Why bother watching Olbermann or Maddow go after Sarah Palin, when you can get a two-fer by watching both Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity together in one interview ?!?! Here it is from the source, undiluted. Grab yourself a veggie burger and a soy latte, and get your hate on.

My favorite line ? Palin actually referred to the liberal elitist tabloid hate press as "the lamestream media." How can I not like that ? I use the term myself, and they haven't even attacked my family, as they have Palin's. She has earned the right.

- One nice thing about Bill Clinton's presidency was that you could oppose his policies without being called a racist (mostly).

- People who think Bush went into Iraq to enrich Halliburton have no right to complain about the Birthers.

- When you go looking for "code words" for racism, aren't you just making stuff up ?

- When I talk about Obama's huge first year deficit ($1.8 trillion) on this blog, why do liberals always bring up Bush's deficits to excuse Obama's ? (Note to libs – By doing that, you aren't countering my argument. You are only making the argument that Obama is worse than Bush).

- Obama can offer health insurance to 30-45 million more people with health care reform, or he can reduce health care costs, but he can't do both at the same time.

- Obama's health care reform offers less choice, not more choice.

- Only Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

- Why is it that when liberals call conservatives racists nearly non-stop, nothing ever happens to those liberals, but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist one time, 20 advertisers are pressured into dropping their ads from Beck's show ?

- The only point being made by those people who are carrying guns outside events at which the President is speaking is that the gun carriers are oblivious morons.

- Is there any doubt at all that House Democrats are seeking the financial records of health insurance companies in order to demonize those companies ?

- Why is it okay for Congress to buy private jets with taxpayer dollars, but it's not okay for CEO's to fly private jets to Washington D.C. after being bailed out with taxpayer dollars ?

- Why would we want the federal government, an organization that is nearly $12 trillion in debt (and counting), to run our health care system, which represents 17% of our economy ?

- The "Obama is Hitler" signs must stop, because Obama is not like Hitler – he's much more like a combination of Saul Alinsky and P.T. Barnum. (Note to liberal media – that Obama-Hitler "I've Changed" sign you idiots at MSNBC, NBC, and CNN keep attributing to right wingers came from a Lyndon Larouche group, a communist group. Is even a tiny bit of journalistic integrity too much to ask ?)

- Speaking of Saul Alinsky, doesn't Obama's playbook seem awfully close to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it) ?

- MSNBC is such a biased organization that they actually edited out the fact that it was a black man who was carrying the AR-15 outside an Obama event, so MSNBC could peddle it's racist angle to the story.

- In the interesting political poll of the week, Gallup polling showed that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one when it comes to political ideology, yet Democrats have a sizeable lead over Republicans in party affiliation. (In other words, conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. I can identify with that).

- If you want to know why the health care public option was in, then it was out, then it was back in again….it's because up to 100 House Democrats said it better be back in again.

Recent polling shows that Americans increasingly have no party identification. There are more Independent voters than those having allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. Here's a chart from Pew Research:

The above chart shows that Republican voter identification has plummeted since 2004. Democratic voter identification has remained relatively stable (though it has dropped since Obama became president), and Independent voter identification has risen steadily. It's not too difficult to figure out why the Republicans have lost ground. After 8 years of Bush, I can summarize it in three words – war, deficits, recession. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones. The Republican party has become marginalized.

Now for the twist. If you remove political parties from the equation and just ask the voters about their political ideology, you get a far different picture of America. The following chart comes from a recent Gallup poll:

Suddenly, conservatives rule, with moderates a close second. Liberals are marginalized. This gives credence to the idea that we are a center-right nation (75% conservative or moderate).

So, why the disconnect between the low poll numbers of Republicans and the high poll numbers of conservatives ? After all, aren't Republicans supposed to be the conservative party ?

My answer is, yes, they are SUPPOSED to be the conservative party, but that's not what they were during the Bush years. They were just the opposite, so it's not a surprise that lots of conservatives and many moderates abandoned them. That also explains the huge rise in Independent voters. The voters didn't change ideologically and become a lot more liberal. The voters remained pretty much the same. It was the Republicans who changed. It was the Republicans who abandoned conservatism.

Ronald Reagan once said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." I bet a lot of conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party these days.

To the deep thinkers in the Republican Party (if there are any left) – If you want to get back into power, the answer is staring you right in the face. Return to conservative principles. And then don't ABANDON them if you do acquire power.

To the deep thinkers in the Democratic Party (if there are any left) – If you want to stay in power, forget about the liberals (who else are the liberals going to vote for, anyway ?), and move to the middle, where America is. If you do that, the Democrats can remain in control for quite a while. If you don't, you'll be kicked to the curb just like the Republicans were. So far, it looks to me like the Dems want to be kicked to the curb.

My advice to the nation would be to kick both these corruptocratic parties to the curb, but that's probably not realistic. The corruptocrats have rigged the game heavily in their favor. A poor Libertarian or other third partier has a long, steep, uphill battle in front of them. One reason the Big Two parties are so corrupt is that they CAN BE. They're a duopoly.

And as I said in yesterday's post, FREE CHEERIOS FROM TYRANNY !

No justice, no peace.

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.

Osama Bin Laden, the world's leading terrorist (or "freedom fighter," as Michael Moore would call him), has released a new tape, saying President Obama is sowing "new seeds of hatred and revenge against America." Apparently, Bin Laden's Dish Network package doesn't include MSNBC, or Bin Laden would know that everything changed the day Obama took office. We're closing Gitmo, have banned EIT's, are pulling out of Iraq, are apologizing to the world for our bad behavior in fighting terrorists, etc, etc.

Or maybe Bin Laden doesn't really care about any of that. It seems he doesn't.

On the tape, Bin Laden says President Obama is "walking the same road of his predecessors to build enmity against Muslims and increasing the number of fighters, and establishing more lasting wars."

Say what ? President Obama is INCREASING the number of terrorist fighters ???? Say it ain't so. Our liberal media has been telling us for years that it was Gitmo and Iraq that increased the number of terrorist fighters. Quick, somebody send Bin Laden a subscription to the New York Times, so he can be told what to think. Seriously. Just send the Times to Al Jazeera. I'm sure somebody there can ensure it gets forwarded to Bin Laden.

Another terrorist video, this one from terrorist recruiter Abdullah al-Nafisi, a Kuwaiti dissident and friend of Bin Laden, declares that Al Qaeda is looking to smuggle weapons of mass destruction across the Mexican border to inflict severe damage on America. Here's al-Nafisi:

"Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big [about 2 feet wide]- carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there," the recruiter said. "What a horrifying idea; 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry 4 pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this 'confetti' all over them, and then we'll do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real celebration."

How do you feel about sealing the southern border now, liberals ? I hope you can at least stop saying the only reason for it is that GOP is so darned raaacist. Secured borders are a matter of national security. Period.

On the vigilante front, an anti-abortion extremist, Scott Roeder, was arrested for the murder of late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller. Following this heinous act, President Obama immediately condemned it and announced that security would be enhanced at abortion clinics across the country. In response to Tiller's murder, liberals immediately blamed all conservatives and called for the removal of their free speech rights. Ubermoron Keith Olbermann blamed Bill O'Reilly and Fox News for Tiller's death, and said O'Reilly should be "quarantined." Fellow MSNBC'er Rachel Maddow called Tiller's death "terrorism," as did many other liberal groups. The favored phrase among liberals is to say conservative speech "foments violence" by opposing abortion. That's a complete bunch of crap (did liberals foment violence by opposing Bush ?), but that's what they are saying.

Two days after Tiller's murder, a young black man, a Muslim convert who opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who was anti-military and anti-American, attacked an Army recruiting center in Arkansas, killing one recruiter and wounding another. Following this heinous act, there was no immediate condemnation from President Obama. There was no tightening of security announced at Army recruiting centers. And there was no condemnation of all liberals by conservatives. Nor was there a call to end liberal free speech rights by conservatives. I bet Bill O'Reilly didn't blame it on Keith Olbermann either. I can't think of one conservative who said liberal speech "foments violence."

And that, my friends, is the difference between reasoned people and lunatics.

P.S. – Sorry I've been away for a few days, but I've been having some problems with my knee that prevent me from sitting down at the computer (you know you're getting old when it's tough to sit). I don't know if it's my "knee-jerk" reactions that caused the problem, but I should be back to normal pretty soon. As normal as I can be, anyway.

After 34 years as a Republican politician, Sen. Arlen Specter (?-PA), at 79 years of age, has finally figured it out….he's a Democrat.

Here's Specter's statement about making the switch:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

As you can see, Arlen Specter is making his decision based upon his own deeply held personal convictions.

The fact that Specter's Pennsylvania Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, was leading Specter by 21 points in the polls was just a convenient coincidence, I guess. And as for Specter's contention that the Republican party has "moved far to the right," I seem to recall the GOP's last presidential candidate was John McCain, a moderate Republican, hardly a conservative ideologue. I also remember ex-President Bush as not being much of a limited government proponent either. Neither Bush nor McCain was an actual conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who became President the same year Arlen Specter entered the Senate so proudly under "Reagan's Big Tent."

If I didn't know better, I'd think Arlen Specter was nothing more than a conviction-free political opportunist. But whatever Specter's convictions are now, he held far different convictions way, way, way back in March 2009, ONE MONTH AGO. Here's Specter in an interview with The Hill:

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.

Looks like those principles iterated by Specter, such as checks and balances, separation of power, and the importance of the two-party system, all run a distant second to Specter's overarching principle, which is….Arlen Specter comes first.

I just love politicians more and more by the day, don't you ? Their beliefs are malleable, their principles are negotiable, and they lie all the live long day. How could our country ever go wrong with such distinguished leadership ? And some people wonder why I beat my limited government drum over and over. This is why. We're governed by a bunch of narcissistic, power-hungry con-men (and women).

The Democrats, who've been trying to coax Specter over to their side for some time, are "thrilled to have [him]," as President Barockstar Obama said to Specter. Obama also told Specter, “You have my full support," whatever that is supposed to mean. What's Obama going to say, "no, you can't join my party" ??? The Dems don't care who is on their side. They only care that they ARE on their side.

The Dems see Specter as the possible 60th Senate seat, which would give the Dems their coveted filibuster-proof majority, especially if the comedian Al Franken makes an even bigger joke out of the Senate than it already is by becoming the Saturday Night Live Senator from Minnesota.

My personal opinion is that I could care less which party the spine-free Specter represents. In fact, I wish more GOP'ers would defect along with Specter. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins come readily to mind. I could be interested in the Republican party again if they cut loose all the phonies and Democrat-lite impostors, and if the Republicans ever did actually become the conservative party of freedom and limited government they like to say they are. When the inevitable backlash comes against the insane tax and spend policies of the Obamanation, it would be quite nice if the alternative to the Democrats was REALLY A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, and not an alternative full of jellyfish like Arlen Specter. It would be nice if the lines of distinction were clearly drawn when Obama crashes and burns.

My favorite quote regarding Specter's defection came from Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC), who said, "I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” I'll second that. Nothing is gained by abandoning principles, and the only way to ultimate political success is to adhere to your principles and then convince the electorate you're right.

President Obama has been criticized in conservative circles for going around the world and apologizing for America, and also for reaching out to America's enemies. I have criticized Obama myself for the apologizing, which I consider counterproductive. America does, after all, engage in diplomacy in order to advance America's interests, not to immolate itself on the world stage or score political points back home. Obama's latest apology was to Mexico, where Obama repeated the false statistic, previously cited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, that 90% of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from America. The real number of weapons traceable back to the U.S. is 17.6%. The Obama administration should have known better.

Where I think the conservatives are wrong is in criticizing Obama for engaging antagonist foreign powers in the first place. As an opening foreign policy gambit, which is what Obama's world tour is, a first act in a longer foreign policy play, I think it's quite smart of Obama to engage our enemies as well as our friends. Without opening the channels of communication, how is progress even possible ? It isn't. As long as Obama isn't making strategic concessions to our enemies, there is no harm in talking to them, and there is a potential benefit. In that sense, pushing the reset button is a good thing.

So far, there are few tangible foreign policy benefits. Cuba has signaled that it is willing to put discussions of everything on the table, including Cuba's political prisoners and human rights violations. If true, some real good could be accomplished there. In South America, Obama has had to endure a litany recitation of America's alleged sins against our Latin neighbors. The coca-head Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave our President a book as a gift. The book was "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. As you can probably tell by the title, it is a highly critical portrait of American and European foreign policy in South America. Obama sat through a 50-minute long anti-American tirade by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, where Ortega spoke of "terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America." While Hillary Clinton dodged questions about Ortega's inflammatory words, Obama eventually said this:

"To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We've all heard these arguments before."

That's only a mild slap at Ortega, but Obama's words were well-chosen. We can't move forward on foreign policy while looking only at the past. Several other Latin American leaders complained about U.S. foreign policy as well.

Obama has made a couple recent moves on foreign policy that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first was in allowing the Navy to take out the Somali pirates if the American captain's life was under imminent threat. There was no other decision to make there, and Obama made the right one, even though it took a couple days longer than it should have for him to make it. America's policy of non-negotation with thugs remains. Secondly, Obama pulled out of the United Nations international council on racism, because of the U.N. inclusion of a draft document that is itself racist. The UN Human Rights Council has long singled our Israel for human rights violations while ignoring the human rights violations of other countries. Much of the UN Human Rights Council is anti-semitic, and Obama was correct in not legitimizing racism in the name of fighting racism. Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy and Sweden are also not attending.

By traveling around the world, our new President is getting the education in foreign affairs that he needs. We have a long way to go, and the tough decisions remain, but overall, for a new President, Obama is off to a pretty good start on foreign relations. The conservatives would be well-served by not engaging in knee-jerk criticism solely for political gain, because that's what it's starting to sound like. With the exception of easing travel restrictions to Cuba, Obama hasn't abandoned any long-held American foreign policies yet, and a change in American-Cuban relations is probably overdue anyway. When you criticize, it's only helpful if there's actually something of which to be critical. If you're critical of open dialogue only because 'thy name is Obama,' well, then that is the conservatives problem, not Obama's.

Just in time for the Tax Day Tea Parties that are scheduled across the nation, President Obama's new head of the Department Of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), has released an unclassifed report outlining a terrorist threat against the United States Of America. The threat comes from (drumroll, please) – RIGHT WINGERS. Imagine that. The DHS report is titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." The report's stated purpose is:

…to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.

And what are the characteristics of this "violent radicalization" taking place in Right America ? Where are these "terrorist attacks" going to come from ? I'm glad you asked. Here's some of what is driving those wingnuts so crazy:

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

Um, wait a minute. Is it only the Right who is concerned about the economic recession ? No, and the Obama admin is milking it for all it's worth ("never let a crisis go to waste.") Is it only the Right who complains about the outsourcing of jobs ? No. During the last election cycle, job losses was a huge election issue for the Left. How many times did you hear "Bush lost four million jobs" coming from Democrat politicians ? And as for threats to U.S. power and sovereignty from foreign powers, who were all those protesters at the recent G20 Summit ? Were they right-wingers ? Nope, not by a mile. Yet, this DHS report isn't about left-wingers at all, only about right-wingers.

Here's another thing to fear, according to the DHS report:

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Okay, now I get it. What we should be fearing are those crazy people who believe in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and we should also fear OUR OWN RETURNING VETERANS. The American Legion has already responded to Janet Napolitano's politically-biased smears.

The DHS also points out the following for your edification:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Aha ! The right-wing "haters" reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. There's the mark of an extremist, by golly. I can name several extremists who thought just like that. They were wingnuts with names like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. The concept those wackos believed in is called federalism, and the notion is wholly supported by our Constitution, which limits federal authority, and a 10th Amendment that cedes remaining matters to the states. It seems the Constitution itself is now some kind of national security threat (and some of y'all thought I was kidding about the Constitution being shredded the other day. I wasn't. I'm introducing you to some of the shredders right now).

I also have a teeny-weenie problem with our federal government calling people who are anti-abortion or anti-illegal immigration "right-wing extremists." Another teeny-weeny problem I have is when racism is equated with the political right. Racism crosses all political boundaries. To say anything different is merely propaganda.

But wait, there's more from the DHS:

the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

Scary, eh ? Now, if you substituted the word "leftwing" for "rightwing" in that last statement, it would be just as equally true or untrue, yet somehow we're only supposed to be afraid of the righties.

This same type of bullspit goes on for 9 pages in the DHS report, but when it comes to specific cases of crazy right-wing terrorist plots, the DHS is forced to admit….THERE AREN'T ANY. That's right, NONE:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence

So, no violence is being planned by the right, but, you know, you should still be VERY AFRAID of them. Imagine the outcry if the DHS came out with a report like this about ANY other group – "No Jews are planning any violence, but you better watch out for those Jews anyway. You never know when they're going to blow." I also noticed that Obama's DHS freely uses the word "terrorism" when referring to imaginary right-wing plots, but when referring to folks who really are plotting terrorist activities, like Al Qaeda, the word "terrorism" is now politically incorrect. Al Qaeda deals in "man-made disasters." I guess only imaginary violent right-wingers are terrorists now.

In summary, the DHS has issued a report "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of [right-wing] violent radicalization in the United States" even though the report acknowledges there is no evidence of right-wing violent radicalization in the United States. Sooooo, why issue the report in the first place ?

It wouldn't have anything to do with politics, would it ? Some might even call it "the politics of fear."

Sure glad we don't do that kind of stuff anymore.

I'll say one thing about the Obama administration. They promised transparency, and they sure delivered. I can see right through them.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

Rabid lunatic left-wing bloggers have been casting the blame for the killings of three Pennsylvania police officers by Richard Poplawski right where the blame lies – on Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. When I first heard about this, I thought it was some kind of sick joke, for the following reasons….

Did Beck tell Poplawski to go kill cops ? No.
Did Beck tell anyone to go kill cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against anyone ? No.

But lunatics are undaunted by facts. That's what makes them lunatics. Lunatics act in irrational ways. That's why the lunatic Poplawski murdered three police officers in Pennsylvania, and that's why the lunatic left-wing bloggers think it's Glenn Beck's fault. Here is why the loony left thinks Beck is to blame – one of Poplawski's neighbors said Poplawski was afraid President Obama would take away his guns, Glenn Beck interviewed NRA head Wayne LaPierre about the Obama assault weapon ban/Mexican drug cartels, and Poplawski allegedly saw Beck's program about alleged FEMA internment camps. That's pretty much the loony left's entire case against Beck. The loons say Beck is "inciting violence" (normal people would say Beck is engaging in "free speech").

I wouldn't even be reporting this spew from the lunatic bloggers, because I could care less about their hate-filled nonsense, but the lunatic fringe blogger spew has spilled over into the lunatic fringe mainstream media, namely the Countdown With Keith Olbermann program on MSLSD, er, I mean, MSNBC. Last night, Olbermann named Beck one of his 'worst persons in the world,' and declared that Beck was inciting violence and shared the blame for Poplawski's actions (FYI – Olbermann is obsessed with Fox News, who clobbers Olbermann and MSLSD in the cable news ratings. One or another Fox News host is almost ALWAYS one of Olby's 'worst persons.' It's incredibly transparent and self-serving on Olby's part).

For the sake of argument, let's suspend disbelief and pretend the lunatic left spew has enough credibility to be addressed. I'll address it here:

On Obama banning guns - Obama DOES want to ban assault weapons, just as Beck said on his program. There are also several pieces of gun restriction legislation in Congress at this moment, as I reported myself in a blog article I called 'Democrats And The Second Amendment.' (I guess that makes ME responsible for the cop killings too). Obama's own attorney general, Eric Holder, has said he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment allows private citizens to bear arms. If the lunatic left wants to know where people get the idea that Obama and the Democrats want to take away their guns, I suggest the lunatic left take a look at OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

On Beck interviewing NRA head Wayne LaPierre - It's called the First Amendment, loony left. Get used to it. This is the USA, not Soviet Russia. And there was NO incitement to violence by Beck. That exists only in the fevered imaginations of the loons.

On Beck talking about FEMA internment camps - Beck is DEBUNKING the story about the FEMA camps, you lefty blogger morons. Beck is investigating the claims and finding them to be FALSE. Beck says the government is NOT intending to put Americans in internment camps.
—-
Beyond the absurd notion that Beck is somehow responsible for the actions of a crazed cop killer, let's take a look at the galactic hypocrisy in which the lunatic left is engaging. These people have the gall to say right-wingers are inciting violence after the lunatic left has engaged in the following (to name only a few examples out of a multitude):

- Called Bush an international criminal, racist, fascist, terrorist, murdering thug for the last 8 years. If somebody assassinated Bush after listening to the loony left, would the loony left be responsible ???

- Openly advocated violence against AIG employees and their families. This wasn't only the loony bloggers. Even House Financial Services head Barney Frank (D-MA) threatened to publish the names and addresses of AIG employees unless they returned their bonuses, so the mob could find them. President Obama himself said Americans should be outraged at AIG. Obama also told the bankers, "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." An ACORN group led bus tours to the homes of AIG employees, so the mob would know where they lived. If somebody killed bankers or AIG employees, would the loony left, the Democrats, and the President be responsible ?

- Left wing Air America radio ran audios of the simulated shooting of president Bush on more than one occasion. Luckily, since only three people listened to Air America, nobody heard the implied threats against the president. When Glenn Beck does something like THAT, then I'll listen to your complaints, haters.

- Obama's left wing buddy Bill Ayers bombed buildings as a member of the Weathermen.

- Left wing groups like Code Pink routinesly disrupt proceedings, such as the Republican National Convention, sessions of Congress, etc. Left wingers routinely shout down and attack conservative speakers at college campuses and at their homes. Left wing groups like PETA throw blood all over people wearing fur. Left wing environmental groups routinely spike trees, resulting in the maiming and death of lumberjacks. Left wing groups like Al Sharpton's National Action Network have incited riots against store owners, resulting in murder. And if we REALLY want to talk about fomenting violence, the leftist philosophy of Karl Marx was responsible for about 120 million people being killed in the 20th century.

I could give you scores more examples. If the stupid moonbats want to go on a witchhunt looking for people who incite hatred and foment violence, I suggest they go look in the damned mirror.

The following chart illustrates what percentage of CO2 greenhouse gases are attributable to man:

The rest of the greenhouse gases consist mostly of water vapor (95%). Read the Global Warming Primer for more information. Also keep in mind that the proposed cap-and-trade system of taxation being proposed by Obama, which would cost trillions of dollars, aims to decrease that tiny dot of man-made CO2 in the above chart by only 15%. Color me skeptical as to the positive effects of cap-and-trade.
—-
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has introduced the Save The Liberal Media Act, er, I mean, the Newspaper Revitalization Act, which he says could help save the ailing newspaper industry. Cardin's press release stated, "The Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, if they choose, under 501(c)(3) status for educational purposes, similar to public broadcasting. Under this arrangement, newspapers would not be allowed to make political endorsements, but they would be allowed to freely report on all issues, including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

As most of you already know, the vast majority of newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lean left. The Dems don't want to lose their propaganda advantage.
—-
From the Here's Why The GOP Is Braindead files: Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) may soon have both houses of Congress taking up an issue of vital national security – the NCAA football championship system (BCS). The legislation would prohibit the NCAA from naming a national champion unless it follows whatever playoff system Congress dictates. Unbelievable. I don't know where Congress gets the idea it has the authority to regulate this, and I have even less idea why Congress thinks this deserves their attention. Maybe Hatch is mad that undefeated Utah didn't make the championship game last year. Whatever. This is just one more small sign that Capitol Hill is WAY out of control.
—-
The Big Lie: "…in this budget, we have to make the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term, even under the most pessimistic estimates. At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest." –President Barack Obama, who is moving America into the most massive crushing debt in history, faster than any presidential administration in history.

And, of course, when Obama says "invest," he means tax, borrow, and spend.
—-
Joke of the day: On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's sermon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint. The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."
The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon."
As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle. And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present. Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation — "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington, and in California. She simply is not to be trusted."
The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."

Last sunday on Face The Nation, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said [Rush Limbaugh is] “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Emanuel also said Limbaugh has been "praying for failure' of the Obama administration. He went on to say "…it’s our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh.”

Notably, nobody had asked Rahm Emanuel a question about Rush Limbaugh. Emanuel just volunteered the above information. Previously, President Obama said people shouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh, as if the entire GOP is but a parrot of Rush's daily radio talking points. ABC News' George Stephanopolous and talking head James Carville, both refugees from the Clinton administration, have called Rush Limbaugh the head of the Republican party. You may remember that Stephanopolous was criticized recently for getting HIS talking points directly from the White House. It seems abundantly clear that the strategy to demonize Rush Limbaugh, and by extension to demonize the entire conservative Republican ideology (by casting Limbaugh as it's leader), is coming directly from that same White House.

When Rahm Emanuel says Republicans shouldn't "adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh," what does that mean ? What is Limbaugh's philosophy ? We can find out by perusing Limbaugh's recent speech at the CPAC conference. Limbaugh literally tells us what his definition of conservatism is:

"I want to tell you who conservatives are…When we look out over the United States of America… we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit…We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government…We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault.
We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty…There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance…We want everybody to succeed. You know why? We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people — its individuals — must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us… take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any [who's problems have been solved]. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us.
…I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed…the people who have achieved great things, most of it is not inherited. Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial, just plain old hard work. There's no reason to punish it. There's no reason to raise taxes on these people. Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that's to respect the oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs, from the back pockets of producers, and give it to groups like ACORN, which are going to advance the Democrat Party.
"President Obama…he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable.
President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration? Now, this is not prosperity."

Thus, when Rahm Emanuel says the GOP shouldn't "adopt the philosophy of Rush Limbaugh," he is saying the GOP should stop being the GOP, because individual liberty, equality of opportunity, limited government, low taxes, etc. are supposed to be core Republican principles (I say "supposed to be," because Republicans often haven't followed their own stated conservative principles). Such a philosophy isn't something Rush Limbaugh dreamt up. That philosophy predates Rush by over two hundred years. It's the philosophy espoused by our founding fathers and enshrined in our founding documents. It's the philosophy of freedom that made America great. Obama, Emanuel, and company would have you forget all that, by placing the focus on the "divisive" Rush Limbaugh instead. They are saying, in effect, 'forget about America's founding principles, because Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard." I'd respond, "Rush Limbaugh is not the issue, the abandonment of America's core principles is the issue." The Democrats are using the Limbaugh distraction to mislead Americans into blind submission to the will of the Obamans. That's utter nonsense. You SHOULD listen to Limbaugh or someone similar, just as you SHOULD listen to Obama, and SHOULD listen to everyone else, from the far left to the far right. That's the only way to arrive at an informed decision. When political operatives like Emanuel tell you to STOP listening to the opposition, to stop questioning Obama for the sake of "unity," and when they start characterizing any disagreement as divisive and destructive, well, those are the very people you should be worried about. There should never be a time in America when Big Brother is not questioned, and Obama is certainly no exception, especially with so much at stake. Rush Limbaugh doesn't represent power in this debate. Obama does. And we should pay very close attention. Pre-Obama, liberals said it was imperative to speak truth to power, but now, it's questioning power that troubles them. Yesterday's activist becomes tommorrow's oppressor. No, thanks. All oppressors are the same to me. You can have them.

During tuesday's speech to Congress, President Barack Obama spoke of the need for fiscal responsibility, eliminating wasteful government spending, and cutting the deficit in half, among other things. Republicans and Democrats alike cheered. Sitting directly behind Obama was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who appeared positively ecstatic with our new President (was I the only one creeped out by Pelosi's cult-like rapture ?) In particular, the Republican side of the aisle cheered (derisively ?) when Obama made a pledge to reduce spending. We'll get back to that in a minute.

But tuesday was tuesday. Let's call it Fiscal Responsibility Tuesday (ladies drink free), because what a difference a day makes. On wednesday, when the whole country wasn't watching the dog and pony show on teevee, Pelosi's House of Representatives passed a huge $410 billion Omnibus spending bill, with 8,570 porky earmarks attached. The price tag for the spending bill was $32 billion more than last year. Clearly, there's no recession on Capitol Hill, and there darned sure isn't any fiscal responsibility. The vote on the bill was largely along party lines. It passed 245-178, with 159 Republicans and 20 Democrats opposed.

I would have thought all the pet pork projects were used up in Obama's stimulus bill, but apparently, there is no end to the ways Congress can dream up to spend our hard-earned tax dollars. Here's just a taste of the pork – $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program, a dozen earmarks for a lobbying group currently under federal investigation for corruption (PMA Group, linked to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and others), $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory, $346,000 for research on apple fire blight, $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, $1.8 million to conduct research on swine odor and manure management (pork spent on actual pork !), $173,000 for research on asparagus production, $206,000 for wool research, $209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production, $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass, $1.2 million to control cormorants, $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah, $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii, $17.5 million for Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidential library, $22 million for John F. Kennedy's presidential library, $2 million for Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential library (what, no money for Republican presidents ?), and on and on and on.

While I'm glad the Republicans voted against the bill, it must be noted that 40% of the earmarks WERE INSERTED BY REPUBLICANS. What in the heck is wrong with the GOP ? They are supposedly trying to rehab their image from the Bush days, and then they do this. If they want to be taken seriously, they have to walk the walk, but it looks like they only talk the talk. What a bunch of hypocritical morons.

If that's not enough "fiscal responsibility" for you, the Congressional Budget Office released a report analyzing Obama's stimulus monstrosity, and determined the permanent increase in the size of government resulting from the bill could cost $3.27 trillion.

Then there's the $634 billion health care reserve fund in Obama's budget, to help pay for his health care reforms.

The hits just keep on coming.

There is no fiscal responsibility in Washington D.C. There is no leadership coming from Obama on this subject. There is no leadership coming from Congress. It's just spend, spend, spend, the taxpayer be damned. The soaring rhetorical fluorishes from our President are little more than misdirection, meant to fool the rubes. Our government is growing to a place it's never been before, and if any of you really think "the rich" are going to pay for it all, while the rest of us suffer no consequences, you're living in a dream world. We will ALL pay in the end, one way or another. That lunch still isn't free, and it never will be.

I've grown weary of President Obama referring to the GOP's "failed theories." It's time for a history lesson from the one actual Conservative to inhabit the White House in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. (FYI: 'Republican' does not equal "Conservative." Not in my book. For example, I considered Dubya to be an economic liberal. Party designation is just a meaningless label.)
—
Liberal Democrats mostly detest former Republican president Ronald Reagan. The only viable reason I've been able to deduce for their hatred is this:

Reagan's policies worked.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the country was mired in a deep economic slump, just like now. What came before Reagan was many years of bad policy, just like now. Nixon instituted price and wage controls, tax and tariff hikes, and devalued the currency. Stagflation (stagnant economic growth and high unemployment, coupled with high rates of inflation) actually began to rear it's ugly head with Nixon. It continued through Gerald Ford's presidency, and reached epidemic levels under Jimmy Carter. Carter's bad policy contributions were – raising taxes, increasing government spending, enacting his own voluntary wage and price controls, putting restrictions on domestic oil production even as OPEC was cutting back production (prompting the 70's energy crisis), the Federal Reserve jacking up interest rates in an already stagnating economy…I can't even remember them all anymore. It seemed that if there was a misstep to be made, Jimmy Carter made it. The one atypical move Carter made was to begin the deregulation of industry, which Reagan continued.

Reagan mostly abandoned the previous principles, which were based upon the faulty notion that the government can effectively micromanage something as large as the American economy (from what I've seen so far, I predict the term 'Obamanomics' will one day become synonomous with epic big government failure, because he's bent on taking the government to a magnitude never seen before). Instead, Reagan freed the economy and allowed the market to run with less government interference.

Reagan's economic recovery program (Reaganomics) had four main components: Reduce taxes on labor and capital, reduce government spending, control the money supply to reduce inflation, and reduce government regulation of the economy.

Reagan was successful on three of those four components. He didn't reduce government spending as he would have liked. He had an opposition Democratic Congress to contend with who didn't like spending cuts, and Reagan himself raised defense spending (which, btw, resulted in the USA winning the Cold War). Reagan raised spending in a few other areas as well, such as with his jobs program to help with high unemployment. Reagan also considered balanced budgets of secondary importance to getting the economy going again. Reagan looked at it as temporary deficits to get over the bad times, which has become a sadly familiar refrain that never seems to end.

The results of Reagan's policies stand in such stark contrast to the previous policies and turned the economy around so well that it takes mountains of liberal spin to attempt to deny it (and lord knows, they DO spin and spin about Reagan. Soooo many lies). They'll try to tell you that Reagan's policies had nothing to do with the economic turnaround, that it was all a mere coincidence, some kind of magical economic alignment of the planets. Don't believe it for one second. Here are the numbers:

Unemployment – January 1981 (when Reagan took office) – 7.5%
Unemployment – January 1989 (when Reagan left office) – 5.4%
Inflation – January 1981 – 11.83%
Inflation – January 1989 – 4.67%
Real GDP (adj. for inflation in 2000 dollars) – Jan 1981 – $5.3 trillion
Real GDP (adj. for inflation in 2000 dollars) – Jan 1989 – $6.9 trillion

Reagan's economic principles resulted in the creation of over 20 million jobs after the recession he inherited bottomed out in 1982 (with unemployment reaching 9.5%), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime economic expansion in American history from 1983 to 1989. Gee, who'd want to emulate his "failed theories" ??? Uh, I would.

The economic situation Reagan inherited was bad, like the current one. There were some differences. Reagan inherited a severe inflationary cycle, and in our current downturn, the economy is too frozen for inflation to occur. I expect if we follow the big government spending path that Obama is recommending, we will begin to experience hyperinflation within a few years, wiping out the benefits of any recovery that takes place. Obama is directing a course precisely opposite of what Reagan did. It has much more in common with what Jimmy Carter did, though Obama is going well beyond Carter into utterly insane big government spending solutions.

Please look at history to see what works and what doesn't. Democrats love to tout FDR's New Deal as a solution to the Great Depression, but HELLO, the Great Depression lasted a DECADE, only ending with the onset of WWII. Reagan turned the economy around in two years with his solutions. Secondly, FDR wasn't starting with a country already $10 trillion in debt, and with massive unfunded liabilities to boot. Obama may talk about hope, but if early indications are a guide, he'll be sounding the death knell for the American standard of living and the capitalist system.

The Left is using this severe recession to fool you all into buying into socialist nonsense. Nothing more, nothing less. And that will be the real disaster, almost impossible to turn away from once it's implemented (until it collapses, that is, which it will). Socialism has failed virtually everywhere it's been tried, but somehow, liberals never learn the lesson. They still think the government can give us all "free stuff" with no consequences, as if resources are unlimited. It's irresponsible and inane. What goes into the public sector comes out of the private sector, and in a capitalist system it's the strength of the private sector that determines our collective wealth. That's how we became the most powerful country on earth. Socialism is a freedom crushing inferior design which saps initiative as the citizenry becomes subservient to the all-powerful state. Everybody becomes less well off. Don't let it happen here. Stop them before it's too late.

Reagan turned our economy around with the principles of freedom, and he didn't have to spend the country into oblivion to do it. Far from being "failed theories" or "discredited ideas" or whatever spin the Obama administration is pushing as it's daily scare tactic, Reagan's ideas worked. The real problem is, we haven't been following them for years. The government has insinuated it's way into too many areas of our economy, from health care to housing. Don't forget, it was the government that built the housing bubble in the first place, by interfering with a previously stable financial system. It was the government that setup Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bundle and peddle those subprime mortgages that Wall Steet went wild with. It was the government that created the subprime market in the first place, by forcing the banks to make loans to unqualified persons. It was the government that didn't practice sound monetary policy, which let the housing bubble grow and grow. It was POLITICS that created our economic crisis. Then after it all blows up in their faces, what do the politicians say ? They absolve themselves of all responsibility and say, 'it was a failure of the free market.' And they count on Americans being dumb enough to believe them.

Reputed conservative president George W. Bush walks off into the sunset with a 34% approval rating. That's the same approval rating Jimmy Carter, the Plague From Plains, left with 28 years ago. Carter brought us a new word – 'stagflation.' They haven't invented a word yet for what Bush has brought. If they do invent a new word for him, I doubt it will be kind.

The reality of Bush is that he was a fiscal liberal and a foreign policy neocon. Now we know what Bush meant by 'compassionate conservatism.' It meant 'spend a lot of dough and cut taxes at the same time.' On the fiscal side, he brought us the first new Medicare program since the 1960's, Part D, the prescription drug benefit. He was a BIG spender from beginning to end. He increased spending in virtually every area of government, so I won't even try to list them all. That's not at all conservative in my book. His final act was to urge Congress to allocate the additional $350 billion in TARP funds to his successor. That's not at all conservative either. He ran up huge deficits in every one of his 8 years, adding the most to our national debt of any president. Not at all conservative. Under his watch, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates even as the housing bubble grew and grew. Not at all conservative. The conservative move would have been countercyclical, to raise interest rates during the boom period to slow down the bubble and promote solid conservative growth, as opposed to the boom-bust cycles that marked Bush's presidency. In fact, the primary solution to the current economic downturn is also countercyclical, to lower interest rates to stimulate housing, lending, and credit again. At least the Fed is doing it right now, though they should do more, cut them even lower. Spending trillions and trillions of dollars is not necessary, is frightfully stupid, and is incredibly dangerous in the long term. The hole we have to climb out only gets deeper, yet we're still digging. Fiscal sanity has been abandoned, and much of the blame lies with Bush, along with 8 years of a Congress that went along with it, six years under Republican control (what were they thinking ?), and two years under Democrat control (the two biggest deficit years in history). Unfortunately, the incoming administration promises more of the very same thing. It appears Obama is going to use the economic downturn to implement all his campaign promises under the guise of 'stimulus', when much of it isn't stimulus at all. The horse is out of the barn.

On the foreign policy front, I see Bush as partly right and partly wrong. The Afghanistan War was right. The Iraq War was wrong (but once we were in it, it became imperative that we succeed. I have nothing but contempt for those who voted for the war when it was popular, but then reversed course and tried to undermine it for their own political gain the second it became unpopular. The names John Kerry and Hillary Clinton come to mind). Wiretapping international calls from terrorists and tracking their finances after 9/11 was right. Torture was wrong, if it happened (though I can't bring myself to shed a tear over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, being waterboarded for 2 minutes. I just can't. We even waterboarded Navy Seals as part of their training, but we're supposed to gnash our teeth and wail over a guy who killed 3,000 innocent americans, who bragged a couple days ago about being involved in 30 worldwide terrorist attacks, who had knowledge of future attack plans ? No. Sorry. Can't do it.) I had no problem with Bush putting prisoners of war at Gitmo, with 'war' being the key word that the anti-Bush forces seemed to conveniently forget. Several terrorist plots were thwarted after 9/11 on Bush's watch, so he gets credit for that. He reformed our national security apparatus to better deal with the threat of terrorism. He gets credit for that too. Bush stuck with the failing Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq for far too long. That's a big minus. Thank you, General David Petraeus, for finally making him see the light there. And thank you, George Soros, for proving what a colossal ass you are with that General Betray-Us ad.

Btw, conspiracy theorists, blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks is stupid.

The Hurricane Katrina response involved the failure of government at all levels – local, state, and federal. Part of that was no doubt due to the fact that we never had to deal with anything like that before, not to mention those second rate levees, but Bush struck several wrong notes, appearing almost indifferent at first. That looked real bad, as did the petty squabbling over jurisdiction between Bush and Louisiana Governor Blanco with so many american lives hanging in the balance.

I hear many conservatives saying Bush will be judged more favorably from a distance, from the long perspective of history. That may or may not be true, but it is little more than wishful thinking on their part at this point. Much of it probably depends on how the future of Iraq plays out, and nobody has a crystal ball to make that determination now, especially in an area of the world as volatile as the Middle East.

I have no doubt that George W. Bush did what he thought was right. I don't attribute all kinds of evil machiavellian motives to his actions, as the lunatic fringe do. His presidency was defined by 9/11, and his actions, both right and wrong, were taken in that context. Bush definitely isn't the smartest president we've ever had (understatement), but even when he made the wrong move, such as with Iraq, which ultimately destroyed his popularity and the popularity of his own Republican party, he wasn't looking at polls to determine how he should act. He was looking at his own idea of right vs. wrong, or as Bush recently put it, good vs. evil. You might disagree with him, as I often did, but you weren't the one who had to make those hard decisions. He did.

“This is a mandate to get along, to get something done in a bipartisan way. This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology.” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), when asked if tuesday's election results gave his party a mandate.

"…as we unify the American people. And I pledge again, as I did last night, that we will do so in a strong bipartisan way, with civility in our debate" – Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in a post-election press conference.

Here we have two of the most partisan members in Congress, calling, like Rodney King, for us all to just get along. This is literally the first time I can ever recall Harry Reid speaking in a manner other than the politics of the divisive partisan attack. Pelosi hasn't been much different. In Pelosi's newsconference, she used the words "unity" or "unifying" over and over again.

So what gives ? Why all the calls for unity and bipartisanship ? Have these two former attack dogs suddenly seen the light of brotherhood after all these years ? Not hardly. The answer is much simpler. It's because now, with the incoming Obama presidency, it's the Democratic agenda that Reid and Pelosi will be pushing through, and they want the congressional Republicans to go along with them. The Democrats didn't reach a filibuster-proof majority in tuesday's elections. They also know the Republicans WON'T go along with all the Dem plans, so they are setting the stage to call the GOP obstructionist when any Democratic measures fail to pass.

Reid/Pelosi aren't really calling for unity, they are calling for submission. They want the loyal opposition NOT to oppose them. That is an impossibility. There will be no unity, and there shouldn't be. The GOP can no more check their beliefs at the door than the Democrats did during the Bush presidency. What will exist is the same bitter partisan battles, but with a shift in the balance of power toward the Democrats. Unity is an utter illusion. The only way we could achieve unity is if we only had ONE political party, and I believe the word for that wouldn't be "unity", it would be "totalitarianism."

So spare me the faux Kumbayah stuff.

Here's a definition of "totalitarianism" from Wikipedia.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. The term was applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. A perfect example of a present-day Totalitarian state is North Korea.

I ask you, which political party most closely resembles the totalitarian model ? Which party thinks the state should regulate so many aspects of public and private life ? Which party is so skeptical of free markets ? Which party advocates more state control of mass media ? Which party desires more control over the economy ? The Democratic party, that's who. Run away from Democratic so-called "unity" as fast as you can, folks. Run toward liberty instead. That's the American way.

Speaking of controlling mass media, regulating private life, and controlling the economy, here's what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on FoxNews about the Fairness Doctrine (which would shut up all those Conservative talk radio voices), and the Employee Free Choice Act (which would eliminate the secret ballot in union voting):

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

WTF ? Talk radio is the same as pornography now ? Like hell it is. Far scarier is the notion promoted by Schumer that the government should regulate EVERYTHING, that the government should intervene in ALL COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES. Like I said, run as fast as you can away from people like Chuck Schumer. Also note that the Fairness Doctrine would be applied only to radio, where the Right has an advantage. It wouldn't be applied to any mass media that favors the Left. What a coincidence, eh ? Totalitarians on the march.

On the Employee Free Choice Act, Schumer says we need it because only 6% of businesses are unionized. Say what ? Here, Schumer is saying we should take away the right of the secret ballot because American workers are choosing not to unionize. More freedom-killing from Schumer, this time because unions are a big-time Democratic special interest. I have nothing against unions, but I have a lot against removing essential rights, such as the secret ballot, in order to promote the paid-for Democratic political agenda.

Message for president-elect Barack Obama: If you really want to show the people you are the president for all Americans, as you said in your acceptance speech, you can start by killing the unamerican Fairness Doctrine and the Employee Free Choice Act. Otherwise, your words of inclusivity will be meaningless.

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.

Hey America, how do you like your brand new insurance company, AIG ? We bought an 80% stake in that company for the bargain price of $85 billion. How about your nifty new mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? They've been nationalized. They belong to all of us now. Who knew this was what Bush was talking about when he advocated an "ownership society" ? Bailing out the financial industry might end up costing us a a trillion or two, but no worries, it's only money. YOUR money, make no mistake about that, but what's a few trillion among friends ?

And from the looks of things, We The People are about to own a whole bunch more neato stuff too. Our fearless future leaders are both committed to bailing out the auto industry. Democrat Barack Obama has committed to providing up to $50 billion in loans to the automakers. And now the Republican candidate, John McCain, has gotten in on the action too. McCain reversed his previous position against loans to automakers while touring a GM plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan:

"I'm here to send a message to Washington and Wall Street: We are not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry while we give billions in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street," McCain said. "It is time to get our auto industry back on its feet. It's time for a new generation of cars and for loans to build the facilities that will make them."

Yeah ! We'll show those sob's over on Wall Street ! We'll give taxpayer money away to everyone !!! That'll teach 'em ! Excuse me, readers, I have to go puke. I'll be right back…….

Associated Press reports that $25 billion in loans to automakers may whiz through Congress before the november elections, buoyed by the support of Barack Obama and John McCan (how do you like bipartisanship now ?).

Yeah, what the heck, as long as our leaders have abandoned all pretense of fiscal sanity, why not ? Bring on financial Armaggedon. Every day is Halloween, and we're using taxpayer money for candy. Ooh, look at JohnnyMac, all dressed up like a conservative, here's a big bag of taxpayer money for you. And Barry, you look so cute in your JFK suit, here's another bag of money for you.

$!*&##**! and !*&@**$$!

Somebody please tell me this is all a bad dream. This ship of fools is driving us right off the edge of the world.

I've been watching the notion of fiscal conservatism (responsibility) die a slow death for a long time now, but I have to admit, I never expected the death knell to sound with a Republican occupying the White House.

I know I probably shouldn't be a stickler about the United States Constitution, since we don't use it anymore, but are ANY of these bailouts Constitutional ?

Ah, never mind. Who cares ? It's a Brave New World, the previous rules no longer apply. I can hardly wait for the coming veto-proof Democratic majority, you know, the ones who REALLY like to spend taxpayer money. We are freaking doomed.

Are we really going to stand by and let all this happen ? Are we going to allow our government to endlessly nationalize industries and socialize business losses at taxpayer expense ? That is an incredible moral wrong, but it sure looks like we're going to let them do exactly that. I don't see anybody marching on Washington D.C. What's it gonna take, folks ? They are literally stealing the money right out of your pockets, and you don't seem to care.

And Joe Biden, saying tax increases are freaking "patriotic" ??? *$$!&%# you, Joe.

Thanks for listening to this rant. Maybe my sense of optimism will return tomorrow, but right now, I need a damn drink.

Update 9/21/08: Now for the coup de grace. Bush has announced a $700 billion mortgage bailout. And Democrats are saying Bush didn't go far enough, if you can believe that. The nightmare continues.

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.