Constitution: The Protector of Gun Fearing Cowards

Well, let's take a break from the craziness of homosexual marriage, and the so-called equality debate, to look at something far less polarizing.  How about politicians?  More specifically, how about politicians who shift blame from themselves and onto the people they supposedly represent?

Now it should be noted, before I go any further, that the stance I took in my last article (Equality: Homosexuals, Marriage, and Christian Blindness) holds true for me, and should for any Christian.  At the end of the day, I am more concerned with the state of lost souls than I am gun control measures or politics in general.  With that said, it is also important to note that Christians should still know what is going on in politics, because the decisions made at local, state and federal levels will in most cases ultimately affect them.

With this being said, the gun control debate is still going strong in the United States, no matter how eclipsed it may be by the marriage equality issue.  Ultimately, restrictions on the ability to own firearms of one's choosing will affect Christians; but it will affect them first as citizens of this country, and only secondly as followers of Christ.  However, the move to push actual bans on certain firearms will have major impact on Christians in the long run, because it does remove an element of control from the citizens and places that control in the hands of an obese and scarcely functioning federal government.

Note this interview from CNN:

Even people who are favoring gun control recognize the fact that the government of these United States is not capable of moving as quickly as it should.  In this instance, it is my opinion that the slow, waddling gait of the lumbering Fed was a blessing in disguise; it prevented certain elements within the government from capitalizing on the shock, horror and generally knee-jerk reaction of the American public.

However, the debate continues, and it is being head up by some of the most unbelievably dense and/or ignorant individuals, political and otherwise, that this nation has ever witnessed.

People such as Dianne Feinstein, who contradicts herself regularly on the issue; even when testifying before Congress.  Such as Jim Carrey, a man who I still enjoy; yet who has demonstrated that he has no idea what is at the heart of the issue.  Such as Chris Murphy, who regularly shows his lack of gun knowledge by insisting that a ban on magazines is the answer; this despite the fact that the Virginia Tech shootings took place even with the gunman changing clips.  And finally, people such as Jackie Speier.


Ms. Speier went above and beyond her compatriots in passing the buck, by stating that the entire system of government has been set up to "protect the cowards in this country."  She not only effectively blamed the Constitution that gives her the job she has, but added insult by stating via inference that anyone disagreeing with her is a coward.
You don't have to take my word for it:

Now, I have a few questions that came out of watching this clip.  The first is what is California doing to their water or air that is causing so many of their people to become imbeciles?  (Those of you who know me know how generous a statement that is.)
The second question I have is probably going to be the most offensive thing I've said so far, so steel yourselves: Who does she think she is, to call others who oppose her and her school of thought cowards, when she is the one who has been rabidly and psychotically against firearms since she was shot?  Who's the coward, Ms. Speier?  You are a disgrace to your state, your office, and your country for comments like that, and it is my spite for your politics that prevents me from referring to you as "Representative" or "Congresswoman."
You are right on this point, though: The Constitution does protect the cowards in this country.  You're living, flinching, yellow proof of that fact.

Aside from her, we've got the vice-doof making statements as blatantly false as any, and who has stated that a so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" is just the beginning.  It's amazing that opponents of gun rights will readily admit that they've never fired a weapon (hello, Piers Morgan, you limey bastard); or will admit that they don't live anywhere near the places that violent crime is actually an issue (anyone know of a federal gun ban supporting rep who lives in Chicago?)

We've also got the F*Tard-In-Chief pushing gun control measures through via Executive Orders.  (For those of you who don't know where this term comes from, please refer to the Executive Order denying the prosecution of known "recruiters" of child soldiers and simultaneously providing weapons to the very countries enslaving and brainwashing children.)  When all is said and done, Do these people actually represent us?  How can they, if they do not realize how low of a priority gun control is right now?
From the National Journal:

While the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School stirred up plenty of passion for gun control and closed part of the enthusiasm gap, [Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, the director of social policy and politics for Third Way] argues that the economy or the unemployment rate may be more important to these people. A Pew Research Poll from January confirms this, showing gun control near the bottom of voter-issue priorities.

Is it any wonder, then, that states are beginning to be flooded with gun control nullification legislation?  The people of the United States are more concerned with controlling their federal government than they are controlling the sale, ownership, styling and usage of guns!

But really, Pat Henry of "Girls Just Wanna Have Guns" had it one hundred percent correct on this point:

...what if the elaborate procedure to amend the Constitution was carried out, and enough states voted to ratify the repeal, would that be the end of your right to keep and bear arms?
No, it would not, because the Constitution does not give you rights, it merely instructs the government not to interfere with the God-given rights you already have. 

The thing that most gun ban pushing, right limiting, yellow cowards tend to forget is this:  You cannot have it both ways. Either the Constitution is a living document, as they claim, and applies now to modern firearms- Just as it applies now to text messages, chat boards, blogs, etc. -Or it is not.  If it is not, then it still allows for the ownership of modern firearms.
These feckless blips on the historical radar want it to say only what they want it to say; they want a McDonald's style government with a twist: "Have it our way."  However, the Constitution expressly forbids such a ruling style.  That has not kept the Capitol Hill Nutters from attempting to change things, however, and we all need to be better informed and more aware of what is going on around us.  Why?

Because these people aren't out to stop violence, as they say.  They don't want to put an end to bloodshed.  They want to put an end to the very real threat that if they one day go too far, the first bullet of a new American Revolution will hit them.

Equality: Homosexuals, Marriage, and Christian Blindness

You know, I'm seeing a lot of different things being posted about equality. I'm seeing Christians posting anti-homosexual sentiments (at the worst), as well as more reasonable Christians posting things to the effect of 'I support Biblical model marriage,' and other variations on the theme.
On the other hand, I'm also seeing many other people posting graphics which paint those who don't agree with homosexuality as a life style as being as bad as those who want to outright kill homosexuals. Granted, this is the worst element; the more reasonable ones are simply saying that marriage is not a church institution; never was; this is not a Christian country and never was; etc.

Each group has valid points made with valid facts, and each group has a great deal of invalid points created from invalid facts. 

You know what I think, folks?  I think Christians have lost sight of the big picture.  Since when has Christianity been about earthly equality, or lack thereof?

Of course, I could say the same for Equality of Marriage supporters: Since when has Christianity been about earthly equality, or lack thereof?

You see, the same question applies to both camps, believe it or not.

Let me address Christians first, because honestly, I see them as being far more responsible for the problems at hand.  

Brothers and sisters, we are more responsible, like it or not.  We are held to a higher standard, and as such, we are more responsible now for the issues that are now than unbelievers are.  Sure, those who remain unbelievers will be held accountable in the final judgment, but until that day comes, guess who's holding?

Yep.  Us.

So let me put it to you this way: Our job is not to make rules and laws for unbelievers to follow.  Straight up, that makes us pharisees.  That makes us the people Christ verbally slapped every time they came around.  I do not feel like getting that kind of a backhand, and none of you should want it either.  Additionally, we were not put here to dictate life choices to others; the laws of the Bible may apply to all, but forcing people who do not believe is the same as a Muslim demanding conversion at the end of a sword: That's not God's way, and it should not be ours.  Let them fall on the Rock of their own accord and be broken.  Let the judgment fall upon them through their own iniquity, by their own hand, and quit trying to be the proverbial sword- Again, that is not our job.

People get caught up in this being a Christian nation, and they forget something very important: The Christians who had a part in the founding of this country paired up with Deists, Atheists, and a slew of others to do so.  This country was not made a theocracy, nor should it become one.  There are more than enough of those in the world: Most are in the Middle East, and you can see how well they're doing.  And don't give me the "well they're not serving the living God" bull.  They aren't, there we agree; but how many humans have you met that have it completely, 100% together?  Who would you honestly trust with absolute power to enforce the will of God?  If you can't name a single man or woman you'd trust in that capacity, then you need to quite talking out of your hindquarters and quit pushing morality on people who have shifting morality.  For the record, if you CAN name someone you'd trust in that position, you need to evaluate the cult you belong to, because even Moses screwed the pooch.

Don't like the straight talk?  Too bad.  Even Paul wrote that he considered the things of this world to be shit compared to Christ Jesus, and I'll be tarred, feathered and set alight before I speak any differently than plain.

You unbelievers and supporters of marriage equality- Listen up.

The most loudmouthed Christians are not those who represent Christianity.  You people accuse Christians of judging you all based upon varying examples, yet do the exact same thing.  Grow up, think like an adult, and use that gray matter to recognize that random examples of Christian intolerance do not properly represent the Christian community as a whole.  

You want your opponents to quit characterizing every homosexual male as an overly effeminate, lisping moron with a jones for jocks?  Quit acting like every Christian is a homophobe. You want your opponents to quit speaking and acting as if every homosexual female is a bull dike, more man than woman, and only lacking the scrotum and body hair?  Quit portraying every opponent as a knife wielding, hood wearing, "God hates fags" nutcase.

You people want equality?  Start behaving like equals.  Start arguing on an intellectual level, and quit acting like two year olds without toys.

Case in point: I have a friend, Toni, who is an amazingly intelligent, witty and down-to-earth young man.  This is a man who is, at times, given to purely emotional outbursts.  However, the majority of the time, he gives a highly intellectual argument; presents well thought out points; and generally treats the people he is debating with respect.  He, folks, ought to be upheld as a model for others to follow in this regard.

Now, if anything I've said here offends you, let me be the first to say "Good."  The nation got into this mess because of its obsession with political correctness, and the crap needs to end.  Pushing political correctness is the same damn thing as legislating morality, and I'm sick as f*ck of both.

Bottom line: Equality is a bullsh!t word.  Secular equality means that everyone has the same rights, the same freedoms, etc.  Biblical equality, (look this up if you disagree), says that every human being on the face of the earth today is as much a sinner as the next.  Ask any random ten people on the street what equality is, and you are more likely to get ten different responses than you are to find ten people who voted in the last election.  

The majority of the equality advocates which I have met are not advocating equality for the sake of equality- they are advocating it because they're angry at religious folks; because they believe God is imaginary and religion is a hoax; and/or because they have been hurt somehow in some way in the past.

Christians, our duty is not to these people's sexual practices, deviant or not.  Our duty is to their souls, and like it or not, demanding they conform to a standard of practice is NOT going to save them.  Sorry.  You'll actually have to get off your asses and actually DO something... 

Start with obeying Christ, above any and every man, and begin to actually spread the Gospel; you know, instead of paying it lip service, and doing the exact opposite?

In short... Why do we attempt to do for God what God does not do for Himself?



EDIT: A very important section of this article was somehow lost when I published it- The phrase "which I have met" now appears where it should have been from the beginning.

A Glimpse Into the World of Blog Commenting: Part 1

A great deal of discussion is to be had when reading through and taking part in blog comments.  On one entry in particular, an article on Ke$ha at Beginning and End, things got so interesting it prompted me to dust off the old blog once more.

Yishai320 stated in part:

Bible burnings by Muslims are conducted by only extremists and radicals (It is against Shariah law to destroy any sort of scripture, Islamic or not....

I responded to his post on the subject, saying this in reference to the above quote:

...Muslims do burn Bibles. They actually refer to Christians and Jews as “People of the Book,” and look down upon them for upholding the Scripture of the Bible over the Koran. (Or Qu’ran, if you’d prefer.) Al Jezeera is full of videos of this happening.

This touched off a bit of a storm, it seems.  A "Teacher E," whose profile I would link to if they had provided it, quoted the above portion and then stated:

I need to correct you on this. Muslims are not allowed to burn Bibles, and Al Jazeera is not full of videos of this happening. This would suggest that they hate Jesus and Christians, and this is not the case. Whoever you saw doing that, it isn’t Muslims.
Muslims believe in those parts of the Bible that are confirmed by the Qur’an. Muslims believe in the immaculate conception, for example, simply because the Qur’an states that it happened.
What Muslims reject utterly is the belief in the divinity of Jesus – Jesus was one of many prophets sent to remind people that there is only one God. God is unique, eternal and absolute, and such a being has no reason to come down to earth in human form – the mere suggestion is blasphemous. That is the main reason why Muslims regard Christians as having been led astray. And why not? Pure monotheism needs no confusing trinity to try to get your head around, no intermediary priests, no saints and no statues or idols.

My initial response to Teacher E was one in which I did not take into full account the depth of devotion to response they would give.  At this point, I'd already deduced that they were Muslim; however, because they seemed to be trying so hard to avoid saying so, I opted to play along.
Please note a few key phrases used in Teacher's response: "Al Jazeera is not full of videos of this happening," "Muslims are not allowed to burn Bibles," "This would suggest they hate Jesus and Christians, and this is not the case," and "Pure monotheism needs no... saints... or idols."

My response to Teacher read this way:

Say what you like, but Teacher? Educate thyself.
I have seen it happen with my own eyes, and yes, Al Jezeera is full of videos where this is taking place. I will go with you to this extent: They may be less than strict Muslims, and in that regard, don’t see a problem with what they’re doing. Or, they may be following a straying Imam- Regardless of the reason, it does happen.
Secondly, they call Jesus the “perfect prophet.” Mohammed is the “last prophet.” Christ claimed Divinity. Mohammed said Jesus was not Divine. If Jesus were indeed perfect, then there could be no falsehood in his mouth, and He claimed to be God. If Mohammed was only the last prophet, and not perfect, then he could be mistaken, and he could indeed lie. So, here’s a question to wrap your head around:
If Jesus was the perfect prophet, and Mohammed only the “last” prophet, which one was correct?

You'll notice that I address the fact that there are videos, and quite a few in fact, on Al Jazeera of Bible burnings being held by Muslims.  I address the point of Muslims burning Bibles, and acknowledge that said Muslims may be considered "fringe" or "straying."

What I did not address was the statement that Muslims do not hate Jews and Christians; and that "Pure monotheism needs no saints or idols."

Firstly, there is the little matter of al-Ḥajar al-Aswad or the Black Stone.  Nearly every Muslim one asks about this will state that no true Muslim actually worships this rock- Yet this is what they pray to.  Worship is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

2. Reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also an act of expressing such reverence
3. A form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4. extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

 According to Muslim theology, this is a limited viewpoint- Their definition of worship includes this and more.  So, with that understanding, what is it that Muslims have no need for?  Something along the lines of "idols?"  If idolatry is defined as "worship and/or reverence given to any but Allah," then Muslims most certainly DO worship, and make an idol of, al-Ḥajar al-Aswad.

Another thing that I did not point out, on the same topic, was the fact that In Christianity, "Saints" are prayed to solely by those with a Catholic bent.  That is, only those who uphold some form of Catholicism do so.  This, however, is beside the point.
What is the point, however, is that the "Saints" are held in high reverence- Much like Mohammed.

Lastly, I did not point out the fact that the Q'ran explicitly calls for the murder of Jews and Christians.  

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." ~Q'ran (2:191-193)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." ~Q'ran (9:29) 

"If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while.  Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." ~Q'ran (33:60-62)

These are only a few of the 109+ verses from the Q'ran alone that speak to violence against unbelievers, and specifically, Christians and Jews.  In the last verse, 33:60-62, the phrase "in whose hearts is a disease" refers absolutely to these two faiths; the definition of this term was set up in 5:51-52:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls. ~Q'ran (5:51-52)

Now, unless one believes in honor killings, (Q'ran 18:74,80-81), such slaughter can only be fueled by hatred.  Some would say, "no, it's fueled by divine edict."  The response to this is that the edict comes from hatred; thus, the true follower of Islam must also be filled with hate.  There cannot be one without the other or one is the "hypocrite" referred to in 33:60.
So, in point of fact, they do hate Jews and Christians, and- Here's the kicker- Jesus as a result.  How do I arrive at this point?  "As you've done unto the least of these, you've done unto Me." 
(Matthew 25:40)



There is a great deal more, but that will have to wait until the next installment.  Until then, God bless.

ATTENTION: EMI and fans of the RIAA

Sign This. YOUR freedom's at stake
as well!

...This one's for you.

Over three years ago, I created a fan video for one of my favorite songs to come out of the 1980's contemporary Christian music scene: Bad News For Modern Man by Steve Camp.  I attributed the song to Steve, and took absolutely no credit for anything but making the video itself.  I also edited the description to show that I had searched for a place to buy the album, Shake Me To Wake Me, and could only find it for resale.

Last year, I received a complaint against me for the use of copyrighted material.  Oddly enough, according to current US Law, the video I made meets the guidelines for fair use.  The subsequent note I made in the video description is as follows:

NOTE: EMI, the production company that Steve Camp originally put this song out under, has apparently filed a complaint against this video. (Was it better than yours. EMI?) With this in mind, please feel free to visit this link for proof that this album is no longer available to purchase in any way but resale: http://www.amazon.com/Shake-Me-Wake-Steve-Camp/dp/B000AA5Z82/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1355208009 )

Jawohl Mein Fuhrer!

Obviously frustrated at such a low act by a company which is making no profit from the originating album to begin with, I did make a snide remark.  To this day, I do not regret making that comment, because that is what this looks like: A temper tantrum thrown by an angry and spoiled child.

About one month ago, I received notice that my video was STILL being contested.  It is my belief that once a company or artist stops making money on a product, it's about time to quit pretending that they do: In this case, the one acting hurt is the company, EMI.
I posted this second edit in the description of the video:

SECOND EDIT: EMI has continued to press this claim.  I will be contacting Steve Camp directly.  To the fool label, I say this: If you're selling this album, I'll happily supply the space to advertise it.  If you're not, then this claim is frivolous; your grievance is fraudulent; and looking over the entirety of YouTube, you've got no case.  Prove your damage, EMI, or back down entirely.

Again, I stand beside what I've said here.  I've already shown that EMI is making no money on this album, nor has this song been featured on anything since the early 90's.  I stand by my caricature of them as a "fool label," since they've obviously not studied anything, including their own holdings.  If they had done so, they would have found that they've made no money on this album for over fifteen years; that they've not had this song featured on anything for over ten years; and that they've much bigger problems to worry about, if stock prices mean anything.
However, I may be blaming EMI here, when I should be blaming some agent of theirs.  Regardless, I find their lack of investigation disturbing: There are over 30,000 videos using songs by Steve Camp on YouTube alone.  If they sent notices to all 30k, I'll be deeply impressed.  Moreover, had there been any investigation, it would have been discovered that Shake Me To Wake Me is now a substantial collector's item, going for more than $80 in new condition- The least expensive copy is $35, plus shipping and handling.  That is impressive for an album originally costing $12.

When I logged onto my YouTube account just now, I discovered yet another statement- The claim against me for this fan-made music video is still being pressed.  I am now at the point where I invite everyone to view what I have been going through; and if you share my anger over this 'fool's game' as it were, I invite you to inform the parties involved of your opinions.
This is what I have written to YouTube regarding this latest claim notice:

Quite Simply, all proper attribution has been made. The heading declares the song and who it is by, and the description informs everyone that this is a fan-made video and that I own nothing. Moreover, I have supplied a link to Amazon showing that said album is no longer for sale from the original distributor; instead, all copies found are resale items, with new copies starting at over $80, making this album "Shake Me To Wake Me" a collector's item.  This proves that EMI has suffered no financial loss at the hands of this single fan-made music video, as they have had no financial gain on this album for some time. 

Furthermore, I have made no financial gains off of this video, nor have I made this album available to any viewer through link or direct. This video was made purely out of respect for Steve Camp, the message of the song, and its relevance to today.

Beyond this, a brief search of YouTube shows about 30,900 video results for Steve Camp, and the majority of these are fan-made videos.  If EMI desires so greatly to press this claim, I require official, public notification of their request to remove said material.  At that point, this video will be made unavailable to all.

Be it known: Until such time as EMI, or its official agents, contacts me directly; places an official, PUBLIC request to remove their content online; or shows proof that they have suffered financial loss as a DIRECT RESULT of this fan-made video, this work will remain public and active.

Finally, be it known that this unwarranted dispute IS being made public, and all involved WILL be named. 

So, to fans of the video; to fans of personal freedom; to fans of fair use rights- Please use the following contact information to show that you are joining me in declaring this sort of witch hunt to be illegal, unfounded, unwarranted, and wrong in every sense of the word.

First, I ask that you sign this petition, then share it with everyone you can, via any media you can:
Force companies filing copyright complaints to prove their grievance.

Secondly, I ask that you share this blog entry.  Feel free to leave a comment, so your friends can see your thoughts echoed here and be more apt to share it themselves.  Please help me make this viral.

Third, I'm requesting those who are willing to email YouTube here with the subject ATTN: Salar Kamangar and inform YouTube of your disgust regarding their current copyright claim practices.

Fourth, please go to the video itself, linked to within this entry as well as below, and leave a comment; favorite it; add it to playlists; or any combination of these.  Let YouTube see the support in their numbers.

Finally, if you have any connections to anyone mentioned herein, feel free to share this with them directly.  Please also feel free to contact me directly using my contact information found in this blog's "About Me" box.  Also, if you are a member of the press, or know members of the press, feel free to reprint this entry and/or contact me.  When quoting this entry, I ask only that you provide a link to the entry itself.


Thank you for your time and partnership.

Do you need it defined?

Here is the video in question.  If it has disappeared, the corrupt corporate clowns have won.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Morons of the United States...

Most of you know that I will, from time to time, write something extremely political in nature; indeed, very often that piece will be a rather polarizing or caustic statement or observation of the political climate as stands in this modern age.  Most of you also know that I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and that I find equal blame with both parties for the problems we now face in this country.  Some of you may have heard me state from time to time that many of the people in this nation are completely nuts for voting or supporting some of the things they do.  As you may imagine, that tends to bring the wrath down upon me.

Today, though, I am about to write what may be my most extreme, most political, most unbelievably inflammatory piece ever.  Yes, even more inflammatory than the "How Dare..." series.  You've been warned.


Romney's official Twitter posted this on Tuesday:

BarackObama’s defense cuts are making our future less certain and less secure. We can’t afford four more years.

Now, I happen to agree with this statement, and I'll tell you why: It Is Accurate.

Those who have followed me and/or read my writing in the past will know that while I am not a fan of President Barack Obama, I do give credit where it is due.  He brought up a few excellent points during his last presidential debate; he's recognized certain failures within his administration; and he's been quite the charmer when it comes to foreign rulers, if we're to believe the larger portion of the Press.  However, the President's major abilities are far simpler and easier to enumerate and quantify: He's got charisma, and he can deflect.

When everything else is said and done, these two are all that Obama has going for him.  He does not have a fiscal record better than Romney; he does not have a domestic record that is better than his predecessor; and he does not have a foreign policy worth trumpeting.  This is to say nothing regarding the outright lies he has told from day one of his bid for Illinois state office to the present time.

So, when I see comments like this:

Douglas Brinkley recounts an episode at the close of his interview with Obama, in which the president called Romney a "bullshitter" ...Beautiful  Thank You Mr. President...

Or like this:

Like me I think most of the rest of the world is horrified at the idea of Romney becoming president... 

 Or this:

Yesterday I cast my vote for President Obama and Joe Biden to serve a second term as our leadership. 

I could not be more proud. Casting my vote for a true leader, a true Commander in Chief, and great American President. 

 To be perfectly honest, I think these people ought to be examined for terminal deficiency or charged with felonious stupidity.  Why, you ask?  Because they have not come even close to doing a brief history check.  If they had, they would have seen the reality of our current situation, and it would have shown in their statements.  They would have come forward with an opinion based upon an informed position; not a regurgitation of Rachel Maddow's nightly talking points.

Speaking of "responsible" journalism, stories such as FiveThirtyEight's don't help matters.  Note:

Mitt Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate. However, the FiveThirtyEight forecast finds a slightly favorable trend for President Obama over the past 10 days. ...The question, rather, is whether Mr. Romney is gaining ground relative to the post-Denver polls — or if, as Wednesday’s polls seemed to imply, the race instead may have ticked back slightly toward Mr. Obama.

This, of course, leads to such informed opinions as:

I'd made up my mind some time during the last ice age and nothing President Obama has done has dissuaded me from that choice. Nothing Mitt Romney could have done, I think, to have convinced me to vote for him.

 The accenting in the above quote is my own,  and strictly to prove a point: Where is the intelligence of the voting public?  Why are we not seeing individuals who can speak of current events with an authority that comes only from being knowledgeable and informed?  In short:

Why Are The Majority Of Voters In The US Apparently All Morons?!

Apparently, a history lesson is in order, and the pathetic part of all of this is that this is recent history.  Let us pull back the curtains to 2008, around the time of the last election.

On November 7, 2008, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported 10.1 million people unemployed.  The unemployment average stood at 6.5% overall; this included 11.1% unemployment for blacks, 8.8% unemployment for hispanics, and 5.9% unemployment for whites among other factors.  Underemployment was at a fourteen year high: 11.8%.  If this is beginning to ring bells, it's only because Barack Obama, during his campaign for 2008, made this one of the central factors of his run.  See the video for yourself:

Another thing that then-Senator Barack Obama spoke of on the trail was the national debt ($10,597,885,059,458.78 in December 2008) and the funding of the war on terror.  He spoke of how out of control the debt was, and how he was going to balance the budget and cut the debt.  He called for programs to be cut, delayed, and to cost less overall.  He stated that adding $4 trillion dollars "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic."  Bear in mind that this was the same year it was announced that the National Debt Clock in Times Square would necessarily be replaced because it had simply run out of space to hold the numbers.  (And for the record, I agreed with him then, and still agree with that point today.)  Now, once again, you don't have to take my word for it:

He also spoke about energy costs: the cost of gas on drivers, fuel for home heating, and electricity.  The cost of gas had hit an all time high that year of just over $4.11 per gallon.  In a trend begun prior to the election, it had a fallen below $1.87 by November 26, CNN reported.  Then-Senator Obama stated that he did not take money from big oil companies; that he wanted to institute a windfall profits penalty; create 5 million new jobs; and invest $150 billion dollars in alternative energy.  As always, you can get it from the horse's mouth, as the saying goes:

So- There's our history lesson.  Everyone caught up and wondering what this has to do with anything?  Good.  Let's turn our attention to the here and now...

President Obama has received nearly $5k from gas and oil companies; over $450k from electric companies; and well over $8 million from various lawyers and law firms, many of which represent these same companies.    Incidentally, at the time the advertisement shown was airing, Obama had taken almost $1 million dollars from gas and oil companies.  According to Consumer Energy Report, Obama has presided over the highest gas prices in history, which includes the rationing periods during the Great Depression and during the sixties and seventies even after adjusting for inflation. Today, October 25, 2012, AAA's DailyFuelGauge reports gas prices averaging $3.599 a gallon for regular unleaded.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), people are paying $4.11 for diesel as of 10/22.

As for the national debt, President Obama has added over six trillion dollars to the sum he once called "out of control" since taking office on January 20, 2009.  The current debt, as of today, is $16,194,791,826,674.89, compared with the figure it was when he swore his oath at noon on the 20th of January: $10,626,877,048,913.08.  (Remember, the debt continues to be paid down, little by little, every year; thus those who would point to my statement and the seemingly dissimilar amounts here listed and boo are only showing their ignorance.)

Moreover, in 2010 alone, the much maligned Guantanamo Bay facility, or Gitmo as everyone now knows it, was granted $139 million dollars; and despite Obama's pledges on the campaign trail, and contrary to what is reported in the mainstream press, he has made no effort to actually close it.  Granted, I stand against the idea of its closing in the first place, so in this regard I applaud him.  The point is, however, that he is continuing the same thing for which he railed against Bush.

Further, as pertains to the national debt, our operations in Iraq cost between $5.12 to $2.8 billion every two weeks from the end of fiscal 2008 to now.  The cost of the Libyan invasion?  Nearly $2 billion dollars.  The cost of being in Afghanistan rose to $6.7 billion just between 2009 and 2010.  This is money spent on operations Obama promised to end within a specific time period while in office.  He's now facing his reelection bid with people still in Afghanistan, still in Iraq, and now with loss of life coming from other parts of the world.

Finally, there is the funding for programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has had a total of $840 trillion dollars allocated to it as of this last budget passing.  Or the much touted and debated American Care Act, now known as "Obamacare," which the Congressional Budget Office estimated in March to increase state spending for Medicaid and CHIP benefits alone by about $73 billion dollars.  On this subject, the National Review Online had this to say:

Even Jonathan Gruber of MIT, one of the architects of both Obamacare and Romneycare, now admits that many individuals will end up paying more for insurance than they would have without the reform — even after taking into account government subsidies — and that those increases will be substantial. According to Gruber, “after the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent.”

Now, as far as unemployment goes, President Obama has been saying this campaign that he is presiding over an administration that has spent less, (which we've shown to be a lie already), and that has created more jobs which has decreased unemployment.  However, the President has apparently not read the most recent reports: As of August, 40% of those unemployed had been so for more than six months. Unemployment in August was 14.1 percent for African American workers, 10.2 percent for Hispanic workers, and 7.2 percent for white workers.  Unemployment numbers sat at 8.1% in August, and did manage to drop to 7.8% by October- But still higher than his predecessor.


Now, all of this information begs the question: Exactly what has President Obama done that is different from the things which everyone so hated under Bush?  The answer, I'm afraid, is not a great deal.  As shown, he has not done right by the economy, and you will never get me to believe that the economy takes a back seat to, say gay marriage, animal rights or even climate change in 2012.  The economy is THE most important issue in the United States today, and it would appear that the majority of the United States agree with me on this.

So, if you are a US citizen that is a part of the majority concerned about the economy over everything else; if you are not a moronic voter; if you've been paying attention to everything taking place with this administration, from the non-transparency to the economic time-bombs disguised as legislation; then you now know the one thing you CANNOT do when you go to the polls:

You cannot vote for Barack Obama.
We cannot afford the next four years.