Saturday, February 27, 2016
I had never heard of Rube Goldberg, but was once given the chance to grade a “Rube Goldberg” contest. First, I declined because I was busy, but secondly, after reading about Rube Goldberg projects I probably would have rejected the invite based on learning and or educational differences. Rube Goldberg was a cartoonist and inventor. A Rube Goldberg project tries to find a complicated way to solve a problem. I agree that a Rube Goldberg project is not all bad and does stimulate the thinking process for kids. However, that is as far as I will go. I see many more negative aspects of a Rube Goldberg project: 1. Rube Goldberg projects are convoluted solutions to solve simple problems and they have no value in American society. They are useless. It would be more useful to have students to try to invent something novel. 2. Rube Goldberg projects are not practical because they are not efficient. When hiring engineers at my former employer I was in search for the most practical and efficient engineers (and that was not an easy task). For that reason, Rube Goldberg projects set a bad precedent in the learning process – teaching kids that impracticality and inefficiency may be useful. Instead, it would be more useful for children to find more efficient solutions to simple problems that would be useful inventions. 3. Rube Goldberg projects teach chaos over organization. Organization is an often overlooked characteristic of successful engineers and people in general. 4. Rube Goldberg is now a catch phrase. Unfortunately, its meaning has a bad connotation. For instance, if a legislator is referred to the “Rube Goldberg” of Washington legislation - that is not a good thing. It means they are convoluted, impractical, and inefficient. I would place this label on some Obama legislation that has failed – ObamaCare, the Stimulus, and so forth. To be labeled as the Rube Goldberg of you field is not good. If that is true, then how can learning the Rube Goldberg way to solve problems be advantageous? I truly believe our educational system is going backwards: eliminating programs and subjects, focusing on standardized government testing, placing athletics above academics, and now rewarding projects which are the most inefficient, convoluted, and least practical. It is no wonder we are fast falling behind other nations around the globe.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
The 2016 Election year has been an anomaly to say the least. It has confused all pundits. It has been labeled as a “revolution” or as the year of the “outsider” or “anti-establishment candidate”. I disagree with these labels because I truly believe this is a start of a new trend. In other words, 2020 will be no different than 2016. First of all, for this to be a “revolution” or anti-establishment” election, we must assume the electorate has some intellect and understands what it is doing. They do not. Statistics show a vast number of the electorate does not understand or follow politics. If this is the year of the anti-establishment candidate, then why do pundits predict that the Congressional House will have very few seats change hands? This year has appealed to the masses and not for the right reasons. The 2016 election has appealed to the public for its negativity and vulgarity. It has also appealed to the public for its “Reality TV” appearance. People are going to the polls in droves not because they do not like the establishment, but because they are attracted to Reality TV or a political computer game. The reason for breaking turnout records in Iowa and New Hampshire is because the 2016 election is bringing out tons of first time voters. Voters who are often turned off by politics because it is dull and boring are now excited because politics is now just like watching Reality TV. More and more Americans do not like watching factual based programs or conventional dramas or comedies. Some of the most popular shows on TV include Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, and the Bachelor. Shows such as American Ninja also do well. Popular dramas include shows about Zombies: The Walking Dead. MTV and CMT are loaded with one trash reality program after another. Each night about 20 million people will watch any one of the dozens of news programs, but even more will watch some mind numbing reality program. This is the new America! Donald Trump, the Republicans leading candidate was once a Reality TV show host. He talks candidly, makes fun of others, and often blurts out obscenities. People are not drawn to his outsider appeal (He is not really an outsider, but a lobbyist at the other end of the table dealing with politicians), but his Reality TV appeal. The Democrats leading candidate, Hilary Clinton, is a liar, cheater, and most likely a criminal (depending on how investigations go into her emails). Yet, people still like her. After all, lying, cheating, and criminal activity is not a bad thing, it happens all the time on the Reality TV. Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders, is also novel like Trump. Sanders is a true socialist. Sanders acts like a Reality TV or game show host offering free prizes to everyone. Other Republican candidates have been for the most part nasty and uncivil towards each other throwing around insults such as the “liar” claim. Americans are drawn to this nonsense. It is not because they are all the sudden interested in politics, it is because politics is no longer boring or predictable. No one can predict the next Trump gimmick or stunt and that appeals to many Reality TV show lovers. Unfortunately, this is the new norm of politics. It is not a revolution or a short lived fad. It is what people crave and what they desire – Reality TV presidential elections. Obama started this trend by taking politics to the entertainment level by going on late night TV talk shows. The 2016 election is merely expanding on the entertainment trend – and many like it – especially the narcissistic younger generation and social media enthusiasts. Welcome to 21st Century politics.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
After watching a Democratic debate, I had to see if the U.S. Census Bureau tracked victims and villains. They did not, but that did not stop both Sanders and Clinton from blurting out statistics on the subject. From the debate, it is clear that Democrats would classify 99% of all Americans as victims while the other 1% of citizens are wreaking havoc on the other 99% - they are the villains. After carefully watching the debate, a victim can be defined as a person that is female, poor, a minority, and even an illegal immigrant. Females who must pay for conception and or an abortion are victimized the most within in the female gender. Victims can live in poverty, but can be above the poverty line if they collect welfare. Victims are anyone who has been convicted of a crime and had to spend time in jail – especially if you are black. Victims also include anyone who has paid for a college education or healthcare. Victims work for a minimum wage and often pay no or very little in federal taxes. People who feel the federal government or their neighbors are not doing enough to help victims are also victims. Victims are also classified as being ungrateful towards those who fund their existence through welfare programs. They not only expect more compensation, but they feel they deserve it even for doing nothing or very little in return. It is okay for victims to be irresponsible and unaccountable for their actions. Villains, on the other hand, are often defined as wealthy persons who often work on Wall Street. Villains pay over 95% of the taxes in the U.S. and donate over 90% of all monies to charities. Villains also create more than 85% of the jobs in the private sector. Villains are responsible and do not accept any government handouts. It is also strange, but police officers are also classified as villains. Although Democrats place the number of victims in the U.S. at 99%. There are people who do not want or accept government help. There are other people who may take government assistance for only a short period of time to get back on their feet. These people are not victims, they are actually villains based on the Democratic definition. No question, but if you put a Democrats brain in a bird, it would fly backwards. They continually want to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. But go figure, this is what our young generation wants. Keep in mind, the leader of the victim cause, Hillary Clinton, is constantly being scrutinized for lying, cheating, and breaking the law. In fact, her one day speaking fee earns more than the annual salary of 75% of those villain CEO’s. Yes, Clinton is of course the chief leader of this hypocritical conspiracy theory.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Scalia receives a lot of unwarranted publicity from the Left. He is often referred to as a dumb partisan bigoted sexist homophobe. This is not only uncalled for, it is wrong. Scalia was one of the most sensible Justices to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Scalia was not only predictable and consistent, every decision he made protected the democratic process. In other words, Scalia decisions allowed states and individuals to choose how they want to be governed, and opted against having a panel of nine justices determine the laws of 325 million American citizens. Scalia was far from dumb. As an originalist, he interpreted the Constitution as our Founding Fathers would have wanted. He saw dangers in substantive due process and inventing rights that are not written in the Constitution. In order to interpret the Constitution as our Founding Fathers intended, Scalia had to study thousands of documents such as the Federalist papers to know what these great men were thinking when they wrote the document. In a famous Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia determined that the word “Militia” was the same as an individual citizen through his research. Scalia’s closest friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Although he and Ginsberg did not agree on much, they could set aside work and be friends. And with certainty, Ginsberg would not be friends with a bigoted homophobe. Scalia was conservative, but he was more likely to vote with the liberal bloc of the Court than Thomas or Alito. In fact, he was more opt to vote liberal than the four liberal Justices were to vote conservative. He joined liberals over First Amendment free speech cases on numerous occasions. Scalia sided with liberals over flag burning calling freedom of expression free speech. He also sided with hate speech in a Minnesota case. He also sided with liberals in cases over the content of computer games. Scalia also joined the liberal bloc over several religious freedom and parental rights cases. In most of these cases Scalia did not like the decisions and outcomes, but he could not change the wording in the Constitution to mean something it was not intended to mean. However, the Left decries Scalia’s decision on Citizens United (allowed unlimited campaign contributions). Scalia argues that if a Newspaper can endorse and spend unlimited funds to support a candidate, then why can’t other people, groups, or companies do the same? If free speech includes the freedom of expression, then the use of money is the most common form of expression. Scalia is consistent with his stance on free speech, it is the rest of the Justices whose decisions are contradictory. Most wrongly assert that Scalia was against the rights of criminals or the accused. Yes, it is true Scalia sided against the accused a majority of the time, but he was not that narrow minded, partisan, or shallow to see everything that way. For instance, Scalia was scolded for being against the Court’s Miranda decision and other accused rights. However, Scalia not only had a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, but the Sixth Amendment as well, especially the “Confrontation Clause”. It states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. So he routinely ruled against people who testified via video or video conferencing. Scalia even sided with liberals to rule the use of heat or thermal imaging technology was inadmissible without a warrant. Scalia was often ridiculed for his views on diversity or affirmative action. Although Scalia rightly points out that there is nothing in the Constitution to allow quotas, it did not stop the Left from their pointless attacks. Scalia also rightly points out that we are all Americans and the Constitution does not see color. Furthermore, allowing ethnic profiling behavior is no different than what slave owners did. Scalia, would have been on the right side of history if he voted in either landmark case: Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. School Board. He is quick to explain the Fourteenth Amendment was written specifically to prevent the type of racial injustices brought up in these cases. Besides, once affirmative action or diversity laws are passed, they are hard to overturn even if their “usefulness” is outdated. And Scalia understood the dangers or future consequences for bad decisions. Scalia ruled against gay marriage and abortion rights at every opportunity. No, Scalia was not a sexist or homophobe. Obviously the rights of gays to marry and women to have an abortion were substantive due process decisions. Meaning, although the rights did not actually exist in the Constitution, Justices were conjuring up these new rights as a means for the Constitution to keep up with the changing times (Progression). These are prime examples of Scalia’s democratic thinking. Scalia felt states and individuals could generate laws on these matters as they see fit and not have nine people generate legislation for everyone. Scalia believed in the will of the people, he said he was not “King”. He believed in limiting the power of the Supreme Court. Yet, he was called racist and sexist. If the conservative viewpoint that life begins at conception was argued before the Supreme Court, Scalia would rule against this notion. It is not defined in the Constitution. Scalia was not being partisan, but sensible. Scalia knows that conjuring up new rights can be dangerous. For instance, legalization of polygamy could use the same arguments as those used by gay marriage to pass. Gay marriage or abortion arguments can be a stepping stone to make euthanasia legal. This creates a slippery slope and Scalia was right to want to avoid these unnecessary consequences. Another such case is ObamaCare. Scalia understood that allowing the government to mandate its citizens buy a product or face a tax could have dangerous repercussions in the future. This yields tremendous power to the government that if used freely could impact citizens negatively. Scalia and most scholars also rightly point out that the use of substantive due process in both the landmark gay marriage and abortion cases was not even applied properly. Substantive due process is used in cases where the action or issue is deep rooted in American history. Gay marriage and abortion are not deep rooted in American history. In fact, the opposite is true. Gay marriage and abortion were taboo through the first few centuries of American history. Of course this thought process may change over time, but until that happens, substantive due process should not have applied. Scalia, at times, tried unsuccessfully to overturn precedent such as Roe v. Wade. However, many times he just sided with bad precedent (although he did not want to). For instance, he used the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause (determined through Wickard v. Filburn) to rule on cases. Interestingly, in California Democratic Party v. Jones Scalia wrote the majority decision and in my eyes it fails to follow “one person one vote” concept held under Baker v. Carr. He sided with the Democratic Party which restricts people to only vote for candidates within their political affiliation - limiting freedom of choice. And in many cases, this primary concept refuses to allow independents the right to vote entirely. Scalia was a principled human being. He is one of the few people to go to Washington and not try to increase his power. He insisted the power of governance should lie with the American people (equally without catering to genders and ethnicities). That in itself makes Scalia an amazing figure in politics. He will be missed because it is doubtful many more with his character will follow his footsteps.
Friday, February 12, 2016
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be the most rogue of all Obama administration agencies. Since Obama has been in office the EPA has introduced over 3500 new EPA regulations. The regulations are longer than the Harry Potter series of books in terms of wording. The EPA has nearly 16,000 employees and contracts thousands more at any given time. Without congressional oversight, the EPA has been Obama’s way to implement a Nationalized Environmental Policy. Originally, the EPA was a resource for local and state governments. Now, it is the enforcer of federal policy that mostly prohibits energy options for states and local governments. The result is obvious: higher energy costs, less safe automobiles, and obviously a loss of jobs to the U.S. economy. Thirteen times under Obama, the EPA lost a case before the Supreme Court. That is not the surprising news, the surprise is that Obama’s EPA lost all of these cases 9-0. Even the most liberal justices cannot defend Obama’s exceedingly large power grab for the executive branch. The EPA mostly attacks coal and oil based energy sources by regulating emission standards (Cap and Trade). For instance, in order for automobiles to meet emission standards, cars must be made lighter. Cap and Trade emission standards are so stringent, our cheapest form of energy - coal power plants -cannot meet them. It is no secret that the administration is and was picking winners and losers in the energy sector. His stimulus poured billions into green energy. Yet, despite his funding, solar panel company Solyndra went belly up. Solyndra was the one company that received some negative press however, 34 companies that received government subsidies under the stimulus went bankrupt or had to implement major layoffs to stay afloat. This money was wasted. The President erred in many ways but in particular by investing in companies (picking winners and losers) and not in innovative technology. The President invested in old and expensive technologies that were not sustainable and not in modern proprietary technology needed to move green energy forward so it can become cost effective. As a direct result of Obama’s nationalized environmental plan the administration turned its back on the Keystone Pipeline. The administration caved to environmental pressure during the BP oil spill and refused to use techniques and chemicals to contain the spill. Instead, they let millions of gallons of crude oil leak into the Gulf and basically did nothing to try to stop it. The Obama administration refuses to target ISIS oil fields because of the backlash it will have on the environment. Instead, they are willing to let ISIS continue to obtain wealth to grow and finance terror. The EPA was responsible for spilling over 1 million gallons of waste into the Animas River in Colorado. And if all of this is not bad enough, the EPA refused to get involved in the Flint, Michigan water contamination problem. For nearly a year, they allowed the state to provide toxic drinking water (laced with lead) to its populous (and they knew it was happening). When Cap and Trade failed in Congress, Obama circumvented the legislative branch by empowering the EPA to pass his Clean Power Plan. Unelected bureaucrats were set in charge of a 1600 page regulatory plan and 800 page implementation plan. The result of this massive power grab to enforce a cap and trade policy: higher energy costs, lost jobs to the economy, unsafe automobiles, and negligence in the form of Colorado and Michigan water supplies.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Scandals 77. Fast and Furious – The DEA lost track of guns that they purposely gave to Mexican Drug lords. The guns were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans and a US boarder agent: Brian Terry. No one has been held accountable. 78. DOJ Targeting – The DOJ violated the “freedom of the press” by targeting media pundits such as James Rosen and Sharyl Atkinson to find leaks within the agency. 79. IRS Targeting – The IRS targeted conservative groups applying for tax free status in an effort to minimize their impact during the 2012 election. A partisan liberal DOJ investigation found no wrongdoing and therefore no one was held accountable. 80. Benghazi – The cover up and then Obama went to a campaign event the next day in Las Vegas. He could not even take a day off from campaigning to respect those that were fallen. 81. Hillary Clinton – Benghazi and her email scandal of sending classified information over an unsecure server. 82. National security leaks – The administration routinely leaked sensitive information to the NY Times to make them look good in the public eye. For instance, the bin Laden killing and the Stuxnet cyber virus used to stifle the Iran nuclear program. 83. War on Terror – The Obama administration has been lying to the American public about US military success against ISIS and the war on terror. They were deliberately altering military talking points to paint a better picture about the fight against terrorism. 84. VA – More than 100,000 veterans have died under Obama’s watch waiting for medical care. 85. Elections – Obama illegally obtained and used social media data to identify and recruit votes. 86. Pigford – In the 1990s black farmers won a discrimination case. Today, Obama continues to pour money into the settlement fund – far beyond what was deemed necessary. 87. General Services Agency – The agency spent 1 million dollars of taxpayer money for a Las Vegas conference that consisted of lavish parties, gambling, and even prostitutes. At least the head of the department was held accountable. 88. Kathleen Sibelius – The head of the Health and Human Services Department botched the ObamaCare rollout, jeopardized Americans privacy because ObamaCare sites were unprotected, and she was a tax cheat. Race Relations 89. Prejudice – The administration continually brought attention to cases of perceived injustices against black people by Whites or the Police: Gates, Garner, Martin, etc. Most cases were proven that no crime was committed. Obama has never talked about black on black crime, black on white crime, black on Hispanic crime etc. 90. War on Police – Obama’s war on police has led to the highest violent crime rates in major cities around the country in decades. 91. Christianity – Obama has refused to recognize any of the violent crimes carried out by Muslim extremists against Christians around the globe. 92. Muslim Extremism – Obama has refused to associate Muslims to extremism. 93. Polls – Race relations in the US are at their lowest point in nearly 2 decades. Hypocrisy and Job Inefficiencies 94. Immigration – Obama filed suit against any state that had tougher immigration laws than federal statutes. However, he has failed to file suit against states or cities with more lenient immigration laws than federal statutes (sanctuary cities). 95. Transparency – Obama claims to be the most transparent administration in history, but records from FOI prove that the opposite is true. 96. Press Conferences – Obama had the least amount of press conferences out of any president since JFK. Is that transparency? 97. Teleprompter – With a teleprompter Obama is elegant, but without one he is longwinded and for the most part an incoherent gaffe machine. 98. Golf and Vacations – Personally, no one has a problem with the President taking vacations and having some personal time. But no one takes more personal time then this President (Including campaigning and lots of lavish parties). 99. Talk Show TV – Obama is the talk show president. He goes on these programs to face “softball” questions. 100. Campaigning – Obama is the campaign president. He would campaign instead of work on issues and problems. 101. Paranoia – The Obama administration is Nixonian in many of its policies. It incorporated a “snitching” policy for Americans to report their neighbors if they spoke badly about ObamaCare. Obama also created an “Enemies List”. NSA spying, allied spying, and media targeting have already been discussed. 102. Blame storming – The Obama administration blamed GW Bush for many of its problems and short comings throughout his tenure. Unfortunately, Obama would also take credit for things that were not necessarily his doing. For example, Obama said Iraq was one of his biggest success stories, but once the situation turned dire in Iraq he said it was Bush who got us into this mess. He tries to have it both ways. He took credit for the killing of bin Laden even though the intelligence garnered was by the Bush administration using enhanced interrogation techniques. 103. Radicalizing America – Everything Obama has done is to radicalize this country: To transform it into a more socialistic society. I do not know what it is like to be black. I am sure Obama faced much prejudice and racism growing up. But to associate with radicals such as Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and other radicals is extreme. Fifty years ago, Martin Luther, who faced harsher scrutiny growing up than Obama, would have never been associated with those types of thugs. America was good to the Obamas. For instance, they benefited from affirmative action and diversity policies at the expense of another person to get ahead. Yet, Michelle, did not feel vindicated for her distain of America until Obama was elected president. It is never good to elect a person who obviously has a great deal of hate and animosity towards American exceptionalism. This has led to a highly polarized nation and of course it has led to the increase in criminal activity. Much of this can be witnessed through Occupy Wall St and Black Lives Matter.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not too happy with the outcome of the Iowa caucus. However, Sanders has a much better argument than Trump. Trump is merely a whining sore loser with no substance behind his arguments. In the Iowa caucus it is permissible to try to win over voters. Therefore, the fact that CNN broke a story that Carson was going home, it is fair game for the Cruz camp to use this information to claim that Carson does not have staying power. Instead, what should anger Trump is that both he and Rubio received the same number of state delegates despite beating him by 1.5%. In fact, Kasich and Fiorina received a delegate despite failing to get 2% of the vote. At that rate, both Kasich and Fiorina would have gotten over 14 delegates for the same percentage of the vote which Cruz received. But Cruz only received 8 delegates. Kasich and Fiorina received less than half the vote as Rand Paul, but Paul only received one 1 delegate as well. My point, delegates are not handed out proportionally based on the popular vote. The Democratic side of the Iowa caucus is even more confusing. They do not use raw vote, instead they appoint precinct delegates based on the secretive popular vote results. Hence, the person who won the popular vote may not receive as many precinct delegates and lose the state. The Democrats have 44 state wide delegates in Iowa and both Clinton and Sanders should have each received 22 since the results were a statistical tie. However, Clinton received 23. Even further confusing matters, precincts with statistical ties had the extra precinct delegate determined by a coin flip. For instance, if a precinct had 2 delegates and the results were tied than both would receive 1 delegate. However, if that same precinct had 3 delegates, a coin flip was used to determine where the 3rd delegate went. It seems Clinton won a majority of the coin flips across the state. Luck should not determine the next president. It would have been fairer to split all “extra” delegates once the results of all precincts were known. Under this scenario, it is plausible to have one coin flip instead of 10 or more. But what is even more puzzling is that the raw vote is not even considered on a state wide level. Sanders definitely has a beef. In Baker v. Carr in 1962, the Supreme Court made the famous ruling: “One person, one vote”. This ruling made it unconstitutional for branches of state legislature to be determined by any other means than by population. Of course this violates the Constitution because our president is determined through the Electoral College (it is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election) and each state has two senators regardless of the population of those states (Hence, Wyoming has just as much clout as California despite having 100 times less people). It was a bad decision, but Baker v. Carr is the law. And the presidential primary system violates this law on so many levels. The delegate system mentioned above is one example. Delegates are not allocated proportionally based on the popular vote; in some cases the popular vote is not even considered; and in other cases delegates can be assigned on pure luck. When the 2016 election cycle started, there were 17 Republican candidates and 5 Democratic candidates. Thus far, only Iowa has cast ballots, and the field has been narrowed by 50% - 9 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Iowa cast about 300,000 ballots in 2016 caucus (a record – but still only about 20% of their total electorate – in the 2012 general election over 1.5 million ballots were cast in Iowa). Hence, one can say the people in Iowa have a greater impact on the Presidential election. In other words, their vote counts more than people residing in the other 49 states or the District of Columbia. After the New Hampshire primary (100,000 votes) the field may dwindle further. The earlier the state votes in the primary process, the more powerful the vote of its citizens. The primary process may try to imply it follows the “one person, one vote” concept, but it is obvious the votes amongst the U.S. populous are not equal and this violates the intent of Baker v. Carr. Yes, both Sanders and Trump have a legitimate beef with the results. But only Sanders claims makes sense because his argument is based on the “one person, one vote” concept. Trump is not upset with the violation of the “one person, one vote” concept. He is upset that he lost and is making up incoherent arguments that no court in the United States would accept. FYI, the “One person, one vote” concept will be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court this spring. The question they will answer is does “one person, one vote” apply to the voting population or the entire population (the latter is how it has been applied up to now)?
Monday, February 1, 2016
52. Regulations and Mandates – The Obama administration is not the biggest regulatory White House in history however, the dollar impact from Obama regulations are by far the most intrusive. 53. Supreme Court – Obama’s winning percentage on 133 cases heard before the Supreme Court is 47%. That is over 10% lower than any other President since FDR. This proves Obama has been trying to expand his executive powers. 54. Substantive Due Process / Social Justice / Partisanship – Most of Obama’s biggest legislative wins were done so in a partisanship way, and decided in the Supreme Court by imaginative Constitutional theories through substantive due process to provide social justice. 55. NASA – The only government agency that generates patents and technological advances was killed by the administration. 56. Race to the Top – Obama’s education program (which incidentally was not passed by Congress, but showed up in the Stimulus) creates more bureaucracy – more testing and less emphasis on learning (subjects such as history, geography, languages, etc. are no longer a focus). This is a classic example of paralysis by over analysis and arrogance that the federal government believes educations fits into a “one size fits all” mentality. 57. Fairness Doctrine – Obama wanted to infringe on free speech and freedom of the press by limiting conservative talk on the radios. Of course Obama did not want to apply the fairness doctrine at our schools, TV, and other social mediums dominated by liberals. 58. Green Energy / Climate Change – Obama believes climate change is more important than terrorism. Besides, it is still unbelievable to think that a majority of Americans are so brainwashed that they think money and renewables will thwart climate change. Liberals are winning this issue through propaganda and fear mongering. 59. Crime – Violent crime is at its highest level in most major cities in over 3 decades. This trend has been fueled by Obama’s anti-police rhetoric. 60. Criminals – Obama has released more prisoners than any other president. He has taken the box asking if the person is a criminal off federal job applications. He refers to juvenile delinquents as justice involved youth. If you want to curb gun crime we need to be harder on criminals, not more lenient. 61. Gun Control – Obama and Liberal proposals for gun control would not have stopped any of the mass shootings in the Obama era. 62. TSA – The TSA is a classic example of government failure. Despite spending billions to provide the agency with state of the art technology, they are still grossly negligent in doing their jobs. 63. Student Loans – The government now holds a monopoly over student loans. These are the same government financial institutions whose inept practices led to the financial meltdown in 2008. 64. Drug Use – Drug use under Obama has increased to its highest level ever. In fact, youth deaths due to drugs has the life expectancy rate decreasing for the first time. 65. Joe Biden – The biggest gaffe machine ever to be in the executive branch. 66. BP Oil Spill – This was the first major crisis Obama experienced and it truly brought to light his terrible leadership skills. For instance, he caved to environmentalists instead of letting the core of engineers do their job. 67. Nanny State – Many “big brother” or nanny state issues are carried out by the Obama such as NSA spying. Michelle Obama, for instance, created a school lunch program which dictates what kids can and cannot eat. Unfortunately, the program is very expensive and it is not as healthy as advertised. 68. Black Panther Party – The extremist group used intimidation at Philadelphia polling places and the DOJ decided not to pursue the case. 69. Fear Mongering – Step one of the Obama Doctrine to influence policy is to use fear mongering techniques. This is most commonly used with Climate Change – blaming earthquakes, forest fires, intensive storms, and even a lack of sex drive on global warming without any evidence. 70. Politicizing Events – Step two of the Obama Doctrine to influence policy is to politicize events. This is most commonly used immediately after a mass shooting to push for gun control. 71. Class Warfare – Step three of the Obama Doctrine to influence policy is to place a wedge between citizens using strategies such as the “war on women”, police crime on blacks, 1% versus the 99%, and white on black crime. 72. The Race Card – Step four of the Obama Doctrine to influence policy is to use whatever is necessary to win the argument including introducing the race card, deceit, lies, and changing the meaning of words. For instance, a common response by liberals to conservatives that object to Obama policies is that they are racist. Liberals are great at changing the meaning and nature of words such as “manmade disaster” instead of “terrorism” and the omission of “Muslim” from “Muslim Extremism”. 73. Political Correctness – Step five of the Obama Doctrine to influence policy is political correctness. Liberals get “offended” and “annoyed” very easily. This tactic is used often to win arguments or change the talking points. 74. China – Not only is China hacking government computers, they also have overtaken the US as the largest economy in the world. 75. Credit Rating – For the first time the US credit rating has been downgraded from an AAA rating. 76. Air Force One Photo Op – The low flying photo op of Air Force One over NYC caused a major panic of citizens on the ground fearing another 9/11 attack.