In Favor of Mitt

I was speaking to my son recently. He’s a High School student and has been complaining to me regarding the ignorance of his classmates. Most of them are Obama supporters but have no idea, other than repeating clichéd sound bites, why they believe what they claim to believe.

He suggested I request of the school, to call an assembly, where I stand up on stage and allow the students to ask me questions, so that I may dispel many of their liberal myths.

I suggested that we not go that route, for now, and that I may do some short, write-ups regarding these liberal talking-points.

Mitt Romney wants to shut down Planned Parenthood

Let’s look at Planned Parenthood. About one-third of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes from Taxpayer dollars. Even those taxpayers who don’t happen to want to pay for other people’s abortions are forced to contribute.

Mitt wants to stop providing taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. They are a private company, kind of. He can’t and wouldn’t shut them down. If they can survive without government funds, like every other company, let them .

Well, what about women’s health issues? Mitt Romney doesn’t care about women. What about the cancer screenings and mammograms Planned Parenthood does? He will shut them down.

Well, Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms. They never did. They don’t have the equipment, training or licensing.

Well, what about cancer screenings? Romney wants to defund those.

What cancer screenings? The cancer screenings they speak of are for breast cancer only and they are only licensed and allowed to perform Level 1 screenings, which is the exact method used by women when they self-examine at home.

Planned Parenthood is an abortion clinic, pure and simple.

The creator and founder of Planned Parenthood was a woman named Margaret Sanger. What a wonderful woman she was, unless you were black.

She was a flaming racist and a Eugenist who wanted to start Planned Parenthood to kill off the black babies. She even spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. What a wonderful person and a great organization.

Mitt wants to Shut Down Public Television & Kill Big Bird 

PBS, the Public Broadcasting System, receives about 17% of its funds from the government. Actually the government doesn’t actually give them anything; you and I do, whether we want to or not.

Since Big Bird seems to be the headliner of this topic, let’s talk about Sesame Street.

Sesame Street cost about $17 million to produce a year.

Now let’s look at how much they make.  Make money? I thought they were PBS, a non-profit organization? Think again.

Marketing rights, you know, toys, games, etc., bring in about $1.3 billion a year for just Sesame Street and Barney alone and another $47 million in other licensing for Sesame Street.

So Sesame Street makes a boat-load of cash.

Those on the left are always saying they are for fairness, correct? Like Obama says, they just want to level the playing field.

Well, let’s think about this. How fair is it for one TV network to receive government money and the others not? Shouldn’t we then give an equal amount to Fox News? Would that not be fair?

Here’s another idea. It’s called “Revenue Sharing”. It works great in the NFL. Instead of taking our (taxpayer) money, why doesn’t Sesame Street level the playing field and give the extra money to the less fortunate programs that are struggling.

Mitt is going take money from the Middle Class to pay for his “Tax Cuts for the Rich”

First off, Mitt doesn’t wish to give the rich an additional income tax cut. He merely wishes to leave all the tax rates the same as they’ve been for more than a decade.

He does, however, wish to cut or eliminate some taxes. The estate tax for instance, or more aptly named, the death tax. You work your whole life, save your money, so that when you die you may pass that on to your loved ones, but the government swoops in and takes half. What did they do for that money? You already paid a ton of taxes on that money. How much do they think they deserve?

He wants to lower taxes on investments and capital gains.

Let me see a show of hands of everyone who works for, or who has been hired by a poor person. I thought not.

Here’s how it works. Companies and individuals make money. They don’t just hide the money in a mattress. They invest it and grow their businesses. As the business grows they must hire more people. If that money is being taken away by taxation, they can’t grow and thus they can’t hire.

Well, Mitt still can’t pay for all his tax cuts, right?

This is an assumption of a “Zero Sum Game”, as it were. “Zero Sum” just means for anything I receive, I must take it from you. The pot never gets larger.

Socialism is “Zero Sum”; capitalism is not.

Government gets it’s money by collecting taxes. If you lower tax rates and eliminate some taxes, the government will actually end up with more money. HUH?

Okay, the government lowers tax rates and get’s rid of some others. That leaves people with a lot more money. They can now invest more in their businesses, hiring more people. Every person they hire is a taxpayer. The more taxpayers you have, the more taxes are collected, the more money coming in. The pot just got a lot larger.

Post-Constitutional America

“Issues” or America?

by: Thomas Sowell (my hero)

There are some very serious issues at stake in this year’s election — so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.

The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.

For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama’s recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.

The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States — and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with. [emphasis added]

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have “a government of laws, and not of men” but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution — and ourselves.

Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn’t like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.

President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining “work” to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.

There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.

ObamaCare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President’s arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the “equal protection of the laws,” promised by the 14th Amendment.

John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: “A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement.”

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.

So a Priest, a Minister and a Rabbi…

Who did build that business, then, Mr. President?

by: Vincent Carroll

Let’s be honest: If the nearest priest, minister or rabbi had uttered essentially the same words about personal merit that got President Obama in trouble recently, we’d have hardly thought twice about it.

Reminding high-achievers that they didn’t make it on their own — that they’re not necessarily any smarter or more hard-working than lots of other folks — is a time-honored means of cultivating the virtues of gratitude and humility, not to mention a sense of realism.

But Obama is not a priest, minister or rabbi. He’s a man with his hand on the tiller of economic policy, and his attitude toward entrepreneurs, innovators and business owners in general is of major importance. So when he says, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” it tends to grab public attention — despite the creative claims of his campaign to portray his remarks as merely indicating that business owners hadn’t built “roads and bridges.”

Sorry to his campaign, but that’s not what he said. He said they didn’t build their businesses, while deprecating their savvy and hard work as the engines of success.

Now it’s true, as the MaddowBlog quickly pointed out, that Mitt Romney himself made much the same point when he said “a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help.”

What Romney did not say, though, was “you didn’t build” your business — and even if he had, there are two big differences between Romney saying it and the president.

First, we know Romney believes in an entrepreneurial culture. He’s lived it. And he extols free enterprise all the time as the foundation of prosperity.

By contrast, Obama’s background is bereft of any significant first-hand experience that might foster respect or sympathy for business owners. To the contrary, he hails from occupational niches — community activism, academia and politics — in which disdain for commerce is quite widespread.

Of course, you can be a law professor or a politician who bucks the ideological tide. Far more telling is that Obama for years has been making similar statements that suggest a decidedly low regard for commerce and the motives of those who flourish within the private sector.

One of these revealing moments occurred four years ago during his commencement address at Wesleyan University, when he exhorted graduates to take up community service. That’s a worthy theme, of course, but consider how he did it.

“There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care,” he said. “You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s. But I hope you don’t.”

Several times elsewhere in his speech, Obama cited public sector jobs as examples of meaningful work. The candidate basically offered graduates the following choice: meaningful work in the non-profit and public sectors, on the one hand, or money-grubbing that chases big houses and nice suits. To call this a caricature would be kind.

This nation is engaged in a decisive debate about how to revive an economy mired in slow growth and meager job creati0n, so naturally we pay attention to a candidate’s views of how the economy works. If Obama wants critics to stop saying he’s disdainful of business, maybe he should stop providing them with evidence for the charge.

Barack Marshall Davis

from:  

A new book released this week chronicles Barack Obama’s early days in Hawaii when he was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying communist. Dr. Paul
Kengor’s book, The Communist, has the subtitle of Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor (cover art designed by Glenn Beck).

The book details Kengor’s research and interviews with those who knew Obama back in those days. Although the book traces the influence that Davis had Obama, Kengor is careful not to come out right and label Obama a communist, but does say that the influences of that teaching explains many of his policies we’ve seen over the past three years. He was even able to access released FBI profiles that contained information that verified some of Kengor’s findings. In one account, Kengor describes his interview with John Drew who knew Obama well while attending Occidental College. Kengor quotes Drew as saying:

“Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met him in the fall of 1980.”

Kengor writes:

“If Obama was on the Marxist-Leninist left, we have no accounting, from Obama or anyone, of a switch.  Quite the contrary, in Obama’s memoirs, we hear about him attending socialist conferences and ‘hanging out’ with Marxist professors, but never any repudiation of those conferences, professors, or even a tiny, passing comment suggesting these were fanciful musings from a politically misguided youth.”

Kengor also quotes Davis’ writing on the economy that is quite descriptive of the economic policies of President Obama.  He advocated that to stimulate the economy, the federal government needed to collect taxes and then redistribute that money for health insurance, education, low cost housing, and increased social security benefits.  Davis said not to rely on businesses, private or large or even Wall Street to stimulate the economy but to do it through taxation.

Sound familiar?

Obama has never denied his association with communists, Marxists and socialists and even has some of them serving in his administration.  His actions in office follow closely to the party lines of socialism and Marxism.  Kengor’s book leaves no doubt about his communist mentor’s influence on Obama and that influence is still seen in his actions today.

If Obama had openly announced that he was a communist or Marxist, he never would have been elected.  He has lied to everyone in the U.S. about his background and continues to hide so many things about himself and that I can’t believe anyone would be so stupid to put any trust in him.  It wouldn’t surprise me one bit for Obama to come out of the Marxist closet if he wins a second term.  If that happens, God help us all.

The World According to The Donald

by: Joe Kovacs at WND

[Editors notes (EN) inserted by the Common Constitutionalist]

Donald Trump is again predicting President Obama will start a war with Iran solely to help his chances of getting re-elected this November.

The billionaire developer made his forecast both on the Internet and television Tuesday, initially tweeting: “Just as I predicted, Barack Obama is preparing a possible attack on Iran right before November.” 

(EN: Not much of a prediction. I predict the world will possibly end this year, or possibly not.)

He then spoke via phone to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, confirming: “Yes, I believe that we will end up in a war with Iran because I think Obama views that as politically good for him. … I have said for a year and a half that in the end, somewhere before the election we will end up in a form of war with Iran, and I think he’s doing it for political reasons.

(EN: I’ve never been a fan of The Donald. I believe he just likes the spotlight. That being said, I wouldn’t put it past this administration to do anything to secure this election. And up until the Bush’s, all modern wars, for good or bad, have been while democrats were in the Whitehouse. Woodrow Wilson, WWI; Franklin Roosevelt, WWII; Harry Truman, Korean War; John Kennedy / LBJ, Vietnam.)

Appearing somewhat incredulous at his sentiment, Van Susteren said, “You’re saying that the president is really thinking about doing the unthinkable for political advantage for himself, taking us to war. I think most people would say that’s beyond, that’s beyond fair.”

Trump responded, “I don’t think it’s beyond. That’s my opinion, and let’s see what happens. I hope that doesn’t happen.” (EN: Nothing is beyond, when you’re a radical.)

“What should happen is Iran has to be – despite their bravado – they have to be scared stiff right now because, I mean, they’ve just looked at what’s happened to other countries because we are the most powerful, and what we’ve done to others, whether we should have been there or shouldn’t have been there, is unbelievable. So what should happen is the right person should negotiate a phenomenal deal. Everything. We should get 100 percent of everything. I have predicted that I think it’s not going to go that way. We don’t negotiate. We don’t know how to negotiate.”

(EN: This is where The Donald falls off the rails. The old saying, “You don’t negotiate with terrorists”, is true. Especially Islamic terrorists. Why? Because you can’t. There is nothing you can offer that will be acceptable to them. Maybe we can negotiate that they kill us last.)

Trump personally labeled Obama as a “lousy negotiator,” and insisted progress could be made if the right person were chosen to hold talks with the Islamic republic.

(EN: Agreed. It is hard to negotiate, when you’re too busy apologizing.)

“We have all the cards,” said Trump. “Iran is crazy if they don’t sit down and negotiate because the same thing’s gonna happen to them as happened to Iraq and so many other places. And it’ll be long and nasty, but ultimately it’s the end of Iran as you know it today.”

(EN: Really Donald? What cards do we have? What happened to Iraq? Iran is loving what we did to Iraq. We did all the heavy lifting to create the vacuum for Iran to fill. After all, Iraq is central to Iran’s plan for the great Caliphate.)

Trump cited new polls that show Obama struggling in battleground states, increasing the chance of a military conflict with Iran:

“I see the polls that just came out [Tuesday] morning, where he’s actually losing, really for the first time, and he’s losing in swing states most importantly, and he’s losing fairly substantially. Now maybe that’s accurate and maybe it’s not. And polls are often times wrong.”

Enemy Mine

Romney vs. Obama: Leadership and the enemies list

 By Jack & Suzy Welch:
 

Remember that incompetent boss you used to have? He was a good guy and all, but he just couldn’t make decisions or prioritize. Perhaps worst of all, he tried to make everyone happy, resulting in almost everyone being angry or confused or both. And remember how long it took management to move him out – and how aggravating that was?

Of course, at the time, you sort of understood why the Bigs had promoted the guy in the first place, and why they held out hope for so long. He’d been a superstar salesman. Best the company had seen in ages. But in the end, it turned out that all the things that made him great as an individual performer made him lousy as a people manager.

It happens all the time at work. A brilliant engineer promoted to run R&D. A gifted reporter elevated to editor. A cutting-edge scientist made head of the lab. First cheers. Then, after a bit, confusion about organizational direction, mixed signals about values, hurt feelings left and right and, eventually, chaos.

Look, in business, some people can really knock it out of the park in their current jobs. They just can’t lead.

Smart companies get that reality. In fact, most have learned the hard way that actually being a great leader involves unique skills that even the most promising candidate for a leadership job simply may not possess.

But do the American people get that reality, too?

You have to wonder. Because there’s an awful lot of noise out there right now about campaign styles. President Obama has a reputation built on his soaring oratory, while Mitt Romney, clearly no fan of crowd scenes, can’t seem to get through a week without an awkward (or worse, foot-in-mouth) moment.

The president really knows how to run for office, the pundits note. Romney – not so much.

As if it matters.

It doesn’t, of course. Just as in business, in politics, being very good at one job (like delivering well-written speeches from a teleprompter) doesn’t necessarily make you very good at the next (like leading the free

What voters need to do right now is stop focusing on stump skills, or lack thereof, and start fixating on which candidate will be the better president once the campaign is long over. They need to stop asking, “Who’s more appealing on TV?” and start asking, “Who’s got the right stuff to get America working again?”

Yes, in some part, every person’s answer to that question will be driven by the issues – from healthcare to taxes to energy policy. And in this election, the ideological divide is stark indeed, with Obama supporting government centralization that borders on European-type socialism and Romney in favor of decentralization, state and individual rights and free-market capitalism.

Stark, too, is the difference between the candidates’ leadership styles.

Over the past three years, Obama has taken a sort of divide-and-conquer approach, amassing a list of enemies that would make Richard Nixon proud – bankers, healthcare insurance providers, oil companies, wealthy taxpayers, Congress and, most recently, the Supreme Court. Surely his supporters must think this particular tactic is effective, but there can be no denying that the country is more polarized than when Obama took office.

Without doubt, Romney is not the model leader (his apparent lack of authenticity can be jarring), but he has a quality that would serve him well as president – good old American pragmatism. Perhaps that’s the businessman in him. Or perhaps you just learn to do what you’ve got to do when you’re a GOP governor in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts or the man charged with salvaging the scandal-ridden Salt Lake City Olympics. If Romney’s long record suggests anything, it’s that he knows how to manage people and organizations to get things accomplished without a lot of internecine warfare.

Look, Obama may be a great campaigner and Romney (to date) somewhat the opposite. But neither man is running to be Campaigner-in-Chief.

In politics, as in business, the leader’s job needs to be filled by a leader, and no effective leader, regardless of ideology, keeps an enemies list.

Obama hearts the Second Amendment

The Obama camp, including the media, wasted no time trying to burnish President Obama’s Second Amendment credentials after Mitt Romney told a crowd at the National Rifle Association that the president was not protecting gun owners’ rights.

“We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners,” Romney said at the St. Louis convention. “President Obama has not. I will.”

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president’s record “makes clear the he supports and respects the Second Amendment, and we’ll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters.”

The Associated Press jumped to Obama’s defense with a story that countered Romney’s words with statements such as “the topic has rarely arisen during (Obama’s) time in office.”

It’s the sort of reportorial assertion that masquerades as balance but is more likely to appear in a story about a GOP member slamming the president than vice versa.

Romney does have a changeable record on gun rights, having said in 1994, “I don’t line up with the NRA,” then becoming an NRA member a decade later. But at least his history moves in the right direction.

Obama’s camp seems to be promoting the thesis that because the president hasn’t pushed for outrageous limits on guns that he therefore is some sort of Second Amendment champion. The more likely truth is that he knows congressional resistance from Republicans is strong.

As is often the case with Obama, to discern his real position on gun issues, it’s useful to look at the people around him. Since taking office, the president has appointed a number of anti-gun zealots to high office, such as Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Then there’s the Big Daddy of the anti-gun crowd, Eric Holder, who once talked about having to “brainwash” the public into being against guns, yet administered the Fast and Furious operation that put powerful U.S.-made weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.Romney also brought up a good point at the NRA conference, raising the question of President Obama’s recent open-mic comments to the Russian President Medvedev.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney said. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he’ll have a lot more, quote, ‘flexibility’ to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”

It’s not a minor point, especially with Obama’s recent executive order allowing him to declare martial law in peacetime without approval of Congress.

Attribution: Tad Cronn

Random Act of Journalism

If you’ve never encountered such a thing, behold an actual journalist. I don’t know where Larry is now? Maybe he’s unemployed, shamed and outcast by his peers. His peers. You know, the real journalists that might ask the president what type of tree he would be, or “Mr. President, could you explain what makes you so wonderful?” Maybe Larry is still employed…for now, but he should soon be looking out for the black helicopters to swoop down & carry him away to be reeducated.

It’s sad that this, not much more than a minute clip, is so unique. I guess we’ll take it where we can get it.

Women get Paid…Less

Remember this? In 2009 President Obama signed the ‘Equal pay for Equal Work’, also known as the ‘Lilly Ledbetter’ act. It was a banner day for women all across America. Thanks to our beloved president, finally women would get their due.

The report below claims that women in the private sector fare worse than those in government who, apparently, are already treated as equals. That’s great! At least the White House is leading the charge and practicing what they preach.

Could it be that Obama talks a good game but doesn’t back it up?

According to an article by Meghan Keneally, that is evidently the case:

All of President Barack Obama’s employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts.

Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.

This news comes on top of continued criticism- of both President Obama and prior presidents- that women are underrepresented in the White House.

Of the administration’s 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.

The most oft-singled-out leading lady in the President’s testosterone-fueled inner circle is Valerie Jarrett who is one of his closest advisors.

That said, she has been with the President since his days in Chicago and is seen as one of his close personal friends as well as a trusted advisor.

The gender differential has been noticed outside of the White walls, and Dee Dee Myers- the first female press secretary who worked under the Clinton administration- feels it is not doing Mr Obama’s team any favors.

‘Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,’ Dee Dee Myers told The New York Times.

The hefty salaries, like Ms Jarrett’s, were not the norm, however, as the median salary for women in the White House is $60,000 which is 18 per cent less than their male peers whose median salary was $71,000.

This is not the first time that a pay disparity has been present in Mr Obama’s White House, as it started as soon as his time in office did.

In 2009, women made 89 cents for every dollar that men made in ‘the People’s House’.
On average, that came out to $9,390 less.

While that looks like last year’s calculations would mean a more drastic increase, those figures were compiled on the median salaries and not the mean so the two numbers are not exactly compatible, but they do show that there has not been a marked improvement in the situation.

Though the White House is not setting a great example, it is doing better than most: a recent national survey claims that women still make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.

That may present more of a problem, as the President’s platform clearly values equal pay, as Mr Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only nine days into his term.

The current administration’s gender differential is certainly not the first, as former President Bill Clinton only had four women among his 17 top paid employees.

The downward trend continued with President George W. Bush, who only had 35 women among his top 122 workers.

Unlike in previous years, Mr Obama may be held to a greater degree of accountability on the issue now as both parties paint the other as waging a war against women.

The Power of American Exceptionalism

by: Demetrius Minor

This election year’s theme has evolved around one common theme: the identity of America. We’ve heard the rallying voices calling for “restoring”, “believing”, “saving” and “reviving” America. There is this undeniable feeling that America is wayward, distraught and dysfunctional.

The choice is quite simple and fundamental: we can continue to march towards an European socialist society or we can be a nation of economic prosperity, constitutional liberty and freedom. America’s soul has been entrenched by big government welfare and mandates that infringe on individual rights. The enhancement of government, by means of a weak and anemic private sector, has changed America from being an economic promised land to a nation that is being defined by unemployment, joblessness, a divided political front and a lack of efficient leadership at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It is embarrassing and shameful that we currently have a President who does not understand the power of American Exceptionalism. It is quite common for President Obama to travel worldwide “apologizing” for what he perceives to be the flaws and imperfections of America. I wish he would express gratitude for this country.

American Exceptionalism is about being what you dream to be. It’s about taking advantage of the fact that America is one of the greatest nations known to mankind and that it flourishes with plenty of opportunities for many individuals to succeed. American Exceptionalism is not about government dependency. While the absence of government in its entirety would lead to a society in total chaos and disorder, it is the notion that government will meet all your needs that has caused many to be apathetic and indolent.

American Exceptionalism is about YOU. It is about having a good work ethic. It is the blissful reminder that if you dream and believe in God and yourself, that you can indeed be what you want to be. It is not about piggybacking off of other’s successes and blessings. It is not about being entitled to something without working hard and diligently for it. American Exceptionalism promotes the idea that America is great and that the power of free is what makes individuals successful in life. The idea of big government necessity is pure selfishness. The fact that many just want to depend on the government to provide them services without putting in the work and effort as others, is not only selfishness, but its robbery from those who have worked diligently in their life.

I refuse to adhere to the thought that government serves as a lifeguard and rescue mission. My success in life is dependent on Almighty God, the encouragement of family & friends, and the effort I personally put in to achieving my goals. Many may perceive this to be an egotistical analysis. On the contrary, it’s the beauty of American Exceptionalism. Don’t ride the coattails of government. Empower YOURSELF.