"Nothing in life that's worth anything is easy."

These are the words of Cory Remsburg, an Army first class sergeant, who is trying to recover from severe wounds he received while in combat in Afghanistan. President Obama preached these words during the State of the Union Address in which Cory was a guest. This was the highlight of a weak speech. A speech filled with liberal policies that are the antithesis of those great words spoken by a true American hero. While Cory struggles every day to do remedial tasks, Obama wants to hand out freebees to people who have done nothing to earn them. I am all for helping those who are working hard to help themselves. I know people who work three jobs to make ends meet, but I have also run across those people who feel entitled to other people’s hard earned money solely because they feel it is their right. These are the people who do not have a job, are not looking for a job, and are not doing anything to improve their marketability to obtain a good paying job – they are the definition of oxygen thieves. Sure determining oxygen thieves from hard working Americans is not an easy task, but it is not impossible either. For instance, a person on welfare for several years in succession is more than likely an oxygen thieve – especially if this is happening during a time the economy is doing well.

As Obama talks about raising the minimum wage for All federal workers (not just to those that earned it) and handing out free ObamaCare to individuals who do not deserve this service is what makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me sick that Obama has the nerve to blend in a story of true heroism with stories to benefit true oxygen thieves, as if they belong together. Cory got injured fighting for the freedom that oxygen thieves take for granted.

Sure, I am willing to provide help to the single mom who is working three jobs to support her family. But, I am not willing to help the deadbeat who uses welfare to buy drugs. Does it actually make sense that both Cory and I qualify for disability? Under the Obama system it does, and this is wrong.

Life is hard! Why? Because, as individuals, we should be constantly challenging ourselves to become better individuals, citizens, and parents. We should never be content and take our freedoms for granted. We only get one chance at life and it is our responsibility to make the most of it. It is always easy to quit when faced with adversity, but that should never be an option. And we should certainly not reward people for quitting.

What the Cory Remsburg story should teach us is if All Americans had the same drive and perseverance to succeed, America would be a much better place free of deadbeats and oxygen thieves. And therefore free of government freebees such as food stamps, ObamaCare, and intrusions to raise the minimum wage – All things boasted by the President, Democrats, and liberals alike.

Now is the Time for a Libertarian President

The Libertarian Party only makes up one to two percent of the electorate. However, a large number of Republicans and Independents consider themselves Libertarians. Libertarian is usually considered a dirty word, but that is because it mostly understood. The past 16 years of Republican (Bush) and Democrat (Obama) rule has been abysmal. Both administrations were failures in a big way, running up massive national deficits and creating a record number of new rules, mandates, laws, and regulations. Both administrations also increased the power of the executive branch (i.e. czars, NSA spying, unilateral actions, executive orders) at the expense of states and other branches of governments. Here are some reasons it is time for a Libertarian:

• Compromise – Libertarians are usually fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
• NSA Spying program will be eliminated.
• A laissez-faire approach to foreign affairs - no wars, unless it is really a national security risk.
• A balanced budget and a reduction in the federal debt.
• A reduction in the size of the federal government.
• A laissez faire approach to domestic policy – limited government interference in the economy.
• A reduction in federal rules, regulations, laws, and mandates.
• Increase in state powers including freedom to pursue their own immigration, election, drug decriminalization, and gay marriage laws.
• Overall reduction in the power of the executive branch.
• No more unilateral movements by the executive branch.
• No more executive orders by the executive branch, especially the EPA.
• No more bailouts – including Wall Street. There will be no such thing as “Too Big to Fail”.
• No more Czars or people in charge of anything without congressional oversight.
• Possibly bipartisan support for tax reform and maybe even immigration reform.
• A decline in lobbying and corporate and organization influence in Washington.
• No more quid pro quo politics and that vicious cycle of money.
• The end of ObamaCare.
• An increase in transparency, responsibility, and accountability for a presidential administration.

The DOJ's Blatant Bias

Here are a few of Eric Holder’s biased decisions (crimes?) while running the Department of Justice (DOJ):

• The DOJ refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia precinct during the 2008 election.
• The DOJ gave more civil rights to enemy combatants and terrorists than American servicemen accused of any crime.
• The DOJ picked and choose which federal laws they will enforce. The DOJ refused to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington. At the same time they have sued states for (supposedly) not following federal law for immigration.
• The DOJ has sued states over election laws (even though each state is allowed to make its own laws). The DOJ claimed voter suppression even though minority voting is at its highest levels ever. The reason for this is because of state voting laws increasing the time people can vote and allowing people to vote via the mail.
• The DOJ picked and choose which parts of federal law the will enforce. The DOJ filed suit against Arizona’s immigration law, but at the same time immigration amnesty states and cities have faced no such scrutiny.
• The DOJ targeted conservative reporters to find White House administration leaks. However, the New York Times (NYT), which leaked several national security stories on the killing of Bin Laden and the Stuxnet computer virus that was used to slow Iranian nuclear aspirations were not targeted at all. This proves the NYT leaks were intentional by the White House.
• The DOJ took sides on the Trayvon Martin case and introduced race into the subject even though race was never brought up during the trial.
• The DOJ supported gun control laws including mandatory background checks even though the DOJ only investigates fewer than 1% of all fraudulent gun applicants.
• The DOJ hid behind executive privilege over the failed ATF Fast and Furious program that led to the death of hundreds of Mexicans and a U.S. border agent.
• The DOJ signed off on the expansion of the NSA metadata program.
• When asked difficult questions about DOJ scandals Holder continuously claims “he knew nothing about it”. In other words, claiming incompetence is better than being responsible and accountable.

Liberal Punishment

I have never understood liberal philosophies and the need to punish successful businesses and people. This not only sends the wrong message by punishing responsible taxpayers and rewarding irresponsible non-taxpayers, but the people who get punished by liberal policies are rarely the wealthy. Besides, liberal policies punish companies and people who are only using the resource infrastructure put in place over the past two centuries. In other words, they had little choice but to run their business using what is cheapest and practical.

Who would be punished if the Obama decides to act unilaterally and tax carbon emitting companies? These taxes will be passed onto the consumer and force all Americans to pay higher energy costs to heat / cool their homes and to drive their cars. This is a tax on not only middle class Americans but poverty stricken Americans. If companies decide to move to greener energy sources to avoid the carbon tax, this too would lead to higher product costs (renewable energies are much more expensive than fossil fuel energy sources). If these taxes are not passed onto the consumer, then employee pay will be cut or they may be laid off. Corporate leaders will not be punished and what’s worse, tax revenues will go down if employee wages and corporate profits are decreased.

Besides, companies will continue to find tax loopholes to avoid paying higher taxes. Liberal punishment tactics and policies force companies to find tax havens overseas. Liberal attempts to unionize companies and increase wages only results in companies relocating to right to work states. In other words, no one wins when liberals try to punish success.

So why punish companies for emitting too much carbon? The people alive today had nothing to do with creating America’s energy fossil fuel infrastructure. Cavemen used fossil fuels. Many inventors paved the way to modern day electric generation. Some of these people, the date of their work, and their country are: Thales (600 b.c. Greece), Benjamin Franklin (1752 USA), Andre Ampere (1820 France), Michael Faraday (1831 England), Zenobe Gramme (1870 Belgium), Thomas Edison (1880 USA), George Westinghouse (1887 USA), and Nikola Telsa (1890 USA). These are all great men and history has a favorable view of all of them. But they are the culprits who put in place our energy infrastructure that liberals want to punish. Corporations are not the ones to blame for the choices made by the federal government to build our energy infrastructure. So why should they be punished for past decisions made by others?

Finally, and most importantly, many liberals are hypocrites. Progressives want to place regulations and taxes on corporations but they would not place these same restrictions on their personal energy consumption. No one should ever want to place a tax, mandate, rule, or regulation on others they are not willing to accept if it were levied against them.

The Regression Towards Mediocrity

My blog title (The Theory of Mediocrity) has deep roots to statistical theory. Mathematician Francis Galton first coined the phrase “regression towards mediocrity” or what is often referred to as “regression to the mean”. Galton’s statistical analysis of the height of children versus the height of their parents yielded an amazing outcome. Children are more mediocre than their parents: they tend to be “on average” closer to the mean height, the mean weight, the mean intelligence of the population than were their parents. In the case of height the results illustrated children of parents who are one inch taller than the general population tend on average to be only about two-thirds of an inch taller than the population. Conversely, if this experiment was preformed backwards the result would indicate a parent’s height would be mediocre when compared to their children’s height. Galton gave birth to linear regression models which I so much enjoy running on sets of data.

About 50 years later, a book published in 1933 by Horace Secrist revealed interesting results. Secrist was a professor of economics at Northwestern University in Chicago. Secrist went on to become an expert in what we would now refer to as Industrial Organization. The book was titled “The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business” and had occupied 10 years of this research. In it Secrist showed in excruciating detail if you grouped firms into performance categories in some initial year, and then followed them in subsequent years, that the initially most successful tended to do worse over time, while the least successful tended to improve. Secrist’s conclusion was that American business was “converging to mediocrity.”

Of course I believe these outcomes are not necessarily surprising. In the case of economics, there are many external variables that dictate corporate success. One huge variable for corporate success is government and political intrusion. The government punishes more successful businesses with higher taxes and more rules and regulations. The media and public also tend to ostracize successful big companies as being evil and therefore, they face more scrutiny such as union pressure. Meanwhile, smaller and less successful businesses do not face these same financial, regulatory, and political problems. This makes it easier for them to become more successful over time. However, their ultimate success will also be limited to the restraints placed on them by governing bodies. In other words, government intrusion in the form of taxes and regulations restrict incentives for companies to succeed. For instance, new ObamaCare legislation provides little incentive for companies to offer health insurance, expand their workforce above 50 employees, and or to provide full-time employment. ObamaCare restricts business opportunities and does nothing to incentivize success.

Our educational system is a good example of regression towards mediocrity policy. The government pours money into programs to help underperforming children, such as Title I, but spends little money on advancing overachieving children. The goal is to have students pass a minimum set of guidelines and the government cares little about maximizing the learning experience for exceptional students. And it is the few exceptional students that will make the biggest impact on society, not those students that are the norm. Socialism and wealth distribution policies are also excellent examples of government forcing a regression towards mediocrity. Government and political intrusion is a good example as to why businesses are learning to evolve by finding loopholes in tax policy and to shift manufacturing facilities overseas. As government grows in political power, companies are forced to make unpopular decisions to survive the grasps of mediocrity.

The Theory of Mediocrity is about the effects government intrusion has on the regression towards mediocrity on the American people. The regression toward mediocrity was statistically proved by Galton and Secrist, but it is my belief government plays an integral role in this phenomenon.

The Liberal Definition of People

Liberals were outraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. First they said money is not free speech. However, this argument was combated by showing past Supreme Court rulings siding with freedom of expression as being part of freedom of speech (such as it is lawful to burn the American flag). And people use money to express their feelings daily.

Now liberals say that corporations are not people and therefore, are not entitled to first amendment protections! This is another stupid and whimsical ploy being proposed by no other than that liberal genius Al Franken. Let’s say the Supreme Court agrees and says corporations are not people and they can no longer give unlimited funds to campaigns (this hopefully would never happen). This opens a whole new set of questions. Is the government a group of people who are protected under the first amendment (under this law we could also conclude the government is not people)? Would corporations be allowed to give unlimited contributions to charities? Does the government eliminate unlimited campaign contributions given by other groups of people: religions, organizations (unions, NRA), families, and so forth? Does the definition of people only apply to large corporations and not small businesses who file individual income tax returns? If a group of people, who form a corporation, are no longer people than aren’t we saying other groups of people such as families, unions, and Mormons are also not people? Would it no longer be acceptable to bring criminal charges against Bernie Madoff or Enron’s Ken Lay, but instead have to prosecute everyone at these companies even if they knew nothing of their crimes (secretaries and janitors included)? Are groups of minorities and women people? Are socio-economic status groups (wealthy, impoverished, middle class) people?

This belief by Franken and liberals alike is just another way for them to change the definition of a word so it fits their ideology’s core beliefs. Liberals hate corporations mainly because many support conservative candidates. But if you look carefully, Franken’s exceptions only include corporations and not special interest groups such as unions who usually back liberal candidates. I see no way where the government is following equal protection laws by admitting one group of people are not people, but then proclaim that another group of people are in fact people. This is another attempt by the Left to create class warfare and to divide and polarize Americans.

This definition of people also reeks of hypocrisy since liberals have done nothing to turn away corporate campaign contributions. In 2012, Obama and Democrats received more campaign contributions than conservatives from those evil companies such as Wall Street and Big Oil firms. Obama has collected record campaign contributions - nearly 2 billion dollars in 4 years. Obama’s 2013 inauguration was funded solely by millions of dollars contributed by companies. Progressive candidates argue if they turned away corporate contributions than they would have little chance of winning elections. By this same argument we can say Lance Armstrong was right to cheat and take performance enhancing drugs because his competition was also cheating. Here are some other hypocritical observations about the liberal definition of people: Why is it fair for the government to decide how much they can tax a company, but at the same time companies are not allowed to decide how to spend their profits? Would the government still be allowed to allocate unlimited funding to companies such as Solyndra or special interest groups such as Planned Parenthood? In other words, why is the government allowed to give unlimited funds to non-people institutions, but non-people institutions do not have the same freedoms?

This liberal argument is silly and moot because a corporation can bypass this dumb idea. Corporate profits to be used for campaign finance can be allocated to individuals within the company who can give these contributions to campaigns. Even if campaign contributions were capped, the company could then distribute campaign contribution funds to more individuals within the company who can contribute to the monies campaigns. Besides, it makes no sense to pass laws that are not applied equally to all.

Are Some BFS Patients Misdiagnosed? (Part II)

What can one learn from the above data? I think we can conclude the following:

• At a minimum, 387 people have been misdiagnosed and do not have BFS. They more than likely have CFS or Isaac’s Syndrome. In fact, Teerin changed my diagnosis from BFS to CFS and believes I am somewhere between CFS and Isaac’s syndrome. And no, the number of symptoms I am experiencing has not gone up since my initial diagnosis. In fact, all three neurologists I saw concurred that my diagnosis was BFS, which was wrong.

• This may explain why so many people, including myself, thought there was an overlap of symptoms between BFS and other neurological syndromes and disorders such as RSD and Fibromyalgia. I clearly assumed that after telling three neurologists all my symptoms and they concluded I had BFS than the eight symptoms I possessed were a part of BFS.
• Granted, people who reach out to social media forums on BFS are more likely to have more bothersome symptoms. This may explain why so many people in my survey have multiple symptoms (Over 99%). After all, a person diagnosed with BFS and only experiences muscle twitches occasionally or 24/7 and has no other symptoms, may be far less likely to join social media and participate in my my survey on BFS. 

The real question is why do neurologists misdiagnose so many patients with BFS? This is a tough one to answer but here are a few of my thoughts on the subject:

• Most neurologists are clueless and can care less about Peripheral Nerve Hyperexcitation syndromes.
• BFS is a convenient diagnosis that can send patients on their way without any worry that they have something more serious like ALS and MS.
• Fasciculations or muscle twitching is a symptom that can be viewed both visually and by EMG. Other symptoms such as pins and needles, cramps, muscle fatigue and weakness (not atrophy), headaches, itching, numbness, muscle stiffness, muscle pain and soreness, muscle buzzing or vibration sensation, and sensitivity to temperatures are all harder symptoms to verify and are mainly subjective by the patient. Hence, it may be possible that neurologist may only diagnose what can be verified through technology and or observation. Maybe it was the fact that my muscles did something funky that enabled Teerin to change my diagnosis – he could see my muscles did not contract properly when they were hit with his reflex hammer. Or maybe Teerin believed me when I explained my other symptoms.

One important side issue of note I should point out that I learned from Teerin: One possibility causing CFS and maybe even Isaac’s or Morvan’s syndrome can be a benign tumor in the body. Teerin just released an article on this in March of 2013 entitled “Cramp Fasciculation Syndrome in Patients with and without Neural Autoantibodies”. The abstract of the article can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mus.23935/abstract. He found that 25% of people with CFS have a specific antibody produced by the tumor that can cause CFS symptoms. If you have the antibody then you need to get a CT scan to find the tumor. So it is possible to have a benign tumor can be wreaking havoc in our bodies.

Are Some BFS Patients Misdiagnosed? (Part I)

It’s hard to find someone to advocate for you in the medical field. I have been to three neurologists with the same result – “It is no big deal” and “you just have to live with it”. In fact, the reaction of some doctors makes me feel selfish that I want to find some kind of symptoms relief because I am reminded there are people with much more serious ailments that need their attention. I agree and consider myself lucky, but for the amount I paid for these medical appointments, I should garner some attention and respect then a shrug of the shoulders. I just found a good neurologist in Colorado; his name is Teerin Liewluck (My fourth neurologist). He recently came from the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota to Colorado Medical School Anschutz Campus in Denver. Information on Teerin Liewluck can be found at the following link: http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/neurology/Faculty/Pages/liewluck.aspx. I would highly recommend Teerin to anyone who has BFS. He is personable, has a sense of humor, takes your disorder seriously, provides you with a plan to try to mitigate symptoms, and truly understands BFS and similar Peripheral Nerve Hyperexcitation syndromes better than anyone I have met before.

According to Teerin there are four types of Peripheral Nerve Hyperexcitation syndromes. The first is BFS and people with this should only have muscle twitches and experience no other type of muscle symptoms. This may explain the reaction most patients diagnosed with BFS get from doctors is it is “No big deal”. If I only had twitches than my syndrome would certainly be much easier to live with. If you experience other types of symptoms than it is more likely you have Cramp Fasciculation Syndrome (CFS), Isaac’s Syndrome, or Morvan’s Syndrome and these syndromes are listed in the order of their severity.

According to my data (a Google drive survey which can be found on my BFS website: http://patrickbohan.elementfx.com/BFS.htm), out of 475 people who have taken my survey to date I have the following findings:

• 390 people have been officially diagnosed with BFS
• The 475 people experience, on average, 7.6 of the 11 listed symptoms to some severity
• Only 3 of 475 people experience twitching as their only symptom
• Only 20 of the 475 people experience two or fewer symptoms

Iraq: Obama's Latest Military Failure

The Obama administration has been plagued with incompetence and failure when it comes to dealing with military issues. Let’s examine his pitiful record:

Obama missed an opportunity to provide support to an Iranian uprising and now we have conceded that the rogue nation will have nuclear capabilities.

Obama supported an Egyptian coup and the result is chaos and the potential for the Muslim Brotherhood (who the administration supports) and their ties to terrorism to take power.

Obama moved unilaterally to take military action to support the Libyan uprising and the result is more chaos as witnessed by the successful terrorist attack on the US embassy in Benghazi.

Obama is leaving Afghanistan with the Taliban in control. In fact, Obama negotiated with the terrorist organization.

Obama negotiated with the genocidal leader of Syria and their ally Russia to stop using chemical weapons, and in return, the US would not intervene militarily. The end result is that the same regime is still in control and killing citizens using other means than chemical weapons.

And if all of this is not bad enough, Obama left Iraq prematurely. Biden called Iraq one of Obama’s greatest achievements and let’s not forget both Biden and Obama voted against the military surge that created the democratic state in Iraq. I always said Obama will be judged on Iraq after the withdrawal of military forces and the results are in: Al Qaida is in control of most parts in Western Iraq and gaining strength. Remember, Obama claimed Al Qaida was dead after the killing of Bin Laden. This is obviously not true. History has shown that the US has always taken a large military presence, for prolonged periods of time to ensure peace, in wartime nations after the conflict has ended: Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and Japan for instance. Obama failed to follow lessons learned from history and now Iraq is in chaos again.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates released a new book that points out the military mistakes and blunders of the Obama administration. One would have to believe Gates’s version since the entire Middle East is in chaos.

I do not condone military action, but this administration has chosen to support Libya, but not Iran with military action. In other words the Obama administration has been inconsistent with its military interventions and most times picking the wrong fight. Iran and their nuclear power aspirations would seem to be a better choice than Libya. I also believe once the US decides to intervene militarily they need to finish the job and make sure Democracy prevails and that is not what is happening in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan under the watch of the Obama administration. In fact, terrorism is what is winning under the watch of the Obama administration.

A Contrast in Leadership: Obama v. Christie

Chris Christie has faced his first political scandal – A top aide shut down a lane of the George Washington Bridge to create a traffic jam for political purposes. This is not just stupid; it could have put people’s safety at issue. If Christie is telling the truth (that he was completely unaware of the act) then his contrast in leadership versus Obama’s handling of scandals within his administration will only help Christie politically. Within 24 hours of the story breaking Christie acted quickly and swiftly firing the aide responsible and reversing his decision to back this person to be head of the New Jersey GOP. Christie also travelled to Fort Lee New Jersey to apologize to the Democratic Mayor (who initially turned down Christie’s apology) and the people of the city in person.

On the other hand, we have the Obama administration which has been plagued by scandals, all of which the President claimed he knew nothing about. I will take the President at his word until proven otherwise, but Obama has failed to hold anyone accountable for any scandal – many of which are far more egregious than the Christie scandal. To date no one has been fired nor has there been any official apology from the President for the Fast Furious, DOJ targeting of conservative reporters, EPA targeting of conservative groups, or the Benghazi cover up. Obama did issue an apology and Lois Lerner was forced to retire (on a full pension) for the IRS targeting of conservative groups. What’s worse, Obama claimed he would hold those accountable for the Benghazi attack and the IRS scandal – to date no one has been charged with any crime or fired from their position.

Obama is a man of many words, but he refuses to act on them whereas Christie is a man of few words but great action. This is a huge contrast in leadership ability. Even if Obama finally comes around and fires a few people the fact it has taken him months and even years to act is very telling. Heck, Obama still has not held anyone accountable for the miserable rollout of ObamaCare. Firing incompetent oxygen thieves is part of the real world and the inability to do so only shows how weak Obama is as a leader. I guarantee you if Christie rolled out a program and it flopped like ObamaCare, heads would have rolled.

Obama 5 Years Later: The Sad Realities of Liberalism

Five years into the Obama White House and the true face of liberalism is showing its infectious effect on all Americans. The past year has to be one of the worst in presidential history based on the number of scandals, lies, and misinformation. The failing White House had this to show for its efforts this past year:

Targeting! The DOJ targeted conservative journalists over White House leaks which they said jeopardized national security. However, the DOJ failed to target NY Times journalists who leaked several stories such as the cyber war on Iran and the killing of Bin Laden. That did not stop the DOJ from violating the constitutional rights of CBS’s Sharyl Attkinson and Fox News’s James Rosen to name a few. No one has been fired or found responsible for these acts. The IRS targeted conservative groups and failed to provide them charitable status in a timely matter. Once again no one has been held responsible for these acts – Lois Lerner retired with her benefits package in tack. If all if this was not bad enough the EPA also targeted conservative groups by illegally providing their confidential information to liberal environmental groups who used the information for political gain. And to no surprise, no one has been held accountable.

Although the Benghazi terror attack happened in 2012, much was learned about what really transpired on that deadly day in 2013. What was learned? The State Department covered up the truth and lied about what really happened. In fact, we still do not know the whole truth and unfortunately, we may never really find out the entire truth. As Hillary Clinton proclaimed “What does it matter!”

ObamaCare rollout! The rollout of ObamaCare was atrocious. The website crashes and is archaic; the website security puts all those that use the site at risk for identity theft; the sign up rate has fallen far short of expectations to pay for the law and what’s more troubling is that most of the people signing up are already very sick while the young and healthy seem more inclined to pay the mandated fine instead of signing up.

ObamaCare! We are learning more about the law as it is implemented. First, millions are losing their current insurance plans, doctors, and hospitals – all promises that were broken by Obama. Secondly, insurance rates are going up dramatically for most Americans. Thirdly, Obama continues to delay other provisions of the law, such as the company mandate, that will further impact Americans in a negative fashion.

The government shutdown! Obama let the government shut down instead of delaying the rollout of ObamaCare which was seriously botched.

Syria! Obama tried to move unilaterally to attack Syria and then saved face by negotiating with a rogue leader. The result: the rogue leader can stay in power if he destroys his chemical weapons and instead kills innocent civilians using more conventional weaponry.

Iran! Obama has conceded that Iran will become a nuclear state with the ability to transport a nuclear bomb several thousands of miles.

Narcissism! Whether it is Obama taking a “selfie” of himself at Mandela’s funeral or imputing himself into the 50^th Anniversary of the Kennedy assignation and the Trayvon Martin case – One thing is clear, Obama makes everything about himself.

NSA Spying – In a Nixonian fashion Obama has expanded NSA spying started under Bush. Obama is using the information to win elections and even spy on our allies.

These are just a few of the happenings of the 2013 year. As more Americans start to feel the pain of ObamaCare and liberalism they may just come to their senses and vote more of these clowns out of office in 2014 and 2016.

Liberal Integration, Multiculturalism, and Diversity Hypocrisy

Liberals say they are the Party for the minority, but the data will suggest the opposite. More minorities live in poverty today than when the war on poverty began 50 years ago despite pouring trillions into the cause. But what’s worse is that many liberal policies about race are hypocritical. Education is great example. Liberal unions advocate for teachers and not students. While unions will protect bad minority teachers in poor minority schools, liberal’s anti-voucher policies prevent good minority students from leaving poor school districts to attend better schools in predominately White areas.

There are many examples of this type of hypocrisy where liberals pretend to support minority issues. I thought I had seen it all until I saw a clip of a MSNBC program mocking a Christmas picture of the Romney family. In particular, Mitt Romney’s black grandson - who was adopted, is in the picture seated in Romney’s lap. The program hosts and guests took pot shots at the photo. One sang the song “one of these things does not belong with the others” and another guest called the child the one “token” minority in the Republican Party.

First, it makes little sense to ridicule a good deed. The Romney’s rescued this child from a terrible life – how is this a bad thing that should be criticized. This is simply making a story out of nothing. Secondly, would MSNBC made a big deal out of the photo had the adopted child been “White”? Probably not; and this therefore proves that MSNBC likes to introduce race into story lines when it is not necessary. This makes MSNBC the racists, not the people who they claim are racists because they disagree with Presidential policy. Thirdly, if liberals truly believe in integration, multiculturalism, and diversity then they should support the Romney family and not try to turn them into villains. After all, isn’t this exactly what liberals claim to believe and support! The problem MSNBC and liberals have with stories like this one is that they truly believe in segregation when it comes to political parties. Liberals believe ALL minorities should be Democrats and have nothing to do with Republicans. Hence, they feel threatened by these “feel good” stories and therefore they must spin them in a different direction.

The story shows just how cruel and unethical MSNBC behaves. They will try to spin any good deed by a Republican into a bad one even if it reveals their hypocrisy over racial topics such as integration, multiculturalism, and diversity.