Voter ID frauds: A few weeks ago, I excoriated the Obama Justice Dept. for blocking South Carolina's voter ID law. Every time I mention voter ID laws, liberals tell me voter ID is racist (because voter ID is applied equally to all voters, by definition it cannot be racist). Liberals also tell me there is no voter fraud problem to justify the implementation of voter ID. As usual, liberals are lying:

South Carolina's attorney general has notified the U.S. Justice Department of potential voter fraud.

Attorney General Alan Wilson sent details of an analysis by the Department of Motor Vehicles to U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles.

In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they "voted" up to 6 1/3 years after their death.

Because voter ID laws would have prevented every one of these fraudulent votes by dead people, I'm left once again to conclude that liberals are in FAVOR of voter fraud. There is no other rational explanation for their position on the issue.
====
On The Brink: The European Union announced an oil embargo against Iran in response to Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Iran's response:

Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil, the semi-official Fars news agency reports.

The announcement came in response to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

“The pressure of sanctions is designed to try and make sure that Iran takes seriously our request to come to the table,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said.

The Strait of Hormuz is the vital link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

It is also one of the most strategic chokepoints in the world when it comes to oil transit.

With world oil output estimated at some 88 million barrels per day in 2011, the US Energy Information Administration estimated that some 17 million of those barrels passed through the Strait.

If economic sanctions sufficiently pressure Iran to retaliate by closing down the Strait, nearly 20 per cent of worldwide oil trade would be impacted, resulting in a massive spike in global energy costs.

However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.

If Iran tries to close the Strait Of Hormuz, there will be war, period, and this time, it really will be what liberals have been crying wolf about for years, a "war for oil". The reality is, a closed Strait Of Hormuz would bring the west to it's knees economically. The United States will never allow that to happen.
===
Dismal State Of The Union: Here's an opinion/analysis piece from the Washington Times that hits the mark. Not much for me to add to it:

There is one person — one American among the 300 million of us — who is not to blame for the state of the union. Everyone else, each of you, in some small or large way, bears some share of the blame, but not this guy. Not one little bit.

This guy is Barack Obama. He is not the least bit to blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy. George W. Bush is, for sure, and that evil Dick Cheney, oh, no doubt. House Speaker John A. Boehner — evil, too — is, of course, to blame. But guess what? So is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and every Democrat in the House and Senate.

Now, President Truman made it very clear: The buck stops with him. No passing the buck for that guy. But Mr. Obama blames everyone but himself. Mr. Bush, he says, left the nation in a ditch, a deep ditch, and he’s been digging out since he took office. And Congress? Those guys are just plain awful, he says. So mean. Wah, they won’t do anything I want done! Mr. Obama feels so sure about it that he’s basing his re-election campaign on bashing Capitol Hill.

But with the president delivering his State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday night, let’s pause here to take as hard look at the real state of America, by the numbers, using only cold, hard facts.

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent — at least that’s the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, “if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.”

In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 — 12 years ago — and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered “low paying,” up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if you’re keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office — a 20 percent increase.)

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.

Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.

Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent. Total spending has more than doubled in just four years to a record high of $75 billion. In 2011, more than 46 million people — about one in seven Americans — got food stamps. That’s 14 million more than when Mr. Obama took office.

Median household income has dropped nearly 7 percent in the last six years, taking inflation into account. What’s more, nearly 20 percent of males age 25 to 34 now live with their parents.

Low- and middle-income Americans 65 and older now hold more than $10,000 in credit card debt, up 26 percent since 2005. The average age of the American car is 10 years; in 1990, it was 6.5 years old (by the way, in 1985, Americans bought 11 million cars; in 2009, less than half that, 5.4 million).

On the macro side, America’s annual budget has jumped to $3.8 trillion — and yet the United States brings in only about $2.1 trillion in revenue. The U.S. trade deficit for 2011 was $558 billion. America’s total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion. Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in just one term — more debt than was amassed by all presidents from Washington through Bill Clinton combined. The debt is rising by $4.2 billion every day — $175 million per hour, nearly $3 million per minute.

So, America, that is the State of Your Union. But remember, Mr. Obama had not one thing to do with it. So don’t blame him when you go to the polls. Blame everyone else, especially yourself.

The era of big government is back with a vengeance, and has been for the last decade. The negative results are plain to see, and President Barack "The Buck Stops There" Obama is preparing to argue that the answer is…BIGGER government, where the lines between pubic and private enterprise are blurred even further. Heaven help us if we give this man a second term. American liberty hangs in the balance.

In trying to decide who should be our next President, we first have to ask if our current President deserves a second term. This should be based upon his performance in office, not on the political party to which he belongs.

Does Obama deserve a second term ?

Let's look at his record.

I have to start in February 2008, when then candidate Obama brought his campaign roadshow to Ohio. I went to see him speak at Youngstown State University. The three biggest cheers Obama received from Ohioans that day were when he 1) promised to rework NAFTA, 2) promised to close Guantanamo Bay within 12 months, and 3) promised to end the Iraq War in 2009.

Needless to say, none of those things happened. Obama never had any intention of reworking NAFTA. He forgot that promise the minute he left Ohio. As President, Obama has pushed for more free trade agreements, and recently signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia. These were the largest free trade deals signed by the United States since NAFTA.

Guantanamo Bay is still open.

The Iraq War ended, but it ended under the timeline established by Obama's predecessor, President Bush. It definitely didn't end in 2009, as Obama promised Ohioans.

Obama lied to my face and to every Ohioan that day in 2008. An inauspicious start. I knew he was lying then, that he was the kind of guy who would tell people whatever they wanted to hear in order to become President. I don't trust those kinds of politicians, which is why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary. Obama was not only as inexperienced a politico as any who ever ran for President, with zero prior management experience, but he was dishonest as well. I did what I could to defeat him, but alas, it didn't work, and now we're in the toilet.

Obama did keep some of his 2008 promises to Ohioans, like ObamaCare. He also promised to increase federal spending by $874 billion per year that day at Youngstown State, though he didn't put it into those words, because the electorate would have had a negative reaction to that type of honesty. Instead of putting price tags on his spending binge, Obama made all sorts of promises about "investing" in this, that, and almost everything, while never mentioning the costs. This President has never met any spending he doesn't like. Obama has "accomplished" every bit of his spending increase promise, which leads me to the primary reason we shouldn't give Obama a second term in office…he is the most fiscally irresponsible President in American history, bar none.

We have had annual deficits over $1 trillion ever year Obama has been in office. He has run up $4.6 trillion in debt in only 3 years in office. This far outpaces the previous "most fiscally irresponsible" President, George W. Bush, who ran up $4.8 trillion in debt over 8 years in office. Anybody who would vote for a second Obama term after such a record should have his/her head examined. The only people who should be supporting Obama's fiscal recklessness are citizens of China, who stand to gain from our destruction.

And what has all Obama's fiscal insanity accomplished ??? Unemployment is STILL at 8.5%, and it has been over 9% for the majority of Obama's presidency. If you recall, it was 7.6% when Obama took office. We have a huge net job loss during Obama's reign, though to hear him tell it, he is creating all kinds of jobs. That's one reason of many I call him the Great Prevaricator. Unemployment was mostly in the 5% range when Bush was President. Great job, Barry. Not only are you spending us into oblivion and wrecking the future of our country, but we aren't even gaining any temporary benefit from it now. You have managed to be the worst of both worlds. Most amazingly of all, the new ObamaCare spending hasn't even kicked in yet. That starts in full force in 2014. Federal spending is already the highest in the history of the country (barring WWII), and Obama's BIG spending program hasn't even started yet. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends WITHOUT ObamaCare spending in place. Imagine what it will be AFTER ObamaCare.

While I'm on the subject of ObamaCare, let's not forget that the Obama admimistration lied about it's costs and effects on the debt. The Great Prevaricator claims ObamaCare will decrease the debt, but he made that calculation by having the CBO measure ten years of revenue against only six years of benefits. That is profoundly dishonest, and sadly typical of the way our government misleads us.

Then the Great Prevaricator has the audacity to pretend increasing taxes on the rich by 5% is going to pay for all his crazy spending increases. That may be his most egregious lie of all. There is NO WAY his numbers come anywhere close to adding up, but I rarely hear a peep about this from the mainstream media. Perhaps there would be a few more media types peeping if 90% of them weren't Democrats. We'd be hearing the truth about the high speed rail to fiscal destruction we are on if the President was a Republican. Of that I have no doubt, but when a Democrat sits in the catbird seat, all we hear about is taxing the rich. I hate to break it to you America, but everyone's taxes will have to go through the roof in one way or another to pay for all this spending and government growth. Those are the facts, even though your illustrious media doesn't want to clue you in to the facts. The prevarication goes far beyond just the White House.

Somebody will also have to explain to me exactly how we are supposed to create jobs in this country going forward when our government spending and taxation levels, our unpaid-for entitlement explosion, and our building Mount Everest of debt are going to drain our pocketbooks and decrease consumer demand for generations to come. How does that work, exactly ??? The unvarnished facts there are, it DOESN'T work. At all. It would be real nice if we had a President who would level with us about these things, rather than the performing circus clown we have in office now.

Just say NO-bama. Change starts at the top. Obama has had his chance, and he failed miserably. It's time to try someone else.

Alternately, you could oppose Mitt Romney and support Obama's reign of destruction because Romney's a Mormon, Romney worked for Bain Capital, or because Romney changed his position on abortion and health care…..but that would make you somewhat of a self-destructive fool, wouldn't it ? We already KNOW Obama is a failure. Romney hasn't had his chance yet. If Romney turned out to be as bad as Obama, we'd be breaking even. But there's a very good chance Romney's policies would be better for the country. I don't know about the rest of you, but when my car falls apart and won't run, I don't try to keep driving it. I get a new one. 2012 is definitely the time for a new car. The Obama-mobile is a lemon.

One of my biggest problems with liberals is their predilection to manufacture phony, if not downright absurd, political arguments. Today's post is about one of those phony arguments, the left's outrageous phony outrage over state voter ID laws.

President Obama's Justice Dept. has blocked the state of South Carolina from implementing it's voter ID law, which would require voters to present photo identification at the polling place prior to voting. This is a pretty curious move, seeing as how 31 states already have some form of voter ID law in place, and seeing as how the Supreme Court has already rejected a challenge to the Indiana voter ID law, with the liberal Justice Stephens writing the majority opinion in that case. Here's what Stephens wrote about the reasons for voter ID laws in the Indiana case:

…flagrant examples of such [voter] fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor – though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud – demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

That's it in a nutshell. Voter ID laws help prevent voter fraud, and we all want our elections to be honest…or at least most of us do. Many liberals, in their typical phony manner, attempt to redefine the issue and cast it in racial terms. Here's one example, from that left-wing rag, The Nation. Listen to how they recast the issue:

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took an important step in combating the epidemic of Republican vote suppression efforts on Friday. DOJ blocked a South Carolina law requiring voters to present photo identification, because the law would disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters.

Notice how The Nation magically transforms "voter ID" into "voter suppression". Presto Change-o, and Voila!, with one misleading liberal sentence we now have a phony liberal manufactured controversy.

There are so many things wrong with the liberal stance here that it almost isn't worth listing them, but I will anyway. First of all, the voter ID laws don't apply only to minorities. They apply to ALL VOTERS, thus they are not discriminatory. Second, the voter ID states offer the ID's for free, thus there is no poverty excuse for liberals to cite. Third, we show ID's for all kinds of things, and no liberal groups are raising arguments of discrimination or disenfranchisement in these other areas. Here are some examples of when Americans are required to show ID – when cashing a check, when opening a bank account, when purchasing alcohol, when purchasing cigarettes, when purchasing a firearm, when using a credit card, when entering a nightclub, when going to an R-rated movie, when renting a DVD, when boarding a plane, when applying for a passport, when entering government buildings, when picking up a package from the Post Office, when renting a car, when receiving a driver's license, when buying a house, when going through Customs, when entering the White House…

Are minorities being "disenfranchised" in all the above instances I cited ? Of course not. Only a nut would think so…so why all the liberal hullaballoo over voter ID laws ? There is no rational explanation, but there are some explanations, albeit dark and ugly ones. Because voter ID laws are not in the least discriminatory, despite the phony claims of liberals, there must be other reasons for liberals to detest them. Here's the list of possibilities I came up with…

1. Liberals are afraid they will lose the illegal votes that usually go to Democrats.
2. Liberals want to rig elections by sending illegal voters to the polls. They are angry that their attempts at voter fraud are being thwarted.
3. Liberals think minorities are inferior, and cannot be held to the same standards as others.
4. Liberals will never miss a chance to cast Republicans as racists, no matter how baseless the charge.

Sick stuff, but these are the only explanations for the phony liberal outrage that I can see. All other liberal excuses are as thin as a reed, and the real outrage here is that the U.S. Justice Dept. is actually trying to block states from preventing voter fraud. And what a coincidence it is that Obama's Justice Dept. is acting now, when our very next election decides Obama's future as President. Welcome to the Obama-nation, kiddies, where up is down, fair is unfair, and division is unity. The Great Prevaricator has struck again.

CNN exit polls from the 2008 presidential race yielded some interesting results, as follows:

Voting by race and gender
—————
White men voted 57-41% for McCain.
White women voted 53-46% for McCain.

Black men voted 95-5% for Obama.
Black women voted 96-3% for Obama.

Latino men voted 64-33% for Obama.
Latino women voted 68-30% for Obama.

Other races voted 64-32% for Obama.

In addition to his strength with minority voters, Obama had a significant advantage with young voters and lower income voters. I've read reports in the past that Obama won the college graduate vote (liberals like to pretend this makes them smarter), but that also depends on the race of the college graduate. White college graduates voted 51-47% for McCain. Non-white college graduates voted 75-22% for Obama. As for party affiliation, Democrats and Republicans voted like Democrats and Republicans usually do. Not much to tell there. The story is the independents, who voted for Obama 52-44% overall, but once again, that vote also hinged on race. White independents voted for McCain, 49-47%.

I'm not leading up to any grand discussion of race by citing these statistics. What I'm leading up to is a discussion of 2012 campaign strategy, particularly the strategy of the Democrats. That strategy has been obvious to me for a long time, but it was nice to finally see it in writing, as I did this morning. The writing was done by a left-wing think tank, the Center For American Progress (CFAP), which is run by former Clintonista John Podesta and funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros (aren't the terms "left-wing" and "billionaire" supposed to be a contradiction in terms ? How can someone be both ? Maybe we should check in with the Occupy movement's brain cell for clarification. The Occupiers can form a circle, beat on some tom-toms, do some bong hits, and get back to us with an answer in 3-6 months). Anyway, the CFAP (which is not to be confused with the PFJ) has produced a guide for Obama's 2012 re-election, called The Path To 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election. 270 is the number of electoral college votes it takes to win the presidency. Here are some of the CFAP's observations:

With a little under one year to go before the 2012 presidential election, next year’s battle looks increasingly competitive, with ongoing economic distress and a highly energized Republican base potentially neutralizing the incumbency advantage that President Barack Obama would traditionally hold…In August 2011, Gallup reported record low public approval of President Obama’s handling of the economy, with barely one-quarter (26 percent) approving of the president’s performance on this key indicator. No president in the past 50 years has been re-elected with unemployment as high as it is today. Historically, administrations with unemployment problems have seem them mitigated with significant employment change ahead of an election.

Translation – the economy stinks, and the advantage that gave Obama over the Republican nominee in 2008 now works against Obama. If the 2012 election is about Obama's record and the economy, he loses.

…it is clear that two large forces will ultimately determine the outcome: the shifting demographic balance of the American electorate, and the objective reality and voter perception of the economy in key battleground states. The central questions of the election are thus fairly straightforward. Will the rising electorate of communities of color, the Millennial generation, professionals, single women, and seculars that pushed Obama to victory in 2008 be sufficient and mobilized enough to ensure his re-election in 2012?

Translation – the "shifting demographic base" means that white people comprise an ever falling percentage of the electorate, and minorities comprise an ever rising percentage of the electorate. Latinos in particular are the fastest rising demographic. The percentage of white voters in 2008 was the lowest in election history, and that trend will continue. The Democrats hope to appeal to the rising minority demographic to counter their disadvantage on the economy. The Democrats also count on getting the votes of young people, single women, and the non-religious. What's interesting about this to me is who this "progressive" vision leaves out – white men, married white women, Christians, and adults. I'm not sure who the CFAP is referring to when it says it wants the vote of "professionals". Maybe they meant to say "professors". I consider most adult working people to be professionals, and they aren't particularly fond of the tax and spend policies of Democrats. Successful professional people tend to vote Republican. They don't want their hard-earned wages to be "redistributed" to someone who didn't earn them.

The financial crisis and the Great Recession have severely clouded the electoral picture, making it clear that 2008 marked only the potential for a new progressive alignment in American elections, rather than its consolidation.

Translation – The "progressives" hoped Wall Street's sins would result in an anti-capitalist backlash that would bring the socialist policies of leftists into favor. That has not happened to any large extent, and remains confined to fringe elements like the Occupiers. America has not yet lost it's collective mind and decided to eat the rich. Thus, the "progressives" have more work to do.

CFAP restates it's conclusions:

As we’ve previously argued in other CAP reports (see “New Progressive America,” “State of American Political Ideology, 2009” and “Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties”), the shifting demographic composition of the electorate—rising percentages of communities of color, single and highly educated women, Millennial generation voters, secular voters, and educated whites living in more urbanized states or more urbanized parts of states—clearly favors Democrats and has increased the relative strength of the party in national elections in recent years. In contrast, the Republican Party’s coalition of older, whiter, more rural, and evangelical voters is shrinking and becoming more geographically concentrated and less important to the overall political landscape of the country.

In CFAP's view, the Grand Old Party is just that…old. And as they say on New Year's day, it's out with the old and in with the new. In this case, what is jettisoned from the "progressive" coalition is small town white Christian America. Screw Norman Rockwell. The "progressives" don't care about him. He's so yesterday.

Given the voting demographic the "progressives" hope to capture, what policies do you suppose they might endorse ? Might they endorse wealth redistribution, higher taxes for successful people, no taxes for the less successful, big new entitlement and government spending initiatives, lax immigration policies, higher minimum wages, more government re-engineering of society, etc ? You're darn tootin' they would. Would they demonize wealthy and successful people, act like success is an accident of birth as opposed to being the result of hard work, pile demand after demand onto the shoulders of the business sector, and try to control the minds of our children via a monopoly on government education ??? Absolutely. And if all these "progressive" policies have a negative economic effect on the country, lead to higher prices, fewer jobs, an overall poorer citizenry, stagnant economic growth, the erosion of our founding principles of liberty, and an end to the American dream, do the "progressives" care ? No, they certainly do not. After all, they have election battles to win, and class warfare is their weapon of choice. If someone has their hand out, the "progressives" intend to fill that hand, and the consequences be damned.

Ohio's votes have been cast.

The Good: Congratulations to Ohioans for voting overwhelmingly in favor of Issue 3, which will make ObamaCare's health care mandate unconstitutional in Ohio. This is a well-deserved slap in the face to President Obama and his merry band of totalitarians who passed the unconstitutional mandate against the will of the American people. The Democrats may be able to buy off some partisan judges to back their unconstitutionality, but they haven't fooled the voters. Kudos, Ohio.

The Bad: Congratulations to the union group WeAreOhio for spending $30 million to run the most dishonest series of political ads ever aired in the history of Ohio. Nearly every WeAreOhio claim was patently false. Their phony scare tactics worked, and Issue 2 went down in flames. WeAreOhio proved that you CAN fool some of the people some of the time. I keep hearing Democrats say this is a big victory for Democrats and for labor. Well, let me explain exactly what has been "won" by Issue 2's defeat:

1) Ohio stays broke. There is not enough money to pay for our police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other governmental functions. As Governor Kasich said last night, "there is no bailout coming". Issue 2's defeat will most likely lead to layoffs of workers, because, as Kasich also said, "we just don't have the money".
2) We have allowed a special interest, public sector unions, to remain elevated above our elected officials and the taxpayers. Our state and local governments have no way to control their own costs in a budget crisis. This may be a pyrrhic victory for 6.6% of labor (unionized public sector workers), but it is a defeat for everyone else. I'm also growing very weary of that 6.6% referring to itself as representing "labor", "workers", and the "middle class". They aren't the only ones. We are almost all in that same boat, and the self-serving 6.6% sure doesn't represent me. My vote protected ALL the citizens in our state, not just the privileged few.
3) We have made it far more difficult to get rid of union-protected bad teachers, and other union-protected bad employees. Our children and citizens pay the price for this.

The Ugly: A special place in hell is reserved for all the voters who voted against Issue 2, and then voted against their local tax levies. This happened all over the state, including Akron. The Akron school levy was defeated, as were many other Ohio tax levies. The group of unbelievable hypocrites in this voting class are refusing to pay for the very public union benefits they just voted to uphold. I wish I could come to every one of your houses and punch you in the face. You are sooo deserving. As a result of this behavior, Akron faces a $20 million funding shortage for each of the next three years. Our state funding shortage remains much larger. How do you think THAT will affect our government workers, fools ??? A pox on you all. You may as well go join the Occupiers' Lord Of The Flies movement in Zuccotti park, because, like them, you believe in the magic jobs fairy.

As I wrote in my last post, Ohioans have two choices. Either we 1) Cut spending, or 2) Raise taxes. It's that simple, but yesterday, much of Ohio voted for neither. We have left our state in the lurch. That's what we have "won". Nothing.

Voter ID laws require a voter to show identification in order to cast a ballot. They are either under consideration or being passed in at least 23 states. Wisconsin and Texas are two states that recently passed such laws. Voter ID laws are designed to reduce election fraud. Sounds like a good, common sense idea to me. We all have the right to vote, but we don't have the right to vote fraudulently. Who hasn't heard the stories about Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck casting votes in our elections ? We dont want people voting multiple times, and we don't want people voting who are in this country illegally. It seems every election these days is accompanied by accusations of fraud from one side or the other. Voter ID seems like a good way to reduce that. Every adult in this country has identification, I would think. If they don't, they should. I'm asked for ID at the bank, the grocery store, the Bureau Of Motor Vehicles, and other places, so I don't have any problem showing my driver's license at the polls to insure I am who I say I am when voting. We want our elections to be honest.

Here's the curious thing about Voter ID laws – ALL of the states considering or implementing Voter ID are run by Republicans. Every single one. No Democrat-led state wants these laws, which begs the question…why don't Democrats want honest elections ?

Here's liberal columnist E.J. Dionne attempting to answer this question in a column titled How States Are Rigging The 2012 Election:

An attack on the right to vote is underway across the country through laws designed to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. If this were happening in an emerging democracy, we’d condemn it as election-rigging. But it’s happening here, so there’s barely a whimper.

The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.” But study after study has shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place.

Say what ? It sounds like Mr. Dionne is saying Voter ID laws are themselves voter fraud. What the heck ? And what's that stuff he said about voter fraud not being a "major problem" ? ANY voter fraud is a problem, major or not, and I'm wondering how any liberal can say voter fraud is not a major problem after liberals accused President Bush of stealing the 2000 election…AND the 2004 election (on the other hand, liberals think the 2008 election, won by the Democrat Obama, was run perfectly. I've heard no fraud accusations from them over that one).

Here's why the liberal Dionne holds the Orwellian view that Voter ID equates to voter fraud:

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.

This is the perfect liberal argument. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. First of all, OF COURSE the statutes are neutral, despite what Dionne says. The same rules apply to everyone. It doesn't get more neutral than that. I'd also like to know WHY Voter ID will allegedly reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos, and the young. Dionne doesn't say why. He just accepts it as an article of liberal faith. What could the reasons be ? Does Dionne believe blacks, Latinos, and young people don't have identification, or what ? I'm thinking they do have ID, just like everyone else.

Despite his lack of evidence, Dionne takes his dubious premise and runs with it:

…think of what this would look like to a dispassionate observer. A party wins an election, as the GOP did in 2010. Then it changes the election laws in ways that benefit itself. In a democracy, the electorate is supposed to pick the politicians. With these laws, politicians are shaping their electorates.

Paradoxically, the rank partisanship of these measures is discouraging the media from reporting plainly on what’s going on. Voter suppression so clearly benefits the Republicans that the media typically report this through a partisan lens, knowing that accounts making clear whom these laws disenfranchise would be labeled as biased by the right. But the media should not fear telling the truth or standing up for the rights of the poor or the young.

Now Voter ID is "rank partisanship" and "voter suppression" being implemented by the GOP ? Again…WHY is this so ??? And again, Dionne does not say why. It's mystifying. I seem to be missing some underlying liberal assumption about how blacks, Latinos, the poor, and the young are not quite up to snuff with the rest of us. I can think of no other reason why showing one's ID at the polls would be considered such an unreasonable burden by liberals. It's like Dionne thinks these groups of people are disabled or something. I'm starting to feel insulted, and I don't even belong to any of Dionne's alleged "victim" groups.

Then Dionne gives away his real motivation in opposing Voter ID:

Sometimes the partisan motivation is so clear that if Stephen Colbert reported on what’s transpiring, his audience would assume he was making it up. In Texas, for example, the law allows concealed handgun licenses as identification but not student IDs. And guess what? Nationwide exit polls show that John McCain carried households in which someone owned a gun by 25 percentage points but lost voters in households without a gun by 32 points.

Uh oh !!! The GOP might have an advantage in Texas !!! Well, guess what, Mr. Dionne ? The GOP already has an advantage in Texas, not to mention the fact that anyone who has a concealed handgun license has undergone a background check, making that license a valid form of ID, unlike a student ID, which could be easily faked ('so, Mr. Mouse, I see you are attending Disney University in the Magic Kingdom. Here's your ballot !'). This reveals that it's all about politics to Dionne, and he doesn't care about voter fraud at all.

And then E.J. Dionne completely loses his mind:

“This requirement is just a poll tax by another name,” state Sen. Wendy Davis declared when Texas was debating its ID law early this year. In the bad old days, poll taxes, now outlawed by the 24th Amendment, were used to keep African Americans from voting. Even if the Supreme Court didn’t see things her way, Davis is right. This is the civil rights issue of our moment.

In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?

Whether or not these laws can be rolled back, their existence should unleash a great civic campaign akin to the voter-registration drives of the civil rights years. The poor, the young and people of color should get their IDs, flock to the polls and insist on their right to vote in 2012.

Poll taxes ? Jim Crow laws ? The civil rights issue of our time ?….

Is this guy nuts ? Listening to Dionne, I feel like I'm watching one of those "this is your mind on drugs" commercials. I still haven't heard a single reason why anyone will be disenfranchised by Voter ID, but Dionne's ready to organize a modern-day March On Washington, like he's Martin Luther King. What a buffoon. He should check into a detox center instead.

If I didn't believe Democrats were in favor of voting fraud before, I'm a lot more inclined to believe it now, after listening to this irrational, over-the-top liberal tirade. Say 'Yes We Can' to Vote Fraud !!! It's the Chicago way. Just grab some more of those ballots out of the trunk of the car. That should put the Dems over the top.

Consider Obama refudiated.

I'm breathing a sign of relief today. President Obama and the Democrats unchecked grasp on the reins of power has been stopped. Good job, America. Republicans racked up historic wins in these elections, taking control of the House, wresting governorships and state legislatures away from Democrats, and erasing the Dems huge advantage in the Senate. The champagne dreams of the liberal elite to control every aspect of our lives is now officially on hold. If for no other reason, we can celebrate the fact that there will be no disastrous cap-and-trade scheme looming on the horizon to wreak havoc on our economy, drive more jobs away, and further impoverish our citizenry.

Congratulations to the Tea Party movement for shining a giant spotlight on the fiscal insanity that has been taking place in this country, which energized the opponents of the control freak nanny types who shill for progressive Big Brother. The Tea Party was a driving force for liberty in this election, and made great strides in the face of an avalanche of slander and mudslinging from the lying losers on the left. Good job, Tea Party.

Congratulations to Ohio for electing Republican John Kasich as our next governor. You may not know it from listening to Governor Strickland's meaningless campaign ads about how Kasich once worked for Lehman Brothers, but Kasich was the Chairman of the House Budget Committee beginning in 1995. He was the chief architect of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and instrumental in giving this nation it's last balanced federal budgets during the Clinton years. Hopefully, he can do the same to fill Ohio's $8 billion budget gap, and create an environment conducive to prosperity here, unlike what our current and previous governors have done.

Congratulations to Americans for listening to liberals from the President on down repeatedly hurling insults at Americans and calling Americans ignorant. You responded appropriately, America, and threw those jackasses out on their asses. I don't know how the liberal loons thought such a strategy would benefit them, but I guess that's why they are liberal loons in the first place.

Congratulations to Florida for electing Republican Marco Rubio to the Senate and sending the spineless political chameleon Charlie Crist packing. In this calendar year, Crist said both "I'm a dedicated Reagan Republican," and "I will caucus with the Democrats." What a tool.

Speaking of tools, Florida also kicked the left-wing loudmouth, Rep. Alan Grayson, to the curb. Grayson was a complete embarassment in the House Of Representatives. He dumbed down virtually every discussion in which I saw him take part. He had the juvenile mentality of a mischievous 14-year old. Good riddance and good job, Florida.

Congratulation to America for not electing bad Republican candidates. Senate candidates Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angle of Nevada were defeated. This further shows the wisdom of the voters. We don't want bad Senators no matter where they come from. Angle's defeat comes with an asterisk, where the Nevada voters were faced with the impossible choice between Angle and Democrat Harry 'the war is lost' Reid. A ventriloquist's dummy with a GOP lapel pin could have defeated Reid in this election, but Angle was too 'out there' and scared the voters away. Sorry Nevada, you were in a no-win situation.

Liberals only fared well in the strongholds of liberal power, places like bankrupt la-la-land, where California elected Governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, again. Brown gave a rambling victory speech in which he sounded to me like he was stoned. La-la-land also sent Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer back to Washington D.C. over Carly Fiorina. California will never learn. I also have bad news for California stoners – Prop 19 to legalize marijuana failed. Bummer, dudes.

In Massachusetts, Democrat Rep. Barney "financial crisis" Frank won by a wide margin, thereby proving that voters may not be so intelligent after all, at least not in liberal districts.

I had to tune into MSNBC last night to watch the liberals crying in their beers. All the "big guns" were there: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell. They came up with a million excuses for why the Democrats lost, but they never managed to come up with the actual reason – America doesn't want what Obama is selling. America is not as far left as Obama, Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz, O'Donnell, and Matthews. The promise of Obama in 2008 has turned into the reality of Obama in 2010, and America doesn't like what it sees.

While I do see this election as a repudiation of the left, I don't see it as a mandate for Republicans. The Republicans won because they are the only other choice besides the liberal Democrats. Where else was the electorate supposed to go ? Now the Republicans share the responsibilities of leadership with Obama and the Dems. America doesn't trust the Republicans any more than it trusts the Democrats. We'll be watching you, GOP, and if you don't change your evil ways, we'll throw you out in two years just like we did the Democrats. We'll keep throwig the bums out until we have a government that behaves responsibly. That's what we should do, anyway. I hope we will.

President Obama is scheduled to make an announcement today at 1pm. Anyone wanna bet he's gonna be a lot more friendly to Republicans than he was before ??? If I were a betting man (which I am), I'd bet we're going to hear lots of words like "bipartisan" and "work together" coming from the President's mouth, and not so much of words like "enemies" and "they can't drive." That's' the CHANGE I HOPE for, anyway.

Democrats appear to be staking their 2010 midterm election hopes on running against their favorite punching bag…George W. Bush. Funny, but I don't see his name on any ballots this year. To my knowledge, Bush has been keeping a pretty low profile, hanging out in Crawford, Texas. I can't really blame the Democrats for running against Bush. After all, it worked in 2006 and 2008, and it's a lot easier than the Democrats defending their own policies, which are unpopular with the American people.

Here's the first midterm campaign ad from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It plays to the Dems 'Don't-Vote-For-Scary-Bush-Who's-Not-Running-Anyway' strategy:

There ! Did you see that ? That was Bush in that there ad ! Uh, oh ! Run for the hills ! He's coming ba-ack !!! Unless you vote for Democrats this fall. Be afraid, be very afraid ! Boo !!!

Beside the obvious fact that Dubya isn't coming back, Democrats have another problem, according to the National Journal:

The advice from Democratic consultants and strategists is almost unanimous: Run away from the president, and fast. A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in "Frontline" districts – seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear.

Ouch. And that comes from a Democratic pollster ? Not good news for the Dems. No wonder Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and other liberal journalists were calling for Bush to come out in favor of the Ground Zero mosque. He has more street cred than Barry.

In order to illustrate to my liberal critics that I am not a shill for the GOP, I strongly advise all voters – if you see George W. Bush on any ballot this november, DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM.. There libs, how do you like me now ? I'm doing your bidding.

Obama's low approval rating on issues led former DNC Chairman Howard "The Scream" Dean to say Obama's advisors have misled him:

"I think the people around the president have really misjudged what goes on elsewhere in the country other than Washington, D.C.," Dean, also the former governor of Vermont, said on CNN's State of the Union. "I don't think this is true of the president, but I do think his people, his political people ought to go out and spend some time outside Washington once in a while."

This is actually a bit ironic, because Dean believes the problem with Obama is that he hasn't been progressive enough. If Obama took Dean's advice, he be even MORE out of touch with the American public. The only ones who think liberals represent the thinking of America are liberals themselves, like Dean. The facts are, liberals represent about 20% of America. The rest of us are mostly normal, myself excluded. I don't know whether I'm normal or not. I'm too close to the subject.

The Gaffemaster General, VP Joe Biden, tried to bucks up his troops, providing his own spin on the upcoming elections:

“On Nov. 3, the day after the election, there will be a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate,” Mr. Biden said. “If it weren’t illegal, I’d make book on it.”

“When we have the American people focus on our differences, I think we are going to do just fine in November,” Mr. Biden said, speaking over applause from a few hundred attendees. “The choice is not between Democrats and the Almighty, it’s between Democrats and the Republican Tea party.”

It would be quite an earthquake if the Dems lost the House and the Senate so soon after The One soared to victory on the wings of angels two years ago, but I notice the Gaffemaster didn't dispute that the Dems were going to lose ground come november. I do congratulate Gaffy for conceding the Democrats were not superior to the Almighty. That's the first sign of humility I've seen from this White House since Obama bowed to the Saudi prince.

I wonder…if the Dems were running against the Almighty, would there be DNC negative ads about the Almighty's failed policies of the past, like the Black Plague ? The DNC might also point out that the Almighty has a God complex. Such an ego, that one. All messianic and stuff. Could we trust the Almighty with the nuclear football ? Think about it, America. Who do you want leading your team…

God…or Harry Reid ?

Reading several recent news stories, it occurred to me that other countries understand what made America great better than we do these days, or at least better than our current leadership does. There are several lessons we need to relearn.

The first lesson comes from a news item I read about how China will soon overtake the United States as the world's leading manufacturer. It is forecasted to happen next year, ending America's 110-year run as the world's leader (which is how we became an economic powerhouse). China has learned from America that producing goods leads to solid economic growth and jobs. America has increasingly become a consumer-based service economy, and lately our leaders are acting like it's the government that produces economic growth and jobs, a falsehood. In a free country like ours, the government, the public sector, actually consumes wealth for the most part. As I mentioned in a recent post, China, as a result of it's market-based reforms, has become the world's largest creditor nation, while we have become the largest debtor nation.

The next lesson comes from, of all places, a former communist country, Russia. Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian President, sees an opportunity for Russia to take a prominent place in what he calls a new world economic order, which he says will rise out of the ashes of the financial crisis and end the heyday of western, and particularly American, dominance. Listen to what Medvedev is proposing for Russia:

Mr Medvedev laid out a series of new initiatives that aim to boost its attractiveness as an investment destination. “Russia needs a real investment boom”, in order to achieve its modernisation goals, he said. To stimulate that, Mr Medvedev announced Moscow would introduce zero taxation on capital gains for companies working on long-term investments starting from January next year and said Russia was improving the legal system to provide better protection for businesses against the long arm of bureaucracy.

Mr Medvedev said the state would concentrate its efforts on fostering a good business climate. “No matter how many state-owned companies we have, modernization will happen, above all, through private business. And only if there is competition,” he said. “The state should not tear down the apples from the tree of economics. What the government should do is help grow our apple orchard, develop our economic environment.”

Mr Medvedev said he was cutting the list of strategic enterprises five fold in order to reduce the role of the state in the economy and foster more private initiatives.

Russia is proposing pro-growth, private sector, business-friendly policies with less interference from the state to grow it's economy. In America, Obama is proposing quite the opposite – bigger government, anti-business, centralized control, and ever more regulation.

Since when did Russia understand market economics better than the United States Of America ? Why are we letting that happen ?

The final lessons come from our neighbor to the north, Canada, and it comes from another unexpected source, Canada's Liberal Party. First, one must understand that Canada's Liberal Party is actually their center-left party. What we call liberal (left-wing) in America is called the New Democratic Party in Canada. The Canadian Liberal Party is liberal on most social issues, but have made several smart conservative moves on fiscal issues, as pointed out in this Associated Press article.

The first lesson concerns how Canada largely avoided the banking crisis that devastated America and Europe:

The banks are stable because, in part, they're more regulated. As the U.S. and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries over the last 15 years, Canada refused to do so. The banks also aren't as leveraged as their U.S. or European peers.

There was no mortgage meltdown or subprime crisis in Canada. Banks don't package mortgages and sell them to the private market, so they need to be sure their borrowers can pay back the loans.

In Canada's concentrated banking system, five major banks dominate the market and regulators know each of the top bank executives personally.

Notice that even though Canada is dominated by large banks, which we have been calling "too big to fail" in this country, there was no housing meltdown, because Canada doesn't bundle and securitize mortgages like we do. The Canadian banks don't sell their mortgages like we do. Canadian banks HAVE to know their customers can pay back their loans. The survival of the Canadian banks depends on it. That's the way the mortgage market used to work in America as well, until our government changed all the rules and let secondary mortgage entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Wall Street investment firms into the mortgage game, which incentivized our mortgage lenders to hand out loans like penny candy and then sell them. The government actually took these steps in the guise of lessening risk, one of the great ironies of all time.

Speaking of Fannie Mae, it is now primarily owned by the government (the taxpayers), and Fannie, along with other government mortgage entities, are still buying and selling houses like crazy, selling them for pennies on the dollar. The cost to taxpayers is $146 billion and rising. Before it's all said and done, Fannie Mae will be the single largest receiver of taxpayer bailouts.

And the recent financial regulation reform bill EXCLUDED Fannie Mae from it's reform. Great work, Congress. As usual, it was partisan politics over practical reality. The financial reform package leaves the secondary mortgage market TOTALLY in place, despite the ludicrous dog and pony show the Democrats put on to claim they were "ending bailouts forever," and "ending too big to fail." God, they think we're stupid. Fannie Mae is the biggest of the "too big to fail" in the mortgage market. As one realtor said in the article linked above, "we're all working for the government now."

The other lesson from Canada's Liberal Party concerns how it balanced it's budget. This one will make Obamamaniacs roll over in the graves they are digging for our country:

[Canadian] Liberals took office facing a $30 billion deficit. Moody's downgraded Canada's credit rating twice. About 36 percent of the government's revenue went toward servicing debt.

"Our situation was dire. Canada was in a lot of trouble at that point," Martin said. "If we were going to preserve our health care and our education system we had to do it."

As finance minister, he slashed spending. A weak currency and a booming U.S. economy also helped Martin balance the books. In the 1998 budget the government estimated that about 55 percent of the deficit reduction came from economic growth and 35 percent from spending cuts.

"The rest of the world certainly thinks we're the model to follow," said Martin, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2006. "I've been asked by a lot of countries as to how to go about it."

Canada eliminated it's deficit via economic growth policies and spending cuts. Are you listening, Mr. Obama ? Are you listening American liberals ?

Let's summarize the lessons we've learned today from other countries, which happen to be lessons America knew for a long, long time but appear to have forgotten. In order to restore America, we should – cut taxes on investment, cut government spending, enact pro-growth, business-friendly policies, restore our manufacturing sector, stop politicizing the mortgage market to "increase home ownership," and replace it instead with the old way of making mortgage loans, under which banks were highly incentivized to make responsible loans to qualified individuals. We should do everything we can to help the private sector, instead of growing government to the point that it strangles our economy.

That's what we should do, and it also happens to be what I've been advocating on this blog (gosh, I'm so smart. Allow me to pause a moment to pat myself on the back).

But instead we have the Obamamaniac in charge, doing the precise opposite, following the failing quasi-socialist European big government entitlement model that has the West collapsing under mountains of debt, as I pointed out in my recent post, Living On Borrowed Time.

It's not too late, America, but our time is running out. If you remember anything as you cast your ballots come november, remember that.

Or, we can send our President back to school for an Economics 101 course, and hope for the best.

Republican Scott Brown's improbable Senate victory in the bluest of all blue states, Massachusetts, has sent the Democrats reeling. Their reflective navel-gazing has begun. I look at this as a wakeup call for the Democratic party. Will they now "get" it, or will they remain in denial ? Will they continue pushing policies the American people do not want ? If so, they will continue to isolate themselves, and they will continue to lose, as they have in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia this year.

It's too soon to make that call, but early indications are not promising. This morning I heard Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, say the Dems just need to "retool their message." Wrong. That's not it. The people understand the message of the Democrats all too well. That's not the problem. The problem is, the people don't agree with the Democrats message. I heard MS-NBC's Norah O'Donnell blame the loss on Coakley not taking the campaign seriously enough. That's waaay wrong. Nobody takes a Senate seat lightly, and Martha Coakley certainly didn't. O'Donnell then said Coakley lost due to anti-incumbent sentiment. That's a pretty bizarre statement, considering Coakley wasn't the incumbent.

The excuses will continue, but Coakley lost because the American people are turning against all the divisiveness, the catering to special interests, the corruption, the partisan business as usual, and the wasteful big government arrogance of Washington D.C. Scott Brown tapped into America's dissatisfaction, and the silent majority (independents) went with him, overcoming the Democrats 3-1 voter advantage over Republicans in Massachusetts. Nowhere is the dissatisfaction of the American people more evident than in the Tea Party protest movement (which the Democratic party has arrogantly denigrated to the nth degree), and Scott Brown got that support, by saying things like this, from his victory speech:

Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party – and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat…When I first started running, I asked for a lot of help, because I knew it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong, it was all of us against the machine… I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people.

I certainly hope Scott Brown means it when he says he will represent no faction or interest, but rather the American people. We shall see. He's certainly right that it is all of us against the machine. This government is, after all, supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not supposed to be for Goldman Sachs, the health insurance companies, the lawyers, the unions, or any other particular special interest. We are all in this together. We should pursue policies that are responsible for the nation as a whole. That means, first – national security. Second – fiscal responsibility.

Brown also tapped into the disagreement the American people have with some of the policies of the Democrats, and to this, the Democrats SHOULD take heed (and the Republicans too, for that matter):

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn’t worry about their party affiliation, and they didn’t worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.

One thing is clear, voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.

This bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country – we can do better.

When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay.

In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs – and as President John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It's that simple!

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn’t lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

Dissent is the lifeblood of any democracy, which the Democrats should pause to consider before they viciously and falsely attack the Tea Party movement, and last night in Massachusetts, dissent won. Big time.

This morning on the Blog Of Mass Destruction, my friend the Reverend, a liberal by anyone's standard, reminded me that Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic party……..as if the current Democratic party bears any resemblance whatsoever to the one Jefferson represented. It certainly does not, and I'll leave you with the following Jefferson quote to explain exactly why not:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson

Does that sound like any current Democrat you know ? Not by a country mile. The current Democrats see almost no bounds for the government (except maybe in granting terrorists the full civil rights of American citizenship). They want the government to intrude on everything and everyone. THAT is the problem, and that is the Massachusetts and Tea Party message.

We hope the Democrats are listening.

Here's the world-class left-wing dunderhead Hugo Chavez, the socialist President of Venezuela, describing America's relief efforts in earthquake-ravaged Haiti :

"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover. On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? … Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"

Any questions about the sanity of Hugo Chavez ? I hope not. America will be the biggest contributor to Haitian relef, by far.
===
Here's the world-class left-wing dunderhead Keith Olbermann, describing Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown on last night's episode of Fictional Narratives From Loon Central, aka, Countdown With Keith Olbermann, on MS-NBC:

“In short in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible homophobic racist reactionary ex-nude-model tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”

The short translation of Olby's words is 'oh no, Scott Brown might win in Massachusetts ! Let's make up a bunch of phony crapola about him !' For a longer explanation of the Olby-hate, I'll have to pull out my Liberal-To-Sanity translation manual. Where did I put that thing ? Ah, here it is.

1. Scott Brown is "irresponsible" because – well, who knows. Maybe because he drives a truck. Not, you know, "green" enough. Olby doesn't drive due to a head injury he suffered running for the subway. He slammed his head into the top of a subway car door and doesn't have any depth perception, which could explain a lot. Lack of perception is one of Olby's biggest problems.
2. Scott Brown is "homophobic" because – he's against gay marriage. I'm in favor of gay marriage, but, not being a world-class left-wing dunderhead, I'd never call all anti-gay marriage folks "homophobic." After all, marriage has been defined as being between a man and woman for all of recorded history. That's the standard we've always had. Change will come slow.
3. Scott Brown is "racist" because – Ubermorons like Keith Ubermoron think the entire Tea Party movement is racist because – well, they don't have a reason. They just think the race card works for them, because Obama is black. They're liars, that's all.
4. Scott Brown is a "reactionary" because – Olbermann thinks using the word "reactionary" makes him sound intelligent.
5. Scott Brown is a "teabagging supporter of violence against women" because – like an immature twelve-year old, Olbermann gets a cheap thrill out of using the nasty sexual innuendo of the word "teabagging," and the "supporter of violence against women" part comes from a vicious smear from the Coakley campaign. Coakley reportedly put out a flier that says “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away." Not only is the charge blatantly false, but Scott Brown is filing a criminal complaint against Coakley for her slander. Still, Olbermann repeats the slur, because slurs are what Olbermann does.
6. Scott Brown endorses violence against "other politicians" because – someone in the crowd at a Brown event made a tasteless comment about Coakley that was caught on tape. Now, Brown didn't say it, it came from the crowd. Brown said he didn't even hear the remark, but that's all the lie-master Olbermann needs to attribute the comment to Scott Brown and falsely claim Brown advocates violence. Unbelievable.

In summary, Keith Olbermann is a low-down filthy lying scumbag snake. I hate to be so harsh, but there's no way to sugar-coat it. It shouldn't be sugar-coated. Olbermann is vermin, and beneath contempt. The next time he does his Worst Person In The World schtick, he should look in the mirror. That person will be staring back.
===
The next world-class left-wing dunderhead is Hanoi John Kerry. Here is what the desperate Kerry said about Scott Brown:

"I'm no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we've seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies. This is not how democracy works in Massachusetts," Kerry said this afternoon in a statement. "Scott Brown needs to speak up and get his out of state tea party supporters under control. In Massachusetts, we fight hard and win elections on the issues and on our differences, not with bullying and threats," Kerry said.

The "dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies ?" Uh, what dangerous atmosphere ? The grand total of violent episodes at 2008 Palin campaign rallies was – ZERO. Ditto for the Tea Party protests. For an explanation of Hanoi John's remarks, see that Liberal-To-Sanity translation manual again. Brown campaign spokesman Felix Browne responded, "People are tired of John Kerry's partisan politics. His baseless accusations reflect the desperate last gasps of a flailing campaign." Sounds about right.
===
The final world-class left-wing dunderhead is another MS-NBC cretin, Ed Schultz. Here's Schultz advocating criminal action in the Massachusetts election in order to defeat Scott Brown:

"If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times," Schultz said on his radio show, The Ed Schultz Show. "Yeah that's right," he went on. "I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are."

Gotta love those democratic principles embraced by Schultz, no ? What a guy. He fits right in with the political mainstream – in Iran. Which is where I wish he'd go.
===
There ain't no freak-out like a left-wing freak-out, eh ? These people are coming apart at the seams. That's the great thing about insane hatred. It always reveals itself eventually. The left-wing dunderheads are revealed for what they are – hate-filled lying morons.

Rassmussen Reports conducted an interesting poll that included Tea Party candidates on a generic congressional ballot. The results of the three-way race ???

Democrats – 36%
Tea Party – 23%
Republican – 18%
Undecided – 22%

More results from the poll:

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

This shows that non-Democrat voters prefer the Tea Party movement to the GOP. Pretty interesting when you consider the Tea Party isn't even a political party and has no candidates for office. The Rassmussen poll was more of an ideological exercise than anything else, but it reflects the mood of the public. Unaffiliated voters prefer the Tea Party movement to both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans barely beat the Tea Party among REPUBLICAN voters. In addition, Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll showed that only 55% of conservatives consider themselves Republicans. This is what happens when Republicans abandon conservative principles, as they did during the Bush presidency, but many Republicans and most of the mainstream media (who want the Democrats to win) are still promoting the silly idea that the GOP needs to move to the center to become successful. I'd say the polling shows precisely the opposite.

There is some good news for the GOP, however. They are leading the Democrats on the Rassmussen generic congressional ballot by 44% to 37%. This is more a reflection of dissatisfaction with the policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress than any endorsement of the GOP in my opinion, especially regarding the health care reform effort moving it's way through Congress. Public issue polling backs up this assertion, as follows:

November 24th Rassmussen ObamaCare poll - 56% opposed, 38% in favor.
November 18th Quinnipiac ObamaCare poll - 51% opposed, 35% in favor.
RealClearPolitics (average of all polls) on ObamaCare – 49% opposed, 40% in favor.

Obama's overall approval rating has been steadily dropping since his inauguration, and Quinnipiac had his approval rating at 48% recently, the first time Obama has dropped below 50% approval.

The RealClearPolitics poll of Congressional Job Approval - 27% approve, 64.3% disapprove.

My utopian solution would be to dismantle the Republican party and replace it with something better, a lot better, but I know that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Democrats and Republicans set the rules for political candidates, and they design those rules to heavily favor Democrats and Republicans. The game is rigged to perpetuate a two-party monopoly (I guess "duopoly" would be the more correct term).

Bottom line message to both Democratic and Republican politicians….we don't like you very much.

Message to liberals – Encourage a third party to blossom around the Tea Party movement (instead of calling them crazy racist nutjobs. Liberals only discredit liberals when they resort to such tactics). That would split the vote and allow liberals to crawl through the divide to victory, even though liberals poll the lowest of all, far lower than conservatives and moderates.

When the Republican party scored big gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, emerging victorious in those two blue states that voted for Obama only one short year ago, I couldn't help but think of all the pundits and talking heads who giddily predicted years and years of GOP'ers scrounging for food in the political wilderness after Obama's historic 2008 victory and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. 'The political landscape has shifted forever !' proclaimed these sages of punditry (who almost all happen to be Democrats). 'The Reagan Revolution is over ! The GOP is marginalized !,' intoned these bellwethers of bombastic buffoonery (who almost all happen to be Democrats).

As it turns out, forever isn't a very long time when it comes to politics. The Republicans won almost everything yesterday. They even won the one race they lost. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Despite being outspent by a margin of 3-to-1, and despite President Obama bringing his star power to bear by campaigning for his opponent, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated the Democratic incumbent governor of New Jersey, the billionaire Jon Corzine. New Jersey has been a solid blue state for years, so this was a major 'get' for the GOP. In Virginia, a traditional swing state, the Republicans won the governorship by a landslide. They also won the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General races by landslides. In New York city, Republican Michael Bloomberg (or is he an Independent now ?) won a third term. My liberal television station du jour (I chose to watch CNN attempt to explain the voting results away), kept saying that the wealthy Bloomberg "bought the vote." Notably, I never heard CNN say a word about the wealthy Democrat Corzine attempting to buy the vote in New Jersey, which is one reason I'm referring to them as my liberal television station du jour.

CNN came up with a variety of rationalizations in an attempt to explain away yesterday's GOP wins. Here are the top few:

1) The Democrats weren't energized like they were in 2008. They have a post-Obama hangover.
2) The opposition party always wins the year after a presidential election.
3) These are only local races with no national significance, and no significance in 2010.
4) Crazed wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Partiers have whipped the conservatives up into conniptions, causing them to turn out at the voting booth (and may I add, we're lucky nobody was hurt).

What CNN seems unable to grasp are the actual facts. The economy stinks, Obama is running the deficit through the roof, Americans are against ObamaCare, Americans don't want a bunch of new taxes during a recession, Americans don't want their electricity bills to go up, Americans are alarmed at all the government expansion and overreach, joblessness is around 17%, etc, etc.

Now let me get back to the one significant bright spot for the Democrats in yesterday's elections, if you can call it a bright spot (CNN certainly tried to make the claim). In New York state's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman and Republican party candidate Dede Scozzafava in what can only be termed a comedy of errors by the Republican keystone cops in New York. The GOP really had to bollux things up to lose this race. The 23rd district had been controlled by Republicans for a century. All the GOP had to do was nominate an actual Republican and this race was theirs, but they couldn't even manage that much. Instead, they stuck Scozzafava on the ballot, a Democrat in Republican clothing. Predictably, most Republicans didn't like her, though Newt Gingrich proved he cares more about party power than principle by backing her. Shame on Newt. Scozzafava faltered badly in the polls and unknown third party candidate Hoffman surged into the lead as several prominent Republicans supported him. The Republicans still would have won the race with Hoffman, but then Scozzafava dropped out and stabbed the stumblebum GOP in the back by supporting the Democrat Owens. With Scozzafava dropping out so late in the race, her name still appeared on the ballot, and enough party line Republicans voted for her to hand the race to the Democrat. Just brilliant, GOP. Just brilliant. Owens wins without a majority of the vote, even though the majority of the voters were against him. I only hope the Republican party bosses in New York stay away from sharp objects, or they might hurt themselves.

In a mind-numbing bit of illogical gymnastics, CNN claimed the Owens win illustrated that the GOP can't win with far right candidates like Hoffman. I kid you not. Here's Hoffman, who has never run for political office in his life, who is not anywhere close to being a polished politician (which is a plus in my book), running as a third party candidate against a career Democrat, with a Republican candidate scraping off critical votes and endorsing his opponent, and Hoffman still almost pulls it off, losing by only 3-4 points. And CNN decides Hoffman is one of the wingnut fringe. Such "analysis" makes CNN the wingnut fringe, if you ask me. Larry King couldn't say Hoffman's name without referring to him as "far right" or "wingnut," due to Hoffman's affinity for the Tea Party movement. Hoffman, btw, stands for fiscal responsiblity, reducing the debt, low taxes, etc. You know, all those "wingnutty" ideas that all sane people favor.

I'm just glad I didn't watch MSNBC. Has that station accused any Republicans of stealing elections yet ? If not, give them time. I'm sure they will, as soon as Keith Olbermann finds out there was a Republican working for the Board of Elections somewhere in New Jersey.

Barney Frank (D-VT) wants the federal government to decide how much Wall Street executives (and all other executives of private companies) are paid. Barney also wants the government to decide how they are paid. Legislation to ban incentive-based pay for private corporations has been approved by the House Financial Services Committee.

I don't know where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government thinks it obtains the authority to do this, but, hey, we don't use that musty old Constitution thingy anymore anyway. The notion of limiting centralized governmental power (federalism) envisioned by the founding fathers is as outdated as bell bottomed jeans. These days, we seem to be climbing all over ourselves to give the federal government all the power it wants (totalitarianism). The statists are on the march, making all the same false promises the statists always make, the false promises that never quite seem to materialize (FYI – health care reform = forcing all Americans to buy health care insurance and then having the government determine what medical procedures you are allowed to have, in case you haven't figured that out yet).

Here is Barney's rationale for limiting executive pay:

"The problem with executive compensation is essentially, from the systemic standpoint, that it gives perverse incentives," said Frank, a Democrat. Without penalties for bad bets, the system means "heads you win, tails you break even," he said.

Perverse incentives. That means people shouldn't be rewarded for driving their companies into the ground. They should be held accountable instead. I think we can all agree with that, if not with the idea that the federal government should dictate people's salaries. That is so……Soviet.

Let's continue with these ideas of accountability and perverse incentives. As of July 31st, 2009, the federal debt stood at $11,617,400,889,464.57. That's over $11.6 trillion. As soon as I write these words, they are outdated, because the national debt is now higher. The debt has increased by $3.89 billion PER DAY since September 2007. In addition, the federal government is projected to run nearly a $2 trillion deficit in 2009. We paid $451 billion in interest on the federal debt in 2008. This year it will be much higher. The interest on the debt is money flushed down the toilet (or sent to a foreign government, like China) that could easily pay for any imaginable health care reform we could dream up. Instead, our federal government has burdened every American citizen with roughly $38,000 in debt. The federal government is the poster child for incompetence.

This means the federal government, if viewed as a corporation (FedCorp), would be the worst run corporation in the entire history of the world (with the possible exception of those defunct Soviets we're trying to emulate). So, how are we holding FedCorp accountable ? Why, we're about to hand the entire health care system over to them !!! We're going to reward the worst company ever, FedCorp, by handing it control over 16% more of our economy. Talk about perverse incentives. This is equivalent to handing the entire energy sector over to Enron. FedCorp has shown NO ability to be responsible managers of taxpayer dollars, so, naturally, let's keep giving them ever more and more. That's the ticket. And never mind that the part of health care FedCorp already controls, Medicare/Medicaid, has such massive unfunded liabilities that it is threatening to destroy our economy down the road. If not addressed, the unfunded entitlement liabilities will hit our economy with such an economic tidal wave that the current recession will look like a ripple in a pond by comparison.

While we're on the subject of salaries, FedCorp is holding itself accountable for it's putrid mismanagement by…..giving all FedCorp's civilian employees a 2.9% pay raise in 2010. This is after Congress voted itself a 2.8% pay raise in January 2009, with the country in the depths of the recession. Apparently, accountability and perverse incentives don't apply to FedCorp, only to that horribly greedy entity known as the private sector (the sector that produces all our goods and services). FedCorp is spitting directly in your faces, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. YOU tighten your belts. THEY get raises.

There are so many examples of the federal government throwing away taxpayer dollars that I could never list them all. This post would be a thousand pages long if I tried. Go to the website YouDontKnowJack to see some examples of how just one Congressman, Jack Murtha (D-PA), aka, the King Of Pork, throws YOUR money around to his cronies and special interests. It's disgusting.

And it wasn't that much better when the Republicans were in charge. During the Bush years, with Republicans controlling Congress, government spending STILL skyrocketed. Federal spending went from $2 trillion to $3 trillion per year during Bush's tenure (and those guys were supposed to be conservatives ??? I don't think so). The only way the Bushies were conservative is if you compare them to Obama and the Democrats, who are trying to match Bush's 8-year federal spending increase total ($1 trillion) in their FIRST YEAR. If Bush was the frying pan, Obama is the fire. I find myself longing for the return of Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress. At least those guys realized the economy was EVERYTHING. Those guys look like geniuses compared to Bush and Barry, and even Clinton ran net deficits and added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Things have been so bad since then that Clinton and his GOP'ers seem like the good old days.

Our federal government is so far out of control that I barely know where to start. This post is only a drop in the bucket in trying to describe it. FedCorp is like a bunch of crack addicts with our money. They can never get enough. With an addict, there's only one cure. You have to MAKE them stop. WE have to make them stop. WE have to get rid of the whole bunch of them. WE have to vote them all out of office and start over. That's the only way WE can make a difference, the only way WE can make the federal crackheads stop. Barring that, WE are screwed. Barring that, America, the land of the free, will very soon be OVER. There is only so much money that FedCorp can spend. There are only so much taxes that FedCorp can take from us. We're on the express train to poverty as long as this continues. Wake up, America. Your country is disappearing before your very eyes.

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.

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 ?

A couple days ago, the Senate voted 61-37 in favor of granting voting rights to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives.

The problem with the bill is, it's blatantly unconstitutional, and shouldn't survive a Supreme Court challenge. Article One, Section Two of the Constitution says the following:

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

The Constitution grants House seats to STATES, and D.C. isn't a state. That's why D.C. doesn't have voting rights in Congress now.

As usual, the vote was mainly along party lines, with only two Democrats opposing the shredding of the Constitution, and six Republicans voting in favor of shredding the Constitution. The Republicans in favor were mostly the usual suspects – Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich…and the Stimulus Three – Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter. Figures.

Question – Don't Senators swear to uphold the Constitution ? I'm sure I heard that somewhere. Can we kick them out when they don't ?

Beyond the Constitutional issue, there is another issue here, and it's a big one – TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Residents of Washington D.C. pay taxes, yet they have no representation in Congress. I seem to recall taxation without representation being a pretty huge issue back around 1776. We broke away from England and founded our own country because of it, and rightly so. Everyone in our country should have voting rights.

A remedy for the people of D.C. is in order, just not THIS remedy. One course of action would be a Constitutional amendment to grant D.C. a vote in the House. Another less ideal remedy would be to exclude D.C. from paying federal taxes. A third remedy would be for D.C. to become part of the state of Maryland.

Back in 1978, the Democratic Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would have given D.C. a House representative and two Senators. That amendment failed to win support from the states.

In case any of you haven't figured it out yet, the reason this issue is arising now is – Washington D.C. voters are about 90% Democrats. The House seat, and two Senate seats if they can get them, are almost certain to go to Democrats, further consolidating the Dem majority. This bill is the first step, and Democrats aren't going to let anything as trivial as the Constitution of the United States stand in the way of more power for Democrats. Heck no. After all, the voters wanted CHANGE, didn't they ? Here it is. That's why the Democrats are rejecting all possible constitutional remedies for D.C. voting rights, and going with an unconstitutional one instead. It gives them the best chance of acquiring more power.

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding this bill, but maybe President Obama knows something I don't. Maybe he can get a new Supreme Court appointee or two who can "properly" interpret the Constitution. Maybe he can find a few Justices to interpret the word "state" to mean something other than "state." Maybe "state" will suddenly mean "state of being," or something. It depends what the definition of "is" is. I don't know, but I'm beginning to think the Hopenchangers are capable of anything.

The media is all abuzz about whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be appointed the junior Senator from New York. This in a year when we elected a President who had only two years in Congress prior to launching his presidential campaign, and who has no prior executive experience. This in a year when a comedian, Al Franken, who also has zero political experience, may become a Minnesota Senator if they can "find" enough votes to elect him. The great state of Minnesota previously elected a professional wrestler as their Governor, and California elected Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor because those Terminator movies were pretty cool.

Is Caroline Kennedy qualified ? Who cares ? It's an irrelevant question.

There are no qualifications to be a politician. Most of the time, you only need to fool the public into voting for you. This is generally accomplished by a series of slogans, lies, and false promises, but Caroline doesn't have to worry about that too much if she can get New York Governor David Paterson to appoint her. Plus Caroline is a KENNEDY. That's as close as we get to royalty in this country. That carries a lot of weight. For example, Caroline's uncle Teddy killed a woman and covered it up almost thirty years ago, and he's STILL in the Senate. 'Nuff said. Royalty has it's privileges. I only wonder why O.J. Simpson didn't go into politics. He had the requisite star power, but alas, it's too late now.

Of course Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be a Senator, even if she doesn't have any qualifications. Now, if she wanted to be a plumber, that would be a different story. You have to know something to be a plumber. She would NOT be qualified for that, but Caroline only wants to be one of the leaders of the country. That's an entry-level position, no experience necessary.

Three more things in Caroline's favor:

1) She read a poem on Def Poetry Jam a few years ago, so she has cred with the younger generation. Okay, probably not, but at least they didn't boo her off the stage.

2) She dissed a New York Times reporter for asking her softball questions yesterday, and suggested the reporter should be writing for a women's magazine instead of reporting on politics. Major kudos to Caroline for that wisecrack, even though her response will be twisted into a criticism of women, which it was not (Hint – Caroline Kennedy IS A WOMAN).

3) Caroline said she was "dismayed" over her own voting record, which showed she seldom voted in New York elections. I know this seems like a negative mark against her, but it shows she is quickly picking up the ability to BS, an essential trait for a politician. I think this should count as a qualification.

Vote for Caroline in '09 !!! Er, I mean, Appoint Caroline in '09 !!! I think her slogan should be "Hey, At Least I Haven't Done Anything Wrong Yet.'

But let's check the water in Minnesota. Something's definitely not right there.

Barack Obama – 52%
John McCain – 46%

The anti-Bush backlash is complete. Barack Obama (D-IL) will become the 44th president of the United States of America, and take with him solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (as of now, 54-44-2 in the Senate, and 248-187-1 in the House Of Representatives). This gives Democrats a level of governmental power not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. For the sake of our country, I sincerely hope this Democratic rule works out better than the disaster of the Carter years. It may seem to many that there is nowhere to go but up following 8 years of George W. Bush. That is not the case. In the past, things have been much worse than they are right now. Which direction this country takes under an Obama presidency remains to be seen, but I pray that God grants our new president the wisdom to make positive change. Though it seems Barack Obama and myself could hardly be further apart in political ideology, I don't want him to fail so I can prove some ideological point. I want him to succeed, for the good of our country and citizens.

From a historical viewpoint, Obama's win is phenomenal. I'm old enough to remember the civil rights struggles of the 1960's. An Obama presidency would not have been possible back in those days, when racism was still prevalent and institutionalized. That we can now elect a black man to the highest office in the land serves as witness to how far we have traveled away from that wicked path. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream was realized in voting booths across the nation yesterday. There was no Bradley Effect, as many had anticipated. I never believed there would be one. I never believed race would be a significant or determining factor in this election. In fact, I think there was probably a negative Bradley Effect. If anything, Obama's race worked to his advantage. That was a long time coming too.

The central question I have about Barack Obama is – How will he govern ? Is the real Obama the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, the one who ran to the left in the Democratic primaries, the one with the far left extremist friends, or is the real Obama the one we saw in the general election, a more centrist leader who reaches across the aisle for bipartisan solutions ? The answer to that question remains to be seen, but we will surely find out. I hope for the latter, and I fear the former.

P.S. – What the heck is going on in Minnesota ? First they elected a professional wrestler as their governor, and now the comedian Al Franken could actually win a Senate seat. Words fail me.

This has been the longest presidential election cycle ever. It's been going on for, what, about 17 years now ? It seems like it. I have Obama's rap down so well that I know what he's going to say before he says it. I amuse my girlfriend by pausing the television and then telling her exactly what Obama is about to say, and then playing back Obama's answer to see how close I was. I'm usually right on the money. It's almost eerie, really. If you listen to Obama enough, you start to realize how robotic he is, how programmed his responses are. The media refers to this as Obama being "focused" and "on message." He certainly is that. Maybe familiarity does breed contempt, because I have Obama fatigue, and he hasn't even been elected yet. Not that I mean to bring anyone down from their "hope" and "change" Obama high. I'm just making an observation.

This has also been the most expensive election cycle ever, by far. According to the Wall Street Journal, the presidential campaign has cost $1.6 billion in 2008, more than double what it cost four years ago. In total, WSJ estimates the cost of all the political campaigns across the country at $5.3 billion. Barack Obama has raised more than $620 million, smashing all previous records. Ironically, both presidential candidates talk about keeping the money and special interests out of Washington D.C. At least John McCain stuck to his public campaign financing pledge, even though it put him at a huge disadvantage. Obama did not stick to his word, choosing instead what was politically convenient. If past is prologue for an Obama presidency, that does not bode well.

It does appear that Obama will win, if the polls are to be believed. All the polls have Obama ahead. Professional people run these polls, so they are probably accurate. As proof, look at how accurate the polls have been in the past. Why, they haven't been wrong since way back in………2004, the last presidential election. The polls had John Kerry winning that one by 3-5%, and he lost by 3 million votes. Maybe everybody should go vote in spite of the fact that the experts are saying Obama has it all wrapped up, just to be sure. I'm not a big fan of letting the media tell me how things are supposed to be anyway.

This election is historic, and interest is high. The voter turnout should be the largest ever. I'm glad people are taking an interest in politics. That is a good thing. Americans have been far too lethargic about political matters in the past. In some parts of the country, such as Indianapolis, Philadelphia, some Alabama counties, some Missouri counties, and others, enthusiasm is so high that more people have registered to vote than are even eligible to vote. Indianapolis, for instance, has registered 105% of it's eligible voters. Now, THAT'S enthusiam, folks. Power to the people ! From a single ACORN grows a mighty oak tree. And the Democrats tell me they are going to make darned sure that every one of those registered voters will indeed get to cast their ballots. There won't be any voter suppression THIS time, by God. Dead or alive, the voters will have their voices heard.

I voted early last saturday, and the process didn't exactly fill me with confidence that Ohio voter fraud will be rooted out. Nobody was asked to produce any identification. You just had to fill out a piece of paper that required you to write down either the last four digits of your Social Security number, your Drivers license/State ID number, or a utility bill/bank statement with your name on it (or your name written in crayon on a Post-It). Even if you had none of those, you could still cast a provisional ballot. Using the terminology of my former profession as a computer programmer, the system appears WAAAAAYYY easy to hack, doubly so if they are only checking the ballot cards against voter registrations, as I suspect they might be doing. If this election turns out to be close and hinges on a few hundred Ohio votes, we are going to have a firestorm of national controversy that will make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I was concerned. So was the fellow I struck up a conversation with while waiting to vote. His name was Luke Skywalker.

I'm not going to try to tell anyone how they should vote. Each person has to make that decision for themselves. If you want to make the catastrophic mistake of voting for the inexperienced left wing socialist Barack Obama, that is your prerogative. I'm certainly not going to try to influence you to vote instead for the genuine American hero John McCain, who has earned the right to be president through a lifetime of public service and the acquired knowledge of over two decades in Congress. No, I would never do that.

Happy voting, America !

"Bitter partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today, but a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will" – Barack 'The One' Obama

Wow. That's inspiring stuff. Do you feel the tingle ? I know I do. At least I think it's a tingle. It could just be acid reflux. I'm not sure, but I'm ready to cast aside all my fears, doubts, and independent thought processes, because this election is historic, the most important election in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND, the most important election held in the known universe, ever. We must discard those "outworn ideas of the left and right" (and instead embrace only the outworn ideas of the left), because the only way we can achieve "unity" is to stop arguing over petty matters, such as the role of the federal government, federal taxation and spending, the economy, the U.S. Constitution, and so forth. Those things are not really important. What IS important is to blindly follow our "better angels", as embodied by Barack Obama, the new Messiah. How else can he deliver us from this mean, third world hellhole we call the United States of America ? How else will we ever take our place among the righteous nations of the earth, like Venezuela ? The old ways, the ways designed by our Founding Fathers, clearly do not work. Yes, those frayed and threadbare concepts promoted by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madision, and George Washington may have resulted in America becoming the world's pre-eminent superpower, the world's beacon of liberty, hope, and opportunity, and the creation of 30% of the world's wealth by only 5% of it's people, but c'mon folks, life is not a totally carefree utopian paradise here, there are still problems, so we need drastic CHANGE, a change that only a Messiah who promises to "change the world" (not kidding, The Big O really said that) can bring.

"We've got to transform the political culture, so it's responsive to you, not to the special interests, not to the fat cats, not to the lobbyists" – Barack Hussein Obama

Tell it, Barack ! Tell it ! And of course, the way to get rid of the special interests and lobbyists is to create an ever larger federal government bureaucratic monster that micromanages all essential aspects of our society (the "progressive" way), so every special interest and lobbyist in the country is forced to fight like a starving dog over the scraps being doled out from an all-powerful federal government that picks the winners and the losers. Ask National City Bank (NCB) about that. When our Congressional overlords handed Treasury $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out the financial industry, our government designated NCB and northeast Ohio the LOSERS, and PNC Bank from Pittsburgh the WINNERS. PNC got bailout money and NCB didn't. PNC bought NCB with the bailout money, and now thousands of northeast Ohio jobs are gone like the wind. Lots of those newly jobless NCB people are my friends. Thanks goodness they can rest easy knowing they'll get that Obama tax cut for the middle class. I'm sure they are grateful.

Thinking you can reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests with more and more centralized government is one of the most braindead ideas I've ever heard. The truth is precisely the opposite. You minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists by NOT letting the government pick all the winners and losers. You minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists by limiting government and promoting individual liberty, which our old Founding Fathers figured out over 220 years ago, dummies that they were.

Oops, I apologize folks. There I go, thinking again, when I should be FOLLOWING the One, for the sake of, you know, "unity", "post-partisanship", and that "shared responsibility" thing. I'll have to work on that. It's going to take a LOT of work, so I may have another slip or two before I learn to obey my new massuh, like a good boy should.

"It is the essential belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, that makes this system work" – Barack Obama

Amen ! To test the validity of this idea, go find one of your neighbors who has more than you do, and demand half his hard-earned money. You'll quickly find out how people REALLY respond to the forcible "redistribution" of their wealth. I suggest you pack some heat to facilitate your neighbor's desire to be his "brother's keeper", or you probably won't get his money. A mask might help too. It's no different at all when the government forces that same redistribution, and that's what the Messiah is proposing, all in the name of "fairness", of course.

But don't get me wrong, I love it ! It's "transformative", just like the Messiah says.

For those of you lucky enough to have a certain satellite television network, you can watch The Obama Channel, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (I'm not kidding about this either). You didn't have to wait for the Messiah's primetime Hollywood television special last night. You can get all the knowledge you need right from the Obama source, even though you pretty much get that anyway from almost every television station and newspaper in existence. I have the Obama Channel on in the background right now. It's all the Big Brother anyone really needs. Quite convenient. For instance, the Obama Channel just informed me that Obama had both parents and grandparents, and they worked at various jobs during their lives, right here in America ! His grandfather even served in World War II, and Obama also has relatives who resided in the Kansas heartland (and we all know how liberals revere Kansans). What more do you need to know, people ? Barack Obama is a regular American, just like you, just like me, and just like Barry's pals, the terrorist William Ayers, the terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, the racist anti-semitic, anti-american Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the radical Father Pleger, the mobster Tony Rezko, and former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. There's nothing to see here. We are the ones we've been waiting for. The only other thing we need is the Fairness Doctrine to shut up all Obama's talk radio opposition, and the Employee Free Choice Act to remove the secret ballot in union voting. Then we'll all be free and "united", just like the Soviet Union was. The new worker's paradise could be just around the corner, and the inconvenience of the dissenting voice will be effectively muzzled. Oh, the glory !

As evidence of Obama's "transformative" agenda and his "new politics", just look at how he ran his most excellent political campaign. He lied about opted out of taking public campaign financing, while still saying he believes in it (taking both sides of an issue at the same time is one of Obama's special oratorical gifts. A mere mortal politician couldn't get away with that time after time, but the Messiah pulls it off effortlessly), and he has spent the most money in the history of American politics trying to get elected, almost doubling the previous campaign spending record held by George W. Bush in 2004. Obama has the entire American media serving as sycophantic shills for him as he does this, and Obama also gave $900,000 to the biggest voter fraud group in the country, ACORN. Over $200 million of Obama's campaign contributions remain secret, in spite of Obama's repeated calls for "transparency" in government. Hillary Clinton's people are saying the Obama campaign won the early Democratic primary caucuses through voter fraud and intimidation. There are reports of millions in illegal foreign contributions being received by the Obama campaign. I even tested the authenticity of donating to the Obama campaign myself. After hearing that online Obama donations were not being screened properly to prevent fraud, I went to Obama's website and tried to donate $15 with my credit card. The phony name I used for the transaction was 'Campy AignFraud'. I used a phony address as well. The Obama campaign accepted the fraudulent transaction lickety split, and never even asked for my credit card security code. They even sent me a nice followup e-mail, thanking the non-existent Campy for donating money with my credit card. Change We Can Believe In.

The Messiah is a special, special man, folks. Get on board the train, or be left behind at the station. I have, as Campy's campaign donation has proven.

Obama/Biden in 2008. Vote early and vote often. This is freaking historic.

I heard yesterday that the Nielsen ratings for the Palin-Biden VP debate were 40% higher than for the first McCain-Obama presidential debate. A transcript of the debate can be found here.

And the audience wasn't tuning in to see Joe Biden.

The VP debate was all about Sarah Palin. Democrats were eagerly tuning in to watch Palin fall flat on her face, and Republicans were watching anxiously in the hopes that she wouldn't.

It was a good night for the Republicans. Palin, who only 5 weeks earlier was occupied with running the state of Alaska, more than held her own with Joe Experience and his 36 years in Congress (36 years FOR CHANGE, apparently).

It wasn't that Biden had a bad night. He stayed on point, hammering home the idea that McCain was just like Bush, the key Democratic strategy for this presidential election. Biden displayed an expansive knowledge of political history. Adding to the gravitas of Biden's words was the fact that about half of his talking points were actually true. The other half, not so much. Palin also had some mis-statements, but it's pretty clear that Biden, not known as one to be constrained by anything so bothersome as the truth, won the Creative Political Fiction award for the night. Once the fact checkers get done analyzing the debate, I'm sure they will reach the same conclusion. Here are a few examples of Biden's, um, creativity:

Biden, Mr. Foreign Policy Expert, claimed NATO had driven Hezbollah from Lebanon prior to Bush screwing it all up. Wrong.

Mr. Foreign Policy Expert claimed that when he voted for the AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ, he wasn't voting for an authorization to use military force in Iraq, he was just voting to give Bush the authority to use a Dustbuster to vacuum the Iraqi desert, or something like that. Palin cleaned Biden's clock on that nonsensical position.

Mr. Foreign Policy Expert claimed Obama never said he'd negotiate with Iranian leaders without precondition, which, of course, Obama did say.

Mr. Foreign Policy Expert claimed that Gen. McKiernan said the surge strategy could not work in Afghantistan. Palin responded correctly that McKiernan (though Palin mistakenly called him 'McCellan') said no such thing. In fact, McKiernan said principles of the surge strategy COULD be applied in Afghanistan.

Biden claimed he was taken out of context when Palin confronted Biden for being against the use of coal for energy on that rope line. To be clear, Biden said there will be "no coal plants in America" on that rope line. Out of context, my fanny.

Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, which McCain did not do.

Biden said McCain also voted against funding the troops like Obama did. Untrue. There was only one bill for final passage, one that contained no timeline for withdrawal. Bush had already indicated that he'd veto any bill that had a withdrawal timeline. In the final bill presented for a Congressional vote, Obama voted AGAINST funding the troops. McCain voted FOR funding the troops.

Biden said he was for offshore drilling, but Palin pointed out that Biden had previously called drilling a "raping" of the environment.

Biden was grossly exaggerating when he claimed McCain had voted against alternative energy 23 times. We all know how bills get hundreds of add-ons thrown into them. McCain wasn't voting against alternative energy at all. As McCain said during his own debate, "nobody is against alternative energy."

Biden falsely said McCain was for deregulation, when McCain called for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One fault with Palin in the debate was how she dodged the deregulation question. I am completely baffled by this non-response, especially since McCain also avoided the subject in his debate. As Democrats are repeatedly attacking Republicans on this issue, the Republicans are leaving all their ammunition in the gun. I don't get it.

Biden said no American would pay a higher tax rate under Obama than they did under Reagan. That is false. The highest tax rate under Reagan was around 28-29%. It would be 39% under Obama.

Biden claimed people will pay more taxes under McCain's health plan. Not true. They will pay less, since McCain's health care tax credit far outweighs the fact that they are taxable.

Biden claimed Palin instituted a windfall profits tax in Alaska. Not true. Palin made tax reforms that increased taxes on oil companies, but they weren't a windfall profits tax.

Biden said the financial bailout incorporated the four principles Obama laid out (as if Obama has provided any leadership on the bailout, which he hasn't), but two of the four principles Obama referenced in his speech are not included in the bailout package.

Biden repeated the same distortion of McCain saying "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" comment. McCain actually said the economy was in crisis.

As for Palin, her mis-statements were:

She claimed McCain's health care plan would be budget neutral. It would not be. It would reduce government revenues and not replace them.

Palin said Iraq troop levels were at pre-surge numbers. This one is true in spirit, if not precisely true. Troop levels are still a little higher than before the surge, but they have come way down.

Palin claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

Palin said it was the VP's job to "preside over the Senate." Nope. The Constitutional power of the VP is only to break a tie vote in the Senate.

On the basis of who was the more honest, Palin won the debate. On the basis of who was the bigger bs-er, Biden did.

There is one important way in which the Democratic and Republican parties work together in bipartisan harmony. They collaborate to rig the election system to keep third party and independent candidates off the ballots and out of the public debates. They also use their vast financial resources and connections to litigate fledgling political movements into submission or even bankruptcy.

In Ohio, 2008 ballot access requires that a party must either collect petitions equal to one half of one percent of the total vote, or have received five percent of the vote in the previous election. Since Democrats and Republicans always get five percent of the vote, they don't have to collect vast numbers of signatures. Third parties must collect around 20,000. For independent candidates such as Ralph Nader, who have no party affiliation, 5,000 signatures must be collected, but no more than 15,000 may be submitted (the maximum limit makes it easier for the Dems/GOP to challenge the signatures later, as you will see). Ohio's election rules have been declared unconstitutional, but we still use them.

Guess what happens when the third parties and independents submit their petitions ? The Democrats and Republicans send their lawyers on the attack to invalidate them (btw, this is how Barack Obama won his first Democratic primary in Illinois, by getting the petitions of all his opponents invalidated, including the incumbent. Change We Can Believe In). In addition, the Ohio Secretary Of State is always either a Democrat or a Republican, so guess whose side they tend to be on ? And when the third parties fight in court, guess which political parties the judges come from ? Third parties and independents have to fight legal battles in courts where the judges represent the very Democrats and Republicans they are fighting against.

Consider this – For the 2008 Ohio presidential election, the Libertarian Party won a Cincinnati court order to get candidate Bob Barr on the ballot (note – the state of Ohio is run by Democrats now. They WANT the Libertarian on the ballot to take votes away from McCain. Democrats are the same ones who got Ralph Nader kicked off the ballot in 2004, It's two sides of the same dirty coin), the Green Party has filed a federal lawsuit to get on the ballot, The Socialist Party won a federal lawsuit to get on the ballot, and Independent candidate Ralph Nader only recently submitted his petitions, so it remains to be seen what the Democrats will try to do to him. The point is, it seems to take court decisions to get on the ballot, with Democratic and/or Republican lawyers and the state fighting them every step of the way. In 2004, Nader was kicked off the Ohio ballot even though he collected the maximum number of signatures allowable, 15,000. Nader was denied an appeal of the decision. This year, the same method is being used to remove Nader and Green Party senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli from the Pennsylvania ballot. Here's a Green Party description of the events:

Pennsylvania requires that third party and independent candidates for major office submit over 67,000 signatures, while only requiring 2,000 signatures for Democratic and Republican candidates. After Mr. Romanelli submitted nearly 95,000 petition signatures (more than any candidate in the state's history), lawyers acting on behalf of the Democratic Party undertook a line-by-line challenge of the petitions. Despite Mr. Romanelli's attempt (with the help of volunteers) to defend the signatures he collected, the court sided with the Democratic Party lawyers and invalidated enough of Mr. Romanelli's signatures to have his name removed from the ballot. "The judge never looked at our signatures. They just took the word of Democratic Party lawyers," said Mr. Romanelli. "When we were able to show the validity of a large portion of the signatures the Democratic lawyers claimed were invalid, we were not allowed to enter the evidence in court." The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court also honored a request from Democratic lawyers to impose punitive expenses on Carl Romanelli because of the disqualified signatures. The court ordered Mr. Romanelli to pay more than $80,000. In Mr. Nader's case, the fine neared $89,000. "The fees imposed were an attempt to bankrupt me personally. The court also ordered my lawyer to pay expenses for the disqualified signatures, which is like sentencing a defendant's lawyer to prison along with the convicted defendant — and which intimidates lawyers from representing third party candidates in future disputes," added Mr. Romanelli.
Carl Romanelli is now appealing to the state Supreme Court to reconsider its November 20 decision upholding the lower court ruling. Mr. Romanelli intends to file a federal lawsuit, claiming violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because his political speech was limited and he was denied due process in his appeals.

If non-Dem/GOP candidates DO manage to survive the political grist mill and get on the ballot, and aren't bankrupted in the process, guess what happens next ? They are excluded from the national presidential debates, our major news media won't cover them, and most voters don't even know who they are until they see their names on the ballot in the voting booth, at which time the voters say to themselves "WHO ?". The national debate organizers only include candidates who meet a certain polling threshhold, which varies from debate to debate. Now, I ask you, how is a third party candidate supposed to generate poll numbers when he/she can't get on ballots and doesn't get any debate or news coverage to get his/her political views and name out there ? It's a Catch-22, and you can't tell me it's not by design.

Democracy is great. Wish we practiced it. It's easier to get on the ballot in Iraqi elections than it is here.

I wonder why, when the Dems and GOP complain about the country being in the grip of rich and powerful special interests, they never include themselves in that equation, because they are the biggest special interest groups in the country, bar none.

And who decided there were only TWO valid political views anyway ????

Barack Obama claims to be a new kind of politician. He's a uniter, not a divider (hmmm, that sounds familiar). Obama is all about HOPE, and above all, CHANGE. We know all this because Obama tells us so, repeatedly.

It's a little bit ironic then that Obama won his first Democratic primary in 1996 by getting all four of his Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot. It's doubly ironic when you consider that Obama had run on a platform of expanding voter rights and empowering disenfranchised voters. Here's an excerpt from a Chicago Tribune article:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of incumbent state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

Why indeed ? Obama explains it this way:

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

Seems pretty self-serving, not to mention, um, divisive. And as for whether Obama's main opponent, State Senator and legendary Chicago progressive activist Alice Palmer, should have been on the Democratic primary ballot that year, well, it's pretty disingenuous of Barack Obama to suggest otherwise. She was the incumbent and the frontrunner. He was the rookie.

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's behalf. "There were deep disagreements."

Obama's rhetoric was detached from his actions from the beginning. Uniter ? Not hardly. Power seeker ? Absolutely. As Obama showed again in his primary against Hillary Clinton in 2008, disenfranchising voters is no problem to him if he gains from it. Meet your "new kind of politician".

Btw, Alice Palmer, who at one time had hand-picked Barack Obama to be her successor, endorsed Hillary in 2008.

It was a wacky weekend for the party of D, that allegedly stands for Democratic. Many votes were cast that won't count, and many other votes were counted that were not cast. We all should have seen this coming the moment they made Howard Dean the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). To everybody I've ever spoken with about Howie (who always seems angry for no apparent reason) – Told you so.

In sunday's primary in Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama, capturing 68% of the vote to Obama's 32%. The win earned Hillary 38 delegates to Obama's 17.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, those 38 earned delegates in Puerto Rico were trumped by the DNC's awarding of 59 unearned Michigan delegates to Barack Obama on saturday. The party of D operatives were congratulating themselves for their Solomonic wisdom all over the news shows yesterday, but it must be noted for the record, NOBODY IN MICHIGAN VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA. Sooo, how do you get 59 elected delegates without receiving any votes ? Why, you belong to the party of D, that allegedly stands for Democratic, that's how. John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and the other party of D nominees should be po'ed, because they deserved those 59 delegates every bit as much as Barack Obama did. Some deserved them more.

In the face of heated criticism, the DNC Outlaws Bylaws Committee made other compromises on saturday as well. They seated Florida's delegates in addition to the imaginary Michigan election they held in their minds, and then they decided the 2.3 million Florida and Michigan votes would count as half votes. This move at least brought those states in line with the DNC's own internal rules, though not in line with any Constitutional principle, except maybe that old revoked one about slaves counting as 3/5's of a person. Keep trying Florida and Michigan. Who knows, maybe one day you'll be real citizens. At least the 3/5ths compromise had the nobler goal of ending slavery behind it. The party of D was on the wrong side of the slavery debate when it counted too. Btw, did you know that Barack Obama is the first black man to EVER become a Senator in the party of D, the oldest political party in the country ? Yes, it is so. The Republican party, founded in 1854 by Abe Lincoln, elected it's first black man to the Senate, Hiram Rhodes Revels, in 1870. Just an interesting historical tidbit.

During the DNC's debate over whether to count millions of votes on saturday, one heckler repeatedly asked what I'll call THE QUESTION OF THE YEAR, before he was escorted out of the building by security. The question was :

HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELVES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IF YOU DON'T COUNT THE VOTES ?

Indeed. How, exactly ?

Speaking of counting the vote and real citizens, let's return to Puerto Rico for a minute. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. They fight in our military. Nearly 70 have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Puerto Ricans can vote in U.S. elections if they live on the mainland, but they can't vote in U.S. elections if they live on the island. They can vote in the primaries, but not the general election. Puerto Ricans live in this bizarre American colonial netherworld. Without getting into whether Puerto Rico should become a state, remain a colony, or become independent, I recommend this: As long as Puerto Ricans are U.S. citiizens, they should receive the full right to vote. I've already had my fill of votes not counting in this election cycle. I remain astonished that all it takes to suppress millions of American votes is some shenanigans from a handful of misguided politicians. We have to be better than that. The party of D can take all their wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Bush/Gore election of 2000 and stick it where the sun don't shine. They have forfeited the right to complain about anything.

Seeing as how the Democratic party is no longer democratic, I propose America has a contest to rename the Democrats into something more appropriate. I suggest the "Oxymoron party", or maybe the "Revisionist party".
===
In other news, Barack Obama quit his church after 20 years, in the wake of more wacked out remarks by that deranged Catholic priest, Pfleger, who said Hillary had a sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination because she was white. The TUCC congregation ate Pfleger's remarks up. They loved it. Obama has no doubt grown tired of defending every loony racist statement that emanates from TUCC (Trinity Unbelievably Crazy Church), but the question about Obama will not go away. The question is, why did Obama sit there and listen to that nonsense for 20 years ? And Barack, please don't continue to insult our intelligence by saying you never heard that type of language when you were there. You KNOW you did. We KNOW you did. TUCC is based upon Black Liberation Theology, which assumes white oppression. At one time you embraced that church, when it was politically convenient, and now you have removed yourself from it, because it's politically invconvenient. That sounds less like a leader, and more like an opportunist to me, but let's move on. I also want a real discussion of the issues instead of all this stuff about preachers, because it's on the issues that Barack Obama really gets scary.