Calling all big government advocates !!! It's time to do your patriotic duty for your country. As VP Joe Biden would say, "step up and be part of the deal."

As the Christmas season approaches, what better present could all you compassionate statists, leftists, socialists, communists, marxists, maoists, progressives, and liberals give us than to pay down the massive federal debt that all this out-of-control government spending has rained down upon our heads ? Show those mean old conservative grinches that you big government types are standup people who have the courage of your convictions. Send a big fat check to Uncle Sam to brighten the holidays for all us recession stressed Americans. We know you are the good people (because you keep telling us you are), so I'm going to tell you where to send your money. No need to thank me. Remember to dig deep, and give until it hurts. Your country needs you. The poor and oppressed need you, now more than ever.

Reuters has helpfully written an article on this subject. Here is the essential info:

The U.S. Treasury Department accepts gifts, payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Just mail them to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public.

The info is also contained on the U.S. Treasury website here.

I'll even help you big government lovers calculate the amount you should send in. According to the U.S. debt clock, the federal debt is just short of $12 trillion. Now I have to figure out how many liberals we have. Let's see…..we have about 250 million adults over the age of 18 living in the United States, and about 20% of the people refer to themselves as liberals according to polling……….soooo, that means there are around 50 million caring liberals in our broke country.

Dividing $12 trillion by 50 million liberals comes to…………

If you all would send in a check for $240,000, then voila!, our debt problem is solved.

Man, this is gonna be great !!! You liberals just paid for health care reform and lots more, because by paying off the federal debt, you saved America from paying over $330 billion a year in interest on that debt. We can use that savings to pay for health care reform, AND have lots left over to institute massive tax cuts, thereby revving up the economy !!! God bless you, every one !!! The recession will be over and jobs will be created !!! It'll be morning in America again !!!

Of course, there's always the possibility that you will think only of yourselves instead of helping others, and not send in any money, but no way do I think you good liberal people would be that selfish. I have complete confidence in you. I'm so excited.

Oh, wait a sec. There is one other thing. Even if you pay off the debt, we'll still have that $106 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities hanging over our heads. Rats. Still, I know how you good liberals love your entitlements. You'll certainly want to pay for those, so allow me to recalculate the amount of money you need to send in….$106 trillion plus $12 trillion equals $118 trillion. If I divide that by the 50 million liberals in America……….

You all need to send in a check for $2,360,000. Then we'll be good.

I offer my heartfelt thanks on behalf of all Americans. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

After months of liberals quaking in their Birkenstocks about non-existent violence at peaceful Tea Party protests across the country, it bears pointing out what actual violent protest looks like. We just witnessed that at the G-20 protests in Pittsburgh, where anti-capitalist (read: left-wing, socialist) protesters hurled rocks at police and vandalized private property. Police responded by firing tear gas canisters and using pepper spray. Nearly 200 people were arrested.

I'm sure the condemnations of the violent G-20 protesters will be forthcoming from our media and politicos, any day now. It's funny though, because I had a very difficult time sourcing this post. There are so very few stories about the G-20 violence on the web. Hmmm. Maybe our media have all gone on holiday. That's probably it. I can't blame them. They are probably worn out from trying to invent violence at all the Tea Parties over the last six months. It's gotta be hard work trying to invent something out of nothing. It's like alchemy, trying to turn lead into gold. Exhausting and time-consuming work, and after all the effort, you still have lead. The media deserves a rest. I hear Havana is lovely this time of year.

I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and company will be calling the G-20 protesters "extremists," "mobsters," "fearmongers," and "racists," any day now. I'm sure that they will castigate those protesters for inciting other left-wingers to violence. While they are at it, they can throw in some stuff about how filmmaker Michael Moore is calling people to violence and assassination with his new anti-capitalist movie, Capitalism, A Love Story (fun quote from Moore – "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil."). After all, I know how concerned liberals are about this stuff. I've been hearing about it for most of the year.

Oddly enough, when I did some web searches about what happened in Pittsburgh, liberal bloggers, after months of nail-biting about violence breaking out at protests, were not very concerned when actual violence did break out at the G-20 (because THEY were the ones perpetrating the violence). No, no. The liberal bloggers were only concerned about the POLICE BRUTALITY used to stop the protestor violence. I kid you not. Never mind that the police were motivated by the protesters breaking windows out of a dozen businesses. I assume the police weren't overy thrilled with having rocks hurled at them either.

Reading through various braindead comments at a liberal blog called the Democratic Underground (DU), now it seems the far lefties are bitching about the police state we have in America. If only I could find a bottle with a genie in it, so I could make a wish and transport all those clueless libs from their parent's basements to an actual police state for awhile (like any of the socialist utopias liberals dream about), so they could see what it's really like. That would shut them up.

My favorite liberal blog comment at DU came from a guy named Big Dan, who asked plaintively, "Why do only liberal protestors get tear gassed, why don't the Teabaggers ever get it ?"

Gee, I don't know Dan. Maybe it has something to do with the rocks and vandalism. I'm sure you can figure it out if you think REAL hard, for once.

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

I've pretty much had my fill of liberals condemning free speech, and then using the specters of racism and/or violent right-wing boogeymen as the excuse. In my last three posts, I have outlined examples of the left calling the right racist. It's the number one argument they use to discount the Tea Party protests. That argument was shot down by President Obama himself on Meet The Press on sunday:

DAVID GREGORY: …this week you had former President Jimmy Carter saying most, not just a little, but most of this Republican opposition against you is motivated by racism. Do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now. But I think you actually put your finger on what this argument's really about. And it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?

The President is absolutely correct. The argument here is about the role of government, not race. The President pointed out that the argument about the government's role goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson versus Alexander Hamilton, and that it always evokes passionate debate. Nothing has changed. Our President is apparently much more intelligent than many of his clueless supporters, who play the race card at the drop of a hat. Kudos to President Obama for saying this.

After the racism charge, the number two free speech stopper used by the left is the politics of fear (which I seem to remember the left condemning not too long ago, ironically enough), in the form of those right-wing boogeymen I mentioned earlier. Apparently, liberals think there are cadres of right-wing nutjobs sitting in front of tv sets and radios all across the country, with their helmets on, armed with hand guns, hand grenades, and Billy Beer, just waiting for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck to give them their marching orders about who or what to go blow up. We saw Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) playing the politics of fear card recently, when she weepily worried about potential violence in front of the cameras. The latest version of this inanity I've read came from the blissfully ignorant Media Matters (aka, George Soros Media Inc.), who had a profound enough lack of self-awareness to write a piece called 'A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this'. That President was John F. Kennedy, of course, and, as much as I hate to pierce Media Matters' bubble of historical revisionism, JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a self-avowed communist. The last I heard, communism was a left-wing ideology. It wasn't "right-wing hatred" that killed JFK. It was left-wing hatred. Not that Media Matters let's the truth get in the way of a good old phony political diatribe.

I can point out ten acts of left-wing violence for every act of right-wing violence over the last several decades, and left-wing governments killed approximately 100 million people in the 20th century alone, (yet somehow liberals NEVER profess a fear of left-wing violence), but liberals do have a real right-wing boogeyman to whom they can point. That is Timothy McVeigh, the man who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in the 1990's, killing 168 people. Heinous. He received the death penalty, which he richly deserved.

McVeigh was an anti-tax, anti-big government Libertarian who voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the 1996 Presidential election. That makes McVeigh sound a lot like……ME. I voted for Harry Browne, and I agree with many Libertarian ideas. In light of McVeigh's violence, the question is, does that make the ideas themselves dangerous ??? Should I stop writing what I do because some nut might misinterpret it ? Should I self-censor my political rhetoric ? Liberals have been answering "YES" to that question for months now. They see a bunch of peaceful Tea Party protests (zero examples of right-wing violence) as some kind of powder keg, ready to explode. Liberal accuse the Tea Partiers of fear-mongering even as liberals fear-monger themselves. It's absurd, and we should all be able to see right through it.

Here are a couple things Timothy McVeigh said that I agree with (horrors ! You better arrest me NOW):

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight"

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful."

Dangerous ideas ? I think not. The Founding Fathers held those ideas, and they are ideas about liberty. I think the dangerous people are the ones who don't object to the ever-growing government, which has the inevitable crushing effect of taking away ever more property and choice (freedom) from the citizenry. McVeigh's gigantic mistake was moving into calls for civil war and violence. Naturally, I don't agree with that. I'm all for using peaceful means, as Martin Luther King advocated. You don't defeat tyranny by becoming a tyrant yourself. In America, we can defeat tyranny at the ballot box.

What McVeigh does represent is what I'll call The Lunatic Factor. We have a country of over 300 million people. Because human nature is fallible, some of those people are bound to be unhinged (I should name names here, but I'll resist). These people might listen to political speech and be motivated to do stupid and destructive things, as McVeigh did. What liberals seem not to understand is, this can manifest itself across the political spectrum. Liberals quake in their boots over largely imaginary right-wing violence, but then they turn around and call right-wingers racists, which is about as inflammatory as political rhetoric can get. If so-called "dangerous" speech is to be controlled, as liberals are advocating, then we can start with the liberals themselves. By labeling all the Tea Party protesters as racists, are not liberals, by their own standards, inciting violence against those alleged "racists" ? After all, racists are dangeous people who must be stopped. If Limbaugh and Beck are inciting violence, so are Olbermann, Garofalo, Maxine Waters, Jimmy Carter, etc.

It's one more liberal example of "do as I say, not as I do." The lack of self-awareness is nothing short of astounding. Are liberals incapable of remembering all the way back to LAST YEAR, when they were calling former President Bush all manners of inflammatory names ? For that matter, they still are calling Bush those names.

The bottom line here is, free speech is allowed in this country. We can't ever allow that to be lost. The people we should always cast a skeptical eye upon are the ones who are attempting to stifle it with their scare tactics. At this moment in history, the stiflers in this country are coming from the left. That also happens to be where the stiflers most often come from – from the big, all-powerful totalitarian governments the left is constantly advocating for (knowingly or not). The belief in freedom is not just an ideological exercise. The real world consequences are immense.

I disagree with President Obama on several policy areas – health care reform, government spending, his $9 trillion in projected deficits, the stimulus package, cap and trade, EFCA, to name a few. I attended the 9/12 Tea Party rally to protest these policies.

According to many liberals, that makes me a racist. Even former President Jimmy "stagflation" Carter said so. Here's what the Peanut Man said during an NBC interview:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time … and I think it's bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Carter is out of his mind, but this is interesting, because when I attended the 9/12 D.C. rally, along with around 100,000 other people, NOBODY brought up the issue of Obama's race, which leads me to believe his race is NOT the issue. What was clear at the 9/12 rally was that Obama's expansive big government policies are the issue, along with the expansive big government policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Yet, Jimmy Carter thinks it is "overwhelmingly" about race. Oh, well. You can't fix stupid. The Peanut Man is entitled to his opinions, and he does have his supporters. For example, Osama Bin Laden is a big fan of Carter's latest book about Israel.

Another nominee for the Stupid Hall Of Fame is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who is currently under investigation for her husband's ties to a bank that received federal bailout money. I brought up Waters on this blog before, when she was tallking about nationalizing the banks. I disagreed strenuously with Mrs. Waters about that. Because Waters is black, I guess I'm a racist again, according to the liberal anti-free speech Thought Police.

Here's Commissar Waters talking about the Tea Parties, according to The Hill:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said that it's not enough for African-Americans to levy allegations of racism against the right-leaning protesters, and that the media must look into their views.

"I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed," Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. "I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers."

"What I'm looking for is the very people who carry the signs who are referring to the policies in very, very strange ways like 'Obamacare' and 'Barry Obamacare with Kennedy,'" she said. "What I've been interested in is hearing from those people that everybody's referring to — everybody on the Mall, in the rally."

So, not only should we protestors be smeared as racists, we should be investigated too. Our brains should be probed for using racist terms like…."ObamaCare" ????? Huh ? I don't quite get the racist element in that term. What about "HillaryCare" ? Was that racist too ? Notice that Waters herself has no qualms about using actual defamatory terms like "teabaggers" to slur her opposition. We've gone through the looking glass, folks. The inmates are running the asylum. Up is down. This is crazy.

After all this insane race baiting, I have to agree with Pete Wehner of Commentary Magazine, who says liberals are having a nervous breakdown:

It’s fascinating to watch how furious liberals have become despite Obama’s being president and Democrats’ controlling the Senate and the House by wide margins. This period should be—they expected it to be—years of milk and honey for them. But events and reality have intervened. They see the Anointed One, Barack Obama—their “sort of God”—failing. He is not only a mere mortal but also a deeply flawed one.

They see support for Obama’s effort to nationalize our health-care system collapsing. They see the American people rising up against his brand of liberalism. They see Republicans with all the intensity on their side. They see GOP candidates leading in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races. They see the popularity of their majority leader, Harry Reid, cratering. They see the Republican party drawing almost even with Democrats on issues like health care—and surging ahead of Democrats on many other issues. They see a dangerous loss of support for Obama among independents and the elderly.

We’re only eight months into the Age of Obama—the period in which he promised to unite our divided country, heal our wounds, and bind up our divisions—and Obama’s critics are now routinely labeled as unpatriotic, racists, liars, mobsters, evil mongers, practitioners of un-American tactics, and more. As Obama’s failures mount up, it will only get worse. The volume will only get louder. And the charges will only get more desperate and incendiary.

It will be an ugly and sad thing to witness. Nervous breakdowns often are.

Also, to paraphrase Wehner, all this time we thought liberals were merely suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now we are finding out they are just deranged, period.

During President Obama's latest health care reform campaign speech before a joint session of Congress, he pretended to throw a bone to Republicans with a weak call for "demonstration projects" on medical tort reform. Rather odd, when you consider such demonstration projects have already been done, and have been done for years.

"Whole states are demonstration projects," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "Texas passed tort reform in 2003 and … insurance premiums went down 30 percent. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40 percent. Let's enact tort reform. Let's not just try that with demonstration projects. We already know it works. Let's put it into law." (link)

Tort reform with settlement caps has already been proven to be effective, both in decreasing the amounts of malpractice liability insurance paid by doctors (these are the premium decreases Rep. Smith is talking about), and in increasing the number of doctors in states with effective tort reform, particularly in areas of medical specialization. President Obama surely knows this, so holding out a carrot to Republicans by calling for demonstration projects is disingenuous. While the President is correct that tort reform is not a "silver bullet," we should be making all efforts to reduce the costs of health care, and this is one. Even if it only saves 5%, that's 5% less than we're paying now. It makes no sense not to pursue it if cost containment is the overarching goal, as the President says.
===
After Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) improperly shouted out "you lie" at the President during the aforementioned Obama health care reform campaign speech, several Democrats and mainstream media members (but I repeat myself) saw it as Wilson genuinely disagreeing with the President about whether illegals would be covered under ObamaCare. Ah, I'm just kidding. They don't ever give Republicans credit for legitimate thoughts. What they really saw was what they always see when a right winger disagrees with the President – RACISM. That's the left's silver bullet.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), said that people will put on "white hoods and ride through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he alleges are subtly supported by Rep. Wilson, are not rebuked. Wilson's racist attitudes were indeed subtle, because Wilson didn't say anything at all racist. In fact, rather than call Wilson's alleged racist attitudes subtle, why don't we call them what they really are – imaginary ? And how about we rebuke Hank Johnson for making the false accusation ? I won't hold my breath.

Deranged liberal N.Y. Times columnist Maureen Dowd said she heard "You lie, BOY" when Wilson made his remark. I suggest Ms. Dowd start immediately on a strong course of anti-psychotic medication, because she's having auditory hallucinations. I only hope Ms. Dowd's dog doesn't start telling her to kill people. The Son Of Sam had a big problem with that.

Liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who suspects racism is behind nearly everything, said of the Wilson comment, "I suspect that Obama's race leads some of his critics to feel they have permission to deny him the legitimacy, stature and common courtesy that are any president's due. I can't prove this, however."

Yes, it IS hard to prove something when there's no evidence for it, Mr. Robinson, but I notice that doesn't stop you from making the accusation. Of course, no Democrats EVER questioned the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, except for every day for 8 straight years, and no Democrat EVER treated President Bush with disrespect (lol). Robinson went on to bemoan the fact that "there's no way to compel people to search their souls for traces of conscious or unconscious racial bias." See, Republicans are so racist that THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. It's unconscious on their part, like so many of Eugene Robinson's columns.

Liberals see Rep. Joe Wilson, a white male, a Republican, and a southerner, and they just can't help themselves, they jump to the conclusion that he's a racist without the slightest evidence. There's a bias at work there alright, but it isn't coming from the Republicans. It's coming from the liberals.

While I'm on this subject, why do you think media outlets like MSNBC and CNN continually point out that most of the Tea Party protesters in D.C. last weekend were white ? Why does that even matter ? It only matters to them because they are dishonestly pushing a racist element to the protests. You'd never hear MSNBC imply racism over the fact that 96% of blacks voted for Obama, yet almost nightly you hear smirking MSNBC fools like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow talking about how so very white the Tea Party and townhall protesters are. I have news for them. There's nothing wrong with being white, just as there's nothing wrong with being of any ethnic background. This is nothing but bottom feeding demagoguery from MSNBC, and it's shameful.

Btw, when is MSNBC going to get some black hosts ? Maybe we should give Olbermoron and Madcow a dose of their own medicine and kick them off the air for a little diversity. We can replace them with people who can actually think.

If all you've got is to call people racist, based upon nothing, you ain't got a thing. You're just an idiot. I'm sick of it. If you want to know who is holding this country back from getting beyond race, I just told you who. It's the very people who are obsessed with dividing us up along racial lines for political gain. This is 2009, not 1955. We've moved on, even if so many liberals have not.

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.” - Senator Barack Obama, in a 2006 floor speech preceding a Senate vote to extend the federal debt limit.

Ah, how I liked THAT Barack Obama back in 2006, when he was railing against the irresponsible fiscal policies of President Bush and his GOP-led Congress. I even went out and bought Obama's book, The Audacity Of Hope. Obama seemed different. He was the post-partisan, responsible voice for change. Obama's book turned out to be pretty light on substance, but his rhetorical fluorishes promised a new kind of politics that could bring left and right together for the betterment of the country.

Too bad it was all rubbish. Obama's idea of bipartisanship is to have Democrats write all the bills, to ignore all Republican suggestions, and to have Republicans sit quietly in the corner and go along with whatever Obama and the Dems want. When Republicans refused to do that, an absolute certainty, Obama and company then demonized them as the "failed policies of the past," the "party of no," "racists," "dividers," "rightwing domestic terrorists (my personal fave)," and so on and so forth.

Speaking of the failed policies of the past, Democrats voted as a bloc against raising the federal debt limit back in 2006, when Obama was allegedly so concerned about shifting bad policy choices onto the backs of our children. Since then, after the Democrats took over Congress and eventually the White House, the debt limit has been raised three times. Now the Senate needs to raise it again, because we are going to exceed the current $12 trillion debt limit next month. We're going to have to keep on raising it too, because both the White House and Congressional Budget Office agree that Obama and the Democrats are going to add another $9 trillion to the debt (and the Dems have lots MORE groovy new spending plans they haven't implemented yet.) Apparently, Obama isn't quite so concerned about the burdens our children will have to bear anymore. Instead, he has declared open season on their futures. Ironically, it's the young people who seem to support Obama the most. Go figure. It's like falling in love with your executioner.

The rest of the world has taken notice of America's massive financial irresponsibility and is proposing changes. China wants to back away from buying U.S. debt, alarmed over massive American money printing (backed by nothing). China sees rampant U.S. inflation coming as soon as the recession ends. Can't argue with them there. The UN wants to move to a new world currency other than the dollar for similar reasons. The dollar just hit a new low for the year, and we're still hemorrhaging jobs at an alarming pace, with unemployment at a 26-year high. In addition, the FHA, which has taken over as the new securitized subprime mortgage lender of choice after the private lenders stopped making those boneheaded loans in the wake of the housing meltdown, is coming perilously close to not meeting it's 2% reserve requirements, as the economy continues to tank and foreclosures continue to rise. A new bailout for the FHA, perhaps ? Hey, why not ? What's another $100 billion these days ?

So naturally, with all this "good" news abounding, our Vice President, Joe Biden, recently declared, "The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy." Sure, Joe, whatever you say. Everything's going great. Keep creating your own reality. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

When all is said and done, the plans of the Democrats are the same as they always are, and as simple as the directions on a bottle of shampoo – Spend. Tax. Repeat.

The children be damned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only remaining questions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just LOVE this next Sunstein quote. Love it.

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

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

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

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

At a townhall meeting, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Howard Dean was asked why tort reform is not included in ObamaCare. Then an amazing thing happened. Dean came very close to telling the truth. I was stunned. The truth ? Did Dean get DNC clearance for that ? I hope he doesn't get flagged as an Obama enemy. Here's Dean's answer:

“Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”

Bingo. Tort reform is not included in ObamaCare because the Democrats don't want to take on the trial lawyers. The only thing Dean didn't reveal was WHY the Dems don't want to take on the trial lawyers. The reason is because the trial lawyers pay the Democrats not to take on the trial lawyers. The lawyers are big-time Democratic campaign donors, so the Dems are content to only demonize the insurance companies and the doctors in order to pass ObamaCare. Trial lawyers get a pass, even if it makes YOUR health care insurance more expensive.

Health care is a right, you know, and it's evil to profit from it. That's what the Dems keep telling us, anyway.
====
Speaking of health care and flagging enemies, there is another right-wing nutjob spreading malicious myths about ObamaCare. No, not Palin. This time it's Representative Betty Markey, a Democrat from Colorado. Here's what Markey told a gathering of her constituents, from Coloradoan.com:

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."

Reduce Medicare benefits ? Uh, oh. That runs contrary to the official Dem health care narrative, which states that 47 million more people will be insured for less money than it costs now, and with absolutely no reductions in health care services or availability ever, ever, ever. Markey should be called down to Principal Obama's office real soon. Between Markey and Dean, a little too much inconvenient truth is leaking out. How's a President supposed to fundamentally transform America with such loose lips ? Did the weekly Democratic talking points memo get lost in the mail, or what ? Darn that government-run post office. The Dems should have used Federal Express instead.
===
On the crazy right-wing extremist violence front, the windows were smashed out of the Denver Democratic Party headquarters, prompting Democratic officials to immediately cast blame on Obama health care opponents (the astroturf mob, aka, regular older American citizens). From the Colorado AP News:

Democratic leaders initially said that the window shattering was an act of political vandalism, possibly by opponents of health care reform…State Democratic Chairwoman Pat Waak continued to say that it was an act of vandalism prompted by the heated debate over President Barack Obama's health care reform…"I stand by my statement that I think there are people opposed to health care reform and there has been a lot of rhetoric that has prompted an atmosphere that I don't think is constructive," Waak said Wednesday. "It's such a polarizing issue. It shouldn't be."

It turns out that the vandalism was done by one Maurice Schwenkler. The problem is, Schwenkler isn't a right-winger. Schwenkler is a former Democratic campaigner and a gay rights transgender activist who opposed Obama's anti-gay rights positions. Schwenkler is a left-winger. Darn. The facts keep getting in the way of that liberal narrative about right-wing violence over health care townhall meetings. The official score is now……Left-wing acts of violence – 2, Right-wing acts of violence – 0.
===
The lack of right-wing townhall violence doesn't stop liberals from whining about it, though. On wednesday night's Countdown With Keith Ubermoron on MSLSD, Olby named Congressman Wally Herger from California the Worst Person In The World when Herger called a man at a townhall meeting "a great American" after the man shouted out from the crowd that he was "a proud right-wing terrorist." The man is not a terrorist, of course. He's a veteran, and was openly mocking those on the left (like Olbermann) who describe townhall protesters using pejorative terms like "terrorists," a "mob," "racists," etc. Olbermann is either too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge the difference. Btw, on the previous linked video, Olby also goes after Glenn Beck for tearing into Van Jones (an acknowledged communist and Obama's Green Jobs Czar). Olby said "Glenn Beck is crap," because Beck didn't divulge that Van Jones group, Color Of Change, is the group that is pressuring advertisers to drop Beck's show. In reality, it's Olbermann who is crap, because Beck has divulged that information, not to mention the fact that Beck went after Jones BEFORE Jones' group starting going after Beck, so Olby has his cause and effect reversed. Keith Olbermann IS the worst person in the world. Why anyone would watch Olbermann's dishonest crap show is the only thing that mystifies me (but I'd never try to pull his advertisers. That's crap too). In Olby's defense, of the three stories he brought up during his moronic Worst Person trilogy, he did get ONE factually correct, even though his snarky histrionics on that story were way overblown too. Seriously, liberal readers, do you watch that show ? If so, why ? All you are getting there is propaganda, half truths, and outright lies.

(Note to liberals – I'm not sticking up for Glenn Beck here. I'm sticking up for the facts. Note the difference. I thought Beck was wrong to call Obama a racist too, but he doesn't deserve to lose his show over it).

- 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.

I don't know if the FCC had a Diversity Officer before, but they have one now. Here's a brief biography of Mark Lloyd, the newly appointed assoiciate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission.

"Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN." – FCC

As the FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd's mission is to destroy conservative talk radio promote divergent viewpoints that represent the greater community. The fact that Lloyd himself is a liberal (senior fellow at the Soros-funded left-wing Center For American Progress) will in no way affect his mission, I'm sure. As we all know, liberals are the tolerant, open-minded people who are willing to listen to any and all liberal viewpoints.

Lloyd is focused on a serious problem with radio broadcasting – conservative talk radio is beating the pants off of liberal talk radio in the private sector. This is a BIG problem, unlike television, newspapers, movies, and college campuses, where liberals have a large media advantage. There is NO problem there, other than maybe how to get Fox News off the air. Lloyd isn't for a return to the Fairness Doctrine though, because, well, the Fairness Doctrine just wasn't effective enough. Conservative talk might still filter through. Lloyd has some better ideas, and like most liberal ideas, they center around punishing that nasty entity known as the "free market." In a 2007 article titled 'Forget The Fairness Doctrine,' Lloyd says the following:

The Center for American Progress late last month published a widely read report titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” That report demonstrated the failure of the supposed “free market” regulation of the U.S. radio industry to address the public-interest needs of listeners. Our analysis revealed that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves of our country—to the detriment of informed public discourse and the First Amendment.

There you go. Those damned Conservatives must be stopped. There's an "imbalance." It's a "detriment." And probably unconstitutional. Unlike newspapers, movies, television, and college campuses, where there is no problem. Lloyd goes on:

In our report, we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules. But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Despite what we thought was fairly stark evidence of conservative bias, despite clear proposals to address that bias, Rush Limbaugh and other distortionists insisted that we were calling for a “return” of the Fairness Doctrine

See ? We have conservative "bias" in talk radio, unlike newspapers, television, movies, and college campuses (where we have liberal bias), and those conservative talk radio folks are "distortionists." They lied and said liberals wanted a return to the Fairness Doctrine (how that is supposed to be a lie, I have no idea. All kinds of liberals DID want a return to the Fairness Doctrine).

But as I said before, Lloyd has better ideas than the Fairness Doctrine. Here he is promoting one such idea, which is, file lawsuits to force conservative talk radio into submission:

Here’s the history that matters. In the late 1960s the United Church of Christ successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commission over the lack of local input in FCC decisions. A moderate Republican judge, Warren Burger, whom Nixon later appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sided with the church group. As a result of that ruling, a whole slew of rules were put in place to give local communities power in the licensing of broadcasters.

Yes, let's get liberal groups to sue and threaten the licenses of the conservative talk radio stations ! Lloyd expounds on that theme:

In their engagement in the licensing process many of those [suing threatening] groups cited the responsibility of the broadcaster to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance…this core responsibility remains in the Communications Act today.”

Here's Lloyd's bestest idea of all – Make them pay:

The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community. Commercial broadcasters want to be trustees of public property but without responsibility.

Yeah, it's only those "dittoheads" who get all upset when you want commercial radio stations (aka, conservative talk radio) to fund public radio stations (aka, liberal talk radio). That's the ticket. Lloyd actually wants private conservative talk radio stations to fund their direct competition. Only a liberal mind could dream up something this perverse. This all happens under the mirage of promoting divergent opinions. Let's take a look at existing public broadcasting on political issues. As we all know, NPR plays it straight down the middle, politically speaking, as long as by "straight down the middle," you mean "promotes the liberal view."

Now for the piece de resistance. Guess how much Lloyd wants commercial radio stations to pay to fund their public radio station competition ? You're gonna love this. In his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, Lloyd called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do: Here's the communist Lloyd, from his book:

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book. “Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. (link)

How many private conservative talk radio stations would choose to stay in business with such exorbitant fees ? I'm thinking – NONE. I'm also thinking that's the whole idea behind Lloyd's bs.

But our new Diversity Czar doesn't stop there. He also wants to dictate programming content as well:

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming. “In addition, educational programs for children and adults, and diverse, independent personal and cultural expression should be encouraged,” he wrote.

What's ostensibly crazy about Lloyd's crapola is, we have more divergent viewpoints being heard in our society than we ever have. With the rise of the internet and alternative media, cable television, etc., it's not difficult to find somebody somewhere catering to your particular political stripe. It's easier than in ever was. Mark Lloyd just doesn't like it that conservatives have carved out a niche for themselves on the radio. Think of all the radio stations on the air in your locality. How many of them are conservative talk radio ? One, maybe two out of dozens ? Yet, this is the BIG PROBLEM that Lloyd thinks we need to address ? Ridiculous. Mark Lloyd is disseminating disinformation. Mark Lloyd is just one more in a long line of double-talking, anti-free market, anti-free speech, pro-government control, pinhead bureaucrats who wants to censor any opinions he doesn't like. Because the liberal talk radio that Mark Lloyd wants has not succeeded on as big a scale as has conservative talk radio up until now, Lloyd wants to bully it into submission. Screw him and the horse he rode in on. He's a Nazi. This is all about censorship and nothing else. Have you ever heard a liberal like Lloyd complain about the imbalance of liberal college professors over conservative college professors at state-run universities ? Of course you haven't, and you never will. Those like Lloyd don't care about anything other than shutting up those conservatives. If they can't win in the open market of ideas, they want to close the market.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) computed the day of the year when all the costs of government at all levels are paid for. ATR calls it Cost Of Government Day. This year, that day fell on August 12, 2009. It has taken from January 1st until now to pay for all the costs of federal, state, and local government, plus the regulatory burdens imposed by the government. This year's Cost Of Government Day was almost a full month later than it was in 2008. The biggest reason for the change was the recession, which sparked a massive Keynesian government spending spree (TARP, stimulus, etc). Another reason is the unchecked growth of unfunded entitlement liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, etc).

This year, the cost of government consumed 61.34% of national income. Working people toil 224 days of the year to pay for their government. You can view the Cost Of Government Day report for 2009 here. It makes for some very interesting and disturbing reading.

Put in it's simplest terms, this means that we are becoming slaves to incremental government tyranny. ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade are some of the next steps in that planned process.

The breakdown of Cost Of Government Day is as follows:
- We work 111 days to pay for federal spending.
- We work 49 days for state and local spending.
- We work 42 days for federal regulations.
- We work 23 days for state and local regulations.

Cost Of Government Day varies from state to state, of course, because each state and locality has a differing burden. The state with the least burden (most free) in 2009 was Alaska (where that radical Sarah Palin governed. No wonder liberals hate her). Predictably, the states with the highest government burdens (least free) were liberal states, with Connecticut being the highest, followed by New Jersey, New York, and California. Liberals LOVE to give their hard-earned money to the government (well, actually, they love to give other people's hard-earned money to the government). Liberals exhibit a plantation mentality, with the government playing the role of master, and the liberals playing the happy slaves whose every need is met by Massuh (at the price of their liberty and free choice). This somehow makes sense to them, though I can never understand WHY it makes sense to them. I run from it like I'm headed for the Underground Railroad.

When you're working 7-8 months per year just to pay off the government burdens, it's only natural that you will be poorer than you'd be otherwise, but somehow liberals can never figure this out either. They are always clamoring for more and more government spending, taxation, and regulation. It's their version of Stockholm Syndrome. They loves them some Massuh. Massuh is SO very good and kind. Massuh is SO very smart.

In an irony so thick you could cut it with a knife, liberals, the willing slaves, call people "racists" when they resist the big government takeovers being planned by President Barack Obama. They actually think it's racist to want to be free from government tyranny, all because Obama's skin is black. They can't see past that singular, irrelevant fact. At this point, crying racism is nothing more than the liberal Pavlovian response to freedom. They can't help it, and they don't understand what the rest of us are so upset about. They don't get that most people don't want to become wards of the state. They are completely baffled when people don't want the government to takeover every aspect of their lives, so they use "racist" as a sort of intellectual firewall. Go figure.

Back to the Cost Of Government Day report. One of the many myths the report destroys is the idea that Obama's stimulus package was actually an economic stimulus package. It wasn't. It was mostly just a bunch of big government appropriations spending under the guise of stimulus, along with spending to prop up, guess who? – the government ("never let a crisis go to waste"). Here's the breakdown of spending in the alleged stimulus package:

- $90 billion for “State Fiscal Relief;”
- $71.3 billion for the Department of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education (including $16.6 billion for
Student Financial Assistance, $13 billion for Education for
the Disadvantaged, $12.2 billion for Special Education and
$9.7 billion for National Institutes of Health);
- $61.1 billion for Transportation, Urban Development and
Housing (including $27.5 billion for Highway
Construction);
- $57.3 billion for Assistance for Unemployed Workers and
Struggling Families (including 39.2 billion for
Unemployment Compensation);
- $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund;
- $50.8 billion for Energy and Water (including $16.8 billion
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy);
- $26.4 billion for Agriculture, Rural Development and Food
and Drug Administration (including $20 billion for the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program);
- $25.1 billion for Health Insurance Assistance;
- $20.8 billion for Health Information Technology;
- $15.8 billion on Commerce, Justice and Science (including
$4.7 billion on the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program);
- $10.6 billion on Interior and Environment (including Clean
Water and DrinkingWater State Revolving Funds);
- $7.9 billion on Defense and Homeland Security;
- $6.7 billion on Financial Services and General Government
(including $5.4 billion on the Federal Buildings Fund);
- $4.3 billion on Military Construction and Veteran Affairs.

Another interesting item in the report is how the tax burden of the various states affects the population and prosperity of those states. The report states that between 1997 and 2007, the ten states with the highest tax burdens lost 3 million citizens and $82 billion in income. During the same period, over 2.6 million people moved to the states with no income tax, bringing in about $98.5 billion in income. Hmmm. Those no income tax states must be racist.

Maybe the most important thing to remember about President Obama's first year in office is this – in 2009, taxpayers are confronted with a federal budget that raises spending to over $9,000 for every man, woman and child in America—forever. That's $36,000 for a family of four. EVERY YEAR. And our President has only just begun to "change" America. Change into what, I shudder to think.

In conclusion, keep going to those Tea Parties and townhall meetings. Keep telling your Congressperson what you think. The only ones who can stop this tyrannical government (and it started long before Obama arrived on the scene) is we, the people. Ignore all the name-calling you endure from the leftist slaves and their pet slave media. They are the problem. You are the solution.

In responding to what he termed "absurd attacks" against ObamaCare, the President said the following:

“So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

This statement outlines one reason why those townhall protesters are complaining so loudly – they think the President is not being honest with them.

Let's do a little fact-checking on the above Obama statement.

I agree that ObamaCare will not "promote euthanasia," which is another word for mercy killing. The government isn't going to start putting down old people with suicide pills or lethal injections. It's against federal law to do that. If any Republicans are actually using the word "euthanasia" to describe ObamaCare, that is a distortion of the actual issue at hand, which is, to what extent will ObamaCare ration (deny) care to the elderly ? That is still an open question, and is making many folks fearful. Obama saying he will not "promote euthanasia" may knock down a GOP straw man, but it doesn't deal with the real issue of rationing. Withholding care from elderly sick people isn't euthanasia per se, but the end result is the same, death. We need clarification, Mr. President. I realize this is a difficult issue to deal with, but people want to know that cost-savings isn't going to trump people's lives. They don't know that now.

How about Obama's claim that he will not "cut Medicaid ?" Well, back in june, the President outlined $313 billion in spending cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for part of ObamaCare. The cuts include reductions in payments to Medicare/Medicaid providers, cuts in federal subsidies to hospitals for uninsured patients, and cuts in how much the federal government pays pharmaceutical companies for drugs. The Democratic health care plan in the House of Representatives goes further, calling for $500 billion in Medicare cuts. If you want to know where anyone came up with the "absurd attack" idea that ObamaCare was going to "cut Medicaid," now you know. The idea comes from the Medicare/Medicaid cuts that the Democrats have already proposed.

How about the notion that ObamaCare "will bring about a government takeover of health care ?" Where did this "absurd attack" come from ? Here's Obama in 2003, speaking to the AFL-CIO:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Here's Obama in 2007 at a townhall meeting when asked about single-payer. Obama states again that single-payer is his preference, but political reality dictates that he can't get there immediately:

"'If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we aren't starting from scratch. We have historically a system of employer-based health care…we don't want a huge disruption…now, obviously, as President, I've got to work with Congress to get this done…we may not get everything I want in there, and may not have everything you want in there..I'm confident that we are gonna get health care reform this year, and start putting us on a path that is sustainable over the long term '"

Here's Barney Frank (D-VT) in July, 2009:

"The best way we're going to get single-payer; the only way; is to have the public option and to demonstrte its strength and power."

Is there ANY doubt that Obama and the liberal Democrats want to use the public option as a Trojan Horse to bring about a transition to the single-payer system they really want ? Obama denies it now, of course, but the above quote tells you why he is denying it now. It's because he knows such a change wouldn't pass. He needs a transition period to get Americans conditioned to the idea. Thus the disinformation.

On to Obama's next statement – "This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance."

This line doesn't even pass the laugh test. ObamaCare is ALL ABOUT putting the government in charge of your health care, with or without the public option. The government will force you to buy health insurance, create a myriad of new health care regulations that the insurance companies must follow, fine any employer who doesn't provide health insurance, create a health insurance exchange of government approved insurance companies, and eliminate the citizen's choice to control the type of health insurance coverage they want. Not to mention that the House Democrats health care plan would create a slew of new federal programs, agencies and commissions to oversee the government-run health insurance regime (link). The last thing ObamaCare is about is "putting you in charge of your health insurance." It's about putting the government in charge.

One part of Obama's statement that appears to be true is when he says "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." I have no reason to doubt that. Then again, what alternative is there to having doctors perform health care ? It's not like some government bureaucrat can do it. Just as farmers grow crops and plumbers fix sinks, doctors provide health care. It's a fait accompli. The very notion that we need the President of the United States to tell us we can go to a doctor of our choice indicates how out of kilter our health care system has become. On a side note, guess who invented HMO's, that reviled health care construct where you can only go to doctors inside the HMO network (to "manage" care and costs) ???? If you answered that the GOVERNMENT created HMO's, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, the "liberal lion" from Massachusetts, you win a kewpie doll. This is the same Ted Kennedy whose health care plan is the outline for the Senate version of ObamaCare. If you think of ObamaCare as an HMO on a universal scale, it suddenly doesn't sound so appealing, does it ?

It's no mystery why people are concerned with Obama's health care reform, and I haven't even mentioned the fact that it is going to cost the taxpayers a LOT more money, at a time when our government is already spending money faster than any drunken sailor could ever imagine. We toss around the term 'trillion' like it's nothing these days. 'Trillion' is far from nothing. It's MASSIVE. It's frightening, and people are frightened.

And all we're getting is partisan politics (from both sides) and disinformation from the top. When the President of the United States is engaged in spin and deception, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. It inspires fear and doubt, and we're seeing that play out at townhall meetings all across the country. Then the Democrats criticize the people at townhall meetings asking the hard questions. Hard to fathom.

President Obama is a fiscal hawk. I know that might sound strange to some of you (the sane ones), seeing as how Obama passed an $800 billion stimulus package, a record breaking, pork-laden $410 billion Omnibus bill, and a record breaking $3.55 trillion budget during the worst recession in 70 years. Yes, Obama will have a $1.8 trillion deficit his first year in office and is projected to run up more deficits than every other President in history COMBINED. Yes, we have committed up to $24 trillion to fight the recession, and Obama is trying to spend an additional $200 billion per year or so on health care reform, and he's only been in office for SIX MONTHS, for chrissakes….

But Obama is a fiscal hawk. Check it out. He has made good on his promise to trim $102 million from the federal budget. That's right. $102 Million with an 'M', as in, a drop in the ocean when Obama is spending trillions at the same time.

Yes We Can !

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag actually had the nerve to say the following words about Obama's pathetic budget cuts, "These savings reflect the president's belief that even small savings can add up."

Too bad we don't use firing squads anymore.
===
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) takes his job very seriously. He would never shirk his sworn duty to the American people. Here's Conyers at the National Press Club, talking about reading bills:

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

That's right, Conyers. How can they expect an important man like yourself to actually read and comprehend the legislation you are about to pass into law ? It's not like that's your job or anything…..wait a minute. It IS your job, you arrogant chunk of cow flop. That's why you're in Congress, and here you are, brazenly spitting directly in the faces of the people who elected you.

Why don't we use firing squads anymore ?
===
Ohio Senator George Voinovich (he's still in office ? Who knew ?) is unhappy that the southerners are taking over the GOP:

“We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”

Yes, it's too bad that Ohio doesn't have, like, a Republican Senator to whom Ohioans can relate. Ohio only has Voinovich.

What's wrong with southerners, anyway ? The Civil War is WAAAAAY over.
===
Republicrat Arlen Specter (D-PA) is another man of conviction on Capitol Hill, and his voting record proves it. The last time Specter was up for re-election, in 2003-4, he was a Republican. Specter voted with Republicans 85% of the time back then. Now it's 2009-10, and Specter is up for re-election again. Back in April, Specter found himself hopelessly behind in the Republican primary polls, so, being a man of honor and conviction, Specter switched parties and became a Democrat. Congressional Quarterly did a study and found that since he switched parties, Specter now votes with the Democrats 85% of the time. Presto-change-o. Will the real Arlen Specter please stand up ? Then again, how about Arlen Specter, whoever he is, sits down ? It seems the only conviction Specter has is the conviction that he should be re-elected to office at all costs.
===
On the health care reform front, the CBO has scored a TKO on the House health reform bill. President Obama said he would not sign a health care reform bill that added to the deficit (thank God. It's bad enough to implement tax increases in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years), and the CBO has shown that the House bill doesn't cut the mustard. Keith Hennessey has put the numbers into graphic form:

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for the House, unless John Conyers is too busy to drive to work, of course.

If you just broke into your own home by forcing open the front door, and then the police showed up to investigate after receiving a call from a passerby that two men wearing backpacks broke into your home, would you:

A) Explain the situation and thank the police for trying to protect your home from potential burglars, or
B) Rant and rave and call the police racists.

I'd pick option A, but it seems that Henry Louis Gates Jr. chose option B. Oh, excuse me. I mean HARVARD BLACK SCHOLAR Henry Louis Gates Jr. chose option B. I've yet to read a news report that didn't refer to Gates as a Harvard black scholar, as if that is somehow supposed to make a difference in the events that took place.

Gates, the Harvard black scholar, accused the police of racial profiling. If you ask me, this brings Gates' scholarly reputation into serious question. The police didn't pull Gates' car over at random on the highway to hassle him because he was black. THAT would have been racial profiling. No, the police were responding to a call, to a potential crime. The police went to Gates' house, in effect, to protect Gates and his possessions. That's what the police do. That's their job. Protect and serve. The police asked Gates to produce identification to prove he was who he said he was. No problem there, either. What were the police supposed to do, just take Gates' word for it and leave ? They'd pretty much have to be the dumbest police in the world to do that. Even Mayberry Deputy Barney Fife wasn't that dumb. Barney would have asked for ID.

That's as far as I can go with the facts, because I don't know exactly what happened after that. I wasn't in Gates' house, so I have no way of knowing. We have conflicting testimony from the parties involved. Gates thinks the police were being racist, and the police say they were following protocol and Gates was being disorderly. Gates ended up being arrested for disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped. All I'll say about that is, if I'm the police, I'm going to do everything I can to calmly extricate myself from what was nothing but a misunderstanding. If I'm Gates, ditto. Obviously, that didn't happen.

What is instructive here is how liberal knees automatically jerked toward blaming the police (the liberal default position), even without command of all the facts. That knee jerking worked it's way all the way up to liberal numero uno, President Barack Obama, who said the police "acted stupidly" in the Gates case. Obama used the Gates incident to launch into a riff about how blacks and Latinos are treated unfairly by the police.

I've known for a long time not to hassle the police. Things won't go well for you if you do. If you hassle them long enough, you'll end up in handcuffs, just like Gates did. It doesn't matter what color you are. I'm white, and I can attest to that fact personally (don't ask, cuz I'm not telling). If you are out of control, they will put you under control. That's part of their job too, and it's not easy. I wouldn't want to do their job. My default position is to respect the police. I guess that's one of many reasons I'm not a liberal. I'm suspicious of people who view the police as the enemy. The enemies of the police are commonly known as "criminals."

Not that I'm saying Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a criminal. He isn't. That situation just spun out of control. If I had to offer an opinion, I'd say it was Gates who was a victim of his own prejudices, not the police. Gates is sticking with his racial profiling story, no matter how inappropriate, and wants to make a PBS documentary about it. The police know better. The black officer on the scene at Gates' arrest confirms that. He supports the actions of the cops. So does the police union. President Obama even knows that he spoke out of turn. Obama said he "could have calibrated those words differently." (Don't you love politi-speak ? Why can't Obama just say "I'm sorry" like a normal person ?) White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has decided to blame the media's "obsession" for keeping the story going (translation – Obama looks bad, so the White House wants the story to go away. If Obama had looked good on this issue, he'd be making an hour long speech on race relations on primetime television about it).

But at least Gates' arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, might get to have a beer with the two Ivy Leaguers, Obama and Gates. I'm sure they can tell Crowley all about racial profiling, even though Crowley teaches a class about it.

Update 7/27/09 – A copy of the police report of Gate's arrest is online now. It makes Gates look like an pompous jerk.

When I talk to liberals about politics, I always come away thinking they are a few bricks shy of a load. I want to understand them, but logic invariably gets in the way. Maybe it's me. Yesterday, after a cocktail or three, I decided the only way I could ever identify with liberals was to become one, so I quit my job, signed up for food stamps and Medicaid, and started formulating a scam to collect SSI.

I was off to a good start, but still, it didn't seem like enough. Something was missing. Then it hit me. I needed an advocacy group !!! You can't be a self-respecting liberal without a liberal cause. So I formed the Night-time Unemployed Ten-Speeders (NUTS, for short). The NUTS group is founded around a key First Amendment right that all Americans should enjoy – the right to ride our ten-speed bicycles on MetroPark trails in the middle of the night. Currently, this is very difficult and dangerous to do, because the trails are not lighted (no doubt due to the Bush administration not caring about REAL people like us night-time ten-speeders). Also, the MetroParks are closed at night. CLOSED, dude ! What's up with that ? It's fascist. So I contacted the ACLU about filing a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney to get the trails lit up at night (yeah, I know they're out of office, but c'mon, you know it's their fault somehow).

I was eager to put NUTS into action, and the ACLU kept hanging up on me, so I got one of those beer helmets (pictured above), and I duct-taped a flashlight on top so I could see where I was going on the MetroPark trails. Thus, the first NUTS outing was convened. Because I was the only member of the group to date, I made myself the President of NUTS, and last night at 2am, I was off and pedaling on the trails, leaving the Park Ranger behind, cursing in my wake.

It was great !!! I was whizzing around those trails, really enjoying my new First Amendment right, when I came to a sharp left turn in the trail. As I banked into it, a mighty old oak tree stood directly in my path (darn those ACORN's). There was no way I could avoid it. Quicker than I could say 'Buck Fush,' I slammed into the tree and was knocked unconscious.

That's when the dream started. Suffering from head trauma, I had a kind of senseless epiphany. I saw the genius of the liberal view. Obama was brilliant, man ! Not only were single-payer health care and cap-and-tax cap-and-trade great ideas, but so was big government in general. We needed even more of it ! A lot more. If it is a great idea to get rid of the greedy profiteers in health care, then it followed that we should get rid of those nasty profits EVERYWHERE we found them, man, in order to bring about the perfect utopian society. Let's have the government take over, like, the food industry, so we can have cheaper food. Free food, actually. Let the rich pay for it. It's the compassionate way. Ditto for the clothing industry, and the entire retail industry for that matter. We don't need retailers. They make profits and make things more expensive too. That ain't good for people and other living things. We don't need wholesalers either. That's just more profit, driving up the costs and hurting the people. Let's just have the government run EVERYTHING !!! Why didn't I see it before ? It's wonderful. No more greedy businesses. No more jobs to go to. It'll be awesome ! I'll have so much more time for Night-time Unemployed Ten-Speeding.

Wait a second. There is ONE problem. We will still need somebody to produce things and deliver them to my house (no more mortgages either ! Banks profit from mortgages. They're evil. Free housing for all ! Rock on, liberals !). How do we solve the production and delivery problems ??? Hmmm. Bummer. Wait. I know, we'll get the illegals to do it all. They work cheap. Let them ALL in and have them all work for the government. They'll be grateful to be slaves happy workers for the rest of us. Oh my God, this is going to be SO sweet ! It would also be nice if the government could take my kids off my hands. We not only need universal government pre-school, but we need universal government babysitting too, from birth. That would free up even more of my time !

Let's calculate. What would be a fair amount of money for the government to send me so I can have a nice life with all my needs provided for ? I think $5,000 per month should do it (that's AFTER my free food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc). That sounds fair. After all, I didn't get to go to Harvard. They owe me. I was oppressed.

Man, I love this dream……

When I came to, I found myself handcuffed, with the Park Ranger and two cops standing over me, laughing. Oh, great. The Nazis were here to harsh my mellow. I tried to explain NUTS to them, and I guess they believed me, sorta. They sent me to the psychiatric wing of a local hospital for observation. Did I mention before that I was only wearing a red Speedo ? It's freedom of expression, my brothers and sisters. Looks like THE MAN was coming down on us liberals AGAIN. Still, we have to fight the power. No justice, no peace.

Hey ! Now that I'm in the hospital with a concussion and getting psychiatric care, that SSI should be a snap. Rock on !

Upon taking office, President Obama vowed to "restore science to it's rightful place."

Enter John Holdren, whom Barack Obama recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Holdren's informal title is Science Czar (and as you shall see shortly, "Czar" is definitely the correct description for Holdren).

The following ideas come from the 1977 book Ecoscience, co-authored by Holdren, and illustrate what our radical new Science Czar thinks is the "rightful place" of science. Passages from this book read like the fiction from Huxley's Brave New World, or the ravings of a tyrranical lunatic. According to this book, Holdren is a totalitarian, a eugenicist, and an environmental extremist. What he proposes is simply beyond belief. Here are some direct quotes from Holdren's book:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Hmmm. I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution that would allow the government to mandate forced birth control or forced abortions. I wonder who "concluded" that ?

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Forced marriage, forced adoption. Holdren isn't quite up to speed on the ideas of liberty or freedom of expression, is he ? I'm pretty sure the Constitution DOES say something about those concepts.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Sterilize the population via drinking water, as long as it doesn't harm the livestock. Sure, Mr. Holdren. Was it Thomas Jefferson who first spoke those inspiring words, or was it Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg Address ? I can never remember.

a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
…
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Maybe they can combine the sterilization implant with the National ID implant chip. The totalitarian two-fer. I'm glad Holdren left open the possibility that some of us peons MIGHT be able to have children with the permission of the government. Of thee I sing.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

I wonder how the government will determine which people are causing "social deterioration" ???? Eugenics, anyone ? Btw, the government is already trying to require us to "exercise responsibility" in our "resource-consumption patterns," in case anyone was wondering if this type of stuff could ever really happen.

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

One worlders unite !!! I don't know why Holdren mentioned the Constitution in that previous passage from his book, because he clearly could care less about it. He wants to throw it out the window in favor of a planetary governing body. Holdren doesn't recognize any limitations on the power of the state. At least we won't have to worry about maintaining the integrity of sovereign nations any longer, because there won't be any sovereign nations. It's Big Brother gone global. What could possibly go wrong ?

If such things are science's "rightful place," well, I'd rather go back to where it was before. What kind of lunacy are we ushering into being here ? Where is America going ? The former fringe radicals are taking the seats of power, and that is truly frightening. What's next, Bill Ayers as the Education Czar ? It wouldn't be much different. We have to stop these people.

I suppose I should write about Sarah Palin resigning as the Governor of Alaska, since she's been the subject of wall-to-wall news coverage since friday. The teevee talking heads have been all atwitter with their uninformed opinions (they range from "Palin is an out-of-the-box genius thinker" to "Palin is an idiot").

Let's see, what can I add to that discussion ?

Probably not much, but I see Palin as neither a genius nor an idiot. She became an instant sensation for the Republican party when John McCain selected her to be his Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. Rumor has it that McCain wanted to select Joe Lieberman, but was convinced to pick Palin instead, because conservatives weren't too happy about having a liberal Democrat (on everything but the war) as McCain's running mate. Palin fit the GOP bill as both a social and fiscal conservative, and BONUS!, she was a woman (and still is, in spite of liberal protestations to the contrary).

After Palin made her debut as McCain's running mate, McCain overtook Barack Obama in the polls. Palin excited the GOP base and many women voters, though later her inexperience on national issues would become a drawback.

The Palin phenomenon brought out the liberal hate machine like nothing I have ever witnessed before in my lifetime. They attacked her appearance, her husband, her children, her state, her hometown, her accent, her clothes, and anything they could dream up. More lies were told about Sarah Palin than I can even count. Among the liberal falsehoods were – Palin wanted to ban books, Palin didn't believe in sex education, Palin was a member of a secessionist party, Palin faked her pregnancy to cover up her daughter's pregnancy, Palin wanted creationism taught in schools, Palin's son was forced into the military for vandalizing buses, Palin cut the budget for special needs children…..and there are TONS more. They are all lies, and almost all were repeated by the mainstream media. This is in addition to Palin being called a b*tch, a Nazi, a hick, a cheerleader, a bimbo, an airhead, a sexpot, a slut, a whore, etc, etc. Pure hate from many of those "tolerant" liberals (who are really elitist, sexist, classist, anti-christian frauds).

And that was only during the presidential campaign. The attacks on Palin have NEVER stopped. She has had no less than 15 spurious ethics complaints brought against her by her opponents. ALL have been dismissed. I have written about them before. Think about this. That's 15 ethics complaints brought against Palin in only 2 1/2 years as the Governor of Alaska. Do you think someone was out to get her ? The answer is pretty obvious.

But just because people were out to get her is no reason for Palin to allow herself to be gotten, and in my opinion, that's just what she did by resigning. In addition to letting down the voters who elected her, she has let the haters harass her out of office. By doing that, she is only encouraging even more such lowlife tactics in the future, because now the lowlifes will see that their phony tactics can work. Sarah the Barracuda has become Sarah the Guppie, and if she has presidential aspirations (which I actually doubt), she just made it a lot tougher for herself by giving ammunition to her enemies.

Score one for the haters.

And here's a parting shot from one of the HuffPo haters, who wrote a piece called 'Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform'. Stay classy.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

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.

We have another Obama nominee who didn't pay taxes (notify the CDC. This is becoming an epidemic):

President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November. The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Ah, the old "it got lost in the mail" excuse. I'm also wondering what kind of an accountant forgets to file one's income taxes. Perhaps the Dems all use the same one. Time for a switch.
—
President Obama is in trouble with a liberal group – for killing a fly during a television interview, in an impressive display of hand-eye coordination by our prez. PETA is upset. They are terming Obama's act an "execution," and called for President Miyagi to show compassion for "the least sympathetic animals." Compassion for unsympathetic creatures is a liberal trait, so PETA has a point here. I mean, who is a more unsympathetic animal than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ? Liberals have sympathy for him. They'd even like to put President Bush in prison for swatting KSM. I have more sympathy for the fly.
—
An Iranian envoy to the IAEA, the UN atomic watchdog group, is gonna be in big trouble with the Mullahs back home, because he let the cat out of the bag regarding Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons (like we didn't already know):

After saying as usual that Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Ali Asghar Soltanieh strayed alarmingly from the Islamic republic's usual line.

"The whole Iranian nation are united… on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Oops. Maybe what Soltanieh meant was, Iran would only use their nuclear weapons for civilian purposes, like to nuke those civilian protestors and their crazy ideas about fair democratic elections.
—
It seems the Israelis have lost their appetite for Hopenchange. They no longer think Obama is pro-Israel, according to the latest poll:

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions. In the intervening month, Obama gave his homily to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, and his administration has come into open conflict with Israel's leaders over a 'settlement freeze' and over the opening of the Gaza crossings without the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit.

In related news, more Americans are starting to catch on to what Hopenchange really is – total domination by the federal government. Obama's poll ratings are dropping here too, down to 56% approval for the prez, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey:

According to the survey , the greatest loss of support was registered among those who described themselves as "politically independent."
"President Obama’s honeymoon is coming to an end," affirmed Chuck Todd, the NBC correspondent to the White House, while presenting the results of the survey.
"The public appears to be judging the president for some of his actions. There is now a growing concern over the budget deficit, as well as other government measures with respect to the economy," he added.

Outrageous. Judging the president for his actions ?!?! What kind of right-wing claptrap is Chuck Todd trying to pass off here ? You just gotta B-E-L-I-E-V-E, people. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Remember, Obama is "saving" jobs, even though we've lost 1.6 million jobs since the $800 billion Porkulus package was passed. Remember, Obama is "fiscally responsible," even though we're going to have the largest single year deficit in American history, with more enormous deficits as far as the eye can see. Don't worry, be happy. Besides, the Federal Reserve is in charge now, with the new financial rules Obama has put in place. The Fed will oversee everything, so it's all being handled. Problem solved.

As a reminder of how well the Fed handles things, just remember what a great job Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, did in predicting the housing market crash and recession we're in now. Let's go to the videotape !

In Bernanke's defense, except for housing, energy, the automobile industry, the stock market, the economy, the coming recession, jobs, and just about everything else, Bernake NAILED it from 2005-2007. Also, once we were up to our necks in the recession, Bernanke DID recognize it. He's the expert leading the Fed now, so, no worries. What could possibly go wrong ?

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.

An 88-year old racist cretin named James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. on wednesday, killing one of the security guards, Stephen Tyrone Jones. Sigh. Another senseless tragedy committed by another senseless idiot, the third act of domestic terrorism by an individual gunman in the last couple weeks.

Brunn appears to be your classic white supremacist, neo-Nazi, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying bigot, the kind who worships Adolph Hitler and believes the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is proof positive that the Jews are involved in some dark conspiracy to take over the world.

In other words, he's a dumb-ass. Now he's a murderer too. I can't believe such people still exist in this country.

Speaking of dumb-asses, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wasted no time in politicizing the tragedy. Brunn's attack was Olby's lead story last night, and he called Brunn a "right-wing extremist" about 700 times to make sure his viewers got the message that 'it's them thar nasty conservatives what dun it.' Somehow, he even managed to blame the shooting on Rush Limbaugh (not kidding). Using that unique Olbermann anti-logic of his, Keith-boy said something to the effect of "Limbaugh criticizes Obama by using words, others hear words, so then they go kill Jews at the Holocaust Museum." I'm paraphrasing, of course. Olby wasn't quite that coherent. By tonight's show, I expect Keith Olbermann will obtain affirmative proof that James von Brunn is the de-facto head of the Republican Party.

For the life of me, I don't know why anyone watches that show (other than someone like myself, who watches it on occasion for blogging ideas. Olby's lunacy is an inspiration in that regard). For a guy who raves on about alleged right-wing haters non-stop, nobody pushes more hate than Olby (btw, last night's Worst Person In The World wasn't James von Brunn. It was Michelle Bachman (R-MN), who misspoke in a speech by saying the word "economists" where she should have said "economics." That made her worst in the world. Again, not kidding).

But enough about K. Ubermoron. I only brought him up as an example. The real question Olby brings to mind is:

Why are neo-nazis always referred to as right-wingers ?

This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The Nazis were the National SOCIALIST Party in Germany. That's what 'nazi' means. Socialists are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from right-wingers. Socialists (and fascists and communists too) are all about government control. Right-wingers are about limited government. Socialists are about the supremacy of the collective good, as was Adolph Hitler. "Third Reich" translates to "Third Empire." Right-wingers are about the supremacy of individual liberty. When you talk about right-wing extremism, you should be talking about anarchist types, or at least anti-government types, like Timothy McVeigh. Brunn has some of those characteristics, but the neo-nazi stuff doesn't fit. Neither does some other stuff Brunn wrote, which you'll hear about later. Brunn often ended his political diatribes with "Heil Hitler." That kind of stuff makes my head want to explode.

A racist like James von Brunn is a person advocating for his collective, white people, over the interests of others. Racism IS identity politics, and it's not right-wingers who are it's primary practitioners. That comes from the other side.

It isn't right-wingers who are against the Jews either. Conservatives support Israel to a much greater extent than do liberals (though the majority of American Jews voted for Obama. Go figure). The examples of anti-semitic sentiment from the left are rife, but the latest comes from Obama's former pastor, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In a recent interview, Wright was asked if he has talked to Obama recently. Wright's reply was, "them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me."

Such a man of God, that one.

The Republican party was founded by Abraham Lincoln as the anti-slavery party, and during the civil rights era of the 60's, it was southern Democrats who still supported Jim Crow laws and fought against integration, not Republicans. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

In spite of all this, scumbags like James von Brunn are always labeled as right-wing extremists. I don't get it. Maybe it's because the ones doing the labeling come from the left. I don't know.

James von Brunn's political views can be tracked, because Brunn has a number of unhinged political diatribes scattered around the internet. Brunn hated Obama, like any white supremacist would, and there is evidence he belonged to the Obama Birther movement, which claims Obama has never produced valid evidence of his American citizenship, thus disqualifying him from being President. Brunn apparently detested Marxism, lending credence to the right-wing label, but he also hated Bush, neoconservatism, and Bill O'Reilly (along with LOTS of other people. Brunn was a veritable buffet of hatred). Neoconservatism is equated with Jews by folks like Brunn. Brunn was also into conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement. If you want to delve into this guy's twisted brain, you can find some if his writings at the above link, or read one of his sick tirades here.

If you read James von Brunn's lunacy, make sure to take a shower afterward, so the filth doesn't stick. This is a public service announcement and a warning. I don't want to be accused of promoting violence by some fool like Keith Olbermann.

Conclusion – James von Brunn exhibits some traits of right-wing extremism, but he also exhibits some traits of left-wing extremism. In the end, he's just a twisted horse's you-know-what, as is Keith Olbermann and the rest of the dishonest political philosophizers (yeah, I said 'philosophizers.' I'm the Worst Person In The World too). But I won't be blaming Olbermann for anyone's murder. I still believe in free speech. I only blame James von Brunn. It's called personal responsibility, as opposed to partisan hogwash. If I was into partisan hogwash, I'd be asking the same questions liberals asked of Bush following 9/11 – Why isn't President Obama stopping these domestic terrorist attacks by known radicals ? Why is he asleep at the switch ? Why doesn't he care ? Because I'm not into partisan hogwash, I won't ask those questions. Oops, too late.

Not by the leftmedia, anyway.
===
Ever since Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate last year, she has faced a barrage of ethics complaints. No less than 14 complaints have been filed against her, for everything from firing Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, to taking trips out of state, to conducting television interviews in her state office, to Palin wearing a jacket from her husband's snowmobile racing sponsor to a public function. Out of the 14 ethics complaints, obviously motivated by partisan politics, Palin has been cleared of every single one.

Palin said defending herself against all the frivolous complaints has cost more than $500,000, and she set up a legal defense fund to cover the costs.

Can anyone guess what happened next ?

Palin has been charged with ANOTHER ethics violation for setting up the defense fund !!! From the Washington Times:

Eagle River resident Kim Chatman challenged [Palin's defense fund]. "Governor Palin is perched to improperly receive an enormous amount of money for herself and her family and position a pool of pre-paid defense lawyers organized to deflect consequences of wrongdoings," Ms. Chatman said in the filing.

Egads. At what point do Palin's opponents go from being watchdogs to being harassers ? I think the line has definitely been crossed. Why don't they just cut to the chase, make it illegal to oppose liberals, and be done with it ?

In related news, be sure to stay tuned for MSNBC's upcoming "Palin removes tag from pillow !!" blockbuster expose, complete with Keith Olbermann's finest faux gesticulations and hyperbole, including a couple "Palin is worse than Hitler" comparisons for good measure. Do I smell a Pulitzer ?
===
As the USA moves left politically, with Democrats scoring big victories in the last two elections, the European Union is moving to the right. The EU countries, having already seen the consequences of adopting socialist democratic policies, handed big electoral victories to conservatives in last sunday's elections. From AP:

The European Union said center-right parties were expected to take the most seats — 267 — in the 736-member parliament. Center-left parties were headed for 159 seats. The remainder were expected to go to smaller groupings.

Right-leaning governments were ahead of the opposition in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium, while conservative opposition parties were leading in Britain and Spain.

We are the force that is acting level-headedly and correctly in this financial and economic crisis," said Volker Kauder, the leader of Merkel's [conservative] party in the German parliament.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing conservatives trounced the Socialists, while an ecology-minded party vaulted to a surprisingly strong third place, according to official results.

The Socialists, who dominated the last vote in 2004, suffered a stinging defeat, barely clinging to the No. 2 spot.

"Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe," said Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament. "(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."

For all those who have desired America to be more like Europe….okay, it suddenly sounds pretty good to me. Let's go for it.