A Prophecy Of Impending Economic Doom

For nearly four years, President Obama has presided over reckless spending and runaway debt. And now it’s clear that all Americans will pay the price, with another credit downgrade and nearly $6 trillion in new debt that the next generation will be forced to repay. Americans deserve real leadership – not a president who is content to keep passing our bills on to our next generation. Moody's Investors Service warned that Congress will need to strike a deal on the ‘fiscal cliff’ to avoid a second downgrade to the nation's credit rating. The rating agency said that budget negotiations in 2013 will determine the fate of the nation's credit rating, adding that an inability to strike a deal with ‘specific policies’ to change the nation's debt trajectory will mean a second downgrade.  Moody's still rates the nation as a top-shelf AAA credit, but with a negative outlook as it has warned policymakers they must adjust the nation's fiscal course to retain its financial reputation.

S&P removed for the first time the triple-A rating the U.S. has held for 70 years, saying the budget deal brokered in Washington didn't do enough to address the gloomy outlook for America's finances. It downgraded long-term U.S. debt to AA+, a score that ranks below more than a dozen governments', including Liechtenstein's, and on par with Belgium's and New Zealand's. S&P also put the new grade on ‘negative outlook,’ meaning the U.S. has little chance of regaining the top rating in the near term.

The bottom line is that successful presidents, like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, largely worked their will. But you reach the conclusion in this case, in this struggle Barack Obama did not?” Our financial house is not in order. In other words, the big debate last year about the debt ceiling and whether the U.S. government is going to be able to pay its bills ain't over. We’re going to be right back in that soup in October, December and January. And this isn’t a budget issue, or a credit rating issue. It’s a “Is the government going to have the money needed to pay its bills? And in the end, that’s the President’s job, and the Congress’s job too. But there’s also a thing called presidential leadership.

Under President Obama, The National Debt Has Surpassed $16 Trillion: An Increase Of More Than $6.4 Trillion. Every American’s Share Of The National Debt Currently Stands At Over $61,000 – An Increase Of Over $26,000 Under President Obama.

President Obama is responsible for the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. President.  The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $6 trillion on President Obama's watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $16.639 trillion. It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The current debt-to-GDP ratio is more than 100%. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month the budget deficit for the 2012 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, will be about $1.7 trillion.

FLASHBACK: Candidate Obama claimed it was “Unpatriotic” and irresponsible for president Bush to have added $4 Trillion to the national debt. OBAMA: “The problem is, that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. Well, that was then and you've just read the current figures. So, I ask you; "Which president was more irresponsible? Bush with his $4 trillion in 8 years or Obama with his $6 trillion in just over 3 years? Remember that 6 is more than 4.

Last summer, following the political circus that was the country's debt-ceiling fight, Standard & Poor's downgraded America's debt one notch from its coveted "AAA" rating to "AA," an action that many predicted would surely lead to financial doom. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, what followed was just the opposite: Fearing global instability and even deeper economic troubles in Europe, investors from around the world rushed into U.S. Treasuries, sending yields to record lows, and thus keeping America's cost to borrow at record lows, too.

Now the credit rating agency Egan-Jones has downgraded its rating on U.S. debt to AA- from AA, citing Federal Reserve plans to try to stimulate the economy. The firm said the Fed's plans to buy mortgage bonds will hurt the economy more than help it. Egan-Jones said the plan will reduce the value of the dollar and raise the price of oil and other commodities, hurting businesses and consumers.

QE3

The Fed's QE3 will stoke the stock market and commodity prices will hurt the U.S. economy and, by extension destroy credit quality by the central bank. Issuing additional currency and depressing interest rates via the purchasing of [mortgage-backed securities] does little to raise the real GDP of the U.S., but does reduce the value of the dollar... and in turn increases the cost of commodities. We’ve all seen the recent rise in the prices of energy, gold and other commodities.

Egan-Jones said that, since 2006, U.S. debt as a ratio of GDP had grown to 105%, from 66%. By comparison, Spain's debt-to-GDP ratio of 68.5 percent is far less than what we're encountering the firm added. 

But wait, there’s more. Another big ratings agencies, Moody's (MCO), is also threatening that if the country doesn't address its rising debt by early 2013, it, too, will rescind its own "AAA" rating of U.S. debt, with the implied potential of sending the country's debt costs soaring.

An increase in borrowing costs will really be hell for our country. But the vastly more scary prospect facing America is the continuing economic slowdown in China.

China is an economic powerhouse; everybody knows this. Its economy is second only in size to America's. China also holds -- and continues to buy -- a significant chunk of America's sovereign debt, which just surpassed the $16 trillion mark. Of that amount, China holds about $1.2 trillion of it, or 7.5%.

That may not sound like a lot, but it makes China America's top foreign creditor. Japan comes in second, with $1.1 trillion. And the next biggest foreign debtor is the U.K., which holds just under $500 billion in U.S. debt. That's a big drop-off.

The point being, the U.S. counts on China to soak up a lot of our debt. And China has always been happy to do so.

Since liberalizing its economy in the 1990s, China has become the world's factory. As a massive exporter, it has to do something with all the money that's rolling in. And like so many investors around the world, China uses the U.S. as a place to keep its spare cash. Not only is its money safe here, but the country even earns a bit of interest on it.

For investors of all sorts around the world, then, America operates a bit like a bank. But what happens when that bank's biggest and most reliable depositor doesn't need it anymore? What happens when that depositor stops depositing money in the bank?

The U.S. might be facing just such a situation in the not-too-distant future.

China's economy is slowing. The World Bank puts China's 2011 GDP growth rate at 9.1%, down from 10.4% the year before, and down from 14.2% in 2007. Why is this happening? America's economy is growing at an anemic rate right now, and half of Europe is in recession. Demand for Chinese products is down, and it probably will be for some time to come, so of course China's economy is slowing. As America and as China slows, it will necessarily have less need of the U.S. as a place to stash its money. Consequently, it will slow its buying of Treasuries. And the bond markets could subsequently send the country's cost to borrow soaring to unsustainable levels in the same way they've done with debt-ridden eurozone countries such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain.

So the state of U.S. debt definitely matters; its continuing rise must be checked, but not because of Moody's. Who knows; a downgrade by the rating agency could have no effect at all if real market demand sends Treasury yields even lower. Chances are, if it happens at all, it will be a non-event. It's our own house we need to look after now.

Ronald Reagan

As Americans prepare to mark their ballots, Republicans are hoping that voters' minds will be focused on one (and only one) simple question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

On the campaign trail, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has repeatedly raised that question, evoking Ronald Reagan's 1980 zinger -- a debate-closer that left Jimmy Carter reeling and set the stage for the Gipper's landslide victory. 

Jimmy Carter

In a speech earlier this week at Eastern Carolina University, he connected those dots, claiming that "Every president since the Great Depression who asked Americans to send them into a second term could say that you are better off today than you were four years ago, except for Jimmy Carter and for President Barack Obama."

Ryan's claim packs a rhetorical punch, but the question remains: Are you better or worse off today than you were four years ago? On the surface, the answer appears self-evident: Unemployment is still high, manufacturing is shrinking, and construction spending remains low.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the answer isn't quite as clear as they would like.

Jobs are a good place to start: In July 2008, as the Great Recession was beginning to sink its teeth into America, the country lost 210,000 jobs. Over the following four months, things continued to go downhill: the economy shed 274,000 jobs in August, 432,000 in September, 489,000 in October and 803,000 in November. By the day of Obama's inauguration in January, the economy had shed 4 million jobs.

When Obama took office, the rise of the ocean didn't begin to slow and the planet didn't begin to heal, but joblosses did start to decline. And, while it took until March 2010 for the economy to begin adding jobs again, the first year of the Obama presidency witnessed a fairly consistent drop in the rate of unemployment growth.

Mitt Romney attempted to dismiss the job growth on Obama's watch in a January interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham: "The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery," he declared. While true, this comment presents an interesting rhetorical tangle. Romney seems to be arguing that the question isn't whether the jobs situation has improved since Obama has been in office, but whether or not it could have improved more. For Obama, that's a difficult argument to defend against; after all, hindsight is always 20/20. Then again, it's also a difficult argument for Romney to make.

Jobs aren't the only measure by which the economy has improved on Obama's watch. The personal bankruptcy rate dropped between 2010 and 2011, and the rate of business bankruptcies has been steadily dropping since it hit a peak in 2009. At the same time, RealtyTrac reports, foreclosure rates have also been dropping. According to the real estate information company, foreclosure rates in 2011 were 34% lower than in 2010, 33% lower than in 2009, and 19% lower than in 2008.

But these improvements, while significant, are not particularly impressive. For example, although the economy is no longer losing jobs, it is adding them at a rate that barely keeps up with the new workers entering the job market. In other words, the unemployment rate is holding steady in the low 8% range. Obama himself has given his administration an "incomplete" grade on its handling of the great recession, arguing that the economy is still in the process of recovery.

Ultimately, comparisons between today and four years ago may not be apt. A better question may be whether it's better to be in a car hurtling off a cliff or in a hospital afterwards, suffering through a long, slow recovery. In that context, the ultimate decision for voters will be whether Dr. Obama or Dr. Romney offers a better treatment plan.

The ranks of America's poor remained stuck at record levels, although dwindling unemployment benefits and anemic job gains helped stave off what experts had predicted would be the fourth rise in a row in the poverty rate.

With joblessness persistently high, the gap between rich and poor increased in the last year, according to two major census measures. Also, the median, or midpoint, household income was $50,054, 1.5 percent lower than 2010 and a third straight decline.

A Census Bureau report release provides a mixed picture of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2011, when the unemployment rate improved to 8.9 percent from 9.6 percent in the previous year. The numbers are coming out just before the Nov. 6 election in which the economy is the Number 1 issue and President Obama is trying to make the case that the labor market, while not fully healed, is on the right track. overall poverty rate stood at 15 percent, statistically unchanged from the 15.1 percent in the previous year. The rate was better than a consensus estimate of demographers who had predicted, based on weak wage growth, a gain that's up to half a percentage point, to levels not seen since 1965.

For last year, the official poverty line was an annual income of $23,021 for a family of four. By total numbers, roughly 49.7 million people remained below the poverty line, unchanged from 2010. That figure was the highest in more than half a century when records started being kept. The 15 percent poverty rate was basically unchanged from 1993 and was the highest since 1983.



Broken down by state, New Mexico had the highest share of poor people, at 22.2 percent, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. It was followed by Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia. On the other end of the scale, New Hampshire had the lowest, at 7.6 percent.

"This is good news and a surprise," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan economist who closely tracks poverty. He pointed to a continuing boost from new unemployment benefits passed in 2009 that gave workers up to 99 weeks of payments after layoffs and didn't run out for many people until late 2011. Also, job gains in the private sector that helped offset cuts in state and local government workers.



"It would indicate the two stimulus packages were completely ineffective," he said.

Bruce D. Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago, said it was disappointing that poverty levels did not improve. He described it as a sign of lingering problems in the labor market even with recent declines in unemployment. "The drop in the unemployment rate has been due in significant part to workers leaving the labor force, because they are discouraged, back in school, taking care of family or other reasons," he said.

The official poverty level is based on a government calculation that includes only income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership.

As a result, the official poverty rate takes into account the effects of some stimulus programs passed in 2009, such as unemployment benefits, as well as jobs that were created or saved by government spending. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits and food stamps.

David Johnson, the chief of the Census Bureau's household economics division, attributed the better-than-expected poverty numbers to increases in full-time workers over the last year. He also estimated that expanded unemployment benefits helped keep 1.6 million working-age people out of poverty.

Social Security also lifted roughly 14.5 million seniors above the poverty line. Without those cash payments, the number of people ages 65 and older living in poverty would have increased five-fold, he said. Johnson also noted that that income inequality was widening. He said the top 1 percent of wage earners had a 6 percent increase in income over the last year, while income at the bottom 40 percent of earners was basically unchanged.

"A lot of the increase is driven by changes at the very top of the distribution," he said.

The share of Americans without health coverage fell from 16.3 percent to 15.7 percent, or 48.6 million people. It was the biggest decline in the number of uninsured since 1999, boosted in part by increased coverage for young adults under the new health care law that allows them to be covered under their parents' health insurance until age 26.

Congress passed the health overhaul in 2010 to address the rising numbers of uninsured people. During this election year, the law has come under increasing criticism Republicans, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to push a repeal if he is elected. The main provisions of the health care law will not take effect until 2014.

Political Gang-banging: Government For Hood-Rats

Who's That On That Red Shirt???

After reading the title of this piece, your jaw just may hit the floor. Well, it should. You should be outraged at the state of political affairs in the good ol' U.S. of A. That's right I said it; I’m accusing our elected politicians of mimicking similar behavior to those involved in street gangs (take away the violence of course). You may be offended, but don't shoot the messenger. I am calling things the way that I see them. The way that things are.

Wake Your Ass Up!

It's an election year, and I believe that the people need to be awaken to the fact that the Democrats and Republicans are much like the street gangs Crips and Bloods, who’s colors blue and red, they use to identify the two political parties just like those of these two street gangs – but politicians are much worse. Street gangs don't affect but a small portion of the population. What inspired me to write this article is the fact that this is an election year, and I want people to compare the two gangs and then go and vote their conscience. The democrats are destroying this country. They've controlled it one way or another for the last 100 years or so that they have been in charge and they’re still at it.    
 

While I am accusing our elected officials, they are just mirrors of society. The problems start with the average Joe's that they are representing, "Us". It is natural for human beings to seek ways of forming a self-identity through association with groups of others (fraternities, industries, sports teams fans, etc.) But where political parties are concerned, this natural inclination to identify is highly overdeveloped. This over-identification causes us to take politics too personally and has led to a serious case of gang-mentality: Us versus them. 

We have succeeded in dividing ourselves as a nation, and this split has led us to a damaged state of political affairs. In this division we have efficiently and conveniently placed ourselves into pre-packaged little boxes of ideals; One with a pretty blue bow, the other a red. And we are never to wander from these canned ideologies, lest we be deemed a defector of some kind, by our fellow party mates. Perhaps this is why politicians are accused of being liars. They often change their tune after they are elected. It's probably because a candidate can't be endorsed by it's party unless he or she decides to be a figurehead of the collective party's ideals! What chance does a Democrat who is pro-choice have in gaining the support from their party? What about a Republican that is in favor of adopting tax cuts for everybody? One may be thinking, "Easy. That individual is not truly a Democrat or a Republican." Therein lies the problem.

In order to grasp a basic understanding of the thinking we must first know a little about the core beliefs of these two parties and what each party stands for. Political party affiliation is a quick way to find out the basic ideas and philosophy for each candidate, both Republicans and Democrats. Political affiliation can be used to understand the core beliefs of each candidate and there are significant differences between them, So, I've summarized those values below:

Republicans  philosophy

Republicans believe that each person is responsible for his or her own place in society. Government should enable each person the ability to secure the benefits of society for themselves, their families and for those who are unable to care for themselves. The Republican philosophy is based on limiting the intervention of government as a catalyst of individual prosperity. Government should only intervene in specific cases where society cannot effectively act at the individual level. With the belief that individual destiny should be in the individual’s hands, governmental power and resources should be kept close to the people, through their state and community leaders, and not centralized in distant federal government agencies. 

The centralization of power

However; Democrats believe it is the responsibility of government to care for all individuals, even if it means giving up some individual rights and/or subordinating enterprise and initiative. Democrat Party administrations have pushed for the centralization of power in Washington D.C., with only secondary consideration for the rights of both individuals and communities. Democrats have favored federal-level interventions that replace community-based solutions to community problems. These tactics have created several federal regulations and controls that are often in the hands of un-elected bureaucrats, causing a severe erosion of local authority.

 Why do we need a set of party rules and guidelines to tell us what we should think? Can't we use our own brains and hearts to make sense of our environment? Why can't we make up our own minds? Sorry folks, but life is full of gray areas. One set of rules can't be appropriate for every situation, every time! A Republican who is generally fiscally conservative can look at the state of our healthcare system, look at the myriad of ways that this broken system costs citizens and the government, and decide that in this particular instance only,  defecit spending is justified and appropriate given the circumstances. If a Republican made that decision, it doesn't mean they have turned their backs on their party. It just means they made a decision after assessing a situation and doing what they thought was right at that point in time. That is how we should all be making decisions. That is the difference between our nation being led by thinkers and feelers versus followers.

It's this us vs. them, follow the leader mentality that makes it so difficult to get anything passed in the house or senate! Everybody always votes in a manner that reflects the party ideas, with the exceptions of a few brave souls who rarely step out of the box. It is also why it's so difficult for the minority party to have any influence in the White House. All they can do is try to sabotage bills proposed by the other party. The majority party will never accept the opposing party bill because then they will be admitting that the other party came up with a good idea, which probably undermines their party principles! These sabotage attempts can be downright nasty, deplorable tactics that suggest desperation and justified frustration. But the us versus them mentality keeps us from being able to work together, and renders our system completely ineffective.

Now, let's examine the economic differences between these two parties, the results may surprise you, in that both parties are guilty of wasteful spending and blame the other party for it, but please, bare with me here, as an outsider, I'll only give you what I've charted:

Republicans believe free enterprise has brought economic growth and innovations that have made this country great. Government should help stimulate a business environment where people are free to use their talents. A sound monetary policy is critical for maintaining a strong economy. Inflation diminishes the purchasing power of the dollar at home and abroad and is a hidden tax on the American people. Moreover, the inflation tax is regressive, punishes those who save, transfers wealth from Main Street to Wall Street, and has grave implications for seniors living on fixed incomes.

Lets Git 'Er Done

Republican will work to advance substantive legislation that brings transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Open Market Committee, and the Fed's dealings with foreign central banks. The first step to increasing transparency and accountability is through an annual audit of the Federal Reserve's activities. Such an audit would need to be carefully implemented so that the Federal Reserve remains insulated from political pressures and so its decisions are based on sound economic principles and sound money rather than on political pressures for easy money and loose credit.

Whereas Democrats believe that the economy is too complicated for individuals to navigate alone. They believe that business decisions should be guided by government officials and in the best interest of labor unions.

Now when it comes to taxes and government spending, we’ll really see the widening gulf in the different party ideology and the effect it will wrought on the middle class and poor.

Republicans work tirelessly to cut government spending and to eliminate government waste. Republicans believe individuals should control both their own and their government’s pocketbook – the people should authorize all tax increases.

Democrats believe that government knows what is best for individuals. They argue that federal bureaucrats better understand the needs of a community than a locally elected council and the federal government should define the tax burden necessary to meet its obligations, because this is too complicated for individuals to understand.

Kick Ass Now; Fuck Their Names

The US military faces growing problems in readiness, morale, and its ability to prepare for the threats of the future. The administration will cut defense spending to its lowest percentage of gross domestic product since 1939. Americans are more likely now (45%) than they were a year ago (37%) to say the United States' national defense is "not strong enough." At the same time, fewer believe the nation's defense is "about right." Republicans believe in a strong national defense. Republicans know that defending our nation against its enemies must be a fundamental commitment of the federal government and this requires the best trained, best-equipped and most effective military in the world. With America as the world’s only superpower, Republicans believe that true security comes from the strength of character to act collaboratively, when possible, and alone when necessary.  After the tragedy of 9-11, America must be ready to fight terrorism abroad in order to prevent it at home.

The Way Democrats Fund The Military

It is imperative to replace aging weapons systems with advanced, high-tech weapons. The Democratic Party will continues to hinder the invest in research and development for future supremacy when they should be ensuring that investment in the infrastructure needed to support the military is not ignored.

In the past 10 years, Democrats have advocated for scaling down our military and reducing the money spent on military intelligence. Democrats believe that true security comes from negotiations with foreign nations, even if they harbor or have financial ties to terrorist groups.  Democrats believe that we must ask other nations for permission before we act to protect our own security. 

Republicans on education believe all students, regardless of race or socio-economic background, should become proficient in both reading and math.  While it is desirable that children learn more than one language, mastery of the English language will allow our children to be competitive at the university level. Republicans also believe that schools should be held accountable for student progress through testing, which can be used to identify individual childrens’ needs. These reports, at both the student and school level, should be provided to the parents to ensure accountability. 

Whereas Democrats believe that tests burden teachers and waste classroom instruction time. They also believe children should be forced to stay in schools that fail to teach the basic skills. Democrats argue that literacy should be left for unions to define rather than local PTAs or other parent groups.

When it comes to immigration, republicans recognize that our nation is enriched by immigrants seeking a better life.  In many cases immigrants have fled violence and oppression searching for peace and freedom.  All suffered and sacrificed but hope for a better future for their children in America. Republicans agree that the lack of security along our borders has contributed to the flow of narco-trafficking, gang violence, and the yearly forced servitude and slavery of over 50,000 women and children from foreign countries by human smugglers.  While our nation has been enriched by the determination, energy, and diversity of immigrants, Republicans believe that in this nation of laws, immigration policies should be followed and that securing our borders is vital to ensuring the safety of our citizens. 

Democrats believe that as one of the worlds superpower, it is a fundamental right for the United States to provide unconditional aid and comfort to the citizens of other nations.  Democrats believe in open borders, unconditional amnesty, and that the laws of this nation be curtailed to provide non-emergency assistance and legal forms of identification to foreign nationals.

Political rapture is wonderful indeed, but it doesn't feed the kids or put gas in the car or take care of the college tuition. Voters still demand change, but they want the kind that's heavy in their pockets, the kind that jingles, not the lint that's in there now. With millions upon millions still out of work, and many others underemployed, Obama and the Democratic are asking for four more years and another chance, It’s your choice, and only a conservative vote will begin to turn this runaway freight train around, know that there will be some suffering because this kind of debt is very damaging and will require about two years of time to see progress, but we have to start now, cause if we don’t slavery is furtue.

I Am A Racist

Me And My RACIST Bird  "KFC"

RACISM, What is it? Hatred, of the different types of people. What does it mean? Cruel and subordinate treatment towards those in the minority. Who does it effect? Anyone not in the majority or the ruling class. And, Is it still around? You bet your ass it is.

Eventually, you know I had to do another op-eds on this topic because it no-longer means what it did 35 to 400 years ago. It now has become something far different from its inception.

In this election season it has lost its identification with the hue of skin color, if you're WHITE. Because since 2009, anyone not some off color of the visible light spectrum is now the SUBSERVENT, that means you're in deep trouble, IF YOU'RE WHITE.

Until the day President Obama was elected to office, it was if you were white, you were in the majority, that's no-longer the case. No one has ever seen politics so charged on the issue of race, from bloggers, commentators, liberal news media and, even me, with myself proclamation as "The Black Conservative", It’s almost impossible to be a conservative and not be called a racist. Seems it just comes with the territory. It is now politically incorrect for a white man to criticize a black man, but put that shoe on the other foot and racism takes on a new meaning. But just so you know exactly what I’m talking about, here is an example of just what it is that I’m trying to convey.

The American economy is in tatters. Unemployment is consistently over 8% and this president has ignored not only the spirit of the constitution but the letter of it. It is his Attorney General who stands in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents that were subpoenaed in the Fast & Furious scandal. It is this president who supported him in his disdain for the people’s representatives.

I’m a racist because Spike Lee and Michael Moore tell me I’m a racist. These are the same celebrities who in different televised interviews admitted that President Obama has not delivered on his promises but they would vote for the president anyway. Why? Simply because of President Obama’s race. I’m a racist because I believe in evaluating on a person’s record rather than their skin color.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

I am a racist because I am offended that this president promised “change you can believe in” but has demonstrated in this election campaign the worst gutter politics of any party on either the right or the left. I’m a racist because I do not support a president who happens to be black because one of his key political supporters admitted on CNN that it doesn’t matter that she deliberately misquoted the Los Angeles Times in a fund raising letter to the American People. I’m a racist because that lack of ethics and integrity matters to me.

I am a racist because I demand and expect all citizens regardless of race, culture, language or heritage to be treated identically under the law. I am a racist because I condemn female gender mutilation, abortion being used to get rid of unwanted female fetuses by some whose culture is highly paternalistic and refuse to accept the right of some cultures to impose their system of law, their values or their faith on others.

I am a racist because I recognize that government does not create wealth or jobs, it undermines both and promoting class conflict as many politicians do these days is nothing more than a cynical strategy to divide the electorate and win votes.

I am a racist because I recognize that the Conservative Party has not been fined, charged or convicted of any ethical breach of the rules or the law during that same period. Even in the fast and furious scandal.

I am a racist because I believe that there are too many entitlements for those who don't need them and not enough real support for the working poor. I am a racist because I believe it is a disgrace to demand free tuition, public sector and union salary increases when there are people sleeping in our streets and children going to bed hungry. I am a racist because I believe that 'treating' ourselves to more entitlements using borrowed money is the road to economic ruin and I am a racist because I believe in less government not more government control of our families and our individual lives.



I am a anti-women racist because I believe that abortion is a highly personal decision that should never be easy for anyone and that the father and the fetus both have rights. 

I am a homophobic racist because I think that pride parades and other outrageous behavior are both unnecessary and insulting. I am a homophobic racist because I fail to see how promoting, or how different it is, the gay and lesbian community expects to be accepted as a normal part of our society, to them I say you can keep your strange and un-natural life style away from me and mine and don’t ask me for shit.

I am proud that I understand that the success of any society is built on the success of the individuals that comprise it and that there is no self-respect or sense of accomplishment to be found in living off paltry government handouts or penalizing others for being successful.

I am happy to be called a racist by those who lack the intellectual ability to fairly evaluate others based on a consistent set of values but who are quick to condemn those who do not agree with them while being slow to condemn the performance and ethical violations of those they support..

We are divided into left and right, not by choice but by blind stupidity. We have traded away our values for entitlements and to willfully embrace politically correct illusions of principled values. Voting for a failed politician simply because he is black is every bit as racist as voting against a successful politician for the same reason.

I am an American, and I will not support Barack Obama based solely on his record, but rather his broken promise to deliver change in which we could believe. I cannot support a xenophobic political party that tramples and restricts the rights of fellow citizens in the name of cultural purity and I have no respect for those who condemn others based on ideology while supporting those who do the very things they condemn. I am even more proud to be called racist by people to lazy to inform themselves and who follow like sheep without thought or application of their own personal values.

                                          must see video                  

Not only am I a racist, but I hate black people so much I’d rather be governed by the three stooges, arguably the most imbecilic men of modern times, than a black person. Don’t laugh at me. Don’t criticize. Because I suspect this wasn’t an indictment only of me, but of every conservative who dares to speak out against Barack Obama’s policies.

According to the left, you are a racist simply because you are conservative.

I understand the political left playbook. It goes like this:

I criticize Obama.

The left calls me a racist.

I back off because I care about my reputation.

Then I apologize.

Hmm, I don’t like this drill.

I’ve been telling you for years now that I’m a racist when I started writing about the Obama administration two years ago. I suspect some of the more perceptive among you are beginning to doubt my claim, but it’s true. You give a racist a college degree, an yer just askin’ fer trouble. To misquote Steve Martin in his farcical movie-comedy The Jerk, “I was born a poor, black child. Of course, that was fifty-three years ago and I haven’t changed all that much. I was raised in the town of Santa Monica California. So, now, when the left assails me with baseless cries of “Racist! Racist! Racist!” I just bow my head and laugh, because I don’t play by their rules, They go something like this:

I criticize Obama.

The left calls me a racist.

I remain secure in who I am.

I counter-attack.

As conservatives we need to be secure in who we are as people, secure with our views, our beliefs and with who we are as human beings. Most importantly, we no longer have the luxury of surrender. This is a war – not a race war – but a war on our freedom.

So, the next time you criticize Obama and someone calls you a racist, just smile and stay the course.