Obama the Liar: Tax The Rich

Wow, are we really a nation of morons?  When Obama speaks, he does it as if his speech writers have given him the next historical document and the TV cameras on recording gold.

This week, we were informed by "our" president that he's going to "tax the rich".  He then proceeds to say that the aforementioned "rich" are people making more than $250k per year.  Of course the next day he alters that and now the "rich" are people making more than $208k per year.

Why is this a lie?  Because those people are not "The Rich" by any stretch of the word.  Had he said the rich were those making $1million or more per year, he would have been somewhat honest.  However, his $208k or $250k (depending on the day) targets a large demographic of individuals and business that are GOOD for our economy and provide more benefits than the additional tax burden will achieve.

The only things that saves Obama in the eyes of the common voter would be the fact that more people do not make $208k per year than do.  He doesn't have to be honest or fair to the people he is taxing, he just needs to make more friends than enemies.

Obama's lie is that rather than playing Robin Hood and robbing the rich and giving it to the poor, he's attacking the PRODUCERS in our society, leaving the real "Rich" out of harms way, and pandering to the poor.  But, until he takes it out on your demographic, sleep easy and be glad that somebody else is shouldering the burden for you.

The Irresponsible Home Buyers!!!!

One of the most annoying things I keep hearing on the news is the notion that the mortgage industry problem is caused by "irresponsible home buyers" that for whatever reason bought homes that they knew that they couldn't afford.

My biggest issue with this is the insinuation that the problem was caused by millions of irresponsible people that somehow had the power to approve their own loans.  How is it that the media, including FoxNews is neglecting to acknowledge that BANKS decide which loans get approved and which get denied?

With the exception of certain lending institutions such as Freddy and Fanny, the push for sub prime lending was not a result of government pressure.  It was a sign of greed withing the mortgage industry.  The loans that were being advertised and spoon fed to the "irresponsible" home buyers were no accident.  Even if greedy realtors were taking it upon themselves to market the dangerous loans, the BANK decided if it was going to fund the loan.

Irresponsible Home Buyers is a distraction from the real issue.  

1. Realtors specifically marketed risky loans in an attempt to sell houses that were extremely overvalued in a market that was expected to soften considerably.

2. Banks approved and funded those loans knowing the risky nature of the papers and the overvalued nature of the asset.

3. Bankruptcy laws were tightened to limit bankruptcy options

4. The safe payment era of the risky arm loans expired and the real payments started coming due.

5. As houses foreclose, the market begins to slide.  

When a homeowner can see this coming, how can a rational person believe that the banks that funded these loans were clueless???

To the credit of the Irresponsible home buyers, many were led to believe that growth was going to continue, even with the interest only options, they would be able to live in their home for a couple of years, sell it, then buy a home they could more easily afford with the profits.  While this is similar to gambling, it was also based on lies.  Realtors in the early 2000's were not always honest with their buyers.

The bottom line is that the people responsible for this issue are NOT being held accountable in any way.  This was not an accident.  Look at the data for the last 10 years.  The signs were there.  We saw them and worked on getting out before the storm.  However, things are worse than even i had anticipated.   Unfortunately, we're not at "the bottom" yet . . .

Our Economy and the O Bomb

It looks like our economy is about to take a hit.  Bigger than the one conceived by the terrorists when they began trying to blow up the World Trade Center in the late 1900s.  This one consists of random special interest programs the Democrats have been unable to get through during the years of the Republican controlled White House and Congress.

This coming Tuesday our president is scheduled to sign the Stimulus bill into law.  The amount of misinformation and lies associated to this package is astounding.  Nobody has read it cover to cover.  The positive effects are expected to be minimal, less than $15 per week per person in net gain.  The negative effects, gross government spending and expansion, will last until the house of cards collapses into something we do not recognize as the United States of America.

Brace yourselves, the O-Bomb is gonna detonate our economy Tuesday..

What Exactly Is Economic Stimulus?

To listen to some high profile politicians, stimulus is spending money to create a job.  Not only is there no scope associated to performance of spent dollars, but there is an assumption that any money spent should be considered stimulative.

I'm sure that there are a number of things in the package which are short term in that they provide an instant job that will perform a task and then end.  At the end of that particular "job", the money is gone, and a product such as a road or government building is the result.  This does not scale in terms of long term economic growth.

Equally stimulative (in many ways) would be to create short term jobs by providing politicians with an account for hiring prostitutes.  It would create "short term" jobs while creating no lasting stimulative effect as there was no scalable product produced.  The prostitutes would be getting paid, the politicians would be getting something of interest, and the money would work it's way back into the market.

Are we still supposed to believe that ANY spending by the government to hire somebody to do something constitutes stimulus that will recover our economy?

Fox News: Fair & Balanced?

The claim of "fair and balanced" gets arguments started.  Most detractors say that FoxNews is nothing more than a right wing media front.  Most fans will say that FoxNews is the only media that delivers news not approved by the left wing media front.

It's a given that the mainstream media as delivered by the major networks is left leaning, and in some cases ultra liberal.  Examples cited often relate to Obama getting a free ride during the PotUS race while the opponents faced tough questions and harsh reviews.  On the other hand, detractors of FoxNews will point out that FoxNews was giving no good press on Obama, while promoting only Republican candidates.

So we get to the point where we have to acknowledge that it's probably not possible to be "both" Fair and Balanced in this particular media.  This would require that all of the candidates were given an unbiased assessment of pros and cons.  Were FoxNews to be "fair" in this manner, the public would still be missing balance.

As we throw a little logic into the mix, we find that the things that detractors hate about FoxNews are the things that make it Balanced.  In order to balance mainstream media, the "other side" has to be delivered.  Since the liberal opinions are promoted on outlets like ABC and MSNBC, FoxNews seems to be the only outlet delivering the other side of those issues.

Now we get to a bit of a stretch on the word "fair".  Although FoxNews does have a conservative slant, we have already determined that it is required that both sides get out.  Since FoxNews is the major outlet of the other side of the story, it is "fair" that they exist and provide the other side.

This still doesn't accommodate the "level" of fairness or balance.  The thought that FoxNews is an ultra right wing organization with "out there" reporting needs a reality check.  Were fox news to perform as Rush Limbaugh does, going off the deep end twisting things around for entertainment to extremes, just as the ultra liberal outlets do, then yes FoxNews would be in that category.  However, FoxNews does not twist to the right as far as others twist to the left.  This is where FoxNews, although primarily leaning conservative, IS performing in a Fair and Balanced nature when compared to the "other side".

Obama: Liar or Idiot?

S M U G - the only way to describe obama with regard to "stimulus IS spending by definition".

It's a shame to see him lie to us like that. He is either a moron or a liar. The statement about stimulus is as misleading as it presumes that ANY spending is stimulus.  

If we just wanted wasteful stimulus, the bill could simply be: 900 Billion dollars will be divided among all American homeowners in exchange for their "median beautification project.  

This project will require that every homeowner spend 3 months on their hands and knees cutting grass with scissors and cleaning up trash.  

In return, they will receive a check for 90% of their mortgage." 

It would fit the description in that money would go to reducing cost of living, a job would be provided, and a work or service would be provided temporarily. However, that is not the "spirit" of the "stimulus" that our country and it's citizens need.  

If obama wants to throw money away, I'm sure the American people would fare better if he threw it away at a short sighted plan like mine.  

Think about it, clean roads, billions of dollars in "cost of living" DECREASE. Of course it's not a well thought out plan, which is why I think it deserves to be on the table with the rest of the "not well thought out" items being shoved down our throats.

Do American's Really Need Jobs?

In 20008, over 2.5 Million Americans lost their jobs

However, the government is still allowing 1.5 Million foreign workers in each year.

Until the government has a profitable plan to pay Americans "just for being American", why are we bringing in so many foreign workers to take jobs desperately needed by our own citizens?

For the record, this doesn't include the American jobs lost due to "outsourcing" to other countries. As a nation, we should always put our own economy before the economy of other nations.  It is a sad day when our country is contributing to it's own economic demise.

http://americanworker.org/ for more information on this subject.

Is "a little socialism" ok?

The foundation of America was not built upon Communism or Socialism. However, we have incorporated a number of socialistic into our government and society.

Are we able to cherry pick from socialism without turning our backs on the country our forefathers provided to us? Is it possible to dabble in socialism without necessarily drinking the cool aid?

We have government funded social services, such as police, firemen, and schools. Yet we are able to provide those without allowing the government to decide where you live, what type of job you have, or how many children you can have. Even though most of those services are broken in some sense, we still have them and they are usually considered better than not having those services.

Sure there are some police officers that are corrupt and on the take. Sure there are some firemen that perform illegal activities in their down time, but still fight fires when the alarm goes off. Sure, the public school system is often broken, fails the children, and is used as a tool for indoctrination by overzealous nut jobs. But, at least there are police, firefighters, and public education?

How do we decide which of societies needs are "safe" to socialize? As a practice of large government, one would presume that it will continue to expand until it reaches critical mass and collapsed. We have education and some services available at no cost.

If so, would we consider health care a "basic human right" and let the government provide that to citizens at no cost? Obviously our capitalized health care system is broken in that you have to work for a large company with a decent salary in order to afford good health care. Our current system provides people with service only during their peak working years.

Before you land that good job, you're kinda screwed. While you work for that company you're somewhat in the clear unless you end up with one of the many conditions that are denied coverage. After you retire and no longer in that position, you're kinda screwed again. Except for that cushy window in the middle of you're life, health care will be a problem.

Our system is based on profit. From the doctor/surgeon to the production of medicine and machines, every level has a healthy markup. By the time you spend 10 minutes inside a room getting minimal attention from a busy doctor, you will easily spend $400 for that 10 minutes with the doctor, $400 for a small amount of medicine, at least $200 for the hospital room (of course you wait in there 45 minutes to get the doctor for 10 non-consecutive minutes) and various other charges.

It is obvious that something needs to change, but the arguments continue on "what" needs to change. Do we socialize medicine? Do we cap profits for each segment of the industry? Do we subsidize medical insurance? Do we attempt to regulate the denial of treatment?

If we look around the globe, we find various forms of socialized medicine. Canada and France are obvious examples. Depending on who you ask, those systems are either great or entirely broken. One citizen of those countries might be unable to comprehend why American citizens cannot get health care since they take it for granted. Another citizen of that same country might wonder why people think his system is a model as his experiences would lead you to believe that the socialized medicine in his country is broken.

Do we need to so something?

Is medical care a "basic human right"?

Is there a fix that doesn't include socialism?

Can we dabble in socialized medicine w/o becoming socialists?

Will Howard Stern Kill Satellite Radio?

Before his $500 Million dollar deal with Sirius Satellite Radio, neither XM or Sirius were profitable companies. Sirius was gambling on the hope that Stern would leave FM, move over to Sirius, and his huge fan base would follow.

Unfortunately for Sirius, this never happened. The amount of subscriptions and radios that followed Stern was dismal. However, they had already signed their deal. Howard was in, he was the horse to which Sirius had hitched their future.

At the time, XM was the stronger company. Although they had a similar product offering, they had better technology (smaller higher quality radio units and antennas), and better performers.

Opie & Anthony, for example, were on XM. Howard Stern has a history with them stemming from the days when they were both on the same station years ago. O&A were not a $500 Million Dollar overhead for XM and they did perform well for the company. Sirius had nothing to compete with O&A.

Long story short, Sirius & XM merged. The expectation that Sirius would fail and XM would survive was no longer an option. By joining the two companies, the failure of Sirius and Stern would be a failure of XM, Considering that Howard Stern has turned out to be a negative equity investment, it very well could be the final nail in the coffin of the satellite radio industry.

Conspiracy Theory: Howard Stern has long attempted to silenc Opie & Anthony. Could it be that he wanted to go out with a bang, kill both satellite companies, and destroy the medium which was so perfectly suited for the O&A show?

If The Government "Really" Wanted To Fix The Sub Prime Loan Fiasco...

Supposedly the government wanted to step in too little too late with the wrong solution. Americans were losing their houses to foreclosure. The house of cards was falling. Of course the blame was placed solely on the homeowners that got into loans they couldn't afford.

While it is probably true that most homeowners skip significant portions of the "fine print" in their loans, it is also true that the Real Estate agents were pushing these specific loans in order to make overpriced homes seem affordable. At least in the Bay Area of Califorina, a visit to an open house in 2004-2007 would highlight a flyer type that was not as common in the preceding years.

While it was common to find a monthly payment estimated on the marketing material for a specific home, It was uncommon to find a misleading estimate. However, the housing prices were gaining in the neighborhood of 20% per year. This gain is huge and as people have learned, inflated. With the inflated values, the traditional payment estimates were prohibitively high.

The solutions for this were commonly the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), interest only loans, and stated income loans. In an environment there the property value will increase at a rate of 20% per year, these are almost no lose propositions. Even if you lose the ability to pay your increasing mortgage, you can unload the property for a profit.

However, these loans are not sustainable in a flat or declining housing market. Add a job loss and the homeowner will quickly be in a situation where they lose their home as they cannot pay the mortgage or sell the property for what they owe.

Having said that, the government acted as if it were somehow going to solve the problem by selectively bailing out certain troubled assets. What the government didn't seem to account for was that those assets were not the problem, but rather a symptom of a larger looming problem.

Had they honestly wanted to save those homeowners w/o begging for fraud (many homeowners have worked to make themselves look troubled in order to get in line for a government handout) they would have addressed the core problem instead of the initial symptoms.

Foreclosures, on a large scale, devalue similar properties. In short, one problem brings another as clusters of foreclosures destroy equity in the surrounding properties. Buying slows as potential homeowners see prices dropping on a monthly or weekly basis. Why buy a house today when you know you can wait a month and offer 10k less?

Back to the point. The most realistic attempt to save property values and stave off mass foreclosures would have been for the government to acknowledge that the lending industry had performed something irresponsible and calculated in knowingly approving a large number of unsustainable loans. Rather than cherry pick loans to save, the government could have stepped into regulatory mode and forced the mortgage companies to temporarily suspend increases and revert monthly payments to their rates 2 years prior.

The missing monthly mortgage income is an entirely separate debate. Would it need to be compensated in some fashion, most likely by the government? Would it need to be absorbed by the banks? Would homeowners be required to extend mortgages, equity share on a percentage, or have an additional no interest mortgage based on the missing interest/principle that was being temporarily eliminated from their newly locked mortgage?

What Your iPod Knows!!!

( Off Topic / Interesting / Fun )

RULES:

1. Put your iPod, iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc. on shuffle.

2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.

3. YOU MUST WRITE THAT SONG NAME DOWN NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT SOUNDS.

4. Tag whoever you want including me

5. Have Fun!

IF SOMEONE SAYS 'ARE YOU OKAY' YOU SAY....?

Narcolepsy

Third Eye Blind

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?

Project Mayhem

Finch

WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR IN A GUY/GIRL?

So Tell Me Why

Poison

HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?

Baby Grand

BillyJoel

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?

Save It For A Rainy Day

The Samples

WHAT'S YOUR MOTTO?

Microwaved

Pitchshifter

WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?

Obsession

Nancy's Early Years

WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?

Bittersweetheart

Soul Asylum

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?

Shake A Leg

AC/DC

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR FIRST KISS?

Fly (wtf mix)

Nancy's Early Years

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?

Shatter Proof

Cannibal The Musical

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?

Saved By The Boyancy Of Citris

Mitch Hedberg

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?

"you don't"

tricky

WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?

(Don't Fear) The Reaper

Blue Oyster Cult

WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?

Little 15

Depeche Mode

WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?

There You'll Be

Fath Hill

WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?

I've Got A Dark Alley And A Bad Idea That Says You Should Shut Your Mouth (Summer Song)

Fall Out Boy

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FEAR?

The Conspiracy

50 Cent

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?

You Shouldn't Kiss Me Like This

Toby Keith

WHAT DO YOU WANT RIGHT NOW?

Spit Sink

The Dead Milkmen

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?

E.I.

Nelly

WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?

Dreams Burn Down

Ride

Obama Calls Stimulus Package a "Spending Package"

With a breath of honesty, Obama called the "stimulus package" a "spending package" yesterday.

Unfortunately, he proceeded to make it sound like a good thing.  Although it is good to hear him finally calling the package by an honest name, it was at the same time saddening to hear him treat that spending package in a dishonest manner.

While it is true that spending money is required in order to stimulate the economy, it is not true that random spending (spending for spending sake) will stimulate an economy.  If the economy were that simple, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

Many Americans know little about the StimuSpend Package that has been pushed by Pelosi as if she were delivering a 15lb baby.  The first thing which should make us stop and take a serious look is the number of pages.  There are a lot of words, a lot of pages, a lot of ideas.  These ideas could not have been responsibly compiled as an honest effort to get our economy on track.

When you look at the various ideas which have been included in the StimuSpend, you will start to recall many of these items have been brought up over time.  Rather than seeing new/innovative ideas which specifically address our economic situation, we are seeing pet projects from a disenfranchised wing of the government.

The StimuSpend package almost looks like revenge.  It's as if the Democrats started gathering up every project that a Republican wouldn't bow to, and determined that "Now Is The Time" to make the country pay for not giving in.  It would be nice to be have the Democrats be honest about the content of he StimuSpend.  Why can't Pelosi get up there and say "Right now, we are making America pay for every time that we were called a name or disrespected in high school.  Right now Americans will take us seriously.  Right now, we have the power and don't care about the future!".

We can only hope that some of the Democrats that have not drank her cool aid will get together with some of the Republicans that are not drinking their cool aid, and come up with an actual Economic Recovery Plan which is designed for THAT PURPOSE.  Legislation designed to say nothing more than "WE WON" will not solve economic problems.  :-(

Who is President Right Now?

According to the results of the 2008 election, one would presume Obama to be the President of the United States.  However, watching our government in action, one would think that Nancy Pelosi is our current president.

Obama seems to have slipped into the role of yes man, whipping boy, etc.  He gets on TV just long enough to talk about what our country needs, in this case, whatever Pelosi tells him we need.  He then plays soldier boy and acts as if he has a backbone or beleives in her agendas as if they were her own.

Pelosi has not been elected president.  Her years of being the crazy San Francisco representative which was oddly placed 2nd in line for the presidency have left her with pent up angst and lots of pet projects.  It would seem that she views the Obama presidency as an opportunity to push for everything half baked idea that she's had in her hat to date.

Somebody needs to let Obama know that he is president.  Although his socialist concepts are not what the country needs, we would like to hear him speak for himself and get off of Pelosi's lap for a minute.  Nancys Pelosi has never had what this country needs.  She's a great spokesperson for an ultra liberal wing of our government that wants to give away everything that our forefathers worked for.  In troubling times, we are not afforded the convenience of those types of policies.

We are in a time of hard decisions, precarious situations, and do not have the luxury of getting all willy nilly in persuing pet project that detract from the needs of our economy.

Obama, take the leash from Pelosi, remove the collar from your neck, and put her in her place!

DirectTV Bailout Details

I'd like to submit my request for a bailout.  You see, I'm trying to find a spending package that fits into the so called "stimulus package" that works.  So far, my DirectTV item is the most consistant I've thought up.

You see, although I don't need a new DVR, I wouldn't mind having one.  It would certainly modernize the current Tivo setup.  However, the devices, however "forward thinking" and "modernized" s they are, do cost money.  But, since the current administration seems to think of spending money on ancilary items as stimulus, I very well should qualify.

I'd like to replace both of my Tivo units with the newest HD DVR models that DirectTV now offers.  However, I don't wish to spend the money.  In short, the purchase is entirely unnecessary.  But, the DVRs are newer than the perfectly functional ones that we currently have.

So, my proposal is that 1 billion dollars be set aside for my tivo upgrade.  

DirectTV HD DVR $199 (x2)

Shipping

Installation

Time & Productivity Lost Watching TV (tivo)

$1,000,000,000

I understand that the cost of this partucular stimulus is about $398 before shipping.  However, if the government wants to waste money, It would be unpatriotic to submit a request for $398 or an unnecessary purchase when you can just ask for a billion....

Democrat Bill Writing Process

First of all, you have to have a brainstorming session.  Think of some things that would be really cool to do, think of some problems that need solutions, and think of some extra stuff to add to the list.

Once you have a bunch of random disjointed ideas floating around the room, grab a pen!

1. Make a list of things that fall under the heading of "Wouldn't it be cool if . . . ."

2. Make a list of problems that need to be solved/handled/dealt with

3. Make a list of extra stuff you want but don't need, get suggestions from others.

    note: the easiest way to get suggestions is to hint around that there might be some money handed out soon.

Start writing the bill.  Make sure to include everything in the first section by removing the phrase "Wouldn't it be cool if" and just placing the item in the bill as if it were a completely thought out idea rather than a brainstorming item.

Try not to overthink any of the items in the bill.  Nothing has to work.  As long as money gets spent, it actually looks like it's working.  If nothing good happens, you can always blame it on somebody else.  Remember, you added enough "Wouldn't it be nice" items that at least you look good for trying something so "wouldn't it be nice".

Make sure and highlight the intersting brainstorming ideas while preventing people from actually looking at the details.  Why should others be looking at the details when the politicians that wrote the bill never did???  If at all possible, make the bill as wordy as possible.  That way the nightly news will skim over the information and only tell people about the "woudln't it be nice's" in the bill.  This allows you to offer nothing more than fluff, debt, and expendatures w/o ANY of the ramifications. 

And remember, if anybody picks on parts of you bill, you know, the ones you never thought out or found a way to honestly make work, then just repeat the cool brainstorming ideas, even if they didn't make it into the bill.  Then call the nay sayer something negative or use partisan politics as a default "it's not me" shield.

In summary, offer the sky, don't offer a way to do it, then try to get people from realizing that you're either full of it or that you idea failed and caused more problems than if nothing had been done!

Chissle wissle can belissle issle!!

That's right, "Change We Can Beleive In!" (CWCBI)

In order to get that type of change, every American has to do their part.  This is not something we can read about in the paper, watch on the news, listen to on the radio, or secretly bitch about with our friends.

True CWCBI can be achieve if we all work together.  The steps are few but the results could be amazing!

Step 1 (hint, there is only one step!)

Stop being politically correct.

PC is for squares, crackheads, and high school teachers.  Ok, so it was stereotypical so presume that all high school teachers are ultra liberal tools of indoctrination.  However, it's also not politically correct, so I'm somewhat bound to say it if I beleive in CWCBI.

The American spine has been weakened by the overbearing requirement that nobody have their feelings hurt.  It's impossible for nobody to have their feelings hurt.  As such, the requirements of PC must have another motive.  That motive is to remove the spine of Americans.  Guess what, it has worked.

So, fight for America!  Say "Christmas" instead of "holiday".  If you're Jewish, say Hannakuh, so what if I get mad cause I think it's Christmas.  Stop looking around the corner every time you see something lame and say "dude, that's pretty gay".  If it's gay, it's gay.  Don't be ashamed to say it!  If you're married, say you're married.  Who cares if it offends somebody that isn't allowed to be married due to their lifestyle choices.  Oh, and don't say "lifestyle choices", say gay, see, i'm already falling down on the job!!

It's not easy, but unless we all stand up and see how much spine we can regrow, we're all going to be "partners" instead of "married".  We're going to be celebrating a holiday like "North American Caucasion Independance Celebration" instead of "July 4th".  C inco de mayo already got screwed cause it's named after a day.  Besides, it wouldn't be very politically correct to call it "Mexican War To Kill The Debt Collectors After Mexico Stopped Paying It's Debts" now would it?

Go ye therefore and say things that are NOT Politically Correct!

Why I'm Not A Republican

short answer: 

Because Democrats and Republicans are smoke and mirrors designed to prevent anything positive from getting done in our country.  (remember, the globalized fed controls the money so they control everything)

longer answer:

Republicans and Democrats are BOTH guilty of the following:

Ignoring our economy

Ignoring National Security

Ignoring Immigration

Ignoring the Constitution

Bowing to Special Interests

In order to become a successful Democrat or Republican you have to play politics as usual and be crooked as hell.  Both parties are guilty of using abortion, homosexuality, and racism to further their agenda of diversion.

Republicans tend to come off as cold and heartless and only care about getting money and power.  Democrats tend to come off as nutty but caring and only care about making sure nobody gets their feelings hurt.  If you care more about coddling a pour soul that was offended by a joke overheard by a stranger in public, then you're probably drinking the Democrat cool aid.  If you're bent out of shape about illegal aliens getting your tax money, then you're probably drinking the Republican cool aid.

The unfortunate reality is that we are forced to either pick one or entirely disengage from politics.  Constitution Party does has a great selling piont in acknowledging the Constitution of the United States of America as something other than toilet paper.  However, they are entirely more religious than a political party needs to be.  Our founding fathers must be turning over in their grave.  Not because the president it black, but because the congress is equiped to do little more than perpetuate it's own existance...