Above is a photo of the Occupy Wall Street protesters tussling with police as they blocked off the Brooklyn Bridge:

About 700 protesters were arrested after a horde of anti-Wall Street demonstrators swarmed the Brooklyn Bridge yesterday, halting traffic for more than three hours and clashing with cops on the famed span. Up to 100 cars were left stranded as the loud, angry crowd covered the crossing from end to end in an inflamed day of demonstrations against high unemployment, bank bailouts and financial pain for the masses.

One irate driver, a Ground Zero construction worker, was livid. “I work my ass off all day, and these goddamned hippies close down the Brooklyn Bridge so I can’t get home?” he said. “This ain’t right!”

No, it certainly ain't right, but the OWSers don't care about that. In their quest for attention, they don't care about anyone else's rights, just their own. I'm not sure how the OWSers associate the Brooklyn Bridge with Wall Street greed, or how they think blocking traffic for hours is going to accomplish anything other than pissing people off. The arrest of the 700 was the largest mass arrest since 1200 lefties were arrested at the 2004 Republican National Convention. I bet the media is going to be all aflutter over this spectre of left-wing violence….or not. Media hysteria is reserved for peaceful right-wing protests. When lefties get arrested, the subject magically morphs into police brutality.

I have a few observations:
1) Who knew there were still hippies ? Far out, man. Let's have a concert ! We can call it it Wallstock.
2) Isn't this anti-Wall Street protest about three years late ? At least the Tea Partiers showed up to protest the bailouts AS THE BAILOUTS WERE HAPPENING. Where were the OWSers ? I assume they overslept, as hippies are prone to do.
3) If the OWSers were really looking for jobs, they wouldn't be protesting for weeks on end. Also, as stated in the above link, lots of OWSers are making trips to the ATM machine in between railing against corporate personhood and chanting "People Over Profits". They don't seem to mind when the corporate machine spits out twenty dollar bills at them.

Btw, has anyone noticed that the OWSers are overwhelmingly white ??? This seemed to be a big issue with the Tea Party protests for some reason, so I thought I'd mention it. I know how concerned liberals are about this type of thing.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters, to date, have been rebels without a cause. No, strike that. They have a cause, or at least a vague idea of a cause. The OWSers know they're against capitalist greed, namely Wall Street, but unlike most protest movements, the OWSers haven't had any list of demands or solutions. Their message, if there is one, is muddled. You'll see a guy with an "Equal Taxation For All" sign standing next to a guy holding an "Eat The Rich. 90% Top Tax Rate" sign. Rather than rebels without a cause, you might say they've been rebels without a clue.

But a message of sorts is forming. This comes from the Brooklyn Bridge fiasco:

Once the demonstrations began, the crowd bellowed together as they marched: “Show me what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like!” Organizers of the amorphous group issued an ominous “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City,” Thursday night.
“No true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power,” the group declared. “We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.”

And there you have it. According to the OWSers, democracy looks like, um, a small group of people imposing it's will on the general public. Yes, how very democratic of the OWSers, assuming the word "democratic" is synonymous with "mob rule". I'll have to check my Webster's. Something seems amiss. The rest of that OWSer philosophy sounds all too familiar. If only we could get rid of those private corporations who "run our governments", then we'd live in a world of "justice", without "oppression", and….blah, blah, blah. It's all been said a thousand times before. Some countries have even succeeded in getting rid of those private "robber barons" (USSR, Cuba, pre-market Communist China, etc). The only thing that has ever happened when free enterprise is repealed is that the government becomes an all-powerful tyrant where the people have no rights whatsoever, and no economic recourse whatsover. The people become serfs controlled 100% by their government overlords. At least with corporations, the participation of the public is voluntary. We don't have to buy their products or do business with any corporation. When the government is all-powerful, it FORCES you to bend to it's will. In the "true democracy" of the OWSers, individual choice is obliterated. What emerges from the ashes of free enterprise is totalitarianism. If that's OWS "democracy", you can count me out.

It seems some of the OWSers have developed a list of demands, which I call 'Repeal Reality And Replace With Economic Suicide'. Some of the individual ideas are not terrible, but when you take them all together…what a disaster:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

Hopefully, I won't have to explain how insane the above collective demands are to anyone…except to the Reverend, of course. The debt forgiveness proposal alone would collapse our financial system in a hearbeat, while the $20 minimum wage would skyrocket unemployment at the same time the government is spending trillions and trillions of dollars and the open borders policy would bring in millions looking for jobs….oh sorry, I'm starting to explain the insanity, after I said I shouldn't have to. Maybe I should call the OWSer plan 'How To Turn America Into A Third World Country Overnight', because that's what it would do. God forbid these lefties ever get what they are asking for. I have too much compassion for them to wish them such a fate.

I have a special Homer Simpson "DOH!!!" shout-out for Demand Three, where people get a living income whether they have a job or not. Hippies everywhere will love that one, but, how many people would go to work if they were paid whether they did or not ??? Answer – not many. God, lefties are dumb. I never stop being amazed.

You can see some of the OWS signs here. Below is my absolute favorite Rebel Without A Clue OWS sign (Don't look if you are offended by obscene language):

Yeah, man !!! We're offended by sh*t ! It's bullsh*t, and we want it replaced with different sh*t !!! F*ck !..and oh yeah, Peace !

How eloquent. A product of the public school system, no doubt.

This is a followup to my previous post.

I nearly fell off my chair when I read that the Castro brothers, who lead Communist Cuba, directed their puppet parliament to condemn the Arizona immigration law. Cuba passed a resolution calling the law "racist and xenophic," and said it was "a brutal violation of human rights."

Wow. I'm not quite sure how to process propaganda as dishonest and hypocritical as this. I suppose the best spin I can put on the Cuban resolution is to say…if anybody knows about brutal human rights violations, Cuba would. Their entire government is based upon violations of human rights. To illustrate this, I'll cite an article by KTAR.COM:

Several U.S. cities including Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego and Austin, Texas, have passed resolutions against the law or urged outright boycotts, and President Barack Obama has denounced it as "a misdirected expression of frustration." [But the denunciation of the law by Cuban lawmakers, who called it a "brutal violation of human rights," is sure to raise anger among U.S. backers of the law. The tightly controlled, communist-run island has long been criticized for its human rights record, which includes the jailing of 200 political prisoners, the banning of a free press and the outlawing of opposition political parties. Cuban citizens are required to carry identification with them wherever they go, and can be stopped by police and sent home if they are found in a part of the island where they don't belong.

Being lectured by Cuba on human rights is like….um…being lectured by Cuba on human rights. It's absurdity to the nth degree.

Now I'd like to examine President Obama's statement about the Arizona law being "a misdirected expression of frustration." Obama is right about Arizona's frustration. He just didn't bother to explain WHY Arizona is frustrated. The main reason they are frustrated is due to the inactivity of the federal government in enforcing our borders, which is the job of the federal government. The leader of our federal government is….drumroll, please….BARACK OBAMA. Ergo, the proper direction of Arizona's "misdirected..frustration" is toward OBAMA. The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, just wants Obama to step up and DO HIS JOB. In an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, Governor Brewer said the following:

VAN SUSTEREN: Has the president or anyone who works for him called up and said, hey, governor what do you need? Do you need help? Is there anything we can do for you?

BREWER: They haven't, Greta. It is really frustrating. We are on the battlefield getting the impact of all this illegal immigration and all the crime that comes with it.

No one — I have repeatedly sent letters to the administration and to the president of the United States with absolutely no response. I'm hopeful when I'm in Washington, D.C. in about a week I will be able to at least touch base with the secretary of Homeland Security and the president of the United States.

We need help. They need to do their job. They need to step up and secure our borders!

VAN SUSTEREN: Do all your letters go into a black hole? You get absolutely no response from the federal government at all?

BREWER: Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. You know, I would think at this point in time, I that I most people in America would agree, with all the discussion and all the misleading statements that are being made, that we would have heard in some avenue at least to contact me at least my Homeland Security people here in the state of Arizona.

Zip, nothing. We are too busy talking about it and saying mischaracterizations about what the bill actually does. We need help. We want our borders secured.

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm a little surprised — go ahead.

BREWER: And we want this illegal immigration — we are a nation of laws. I can't understand for the life of me when 70 percent of the American public agrees with Arizona that no one is taking any action, no one is calling us, no one is corresponding with us. It's very, very frustrating. We have the right in Arizona, as does everyone else in our country, to feel safe, and we cannot afford the expense that is the federal government's responsibility.

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm a little surprised that you don't get more attention, not only because the statute sent up a red flare into the sky, but also because the secretary of Homeland Security sat in your seat. She was Governor Napolitano of Arizona before she became secretary of Homeland Security. Have you had no conversation with her?

BREWER: None, nil. However, we did go back in the records and gather all the letters and requests of her communications when she was governor in regards to this issue. I thought we might be able to glean something from that or present them to her so they would have her memory refreshed as to what is taking place here with illegal drug smuggling and illegal immigration and the drop houses and the terror which our citizens live in day in and day out you along the border.

VAN SUSTEREN: Were her letters like –

BREWER: You know Greta — pardon?

VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.

BREWER: I said, we are just fed up we can't withstand any more. It is unfair, un-responsible. We have borders for a reason. A nation without borders is like a house without walls — it collapses. And that is what is going to happen to our wonderful America.

And we can start the turnaround here in Arizona. That's what we intend to do. We are not going to stop. We need help, Mr. President.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are the letters that you have looked out from then Governor Napolitano, now Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, are her letters essentially like your letters? Did she face the same problems? Did she make the same requests? Did she say Arizona has the same problems you are saying Arizona has?

BREWER: Absolutely. We need our borders secure. We need our money from the federal government for the incarceration of the illegal immigrants that we have in our jails and in our prisons. She repeated it over and over. She sent a big blown up check of what they owed us.
So she knows. She understands. For her to say she hadn't even read the bill that I signed because she already had it on her desk is unconscionable. The bill is the same bill she had before her. We cleaned up the legislation. We made it so it would be constitutional. She and everybody else that is out there reminding the public exactly what that bill does and they don't understand the bill, they haven't even read the bill. It is frustrating. It is frustrating.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is your theory on why Secretary Napolitano isn't more cheerleading the issues or responding more because of the relationship?

BREWER: You know, I have asked myself on numerous occasions since I've been here and have been dealing with this border security issue, what is the motive? Why are they not enforcing the law? Why aren't they responding to us? They understand the problems. They get the same information that I get with the crime that has taken place on our land here and throughout America. We are the gateway. I don't know. What is their motive? It's just absolutely nothing. They stepped up, they helped Texas. They helped California. And here we sit, the drug corridor of the world.

THAT is the problem Arizona faces, as they are completely ignored by those in the upper echelons of power. The anger here should not be directed at Arizona. It should be directed at Washington D.C. for not doing their job.

And speaking of not doing their job, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, John Morton, said he might not process illegal immigrants sent to ICE by Arizona. If Morton sticks to this outrageous dereliction of duty, he should be fired. On ICE's website, the duties of ICE are described like this: “Formed in 2003 as part of the federal government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, ICE’s mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs laws.”

The 9/11 Commission emphasized that border security was critical in protecting the American people, and now we have the head of ICE saying he might choose NOT to do his job. I cannot freaking believe it.

What kind of mental derangement has infected so many of this country's leaders ? And how do we cure it before it spreads even further ? Up is literally becoming down. Something is seriously amiss.

The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard - “Imagine if somebody were to really sit down with Osama Bin Laden and say, ‘listen man,what is it that you’re so angry at me about that you’re willing to have people strap bombs to themselves, or get inside of airplanes and fly them into buildings.’ That would be the miracle if we can get, sit down and talk to our enemies and find a way for them to hear us.” – Hollywood actor Matthew Modine

Alrighty then. Even though Modine is a big-time Hollywood movie star who has made such great films as…um, let's see…well, I can't think of one right now….he's an airhead. Here's an idea. Let's airdrop the airhead actor into Waziristan and have him serve as the ambassador of peace and love in dialogues with Osama Bin Laden. The later video that would surface of Modine's beheading would serve as a learning lesson to all like-minded naive liberal douchebags.

Note to Modine – it is well-documented why Bin Laden hates us. Maybe you'd know why if you didn't have your head stuck so far up your own blowhole. Btw, Matty, one of the reasons Bin Laden hates us is because of our culture, as portrayed in HOLLYWOOD MOVIES. Bin Laden would love to have YOUR head on a stick.
===
Dumbest Statement Of The Week - This comes from our Treasury Secretary, Tim 'TurboTax' Geithner. From Fox News:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday it's "deeply unfair" that some financial institutions that got taxpayer-paid bailouts are emerging in better shape from the recession than millions of ordinary Americans. He acknowledged public outrage over that and said people watched with disdain as Washington protected high-risk banks and investment houses, even as the national unemployment rate was soaring to double-digit levels for the first time in a generation. But in a nationally broadcast interview, Geithner also argued that President Obama had no choice when confronted with a financial crisis. "As the president has said, we had to do some very unpopular things," Geithner said. "People looked at what had happened."

"It's not fair. It's deeply unfair," he said. "He (Obama) had to decide whether he was going to act to fix it or stand back … and that would have been calamitous for the American economy."

As great as it is to have TurboTax Tim pedaling disinformation for Obama, I'd be remiss not to point out that the TARP program, which bailed out those financial institutions, came from President Bush, not President Obama. Obama's contribution to the recovery was the stimulus package. Geithner didn't mention that in his statement, but he did say the following:

The secretary agreed that the national jobless rate — now at 9.7 percent — is "still terribly high and is going to stay unacceptably high for a very long time" because of the damage caused by the recession.

Um, if unemployment is going to stay unacceptably high for a very long time, doesn't that mean Obama's contribution, the $876 billion stimulus package, didn't work ?
===
Liberals vs. Conservatives - This is from an e-mail I received from a friend, original source unknown. It seems worth repeating now:

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a liberal is down-and-out, he demands that somebody else take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that the talk show host be removed from the air.

If a conservative doesn't believe in God, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal doesn't believe in God, he demands that all mentions of God be removed from the public arena.

If a conservative decides he needs health insurance, he goes shopping
for it, or figures out what he needs to do to afford it.
If a liberal decides he needs health insurance, he demands that someone else provide it for him at their expense.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it to his friends so they can have a good laugh.
If a liberal reads this, he will delete it because he's offended.

It's no surprise that liberals want to be called progressives these days. There's not much about them that evokes the root meaning of the word "liberal," which is "liberty," aka, "freedom." Liberals are all about coercion. "Progressive" coercion, of course. They know they can't do it all at once, or America would rise up against them. Instead, they take incremental progressive steps towards totalitarianism, or as Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev once put it, "Oh you Americans! You're so gullible! We'll spoon feed you socialism until you're Communists and don't even know it." That's the endgame of progressivism. When we are all dependent on the government for our survival, they have won. Checkmate. Freedom gone. Friedrich Hayek called it The Road To Serfdom.
===

If you want to know why the White House wishes to discredit Fox News, look no further than this post. Today, I'm going to post something I first heard from Glenn Beck (cue the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth). This is from a 2008 speech by Ron Bloom, President Obama's Manufacturing Czar:

Here's are Ron Bloom's relevant words from that video again:

"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."

Here we have Obama's Manufacturing Czar saying the free market is nonsense. This is the guy who's in charge of creating jobs in the manufacturing sector (yikes. Maybe the Associated Press is right when they say higher unemployment is "the new normal" for America). Bloom has a heavy union background, which is fine, but I'm left to wonder where Bloom thinks those union manufactured products are going to be sold, if not on that nonsensical free market. What is Bloom's alternative ? Is his alternative some type of government-controlled market ? When Bloom says in his next breath that he agrees with Mao that political power comes from the end of a gun, it does sound like government control is what he's talking about. If so, that's pretty frightening stuff, and about as unamerican as you can get.

I actually don't want to believe this. I hope there's some other explanation for Ron Bloom's words, and there could be. I hope this video is taken out of context, and he meant something else altogether, but I couldn't find anything on the internet to counter or provide more context to his statements. I really hope we don't have people in positions of authority in this country who believe such things.

Several conservatives are now running around saying, 'oh, look. Here's another Obama official endorsing Chairman Mao.' I have to take some issue with that, based upon my current knowledge. This isn't the same thing as Van Jones, Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, being an avowed communist. This isn't the same thing as Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director, saying Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers. This is just Ron Bloom agreeing with one thing Mao said, and I actually agree with Bloom and Mao about that one thing. Political power often DOES come from the end of a gun. That's why our founding fathers designed a Constitution to limit government power. That's why I believe in that Constitution, and believe in limiting government power as much as humanly possible. The more power we cede to the government, the more powerful that government gun becomes. That's also why the free market is NOT nonsense, as Bloom would have us believe. The free market is essential to a free country. There is no acceptable alternative. As our founding documents state, our rights do not come from men, they come from a higher power. Our government exists to secure those rights, not to trample all over them.

First of all, good riddance to Van Jones, President Obama's former Green Jobs Czar. As I wrote previously, he is a radical loon who doesn't belong anywhere near the White House. I'm glad he resigned (or was forced to resign. We may never know). I'd be more than happy to never write about him again, but some comments from Democrats subsequent to Jones' resignation, together with Van Jones own resignation statement, compel to bring him up one more time.

Let's start with liberal radio talker Alan Colmes, who said "Van Jones is a mainstream liberal." Wow. Let's hope not. If Van Jones is a mainstream liberal, then a mainstream liberal is a radical Communist revolutionary race-mongering anti-semitic 9/11 Truther who thinks white polluters are targeting minority populations, who thinks whitey is spraying toxins on illegal immigrants, who thinks the entire American capitalist system should be overthrown, who thinks Republicans are a**holes, who thinks all wealth should be redistributed, who thought the Rodney King race riots were righteous, and who supports Mumia Abu Jamal, the cop killer. If Van Jones is a mainstream liberal, this country is in even deeper trouble than I thought. I better step up my attacks on liberals. Granted, I have heard pretty much all the above sentiments echoed by liberals, but I thought it was mainly confined to the lunatic fringe of liberaldom, the acolytes so blinded by propaganda that they can't see what divisive hatemongers like Van Jones are promoting, which is nothing less than the destruction of the very system that made America the world's pre-eminent economic, scientific, and military power (note to liberals – if you were offended by this reference to American exceptionalism and feel urged to rebut it, YOU are one of the lunatic fringe).

Next up is former Vermont Governor and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who said Van Jones' resignation was a "loss for the country." A loss for the country ? What country, Cuba, Venezuela, or what ? Certainly not this one.

Then there is the laughable resignation statement made by Van Jones himself:

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy , opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

And, of course, by "vicious smear campaign," and "lies and distortions," Jones means – accurate, direct quotes of Jones exact words, with accompanying videotape and corroborating written proof. Jones is literally saying, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes ?" Classic.

The only remaining questions are:

How did Van Jones ever get to the White House in the first place ? Isn't there supposed to be a vetting process ? Will the "most transparent administration in history" bother to answer these questions ? I'd be amazed if it does. What I expect we will get is more of the usual non-answers from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, combined with the type of blather spewed by Obama's professional spin-doctor David Axelrod on Meet The Press. Check out Axelrod's changing responses to David Gregory's questions about Van Jones:

MR. GREGORY: Van Jones, who's been an adviser to the White House on environmental policy, resigned overnight because of some inflammatory comments he's made over time, including a petition he signed that blamed the government for the 9/11 attacks. Was this an issue that got to the president? Did he personally order that he be fired?

MR. AXELROD: Absolutely not. This was an, an–this was Van Jones' own decision. You know, he is internationally known as an advocate for green jobs. And that's the basis on which he was hired. He said in his statement that he didn't want his comments to become a distraction from the issue, which is so important to the future of our economy and communities around the country. And I commend him for making that decision.

MR. GREGORY: Was he the victim of a smear campaign as he alleges?

MR. AXELROD: Well, look, this is a–you know, the politician environment is, is, is, is rough and so, you know, these things get magnified. But the bottom line is that he's showed his commitment to the cause of creating green jobs in this country by removing himself as a, as an issue and I think that took, that took a great deal of commitment on his part.

MR. GREGORY: But was the president offended by what he said?

MR. AXELROD: I haven't spoken to the president about this. As you know, this, this thing has bubbled up in the last few days, and frankly, my conversation with the president have mostly been about health care, which is where our focus should be right now.

MR. GREGORY: Do you find it–what he said objectionable?

MR. AXELROD: Well, I haven't read all of, of his comments, either, David. Again, I'm focused on how we get health security for all Americans, how we get this economy moving in the right direction. We've pulled back from the abyss of a potential collapse and now we have to build for the future and get people back to work. I think those are the things that we should be focused on and that's what I am focused on.

Notice that Axelrod said "absolutely not" when asked if the President ordered Van Jones to be fired, but then in a later question said he hadn't even spoken to the President about Van Jones. Sounds like that "absolutely not" from Axelrod is an "official version" rather than a statement of fact, though it's always difficult to tell when, if ever, Axelrod is being honest. After that, Axelrod pretended to not even know what objectionable statements Van Jones made, in order to weasel out of answering another question. Like I said, spin is what David Axelrod does. He's not even very good at it (but better than Robert Gibbs, who is the Scott McClellan of the Obama administration, or worse), if you ask me, but he gets by with it, because the media never presses him very hard on much of anything.

In any case, bye bye Van Jones. Get your weak-ass crap outa here, and don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out. Maybe there's an opening for a Communist Green Jobs Czar in China. You can apply at culturalrevolution.com.

One of the most disturbing things about Barack Obama is not Obama himself, but rather some of the people around him, including several people he has put into positions of authority. I've already detailed the radical nature of a couple Obama administration personnel, Science Czar John Holdren and FCC Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd. Holdren has a number of crazy beliefs, among them being the idea that the U.S. Constitution doesn't entitle people to have children. Holdren declared “neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce" in his 1977 book, Ecoscience. Evidently, Holdren missed the second sentence in the Declaration of Independence – "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In Holdren's defense, he only attended MIT and Stanford. Maybe they don't teach the basics at those elite schools. I don't know. I could only afford to go to Podunk University in Backwater, USA (so I am oppressed and demand reparations ! Just kidding. My inner whiny liberal took over for a second there). Yet, somehow I know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution better than Holdren does. I must have read about it on a bathroom wall somewhere, or maybe at a gun show.

Mark Lloyd is another elite. He was a professor at Georgetown and a visiting lecturer at MIT prior to becoming a Hugo Chavez-loving Nazi hell-bent on destroying free speech on America's airwaves. Here's a quote from the well-educated Professor Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. . . . This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. . . . At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Yes, Mr. Lloyd, it certainly IS clear that your focus is not free speech. That's why you should take the Che poster down from the wall of your office, clean out your desk, and go peddle your commie crap someplace like Cuba or Venezuela, but not here. Not in this country. We still call this the land of the free, not the land of government diktat.

Another Communist in the Obama administration is the eminent Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. Mr. Jones went to Yale, so he's a real smart fellow, just like the other radical nutjobs I've mentioned. Jones claims to have been radicalized by the Rodney King verdict. By his own words, that drove him to embrace Marxism. I can't say I follow Mr. Jones' logic there, but like I said, I'm not one of the elite. To me, embracing communism because of a perceived American civil rights injustice is like jumping out of an airplane in flight because you don't like your seat. It's a hysterical and moronic overreaction. Maybe Jones doesn't realize that, under Communism, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CIVIL RIGHTS to begin with. What a boob, er, I mean, deep thinker. Liberal groups have been claiming that Jones radical Communist days are behind him, but here's Van Jones in April, 2009:

"This [green] movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing. We're not gonna put a new battery in a broken system. We want a new system. We want a new system!…And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt…What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who come here from all around the world who we're willing to have out in the field, with poison being sprayed on them, poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system. And we're willing to poison them and poison the earth to put food on our table, but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect?…We're really entering a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities."

Sounds to me like Jones is still a radical, and a race-baiter to boot. Whitey is poisoning people of color ????? We need to change the whole system ? Into what, Mr. Marxist ? Glenn Beck has been on a tirade against Van Jones for awhile now, and a group Van Jones founded, Color Of Change, has been trying to get Beck kicked off the air (which kinda proves Jones is a Communist. That's what Communists do, silence the opposition. They aren't about the free and open exchange of ideas, in case anyone hasn't figured that out yet).

The next commie-loving race-baiter on the radical hit parade isn't a member of Obama's administration, but her stupidity merits recognition. Her name is Diane Watson, Democratic Congresswoman from California. This woman LOVES her some Fidel Castro, and is so lost in identity politics that she can't even think straight. Dig it:

"You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. And he said early on, “I hope that he fails.”…And remember: They are spreading fear and they are trying to see that the first president that looks likes me fails [Watson is black]…. just want you to know: People look at the United States as a country that has changed its way and has elected someone from Kenya and Kansas, I’ll put it like that. And they’re saying, “We thought you would never do that.” So we don’t want to have this young man, and he just turned 48 — we want him to succeed, because when he succeeds, we regain our status. We regain our status….

It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, “Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?”

And lemme tell ya, before you say “Oh, it’s a commu–”, you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. [APPLAUSE]

And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found…well, just leave it there (laughs), an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro…"

First of all, Ms. Watson, we are allowed to oppose Obama's policies, even though he looks like you. His skin color is completely irrelevant, except to those like yourself who are too blind to see anything else. These race-based comments are really just attempts at thought suppression. There's no other way to view them.

About Cuba, yes, please, let's "go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place." I believe the generally accepted term for it is OPPRESSION, along with a health dose of POVERTY, as happens with all Communist states. Cuba is a police state. Fortunately, the Democratic primary challenger for Watson's congressional seat doesn't share Watson's myopic view of Cuban health care. Let's vote him into office.

The final person on today's list is Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar. This guy is an intellectual heavyweight. He's a former Harvard Law Professor, and an expert in constitutional law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. I'm not certain how radical he is, because he's a complex man, but he has at least some very confused ideas. Here are a few of his elite ramblings:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions"

This is quite the straw man argument. I don't know of a single person who doesn't think the government has a legitimate role to play. Government is uniquely qualified for certain roles, and those were laid out in the very beginning by the Constitution. What I distrust is GOVERNMENT INTRUDING INTO EVERY ASPECT OF SOCIETY, as it has been doing by gradual degree for my entire lifetime. And Mr. Sunstein, individualism is not "pernicious." Railing against it is.

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government"

This is Sunstein endorsing the Fairness Doctrine in order to control political speech. Looks like we have another nut who doesn't believe in free speech.

I just LOVE this next Sunstein quote. Love it.

“In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

Did we earn our own money ? Um, YES.
Did we earn it by our own efforts ? YES.
Could we have inherited it without probate courts ? YES.
Could we save it without bank regulators ? YES. (We could even save it without banks).
Could we spend it without public officials ? YES.

Sunstein sounds like the typical government drone, who thinks absolutely everything is derived from government. Wrong.

"Without taxes there would be no liberty," says Sunstein. To an extent, this is true, because taxation supports the government, which exists to secure our liberties. As George Washington said, "Freedom is not free." I think everyone agrees with that much. But should we "celebrate tax day" when our resources are stripped from us to pay for everything under the sun that the government can dream up, waaay beyond securing our liberty ? I think not. Should we celebrate pork barrel spending, special interest handouts, bailouts of the big corporations, the ripoff of our own Social Security system, private jets for congresspersons, trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities ? That would be NO. "Celebrate tax day," indeed. I'd almost as soon celebrate the day burglars broke into my home and stole my television, stereo, and my wife's jewelry. I never once thanked those burglars for helping to redistribute my wealth, nor will I thank the government for stealing my paycheck for unconstitutional purposes. Government exists to secure our liberties, not to rip them away.

I'm going to keep this real short. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The following cartoon describes exactly why people are protesting all across the country.

Any questions ?

I guess I should also say a few kind words about Sen. Ted Kennedy, since he's no longer with us…………………..ummm……………….

I had great respect for his brothers, both of whom were both gunned down – JFK by a left-wing scumbag, and RFK by a Palestinian scumbag who echoed the pro-Arab sentiments of the left-wing radicals of both his time and today. If you don't believe me, guess to whom Obama's buddy, the terrorist William Ayers, dedicated his communist manifesto ?? If you said 'Sirhan Sirhan' (among others), you win an autographed Che t-shirt. To claim your prize, go to you nearest ACORN office.

Kind of ironic that Ted Kennedy was known as the Liberal Lion at a time when the word 'liberal' is more associated with being a Leftist that ever, after the Leftists killed his brothers. That also goes back to the first point about Tea Parties. This is America. We don't need no stinkin' Leftists.

(Note to liberals – being anti-Leftist doesn't make one George W. Bush's soulmate. Try to keep that in mind. I'm tired of arguing that silly point).

To all those far left kooks (Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, The Reverend) who cling to the absurd idea that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and conservative free speech in general are somehow responsible for the heinous acts of the murderers James von Brunn and Scott Roeder, I say….

Stop being illiterate and pick up a history book. Almost all the biggest perpetrators of violence in history have come FROM THE LEFT. Here are a few examples.

Joseph Stalin – Communist – murdered 62 million
Mao Tse Tung – Communist – murdered 35 million (estimated)
Pol Pot – Communist – murdered 2 million
Che Guevara and Fidel Castro – Communists – Murdered 12,000, imprisoned 500,000
Adolph Hitler – Socialist (Nazis = National Socialist German Worker's Party) – 21 million killed
Augusto Pinochet – Communist – 3,000 killed
Mengistu Haile Mariam – Socialist Ethiopian dictator from the 1970's – one million starved to death
Slobodan Milosevic – Socialist – 230,000 killed, millions displaced
Maoist rebels in India – killed 10 policemen on June 10, 2009 – have murdered 6,000 in all in their 20-year struggle

Not to mention:

Lee Harvey Oswald – Killed JFK
Sirhan Sirhan – Killed RFK
The Manson Family
Weather Underground
Symbionese Liberation Army
Jim Jones
Kim Jong Il
ELF
James von Brunn (more on him follows)
…and about 100 other violent left-wing groups and/or persons, too numerous to list here.

For all those calling for an end to right-wing free speech over TWO acts of violence, big fat DUH ! You are only outing yourselves as anti-civil rights and anti-american. If right-wing speech should be censored or blamed for acts of violence, well, then left-wing speech must come from the very devil himself !!! About 120 million were killed due to left-wingers in the 20th century alone. You condemning lefties better become self-aware and get off the airwaves and blogs immediately. You're a menace to society, according to all this evidence, and according to your own words condemning the political right. Your condemnations amount to a drop of water in the ocean when compared to all the left-wing violence I've outlined here.

Or, you can all stop the insanity, and allow for the idea that free speech in America is essential, and stop trying to blame an entire wing of politics for the acts of one or two people. That's what sane people would do, even if my friend the Reverend isn't one of them. According to his latest post, which quotes yours truly several times, the Reverend tries to cast me as some type of villain due to the Brunn and Roeder murders, even though I condemn such acts. I haven't advocated anyone's murder for politicial purposes, not that the truth matters much to our dear Reverend. He's hopelessly lost in a partisan daze, I'm sad to say.

Update on James von Brunn, the white supremacist who attacked the Holocaust Museum. To everyone who thinks he was a right winger, you better think again. Brunn was a SOCIALIST, and was anti-Christian. When I wrote previously that Brunn was against Marxism, that was because Karl Marx was a Jew. Brunn favored western socialism and denounced capitalism. Following is an excerpt from Brunn's book, Kill The Best Gentiles:

Yockey, in his suppressed book Imperium, notes that MARXISM is seriously flawed because MARX, being a JEW, could not understand the real differences between CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM, which emanated from the WESTERN CULTURE-ORGANISM. Capitalism and Socialism are how a Nation (Family, People, Race) feels, thinks, and lives, and secondarily are ECONOMIC CONCEPTS. One [capitalism] is past history; the other, WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.

The Age of Reason produced CAPITALISM in the West, the IDEA of rugged individualism: “Every Man for Himself.” Freedom from authority: “Don't tread on me!” At the same time, paradoxically, it was understood, that these rugged individuals should act in the best interest of the Nation-State. To the West ECONOMIC CAPITALISM meant: free trade, no personal income-tax, no state interference in money matters, private ownership, etc. USURY, however, was relegated outside the Pale, and proscribed. Capitalists found no fault with economically defeating, within the law, opposing economic groups. That was considered “healthy competition.” European States, goaded by Bankers, also competed with one another. Often with disastrous results. During WWI it became painfully clear that the IDEA of “rugged individualism” worked against the ARYAN NATION and its individual States.

WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates not from Reason alone but from the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea is the Musketeers' cry: “One for All and All for One!” The ingathering of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM — its own territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the Nation — precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value — not an ILLUMINATI weapon.” (pp. 143-4). “No intelligent person took MARX seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil — and New Testament idea that men and races are equally endowed — opposes Nature and the very Soul of the West.” Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce “capitalist pigs.” While from behind the scenes — in the on-going battle to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION — all wars and revolutions are financed by JEW CAPITALISTS. (pp. 143-5.)

All left-wing accusers can start apologizing as of three, two, one…right now. We will accept your apologies. Of the three recent domestic terrorist attacks, two came from the left, and one from the right. Hardly evidence of right-wingers inciting violence.

If any of you read my last post, called A Deficit Disorder, you probably know my feelings regarding our federal government's economic policies range somewhere between cynical and disgusted. Lately, with mob boss Hugo Chavez Hank Paulson running the Treasury like Don Corleone, making the big banks an offer they can't refuse to force a partial nationalization of those institutions, "disgusted" might not be a strong enough term. Paulson even told Wells Fargo Bank, who didn't want to be nationalized, that if they didn't accept his offer, they should (cue Marlon Brando's Don Vito voice) "never seek my favors or protections again." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but Paulson really did say words to that effect. Heaven help us. That's what happens when you give the feds so much power.

So, I almost passed on watching the third presidential debate last night. However, I was interested to see if John McCain would go down fighting or go down easy, so I tuned in. I was glad I did. While the talking heads, with their sound-byte mentalities, were saying things like "McCain didn't score the knockout he needed", or that Barack Obama "didn't make a major gaffe" after the debate, I saw things much differently. I thought John McCain cleaned Obama's clock on almost every issue. As an economic Conservative and an economic Libertarian, I finally heard from McCain some of what I've been hoping to hear. I finally heard McCain outline some fiscal policies to balance the budget and reign in Fedzilla (as Ted Nugent calls it), and I finally heard McCain expose Obama for the wrong-headed, wealth redistributing, big government tax and spend liberal that he is. I only wish McCain had mentioned some of the fascist policies of the other two heads of the liberal triumvirate of terror who would control our government if Obama gets elected and the Democrats increase their control of Congress – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who would attempt to do things like eliminate the secret ballot in union voting (you VILL join ze union, comrade !) with the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, and squelch free speech on talk radio (which mostly happens to be Conservative free speech) by imposing the equally Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine. Ah, how I love the smell of our basic democratic principles burning in the morning.

McCain and Obama spent much time talking to Joe the plumber, who, after 15 years of working hard at his job, was finally in a position to own his plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's tax plans would steal his hard-earned success and limit his ability to expand his business. (you really need to watch the entire video of Obama and Joe talking here). Obama's answer really does amount to stealing Joe's success, squelching Joe's American dream, and Obama taking the fruits of Joe's labor and "spreading the wealth around" to others. It's classic big government liberal-speak. In contrast, McCain showed how his tax cuts for business and low capital gains tax rates would enable Joe to grow his business, allowing Joe to hire people and create jobs. Obama's answer to Joe is the perfect example of how big government high-tax policies work against wealth creation and economic expansion. Instead of penalizing Joe for his success, the government should get the hell out of the way of people like Joe and let them do their thing. That is what would benefit society. McCain also rightly pointed out that Joe the plumber is not rich, though he would be under Obama's entitlement mindset. When Obama talks about tax "fairness", there really is nothing at all fair about it. Joe the plumber mentioned the flat tax during his conversation with Obama. The flat tax would be fair, but to Obama, those "rich" folks like Joe, who pay 35% income tax rates, aren't being taxed enough, whereas the non-rich, who often pay little to no income taxes, deserve even more money from the government. Once again, the word "fairness" takes on an Orwellian meaning in liberaldom (some animals are more equal than others).

McCain also pointed out that the last president wrong-headed enough to increase federal spending and raise taxes during a severe recession like this one was Herbert Hoover. Hoover's policies are widely seen as leading to the 1929 Great Depression. Are we about to allow history to repeat itself by electing Obama ? McCain noted that we shouldn't be raising ANYONE'S taxes during these harsh economic times. Amen, brother. We should be cutting back on government spending and stimulating the economy instead, as McCain said he plans to do, with both a hatchet AND a scalpel, and the veto pen too. Aww, Johnny, you had me at "freeze government spending."

McCain's plans are responsible, at least relative to Obama's. Obama's plans are nuts, unless our desire is to create a socialist country. I know I don't want that. I hope you don't either. Our founders sure didn't, which is why we have that wonderful document called the Constitution. It's too bad that very few are paying any attention to it these days, and that goes for both sides of the political aisle, including both Barack Obama and Hank Paulson. I couldn't find where Paulson is allowed to forcibly nationalize privately owned banks anywhere in the Constitution, but I guess I just don't get the notion of the "living" and "evolving" Constitution (Damn right I don't).

McCain mentioned several times that Obama's answer to absolutely everything is more government spending, more government control, and more government, period. Obama would take our already overblown federal government and put it on even stronger steroids. That is exactly the wrong answer – wrong for liberty, wrong for fairness, and wrong for America. Taxes, while necessary, should always be kept as low as possible. We have an annual time known as Tax Freedom Day, which is when the average American has paid off his government tax burden. It varies from state to state, but now falls around the end of April. After the financial crisis is cleaned up, and counting all our unfunded liabilities and national debt, who knows, it might fall at the end of June, July, or even August. When the average American is working 4-6 months of the year just for the government, what is that, but forced labor ? And what is forced labor, but slavery ? Do we want to keep EXPANDING that ? Hell no. America isn't a government chain gang. That cannot possibly be good for any of us in the long run. Each and every one of us has a civic duty to keep America free, to keep taxes low, and to limit our Fedzilla, to keep the American dream alive. And if the citizenry can't see that now, with all that is currently going on in our country, then we are certainly doomed.

You can find a transcript of the third presidential debate here. McCain took it to Obama, finally, though I wish McCain had been even more forceful in making his case. In boxing parlance, McCain too often jabs and jabs, and then inexplicably backs off from throwing the overhand right that he just set Obama up for. Too bad, because I don't think Obama could hear the rest of us Conservatives delivering those overhand rights by yelling at the tv sets in our living rooms.

The political Left has two basic positions regarding business in America.

1) If a company is making a profit, they characterize the company as evil, and demand that their profits be taken away, so the government can use the money instead (this is known as THEFT in the non-socialist world, but you aren't supposed to think about that). It goes without saying that the bigger a company's profits grow, the MORE evil that company becomes. This means that Exxon-Mobil is the DEVIL INCARNATE.

2) If a company stops making a profit and loses money, the Left will subsidize the company (the Right tends to join in on this part too – Let's privatize profits, socialize losses, and join me on my yacht this weekend, old chum. Life is good).

The above is a twist on Reagan's old joke about government power: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; And when it stops moving, subsidize it.

A good example of #1 is Barack Obama traveling around the country telling everyone he wants to take the profits away from those evil oil companies (who, btw, enable our economy and society to function at a post-19th century level that keeps us off horseback and stagecoaches, but you aren't supposed to think about that. Just keep repeating to yourself – 'Oil Is Evil, Oil Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi (D-Venus) and Harry Reid (D-Mars) do. It's easier than thinking about things.

A good example of #2 is the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage mess, which included bailing out faltering companies like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those are private companies, aren't they ? Sure they are. Sort of. But talk about connected. They're practically a branch of government.

As far as I can tell, the following industries comprise the liberal Axis Of Evil Corporations: Oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. I provide this list as a public service, so you lay persons out there can know who you should hate. Financial companies used to be on the Axis of Evil list too, but they lost so much money recently that they are no longer evil. Now, they must be subsidized.

The mantra the Left uses to demonize profit goes like this: How dare those greedy so-and-so's at the (fill-in-the-blank) corporation make so much money, when that money could be used for a) a government program, or b) the children ? 'The children' is practically foolproof as an excuse for the government to steal money from the private sector. An autocrat can justify anything if it's 'for the children' You aren't supposed to think about the fact that business profits enable people to have jobs, get paid, and become prosperous. You aren't supposed to realize business profits are the reason you live in a house, have an automobile, a refrigerator, a stove, a television, a phone, electricity, heat, and food. You aren't supposed to realize those business profits earned in a free market made the United States the world's leading superpower. Again, thinking is your enemy. Just keep saying to yourself, 'Profit Is Evil, Profit Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (D-Cuba) do – and Karl Marx did.

Our Glorious Exalted Leader Obama has even taken it a step further. He has proposed a windfall profits tax on the Devil Who Is Called Exxon and the other oily devils, and wants to hand $1,000 of the Devil's profits directly to each American, so Obama can literally buy your vote, er, help you combat the high costs of energy this winter, costs that Obama and friends won't do anything to help lower for maybe 20 years, and only then if the requisite alternative energy miracle happens in the meantime (except for that nifty 'inflate your tires' tip. That was quite helpful. Thanks, BO. If you were running for gas station attendant, you'd definitely get my vote).

The Left hates profit because America isn't perfect. There are still problems here, unlike all those other utopian socialist paradises, like, um, well, uh……….er, never mind. There must be some somewhere. I just can't think of their names right now. Even though we spend nearly $2 trillion each year on some type of entitlement program, the Left reasons that just isn't enough. Not even close to enough. Ever more and more and more money must be spent by the federal government, and ever more and more and more of your money must be stolen through taxation. Then someday, when NOBODY has any money left and the government is our supreme overlord and master of all things, that perfect socialist utopian nirvana will be achieved. I think it says exactly that on Obama's website, because his answer to absolutely everything is for big government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. I guess that's easier than thinking too.

Color me skeptical. It seems like $2 trillion per year should be plenty enough to keep people out of poverty, to keep them from starving. Yet somehow, it isn't. Could the problem be the government itself ? Nah, that can't be it. Impossible ! It must be the Republicans fault. Dick Cheney must be taking that money and giving it to Halliburton or something. It's a conspiracy of some sort. I know it, even though I have no proof whatsoever. I mean, c'mon, that Cheney guy just LOOKS evil. He's all old and corporate and white and stuff. Who needs proof ? And Cheney shot his buddy on that hunting trip. Don't forget that. What more is there to know ?

An old and very wise saying about democracy goes like this:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.” – John Tyler

That was written in 1770, but it sounds pretty relevant to what's going on today.

Think of that when Barack Obama vows to steal someone else's money to give it to you, or to tax the hell out of the rich as if that won't affect you. It certainly will. We are just finishing with one president who didn't care much about fiscal responsibility, Dubya. Dubya was irresponsible on the spending side. Why on earth would we elect another president of "loose fiscal responsibility", but this time, on BOTH the taxation and spending sides ? $3 TRILLION per year should be plenty enough to run the federal government. Far more than enough, in truth. The tax and spend buck must stop here, or we will suffer serious consequences, the very ones John Tyler warned about back in 1770. Barack Obama wants to declare war on profits. I want to declare war on Barack Obama and all of his socialist/communist/totalitarian ilk, before it's too late.

During this week's superfluous dog and pony show hearings with the oil company executives, where Democrats worked up considerable vote-centric righteous indignation over the fact that the oil companies make profits (better they should lose money ?), representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) let the liberal cat out of the bag. When one of the oil execs blamed Congress for the high price of gasoline, citing the fact that Maxine Waters' Democratic party won't allow any domestic oil exploration (and hasn't for decades), Mz. Waters turned into Hugo Chavez, threatening like a good little commie to nationalize the oil industry. Waters seemed to realize what she was saying in mid-unamerican brain fart, and was momentarily at a loss for words. You really have to watch the exchange, it's priceless. It's not often you get a liberal on record telling the truth about their actual agenda. This is one of those rare times. Waters broke the liberal secrecy vow of 'never tell america what we really believe, or america will realize what radicals we are and never vote for us again'. Thanks to Hot Air for the video.

A few months ago, I heard Barack Obama (D-ILL) at a campaign rally, talking about how difficult it was going to be to take away the profits of the oil companies. When I heard Obama say that, I was thinking 'what gives YOU the right to take away the profits of the oil companies ?' They don't have that right, but Maxine Waters has shown the way. All the libs have to do is rescind capitalism and freedom. Piece of cake.

Hope I'm not being a divisive fearmongerer. Hey, what are those stormtroopers doing breaking down my front door ? I'll have to go see what they wa…

Parents "do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote California appellate Justice Walter Croskey.

The hell they don't, judge Croskey. Have you read the U.S. Constitution ? Apparently not. Makes me wonder how you got to be a judge in the first place. Or maybe you should stay away from those west coast medical marijuana stores.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

A California court ruled this month that parents cannot "home school" their children without government certification. No teaching credential, no teaching…The 166,000 families in the state that now choose to educate their children at home must be stunned.

No doubt. But look who's HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY about this act of judicial communism !

"We're happy," the California Teachers Association's Lloyd Porter told the San Francisco Chronicle. He says the union believes all students should be taught only by "credentialed" teachers, who will in due course belong to unions.

That's just great, Lloyd ! Think of all those brand new union dues ! Never mind the fact that home schooled kids perform way better than their public school counterparts.

For some parents, the motive for home schooling is religious; others want to protect their kids from gangs and drugs. But the most-cited reason is to ensure a good education. Home-schooled students are routinely high performers on standardized academic tests, beating their public school peers on average by as much as 30 percentile points, regardless of subject. They perform well on tests like the SAT — and colleges actively recruit them both for their high scores and the diversity they bring to campus.

Hmmm. That's an inconvenient fact for Big Brother. Sounds like they'll have to come up with some sort of phony excuse to impose the will of the Politburo here….

The case was initiated by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services after a home-schooled child reportedly complained of physical abuse by his father. A lawyer assigned to two of the family's eight children invoked the truancy law to get the children enrolled in a public school and away from their parents. So a single case of parental abuse is being used to promote the registration of all parents who crack a book for their kids.

I fail to see the justification for banning home schooling due to one case of child abuse. That's like banning automobiles because of one car crash.

This isn't the first time this was attempted. Congress made the effort back in the 90's.

In 1994, a federal attempt to require certification of parent-teachers went down in flames as hundreds of thousands of calls lit up phone banks on Capitol Hill. The movement has since only grown larger and better organized, now conservatively estimated at well over a million nationwide. But what they can't accomplish legislatively, unions are now trying to achieve by diktat from the courts.

Here we go again. This California judge isn't following the Constitution, he's attempting an end run around it. I'd love to hear the opinions of our three remaining presidential contenders on this issue. Let's see if any of the three still understand what liberty means. California has made all of the home-schooled children truants, and all of their parents criminals. At a time like this, I wish I didn't have an anti-profanity rule on this blog. I'll have to resort to cartoon profanity:

*&!!^$$!!* those *##!!%%%#ers !!!

Written by Karl Marx in 1848.

My question is, who is promoting this agenda in america today, and who stands against it ?

Here are the ten planks, along with my comments regarding the creeping signs in our country.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

Try not paying your property taxes, and you will find out who owns your property. It isn't you. The tax system makes you a renter, renting from the government. Your property taxes can also be raised at any time, without your vote, merely by a 'reappraisal'. The recent Supreme Court expansion of the powers of eminent domain in Kelo v New London, brought to you by the liberal wing of the court, also weakened property rights substantially. The government can now take your property away and give it to another private entity for the sole reason of increased tax revenue. You have virtually NO private property rights. You're a squatter, for as long as the government decides to let you squat.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Any questions as to which party advocates this the most ? You can add the Social Security Act to this also, since it is nothing but a hidden sham income tax with a welfare program at the back end. The 16th amendment, which made the income tax legal (maybe), violated the original Constitution, which said taxes were to either be direct and apportioned (all are taxed equally), or indirect. The income tax is direct and unapportioned.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

The Estate tax, Probate laws. Republicans want to abolish or lower the estate tax. Democrats want to keep it and even increase it.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

Confiscation of citizens property without due process (RICO laws), IRS confiscation of property without due process. Both parties are guilty here. Republicans passed the RICO laws, though many Republicans do want to abolish the IRS.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve System, a private entity that, incredibly, charges the government (we the people) interest on the money it prints. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, though it would be inaccurate to put the blame all on Democrats for this. Republicans are probably even more to blame.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

Hey, we've resisted this one pretty much, but we do have the FCC, DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, CONRAIL, and the post office.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Could illegal immigrants be our new industrial armies ? Could the high levels of taxation that caused mom and dad to both become part of the labor force be for that 'equal liability of all to labor' ? More workers means more government revenue means more government.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Okay, if you say so.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are taxed to support government schools. Democrats support keeping the government school monopoly. Republicans support vouchers and school choice.