President Obama has been on the stump trying to cobble together a coalition that will help keep him in the White House. It matters little what damage his actions might do to America, he has bigger plans and needs more “flexibility” to get them done.

On college campuses he is trying to gin up support by making the interest rate on college loans a campaign issue. The issue is government subsidized Stafford loans. He wants to freeze the current interest rates at 3.4% and he wants the Republicans to fight him on this so that he can create another class warfare wedge issue.

Where have we seen something like this before? Wasn’t the government’s heavy involvement in housing, pushing for everyone to be a homeowner that led to the housing bubble? When that bubble burst, all hell broke loose with it and Obama was able to ride the gush of air into the White House.

Think about the growing debt being accumulated by college students and think about their job prospects in the Obama economy. It is not a pretty picture. What happens if those students upon graduating say, “I can’t find a decent job. I have been duped. I’m not paying back my student loans.” What do you do? Jail them?

Now if interest rates climb, the economic effect will be to curtail borrowing, that is, the old price, supply and demand thing. But if interest rates are kept low, then the demand for more debt will not be curtailed. If the demand for more debt is not curtailed the bubble grows. Four more years of Obama managing the economy will not be a boon to jobs. If we haven’t figured that out yet, we better start studying quickly. There’s a big test coming in November.

I fully appreciate the college financing issue. But the education model is broken. Colleges seem to raise tuition in lock step with increases in government aid, so no progress is made. Colleges also seem to be afraid of not attracting enough students so they fill their course catalogs with nonsense courses that will interest no employer. The amount of debt piling up is frightening, but hey, we have a president to reelect. We’ll fix that later; just like Social Security, Medicare, budget deficits…

The Republicans are right to at least demand cuts in spending elsewhere to pay for this. They know the problem won’t get fixed or even addressed with Obama at the helm. We have to hang on for another six or seven months to cancel Obama’s contract and then prepare to roll up our sleeves and undo the damage he has done.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

It the last few days we have heard President Obama ranting about the Supreme Court. This is not anything new. You may also recall his unprecedented calling out of the Supreme Court as the justices sat in front of him during his State of the Union speech attacking them over the Citizens United v FEC case.

The Great Reconciler has also done this in other venues. After Paul Ryan released his budget last year, President Obama invited him to a speech on the budget and with Ryan sitting there devoted his speech attacking the Ryan plan. Very classy. Is this what we hoped and changed for?

Obama and the Constitution

What is most disturbing to me is what Obama is saying about the Supreme Court’s role with regard to the Constitution. What he is saying is approaching downright ignorance and yet he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. What did he teach his students? Where are these students today? Are they some sort of Manchurian Candidates to be unleashed with their own new-found ignorance upon us as lawyers and judges? Are we watching a bad science fiction movie?

‘I am confident,” announced the president of the United States, “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” – President Barack Obama, earlier this week.

Unprecedented? What exactly is unprecedented? What is extraordinary? Striking down a law? That capability of the Supreme Court was established by the Marbury v Madison  case in 1803. One hundred fifty-eight acts of Congress have been overturned by the Supreme Court since Marbury. Sounds like a lot of precedent to me.

A strong majority? ObamaCare was passed by a margin of 219 to 212. What would a weak majority be? Actually, since we often hear our liberal friends cry out for bipartisanship, let me point out that there was bipartisan opposition to ObamaCare. Every Republican and thirty-four Democrats voted against it. Only Democrats voted for it.

Passed by a democratically elected Congress? Is there another kind of Congress than a democratically elected one? Also, in order for a review by the Supreme Court, a law by definition has to be passed by Congress. Otherwise it is just a bill and has no effect on anyone. Doesn’t constitutional law professor Barack Obama know any of this? Isn’t he embarrassed to be saying such things? It is clear that most American citizens, sixty-seven percent by some polls, think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Do they understand the Constitution better than a man who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend it?

I think an effort should be made to find every student who sat in one of Barack Obama’s constitutional law classes. Give them a test on their comprehension of the Constitution. If they fail, force the University of Chicago to refund their tuition for that course and send them to take Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101. It’s a free ten week course and perhaps the students can help out by donating their refunded tuition money to Hillsdale.

We should all be very concerned that this kind of thinking is being taught in our law schools and will one day come back to destroy the Constitution. Some on the left are trying to call any invalidating of ObamaCare as judicial activism on the right. Adhering to the founding principles and the original intent behind the Constitution is not activism, it is the sworn duty of the justices. If you want to know what activism sounds like, go no further than the words of Associate Justice and former chief counsel of the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.”

It is judicial activism for the court to try to salvage Congress’ work. It violates the separation of powers. It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the law not make the law. If they interpret the law to be unconstitutional it is not their job to fix it. That’s Congress’ responsibility, but Ginsburg knows full well that the Congress that passed this monstrosity isn’t there any more and will not be there again any time soon. There is a new Congress that was swept in, to a large extent based on the outrage over ObamaCare. Ginsburg is afraid that if the Supreme Court doesn’t salvage it, sending it back to Congress would put the final nail in the coffin. RIP.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

I just got a survey request from my Congressman Tim Bishop. I started to fill it out but it was limited in its responses. Limited to what could easily be tabulated and put into a self-serving graph, but the same limited responses also spoke volumes.

He introduced his survey with two wishes:

I’d like to know how you think Congress can best help your family this year.

I hope you will take a moment to tell me what you believe my priority should be in Congress for 2012.

The first question tells all about what is wrong with Tim Bishop’s thinking, Barack Obama’s thinking, and why we are heading off a cliff. So let me answer the question. Tim, get a copy of the Constitution. Go to a quiet room; sit down and read it. If you don’t immediately grasp the meaning of the document you took an oath to support, may I recommend you buy a copy of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, it will help explain it to you. It is not Congress’ job to help my family. That is my job. Congress’ job is primarily to defend our borders (think Mexico), interact with foreign nations, and to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations; to coin money, not print it without end so that it becomes increasingly worthless (see Bernanke); provide a federal court system and that’s about it. Everything else is left to the states and to the people (see Amendment 10).

To answer the Congressman’s second question, I would say, Tim, stop doing everything else. Stop spending money like there is no tomorrow because there is a tomorrow and my children, and yours too, will have to pay all this debt back. There is no one to bail out the United States of America.

If Barack Obama wanted to be a venture capitalist, perhaps he should have applied for a job at Bain Capital. It is not his job, nor yours, to gamble our tax dollars on your favorite pet project. It is not your job to tell Boeing where they can or can’t locate their factories.

Before I could stop myself I clicked on the link to get to the actual survey and here were Congressman Bishop’s choices:

• Lowering taxes for the middle class
• Access to affordable higher education
• Caring for our veterans when they return home
• Investing in transportation and water infrastructure
• Creating incentives for companies to insource jobs
• Other (where he provides a tiny box to type in your own priority

Let me take them one at a time.

• Lowering taxes for the middle class – Who decides where the middle class begins and ends? Where in the history of this country has class warfare led to greatness? We are perilously close to the point where the majority will pay no federal taxes but will have the power to demand from the minority that they provide and pay for whatever they want. Of course, I expect Congressman Bishop to shoot back that everyone pays payroll taxes. Payroll taxes do not fund the operation of the federal government. In the case of Social Security everyone who pays in expects to get every dollar back and then some. It is a lousy savings plan not a tax that funds government. Medicare/Medicaid is similar in that everyone expects to get it back in the form of free health care if they become impoverished or when they reach sixty-five years of age.
• Access to affordable higher education – This is building the next bubble. At some point students who graduate will not be able to afford to pay their skyrocketing college debts and will default and we will be forced to pick up the tab. Every time the federal government offers scholarship money, say, $1000 to students, you can bet colleges will increase tuition by $1000 shortly thereafter. Higher education is ripe for a new paradigm.
• Caring for veterans when they return home — I would bundle this under providing for the national defense and since that is included in the Constitution that is a legitimate function of the federal government.
• Investing in transportation and water infrastructure — the government doesn’t invest in anything, they spend money. The left which is constantly trying to hide what they are really doing stopped calling spending, spending because it was out of control. By calling it investing, they thought it had a degree of sophistication about it. When you invest in something you expect to get all your money back and a decent rate of return on it as well. We pay gasoline taxes that are supposed to pay for the roads and bridges that are falling down. Where is that money? What happened to it? Secondly, this is not a federal function. Every state has (or should) have taxes on gasoline or tolls on roads to maintain them. Someone in Maine shouldn’t be paying taxes to fix roads in Hawaii. If every state should take care of its own roads and water needs. If a bridge or road or river goes between two states, those two states can join forces to manage those joint properties, it doesn’t require Washington’s meddling. Of course, Tim Bishop will plead that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution calls for such meddling. Not true and here’s why (click for an explanation).
• Creating incentives for companies to insource jobs — This one is simply Tim Bishop’s manufactured campaign issue against his likely opponent. It is not the job or the talent of the federal government to pick winners and losers. Does Tim Bishop really want to send the thousands of auto worker jobs from Toyota, Nissan, and Honda back to Japan? BMW back to Germany? Chrysler jobs to Italy (Chrysler is now owned by Fiat of Italy)? Or does he just want to make American firms uncompetitive and force them to lay off workers. It was a study at Dartmouth University that showed that for every job outsourced overseas, two new jobs were created in America. So why does Tim Bishop want to do the exact opposite of what might actually create jobs here and lower unemployment (Hint: he thinks he can fool the people into reelecting him)

Nothing could be clearer than if we want to get America back on track, this kind of thinking has to go. If I have a problem that government is causing, I want to go first to the mayor of my village, next to the supervisor of my town, then the county executive of my county, then the governor of my state. I don’t need to try to hack through the massive bureaucracy of Washington to get anything done and Tim Bishop is only one of 435 representatives. Why would any sane person want to give away that much control to Washington?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

We know that Tim Bishop hates outsourcing. He has gone so far as to introduce new legislation to prevent outsourcing of call center jobs. Tim Bishop may be a very big oursourcer himself.

Tim Bishop supported the auto bailout of GM and Chrysler with tax dollars. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat, an Italian automaker. That means that all Chrysler employees who are not employed in Italy, are by Tim Bishop’s definition, outsourced. If he is consistent with his beliefs he should demand that all Chrysler jobs be relocated to Italy, so that this invidious outsourcing is stopped.

GM, the other half of the auto bailout Bishop voted for, although still an American company took taxpayer dollars and then increased the amount of automobile production overseas by 35%. More outsourcing.

So, Tim Bishop is outraged by the amount of outsourcing going on by private companies, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem taking your money through taxes and outsourcing jobs as long as a big union, such as the United Auto Workers, is in favor of it. If a union like the Communications Workers of America complains about call center jobs being outsourced it’s an outrage, and Tim Bishop takes umbrage with that and introduces legislation to stop it. If another union, the United Auto Workers, begs the Obama administration to bail them out even if it means outsourcing more jobs, Tim Bishop blithely goes along.

So, which is it Tim? Is outsourcing good or is outsourcing bad? Or do you just not have a clue? Don’t answer that until you hear from Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, the CWA, the UAW, United Federation of Teachers or whomever else does your economic thinking for you.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congress passed yet another extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. The Republicans did it to take the political issue off the table for the election. Tim Bishop and the Democrats passed it because they think it is good governing.

Payroll taxes are for a very specific purpose, to fund Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that are growing at a dangerous rate. So, hey, what better idea than to take money away from them. Let’s look at it very simply.

Suppose there was no Social Security and instead everyone had individual retirement plans and were contributing the same amount to those plans that they currently pay into Social Security. In tough times, maybe you scale back those contributions, but you fully realize that there will be an impact down the road. Either you will have less money when you retire, or you will have to contribute more when you are back on your feet to catch up. That is living in a responsible world. But Tim Bishop doesn’t live in a responsible world. He lives in an entitlement world which means he hands out goodies to buy votes and when later comes, he won’t be around to answer for it. He will be too busy admiring some post office that got named after him for his dedicated service.

The payroll tax is basically robbing from Social Security. There is no choice involved. If you had your own plan you would have the liberty to decide if you wanted to cut back on contributions to your retirement or not. Some would, some might not. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to increase the payroll tax once the Obama administration stops killing the recovery. Again, if there were private plans, you could decide to pay more into the plans when you are working again. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to decrease future benefits to make up for the shortfall in contributions. Once more, if you had a private plan those would be options you would be at liberty to choose among. Instead we have this from The New York Times:

Democrats could count far more policy victories in the bill: the payroll tax break will not be paid for, large changes that Republicans sought to the unemployment insurance program were not realized, and the program was extended far beyond what the opposing party sought.

Did you get that folks? It is a victory for Democrats that we don’t pay for this so that the Social Security problem that President Obama so scrupulously avoided in his latest budget fantasy just gets kicked down the road. What we really need to do is kick Tim Bishop and the rest of his Democrat colleagues in the House and the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid out of Congress. Let’s replace them with grown-ups who will make the tough choices to get us back on the same track for the good of the country rather than their personal self-interest.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

To many conservatives Mitch McConnell is a sellout. To me, he is a parliamentary master who held off a filibuster-proof majority by his fingernails until reinforcements arrived in the person of Scott Brown. He kicked off his address to the crowd with a little humor.

McConnell said that conservatives are more fun because we are always right. He then quoted what Democrats believe in by quoting from Saul Alinsky. It is all about division and smearing your opponents. But it is going to be a tough task with the president’s record.

The president believes in rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Examples include: the Keystone pipeline, Solyndra, Goldman Sachs. He preaches diversity and then attacks Catholics.

This is about Obama’s policies. He asked for and received from his Democrat Congress, nearly $1 trillion so that unemployment could be kept under 8% and since then it hasn’t been below 8%. The average length of unemployment under Obama is forty weeks. The unemployment rate for African-Americans is over 14%, for Hispanics it’s 10.5%, for recent college graduates it’s over 10%. He promised to cut the deficit in half and the deficit has been above $1 trillion for the fourth straight year. He ignored his own deficit commission.

Obama believes in bigger and bigger government. Today, the earnings of federal workers is 60% higher than those in the private sector who pay those salaries. Layoffs of federal employees is running at less than 300 per year, meaning there is a higher probability of a federal worker dying of natural causes than getting laid off. Meanwhile Obama has added 150,000 to the federal payroll. We are supposed to believe that there is no possible way to shrink the federal payroll because of how important government is to life in America.

In just nine months we will have a chance to let Obama know what we think of his vision of big government.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

At CPAC Marco Rubio showed some of the traits that make him a leading candidate for Vice President no matter who the Republican nominee happens to be. He mixed humor and personal narrative.

Rubio spoke with a degree of awe about arriving in the Senate. He wondered to himself, “How did I get here?” But after spending time in Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate he looked around and wondered, “How did they get here?”

Getting more serious he talked about President Obama’s State of the Union address and how the president scrupulously avoided talking about his record. Why? Well, Rubio explained, for two years President Obama had a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate, which until the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace him, they had a filibuster-proof majority. So for two years he got everything he wanted and since then, everything has gotten worse.

So what did Obama say in the State of the Union address? He chose to pit Americans against each other. He is trying to sell the American people on a bill of goods that says we are a zero-sum society. That is, for someone to get ahead, someone has to get pulled down. But that is not true, but Obama needs us to believe it so that he can get people to vote for him.

Rubio then related to his own family saying that he felt his father and grandfather were better men than he, but Rubio has advanced as far as he has because he was born in the greatest country in the world.

He then made a telling point. He said that Republicans try to attract followers by arguing who is more like Ronald Reagan. Do you ever hear Democrats argue about who is more like Jimmy Carter?

What is government’s role, he asked? We should have an understandable tax code so that individuals and businesses can make decisions for business reasons not tax reasons. We need regulatory reform. Yes, we all want clean air and clean water but with sanity. We don’t have an energy policy, we have energy politics. While in office for three years President Obama had no plan for Medicare, but as soon as Republican Paul Ryan came up with a plan, he attacked it.

Summing up, Rubio said that President Obama seems to be a really good father; he seems to be a really good husband; but he is a terrible president. I couldn’t agree more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich don’t like each other. Okay, okay, they hate each other at a visceral level. If our core goal is to replace Barack Obama, what are we to do?

Mitt Romney has been described as the establishment candidate. Until this past Tuesday, he finished first or second in every primary contest, but he hasn’t closed the deal with conservatives. He has been steady in the mid 20s percentage-wise but cannot seem to break out. He has pulled no punches in his attacks on Newt Gingrich and Gingrich has felt their sting. If Gingrich were to win the nomination I have my doubts that Romney or any hardcore Romney supporters would back Newt. That’s not good.

Newt Gingrich has made some bizarre attacks on Romney using terms like predatory capitalism and demonizing Romney on where he does his banking. This is pretty strange stuff for a conservative. The super pac that is behind Newt produced a film on Romney and Bain capital that was so full of distortions that even Gingrich in the middle of one of the debates said they should correct the errors or pull the film. If Romney were to win the nomination I don’t believe Gingrich or his supporters would work for Romney’s election. That’s not good.

Rick Santorum has stayed clear of the politics of personal destruction. In one of the recent debates he even called for a truce between Romney and Gingrich and the media’s blood-lust to egg them on. He praised both Gingrich and Romney for their accomplishments and then asked the moderator if the focus could be on national issues. That lasted about sixty seconds.

Santorum has won four out of the first seven contests and while the ones he took were not the big ones, he is also running on a shoestring budget. He has taken on RomenyCare beyond the individual mandate. When he runs a campaign appearance he doesn’t make a speech and dash off; he stays and answers questions.  He does not have the ego of a Gingrich who claimed, when his star was rising before Iowa, that he was essentially the nominee, nor has he asked anyone to drop out of the race to clear his way, as Gingrich asked Santorum to do.

Santorum does have to step up his economic game. He will not win on social issues alone. His tax plan calls for greater deductions for having children and zero taxes on manufacturers which smacks of picking winners and losers like the current administration.

This will be the most important election of our lifetime. We have to put winning above personal ambition. If we want a strong conservative who can win, Santorum deserves a closer look.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Tim Bishop continues to push his manufactured campaign issue, with the full union backing of the Communication Workers of America, to fight against outsourced call centers. He calls it a “surgical strike”. I think there are more appropriate names for it.

It’s always fun to listen to someone who hasn’t spent a day outside of academia or government tell the rest of us, a) what the problem is; and b) what the solution is. The first question that I would ask Congressman Bishop is “why is this such an important issue for your constituents?” Answer: It isn’t. There are no major call centers in his district and there are none that I know of that are weighing a move to his district. So why is this his major legislative focus?

He is desperately looking for an issue, any issue, that he can campaign on. He cannot campaign on his record. He cannot campaign on a record of supporting the Obama economic disaster. He cannot campaign on how much the debt ballooned on his watch. So Doctor Bishop wants to do a little surgery and penalize companies who outsource call centers. Since Bishop never held a job that produced anything for a profit he can be excused for not grasping the impacts of his proposed bill.

One of his provisions is to make companies that have outsourced call center jobs overseas ineligible for government contracts. Two of the largest US PC manufactures HP and Dell and they both have call centers overseas. So does Congressman Bishop want the stop the federal government from buying PCs from HP and Dell? Who should they buy them from? Chinese Lenovo, Taiwan based Acer? Japan’s Toshiba? Speaking like a general he says it is a surgical strike. Well surgical strikes are designed to limit collateral damage, and Bishop’s plan is chock full of collateral damage.

Here is how Bishop could really help the situation. First, take a basic economics course. Study how the global economy works and how free global trade helps everyone. Perhaps he should ask his backers at the Communications Workers of America, what they can do to make call centers in the US more cost-effective. Do they have too many work rules in their contracts? Do they force their members to pay union dues to pay for the union to back Bishop and Obama? If their dues were limited to collective bargaining, perhaps employers could afford more call center jobs in the US. Tell Obama we need to slash the corporate tax rate so that companies do not save billions of dollars by locating operations in overseas countries with lower tax rates and then trap those profits overseas so they can’t be brought back to create jobs here.

But that may be too much to ask of Mr. Bishop before November. So here’s a better idea. Step down, and let someone who has actually created jobs take your place.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

While wiping his feet on the First Amendment by trying to force Catholic institutions to bend to his will and force them to provide services that go against their core beliefs, President Obama took time to lecture us on the Bible, and twist it to fit his reelection campaign. This outrage doesn’t get a pass.

The Bible Supports Obama’s Tax Plan

Obama tried to use the bible verse about from those who have been given much, much is expected, as a call from God to pay more taxes. To follow the Buffett Rule, if you will. Here is the verse from Luke 12:48:

When much has been given a man, much will be required of him.

But the context is in terms of doing the master’s will, not paying taxes. When it comes to paying taxes, Jesus was asked specifically about it. Here is that passage:

They sent some Pharisees and Herodians after him to catch him in his speech. The two groups came and said to him: “Teacher, we know you are a truthful man, unconcerned about anyone’s opinion. It is evident you do not act out of human respect but teach God’s way of life sincerely. Is it lawful to pay the tax to the emperor or not? Are we to pay or not to pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you trying to trip me up? Bring me a coin and let me see it.” When they brought one, he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose inscription is it?” “Caesar’s,” they told him. At that Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” Their amazement at him knew no bounds – Mark 12:1-17

When asked specifically about taxes Jesus dismissed them, seeing the political trap. Jesus didn’t say let’s go to Rome and lobby for the least of our brothers. He didn’t say, you know, we need a new government program. He didn’t tell of the Good Samaritan, calling his Roman Senator to pass a new law to provide free health care for victims of highway robbery found laying in a ditch. He said we should take care of such things ourselves, not pass the buck to someone else. So instead of asking the rich like Romney to pay more in taxes, ask Joe Biden how much he gives of the public’s money, that he has been living off most of his adult life, to charity. See if Obama wants to brag about so-called Catholic Biden, giving an average of $1 a day to charity while pulling down a tidy six figure income. Since 2010, Romney gave $7 million to charity. What about the Obamas? Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent. As former Louisiana Senator Russell Long famously said, “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” It is hypocrisy at its boldest. But then this president has never been shy.

Wasted Gifts

What should be embarrassing to Obama is that the passage he used really refers to him. Who has been given more than Obama?  He grew up in Hawaii, he got an Ivy League education, he has drawn a salary from the public trough as an Illinois state senator, a U.S. Senator, and President of the United States. What has he done with these gifts? We know he has played golf over ninety times, he has taken long vacations, he plays basketball every week, and rather than meeting with members of Congress he stonewalled them and then blames them for the state we are in. Let’s take the passage from Luke that Obama quoted and back it up a few verses:

The Lord said, “Who in your opinion is that faithful, farsighted steward whom the master will set over his servants to dispense their ration of grain in season? That servant is fortunate whom his master finds busy when he returns.”

It is not the rich who according to Obama do not pay enough taxes that the Bible refers to, but him, who was given bountiful gifts from God but squandered them. What would Jesus say to Illinois Senator Obama who opposed legislation that if a woman went to a hospital to have an abortion and if the child was actually born alive, the surviving child should be given all necessary medical care? Is that caring for the least of his brothers? Is that emulating the Good Samaritan? Is there no level to which Obama will not stoop to get himself reelected? America has had enough of this president. America deserves better.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.