Boy howdy is the Obama Administration is a whole heap of trouble.  Talk about Chickens Coming Home to Roost.  They are really mired a scandal and it just keeps getting worse and worse.  First came the Cover-Up in Benghazi.  Then came the revelation that the IRS was unfairly scrutinizing Conservative groups.  and now we find out they the government was data-mining every phone call made from Verizon.  It just doesn't get more Conspiracy Theory than that.  

Now some will say, accurately admittedly, that much of this, especially the data mining, started in the Bush administration.  But Obama had 5 years with which to end all of this.  But he chose not to.  Or worse, he didn't know and thus has no control over the government he is supposed to lead.

Either way, Obama's legacy is now forever, one of scandals, and certainly not Hope and Change.  
 
 
In the past month or so, Justin Bieber has been in the news, and not in a good way.  All I have to say about that is: Leave the poor kid alone. 

Now I don't mean don't critise him.  If Bieber is doing something stupid or wrong, by all means rail on him until he changes.  What I do mean is, Leave the poor kid alone.

The reason child stars grow up to be horrible adults is because of the constant media exposure in their childhoods.  They can't get out of the spotlight, so they act out and make sure they get negative coverage.  Look at Lindsey Lohan.  When she was a child, she was the proverbial girl-next-door.  Now look at her. 

So please, Leave the poor kid alone. 
 
 
Just yesterday I was reading an article on the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and while doing so I had the best idea I ever had.  I encourage you to read the article yourself, but I will explain a part of it.  Part of the article lambasts President Obama for going to a fundraiser just after one of our abassadors had been assassinated in Benghazi.

Immediatly I had thought of President W. Bush.  He had been lambasted at the time when it was found out that after the planes hit the World Trade Center towers that he didn't immediatly jump from from the event he was at and run back to Washington.  Of course there is a major difference between the two: Bush was alread at the event when tragedy struck, while Obama left Washington in the midst of tragedy to go to an event.  But it was the fact that Obama went to a fundraiser in the first place that got me thinking.

Ever since the Obama administration began, certain parties have lamented the presence of the 'never-ending campaign.'  The Never-Ending Campaign is described as a sitting president, or office-holder, campaigning for the next election.  The thought of that made me think of the Consuls of the ancient Roman Republic.  In the Roman Republic, there were two Consuls, the CEOs of the Republic.  But the important thing about these Consuls was that they were not allowed to serve in consequative terms.  And I thought that that would be a great idea for US Presidents; forbid them from serving consequative terms. 

Think about it, in this era of instantaneous  mass communication, there is no worry about a national figure becoming obscur, especially if he remains relavant.  So there is no need to allow for consequative terms.  The benefits to this would be that the President wouldn't be worried about the next election, because he couldn't be on the ticket.  Without that worry, he would only be concerned about good governance and good policy, especially if he wants his party to remain in the presidency.  We would finally have a President that would have every incentive to be Presidential.

The only problem is that there could be an abuse of the Vice-Presidency.  The former President could become the next Vice-President and become the power behind the throne, therefore having a hidden third term.  But that could be nipped by forbidding a President from becoming Vice-President
 
 
Since the race for president began, everyone has noticed that Obama has not been running on his record.  That's mostly because, Obama doesn't have a good enough record to run on.  He does have a record, but very few like his record.  That said, Obama has done a good thing (for me at least), and that has been to make me wistful for a form of government long since thought to be defunct: the monarchy.

Obama does not like the fact that America is a powerful country.  That is not my opinion, Obama said that himself:
Now it sounds as if he cares about global poverty, but in reality, he wants America to be less, not more, powerful.  That is why he appointed Steven Chu as Engergy Secretary.  That is why he's been leading from behind on Libya and Syria.  That's why terrorist had the audacity to attack and murder one of 0ur Ambassadors. 

But that is the danger of living in a Democracy.  We might not elect as leader someone who has the country's interest at heart, but only his own.  A monarchy is different.  In a monarchy, the king of the country implicitly, or explicitly, the owns of all the wealth that the country produces.  In that way, the king directly benefits when the kingdom grows stronger.  Usually this creates an environment of perpetual war, but at least the king always tries to make the country stronger.  Obama has tried to make our country weaker, proving that democracy might just be the worse form of government ever.
 
 
Last Saturday, the New York Times posted an editorial explaining how successful President Barack Obama's foreign policy has actually been.  Really?  The Middle East is currently burning to the ground in anti-American violence, precipating with an assassination of a U.S. ambassador, and Obama is a foreign guru?  Really?

This article is just wrong, completely and unadultrously wrong.  Obama's foreign policy has failed, and there is just no way to spin it the other way.  I can't even say that they tried.  Everything they said was just wrong, starting with the opening:

FOR the first time in a long, long time, a Democrat is running for president and
has the clear advantage on national security policy. That is not “how things are
supposed to be,” and Republicans sound apoplectic about it.

 
 
An interesting thought occured to me the other day.  Many people are dismayed and frustrated that no one in the financial world has been brought to trial, why none of them has been imprisoned yet.  They were at the epicenter of the housing bouble's collapse, and the subsequent recession.  So why haven't they been punished for their clear malfeanse.  Well, I have a theory about that.

There is ample evidence that it was goverment policies that led to Great Recession.  So if the government attempted to try any of the leaders in the financial world, then those government policies would be the forefront of the defendants' defense.  It would finally be on the record that government caused the recession and that would destroy Obama's and the Democrat's vision for American governance.  That is why no financial leader will ever be arrested and tryed. 

Now tell me you will vote for a second Obama term come November. 
 
 
There's one thing I find real interesting with the whole obesity crisis the country is confronting.  The thing is, I remember 10 or 15 years ago when the concern was with eating disorders such as Bulimia and anorexia.  I remember that the Barbie doll and all those superthin models and actresses were singled out as the destroyers of young girls, because they were examples of unattainable and unhealthy weight goals.  But now obesity is the real destroyer of young people.

What happened?  Where are all these superthin models and actors that we were supposed to emulate in order to become unhealtily thin.  Now we're all fat.  What happened?
 
 
After a while of seeing it in the news for so long, I have decided to weigh in on the controversy.  As many of you may know, Rush Limbaugh is in hot water over over comments he made about Sandra Fluke.  Now I have never listened to Rush in my life and I don't plan too, but what is being done to him should outrage all who make a living, or simply spread their ideas, through mass communication.  He made a poor choice of words.  It happens.  It happens to all of us at some point in time.  And he apologized for it (which is more than can be said for other people) so lets all just move on.  

But we haven't, and that is why I'm writing now.  In fact I am responding to what Bill Maher recently said.   He said that what he said about Sarah Palin is fine because she is a public figure, but what Rush said abut Sandra Fluke is bad because she is a private cititzen.  That is bullshit!  The minute Fluke testified before Congress she became a public figure, her private citizen status evaporated, and she became fair game for all professional (and amateur) commentators.  Claiming Fluke is a private citizen is just a cover not only for their own foul language, but to hide essence of her testimony, which was that a religious educational institution must be forced to buy constrceptives for their student regardless of stated religious doctrine. 

And that's the rub.  This whole controversy is noting more than a smokescreen designed to distract us from the mandate forcing religious institutions to go against their beliefs.  That is the real issue, and that is what people should be focusing on.  Not Rush's misogymy.  Not even other people's misogymy.  While is shoud be addressed, rampant misogymy in communications should take a backseat while the religious mandate is solved.

As for Rush's comment.  He called her a slut.  So what?  I have hear plenty of women call each other slut and laugh!  I remember Kim Kardashian call her sisters sluts and all three women were laughing at it.  Lots of women in Sitcoms and in real life call each other sluts, and are proud of being sluts let alone being called a slut.  There was a freaking SlutWalk not too long ago (April 3, 2011 (hey almost the anniversary, wonder if they'll have a second one on that date with the controversy so fresh)) where women were told to be proud of being called sluts.  So is 'slut' such a bad word anymore?  And if anyone says that only women may now call each other sluts, that it is their word, you may go to Hell!  I hate that belief, it needs to end!  And soon.

And done.  That's my two cents.
 
 
Yesterday was the largest Internet based protest in history.  Thousands of websites were protesting the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act.  I agree with the protesters that these two acts go to far in attempting to combat internet piracy, and I hope you do too.

Yesterday, several websites shutdown for 24 hours starting midnight 1/18/2012 to midnight 1/19/2012.  I did not participate in that shutdown protest because it would have been moot; I just don't have the traffic necessary to make any kind of impact.  I did, however, use the form e-mails available to write my Congressman, and Senators.  My voice has been heard. 

Still, both Acts are still going through Congress as we speak, so there's still work to be done.
 
 
Today is the day that World War I ended, the so-called War to End All Wars.  We in America take the time to honor those that have fought in wars that our country have fought, as well as those that have worn the uniform.  So as you go out today and see a veteran, shake his hand, he defended your freedom after all.

Also, I am no loger as busy as I once was, so I am even now transcribing the rough draft of  the latest story.  I hope to get publish it just before December, but we'll have to see.