Obama has pledged “openness” and “transparency” in his new government. It typical left wing fashion, it depends on the definition of all the words in the sentence. It’s all subject to interpretation.

There is a disturbing trend forming in the new administration. Our glorious leader is making a concerted effort to keep anyone from asking him questions, talking to him or reporting about him. There were hints of this before the election, such as when Obama kicked all the reporters from outlets that didn’t endorse him off his campaign. But it’s become much more pronounced since he has taken office. The first stark moment was when the president asked the media to use only pictures his staff had taken. Then Obama visited the press core and became angry when they asked him questions.

In recent weeks, the president has taken up only talking to radical left wing blog sites like the Huffington Post. He’s only taking questions from well known left wing talk hosts like Ed Schultz. Now Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe asked the press to take his speech at the National Press Club off the record and the press is considering keeping it off the record.

I’m galled. This is the same media who just a few years ago was suing for their right to publish pictures of coffins and bodies coming back from Iraq. This is the same media who just a little while ago was publishing our military and intelligence secrets while smugly lecturing us all on their right to free press.

There are so many things to be said here. The first is obvious: How can the president live up to his pledge of “openness” and “transparency” if he’s only disseminating information to the tried and true left wing talkers? The people who are guaranteed to put a pretty spin on whatever is happening.

Naturally the liberal blogs are loving this.

The problem is that so called “mainstream” journalists are going to lose charm with it. The Mainstream Media saw the Obama administration as a victory for themselves. The fact that Obama won’t have anything to do with them now is a slap in the face. Obama’s first interview as president didn’t even go to an American media outlet. He went to some Middle Eastern mouthpiece for that.

How long are mainstream reporters going to sit on their hands and take this? The economic downturn is also effecting them. Layoffs in the newsrooms are becoming more and more common. This is going to make journalists more desperate to break stories as they compete to prove what good reporters they are. Obama’s talks with the blogs is setting up for a nasty war.

On the president’s side, there is also an ethical question. Online left wing blogs talk about news, but a lot of them have as their primary purposes political fundraising. The man who pledged to have no lobbyists in his administration is cutting out the middle man and making his appeals to the special interests directly. It’s not illegal, but it is definitely questionable in the ethical department. (Side note: Obama has hired several ex lobbyists in violation of his own pledge.)

And there is still another side of this: namely the calls for the “Fairness Doctrine”. So far, it’s mostly been Congress who has been pushing this idea. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan is championing this cause calling for “fairness” on the radio airwaves to bring “accountability” and “transparency”. While making her speech Stabenow neglected to mention that her husband worked for the left wing Air America and even had a show on said network. Ironically she pushed hardest on a liberal radio show. But she’s not alone. Just recently Bill Clinton has also called for re-imposing the doctrine.

In the days of old it was argued that the “Fairness Doctrine” is not an attack on Free Speech because of X, Y and Z. Today it is being argued that the “Fairness Doctrine” does violate the first amendment, we (the supporters) just don’t care. This should send a chill up the spines of anyone paying attention to it.

But there is a chance that these arguments are going to collide. The left wants to shut down talk radio because it’s too “partisan” even while we have a president who is only talking to the most partisan left wing sites? How can mainstream journalists laugh at Fox News being shut out of press conferences when the president is essentially doing the same things to the mainstream journalists by approving questions in advance?

The media is composed of human beings too. These people are nervous about their jobs too. There is going to start being some resentment about all the above. In the media mind, Obama owes them one. And he’s not giving it over. If the government is going to start regulating the radio, how long till it starts regulating television which uses the same kinds of airwaves? The original Fairness Doctrine did apply to television.

Not all journalists are stupid and near sighted, some of them are going to wonder what is going to happen when the left loses power and suddenly they’re faced with a hostile conservative regime that can dictate “balance” on the airwaves.

As this movement picks up steam there is going to be a nasty media war. Some of it will be entertaining because journalists will be digging up the dirt on each other and publishing it for the world to see. Unfortunately the rest of it will be sad as we watch free speech, press and expression slowly erode in favor of government regulation and oversight.

Serious question about the “stimulus” package: This is the plan?

We’re going to sink BILLIONS of dollars in to “infrastructure” as a way of kick starting the economy? Obama has been reminding us all of the history of FDR who’s “stimulus” was largely composed of the same stuff.

The problem is that times have changed and Obama’s idea hasn’t. During the 30’s and 40’s, farmers and factory workers were looking for jobs. These people were largely unskilled and uneducated. They were looking for and expecting unskilled jobs that consisted of hard physical, manual labor. This is what most jobs consisted of in the 30’s and 40’s. They didn’t mind working for small wages, they expected small wages. They were just happy to have jobs.

Contrast that with today where most people work at desks. People today are better educated and more sophisticated than their 30’s counterparts. We’re coming out of an economic boom where people are used to being paid more than they are worth.

And we expect these desk workers to pick up shovels and dig ditches? It was 18 degrees outside my house last week. The idea of going out there for 8 to 12 hours a day and dig ditches does not excite me. Especially in light of the fact that there is already a system of roads, interstates and highways already crisscrossing our landscape put there by our 30’s and 40’s counterparts.

There is a new engineer’s report out that says our road systems and bridges are in bad shape. I guess engineers and politicians have never driven down a road and experienced the pot hole laden ride.

But wait, it gets better. Another leg of Obama’s plan is to “make college more affordable for all people”. And by making it more affordable, he doesn’t mean going to tell universities and colleges that accept huge government grants that they’re not going to be getting the money this year, no. Instead he’s going to make it more easy for youngsters to get fat government loans. Can’t help but think of Freddie and Fannie every time I hear/read about that.

When the slaves were freed after the Civil War, the plantation owners opened stores on their properties. They offered easy credit to the freedmen. This created the “wage slave”, someone who saw all their work and labor go to their masters. This was slavery with a legal face.

And this is what Obama wants to do with the youth of America. Bury them in such a big hole they owe the state everything and have no way of getting out. That way all of their work goes to the state.

And digging ditches will be the only way to get out from under that debt? I don’t think there are any college degrees in ditch digging. It’s funny to think of these Obama supporters going in to massive debt to get their degrees in poetry, anthropology, English, painting and other good liberal pursuits only to be handed a shovel uponst graduating.

Good thing colleges and universities no longer challenge their students to think.

If Obama loses, there will be a second civil war. Blood will run in the streets. There will be riots and violence. Finally there will be an overthrow of the evil white racist establishment (finally.)

Giggle. Snicker. No I’m serious. Chuckle.

So there you have it, Obama carries the terrorist vote. Terrorism is basically threatening violence if you don’t get your way politically. Maybe this is why Obama is carrying the support of people who don’t want to fight the War on Terror – they don’t want to war against their brothers in arms.

It’s really sad when you stop and think about it. They don’t want to fight against hostile foreigners who want us dead because we don’t share the same religion they do. But they will fight against their fellow nationals when they don’t get their latest Affirmative Action demands.

It’s even more interesting when you look at the places that will supposedly go in to revolt: Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and other places where there are “disempowered groups” (I’ll be called racist if I call them “black” areas.)

All of these regions are blue who liberal Democrat every election cycle. All of these regions have given the “disempowered groups” living their just about everything said group has demanded in terms of money and legal advantages. One of the problems they’ll find about declaring independence is that they’re not independent. In fact, those areas are some of the most dependent regions I’ve ever seen. I don’t think there has ever been a minority group anywhere that has been given so much by a majority that we’re told hates said minority so much. And it’s not enough. These people still claim that they’re poor, have no opportunity, oppressed, held down, have nothing and all the other rhetoric that comes with it.

So I guess the lesson is that Affirmative Action and other entitlement programs don’t work. Why else would you be living in misery? With this in mind, you’re now threatening to rebel should you not get your way in this election. Yeah (laughs) right. You remind me of a teenager who’s mad their parents won’t let them party all night. You have no idea have good you have it.

Revolutions cost a lot of money. There is a cost of weapons, ammunition, food, clothing, training, gas and tons of other fees. I go back to one of the chief complaints being “no money”. So who’s going to pay the bill? And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the liberal leaders elected from these areas are going to be OPPOSED to any armed revolt. They’re riding a gravy train. Said leaders need peace to insure their good lives. They’re not going to sit there and watch their House/Senate seats vanish in to other nations. And the more blue the area, the more vicious the liberal candidate. What do you think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would do if her home district of San Francisco was trying to leave?

There might be a millionaire rapper or two who actually believes their own rhetoric and might support a revolution…until they find out how few supporters a revolt would have. Sorry but anger at “the man” might be good for priming a crowd of pot smokers before the concert, but it’s not going to give staying power for a wide scale revolt. Such passion is fleeting. It burns hot and burns out quickly.

This is why leadership is so important. Someone has to keep everyone’s spirits up even in the face of set backs – and there will be set backs. There always are. At present, I don’t see anyone that inspires that kind of inspiration.

Another important component of a lot of revolutions also hinge on foreign involvement. Becoming recognized as an independent state at the world level adds a big help in any revolution. Having a “major power” really helps out. But most of the “major powers” I can think of today (such as England, France, Germany) have large disgruntled minority populations themselves. Giving the stamp of approval to a similar rebellion in another land would probably make them nervous.

Add on top of this that recognition often comes with foreign aid. But who is going to want to give aid to such an obviously ungrateful population?

This is why when I hear all the calls for “revolution” all I can do is laugh.

Right now the Media is already coronating a new Obama presidency and a liberal “Super Majority” in both houses of Congress. If this is true, a coming tidal wave of Liberalism will be a disaster for our system. Here are some of the things you can expect:

Stacking the Courts

 The first thing a lefty controlled Government is going to do is get the Courts onboard. They’re not going to put a bunch of work in to getting a bunch of left wing laws passed only to have the courts throw them out. FDR was hamstrung by the courts in his day. Democrats have learned since that time.

Fortunately, there are plenty of openings in the courts. The Senate (especially in the last two years) has refused to “rubber stamp” any of Bush’s appointees. Bill Clinton got more judges from a Republican Senate than Bush has gotten with a Democrat one. So get ready for a 180 degree turn as the Senate begins “rubber stamping” every Obama candidate. Moreover don’t be surprised when it is a “who’s who” of the far left.

Then they’ll move on to everything else.

War on Free Speech

The Obama campaign hasn’t even taken office and is already fighting to shut down everyone that dares to question them. In St. Louis County earlier this fall, Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce began organizing governing officials in Missouri to target anyone telling “misleading” stories about Barack Obama. Note that they didn’t say “Candidates” – they specifically said “Obama”.

I would hope that everyone reading this column would understand the dangers of elected officials using their positions to back their chosen candidates.

But that aside – other Obama critics have come under fire for daring to do things like use the Messiah’s middle name, his ties to ACORN and his corrupt advisors from Mac and Mae. The moral of the story is that they’re even going to go after the people who tell the truth.

Expect a left wing government to re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine” which will apply exclusively to radio. College professors will be allowed to continue to lecture about anything they want to in the classroom – they vote the right way (liberal Democrat). Again, I have a problem with government workers at the University level using their position to campaign for their candidates of choice.

Don’t expect the “Fairness Doctrine” to affect TV or Cable. Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow will be able to continue to bean out their hateful messages without fear. Again they vote the right way.

Watch for Mr Barack “I’m a citizen of the world” Obama to give the internet to the international community. That means that the internet will be run by the UN, an organization that praises “free speech” in laws and treaties where they’re outlawing certain subjects and forms of expression.

Yes – you’re free to talk about anything they haven’t made illegal.

A Draft

Watch for the push for a draft. Chuck Rangel’s last outline of a possible draft included everyone from 18 to 42, including women. The draft will be backed by some people who will be considered surprising – Code Pink, the pacifists on Daily Kos and so on. These people will talk glowingly about how the “rich and powerful” who start the wars will now have their children included.

They also think it will swell their supporters who don’t want to fight. Right now we have an all volunteer army. Thus when someone goes AWOL and refuses to fight in the “illegal” war they find no sympathy – because they knew what they were signing up for. Even Canada has lost all sympathy for the draft dodger – they’re sending them back.

But a draft would make these people look like victims. It would get a bunch of people who don’t want to join the military onboard to the anti movement. The left looks back to the 60’s as their glory days and the activism back then was fueled by the draft.

Voter Fraud

Get ready for voter fraud to get much easier. Groups like ACORN and others that are already on the government payroll to drum up votes for lefties. They’re going to count every vote – even the votes of fictional characters, those who vote twice, the dead and many, many others. Watch for ACORN and other such groups to get more money, more authority and more control over elections.

Right now the FBI is investigating ACORN. Even if they find that ACORN did something wrong, there will be no punishment. The guys at ACORN will go to work the next day doing what they always do. It took an act of Congress to create ACORN. It will take an act of Congress to get rid of ACORN. Since ACORN is fighting tirelessly to get one of the two parties elected, don’t expect Congress to dump ACORN.

The fraud vote is the politician’s best friend. It’s a voting block that you don’t have to kiss the butt of. It’s a voting block that will always be there. Best of all as long as there is one more fraud vote than real vote, you’ll never lose your position.

Going hand in hand with this will be the push for aliens and criminals being able to vote. With any luck, in two years liberal politicians won’t need you.

Higher Taxes

Taxes are going to go up. There hasn’t been a Democrat ever that hasn’t planned on raising taxes as high as he or she could get them. Obama is a rabid socialist/Communist. He’ll raise taxes. Someone needs to pay for all the stuff he’s going to give away.

The left sees the power to tax as the power to change the world. So they’re going to raise taxes on the things that are “wrong” in their minds. If you drive the wrong kind of car – you’ll have higher taxes. If you live a house they think is too big – you’ll have higher taxes. And so on and so forth.

New Agencies and Departments

The best way to keep power in government is to never give it up. Reworking the judiciary is one way. Setting up a bunch of new executive positions is another. Why do you think we have the exact same failed liberal foreign policy for the past fifty years despite who is president or in the Congress? It’s because the state department is packed with career workers. And you see this in every department/agency.

Why do you think Dennis Kucinch wants a Department of the Peace? He might get it. And environmentalists will probably push for a new department for themselves. And expect civil rights crowd to demand something more than they already have. And so on and so forth.

Thus even if the Conservatives get control back some day in the future, they’ll be at war with their own employees. It will be Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame times ten per unhappy agency.

The Bottom Line

 We can’t let a liberal super majority take office. If we do we will never get it back. Obama needs to be defeated in ’08 and his liberal horde needs to go with him.

Unfortunately the polls are telling us they’re probably not going to take too much damage even in the best case scenario.

To Bob McCulloch St. Louis Circuit Attorney and Jennifer Joyce St. Louis City Attorney,

I heard the news story about you threatening to take libel suits against anyone who dares criticize your choose candidate Barack Obama. I note that you did not say “Political Candidates”. You listed only one candidate (BO) in particular.

I have a serious problem with you protecting only one single candidate. It seems like a violation of your office to only target what you perceive to be your political enemies. It’s more disturbing that you’re trying to get other elected officials both at the state and local level in lock step with your tactics of intimidation. The only conclusion that I can draw is that you are attempting to manipulate the election by silencing opposition.

If what Joyce said was true, there is a Missouri ethics law which would seem to also be compromised by your obviously partisan attacks as well as the reports that your actions were prompted by the Obama campaign itself. I have no idea what the legal definition of “ethics” is. But your actions would seem to be in gross violation of the moral definition of “ethics”.

I note that later stories have you backing off a bit. But the violation is already there and the damage is already done.  

Your apparent alliance with BO’s “truth squad” is reminiscent of actions taken by the Brown Shirts and their Nazi German leaders. People should be allowed to talk in political campaigns – that’s how a real Republic functions. Censorship, threats of jail time and fines for people saying things the powers that be don’t like is how tyrannical dictatorships work. The answer to arguments from one side is to respond with counter arguments. In essence, we need more free speech – not less.

If I remember correctly, under Islamic Law anyone whose father was a Muslim is considered a Muslim themselves. This would include your chosen candidate, BO. Since BO has chosen to attend a church filled black separatists that has close ties to the Islamic Nation of Islam, we could definitely debate just how Christian BO really is.

Of course, under your assertions to take action against anyone who dares to even bring this idea up means I guess we couldn’t discuss it. Which is interesting when you stop and think that free speech and press are enshrine in our Constitution – the same Constitution that gives you your cushy job.

So here’s the deal. I don’t live in Missouri. But I do post blogs on the net that can be seen in Missouri. Thus from now until the election I’m going to see to it that I post at least one rant against BO per week. I’m going to do this just to upset you and your intolerant friends. Furthermore I’m going to encourage all of my blogger friends to do the same. If you want to bury yourselves under a mountain of endless trials go for it.

Sincerely,

Jeremy

Okay I’ll admit it: I don’t know all that much about the banking meltdown, the lack of money on Wall Street or the how Freddie Mac/Fannie May work. But I do know left wing political speak when I hear it. I think most Americans would also recognize empty, feel good, liberal buzz phrases when presented with them. And in this bailout that’s all we seem to be hearing.

Firstly though from where I’m sitting all these companies going down the bankruptcy crapper are earmarking millions from their budgets to give the guys who took them into the ground million dollar bonuses. Individual employees losing their jobs should be mad. I think anyone would. Anyone who wasn’t getting a seven figure check anyway.

But from what I’ve heard, Freddie and Fannie did the exact same thing right before they went under too. The heads of these corrupt outfits made sure their “golden parachutes” were lined with millions in cash before their companies crashed. Well that and they gave their liberal Democrat friends (like Barack Obama) thousands in campaign contributions.

This is why my hackles are getting up as I read about Pelosi’s call for more “oversight” in the bailout plan. “Oversight” in lib speak means “we call the shots”. And Congressional “oversight” didn’t help Freddie or Fannie. In fact, there is evidence that the Congressional leaders in charge of “oversight” (people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) actively knew it was sinking into the ground but decided to let it collapse anyway.

So now they want me to believe their indignation is sincere? Truth be told, all of these people should be voted out of office. In practice, they’ll all be re-elected in landslides.

The point here is that Congress has a crummy track record. Their “oversight” amounts to nothing more than the creation of new cash cows to fund their re-election campaigns. That’s what they did with Freddie and Fannie and that’s what they seem to be planning for in their “bailout” plan.

Look the market is basically a form of gambling. You buy something on the chance that the price will go up and you can sell it. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn’t. It’s the nature of the game. No one has a problem when their gambles pay off and they make millions if not billions.

But like the problem gambler now that they’ve been shown to be wrong, they’re whining and crying? It’s the nature of the game. I don’t feel sorry for you. You knew the rules when you came in. Casinos would never give the money back to the losers or the casinos would be out of business.

But that what it seems like we’re doing here. Only we’re not going to give them the five dollars they lost, we want to give them the jackpot they were sure they’d win on this pull of the slot. How offensive is that? Especially when these gamblers started out living in the penthouses while they attended the high stakes tables?

Are we to try to ignore the market forces we don’t like? That’s what we call “socialism”. The fact that left wing blog sites are all excited about this plan only reinforces my belief.  This “bailout” plan (from where I’m sitting) does look like a conversion to socialism – a system where the government owns more private property than it should. And it should make everyone nervous – especially with the Freddie/Fannie angle.

I’ve heard it postulated that the bailout could possibly make the government a lot of money when they sell all of it back to the private sector. But it’s not the job of our government to turn a profit. If it was, why are they hammering us with inflated taxes? That aside, the last thing our government needs is more money. Look at how they treat what they’re getting now. Our waste is more than some nations GNP’s. And now we’re going to add a bunch of money on top of that? And these companies on the eve of being bought out are going to use the bailout money to reward the boneheads at the top that brought them to this end? Am I following this right?

The thought of bailing out a bunch of millionaires who knew the risks when they went in makes me want to vomit. Especially when you consider that they knew the possible payoffs. It’s not our faults that their gambles didn’t pay off. Why is it the responsibility of “the people” to now make it right? I don’t think so.

Karl Marx was a man born after his time. He looked back to the violence and chaos of the French Revolution as a Golden Age that should be duplicated. Every idea he has its roots in that bloody era – from a violent overthrow of everyone he disagreed with to the idea of government ownership of everything. Not even his terminology was his own: “Communes” and “bourgeoisie” those were the words of French revolutionaries. Marx proposed nothing new.

Perhaps his intellectual vacuum is the reason why he could never gather enough people to lead a revolution of his own. Unfortunately for him, he wouldn’t live long enough to see the day people’s IQs drop low enough to think anything he proposed was insightful or intelligent.

Case in point: the modern day. Out of the hundreds of self proclaimed Communists I’ve run into, only two could honestly say they hail from the poor, downtrodden working class. It leaves me wondering if they actually read Marx when he wrote about what he was going to do with the bourgeoisie and the wealthy. It’s even more perplexing when it comes from a college professor. Marx was concerned with the way blue collar factory workers, not white collar do nothings. Especially white collar do nothings with cushy jobs that allow them to live at the bourgeoisie level or better.

Artists are another odd case. I’ve met a lot of artists that identified themselves as Marxists. But I’ve never met an artist that I would call “poor”. In fact, most of the artists I’ve known are living rather good lives.

Take actor/artist Matt Damon for example. I guess he’s working on a movie called “The People’s History of the United States” written by Communist historian Howard Zinn. It’s bizarre to think that someone who’s raking in millions of dollars based on his name recognition is sympathic to a system that requires everyone to be poor and unknown. Moreover he’s got a star studded cast to participate in the movie with him. Do these people really think they’d be happy living in a Marxist society? Would any other artists? Since there hasn’t been any mass exodus of artists to China or Cuba, I’d have to think “no”.

That aside once again I’m left wondering what artists contribute to the factory system. It’s not like art work can be divided up amongst a large population. If you chopped the Mona Lisa up into a couple thousand pieces, it would lose all value. One of the first things the artists had to do after the Communists took over in Russia was go to the party leaders and explain how what they did was valuable to society.

But this brings up another hole in Communist theory: how can there be leaders in a classless society? Whereas the Communists I’ve run into have come from all class backgrounds, I have yet to meet a Communist that didn’t see themself as leading the revolution.

Even Marx himself admitted that there would have to be leadership for a certain amount of time. He just rationalized that eventually it would no longer be necessary and those in charge would disband themselves. I guess he forgot his own idea that those with privilege will do anything to keep it: even amongst the Communists. Human beings are human beings after all. This should indicate that Marx had no idea what he was talking about. But he was a lib and libs are never wrong. (Their system just hasn’t been given a fair chance.)

Of course, if Marx’s system was so brilliant you’d think it wouldn’t need mountains of time for its “fair chance”. It would just work.

I can’t get over the audacity of the left wing politicians and their friends in the media: they are either grossly ignorant, excessively self righteous or both.

They continue to compare Barack Obama (BO) to Jesus. Honestly I don’t think Jesus would approve abortion, infanticide, homosexual marriage, the government using threats and coercion to steal from its citizens (also known as raising taxes), using prayers for political stunts and racism from the pulpit (see Jeremiah Wright).

It should also be noted that Jesus healed the sick, fed the starving, hung out with poor people, was seriously committed to his religion and always told the truth.  Compare that to BO who hangs out with rich Hollywood types, uses poor people in political gimmicks, has questionable piety (or at least doesn’t pay attention in church) and uses lawyer talk to reshape the truth to be what he needs it to be. The only real way that he sort of comes close to Jesus is that he surfs, which might pass for walking on water.

Jesus was also a great orator who had the ability to speak in an impromptu fashion which is another divergence from BO who seems to “um” and “uh” through his prewritten speeches. Jesus also had a passion and a flare that kept the attention of his audience whereas BO seems to bore his most ardent supporters.

All of this aside, another comparison going around is one which paints BO as Jesus the Community Organizer and Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska as Pontus Pilate Governor of the Roman province. I’m not a Bible scholar, but if I remember the story right Jesus was put to death for the ultimate form of heresy: claiming to be the one and only son of God. The story then goes on to say that yes, Jesus really was the one and only son of God and one day he will come again.

I repeat: one and only. Meaning if the story is true, then obviously BO isn’t. So to even make the claim is heresy or worse.

The Bible talks about other people who will come along from time to time claiming to be the returned Christ, but aren’t. These people will be assisted by demons and other minions of Satan to trick people into following false paths. Eventually one guy will come along who’s so bad that he will actually begin the final battle with God – the so called Anti-Christ. This guy got his own chapter in the Bible which is very easy to find because it is the last: Revelation.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of Christian theology should be aware of this. BO is trying to sell himself as a good Christian, but doesn’t seem bugged by any of his friends and supporters pushing this metaphor. Maybe I’m being too harsh though – anyone who could sit in Reverend Wright’s church for years on end without noticing the amount of hate and racist coming from the pulpit probably missed the warning about the coming Satanic Prophet.

I guess to be fair BO himself has never claimed to be the son of God. Or at least, I’m not aware of any time that he claimed to be. But anyone pompous enough to use his visit to the Weeping Wall in Israel as a campaign stump may very well have at some point.

Personally it would make me nervous if anyone called me “God” or “The Son of”.

Wow. From Messiah to plastic car Jesus in the course of about ten days is truly an amazing feat. John McCain has got to be one of the smartest politicians I’ve seen in the modern day. One Vice Presidential nominee and his opponent is in the toilet. The best part of all, his opposition is doing it to themselves from the top down.

Barack Obama joked about putting lipstick on pig and it’s still a pig. At the time he said it, his audience both laughed and applauded. Of course what was fresh in the minds of everyone paying attention to such things was Sarah Palin’s joke about the difference between a Rottweiler and a Hockey Mom (lipstick.) To be fair it’s very possible that Obama’s audience is so out of reality that they don’t pay attention enough to see the connection.

But I’m guessing that Obama was referring to Palin and knew it at the time no matter how much he doubts it. His defense amounted to unfair coverage by the media as if they’re actually opposed to him in any way, shape or form. I would be interested to see how Obama would react if the press went after him the way they’re going after Governor Palin: interviewing everyone he knows, going through twenty/thirty year old police records and sending armies of reporters to his home town to dig up everything about him. Last I heard, the press was telling us how sick they were of Jeremiah Wright (cause religion shouldn’t matter) and Bill Ayres (shouldn’t judge people by their friends) and how disinterested they are in what exactly he did as a community organizer.

The press only seems to be interested if you disagree with them.

And it gets even nastier still. South Carolina Democrat Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler said about Palin’s qualifications (and I quote):

"whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."

So can I assume that Fowler got her job because she had an abortion? I mean, Dems are all for the “right” for a woman to kill her unborn child. And moreover, is it mean and out of line for me to even ask?

I think it’s at least tasteless.

It’s almost as tasteless as the feminists and what they’re saying about Palin. For the first time I can ever remember feminists are asking why a woman isn’t staying at home raising her kid instead of pursuing a career. Next they’ll be asking why she wears shoes and isn’t cooking for her man.

Unfortunately for them, I think the rank and file feminists have left them but they haven’t turned around to notice yet. They continue to preach on their blogs about how Palin being added to the ticket isn’t changing any of their minds even as just about every poll no matter how loaded shows the opposite. But if they’re like every other liberal board out there, they threw off everyone who disagrees with them. So it’s actually not to surprising that they’re completely out of the loop.

But if that isn’t enough, Matt Damon is now horning in. In an interview he said Palin the idea of Palin being one step away from the presidency is “like a bad Disney movie.” Damon almost sneered as he talked about the small town Palin was mayor of. He then went on to ramble about how he’s worried about Palin dealing with people like Putin and how concerned he is that Palin might believe dinosaurs walked the Earth four thousand years ago as if Russia is invading and threatening it’s neighbors because Americans dare exercise their right to freedom of Religion.  

Oprah refuses to interview Palin. Officially she claims that she doesn’t want her show to get involved in politics…unless it’s during the primaries, for a black candidate that she supports is what she really means I guess. She interviewed Obama. What was that if it wasn’t taking her show into the political realm? And we all know she backs him cause she’s had fundraisers at her home his election.

And yet she continues to lecture us about how officially this and that. I’m sorry – we’re not that stupid. Not even your audience is dumb enough to not think you’re in the tank for Obama. Yeah it’s your show and yes you can do anything you want to with it. I’m fine with that. What I find insulting is your condescending statement telling me that I’m not actually seeing what I’m seeing.

Oprah’s show is popular with white women, a demographic that Obama has dropped twenty points with in the last week. So maybe I’m not the only one who notices.

And leftists wonder why we call them out of touch elitists. The Constitution sets no requirements on education for any of its elected offices that I’m aware of. I suppose that it’s possible I missed one.

It’s so funny that the left is suddenly so interested in experience. The guy at the top of their ticket doesn’t have any. Palin might not have much, but she’s not going to be running the show. That aside though, just a few months ago I was called a sexist for not supporting Hillary. I laid out exactly why I was opposed to Hillary, but that didn’t matter to most libs I heard from who continued to call me a sexist for daring to oppose a woman.

But none of Palin’s critics are sexist. Just like although they sneer at the state of Alaska and the people who live there, they’re still out for the little guy. I’m still floored by Puff Daddy’s question about whether or not there are black people in Alaska – talk about racist. In light of that, would it be racist for me to say that yes there are black people in Alaska and unlike blacks in the “lower forty eight” they smoke their pot legally?

The only upshot to this is that they’re destroying the chosen one’s chances. Two weeks ago he was leading in every poll. The current figures have him losing in a lot of polls – and at least one has him losing by ten points. He’s in quite a quagmire and I doubt his speaking skills are going to get him out.

Don’t get me wrong – it’s a long way to the election yet and a lot of things can happen. In fact, I’d say something big has already happened.

How dare we ask these people to endorse Sarah Palin? It’s not their job to openly back political candidates. They’re supposed to remain neutral right? So questions about family, friends, acquaintances, the church she goes too, where she might stand on the issues, the types of legislation she has backed, the things she’s voted for all should be fair game, right? How dare us outsiders try to tell them how to do journalism? If it was that easy they wouldn’t need degrees from Harvard and Yale.

Well pardon my surprise. You in the media have pretty much endorsed Obama. From what I understand you were dancing and cheering while he was delivering his speech at the Democrat Convention. You seem bored when anyone suggests that you investigate Obama’s connection to his friend Bill Ayres.  And when the Jeremiah Wright story broke, you told us that people in a candidate’s private life and church really didn’t matter. And what about Joe Biden’s son Hunter who is right now in court fighting charges related to corruption charges? Aren’t any of you worried about that? Cause I haven’t seen it.

So I’m sorry that I expect the same treatment of Sarah Palin. For all the positives you’re giving Obama from your photos of him looking like he’s got a halo to your ignoring all his gaffes to your always putting a sunny slant to his poor use of phrases, please excuse me for not surprised but still critical. For all your talk of “fairness” and “balance” and “neutrality” your actions aren’t reflecting any of it. Weren’t you just complaining a few weeks ago that there were too many negative attacks and we should just “stick to the issues”? So why is it okay if you engage in it?

I can’t believe you’re dragging a seventeen year old girl through the mud because you don’t like the political ideas of her mother. Bristol Palin isn’t running for anything. I’ve seen less smear stories about Jamie Lynn Spears who is younger than Bristol.

Oh – so her mother is in favor of abstinence only education. Anyone who has ever had kids, been around kids or read stories about kids will tell you that kids tend to have minds of their own. Isn’t it possible that Bristol wanted to become pregnant? Probably a stupid choice on her part and probably made without her mother’s consent, but isn’t that young Bristol’s private choice? Liberals and media types have been telling us for years that no one (including the parents) should be allowed to tell or influence a girl about what to do with her body. Isn’t that why they’re fighting all those parental notification laws?

So why are you putting it all over the front page? And why do you expect me to pat you on the back when you shovel out your obvious smear campaign?

According to you guys John Edwards doesn’t deserve this treatment and he was actually running for president. The guy fathered a child while his wife was sick and while running for president and the response from you journalist types yawn and order your employees specifically not to report on it. That’s not just pathetic, it’s out and out propaganda. The only difference is that you don’t need a government agency coordinating your actions, you’re doing fine by yourselves.

And now to listen to you cry about all the deserved criticism you’re getting? I’d laugh at you if I wasn’t getting physically ill. Question: you’re journalists. What happens when several sources, each independent of each other give you the same story? Wouldn’t you start to conclude that the story is probably true? So if you’re getting the same types of criticism from multiple sources, doesn’t it make sense that the critics are on to something?

But hey – don’t listen to me. Listen to you slumping circulation, low ratings and shrinking newsrooms. Yeah, you don’t have a political agenda any more than we think you’re biased. We’re just choosing to get our news from more reliable sources.

Wow you journalists (and you know who you are) are so brave attacking a little girl who can’t defend herself. It’s too bad she’s not an extremist Muslim “freedom fighter” or Chelsea Clinton who if I remember correctly was kicked out of Oxford for not going to class or an “undocumented migrant” or the obviously innocent victim of the racist system Tookie Williams.  

Oh woah is you.

You have to love the irony of peace activists turning violent as they are doing at the Republican National Convention this week. These self proclaimed anarchists march through the streets, dressed in black throwing bottles, knocking over trash cans and shattering store windows. They remind me of a bunch of chickens: feathers on end, clucking excitedly. They look so proud and important. Yet they’re so stupid and cowardly.

This is really how you activists are going to change the world? By smashing store windows with hammers? They seem to think that they’re making this grand point about the minor crimes that they’re pulling off are getting harsher punishments than the major “crimes” of the War on Terror.

They’re trying to demonstrate that our government is out of control by the way police are handling them as demonstrators. Of course, from what I understand the guy who is directly in charge of the twin cities (that would be the mayor) is a Democrat but these people never let logic get in the way of their arguments.

Case and point: These people say they are fighting the modern day Nazi government as enshrined by George Bush which only proves how ignorant and uninformed they really are. If our current government was anything like Nazi Germany, these guys wouldn’t be marching in the streets. They would be rounded up and taken to concentration camps immediately. Ironically a good number of protestors describe themselves as Communists. The Nazis shot Communists on sight. The fact that these people are still walking around is proof of how wrong they are.

History is devoid of open protests against Hitler. Is there any wonder why? The Gestapo would arrest people who were dumb enough to talk about their grievances in the streets. If you complained about the treatment as Hitler’s police were dragging you away, they’d backhand you.

There certainly were no batteries of lawyers with operators standing by to fight for the “rights” of the “political prisoners”. Friends of the enemies of the state were often investigated themselves.

If there is anything going on in all of this that reminds me of the Nazis, it’s the protesters themselves. The National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) liked shattering store windows too. One night they actually coordinated their efforts at shattering windows naming the event “Kristalnacht”. Another favorite tactic of the Nazis was trying to cause chaos by goading otherwise innocent people in to fighting them. Sound familiar? Activists on Monday stopped traffic as a part of their protest.

Hitler had a purpose for all of this: he was trying to manufacture incidents that would be twisted by his propaganda machine and create sympathy for his cause. Does this sound familiar?

Self titled Communist Amy Good of “Democracy Now!” and her producers Nicole Salazar and Sharif Abdel Kouddous were amongst the people rounded up. The left wing blogosphere is already going crazy with charges of a tyrannical government squashing the freedoms of press. It’s their right and duty to bring us the facts and stories about what is going on without interference from Government thugs and they’re hanging themselves on crosses in their attempt at martyrdom.

The only problem is that in none of the stories or blog posts can I find what they were charged with. The closest I can get is Goodman’s self righteous accusation that she was trying to help her producers (one of which was supposedly bleeding.)

Amy was officially charged with a misdemeanor. Her producers were charged with felonies – meaning they were doing something serious even though I can’t find out what that serious was. I guess getting the story out means getting the story about everyone else out. It’s okay if they want to spare us details about why they’re in trouble and just buy their line about out of control bogeymen because after all they have a long record getting the story straight.

Yeah right.

It is really funny too because media types were rounded up during the Democratic Convention but that isn’t worth discussing anywhere. In fact protestors during that convention were dragged to barbed wire cages in a warehouse on the far side of town. But that too isn’t worth talking about.

You libs are truly pathetic.

There is a lot of confusion amongst libs over the selection of Sarah Palin’s nomination of VP. The results run the gamete from outright shock to indignation. A lot of the criticisms have been downright mean and outrageous. It won’t surprise anyone to hear that I’m on some pretty extreme Conservative boards. But I’ve yet to see any stories or articles suggesting that Michelle Obama should stay home with her kids or hateful tirades about all the sex that Obama’s kids are having or suggestions that they’re doing illicit things or so on. (Just because BO’s kids are prepubescent and in private school, that doesn’t mean they don’t have access to drugs, sex and alcohol.)

McCain was a genius in selecting Palin because he’s successfully splitting the feminist/disgruntled Hillary supporters vote. Most libs are truly unaware of this fact simply because one of the first things a lot of their boards did when Obama was informally nominated was kick out everyone who disagreed with his coronation. Seeking the disgruntled Hillary voters on a liberal blog is like looking for a conservative professor at a University: it’s just not there. Even the press is ignoring the tidal wave of women mad that they’re getting passed over for a man. Stories about PUMA are hard to find at best.

I don’t understand how on one side liberals demand “free speech” and on the other their boards are amongst some of the most heavily censored. More ironic still are their demands for “truth” in political advertising after some of the wild rumors about Governor Palin’s youngest being the real mother of Trig. The media is even getting involved in this one. Remember all those loud, proud pledges the media made about keeping Chelsea Clinton out of it? Interesting how all those feel good statements don’t seem to apply anymore.

But in order to be a truly good leftist you have to lie to yourself on a fairly regular basis.

The feminists are an excellent example of this. A few months ago while Hillary was still a viable contender for Democrat nomination, anyone voting or speaking against her was automatically called a sexist. Me and others laid out points of disagreement with Mrs. Clinton on several issues. None of it mattered to feminists. We were all condemned as unreasonable sexist pigs.

Flash forward to today. Suddenly in their examination of Palin feminists can’t stop talking about the issues. I’m actually reading feminists themselves and their sympathizers openly wondering why Palin decided to go back to work rather than stay home with her four month old. The institution of motherhood, something they’ve spat on and looked down on for decades is suddenly all encompassing.

None of these things make them sexist, of course because…um…well…uh…they’re libs, they don’t to explain themselves to people like us.

Isn’t it funny that they accuse Sarah Palin of being anti-woman simply because she disagrees with them? This would also seem to fly in the face of the other left wing axiom of thinking for oneself. I guess “thinking for yourself” is lib-speak for “agreeing with everything we say and want”.

Palin herself is a member of Feminists For Life. In fact, she is so pro life that she is against the practice even in cases of rape and incest – a pretty extreme position even for a pro lifer. None of this independence has won her any quarter with “real” feminists. So much for women being able to do and think anything they want.

Instead the “real” feminists are looking to support a candidate who the establishment installed in the ultimate job pass over. “Real” feminists are supporting a candidate who (as far as I can tell, our media didn’t seem to think the story should be reported) was nominated by a secret vote in hotel rooms in Denver. What happened to all of those liberal calls for “sunshine” in our government? Bizarre that the media which loves giving away our military secrets didn’t demand to be let in. But I guess since it was done for “the people” it’s okay to ignore a few principles.

And despite all of these indignities, the “real” feminists still back the old boys. The wonders never cease. The same bunch pledging not to vote for the same “old white man” are now going to give their support to Biden. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

You have to love the American left. The hypocrisy goes to the very roots of its foundations. Barack Obama (BO) has stupidly attached getting the truth out to his latest campaign. He’s even opened up his website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome.

The problem is his “truth” site is filled with misinformation and outright lies. I’ve already written about the supposed tape where Michelle Obama says “Whitey”. No such tape exists. The “Fight the Smears” site notes this, but the problem is that it credits Rush Limbaugh and other “right wing attack dogs” as the original spreader of the falsehood.

But Rush Limbaugh and his fellow right-wing attack-dogs have been spreading baseless rumors about a non-existent video tape showing Michelle Obama using a racial epithet. – Fight the Smears Website

The problem is this statement is an outright lie in and of itself. The original rumor of the “Whitey” tape was started by Democrat Bob Beckel on “Fox and Friends” on June 3, 2008: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/06/bob_beckel_on_f.php. By the time Limbaugh reported it (and he stated at least six times while reporting it that it was a rumor) the story was old news. The fact that it was old news is exactly why Limbaugh brought it up.

But this isn’t even the most obnoxious outrage from the defend BO crowd. The latest form comes from their self righteous indignation over an ad linking the Messiah to homegrown terrorist Bill Ayres (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY).

In light of this new, very effect ad the BO camp has accused John McCain of telling lies. The problem is that this ad was put out by John McCain but an independent group American Issues Project which by law can’t work with the McCain camp.

But getting things right isn’t a priority to BO and his supporters, stamping out people who dare question them is. There are still stories trickling out about how Hillary supporters are being chased out everywhere like on his website board. From what I hear, any statements supporting Mrs. Clinton or questioning BO are taken down immediately.

At the same time reports are coming in about anti-Semitic posts by self described Muslims are being left up (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16835). Aren’t BO and his supporters in favor of laws against “hate speech”?

And it only gets more pathetic. In the latest news the BO camp has issued a letter of complaint to the FEC that American Issues Project backer Harold Simmons is breaking the law. For the first time in American history our government is taking action against a private citizen for daring to talk about political issues in a political campaign. Even if he is found in violation of the law, this is outrageous. I thought the first amendment was meant to protect the rights of private citizens to say and print their thoughts in political campaigns.

When you begin considering some of the other things that the American left has in their hopper for near future (when hopefully a sympathetic President will be in the White House) the consequences of what’s going on becomes truly frightening. Nancy Pelosi is seriously considering reviving the so called “Fairness Doctrine” which unsurprisingly will be used almost exclusively against people she and her friends disagree with. Moreover there is a rumor that there will be an attempt to enforce it on the internet as well.

And guess who will be running/overseeing these new unaccountable, irresponsible, completely untouchable departments and agencies? The same people who (even as they’re trying to get the “truth” out) screw up the facts themselves. When you add in an out of control, unaccountable court system that is also stacked with liberals and you’re looking at a new North Korea in the making.

Free speech and press are rights that are endowed to us by our creator. These rights are protected in our Constitution. The founders knew this when they wrote the document. They also knew what happens when people in power begin making encroachments on the freedoms of the people (no matter how benign those encroachments may sound.)

The usurping of free speech and press has already begun. It started out as limits on so called “hate speech”. And now it’s moving in as “truth in advertising”. But as BO supporters are showing us, the truth can be highly subjective depending on how you define all your terms. Shouldn’t they at least get the little stuff right if they’re going to complain about everyone else getting it wrong?

I told you so. Last Dec when Chavez lost his Referendum to change the Venezuelan Constitution, I told you that at some point he’d just give himself everything he wanted.

In comes the know-it-all elites, waving their Ivy League degrees and diplomatic experience so filled with their own self importance to tell me how wrong I was. I got tons of email from these people and was ripped on their self important boards.

But a couple of weeks ago, I was proven right. When rejected by the people (as libs often are) leftists often grant themselves powers by fiat and Chavez is no exception. That’s why the left in this country cares so much about the courts. The people are often too stupid to understand what is good for them or at least this is what liberal philosophy teaches.

Chavez’s power grab is a very disturbing development in international politics, especially when you couple it with other things that we know are going on and the rumors of things that are probably going on.

We know that Chavez has made several treaties with Russia, a nation whose leaders want to restart the Cold War and have begun invading their neighbors in an attempt to do so. We know that Chavez is nationalizing businesses in Venezuela as fast as he can. We know that he’s building/built at least one AK-47 factory. We know that Chavez is/has made treaties with like minded aggressive South American states. We know that Chavez is meddling in the politics of El Salvador. We know that there are ties between Venezuela and FARC rebels operating in Columbia. We know that Chavez wants to set up a “NATO” like organization that would be exclusive to Central and South America. We know that Chavez’s rhetoric consists of rants against the “white man” and how “white men” are responsible for every evil in the world today. And there are very troubling rumors about Chavez aiding and assisting known terrorist organizations like al Queda, going so far as to set up training camps in the jungles. With Chavez’s interest in Mexican politics, you can’t help but wonder if he’s meddling in that nation as well.

When looking at all of this stuff, one can’t help but think of Mussolini’s Italy on the eve of World War II.

Mark my words now, Chavez will never give up his position running Venezuela unless he is killed or captured by a foreign power. Personally I believe that Chavez will simply enact another law by fiat in the final days of his tenure making himself “President” for life. But if he doesn’t, he’ll install someone in the Presidency who’ll do and say everything Chavez wants.

Chavez is a dictator. As he just demonstrated, voting returns that he doesn’t like are ignored. His party controls the legislature in Venezuela and they pretty much rubber stamp everything he wants much like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini’s legislatures gave them pretty much everything they wanted.

Oppositional leaders and speakers in Venezuela are doing so at their own, very great risk: just like in every other tyrannical dictatorship. I don’t know if Chavez has set up the concentration camps that were the signature of Stalin and Hitler, but again I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he had them.

The most pathetic part of Hugo Chavez is how easily we could beat him. Not with military force or surgical strikes, but by using the power of capitalism. Socialist states have to keep grabbing parts of the private sector because they can’t afford the costs of running everything. You see this in every socialist state no matter where it is: from Europe to China.

Right now, Chavez is paying for everything using oil money. When American oil companies said they don’t control the price, they were telling the truth. When the price goes up, Chavez gets richer. If our Congress would get off their butts and let American oil companies find and develop the industry in this country, the price would drop and Chavez would go broke. We could beat him without ever firing a shot.

So the libs in this country are aiding Chavez in more ways than one by sharing their philosophy with him. How sad and pathetic is that?

There is an evil wind blowing out of Caracas. I fear it’s only going to get worse (much worse) before it gets any better.