Congratulations to Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) for capturing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He deserves it, since he did get the second most votes among all the Democratic contenders, and also due to his vast governmental, economic, management, leadership, and military experience and knowledge [assuming "vast" means "imaginary"]. During last night's inspirational victory speech, Obama declared, "America, this is your moment". I don't know what that means exactly, but it sounds good, and I guess I should be happy that America's moment coincides with Barack Obama's moment. I'm nearly breathless with anticipation, knowing America will cease to be the third world, poverty ridden, mean-spirited, unfair hellhole we've all had to endure thus far in our country's history. Maybe, just maybe (dare I dream ?), we will all cease to be so bitter and divisive (assuming you buy into that false Obama construct), and we can spend our days dancing and singing in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness [assuming "unity" means "no dissent from liberal doctrine", and "fairness" means "the government decides who can keep their own money and who can't"].

Liberals have been telling me conservatism is dead, because people "expect more from their government". Somehow, those people never recognize that getting "more from their government" only means that the government must take more from them, so they're not really getting anything, except maybe a bureaucracy, a middle man. Those people also never recognize that handing over ever more power to a centralized government is a really, really bad long term plan, because once the government has absolute power over you, that makes you a SLAVE, subject to the government's whim, begging for scraps from the government table. Our founding fathers knew that over 200 years ago, but liberals have forgotten the lesson. They have forgotten the founding lesson of our country. They have forgotten the founding lesson of the founder of their own Democratic party, Thomas Jefferson, but they have the audacity of dopes and call themselves the intelligentsia. I don't get it. On second thought, maybe I do get it, since the word "intelligentsia" is of Russian origin. If conservatism is dead, so is the American spirit.

It's been said the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, because a good dictator would have absolute power to do good, which would benefit the people. The problem is, what you consider good might not be what I consider good, or even worse, the dictator could turn out to be, gasp, bad. For all you Bush haters out there, remember, when you vote to give the federal government ever more power over your lives, you are ultimately voting to give the Bush types more power too, because you can't predict who our next leaders will be.

You see, in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness, I'm being a divisive fearmonger RIGHT NOW, merely because I have a different idea about what America should be. That's why Barry And Friends want to implement things like The Fairness Doctrine to stop all those nasty conservatives from saying all those divisive anti-liberal things on talk radio. That's why Barry And Friends want to remove the secret ballot from union voting, so they can intimidate workers and impose their pro-union will. The way Barry And Friends achieve unity is by stifling dissent whenever possible.

Here's a line from Obama's victory speech:

"What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize".

This is a classic Obama statement. He's actually demonizing Republicans at the very same time he's saying he won't demonize them. Hopey McChangerson at his best. It's that false Obama construct again, where the opposition's issues are divisive, the oppositions issues are fearmongering. Only Obama's issues are the important ones.

Bull. Tell me another tall tale. Barack, even the church you attended for 20 years demonizes people. The Left is all about demonizing people. I defy anyone to turn on C-SPAN and listen to Congress for even one hour and not hear the Republican party being demonized by the Democrats. One hour. Demonization is the Democrats game plan. It's their number one tactic. The Democrats play off our fears at EVERY turn. They'll try to get you to believe insanely false ideas, like 'Republicans want to impose a theocracy', or 'tax cuts are bad'. The Democrats spend all day pitting one group against the other - poor against rich, black against white, government against business, union against non-union, blue collar against white collar, secularism against religion, women against men, even people against polar bears. They promote the constant drumbeat of class and racial warfare and division, they endlessly play group and identity politics, and then they have the audacity of dopes to think YOU won't notice. Their pretense of unity is laughable. They don't want unity. THEY WANT POWER.

If unity was really the goal, Barack Obama would be a bipartisan politician. He pretends that he is, but that's an artifice, a mirage. His record reveals exactly the opposite. He's a down-the-line liberal on every single issue. Again, I defy anyone to show me differently. Talk is cheap. Actions are what count. If unity is really the goal (not that I'm saying it should be), then John McCain is the one who has the bipartisan history, not Barack Obama. It's not even a close call.

As I'm writing this, Obama's on television in the background. He's speaking to a Jewish lobbyist group, telling them exactly what they want to hear, as he so often does (Iran's a grave threat in this speech), even when it contradicts what he said previously (Iran is a tiny country and little threat). Obama just displayed the audacity of dopes by saying his Iran policy has been "willfully mischaracterized" by his opposition, when all that REALLY happened was, his opposition reacted to the actual words coming from Obama's mouth about Iran. If there is mischaracterization, Obama mischaracterized himself.

Now I hear Obama blaming Bush for the high price of oil. Bloody hell. The Dems are the ones who've insured that we're helpless and dependent on foreign oil with their decades long braindead restrictions on domestic oil producti…..

Oops, there I go being divisive again. Gosh, I'm such a fearmonger. Sorry.

Obama is love. I love Obama.

There's been a lot of debate among those on the Right about where Conservatism went wrong (even though it's pretty obvious). I'm going to abdicate my soapbox today in order to print something from Ed Morrissey of hotair.com. In my opinion, Morrissey has captured the essence of the problem with the Republican party, and also the essence of my political philosophy. Without further ado, here's Ed:

May 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
With so many people writing about what ails conservatism, and so much disagreement, the basic tenets of conservatism seem to be overlooked. In attaching an ever-broader policy base to the first principles of conservatism, we have not added to our base but have increased our opposition. In fighting on the flanks, we have ignored the center, and as a result, have lost momentum through poor definition and irresponsible governance.
What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs least”, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.
These days, however, so-called conservatives in government appear more inclined to act on the latter philosophy than the former. Those running as conservatives from either party vote for ever-increasing federal roles in education, agriculture, the arts, and especially health care and retirement planning, despite the increasing deficits that the federal government has racked up. Entitlement programs will have a catastrophic collapse in the future, and instead of hitting the brakes, conservatives and progressives alike keep hitting the accelerator.
One might think that conservatives would at least recognize the perils of corruption in a bloated and overbearing federal government, distant from the oversight of individuals. Think again. The pork-barrel spending increased when so-called conservatives took power, pushed in no small measure by efforts to woo lobbyists who rely on increasing federal power and spending in order to get paid.
How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives” who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.
Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.
With every added issue, conservatives gain allies but also opponents. A narrow focus on reducing government would attract many more people than it repels. Most Americans believe that the federal government spends too much money, is too corrupt, is unaccountable to the citizenry, and creates massive inefficiencies. The first principle of conservative governance addresses all of that, and policies based on that principle would return both responsibilities and monies back to the states and local communities where they belong, so that citizens can more effectively oversee the issues in their own neighborhoods.
Trying to advance a broad agenda of issues that contradict the principle of limited government obviously hasn’t worked. All that produced was a spending spree that further bloated government and left the public with the impression that little difference exists between “conservatives” and “progressives” except in who gets the cash. If we tried actual, real conservatism by focusing on a return to smaller, less intrusive federal governance, the side issues will become more manageable in our communities. It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.

Thanks, Ed. I couldn't have said it better myself. The principles of liberty will never be served by those advocating an ever bigger and more controlling federal government, regardless of whether they come from the Left or the Right, and regardless of their good or bad intentions. When the federal government has grown so enormous as to consume over $3 trillion each year (and STILL run huge deficits), you know we have run off the rails. It's up to the real Conservatives to rise up and restore sanity before it's too late (and it nearly IS too late), because the Liberals sure aren't going to do it. Liberals are consciously leading us towards Marxism. They will deny that, but all you have to do is look at the effect of their policies. They invariably increase government and involve more and more government involvement in every aspect of our lives. I'd like to steal an anti-Bush slogan here, change the meaning, and implore one and all to Take Back America from the collectivists who are engulfing us.