up a sign near the US border that said “No More Weapons,” and the sign itself was constructed out of smuggled weapons that were confiscated.  Of course the president of Mexico asked Obama and Congress to support an arms ban in the US, which was really the entire goal of Fast and Furious, to rally support for gun control.  I have a better idea, why don’t we just kick Obama and his goons out of Washington?  Let’s have some politician control.  If I were the father of one of those border patrol agents that were killed I would be absolutely livid with Eric Holder and Obama for picking him.  I would demand justice for my son, and there should be justice. 

Listen, I know there are some people out there who do not want to vote for Romney (or Obama) as a matter of principle, and I can respect that, but Romney is the only one capable of beating Obama, and getting rid of Obama is the most important thing right now.  I can understand the urge to teach the Republicans a lesson, in fact I share that urge.  I was so irritated with them for picking Romney when I wanted Ron Paul or Herman Kain, or at least Rick Santorum.  But think about this, if Obama wins any and all attempts to teach the Republicans a lesson will be forever wasted.  This man will bring in so many 3rd world immigrants and put so many more people on welfare that our people will never be able to win another election.  They will fix things so that each election is a guaranteed win go the Democrats, and all we will be able to do at that point is try to secede.  Think about it.

“The criminals have become more and more vicious in their eagerness to spark fear and anxiety in society,” President Felipe Calderon said. “One of the main factors that allows criminals to strengthen themselves is the unlimited access to high-powered weapons, which are sold freely, and also indiscriminately, in the United States of America.”

Speaking in Ciudad Juarez, the border city across from El Paso, Texas, that has become Mexico’s murder capital, Calderon said a dramatic increase in violence in Mexico was directly connected with the 2004 expiration of the U.S. assault weapons ban.

The message was familiar. The Mexican president has asked U.S. lawmakers to renew the ban on assault weapons before, most notably in a 2010 speech to the U.S. Congress.

But the backdrop Thursday was dramatically different. Calderon stood in front of a massive new sign, constructed with tons of decommissioned arms. “NO MORE WEAPONS,” the sign said — in English. Americans on the other side of the border are the intended audience, Calderon said.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/world/americas/mexico-us-weapons/index.html

Obama has issued an executive order which effectively establishes a command economy, and puts every aspect of production under the control of the Federal Government, specifically the executive branch.  This is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended, and it is the opposite of what we need.  There is no country in the world with a command economy that is a nice place to live, nor has there ever been.

Executive order 13603 a.k.a. National Defense Resource Preparedness is the culprit.  Ostensably it was designed to prepare the country for war or invasions, but the provisios it contains are designed to operate in peacetime as well.  It is nothing less than a complete government take over of the economy.  Here is an excerpt from the order:

PART II—PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

The entire order can be found here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=100050

So there is the breakdown of which departments of the Executive Branch will oversee each aspect of the economy.  Everything, from energy production and allocation to food and water will be under the government and directed by the government.  The government will decide prices, it will decide what gets made and who gets it, and it will decide how much food and water you can have.  This is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the country, and no one but a thorougly insane traitor would ever defend a thing like this.

Listen, executive orders are Constitutionally dubious at best, but this one totally bucks the bounds of the Executive Branch.  If this is allowed to take effect the US is gone.  We will go from a 1st world country to a 3rd world pesthole, just like Robert Holdren wants. 

We must stop this man Obama.  We cannot afford another four years of this man.  We simply cannot.

Are Conservatives mean?

When it comes to the issue of welfare, and many other socio-economic issues we are often accused of being mean, bigoted, racist, etc., for standing in opposition to left wing programs.  Welfare is one of the more sensitive issues, and it is an issue where conservatives get accused of being greedy and/or mean spirited for opposing it.  Anyone with an average level IQ or higher should be able to logically discern that the issue is more complex than mean-spiritedness vs. benevolence, but for the sake of enlightenment I will clearly explain what exactly the issue is.

Most of us have been to middle school and graduated from it.  Most of us can agree that the issues which are considered important in Middle School are in fact irrelevant, but much of what happens in Middle School is a microcosm for the conflicts one faces in the adult world.  Suppose Studant A is flicking Studant B in the ear from behind.  Student B tells Student A to stop multiple times, but Student A just keeps it up.  Flick, flick, flick, flick…  After a while Student B turns around and slaps Student A so hard that everyone in class hears it.  Student A is no longer flicking Student B but now Student B is in trouble, and the next thing he knows Student B is the one who is being portrayed as the bad guy.  Regardless of what anyone thinks transpired, does Student B’s reaction to Student A make Student B a hateful or spiteful person?  For the rational person the answer is no, obviously what Student B did was a reaction to the incessant prodding of Student A, and the failure of Student A to stop when told. 

The same is true of conservatives.  Conservatives are people who wish to either maintain the current socio-economic system, or return to a time in the past when conditions were better.  When we are continually prodded by people who wish to take things in a direction which is detrimental to our way of life then of course we are going to react.  That being said, any hostility that comes from our side is a defensive reaction rather than an act of pointless hate.

Opposition to Welfare

Our opposition to welfare is not based on greed or spite, but based on the obvious fact that welfare is not voluntary giving, and that such artificial manipulation of the economy has adverse side affects. 

Conservatives engage in more voluntary giving than anyone else in the country, especially the religious right, which receives more hate and scorn than any other group, both nationally and internationally.  It is a serious and grievous error to equate government redistribution of wealth with voluntary giving, or opposition of such redistribution with greed.  One cannot be benevolent with another person’s belongings.  If I go out and rob a bank, and then give all that money to random people on the streets does that make me benevolent?  What if I rob one person who is walking down the streets and give the contents of their wallet to a homeless man?  Am I benevolent yet?  A rational person would say no.  There is no voluntary giving in welfare, the government demands a certain amount of money each year, and if it is not paid then they come in force to take it.  I cannot be benevolent with my money if it is being lifted out of my pocket by someone else, because once it is taken out of my pocket it is out of my control what happens to it. 

“Oh but we have to help all the poor people!” they say.  So help them then, but do it with your own resources.  A thief with a cause is still a thief.  If you want to give then give, but don’t concern yourself with what your neighbor is doing.  What he does or does not do is between him and God, not between him and you, and if your neighbor is a successful conservative he is probably giving more than you are anyways.

The accusation that conservatives do not want to “do their part” is as subjective judgment.  There is no law of God or nature that states that anyone who does not work is entitled to earnings.  In fact, it boggles my mind how on one hand liberals are constantly ridiculing conservatives for not believing in evolution (even though not all conservatives are Christians or believers in ID), while at the same time refusing apply the principles of evolution to real life situations, or to society.  If evolution is true, then the absolute worst thing you can do is try to interfere with the process of natural selection, which is the driving engine behind it.  At this point I am certain some liberal is tempted to say, “that’s mean!” but if you will read my statement closely, I did not advocate anything, I merely pointed out an obvious contradiction.  If you refuse to stand by the principles of your own particular belief system then you should not criticize others for not sharing your beliefs. 

But I digress, the fact is there is no scientifically proven natural law, or divine law stating that people are entitled to earnings without working. When I refer to natural law I mean actual natural laws, not theories or widely accepted beliefs among “experts.” For example, entropy is a natural law.

When it comes to man’s laws, they are only as authoritative as there is force to back them, but no law of man can affect the laws of nature, or the laws of God.  Therefore, the existence of any given human law does not automatically make that law morally or pragmatically sound.  Institutionalized theft is still theft, and it is still immoral.

The impetus behind welfare is not charity or moral outrage, it is a two pronged attack on economic freedom by those who wish to have something without having earned it, and by government elites who are trying to push a socio-economic agenda.

The Purpose of Welfare:

Welfare is nothing more than a state sponsored dysgenics program.  There is not one iota of evidence that welfare is something the Founding Fathers intended, or that it is necessary, or that it is having a positive impact on poverty. 

If the Founding Fathers intended for such an institution as welfare to exist then they would have established it immediately.  The fact that they did not is quite telling.  In fact, no one believed that such a thing as welfare was Constitutional or American until the 20th century after it was already established.  People were hoodwinked into accepting a socialist program.

Since welfare was established the amount of people on welfare and the sheer numbers of poor people in the country has skyrocketed:

For a program which was ostensibly established to get people back on their feet it has failed miserably, in fact, it has done the opposite of the ostensibly intended affect.  This is why I believe that the purpose of welfare is something other than helping people get out of poverty.  To the rational person with an average or above average level IQ it should be obvious that when a behavior is incentivised the end result will be a net increase in that behavior.  To put it simply, if you pay people to not work then they will continue to not work, if you increase their not-working pay when they have additional children then they will have more children.  The result is that there are ever increasing numbers of non-working people who exist off of the state.

The issue is further compounded by immigration, specifically unskilled third world immigration.

Thirteen years after Congress overhauled the American welfare system, 57 percent of immigrants with children &#151 those in the country legally or not &#151 use at least one government, welfare program according to a report released Tuesday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

In comparison, 39 percent of native-born Americans with children are signed up for welfare, the report found.

In Texas, 54 percent of legal immigrants and 70 percent of illegal immigrants receive welfare assistance, with illegal immigrants generally receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, according to the study, written by a think tank that favors reducing immigration into the U.S.

Source: Houston Chronicle  http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/04/study-70-of-texas-illegal-immigrant-families-receive-welfare/

Why are we allowing the country to be flooded with so many unskilled immigrants when there is already a good portion of citizens who are perpetually out of work?  When it comes to illegal aliens, and arguments about whether or not they have a right to be here, one often hears the argument, “we need them because they work all the jobs that white people don’t want to.”  The fact that we have so many citizens, white, black, whatever, who are not working is a testament to the fact that we do not need hordes of unskilled immigrants each year, and whether or not they want to do the work is immaterial.  If their welfare is cut off and they begin to starve then working on a farm or construction site all of a sudden begins to look good.  Immigration should be cut absolutely, except in cases of high need, and welfare should be cut at the same time.  Those welfare people can then work on the farms and constructions sites, or they can become janitors, fast food workers, warehouse workers, dock workers, etc.  With the government no longer incentivising their lifestyle they will have less children, because they will not want to bring more beings into the world than they can support on their own, and our socio-economic system will gradually return to a more balanced state.

But of course this is not what the government wishes to do, especially not left wing politicians.  On the one hand they want to continue welfare, and on the other they want to flood the country with unskilled immigrants and allow them to drain from the system as well.  The effect is that we have growing numbers of people with low-IQ.  The left is notorious for it’s preference for cultivating masses of people with low-IQ’s.  They want to have masses of low IQ individuals who will accept whatever they say or do without questioning.  What they want is to be able to tell people a dog is a duck, and have the masses repeat “it’s a duck…” like a droning crowd of mindless zombies. 

For the time being the left wing leadership insists that these people are entitled to earnings which they did not work for, and that they have a right to be in the US, but as their numbers grow then the system must eventually break.  The expenditures necessary to support these people will greatly exceed tax revenues, and the GDP.  The end result will be a collapse, which will probably take the form of a communist style revolution, with the left wing leadership carefully inserting themselves as benefactors and leaders of the revolution.  At that point the welfare will stop, but the government will have fully established a command economy where private production and ownership of property no longer exist.  The amount of low-IQ people will greatly surpass that of intelligent people, so the intelligent people who are not party members will become increasingly irrelevant, and if they complain they will be silenced one way or another.

The man of low IQ is less likely to question the authority structure, and less likely to recognize when depredations are being worked on him or on those around him.  If the authorities tell the low-IQ masses that they are better off under the new conditions then the masses will believe them.  The intelligent man is more capable of independent thought, and is less likely to view those in the authority structure as inherently superior.  As a result he is more likely to question both the actions of the authority structure and the legitimacy of the authority structure, which is why in the long run intelligent people will not be allowed to exist outside of the authority structure. 

Nothing I have said here so far should be a shocking revelation, neither is it anything new.  These ideas, and concepts have been around since at least the 4th century BC, where ideas which sound as though they were taken directly from George Orwell’s “1984″ or the “Communist Manifesto” were penned by the Chinese statesman Shang Yang:

Sophistry and cleverness are an aid to lawlessness; rites and music are symptoms of dissipations and licence; kindness and benevolence are the foster-mother of transgressions; employment and promotion of opportunities for the rapacity of the wicked.

(Shang p. 167)

A weak people means a strong state and a strong state means a weak people.

(Shang p. 222)

The motives of the left wing leadership are inherently tyrannical, and geared entirely towards establishing permanent rule.  That is how it has always been throughout history, and that is why the execution of intelligent people is a common theme throughout every single communist regime.  The only people a tyrannical regime has to be nice to are it’s military.  If the country is populated by low-IQ persons then they will accept as good whatever the regime tells them is good. 

The agenda of the left wing leadership and the type of society it will culminate in is best lined out in George Orwell’s book “1984.”

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested only in power.  Not wealth or luxary or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.  What pure power means you will understand presently.  We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.  All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.  The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.  They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.  We are not like that.  We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.  Power is not a means, it is an end.  One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

(Orwell, p. 302)

Although 1984 is fiction, we can see that it is based in historical fact. If one steps back and objectively examines the effects of left wing policies, not the stated purposes and goals, but the actual effects, then it becomes obvious what sort of socio-economic structure is on the horizon.  All of this madness that is going on now has to be stopped. 

I have had liberals tell me that if we cut off the welfare these people will riot and come after us.  I do not believe that they will.  People of low IQ do not originate revolutions, and if they get stirred up over something then it is their own neighborhoods which bear the brunt of their wrath.  Without direction they are only dangerous in the places where they live.  But, for the sake of argument, suppose they do decide to spread out from their areas to loot and kill?  That’s why we have police with guns, and we as citizens are also allowed to have guns.  If you are worried, get some guns, stockpile some bullets, and shoot at them from the windows of your house when they come.  But again, I do not believe it will come to that.  Worst case scenario they will wreck their own neighborhoods, and after the initial spasm we can work on returning to the age of private charities, and we can establish better trade schools for these people. 

This is a comment I saw on a yahoo news article, but it was so good I decided to repost it here:

So apparently the liberal media is calling Sarah Palin racist because of a comment she made on her facebook page pertaining to Obama’s incompetence regarding the Libya situation, where they attacked our Ambassador to commemorate 9/11. 

“Why the lies? Why the cover up? Why the dissembling about the cause of the murder of our ambassador on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil? We deserve answers to this. President Obama’s shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end,” Palin wrote.

They are saying it’s racially charged and is a reference to his blackness.  So let me say this to the liberals, and I know 99% of you guys won’t listen or believe, but I am going to say this anyways.  WE DON’T CARE ABOUT RACE NEARLY HALF AS MUCH AS YOU DO.  I cannot over-emphasize that.  The reason why we don’t talk about it as much, or are as “sensitive” as you are, is because we don’t care about it or think about it nearly as much.  I’m not going to lie and say that there are no racist conservatives, there are, just like there are plenty on your side as well, but on average race is on our minds far less than it is on yours.

To all my people/fellow conservatives.  It’s long past time we stopped caring whether or not liberals think we are racist.  Who cares?  They use it so much it’s meaningless.  They are all steam and no substance, so let them blow their steam and eventually they will run out of that.  Stop letting them trick you into taking a defensive position when you don’t have to. 

I also made a vlog on this:

Article complaining about Palin, poor babies with hurt feelings: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/palin-accuses-obama-shuck-jive-schtick-212555554–politics.html

I have to say, the more Obama talks, the less I like him.  I have never seen a politician more fake than this man, or even a human being for that matter.  Everything he says is either insincere or poorly stated, but mostly insincere.  It seems like every time he says “the American people” he chokes a little.  Just watch him.  He has a hard time getting it out.

Obama and his followers, as well as the media sycophants, continually attack Romney for his 47% comment, but that comment was 100% correct.

All Romney did was call attention to the elephant in the room which everyone knew was already there.  Of course Obama is saying that he is the president of all of America, and that he cares about everyone, but that comment is blatantly false.  The truth is Obama has done nothing at all to connect with the most iconic group in the US, which is the traditional American.  He’s all about class conflict, race baiting, and world pleasing.  He knows that the traditional American is not going to vote for him, so he makes no effort to reach us, and the positions he takes on many issues are such that preclude any chance of garnering our support or sympathy.

His “Wake the F*** up” commercial with Samuel L. Jackson is a prime example of the disconnect between him and us.  In that commercial he presents a false view of welfare recipients, and he makes the claim that Romney is against unions, “gay marriage” and that he wants to cut welfare.  If that is true then God bless Romney.  Am I really supposed to identify with his support of homosexuality, unions, and parasitism/welfare?  None of those are causes that traditional Americans can identify with.  This is another elephant in the room, just like Romney’s 47%.  We know it and Obama knows it.  Also, since when is it not vulgur to use the F-bomb in a political ad.  What sort of people is Obama trying to campaign to here?  Is that supposed to be clever and gimmicky?

Also, I know what Obama thinks about me and others like me:

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said back in 2008.

No I will not let that statement go, because it’s a statement of his position, and it shows how he disdains the traditional American.  Tell you what Obama, we will keep our guns, our religion, our money, and our freedom, and you can keep the change. 

It’s an insult that a man like this says that he is everyone’s president, when clearly he represents a set of interests that the traditional American cannot identify with.  I don’t want anything his man has to offer.  I don’t want more gun regulations, more taxes, more government involvement in my life, more government involvement in education, welfare, planned parenthood, treaties with the UN, military reduction, and I sure as shamrocks do not trust Russia.  This man has his prioties backwards.

I especially do not care for his economic plans (which are tax and spend), or the class warfare he advocates.  He talks about the wealthy paying their “fair share,” when the top 5% is already paying over 50% of the taxes.  This man has a skewed idea of fair.  Actually, he does not care for fair at all, he hates achievment, and he wants to punish it.  He talks about Romney’s financial success and his running a business as if it were a bad thing, but that’s a good thing, because it actually shows that he knows how to generate money and how to manage it.  If Obama had some experience in that area then the Federal deficit would not be what it is.  As I have stated before, I want to keep my job.  To me job security is more important than a socialist “safety net” which I would never use anyways on moral grounds.  If my employer goes under than so do I, and in fact many small businesses will go under if the government interferes with their ability to meet operational costs, which is what Obama plans to do with his higher taxes.  Also, raising taxes does no good whatsoever if spending is also raised.  All that will do is open the hole in a leaky boat even wider.

The other day I was complaining to my dad about how I lose about $400 a month in taxes, mostly Federal but some state.  That was when my dad told me that he loses $5000 a month to taxes, and Obama wants to raise that amount.  Why would I want taxes raised on an family member, especially my parents?  It’s ridiculous, but Obama is always making comments about how the wealthy should pay more because they have more, and trying to portray them as greedy and somehow less virtuous than everyone else, and with a different set of interests.  That’s my family Obama is talking about, and they give more in to charity than the average person makes in a year.  My dad was audited once because some dolt in the IRS could not believe how much money he gave to charity that year.  The fool there was simply incredulous, because the average liberal and government worker cannot conceive of voluntay giving on such a scale.  What they like is government giving, which involves taking money out of one persons hands and putting it into anothers.

So basically Obama is taking the stance of those “occupy” crackheads.  He wants to appeal to the entitlement and freeloader mentalities.  Usually people are wealthy because they are smarter than the average person and harder working.  If you want to go to work 10 hours a day and be on call during the weekends, and do everything you can for your employer as if it were a personal project and a matter of personal pride then you might just become wealthy.  The class warfare does not appeal to me at all, and I find it much easier to identify with the wealth creators than I do with either the government or the perpetual welfare recipients. 

Earlier today I read that Native American activist Russel Means has passed away.  I make no personal judgments on that man at this time, but I would like to take the opportunity to thoroughly state my position on Native American nationalism.  In many of my debates liberals have mentioned Native Americans, as if saying “Native Americans” were some kind of trump card.  Each and every time I have suprised them with my position, so here it is in full detail.

I thoroughly support Native American nationalism.  Any conservative who respects the philosophical basis upon which the US was founded should also support Native American nationalism.  Why?  The driving force behind the American Revolution was the belief that different people groups had the right to rule themselves and to determine their own fate.  The fact is that the American colonists and the English had become separate peoples.  The idea that people groups have the right to self-determinism and to govern themselves does not stop with just the American colonists separating from England, but it applies to all people and it was stated accordingly in the Declaration of Independence. 

I believe that different peoples have the right to form their own political boundaries, and appoint rulers for themselves which come from their own group.  If a Mexican living in the US gets tired of being ruled by white people, speaking English, and having to be around white people he can always go back to Mexico and be surrounded by his own people.  If a Native American is tired of being ruled by white people, having to obey their laws, having to speak English, or even having to look at them what can he do?  Nothing.  He has nowhere to go.  As it stands now he has the choice of being ruled by anyone but his own people.  Native Americans should have the same options that Mexicans and almost every other people group on the planet has.  If they don’t want to be ruled by Washington, they should not have to be, and I think that is a sentiment that many traditional white conservatives can agree with because many of us feel the same way about ourselves.  Let us also extend that same respect to others.

Here is what I would like to see happen/what should happen.  Every Native American tribe should receive their own fully autonomous country.  There should be a homeland for each tribe because each tribe is a separate people.  I do not advocate vacating the entire US in order to abandon all the land to the Native Americans, especially given that their total number is less than 1% of the US population.  To even attempt to do so would be a logistical nightmare which would create more problems than it would solve.  Land should be parceled off to each Native American group in the area of their original homelands, and in reasonable proportion to their numbers.  For example, part of Georgia would be parceled off to the Creek.

Once this is done all the Native Americans would be given the choice to either remain in the US or move to their fully autonomous homelands.  If they move to their own homelands then they are no longer US citizens, which means they will have their own passports, elect their own leaders rather than vote in US elections, make their own laws, and they will not have to obey any US laws.  They will be fully autonomous and independent nations.  If any choose to remain in the US then they will be treated just like everyone else, which means that they can still vote in US elections, but there will be no more special status for them.  They will receive no special scholarships from the government or affirmative action just for being Native American.

I am a 100% European white male, I have nothing to gain personally from Native American independence, but I advocate what I advocate as a matter of principle.

That being said, let us also take a moment to examine why and how the Native Americans lost their land.  I want to get away from villifying white people.  I absolutely abhor the concept of white guilt, and in fact I spit on it.  The idea that white people are mean spirited bullies who came to pick on Native Americans and take their land because they are inherently racist is an idea that needs to be destroyed.  First of all, holding people responsible for something that you THINK their ancestors might have done is throughly asenine.  No one can help what their ancestors may or may not have done, and what is in the past is already in the past.  In fact, most of our ancestors came to the US after it was already established. 

Furthermore, the land was not taken from the Native Americans in one fell swoop.  There was never a day when white people woke up and said, “Let’s take all the land from the natives because we’re racist.”  No.  The land was taken a bit at a time, and it was actually parceled off by the US government.  The government was the driving force behind the land grab.  Part of the problem was that many Native Americans did not understand the concept of land ownership, especially the plains peoples, so many of them sat back and allowed the land to be taken, and the white people did not feel bad about taking it for those reasons. 

Let’s say that Bob walks out into a field and finds Roy standing there.  A large watermelon is growing in the wild next to Roy.  Bob says, “Is that your watermelon,” and Roy says “no.” Bob says, “whose watermelon is it?” and Roy responds by saying “It’s no one’s.”  So then Bob asks if Roy would mind if he takes it, and Roy says no.  Does Roy have a valid reason for getting mad at Bob if Bob takes the whole watermelon?  Of course that is an oversimplification for illustration purposes, but everything factors in. 

Another factor was that many Native Americans sided with the English during the American Revolution.  That was of course a tactical error on the part of those groups, and certainly not all Native Americans should have been punished for it, but again, everything factors in.

The Native Americans had America for thousands of years, and they did nothing with it, so they got beat out by another people group which was more inventive and industrious, but they were not beaten out of spite but rather attrition over a long period of time.  Furthermore, I believe that the creation of the US was a good thing, and it is a fact that white people have brought the world electricity, computers, internet, telephones, cars, and TV’s. 

I cannot believe that most Native Americans would like to return to the standard of living of their pre-colonial ancestors, but what is in the past is in the past, and if they want to have their own countries and their autonomy today, then they have a right to it.  The fact that after all this time being ruled by us they have remained as separate peoples gives them the right to have their own countries.  Everyone has the right to exist as a people, and to govern themselves as they please. 

I am not talking about holding white people responsible as a race for something that happened in the past, or even holding the current US government responsible for what happened in the past (even though they were the primary culprit).  What we can do, and must do, is hold the US government responsible for a failure to do the right thing now, in the present.