“Don’t blame me! I voted for Kodos.”

As we near election day, I see my libertarian friends, brothers and sisters all, continue to post the same old tripe comparing Democrats to Republicans and how there is no difference.  Honestly it angers me.

 “The government you have today is the direct result of your choosing the lesser of two evils for years and years…” or something is how one of the more popular sayings go.  It surprises me for individuals so self-described fiercely independent in their thought, that they could come up with something so intellectually dishonest and illogical.

May I counter with:  “In comparing the economy and freedoms you have today to that of 3.75 years ago, is a direct result of YOU making a principled decision to not vote or make a protest vote on a candidate with ZERO chance of actually defeating the greater of two evils.”

Or how about:  “The Constitution of 1787 that you have today that still allows slavery is a direct result of you NOT being a principled delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, taking your marbles, and going home.”

Is Mitt Romney a perfect candidate?  No.  Does he accurately reflect your political beliefs my libertarian friend?  Of course not.  Will Barrack Obama continue to do what he has done if re-elected?  Of course he will.

The decision to vote or pout on principle is that of absolute laziness.  This is not the time to be principled.  The time to be principled is the time between the election cycles, doing the hard work that only the committed Marxists on the left do.  The time to be principled is when you are taking back the Republican Party from the ground up.  Principles matter when you are taking that local Republican precinct position.  Principles matter when you start backing local State representatives that hold your principled view.  Principles matter when you go to the state convention in off years and put the screws to the establishment GOP that continues to screw up this party.

Principles do NOT matter right now.  The only thing that does matter is what happens on November 6.  Once that is done, then the important work of taking back the Republican party goes on.

“The candidates that you have for primaries are a direct reflection of people being lazy during non-election cycle years, and of abdicating the responsibility of having a stake of ownership within the Republican Party.”

This is a long process.  Slavery wasn’t abolished for almost 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution.  Did the abolitionists sit on their principled duffs and do nothing in between then; only whining about how no-one else was principled in their political actions?  No.  They forced change upon the rest of the sheep, who were content to pay no attention to politics until election time came.

I am reminded of that classic Simpsons episode of 1996 in which Bob Dole and Bill Clinton are taken over in bodily form by the aliens Kronos and Kodos.  Following the election, Homer, from his chains, smugly tells Marge, “Don’t blame me!  I voted for Kodos.”

As our liberties crumble around us in the next four years, I will not be comforted by you telling me glibly, “Don’t blame me, I voted for Johnson/Paul/sat-at-home.”

The Pink Mafia and the Chick-fil-A Non-Event

Chick-fil-A Owner Dan Cathy

The recent kerfuffle on Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-A restaurant chain is simply emblematic of the manufactured non-controversy controversies stewed up by the militant homosexual activists who continue to force their own issues upon a public and upon institutions that overwhelmingly do NOT agree with them.

As I have highlighted previously in this blog.  The Department of Defense was coerced by President Obama (who is the Commander in Chief) through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff into manufacturing agreement across the military services with repealing of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law.  The panel that reported its ‘findings’ was nothing more than a kangaroo court who dismissed every valid concern; in no way, shape, or form provided an avenue of the OPINIONS of service members and their families; and presented their cases to those whose feedback the ‘requested’ as a foregone conclusion.  In other words, the results were politically predetermined and the panel was a sham to provide top-cover to the ignorant public to the cowards in the upper echelons of the military.

Also as I have highlighted in this blog, the only way the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was accomplished was through a lame duck session the Saturday night before Christmas, after the Democrats were due to lose control of the House due to similar shenanigans used to pass the health care abomination the last year’s Christmas coal the libs slipped into America’s stocking.

Also, in keeping with the military milieu, just this past month the Department of Defense made an official exception to policy to allow servicemembers to march in a Gay Pride parade in San Diego… in UNIFORM.  The mere fact that they felt they had to issue an exception to policy was tacit acknowledgement that gay servicemembers are well, slightly more special than straight servicemembers… or at least those that espouse liberal political viewpoints and make the most noise.  I will not be holding my breath for my exception to policy letter to appear at a rally in uniform to express my moral and civil rights convictions for the protection of the very lives of unborn Americans… and illegal unborn immigrants for that matter.

Consider the facts.  32 states have had open referendums on legalizing homosexual marriages… to include such bigoted, conservative bastions as California.  Each and every time, these measures have been resoundingly defeated.  The public DOES NOT WANT IT.  The only way gay marriage has been sanctioned is through the actions of militant legislatures through dirty tricks and through activist courts creating law through their highly creative and imaginative interpretations of laws.

And now we have the Chick-fil-A non-event.  The article which ‘sparked’ all this outrage is here.  If you’d note, it no-where says in the article he is anti-gay marriage.  Of course you could infer it from his religious convictions and support for the traditional, Biblically defined family…. But then again, the vast majority of AMERICANS feel the same way… I guess that makes us all extremists and deserving of official boycotts and pauperdom.  If you would notice he DID say:  “We don't claim to be a Christian business … ‘There is no such thing as a Christian business’.”  But now, ironically, even supporters of gay marriage are being hurt by these knee-jerk lunatics of the pink mafia.

This is just another prime example of the militant homosexual activists creating controversy where none exists.  It also shows that if you scream loudly enough, wear enough meat dresses (Lady Gaga), chain yourselves to enough White House fences, and nauseate the rest of us (to include those who desire to keep their private sexual life hidden simply to avoid normal social stigmatism, you can become more equal than others.  It also reflects the sickening moral state of our nation, the complete devolution of the nuclear family, and the hastening of our ultimate demise as a great people.

Random Thoughts While on a 2,039-mile Road Trip

So I’m driving from around Tucson, AZ to Savannah, GA.  Since most of Interstate 10 is within 100-miles of the border, the feds in the US Border Patrol have pretty much free reign over its entirety.  Not that that’s entirely a bad thing, it’s just laden with irony.  As I pull up to a particular checkpoint, the Border Patrol agent tells me to stop, says hello, looks at me… looks in my car… and waves me along.  Hmmmm…. What’s the purpose of this stop, and what’s the methodology behind this encounter?  Would it be different if I had my buddy of Mexican origin dressed down and after a very long, dirty hike sitting in the car next to me?  Would he have treated me differently?  Probably.  I’d say he wouldn’t be doing his job correctly if he didn’t determine the legality of my driving partner because that would simply make too much sense.

This is occurring in Arizona mind you… You know, the state that just two years ago passed a law designed to give state law enforcement the ability to check on a person’s legal status upon a probable cause stop for some reason.  The state whose law was under extreme criticism by the left for conducting ‘racial profiling’ and which law explicitly stated racial profiling was NOT being used to conduct said stop.  The state that is being sued by Attorney General Holder (who has stated he will not enforce laws in which white people are victims) for said law.  Anyone else see the irony here?  The Feds are out there conducting LEGAL racial profiling in policing our border while in the same state, the same Federal Government is litigating against a law that gives an extra tool to state law enforcement to police up their own state of the problem the Feds are leaving them with.  It’s ok for me to do it… but not you Governor Brewer.  You just have to pay for it.

Between Tucson and Abilene, TX I did not see a single traffic police vehicle the entirety of I-10 and I-20… a distance of almost 800 miles.  Between Abilene and Texarkana, a distance of 360 miles, I saw probably about 50.  Same thing elsewhere.  Next to no traffic police the rest of the way save Atlanta where they were crawling with them.  Coincidence?  Probably not.  Give me a locality with a bunch of libs spending themselves to oblivion and I’ll show you a police state wherein every form of revenue raising takes place… including taxing motorists for driving what speed they are comfortable with.  There are already laws on the books for dangerous and reckless driving.  The statistics do not lie.  Traffic accidents do NOT rise when speed limits are raised or completely abandoned (as in Montana).  Traffic fines are simply for revenue purposes only.

Islamic Rage is Really Getting Old

So, two more U.S. soldiers have been murdered in the name of Islam and our gutless wonders in the Department of Defense and the White House continue to prostrate themselves before the impotent, back-stabbing Karzai regime in Afghanistan.  Why?  Because U.S. forces disposed of several Korans that were being used as message boards for unlawful communication between detainees.

I’m fed up and sick of this lunacy pretending Islam as practiced in these basket-case countries is a legitimate, peaceful religious practice and nothing more.  Clearly, as demonstrated in just these past ten years, it is not.  It is a violent, completely devoid of toleration, ideology that seeks to place the boot on the neck of every person in the world.  It tramples basic human rights that Western Civilization has sought to recognize and enshrine in statutory rules of law for the past four hundred years.  It is completely incongruent with our way of life.  It should be fought against… not tolerated (at best), and pandered to, which is what happens at every turn in this ridiculous, pointless waste that is going on over there.

This is not a political issue, because Bush was just as big an idiot on these matters as our current regime.  We clearly went wrong in believing we could simply ‘gift’ the idea of democratic government to a people mired in an oppressive political-religious dogma which is fundamentally incompatible with the principals that rule our own way of life.  Once again, this debacle of “nation-building” in Afghanistan is a complete refutation of the idiocy propounded by luminous academic boobs of Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy, Robert McNamara, David Frum, etc.

Where does this all stem from?  From the idiotic and blatantly false idea of moral equivocation.  To say that all cultures and all ‘religions’ are basically the same and should be treated and tolerated as such is a denial of basic, observable facts.  We are seeing these facts burning down the world every time someone drops an insult on Muhammad.  Some cultures and some religions are morally superior than others.  To deny otherwise is to deny basic, common sense.  Until we realize this and readdress what we are actually fighting against, we will continue to be pushed into a corner until it is too late and it DOES become an all-out religious war.

Conservatism, Democracy, and Foreign Policy – A Critique of Neoconservatives and of the Bush Doctrine

Daniel J. Mahoney back in the Fall of 2006 wrote a piece entitled “Conservatism, Democracy, and Foreign Policy”, in which he critiqued the Bush doctrine from a political philosophy standpoint.  I wish I had the foresight, mental acuity, and political maturity back then that I do now, for this piece is truly a stunning, accurate, sober, and complete philosophical look at the events between 9/11 and the Fall of 2006 (which was near the height of the chaos in occupied Iraq).  It is remarkably apolitical in a time that was anything but.  It is not for the faint-hearted as it is an intensely cerebral piece that required countless re-readings in order to simply understand the points.  But, if you can absorb heady, philosophical thought, it is well-worth the read.

Mahoney provides a history of political progressivism from the time of Marx until now, drawing surprising parallels between the Western Communist-sympathizers and today’s Neoconservatives (well, yesterday’s as they seem to be in Obama’s camp now thanks to Libya (eg. Bill Kristol, David Frum)).  The essence of their viewpoint is that they both worship the same, utopian end-state:  the “universal and homogenous state” in which humanity lives in perfect harmony:  the unattainable goal of heaven on earth.  It’s just that they had chosen different ways of getting there.

He goes on to differentiate between the different strains of neo-conservatism, identifying today’s breed as second Neoconservatives.  He recalls Francis Fukuyama who coined the term in his book:  America at the Crossroads:  Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy.  Fukuyama had, earlier at the fall of the Communist bloc, spun a progressive view of the fall, by stating that democratic government was merely inevitable and that Communism had indeed been on the wrong side of history.  Mahoney seems to accede to this point and makes a distinction between the Reaganites (dubbed by Fukuyama the first Neoconservatives) and today’s crop by stating the Reagan-era wonks were more anti-totalitarian than they were pro-democracy.  Though not the definitive Ron Paul-type, echoes of WWII isolationist Republicans, Reagan was a far cry from the democracy at any cost crowd of today.  Mahoney, does though, lay some of the blame upon the Reagan era for creating the environment that spawned the second-neoconservatives.  By invoking politically popular, and palatable progressive language, the Great Communicator simplified the struggle into Good vs. Evil, Freedom vs. Tyranny, and, most destructively, the inevitability of the triumph of democracy over totalitarianism.  It is this last point that Mahoney says created the second neo-conservatives.  It is perfectly logical to think that if ‘democracy’ is an inevitable result, then it should not be hard to intervene in locales, shackled by totalitarianism and push along the people towards their final destination.

When it comes to describing the political philosophy of Bush, some may say he punts as he does not put him in a particular camp.  I say Mahoney paints the accurate portrait of Bush’s philosophy as one governed solely by instinct informed by his Christian faith.  Bush is not a Neo conservative.  I will withhold my judgment on this point until the end.

Mahoney scores a big hit in cautioning to conservatives of the danger in falling for the big lie that this second neoconservatism sells.  The big lie is that democracy is an end in and of itself.  He recalls the HAMAS elections in Palestine, and the failures of fledgling democracies in post-Tsarist Russia, pre-Mussolini Italy, and the Weimar Republic.

Mahoney closes his essay with a look at Bush’s second inaugural address in which Bush seemed to have completely swallowed the neoconservative narrative by invoking the natural yearnings of mankind towards freedom.  Mahoney then shows the danger that this neoconservative philosophy presents when it is married to a European, postmodern design that erodes the traditions, institutions, and morals that have upheld our Republic for the past two-hundred plus years.  He shows that the Marxist and the Neocon are one and the same:  all after the unattainable, utopian ideal of heaven on earth … so long as they get to determine how it looks.

I think Mahoney is on the money with this essay.  His most poignant point is the intellectual fallacy that Neoconservatives employ:  that democracy in and of itself is an end worth investing U.S. blood and capital.  Democracy that is not underpinned by the rule of a law that respects, enshrines, and attributes to God as the source, human rights will always fail.  He also points out that history is indeed NOT on the Neocons’ (or Marxist) side.  Free, democratic societies are the exception, not the norm.  History is replete and will continue to be replete with totalitarian regimes until the end of time.  The U.S. is an aberration.  I cannot understand why political philosophers and historians cannot see nor understand the reason behind this.  The reason is not Democracy.  Madison pointed out that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”  The reason is in that statement.  Only a moral and religious people that hold dear the tenants of Judeo-Christian beliefs can possibly expect to live and prosper in a free society.  Like in countries dominated by fundamentalist Muslims, democracies cannot flourish in places that use religious law to subjugate women and religious minorities.  Like in African tribal societies in which might makes right, democracies cannot flourish in places in which people are not able to govern themselves.

This is not to make a case that we, as Americans, so richly blessed by God, should not advocate, and at times intervene in other nations’ affairs.  It does mean, however, we must acknowledge why our society works and advocate others to do the same.  To pressure other societies to have democratic elections for the sake of democratic elections is to simply invite chaos and the inevitable rise of anti-American totalitarian regimes (see Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now probably Egypt and Libya).

My personal take on the Bush doctrine is simple and political.  His failure to find the anticipated WMD stockpiles and associated programs required a new political narrative to justify our continued presence.  Unfortunately political reality forced him to call on the political allies in the Neoconservatives in his administration.  Complete irrational, and borderline suicidal hostility from the American left made failure in achieving reelection not an option.  Bush viewed a withdrawal without an achievement of a stable, allied society to be tremendously risky in a region in which might does make right, and therefore sacrificed the philosophical higher ground to appeal to the baser, emotional views of his electorate.  Call it Hope and Change for Iraq, 2004.  I do not believe Bush believes in the Neo-Con world-view.  I believe he holds deep Christian beliefs that the human soul does desire freedom.  This is true as the human being was designed to enjoy God and glorify Him forever, however the fall of man and original sin kind of complicated things.  Bush recognizes this but unfortunately, realpolitik dictated to him what he would say and do in 2004-2006.

The Real Reason the GOP will not Confront Obama Effectively

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and in the second half of his opening monologue, he referenced the media-hyped “likeability” of President Obama.  He also alluded to the fact that the Republican Party leadership will be loath to attack Obama for who he is, repeating the same stupid mistakes that McCain did in 2008.  Instead, the conventional wisdom is that the inevitable GOP nominee (sorry, cannot help but be pessimistic when looking at the GOP’s history the past 50 years or so) will tip-toe around real issues and simply concentrate in policy differences.

Here is where this kind of thing is wrong.  People bought the Obama myth (lie) wholesale from the media, while the Hannity’s, Limbaugh’s, Beck’s, and Levin’s of the world loudly proclaimed that Obama was a socialist, with evil intentions on this country as we know it.  They proclaimed he was intent on “fundamentally changing” America, molding it into his vision.  Trouble is, when these same ‘alarmists’ started showing, by deed and word, that this change was radical Marxists, they were shouted down and shunned by the media and the public at large.  Now that Obama has done his best to “fundamentally change” America in the past two years, and the Democrats received the penalty for this overreach in November of 2010, the GOP is loath to bring up the true reasons for this?  This is a horrible miscalculation.  The American people KNOW something stinks in Washington.  They do NOT like what is going on.  If it is simply explained to them with facts, truths, and correct inferences, they will understand.  The facts are that Obama and his administration are Statists.  Call them Marxists, call them Fascists, call them pumpkins.  The fact is, they wish to control you, take your money, determine what you should have, and give money away to those they deem deserve it.

So, this begs the question, “Why?”  I’m sure if Rush had another dollar for every time a caller asked that question of the Republican leadership, he could simply buy an EIB 2, or even Gulfstream itself.  But, I think he neglected to hit on it yesterday.  I know he knows this, but didn’t mention it.  Not that I call him out.  I am not a highly trained broadcast specialist.  :)  The real reason is the GOP leadership STILL (after all these years) takes seriously whatever charge the media throws at them regardless of the ridiculousness of the premise.  And what is this charge?  Of course!  The race charge!  Sorry it took me 400 words to get to my point.

The GOP is still terrified that this lame, boogeyman albatross, the liberals continue to try to hang around the necks of conservatives will once again, find success.  Ten years ago, I may have agreed.  However, in light of current events and how much liberals have dropped their mask in the past two years, I find this reasoning fatally flawed.  The racist card has no impact any more.  It has been overused.  Just as when “Frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn” shocked movie-goers 70 years ago, the racist charge worked wonders for years.  Now that this bogus accusation is thrown at anyone who expresses any difference whatsoever with a liberal who happens to be a preferred minority, it has lost its luster.

If the GOP will not stop this cowardly acceptance of liberal premises, and not stop this childish desire to be liked and respected by the enemies of conservative values, prepare for another John McCain in 2012, and another four years of Marxist rule.

What a Difference a Failed Presidency Makes - Obama Then and Now

I don't even think I need to provide commentary on this.  I've seen both these clips, but they belong next to each other.





Hat tip to Verum Serum for uncovering the first video.

Egypt – My Take on Obama’s Take

So, Arabs/Berbers may have finally figured out how to topple dictatorships.  While the neo-cons rejoice and the Wilsonians applaud ‘democracy’ breaking out across the globe, the prudent sit back and contemplate the future.  Of course, Obama and his administration, show their utter immaturity, inexperience, and foolhardiness by jumping out in front of the cameras and join the mobs in Cairo screaming for Mubarkak’s ouster.



AFP Photo



This is very curious.  I have been trying to block out the political horse-races media types have been staging the past two weeks and analyzing what and why Obama is doing what he is doing.  Several questions are raised:  First, what is different about this and the protests in Iran?  In 2009, Obama sat on the sideline when the Persians revolted and Tehran crushed them, while conservatives screamed and invoked Reagan’s speeches to the dissidents in the gulags.  Then, Obama said he wouldn’t interfere with internal ‘elections’.  Now, Obama joins the frenzied mobs and calls for his trademark ‘change’.  Of course this ‘change’ is as vacant and vacuous as the ‘change’ he promised in 2008.  Why the sudden change?  Has he had a change of heart about popular uprising?  Is this politically motivated because he sees an opportunity to … well … establish (can’t be burnish!) his foreign policy credentials?  Was he simply squeamish about confronting the Iranian regime?

I think this is both ideologically motivated and politically motivated.  Obama is an opportunist.  He would never have been elected had not the sub-prime mortgage crisis occurred when it did.  Remember his chief of staff said to never let a crisis go to waste.  Here Obama saw an easy opportunity.  He saw mobs of people uprising against an Egyptian dictator who has been a traditional ally of the west against the Communists, and a tepid supporter of Israel (two strikes against him to the liberals).  He saw a low hanging fruit and grabbed it quickly without thinking of the consequences.  The political side of this is evident.  It’s easy to make a stand for vacuous, ideological buzzwords ringing with ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’.  It’s not easy to see the consequences of associated actions (ask Bush 43, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Bremmer for advice on that one).  His political standing could skyrocket by getting in front of this, using the bully-pulpit, and once again hijacking the image of Reagan for his own personal gain.

Ideologically, he sees this as another enemy of my enemy is my friend.  To democrats today, everything is political.  National security is political.  Just ask Joe Liebermann.  He sees the Mubarak of extraordinary rendition and Bush ally.  He sees a foe against Communism.  He sees an opportunity to make hay of the popular Arab hatred of Israel.  He sees an opportunity to ‘dialogue’ and appease the Muslim brotherhood.  This is completely ideological as well.

Of course, what Obama doesn’t, and cannot understand, due to the fact he has had a two second political career before being spokesperson (not leader) of the free world, is basic critical thinking.  Because politically and ideologically it is the quick, expedient thing to do, he stupidly jumped head first into it.  This will bite him in the end.  He has quickly become Jimmy Carter II, fulfilling all the conservative’s prophesy who predicted these kinds of foolish actions back in the 2008 campaign.

The 800lb gorilla in the room that no-one will acknowledge (shoot, even the state-run media is starting to ask the basic, obvious second-order effect questions) is who will take over?  But is this surprising?  Pshaw!  Who needs details when you have the president of “HOPE”^TM and “CHANGE”^TM?  Of course this is not surprising.  Nor is it surprising when you own the media.  My gosh, even Dianne Feinstein is asking this question!

The prudent thing would have been to (well, anticipate this first of all.  Time to dial up the CIA again?) take a step back and think about it.  I still don’t know what to think about it!  The basic fact of life in the Middle East is that the strong win.  The Egyptians, like the Iraqis and Afghanis, do not understand true freedom, democracy, and the rule of secular law.  Now, granted, they are far, far more secularized, liberal, and open to true democratic, rule of law society than the countries we are currently ‘nation-building’, but the unfortunate fact is that only those who are strong enough, and organized enough survive.

Mubarak seems to be handling himself fairly well.  He seems to be laying the foundations to a calmer turnover to an alternative, but it remains to be seen how the people will accept this.  The wildcard (and hope of the West) is the military.  They have the ultimate trump and can put a stop to an unruly, powergrab by the Muslim Brotherhood who look like the most likely, most organized, and most motivated to take over.  The Army hopefully has learned the lessons of 1979 and the Iranian revolution.  Only they can stop radical Islamists from taking over.  Truly the more enlightened Egyptians do not wish to live under shariah.  If not, then there are more fundamental questions (such as the compatibility of Islam with freedom) that have to be addressed.

Are the 'Birthers' Crazy?

After sitting on the sideline for about two years following this issue from a distance, I’m finally going to wade into it and venture my opinion.

Birthers.  They have been ridiculed by both the GOP and the left for over two years now.  They are the ones that claim everything from Obama is Kenyan/UK citizen by birth, Indonesian by citizenship, or some other strange confluence in between.  They have been mocked by Obama’s press secretary, and casually dismissed by conservative stalwarts in the House and the Senate.

If the left (and some lunatic fringes on the right) have their “9-11 Truthers”, then we conservatives must have their equivalent in the Birther movement.  Right?  I’m not so convinced.  I personally harbor no doubts about Obama’s birth in the US, nor his due election to the Presidency… but I do question why this issue simply will not die.  Here’s my take:

Like most horrible controversial lies, they all start rather stupidly and benignly.  Just like his entire persona was built upon a fantasy, supported by papier-mâché platitudes and meaningless slogans, his accounts of his youth are likely a combination of embellishment of the positive and burial of the negative.  Seriously, how does one fill two full autobiographies of a two-second career before your 40^th birthday?  (Especially, if the allegations that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote both volumes pan out)

Little lies built upon bigger lies exploded into the outlandishly false idol of Obama in the 2008 campaign.  After his election, I joined many in opining that the entire nation is going to be so completely deflated once their Messiah is found only to be a man… and a petty, foolish, petulant, Marxist man, with no skills at that.

Obama’s birth certificate is simply another piece of the entire puzzle that is the man that his campaign, his lawyers, his administration, and his state-run media have kept concealed for so long.  Where are Obama’s papers from both undergraduate and graduate school?  Where are his LSATs?  Where are his Harvard applications?  Where are his medical records?  Where is his birth certificate?

Obama is the first president to my knowledge that has kept such secrecy and a tight lid on everything that is HIM.  There has to be an underlying reason for this.  I seriously doubt he was born in Kenya, then smuggled into Hawaii back in ’61.  But, as a possessor of a delayed registration of birth myself, I can fully see the issues that not having a proper long-form hospital-produced birth certificate with information that violates a segment of the entire Disney storyline of his birth, and childhood, struggles and achievements would present to Obama’s creators who pitched their story of the modern Messiah to the media and sold it to the brainless robots tired of Bush and guilty white moderates wanting to vote for a black guy.

Is this simply the reason why?  He doesn’t want to be caught in a small lie?  This actually, makes more sense than anything else.  This man’s narcissism refuses to own up to whatever it is that he (or his handlers) lied about.  All it would take is a simple admission and explanation of what actually happened in 1961.  Clinton lied in front of the whole world about his infidelity, then was promptly forgiven by the majority of Americans when he was forced to fess up.  Why wouldn’t the same be true for Obama?  Because HIS truth is THE truth.  God's truth be damned.  His narcissism will not allow it.

Now, that media folks like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge (even the UK Telegraph) are floating stories on this controversy, and states like Arizona are passing legislation that requires the presentation of the birth certificate in question in order to be put on their ballots, Obama’s jig will likely be up early next year.  It’s going to be interesting to find out.  The anticipation is killing me.

Freezing Spending (that has increased deficits by 400% in two years) is Fiscal Responsibilty?!?!?

Imagine that you are, like most Americans, on a standardized monthly budget and monthly salary.  You then go out and purchase (on credit) a brand new car, with the monthly payments effectively doubling your monthly expenditures in your budget.

After your wife confronts you on your extravagance, you then promise her you will cut your spending amounts by spending the exact same amount (with the car factored in) every month for the next five years.  Does this sound like something a sane person would suggest as a fix to fiscal insolvency?

To our Obama cheerleaders in the press (even in that Right-Wing extremist network Fox News), this same plan is titled in an Orwellian manner:  reducing spending.  That’s right.  Keeping spending at same levels in an economy that’s imploding, with tax revenues expected to continue to slide because of high unemployment, is reducing the deficit.

The FY2009 budget proposed by President Bush had a deficit of $400 billion.  This is the deficit Obama inherited.  Obama’s FY2010 budget (also Orwellian in title: A New Era in Responsibility) allowed for a deficit in actual spending authorizations (most signed by him) of $1.752 trillion in FY2009 and a projected FY2010 deficit of $1.171 trillion.

That’s right, exploding one’s deficit by 400% in massive new useless entitlement programs and ‘stimulus’ slush funds to bail out public and private sector union buddies, then promising to keep the spending levels current is the new model of fiscal responsibility.  It reminds me of a time-honored trick of teenager music listening strategy.  When my grandma would yell at my dad to turn his music down, he would crank it up by ‘accident’ then quickly turn it back down to the same level, giving an appearance of compliance.

Sorry Obama and the state-run media lackeys, we don’t buy it anymore.  Your lies are manifest.  Your actions have indeed spoken louder than your words.

Lame Duck Session a Middle Finger to America – Scorched Earth Tactics and a Turd for a Christmas Gift

So, now some more thoughts on the lame duck session that will never end:

Harry Reid and the Liberals do NOT care one ounce for the Hispanic illegals they pander to so much.  Do you really think with the amount of dirty tricks, gamesmanship, and other despicable tactics, political maneuvering, and outright lies they typically use to pass of their garbage legislation, that they would lay down so easily over the DREAM act?  Seriously?!?!?!  If this bill meant that much to the liberals, they would have made far much more effort into its passage and we would have heard the racist word being flung around with so much spittle and venom from the left after its defeat.  You’ve got to be kidding.  This was the biggest dud I’d seen since the Senate ‘considered’ the Cap and Tax scheme.  So, thanks again Nevada Hispanics for sending us back Harry Reid.  Welcome to the club of loser Americans who get lied to in order to preserve liberal politicians’ jobs.

This session has been one giant middle finger extended to the American people who dared to oppose Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s liberal agenda.  It has been nothing but a scorched earth tactic designed to cause so much chaos and damage to this country that it will take years to repair.  It is spiteful, it is arrogant, it is infuriating, and it does not surprise me in the least.  To go back to my favorite metaphor, the liberals are the little kid who, after feasting on candy-bar after candy-bar, is told “No” by their permissive parent and then flails around the room in a temper tantrum, kicking and screaming, until they have to be physically removed by the mortified parent, but not before the little chocolate stained, bloated brat demolished two picture frames, a mirror, five ‘Holiday’ tree ornaments, and the ‘multi-ethnic-multi-religious-ecumenical-but-not-quite-nativity-scene’.

The latest outrage is the cloture vote (all but guaranteeing passage) of the START treaty, which should be renamed the STUART treaty, not in honor of a famous House of Scots, but in honor of that Englishman Lord Chamberlain, “I hold here in my hand, a document signed by Gospodin Medvedev…”.  The Strategic Unilateral Arms Reduction Treaty was aided by 11 Republicans fulfilling another one of Obama’s wet dreams of being able to unilaterally surrender to the Commies.  I guess he wasn’t “born too late.” (Too bad we’ll never know the answer to that other implied questions, but I digress.)  “Hey RINOS!  We’re the Democrats and have been on the wrong side of history in matters of foreign policy since Kennedy!  Won’t you support our ‘treaty!?!?’”  “Why certainly,” I am Lamar Alexander, “and I value being bi-partisan (read selling out) over principals!”  And all of the Washington elites respond with accolades of love and support… until he is challenged by Harold Ford Jr. for his Senate seat.

How much longer can this nation hold out?  What makes matters worse is that the same old traitorous creatures, the RINOs in the Senate are complicit in this drunken orgy of unabashed liberalism.  So, once again, thanks Alaska for sending us back the queen of American nepotism, Lisa Murkowski.  Thanks Snowe and Collins (the Siamese twins of the Senate; for the life of me, I cannot tell them apart politically, or physically… shudder), thanks Bennet, you sore loser.

In short, thanks US Senate for these absolute turds of Christmas presents.  It is truly befitting a gift from such a putrid, foul, despicable institution that you have become.  But, then, you guys really don’t buy into the whole ‘Christmas’ thing to begin with.  What was I thinking?