Barack Obama gave me pink eye

So I am sitting here at my apartment in a state of quarantine. I went to the optometrist this morning because I have been suffering what I thought to be problems with my allergies since Tuesday. To my surprise I was informed that I in fact have come down with a case of pink eye. I know that pink eye is not a rare abnormality, but it is for me. To make matters worse, I require contacts in order to see clearly any more than six inches from my face, and due to the eye drops I have to take, I am operating for the weekend without the ability to see. The comedy of watching me strain my eyes with my nose brushing the computer monitor as I type these very words is worthy of the finest juvenile entertainers.

Other than my complete boredom and borderline humiliation due to helplessness, there are other problems with my ailment. For starters, I have been of little value at work for the last few days because I have not been able to see clearly or deal with other people since the sight of my irritated eyes is enough to inspire memories of Night of the Living Dead. Due to the quarantine, I have obviously had to miss work entirely today. The last thing the American economy needs right now is for another banker to not be working.

In addition to missing work, I will also be missing my opportunity to receive my concealed handgun license (CHL) tomorrow. I have been looking forward to this for quite some time. But the significance of me missing my CHL class is not merely one of my personal disappointment or of the lack of increased security that my fellow Americans would have felt with my enhanced ability to protect myself and others from violent criminals (possible terrorists and a few ninjas). The real significance of my missing the CHL class is that it shines the light upon the cause of my illness.

Newly elected President Barack Obama.

To be quite frank, Barack Obama gave me pink eye. I borrowed the logic of a few liberal acquaintances to deduce this profound conclusion. It was quite simple logic in fact.

I did not have pink eye for the previous eight years, but I was infected with pink eye on the same day that Barack Obama was sworn in as president. That in and of itself clearly proves that he is the cause of the pink eye. He was in office when the pink eye occurred and for that reason the blame falls squarely upon him. It is his responsibility to ensure the health of the American people. When George W. Bush was the president, his eye care policies produced eight years in which I did not suffer from pink eye. However Obama's eye care policies have been a abject failures and I have paid the price. Not only have his policies failed to prevent me from getting pink eye, but I have yet to receive a single shred of federal aid to ensure my own personal well being. I think it is because Barack Obama hates Texans. I can see no other explanation.

His motivation for giving me pink eye is clear. Barack Obama did not want me to get my CHL. He is a proponent of limiting gun rights and so is doing whatever he has the ability to do in order to prevent me from getting my CHL. Which in this case meant I had to get pink eye. Barack Obama purposely introduced pink eye into my community because he hates Texans and does not want us to be able to utilize our rights. Once again, the logic is clear. Barack Obama is the president as this happens so it is clearly his fault and his will.

I know what some of you are thinking, "Banker, it is your personal responsibility to maintain the health of your eye. You have to make sure you clean your hands before touching your eyes, avoid people that may also have pink eye, and stay away from places where you can get pink eye." If you are thinking that you are a heartless idiot and obviously hate Texans too. It is the government's job to remove all pink eye hazards from this nation in order to protect me from them. George W. Bush apparently did this because I never got pink eye when he was the president. Barack Obama has failed to do this since I now have pink eye.

So I have pink eye. Barack Obama gave me pink eye. It is his fault and it is his responsibility to fix it. He should be impeached for letting it happen. At the very least I can not wait until 2012 to get him out of office so we can enjoy the eye health that we enjoyed during the Bush administration.

-the Banker

Barack Obama and the Politics of Fear.

I have noticed that democrats typically like to accuse the Bush administration and others of using the "politics of fear." We've all heard the term used very loosely, from Hillary Clinton, to Nancy Pelosi, to even Barack Obama. While I understand the notion and where they are coming from with the argument, there's something that needs to be noticed: Barack Obama also uses the politics of fear on the American public. He claims not to use it, but mixed in with his messages of "hope" and "change" are harsh images of gloom and doom...in order to scare the American people into thinking that his way is the only right way.

Such is the way of the Marxist. Let me give you a little insight as to what I'm talking about here.

Barack Obama is constantly praised by the media and his cult of followers for having a positive look to politics. He preaches against the politics of fear, says he is here to put a new face on America, and to spread those two buzzwords that have been affectively marketed to the citizens of America - hope and change. To clarify, let me say that there's nothing wrong with hope and change as words or emotions or even acts...however, what we are "hoping" for is never fully defined, and this "change" that keeps getting defined and then redefined seems to be moving the american public closer to a state of bigger government control and power, a shift away from the democracy and freedoms we currently enjoy and a strategic move towards a quasi-socialist state.

So, that being said, you are probably still asking: how does this play into Barack Obama's speeches and rhetoric?

The answer is simple. Obama spends half of his time painting a picture of a tattered, torn, broken America that is in dire need of repair. He sucks the listener in by saying "this is how bad things are and this is how worse they will get over time." When he's made that point, he offers a simple solution...more government. Let's take an excerpt from his inaugural address:

"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time."

To some degree, he is correct. The nation has certainly seen better days. However, instead of focusing on the positives of the nation and what can be done to repair parts that are broken, Obama continually poses bigger government as the solution to the problem.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

What you have to do here is break down what the man is saying and look how it applies to his policies. Obama mentions that we should not ask whether or not government is to small or big (which I think we all know the answer to that question...government continues to expand at an alarming rate - a leviathan that must be subdued and contained before it damages the American public beyond that which we can recover from). However, one look at his policies and ideas for America and we can see that it is obvious how he wants government to be at the center of all. In Obama's America, gone are many of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy today. The free market will be weakened, government will control healthcare, government will work to nationalize the banking industry, and a "tax credit" will be invoked that in all reality is actually a welfare program - taking money from those who earn it and giving a $1000 "stimulus check" to the portion of Americans who are fitting the Obama demographic which works to expand the percent of the population who already pay no income taxes - thus reinforcing a belief that they should be relying on the government to take care of them, that they should not have to work hard for anything, or take any responsibility for their actions. Suddenly there is a majority of americans who are dependent on the government and not for themselves to provide. Quite simply put, this is not good.

What Obama effectively does in doing this is help to create a voting majority in where people are used to relying on the federal government to fix problems. By spending trillions upon trillions of taxpayer money, he will not fix the deficit. He says that it will be a long road, but truth be told it will be a longer road if there is more government intervention in the market and more intervention in our everyday lives.

This does not even begin to tap the surface of how he and a congress full of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer, (and potentially even Caroline Kennedy and that never once funny comedian Al Franken) will invoke the fairness doctrine (which censors free political speech, and even more so in a way just that speech which speaks out against the liberal policy), raise the population of labor union forces, and of course, this notion that he should expand the government workforce by an additional 30-40%. Suddenly, before the American people know it (at least for those of us who aren't skeptical), the majority of their lives are in total government control. It may only take a good 4 years to set some of these policies up, but it will take a long time to break them down.

Now, just to show you the difference between a politician that sees the market and liberty as a bad thing and a politician who sees the individual as a good thing and too much government intervention as a bad thing, let me leave you with two quotes from a great leader, Ronald Reagan. Even if you have disagreed with some things he has said, read the quotes...there's no denying that he is dead on in this respect:

"And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: "As government expands, liberty contracts."

and...

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the People." "We the People" tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. "We the People" are the driver; the government is the car, and we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the People" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the People" are free."

Both quotes were taken, from Ronald Reagan's farewell address in the oval office.

That, my friends is what it's all about. Before I end this blog post, there is something that I feel must be said. The government shouldn't be controlling your life. The market will rise and it will fall...there will be hard times and there will be easy times. There will be times of prosperity and there will be times of economic depression. However, this one fact remains - it is up to the American people to provide for one another and to ensure the nation grows both morally and economically, be it an upswing or if our wonderful country may take a slight dip from an economic standpoint. The truth remains that this is the greatest nation in the world, and that all must be done to preserve the freedoms and liberties that we are able to enjoy day in and day out. This is my America, this is your America, and no one should ever be able to take that away from us. The peaceful transfer of power from one president to another on January 20th with every new incoming administration and the prosperity of this nation and wonderful liberties and freedoms we enjoy are clear cut examples of this. I ask you as Americans to stand up and make sure this government is returned to that for which it stands...a government for the people, and by the people. May God bless you all, and may God bless this great land and the freedoms and liberties we are granted.

-The Rocker

The Race Card: Will it Ever Stop?

It seems to me that a large part of the liberal philosophy when arguing consists of this: destroy the other side of the argument, even if it means throwing all rationale out the window. Do whatever you can to discredit the opposing viewpoint in order to anhilate and destroy.

Hence, the race card.

We saw this played out time and time again in the general election this year, and it continues with this whole Blagojevich mess conerning Roland Burris. If you weren't going to vote for Barack Obama, it meant you are a racist. If you don't support Roland Burris' nomination by a corrupt Governor, you are racist.

As far as logic, it's thrown out the window. Who cares about standing up for one's political ideals, when you can just be a liberal and accuse everyone of being racist?

Did anyone ever think that a large part of facilitating racism is running around mindlessly while pointing the finger accusing everyone of actually being racist?

At this juncture, I should also point out that African American democrats are constantly celebrated for their appointments and successes, yet it seems as if African American Republicans or Conservatives are hardly ever praised by the mainstream for their efforts. This is a double standard that is inherently racist to me. Great minds like Thomas Sowell are scoffed at, or people like Condoleeza Rice are laughed off as dismissible. Even Colin Powell doesn't win as much acclaim until he endorses Barack Obama. Please explain the logic in this to me.

The truth is, there is no reason why race should even be a factor. I am sick and tired of accusations that someone is racist just because they don't support a candidate from a minority. If I remember, only 13% of the vote came from an African American turnout. This means that 87% of the voting population in 2008 was not African American. Now count me if I'm wrong, but won't the first African American President be sworn in on January 20th? If a large percentage of the population isn't black, and 52% voted for a black man, where is the racism coming in to play?

The truth is, I, like many others, do not care for Barack Obama because of his policies and his ideals. It is his empty rhetoric and leftist voting record we are against - not his race.

In regards to Burris, the race card is also being played, as "activists" are angered at the idea of Burris potentially not taking Barry's senate seat, as is reported by the Associated Press. Even democrats are now pitting the race card against each other, as can be seen in this Politico.com article. Some democrats point the finger to Harry Reid, as they label him a racist because he doesn't support the appointment of another African American to Obama's Senate seat. Amazing now the democrats are at war with each other. Do these people ever stop fighting and just get anything done?

No. They don't. They point the finger. They label. They attempt to destroy any viewpoint with any loss of rationale they can find in order to get thier way. Don't get me wrong - Harry Reid is a complete ass. He and his sidekick, Nancy "stretch" Pelosi are some of the worst people ever to hold public office. However, why do they immediately accuse him of being racist?

I don't support Burris either. It doesn't have to do with his race, it has to do with who is appointing him, and (get ready for it)...his policy views. Why is this so hard for leftists to understand? Everything isn't a race issue. All they are doing is helping fuel the fire of racism. This sort of finger pointing and empty accusations aren't moving us forward, they are just holding everyone back. It's about time that this issue was buried.

My advice to leftist and liberal nutjobs out there? Start basing your thoughts on ideals and viewpoints related to your cause. In addition, be sure to base these viewpoints on matters of substance, not material issues.

-The Rocker-