The 2010 Mid-Term Elections: My Thoughts

Let me start by saying that I was not surprised by the results of the House races. Congressmen have to run every two years, and less than two years of the Presidents' personality defects and policy decisions were more than what the country needed to determine that they didn't like the direction we are headed in.

A lot of liberals, who were prancing around less than two years ago celebrating the death of conservatism and capitalism with permanent democrat majorities as far as the eyes could see - suffered a collective Divide by Zero error the other night. Had anyone suggested at the Presidents inauguration that what took place was coming - no rational person would have ever believed it.

The taking of the House itself did not make me feel any happiness.

I am more pleased because the Republicans are acknowledging publicly that they were not elected by virtue of their own history of being stewards of our tax payer dollars. The have admitted that they were brought back to power because the President and his fellow democrats have been so wantonly reckless, abrasive and condescending towards the American people that they were willing to give Republicans a chance they absolutely do not deserve. For as much as I and other conservatives, libertarians and other constituencies do not have any reason to trust the Republicans worth a damn, Democrats have managed to demonstrate that they deserve our trust even less, and that is saying something.

The reason why I remain somber and not the least bit elated over the results is not just because I see our country in very dire financial straights. There were things that I took note of that took place prior to and after the elections that left me feeling disgusted at the state of electoral politics.

One of the fundamental reasons why the Republicans lost the House and Senate back in 2006 was because they had done nothing to adhere to the principals of their party. Sure, President Bush was not popular and charted a financial path that was reckless - but the Republicans in the House and Senate had an opportunity to demonstrate that they were not anything other than a bunch of liberals with an (R) next to their names - and they paid a heavy price. In truth - their malfeasance cost the country even more, because their unwillingness to say no to President Bush or restrain the growth of government allowed democrats - full of devout, Big-Government-We'll-Wipe-Your-Ass-For-You liberal moonbats like Nancy Pelosi - to run conservative campaigns promising a reduction in spending, smaller government, cutting waste, eliminating earmarks and Pay-as-you-go spending rules. They won the House and Senate, and ever since she became speaker - our deficit has gone up almost $5 trillion, with roughly $3 trillion of that having been added in the past 20 months.

Despite the acknowledgement on the part of Republicans of past wrongs and lessons learned...knowing their return to power is a byproduct of epic-fail democrat policies...I am upset with Republicans for a pattern of behavior I see coming from members of the establishment - patterns of behavior that I believe cost them potential Senate seats.

I'll go over a few examples:

- When Christine O'Donnell ran against Mike Castle in Delaware, she easily defeated him in the primary race. This came as little surprise because Mike Castle had a very liberal voting record, and as a much more conservative trend was being demonstrated by voters across the country - they were in no mood to casually vote in another RINO that was simply going to serve as another mouth piece for President Obama. The Republican establishment not only immediately started criticizing her, they initially announced that they would be withholding party-backed financial support for the November elections. This generated an outpouring of grassroots support, and over a 3.8 million dollars came pouring into her war chest in just one month. Karl Rove - for reasons that have to be personal somehow - took to the television and proceeded to lambaste and discredit her as an illegitimate candidate. Apparently, after 8 years as Delaware governor and 17 years in the House, Mike Castle was favored by party leaders despite a pledge made by Mr. Castle to Harry Reid that he would vote for Obamas Cap and Trade energy legislation. It was only after an outpouring of angry letters, phone calls and email to the RNC did they backtrack and pledge support to O'Donnells campaign. She was called unethical by Rove because the IRS had filed a tax lien, a procedure not only executed against millions of other Americans, but was retracted once the IRS admitted to having done so in error. Party members questioned her religious beliefs as being extreme and that she didn't stand a prayer in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2:1. The damage was done. Using these cues, she was attacked by liberals for her religious beliefs, called a tax cheat and was slandered as an unstable religious nut on a daily basis. Even though she shellacked Chris Coons in a debate where she accurately framed her personal beliefs and the constitutional basis of those views against his indefensible support of policies in diametric opposition to constitutionally backed freedoms, the RNC gave no defense or spoke on her behalf. When a libelous gossip column was released by Gawker by an anonymous source featuring a drunk and naked Christine O'Donnell on Halloween, the RNC offered a muted response. When a public television station claimed to have forgotten to run a 30 minute infomercial twice when she paid to have it televised, the RNC said nothing regarding the blatant, partisan shenanigans behind such an obvious attempt to deny her an opportunity to make her case. When O'Donnells campaign started, she was several points ahead of Chris Coons. By the time the election was over, she lost by 17 percentage points. With all the political demographics of Delaware aside, the point was made clear: The RNC, having fumed at the lose of a liberal Republican insider - was far more interested in quelling conservatives views being squared one-on-one against the pandering of a liberal like Chris Coons. To the RNC - a Castle win could have potentially been an additional number in their win column - but would have done nothing to reverse the very trend that made Republicans lose the House and Senate in 2006 to begin with.

- Senatorial candidate Joseph Miller, backed by conservative voters - defeated establishment Senator Lisa Murkowski in their Alaska primary. Murkowski, who had waffled on her position to repeal Obamacare - was also ready to compromise on Cap and Trade. Despite her pledge to back whoever the winner of the primary was, Murkowski reneged and opted to threaten to split the vote by running as a 3rd party candidate. Initially, it was discovered that she tried to attain the endorsement and support to run under the Libertarian Party ticket, but when they rebuked her she opted instead to run as an Independent write-in candidate. The Republican Party - who under normal circumstances would have been obligated to immediately strip her of her positions on the various appropriations and energy committees she belonged to - broke party rules and initially refused to enforce her removal, only opting to do so weeks later after intense scrutiny. They not only did not try to convince her to stand by her word to support the nominee, insiders ended up admitting prior to the election to abandoning Joe Miller in an effort to keep Murkowski in office. She, of all things - painted Joe Miller (a Fairbanks attorney) during campaign as an outsider! As of this entry - Write-in ballots outnumber Joe Miller's 41% to 34%. Unless there are a lot of ballots for people outside the scope of the known campaigners (or a lot of people spell Murkowski wrong), she will be the winner. While she pledges to caucus with the Republicans, her reaching out to democrat voters to defeat Joe Miller because of his Tea Party support, her past voting record and lack of trustworthiness to vote along conservative lines makes her potential victory a Pyrrhic one. Had the Republican Party establishment demonstrated the slightest intention of listening to the will of the voters - they would have kicked her ass to the curb the moment she threw a fit. Again, the establishment protected one of their own.

- In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in the fight of his political life. He was overwhelmingly unpopular because of his ties to the President, and his public demeanor was exceedingly scornful towards opposing points of view. After her primary win, Sharron Angle was leading Senator Reid by a margin of 50% to 39%. She was subsequently attacked by Bob Cashell(R), mayor of Reno who endorsed Reid after calling her an ultra-right winger. Nevada State Senator and Minority Leader William Raggio(R) and former Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner(R) also attacked her candidacy, calling her views extremist. Less than one month after divisive attacks on the part of establishment Republicans against Angle, polls showed her down by 7%. That 18% shift was not only the largest and quickest shift than in any other Senate race ever recorded - it would never have been possible had establishment, RINO Republicans not contributed towards assisting Harry Reid in attacking the chosen primary winner. Angle, in mid October - trounced Harry Reid so badly in a public debate that commentators took notice at how he was barely able to keep his balance, and that all attempts he made to demonize and disparage her were completely unsuccessful. Some even expressed incredulity at how such a man was ever elected to public office, let alone had somehow managed to become Majority Leader of the Senate. This - from a woman who was a political outsider running in a state where the Republican party is so disorganized and ineffective that it is considered a joke. She was even endorsed by Nevada's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. On election day, Reid was down by at least 4 points in every poll. In the end, Sharron Angle lost by 5 percentage points. Aside from the voter stories concerning voting machines selecting a straight democrat ticket even after pulling a straight Republican one, or people walking in to cast their vote only to find the machines with Harry Reids name already selected, Reid was able get the unions to bus in Hispanic voters like cattle with instructions to vote for Reid. Casinos also played a roll by "encouraging" their members to go out and vote for Reid. Regardless, once again - it was Republicans who played the biggest role in an all out attempt to stymie the election of a conservative outsider.

It wasn't until November 1st - the day before the elections - that Michael Steele, head of the RNC, finally got the balls to publicly tell the Establishment Republicans to shut up.

Here is a few slices of what he said:

"These Republican leaders who don’t put their name in print but make comments in the shadows need to shut up. We need to focus on winning elections tomorrow night. I need every Republican in the country, whether they are in the shadows or not."

"I don't know who these Republican leaders are, but they need to be focused on winning the election and not trying to gerrymander the outcome."

"The Tea Party is an organic movement. You can't tell them who to vote for or who not to. That is anti-American. The people want to take creative control of the election," said Steele. "Again, that is what frustrates Republicans within in the party - it's establishment types who think they know more than the people about who they want to lead them."

Now, everything he said there was correct. But where was this when conservatives like Senator Jim DeMint were being castigated as a troublemaker when he was leading the effort to finance this grass-roots movement? Where was this reminder to establishment types to put up or shut up when Sarah Palin was the most active person in attempting to make conservative principles the bedrock of this movement? Where was this kind of reminder when establishment Republicans played a part in undermining every single race I mentioned above?

Yesterday, Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham - the epitome of establishment Republicans, had the unmitigated gall to blame Senator DeMint and view the results of the election as a loss because they did not win back the Senate.

A LOSS!?!? +61 House seats, +7 Governorships, and at least +6 Senate seats. The President and the democrats had their collective balls whacked with a political hammer, and instead of concentrating on the obvious shortcomings of liberal policies and voting records, they want to instead blame conservatives for a loss that didn't happen?

After all, they said - had more competitive (i.e. liberal) Republicans run in the races I mentioned above, they might have been able win back or tie the Senate. Forget that there is no guarantee of anything in politics, these ingrates are more concerned with party leadership positions and chairmanships than they are in correcting the problem for which these two numb-nuts are culpable in contributing to: the very losses that gave the House and Senate to liberals back in 2006.

Had it not been for the efforts of Senator DeMint, Rep. Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement and the collective grass-roots work of all conservatives who contributed towards Tuesday's results - the likes of Graham, Lott, Snowe and every other limp-wristed spineless RINO would never have ever done a single thing to stem the tide or reverse the policies that are destroying this nation from within.

Establishment Republicans have demonstrated that they have no interest in winning by defeating liberalism or reversing the nature that its destructive policies have on our nation. They need to be given a choice, to either be hounded and driven out of office, or live with having their feet held to the fire with regards to living and practicing the policies of the party and people they chose to represent. If they think conservatives were fed up with liberalism's bullshit before Tuesday, they had better check themselves.

The days of them enjoying the type of blind loyalty that allowed them to permit the erosion of our liberties is over. Republicans no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. Not be me, and not by any other American.

The passing of government-run health care.

When I first began to become interested in politics, the first question that I ever posed on the subject was to inquire as to what the difference was that existed between Democrats and Republicans. The question was asked more than once - and I never received an answer that was definitive or concise. In hindsight, I remember just how uncomfortable people seemed to get when I asked. What I eventually settled on was a vague difference between the two based on a differing belief on what the role of government is in our lives. As someone who was raised by exceptionally hardworking parents who made their own way in the world without relying on anyone else to support their accomplishments, I naturally found myself gravitating towards the party that seemed more in line with that philosophy. When I started noticing democrats employing class warfare rhetoric on the evening news, it became quite clear that it was not just limited to only the super rich. Their perception of what constituted being wealthy or comfortable was not cut and dry, and that cinched it. I remember steaming with anger at the thought of someone casting a blanket of blame and resentment on people like my parents - who had done nothing but work to make themselves financially secure and independent - all while being honest, law-abiding citizens. I registered as a Republican within a week.

I wasn't willing to let the matter settle there. After laboring about the differences in political philosophies for a while, I came upon a notion that made me feel much better about reconciling those differences with my own beliefs:

Conservatives and liberals want the same things, but they disagree on how to achieve them. I accepted that premise for almost 20 years.

After having paid very close attention to what was said and promised before the 2008 Presidential election..and having witnessed the monumental shift in the direction of the political winds during the Presidents' first year in office, I can say with comfortable certainty that my previously held notion of the differences in political philosophies was complete horseshit.

For as long as I have been paying attention to politics, there have been conservatives who have attempted to challenge liberals on the specifics of their beliefs, whether it be economic, social, fiscal or spiritual. In most cases, liberals will not engage conservatives on any issue where they are required to defend the results of their actions, but instead engage in two specific forms of diversion:

The first is to insulate any policy decision made by concentrating on what they claim to have intended and not accept responsibility for it's negative consequences. A few examples would include the promotion and expansion of the welfare state, the inevitable insolvency of Social Security, staunch refusal to enforce our nations laws by the codifying of illegal immigration, the promotion of abortion, the promotion of racism through Affirmative Action, the endorsement of high taxation, increased government intrusion into the private sector, the silencing of free speech through the promotion of Political Correctness, the erosion of personal property rights and the redefining of the role that constitutionally protected religious beliefs had in this country's Founding. In each of those cases, liberals will defend their positions based on vague notions of "fairness" and "social justice" - that the intention of what they are trying to achieve justifies the various forms of destruction created in their wake. The second method in their attempt to dissuade the notion of failure in any of their policy decisions is to accuse all people possessing a differing opinion of racism, sexism, fascism, extremism, fundamentalism and of course...Nazism.

Let's just preemptively add Obamacare to this historical list of failures and go over some simple logistics:

To start with, the arguments liberals made prior to passing government run health care were based on premises that defied all logical notions of common sense...that somehow you could take millions upon millions of people who were not insurable or capable of providing insurance for themselves - add them to the roles - and magically lower the costs of treatment, reduce the deficit and lower the cost of insurance. President Obama pitched his plans using the language of a thoughtful and caring centrist and promoted the plan behind the scenes using the tactics of a Chicago thug...utilizing intimidation, coercion, kickbacks, payoffs and bribes to fellow democrats who admitted to others what the ramification of this destructive monstrosity would be if it passed.

Health care "reform" has nothing to do with making the system better. It is not centered around improving care...nor is it now or ever will be conducive to reducing costs. It will do none of that, and all of the liberals in the House and Senate know damn well that the results of this monstrosity will also cost us TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS. Think health care is expensive now? Just wait till it's free....

Let's just cut to the chase: The reason why nationalized health care always was so important to liberals is because it ultimately is an end-run around the Bill of Rights.

Right now, anyone who buys insurance gets covered based on the dictates of their policy....but nobody has the rights or authority to dictate to that person how they live, where they live, what they eat, how they earn a living, what their hobbies are, what kind of car they drive, etc.

Government run health care is unconstitutional because it not only forces you to purchase insurance, but also dictates what level of care you get regardless of how much more you'll pay. It also cancels your private plan should your private coverage change in the slightest. Since your health care will end up being funded by a collective of taxes confiscated by government officials, they will by proxy eventually have the power and authority to dictate every aspect of your life...because in some form or fashion every aspect of your life could be scrutinized based on the ramifications of how your lifestyle will impact the cost to other tax payers.

The worst part of the plan is that the sick - the very people who need medical care the most - are going to bear the brunt of the suffering because of this.

Why? Look at it from this perspective:

Say that 100 people have the same health insurance plan with the same coverage. The first 50 people are in good health, the second 50 people are suffering from varying degrees of health issues. I know 100 people is not a lot, I'm just using it as an example...

The 50 unhealthy people will use more drugs, use up more doctor time, more resources and require more expenditures on the part of either the insurance company or the taxpayer...and eventually...just other taxpayers. So - when the government lowers the number of (or types of) procedures they'll cover, raises taxes or changes the guidelines for screening and testing - the only people who reap the whirlwind of those negative consequences are the sick. Case in point: Look at how quickly American women suffered a collective schizoid embolism when the government changed the recommended guidelines for mammograms in the name of reducing costs. After decades of running around telling people to test themselves often and early in the name of saving lives, they in turn changed the guideline in direct contradiction to the entire concept of early intervention. Result? The desire to cut costs at the expense of the people who need it the most! Consider that if something as minor as that made women go bananas - they'll have no idea what to do when real rationing becomes a necessity.

Liberals love to tout the health care system in the UK and France as models for the US, but even a minor glance at both of those reveals some pretty dark commentary about the negative ramifications of government run health care. In the United Kingdom, women are giving birth to babies in the hallways because there are not enough rooms or staff to assist them. People have also resorted to yanking their own teeth out with pliers in lieu of a visit to the dentist. We were even recently treated to a story about a young man who wasted away from dehydration for days in full view of the depraved indifference and neglect on the part of the staff. I'm not describing a 3rd world communist shithole like Cuba, I'm talking about the nation that is our greatest ally with a 21st century culture and access to technology.

Liberals like to say that the French health care system is "every bit as good as ours" at 60% of the cost by claiming that the United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. For example - in 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was only $3,300. However, the crucial things being left out is that France does not spend as much on health care as the United States because they have only 62 million citizens - 1/5th of the US population and not nearly as high a GDP that we have. They also have a completely different culture, history and societal mix. But one thing liberals constantly forget to mention is that Frances national system limits coverage.

France confiscates 21 percent of a worker's pay up front just for entry into their nationalized system, and that is on top of (and not part of) the rest of their payroll and other government taxes, surcharges and fees. Employers compensate for their part in those contributions by hiring less workers. Now imagine for a second that in a similar plan enacted here...that a wife and husband who both work (with two kids) and earn $100,000 would have an additional $10,000 a year in taxes on top of the roughly 30% they'll already lose from their State, Local and Federal taxes taken from their collective pay. (Note that I said $10,000 instead of $21,000, based on idea of the employer picking up slightly more than half the cost.)

Some might look at that and think "Great! I'll give up that much a year to guarantee coverage."

However - France - in exchange for crippling employers and their employees with all of those additional taxes on top of what they're already paying, refuses to cover past 70% of the costs. That's right - if you want to cover the other 30% - you must buy private insurance on top of what you're already paying. The reason France does this? They didn't want to run insurance companies out of business! (Hey, you have to give them credit, at least the French are not as socialist as Obama and the rest of the liberal toadstools are in the House and Senate...)

To truly add insult to injury, France, in 2008 - despite huge taxes and limiting nationalized coverage - still couldn't stop themselves from driving their nationalized system into more than 9 billion in debt. Their solution? Make their populace pay for more for the drugs they use out of their own pocket after confiscating that much of their pay AND limiting coverage AND making people buy private insurance on top of it. Impose this kind of nonsense on an American populace riddled with people who still go ballistic when being forced to pay a $2 ATM fee - you'll have violence in the streets.

Just how confident can any reasonable person be to look at the likes of Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - smiling amidst the multitude of broken promises and financial ruin settling in the country that they have no intention of abating - and genuinely feel good about their ability to deliver on nationalized health care?

Democrats have always passed themselves off as the party of the little guy - of the common man. When ordinary people of limited means started becoming educated by looking at this bill and knowing what it meant for them, what did they do? They - many of whom had never joined an organized protest in their entire lives - started voicing their disagreements and organizing. Some started protesting government spending and expansion by gathering in peaceful protests. Others started calling and writing letters to their representatives. As more people found out about this plan, the popularity of the plan and the people pushing it began to drop like a stone.

What was the reaction on the part of liberals? The people protesting, coming from all walks of life - were called AstroTurf. They were Nazis, racists, sexists, homophobes, rednecks, Christian fundamentalists, and of course...Tea Baggers. The "Party of the People" did not care what the little people thought.

Even losing Ted Kennedy's seat during a special election in the liberal Mecca of Massachusetts did nothing to dissuade them from their course of action. In the end, with polls showing that the majority of people did not want this bill - democrats passed government run health care and declared victory over the American people.

The entire process - from the empty promises made in the campaign, the end result and the methods used to achieve its end - have (in my estimation) forever laid bare one of the most important truths about politics that should be pounded into the skull of any independent or right-leaning voter left who has tried to be diplomatic in their attempt to reason with liberals. They need to understand that liberals are not stupid, economically challenged or obtuse. They are not people who mean well.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to fall into a trap, and that trap is trying to be diplomatic about their approach to liberalism...both its intent and its effects. When conservatives say that liberals and conservatives want the same things but disagree on how to achieve it, it insulates liberals from being held accountable for what their true intentions are. Liberals and conservatives do not want the same things.

Some examples:

- Conservatives see individual freedoms as having come from The Creator, that they are ours by birthright from the moment we are conceived. Liberals believe that freedom is a right that is determined, limited and regulated by governmental authority.

- Conservatives believe in the rights and sanctity of individual freedom and responsibility. Liberals believe in a group collective run by a centralized governmental power.

- Conservatives believe in the ideal and practice of a true colorblind society where race truly does not matter. Liberals believe in the use of race to coerce and manipulate people into producing results that they believe should be achieved through government involvement and regulation.

- Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to only provide for the common good and defense. Liberals believe in the government being the central provider for everything.

- Conservatives believe that the compensation received in exchange for work or services provided is the sole property of the individual. Liberals believe that the collective needs of other people override the individual right to personal wealth or property.

- Conservatives see America as a historically special place. Liberals see America as a war-mongering nation full of hypocritical imperialists.

- Conservatives believe in a solid educational system with an emphasis on reading, writing, economics, history and mathematics. Liberals have eroded the purpose and effectiveness of the public educational system to promote dependency and loyalty to the state.

- Conservatives believe in a strong emphasis on the concepts of personal responsibility. Liberals encourage the insulation from personal responsibility by the promotion of victim hood and government benefits at the expense of taxpayers.

- Conservatives believe in the importance of bonds formed by strong families and ties to the community. Liberals have consistently tried to redefine the notion of family through the promotion of homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, the feminization of woman and the marginalizing of fatherhood and men.

- Conservatives believe in the historical premise of the the religious moral compass that the Constitution was based on. Liberals have promoted the devaluation of religious beliefs in favor of a secular worldview, downplayed moral standards and societal norms and revised the historical nature upon which the Constitution was written.

The Constitution is a set of principles that transcends the natural ebb and flow of political power. Politicians have no business whatsoever attempting to "remake" this country by changing the roots of its foundation. They are not our rulers. They do not automatically know what's best for us by the mere fact that they managed to attain political office. They were not placed into to power for the purpose of treating people as marionettes that are bound to their will. Elected officials, at best, are merely public servants that are temporary stewards of power, and nothing more.

This entire debacle is proof positive that when the rubber meets the road, liberals do not care what a majority of the people think, what we want or even what the Constitution says.

Conservatives have to get it through their heads that they are not dealing with people who have a mere difference of opinion, nor are they ones who have taken some kind of path that will eventually intersect in some way with ours. Liberals do not share our beliefs, values or goals. They do not love America for what it was founded on. They do not love it for what it was, or even for whatever measure it still remains. They are only in love with the idea of a mythical Utopia where the wants and needs of people are provided for though the relinquishment of individuality in exchange for a collective existence - free from the burden and uncertainty of providing for ones own needs.

None of that is compatible with the principled foundation of this country. We have to stop kidding ourselves and call it like it is. It is un-American, and they all need to be removed from any semblance of power by any means necessary.

Why I support the recent Supreme Court decision.

In last night's State of the Union address, President Obama took the opportunity to publicly berate the justices of the Supreme Court on national television because of their recent decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The case centered around a law passed in 1907 that made corporate contributions to political campaigns illegal. While the law itself was not overturned because of this case, the decision rendered by the court pertained to an aspect of McCain-Feingold that prevented unions, corporations and similar entities from funding advertisements for or against candidates within a specified time frame prior to an election. McCain-Feingold did nothing to prevent the flow of money, as it only gave rise to 527 groups designed to circumvent the restrictions on money it claimed to limit. Instead, McCain-Feingold was designed around the idea of making it easier for incumbent, entrenched, career politicians to defend themselves in elections by making it more difficult for vested opponents to directly challenge their re-election through targeted commercial advertisements. This specific law is what was overturned.

The Constitution protects the individual right of free speech. Just like unions, corporations are owned by, invested in and directed by individual investors. While they are individuals, they are a collective of people with a shared purpose.

Corporations were designed around the individual - to legally protect them from unlimited liability and protect personal assets. That is why a single individual can form a corporation for precisely those reasons.

The Supreme Court had to decide if the government had the right to hinder the free speech of corporations and other businesses while simultaneously exempting other businesses entities from those very same laws. Now, there is no more giving free speech to some while denying it to others. They're all the same.

Here is why I favor this decision: Over the years I have watched smarmy, self-indulgent, race-baiting Marxist reprobates worm their way into political power and influence by attacking companies and the private sector through stereotypical blanket attacks. This company is racist. This company is sexist. This company makes too much money. This company's employees won't unionize. This company sells fattening food. This company uses too much energy. This company doesn't do enough for the environment. Does this sound at all familiar? It should, because you could spend all day going through the entire list of legitimate businesses in the US, and in some form or fashion - most will fall into that list of criteria in one way or the other. That is by design.

Somehow, liberals are under the impression that they are entitled to attack perfectly legal companies selling or offering perfectly legal products and services....hassle them in court, publicly protest them, smear their employees and attempt in as many ways possible to hurt the company's bottom line....but simultaneously say that the companies under such assaults are not entitled to fully defend themselves and stand up for themselves through whatever legal means they have at their disposal. Liberal politicians have repeatedly engaged in systematic attacks on the private sector by leveraging the power and unlimited financial resources of the government in an effort to hobble the ability of privately owned corporations to operate unhindered within the US.

A prime example:

Years ago, banks were allowed to individually set personal criteria as to who qualified for personal loans. Banks had a simple rule founded on thousands of years of common sense - If you didn't earn enough money or possess sufficient assets to offset the risk of a loan - you're weren't going to get it.

When liberal politicians in Washington started going after banks, the first thing the banks lost was their right to maintain the privacy over their loan criteria. Naturally, when they were forced to open their books - people gasped with faux shock at the obvious...poor people with low-paying jobs living in poor neighborhoods were unable to qualify for loans. That was common sense, but common sense meant nothing the moment the sharks smelled blood in the water.

Suddenly, banks were no longer lending institutions - they were merely racist institutions that needed to have more government regulation thrown at them. Banks were accused of denying loans to poor people because they were black, not because they were bad loan risks. Under increased regulation and constant public scrutiny and broad accusations of racism, banks and lending institutions buckled.

The result? The same filthy, greasy, race-baiting politicians used race as a wedge issue to win votes by channeling people's frustration about their economic plight...abetting in the creation of a flawed financial system designed around giving more loans to people who in any sane economic environment would have been told to go pound sand. Subsequently, these same vermin in Washington had the nerve to act surprised when these people defaulted on their loans en masse and was the core foundation of the recent loan scandal and financial collapse, as the loan-based securities that failed became worthless because the loans backing them became worthless.

Banks, like any other company, exist to remain in business by making a profit. No sane lending institution would ever knowingly give loans to people who cannot pay them back, and that is precisely what they were forced to do because of unethical political pressure brought to bear against them by reprobates like Barney Frank.

Consider the following alternative scenario: If the previous political speech-limiting laws for businesses enacted in 1907 not been in place, banks and every other manner of lending institution would have been capable of defending themselves, their business practices and taken on every single individual and organization who portrayed them as racists entities. They would have been able to take on every politician who also accused them of racism, and in turn would have been able to take out as much political commercial time as they could afford, and defend themselves even further by more funding of candidates who would not have enacted such economically stupid ideas.

Within the past year, President Obama and the rest of the liberals in the House and Senate have engaged in what I cannot describe as anything else but a full fledged, no-holds-barred attack on the entire private sector of the country. He has deliberately spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of yet-to-be-earned tax dollars growing the government run public sector and doing virtually nothing to encourage private sector growth. He is doing this because he believed that the huge budget deficits, loss of jobs and loss of job supplied medical benefits would force people to embrace government run healthcare and give up their liberties in exchange. All of this has been intentional.

As conservatives and Republicans currently do not have sufficient votes to ultimately stop anything the liberals in Washington hope to enact, this ruling was a God-send. People who are unemployed are powerless, with little opportunity on the horizon. People who are still working are bringing home less, paying more and are thoroughly disgusted that their tax burden is certain to increase because of the Presidents economic lunacy. They have little to spare in both financial and economic capital to fight anything, and Washington has made it all too clear that they aren't listening to our anger.

This ruling heralds the beginning of a crack in a door that liberals never wanted reopened. Imagine oil companies, publicly defiled for providing and refining a product we all use and need - taking out huge commercial time pointing the finger at every politician who used public sentiment to attack their business, or Walmart standing up for themselves during an election year by painting political detractors as uncaring criminals out to hurt the company providing good-paying jobs and affordable products to struggling families. Even cooler, imagine the entertainment industry in Las Vegas mobilizing a huge ad blitz against President Obama and Harry Reid as payback for their lost revenue from disparaging remarks made by the duo earlier last year against companies seeking to conduct business there. Those commercials would be priceless.

I don't support this ruling because I think that the business sector is perfect, far from it. I support it because the private sector needs to mobilize against the statists in power who are eager to make the ruination of capitalism another notch on their bedposts. It is worth the risk, because we already know that we don't want the alternative.