Thursday, March 24, 2011

REPEAL THE 26TH AMENDMENT

Carter was such an abominable president we got Ronald Reagan, tax cuts, a booming economy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.
   
Two years of Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress got us the first Republican Congress in half a century, followed by tax cuts, welfare reform and a booming economy –- all of which Clinton now claims credit for.
   
Obama's disastrous presidency has already produced Republican senators from Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois; New Jersey's wonder-governor Chris Christie; and the largest House majority for Republicans since 1946.

   
We deserve more. Clinton only threatened to wreck the health care system; Obama actually did it. We must repeal the 26th Amendment.
   
Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.
   
But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.
   
As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans. The old motto was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."
   
Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.
   
The meager tax young people paid for vehicle licensing fees on their cars threw them into such a blind rage that in 2003 they uncharacteristically voted to recall the Democratic governor of California, Gray Davis. Wait until they start making real money and realize they share a joint-checking account arrangement with the government! Literally wait. Then we'll let them vote.
   
Having absolutely no idea what makes their precious cars run, by the way, young voters are the most likely to oppose offshore drilling.
   
How about 10-year-olds? Why not give them the vote?
   
Then we'd have politicians wooing voters with offers of free Justin Bieber tickets instead of offers of a "sustainable planet" or whatever hokum the youth have swallowed hook, line and sinker from their teachers, pop culture idols and other authority figures. (Along with their approved-by-the-authorities "Question Authority" bumper stickers.)
   
Like 18-year-olds, the 10-year-olds would be sublimely unaware that they're the ones who will be footing the bill for all these "free" goodies, paying and paying until they die of old age.
   
Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes, which control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead and to resist impulses.
   
Unfortunately, we didn't know that in 1971. Those of you who have made it to age 26 without dying in a stupid drinking game -- and I think congratulations are in order, by the way -- understand how insane it is to allow young people to vote.
   
It would almost be tolerable if everyone under the age of 30 just admitted they voted for Obama because someone said to them, "C'mon, it's really cool! Everyone's doing it!"
   
We trusted them, and now we know it was a mistake.
   
True, Reagan tied with Carter for the youth vote in 1980 and stole younger voters from Mondale in 1984, but other than that, young voters have consistently embarrassed themselves. Of course, back when Reagan was running for president, young voters consisted of the one slice of the population completely uninfected by the Worst Generation. Today's youth are the infantilized, pampered, bicycle-helmeted children of the Worst Generation.
   
They foisted this jug-eared, European socialist on us and now they must be punished. Voters aged 18 to 29 years old comprised nearly a fifth of the voting population in 2008 and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 31 percent.
   
And it only took 12 to 14 years of North Korean-style brainwashing to make them do it! At least their teachers haven't brainwashed them into burning books or ratting out their parents to the Stasi yet. (Of course, before teaching them book-burning, their professors would be forced to teach them what a book is.)
   
It would make more sense to give public school teachers and college professors 20 votes apiece than to allow their impressionable students to vote.
   
The Re-Education Camp Effect can be seen in how these slackers living at home on their parents' health insurance voted in the middle of the Republican tidal wave this year. Youths aged 18-29 voted for the Democrats by 16 points. But the kids aged 18-24 -- having just received an A in Professor Ward Churchill's college class on American Oppression -- voted for the Democrats by a whopping 19 points.
   
Young people voted for Obama as a fashion statement. One daughter of a friend of a friend of mine spent her whole college summer in 2008 working at a restaurant and then, with teary eyes, sent everything she made to the Obama campaign.
   
Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about paying for tuition, rent or food. Or property taxes, electric bills, plumbers and electricians. After being exploited by the left, she'll end up paying for it for the rest of her life, with interest.
   
Liberals fight tooth-and-nail to create an electorate disposed to vote Democratic by, for example, demanding that felons and illegal aliens be given the vote. But it's at least possible that illegal aliens and criminals pay taxes or have fully functioning frontal lobes.
   
Republicans ought to fight for their own electorate, which at a minimum ought to mean voters with fully functioning brains and the possibility of a tax bill. Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote.

Monday, March 21, 2011

OBAMAWORLD

One thing has become abundantly clear ... Obama has no idea what he is doing. For weeks, he failed to take any sort of leadership role on the increasing humanitarian crisis in Libya. Progressives will tell you that this was Obama's plan all along - that Obama wanted to hem and haw and hope that some other country or international organization stepped up to fill the void. This would take the pressure off the United States and wouldn't make it look like the evil hegemonic nation that is has come to be known as. This is what you get when you put an inexperienced, community organizing, Marxist-leaning hack in the White House and expect him to uphold the ideals of this nation. Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph says that this is a troubling direction for the US:
Obama's foreign policy is really perfectly consistent with the goals of his domestic policy. His object is to turn the US into a European-style social democracy complete with hugely expensive welfare provision and a federal healthcare programme: a country where security and universal provision of services is the first priority. What he was saying to Europe was: you have relied on our defence cover to spare yourselves the cost of military spending and that allowed you to lavish benefits and public services on your populations. It's our turn now. The great threat from Soviet power is gone, so we are going home to tend our own fire.
Also, the last-minute turn-on-a-dime decision making on Libya indicates that Barack Obama does not have a real strategy for handling world affairs. Why would he? He never had to have a strategy for balancing his own check book much less foreign policy. Instead, Barack Obama seems content to let the rest of the world do the dictating and only react when absolutely necessary. Is this what you call leadership? And one other question to consider from this McClatchy article: "While the Iraq war and the Libya crisis differ fundamentally in many ways, the question now, according to outside experts, is whether Obama's multilateral approach will turn out any better than Bush's unilateralism."

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

REXTAL CRANIAL MOMENT OF THE DAY

As the majority leader in the Senate, who is Harry Reid concerned about? Is he worried about the children of his constituents, who will owe tens of thousands of dollars to pay for our great experiment in big government? Is he concerned about facilitating a friendly business environment in Nevada that will help to create jobs, which has a staggering unemployment rate of 14.7%? The answers to these questions is "no." Harry Reid is not concerned about any of these things. So back to my original question, "who is Harry Reid concerned about?"
Cowboy poets. Yup, podner ... cowboy poets. Yippie ki yo ki freakin' yay!
No folks, you can't make this stuff up. In a debate over Republican budget cuts, Harry Reid points out that the "mean-spirited bill" will eliminate the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities. The horror! Can you imagine what would happen to all of the starving artists if they didn't have the government to subsidize their inability to sell their art in the private marketplace? So here's what Harry Reid had to say on the floor of the Senate:
"The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 ... eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts. These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist."
How out of synch is this man with the American public? Our nation hosts a staggering $14 trillion in debt and our leaders in Washington won't do a damned thing to make sure that number doesn't decline. Why? Because they have zero incentive to do so. Making tough cuts will only hurt their political chances of being re-elected to their position of power and prestige. This is because the looters and the moochers are holding them hostage. 

CHARLEY SHEEN

In the entire Charlie Sheen saga that's been playing out over the past several weeks we really are seeing what is wrong with this country. Charlie Sheen is a drug-crazed drunk who is in the process of destroying his live while bringing down several around him. He deserves no more than a curious glance, yet he is basically the number one story in our media.
We have:
  • Democrats and Republicans playing grabass with each other in Washington while refusing to launch any serious attack on our spending deficit and our national debt.
  • A New York Congressman is under fire because he dares to hold hearings on the radicalization of Islamic youth in the United States.
  • NPR executive Ron Shiller is caught on tape saying that the Republican Party believes basically in a white, Christian, gun-toting America ... all the while being paid in part by taxpayer dollars.
  • Teacher's unions are fighting back at any public official who dares to question their power .. .and the head of one teacher's unions is saying that the solution to our education problems is to just let the teacher's unions handle the teachers and everyone else should just back off.
  • Gas is costing $4.00 a gallon while The Community Organizer rejects any attempts to increase exploration for oil in our country and off our shores.
  • The quality of American education continues to decline while we continue to spend more and more on the useless Department of Education
  • We're getting more details on how Obama and his sycophants cooked the books on ObamaCare to convince us that his scheme would reduce our deficit. It won't. It will increase it.
I could go on with this list for pages ... but I have some interviews to do with some of my affiliates, but you get the point. There are things going on out there that will actually have some effect on your lives - not to mention the future of your children; but America is absorbed by the meltdown of a Hollywood slob that will have no effect on anyone outside of his rancid little circle.
They say that people generally get the type of government they deserve. Sure looks like that's true.