Obama Wins (shocker) but where does he go from here?

Its been a while for me putting pen to paper, in fact it will be seven months & days days from now between posts and a lot has changed since. Nothing has changed in the grand scheme of things thou, not with having re-elected President Obama. Had it been Mitt Romney would it have been much different? I don't think so, but it couldn't have gotten much worse either. For full disclosure I'm not an anti-Obama guy. I think hes grossly under-qualified for the position and has gotten in way over his head. With that said, as i have stated many times on this blog, i think too much disinformation has been put out in efforts to soil the President and many of them are gross exaggerations - like this obsession with him raising taxes & running up the debt at a record pace.

Plain and simple, Obama has not raised taxes across the board like most think he has, in fact hes been a tax cutter (if you dont count the tax on tattoos parlors and tanning bed companies). Now with that now being said, that will dramatically change over the next few years as the Bush Tax cuts are set to expire and he has stated taxes will go up for the wealthy. Then factor in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and you are now talking about sweeping tax hikes, but to this point the narrative of him being a greedy socialist tax whore has been blatantly false.

The Debt? Hes run up the credit card at an alarming rate, but not much more than his predecessor George W Bush did in his eight years before Obama's election. When President Bush took office the National Debt stood at 5.7 Trillion, when he left it was 10.6. So when Obama took office he entered with the 10.6 Trillion, as of this morning it stands at 16.2 (bear in mind that 3/4 of Obama's first year of office was under a GWB budget). So nominally, Obama will easily be the biggest debtor in our nations history but he will will probably "only" double the debt, just as his predecessor did before him.

So, where does that leave us? I think we are in for another recession. The President will have the veto pen and i think if everything is left in place, economically its going to be a long and harsh recovery of virtually no growth. Jobs will not be plentiful and incomes will continue to be slashed through a combination of: lack of work, inflation and debt at every level, public and privately. If his broaden agenda is brought into focus and realized things will be worse. Cataclysmic economic meltdown filled with bread lines and riots in the streets? No. But stagflation circa mid 1970's? Yes.

Hopefully, the administration understands the situation we are in and does its best to curb the rising tides that are on the horizon. If not, Obama's legacy will be nothing short of a an economic dead zone. A presidency that inherited an economic crisis that was undoubtedly dire but after a stabilization, this was a regime that failed to turn the momentum around and instead kicked out its arms every-time it tried to get up off the floor.  An 8 year window of high unemployment, economic decline via the continued assault on the dollar through currency manipulation and reckless spending. "Hope" and "Change" were the buzz words of '08 and they were empty words based on the results of the last four years. Lets hope for some change in the next four. 

Tired? Or tired of living a lie?

"On Sunday, June 10th, Congressman Jesse L. Jackson,Jr. went on a medical leave of absence and is being treated for exhaustion

Exhaustion? For a part-time job where you collect 150K in salary and are granted all the travel and benefits of a celebrity with no work history to speak of. Tired, from holding a position in congress because of nothing more than being the son of a charlatan who is an alleged “face” of black America? Seems legit (sic).  

Then it dawned on me. Maybe he is tired of being under scrutiny via the House ethics investigation? Could Jesse Jackson’s son be troubled by pesky ethics investigation? I would say the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree, so that cannot be it. Maybe, just maybe he is literally tired from travel? Jet lag is a real problem and Jesse Jackson Jr has done plenty of travel via paid junkets during his time in DC.

So I took a visit over to Legistorm.com and what I found was pretty telling. Now Jackson’s 58 trips don’t come close to Maxine Waters (who at last count was the leading trip taker with over 100 trips) but I suppose all paid expense trips with a part time gig that pays six-figures can be stressing.

Now what I found interesting when looking over these paid junket trips was that many names on the most traveled list were names from members on the CBC.

If you exclude those congress members that were not holding office for any reason due to things such as election loss, retirement or death; Democrats would make up 20 of 20 in the top trip takers.

Of those Top-20 trip takers, 13 of them are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. That means 2/3 of the Top-20 come from a caucus divided by race that is not only a minority in society but a minority in congress as well, with only 40 members. If the 112 Congress has 435 Representatives and the CBC has 40 members (9%) isn’t 65% of the Top-20 trip takers out of synch statistically?

This Caucus jet sets around the country to allegedly speak about issues pertaining to black people. I suppose that is noble. Is it logical? Not according to the Constitution. After all, are not the members of congress representing a district in a state first and foremost? And if so, are these districts not composed of all types of races and ethnic groups?

How can we understand this idea that elected members of congress only bound by their skin tone, elected from various districts across the country by all types of ethnicity travel all over the country to cater to the ideas and needs of one ethnic group over everyone else actually help the districts they were elected to represent?

I simply cannot understand how this is acceptable.

Unless you have a district composed of 100% Black Americans, its disingenuous to cater to said Black American’s because you represent a district, not an ethnicity. However, if it was entirely made up of black folks; then it’s a different matter. But no district is that way.

For example, if I am white and vote in the 5^th district of Missouri and I voted for Emanuel Cleaver because I am a staunch Democrat; how does he truly represent me? If he is traveling across the country focused on the needs of Black Americans in the state of California, sharing the needs of those in Missouri its obvious he represents the needs of Black Americans in his district but what about everyone else, does he value their needs as well?   

The answer is clear; he doesn’t… well at least not as much as he does those of similar skin tone. And this isn’t just some anecdotal scenario I made up to make my point lacking data; the data is there. The fact is that 13 of the 40 members of the 112th Congressional Black Caucus represented areas where black folks were the minority. So we have 13 members of Congress on the Top-20 traveled list from the 40 member CBC. And 13 of the 40 districts in the CBC are not even black as a majority. This to me is astounding. But what does it all mean?

It means that the Congressional Black Caucus is no different than any other group of collectivists. They are limited by their own narrow definitions that they oppose and because of this opposition it’s ironically what also defines them by default. Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation for a group that is fueled not only by division and bound by their hunger for power and job security? Because remember, if Black Americans no longer voted strictly by race and political affiliations, wouldn’t these “race hustling pimps” be out of a job?

Some absolutely would. So at the end of the day, what works best for “Black America”? The politicians that keep them isolated and divided from other races, as if they can’t do for themselves? Or is it the idea of freedom, the idea that nobody should be judged on their content of their skin but yet the content of their character?

The more social programs and special attention you give to Black Americans the more you ostracize them as a whole. The division that exists in this country whether it is: political, race, religious etc is real but it can all be cured if people chose freedom and held individual liberty above all. The CBC pits race vs race. It attempts to take from one person and give to another in the name of the greater good, even at the expense of the person they are sworn to be helping. There is actual black on black crime and there is this. These are not crimes in the literal sense, but make no mistake; this is a betrayal of the highest order.   

The trough moves, so does the swine: on to Tusla.

Another black man killed at the hands of a white man, another charge of a hate crime. That is just one of the charges facing both Jake England, 19, and his roommate, Alvin Watts, 33 who are also being charged with multiple other charges including Murder-1 for the three gunshot victims who died on the 6th of April earlier this month in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Unlike the Martin/Zimmerman situation in Florida, this case has evidence based on police reports of: “admissions by both defendants as to their involvement in the three murder charges and the two SWIK (shooting with intent to kill) charges” that according to First Assistant District Attorney Doug Drummond.


This situation appears to be quite different from the shooting in Sanford, where a lot of grey area surrounds the case. Zimmerman in his role of the Martin shooting claims his innocence, while this case in Tulsa you have an admission of guilt. An admission of guilt… is well, an admission of guilt. For one, there are two survivors in the Tulsa shootings. Secondly, there are two people being accused (roommates too) thus the pool of defense the defense team can draw from will be one that is severely limited. So there is no way that the Tulsa case will play out the same as the case in Sanford. The only question here will be life in prison or lethal injection.

Now, with the case of Zimmerman, I opined back in March that the charge of a hate crime or that Martins death was racially motivated was clearly speculative, based only on the fact that Zimmerman was white while Martin was black. That’s hardly enough evidence to say that something was motivated out of hate or prejudice. That however didn’t stop Al Sharpton and Jess Jackson from sticking in their beaks to claim otherwise. Jackson went even as far to say that: “"Blacks are under attack."

I found that funny then and I find it funny now. The reality is that blacks attack more whites than whites do blacks... and they do so at an alarming rate. According to a study done by the New Century Foundation in 2005 (a non profit organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations) crimes that involve blacks and whites, blacks commit 85% of the 770,000 violent interracial crimes to the white populations 15%. Its worth noting that, American white population in the US is 4x that of black Americans.

Blacks target whites more so than any other race while committing violent crimes. In fact 45% of their victims are white to 43% being black. White people on the other hand commit only 3% of their violent crimes are against blacks. Now let’s think about these last two figures and maybe Jackson and Sharpton can give an explanation; because I don’t ever see or hear of an explanation when it comes to black on black crime. If they do speak out in these cases it’s always a community problem or it’s the nation, the illegal guns, the drugs or its our history that has failed them; I never hear ownership.


·  Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

·  Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.


This study was done in 2005; I will gladly give the benefit of the doubt and stand corrected if blacks are indeed “under attack” as Jackson says they are. All I need to do is see the evidence. Show me the numbers and show me the crimes. If we are going to just cherry pick random acts of violence and call them hate crimes or grasp on to the very few of white hate crimes committed against blacks that are an anomaly without any statistical evidence to state otherwise… then these numbers I present speak for themselves. That however won’t happen, because race and division is big business. Facts and truth mean nothing to these men. Ask Sharpton, he wouldn’t go to Tulsa because he was too busy “fundraising” in DC.

"I was scheduled to be in Tulsa this weekend but now feel that I can be more useful to the families of the victims to remain at my national convention and raise money for them," Sharpton said.

Remember who Jackson said was attacking Black America? It was “Big business” and I will say what I said a month ago regarding this: exploitation is big business.

Class warfare or socialism in action? Easter lessons for all

After countless readings, written words by myself and conversations over the years, i consider myself cemented in the mindset of freedom above all... economically and socially. This mindset of course doesn't lend itself to appeal to socialistic ideals. That however came into question today when i found myself staring over two easter baskets, pondering which one to raid.

As you can see below, the one on the right just had about nine pieces of candy. It also came with a DVD and a ball (not pictured) worth roughly $20 dollars combined. It was the basket of a 10 month old. The basket on the right, was the basket of a 9 year old. It also included a lot of chocolate worth probably $25.00. There was also two items not pictured. They were a season pass to Waldameer (amusement park) retail value of 75.00 and a Nintendo Wi game with a retail value of about 29.00.

Now, what would be "fair" would be to take a few pieces from each. I thought that at first. After a millisecond to total up the cost of each basket, i insisted on raiding the most expensive one on the right. Now, the 9 year old enters the room with me having a mouthful of chocolate and says: "Hey, that's my candy!!!" I explain to her the situation and i try to convince her that she has much more, so she should be ok with me taking from her. 

She doesn't agree. So i just simply say its half my contribution and half that other guy's (Rabbit and Claus always get unworthy credit). So therefore i am entitled to take what i want. Lesson over. So, luckily I'm not a socialist... but maybe a fascist?