I used to joke that Free Speech and Free Press couldn’t exist without proper government oversight and regulation. The punch line should be obvious: freedom means free of government meddling in any form. But the joke is lost on the smartest people in room. Take this column from Simon Jenkins over at the UK Guardian titled Free Speech can’t exist unchained. The sad part is that where I’m trying to be funny, this guy is serious he really doesn’t think freedom can exist without the government getting involved.

No one should be surprised. Lefties are so full of themselves they can’t even see the obvious when it’s staring them in the face. It seems one really does need an Ivy League education to follow the thought pattern. It’s doubly funny considering that these people are exercising their right to free speech and press to lecture us about the evils of such things.

Thus it’s not surprising that the Ruling Class is calling for the reimposition of the “Fairness Doctrine” blaming talk radio for the Tucson tragedy. Representative Jim Clyburn has been leading the charge for renewing censorship on the airwaves. This becomes a lot scarier when one considers Clyburn’s daughter Mignon is an FCC Commissioner.

The argument for “fairness” goes something like this: “the people” own the airwaves, thus “the people” can set the rules concerning what is said on the airwaves. If “the people” don’t approve of such speech or expression, then those things can be taken down.

This of course, is “censorship” by definition. But since the word “censorship” polls poorly, it will be called “fairness” or “civility” instead.

If one follows this idea out to its logical conclusion, it is the duty of governing officials ruling on behalf of “We the People” to take such measures.  Never mind that “We the People” are prohibited in the First Amendment from making any regulations prohibiting speech we don’t like. When it says “no law”, it means “no law”. Whatever good that is to come from such prohibitions are irrelevant.  

But premise sounds like a wonderful thing: Just present both sides of any given issue. There will be “equal time” for all viewpoints. It’s just that sweet and easy…unless you are one who has actually worked in that business and knows what goes on to run it.

The government may own the public airwaves, but it doesn’t own the broadcasting equipment. To give a broad comparison, this is like arguing that “the people” have a right to use a road, so they can take your car to drive on it.

What a slap in the face to hard working station owners and program directors breaking their backs to appeal to broad audiences. What a kick to the face to radio hosts who have spent years working their way up the ladders. What an insult to the sales staff trying to get advertisers to keep the station in business.

It’s a very typical of a attitude of the left wing government running this nation – to shove aside the hard working so as to put in a bunch rank amateurs who don’t have to be interesting orkeeping advertisers happy. Nor do they have to worry about any of the costs involved – the staff, equipment and airtime are all to be provided for free.

Not only are they taking the car, they’re bringing it back after it’s been in an accident with no gas, no oil and the tires flat.

The truth is “The Fairness Doctrine” was illegal at its conception. It was never given fair Congressional scrutiny. It was an FCC regulation. As with most losses of freedom in this country, a bunch of unelected, self important bureaucrats woke up one morning and decided to impose their wills on the rest of us.  And in the year 1920 there might have been a point to such regulations. But in the year 2011 with Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, a multitude of blog sites, hundreds of TV channels, Sirius, XM and other stations, “Fairness” is a very dated FCC regulation. The idea that politicians can’t present their opinions and ideas to their voters is insane.

 It’s also not the point.

The whole reason for “Fairness” is to silence their critics. To me, this is the most sinister part of the debate. Whereas in the 20’s politicians made pie in the sky arguments about diversity of opinion, politicians today will come out and proudly list by name the people they want taken off the air. The most egregious act was the US Senate sending a letter to Rush Limbaugh’s boss.

And every day seems to bring a new attack on the power to discuss what is going on in the realm of politics.

There is no doubt that in the next year as we move in to a Presidential election; the FCC will move to impose some form of censorship on the airwave, especially if Barack Obama is losing in the polls. The Feds have already started by forcing “Net Neutrality” rules on internet service providers last December. This move was taken after the Supreme Court stated in no uncertain terms that the internet was outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. If the agency will ignore the courts, then it is not unreasonable to think that it would also ignore the Congress and do anything it wants.

This is before the reports of bloggers critical of the powers that be getting visits from the Feds.

In order for any real Republic to operate, there needs to be the ability of the people to discuss and criticize their government without fear. That means people need to be able to talk without inhibitions, regulations or prohibitions. At least, this is how our government is supposed to work.

It is both repulsive and offensive that during one of the worst economic downturns in several generations, the Congress of the United States has decided to put its time and effort in to repealing the so called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policies of the military.

DADT is working just fine. Private lives should be just that: Private. No one is arguing that gay people are incapable of doing the job. Homosexuals have been in the military since there has been a military. If the argument was only about ability, then one could easily argue that children should be trained for combat positions.

It is about state of mind and mental conditioning. We currently have an all volunteer army. Those who decide to enlist go in with full knowledge that they are giving up some of the rights enjoyed by their civilian counterparts. Soldiers are not allowed to talk about certain things (a violation of Free Speech). They might not be allowed to associate with certain people (a violation of Free Association). And (in the election of 2010) liberal blue states like Illinois and New York refused to comply with Federal law compelling them to send out military ballots with ample time for said ballots to be returned. (In other words, soldiers were denied their right to vote.)

The military tries to accommodate for individual rights as best it can: it makes allowances for things like religious practices for example. But the ugly business of war and combat often make some things impossible.

Homosexual groups have tried to argue that theirs is a Civil Rights cause. This is how they are trying to gain acceptance in our society at large. Common popular theory is that the integration of society was aided by integrating the military. This is why gays are pushing this avenue so hard.

But that’s a slap in the face to people who suffered during the racial Civil Rights movement. Race and ethnicity are characteristics that are immediately apparent. Often one can tell the racial background of an individual just by looking at a person. Homosexuality is a practice and a lifestyle. It’s a series of actions. If one argues that the homosexuality is a Civil Right, then one could also argue that Naturism, Nudism, Pedophilia, Nazism, Communism and Goth are also Civil Rights.

Moreover in the 50’s and 60’s there were separate water fountains, restaurants and areas in theaters for whites and minorities. There are no such things for homosexuals in 2010. In the 50’s and 60’s blacks were struggling for things like simply the right just to vote. Their punishment for requests included being blasted by fire hoses, being attacked by dogs and violence from terror groups such as the KKK. One is hard pressed to find any of these things being done to homosexuals in 2010. It’s easier to find the reverse: homosexuals threatening violence and terror acts against people who disagree with cause.

Remember: this whole issue is about the “right” to serve OPENLY. I’m not a Army lawyer, but odds are that military rules and regulations concerning harassment and threats. No one is arguing that soldiers be allowed to beat and harass their comrades over homosexuality. That would also be counterproductive to creating a fighting force that works together.

There is a reason that the military separates men and women. The emphasis is supposed to be on a team effort. In combat situations soldiers need to know that the people on his left and right will support them. They are supposed to work as a group with as few distractions as possible.

There is nothing in the military about acting as an individual – but this is what the homosexual lifestyle is all about. Romantic relationships with coworkers are awkward enough in civilian jobs. In the military, jealousy and competition can be deadly. This is what happened in the accused leaker Bradley Manning’s case. It is believed that he had an argument with his boyfriend and that act caused him to give military intelligence secrets to Wikileaks.

Obviously the military can’t prevent people from growing close to others or falling in love. But common sense steps can be taken that decreases the odds of such things happening.

It’s no secret that liberal politicians hate our military and all that it stands for. Barbara Boxer made snide comments to our military commanders. The (now deceased) Jack Murtha accused our soldiers of barbarism and violence. Chuck Rangel has brought a draft bill to the floor that even he voted against in a display of political crassness. Left wing strongholds like San Francisco, Berkeley and Harvard University are well known for their outright hostility to people serving in uniform. It is about nothing more than empty grandstanding to win applause in places like those. The repeal is all about getting re-elected in 2012 and having feel good talking when points when invited on liberal shows in our media.

And everybody knows this – including our people serving. How cheap that the people at the bottom of the totem pole are being used in political games by the people at the top. What an insult that leaders thousands of miles from the suffering and danger have such contempt for the people they lord over.

This is politics at its most ugly and its the worst part of this repeal.

Wikileaks: We have to explain to our fellow Conservatives why this is a bad thing? From the snarky comments on message boards and angry emails I’m seeing, it seems that we do.

Note that you will never find a bigger supporter of free speech/free expression than myself. I have a degree in media production. I work in radio. Working with film is my one great passion in life. But I also have a private life. There are basic rules of courtesy. As the old expression goes “there some things best left unsaid”. Especially when those things can get someone else hurt or killed.

The biggest question seems to be asking is “What laws are being violated?”

It is stunning that the question is even posed. At the very least this could be construed as spying. At the very worst, it could be construed as treason. There is a reason the material is being marked “classified”.  It’s hard to believe that a government that is regulating what can be sold at school bake sales doesn’t seem to have any laws administering the flow of internal information.

Pathetic when considering our government took no time shutting down websites offering copyrighted music and movies.

Yes the people need information about our government in order to make the right choices when voting. But our government also has secrets that shouldn’t be public knowledge because people can get hurt or killed: nuclear launch codes come to mind.

The courts have affirmed this about our government. One can’t go “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” stated Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Schenck v. US. The obvious reason: people can get hurt or killed. It is basic common sense.

But this has deeper applications as well. Who is going to risk their life for the US government if all it only takes is one self righteous special interest group to blow their cover? Who is going to risk their life when all it takes is just one liberal politician in a close election to spill the beans? Other nations take a harder look at spying and treason than we do. It’s serious business in a lot of places often punishable by death. And the Wikileaks bunch isn’t even looking at wrist slaps? Our enemies must be out there laughing as they take notes.

Assange himself is complete piece of garbage. Like most hardcore libs, he loves walking around talking about how he’s non-partisan and just wants the truth out. But in past, most of his leaks of US military and intelligence only dealt with the Bush Administration. Most of the current crop of leaked material revolves around Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The president himself seems completely immune to any wrongdoing. We’re still waiting for information regarding Obama’s “Czars”. And Assange himself refuses to answer any questions about the rape investigations swirling around him. When Assange said “The people have a right to know”, he meant secrets other than his own.

One can’t help but wonder now that our government is collecting healthcare information in addition to our financial data how long it’s going to be before people questioning the lefties in charge start getting their own wikileaks pages, for the public good of course.

Note that this is not to dismiss any of the other people involved in this mess. Heads should be rolling at the State Department – starting with Hillary Clinton and going down the chain. Who are the morons so careless with our information is information the public should have access too.

As for the military, there was a time not long ago when Bradley Manning would have been executed for pulling a stunt like this. Manning is openly homosexual and was apparently depressed after fighting with his boyfriend. Some have speculated that part of Manning’s reason was rage over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. If that is the case as it seems to be, then he answered his own question. Why shouldn’t gays be allowed in the military? Because they become smug, self righteous and put their fellow soldiers in harm’s way. Can we expect this type of behavior every time Gay groups aren’t getting something they want? Al Qaeda and the Taliban told us that homosexuals were morally weak – and they now have a shining example to point at. 

What is most repulsive to me however, is the reaction of the hardcore leftists in our media. The very same people who are pushing for government oversight and regulations of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have no problem putting Wikileaks information on front pages and lead stories. Not surprisingly the charge is being lead by the New York Times, a rag that refused to report on the ClimateGate scandal. Why? Well it seems that the emails of climate scientists was never met to be made public and were obtained in unethical ways. Never mind the fact that all the ClimateGate information is subject to Freedom of Information Requests, open government laws and is not likely to get anyone killed.

Michael Moore took time away from complaining about how our government favors rich, privileged people over the poor to bail out the socially well connected Assange to the tune of five figures. Someone should ask Moore where he is when one of the common people who can’t do anything for him and disagree with him politically needs to be bailed out.

The saddest part of this whole episode though it that it shows just how uncommitted our government is when it comes to fighting the War on Terror. Does anyone really expect to win fighting the enemy like this?

In the clutter are arguments over Ground Zero mosques, Conservatives vs RINO primaries and whether or not we should push more “stimulus” through Congress another problem is going on very quietly in Fly-Over Country. The middle class in America seems to be disappearing and there is no mystery as to why.

Karl Marx hated the middle class or the “bourgeoisie” as he called them. His Communist Manifestois nothing more than a rant about the evils of this group and how they have inflicted harm and damage to everyone around them through colonialism and ingenuity. Marx stated that people should do things by hand. The lower class should be happy with their lot in life. And the balance between the lower class and their upper class leaders is upset by the injection of the middle class and its struggles to carve out its niche. The perfect society was gone with the rise of the bourgeoisie upstarts.

Marx and Engels envisioned a return to the simpler time where a vast lower class is ruled by its betters. Not surprisingly they saw themselves as leading the underlings to the new paradise. The idea of “Communism” was a state where the Ruling Class would own all property in a society. The lower class would work for their uppers, allowed to use the property of the state. Since an immediate grab would be both hard and unpopular, there would be a transitionary state where the ruling class would gradually begin taking property under its yoke. This phase would be called “Socialism”.

This is the phase that the current US government is going through. The Obama administration has already taken control of the banks, the auto makers and the student loan program. With its Healthcare law, it is now in position to start demanding ownership of the hospitals and doctors. With the Financial Reform law, the administration can begin putting its boot of ever increasing weight on the necks of business.

All of this is being done to cater to the lower class. It gives politicians a populist talking point and a way of getting re-elected. One of the biggest stated reasons for passing Healthcare: 30 million are uninsured; the opinions of the other 280 million citizens don’t matter nor should their views matter since their opinions are tainted by “greed” (the single biggest sin of the bourgeoisie.) The reason for seizing the auto makers: to bail out “working class families” who again are said to be struggling against “greed”. The reason for Financial Reform: to alleviate the “reckless practices” of that place which were caused by “greed”.  Same goes for the Student Loan program. Same goes for almost everything this government is doing.

The byproduct of this Socialization is the shrinking of the middle class. When you punish people for working hard, those people will stop working so hard. When you reward people for doing nothing, then you’re going to have more people sitting around doing nothing. It’s simple logic.

True: all these bailouts are transfers of wealth – not from the rich to the poor, but from the working middle class to both the upper and lower classes. The ends are taking care of themselves at the expense of the middle. It’s been an ongoing effort for decades. Consider the college and university system. “The poor” are given all kinds of special considerations on college applications. It’s one of the driving ideas of Affirmative Action. The government is helping out, “redistributing” money to the bottom. “The Rich” can use their money and influence to get in. The middle class gets no special consideration or privilege. Because they do work hard, they get to work harder – and the Ruling Class calls this “justice”.

Housing is another good example. Our government decided that people who couldn’t afford houses should get them. The people of the Ruling Class got a campaign issue that they could show their voters at home: see, we’re doing something about racism in housing sales. The Ruling Class’s careless actions caused housing prices to inflate. Honest, hard working middle class people found it harder to obtain the American Dream as prices skyrocketed. Meanwhile, the lower class found it easier to get a home. And when the bubble popped, the well connected upper class looked to their friends in the government to bail them out – again, with the middle class’s money. Lower class people who couldn’t afford their dwellings got to keep them. Everybody won…except the middle class.

One of the more insidious projects on the Ruling Class’s list of projects is the plan to take 401k’s from private individuals so as to bail out labor union pensions. The responsible middle class who has worked diligently for years collecting money for retirement is on the threshold of having it taken from them so that irresponsible friends of the Ruling Class can have their budget hole plugged.

Are the rewards for obeying the laws and playing by the rules? Our government which made all kinds of promises to the bourgeoisie decades ago is now breaking those agreements. What good will a new promise be?

The rhetoric of the Ruling Class doesn’t meet the reality. After all, President Obama lectures Americans about wealth redistribution even as he and his family are taking expensive holidays and playing golf. Bill Ayres now works for the very government he advocated destroying in the 60’s and 70’s. Head of the Treasury Tim Geithner is a tax cheat even as he pledges a crack down on people who avoid taxes. It’s not just people either – entire issues can be involved. Amnesty for illegals is a good example: the plan is to reward lawbreakers by giving them what they want. Why? Because they are poor. If the middle class protests by refusing to give these people housing, jobs or by turning them in to the proper authorities, then middle classers get in trouble.

But this is not hypocrisy. It’s Marxism on the move. The upper and lower classes are working against the middle. Successful bourgeoisie become upper class. The Ruling Class despises competition. The lower class doesn’t like seeing people leave their ranks. It’s an unholy alliance and class warfare at its most vicious.

 “Redistribution of Wealth” – the Ruling Class isn’t talking about its own wealth. Why is a government comprised of millionaires so opposed to cutting taxes in any way, shape or form? Simple: those laws won’t apply to them. Why would the media back all kinds of laws and regulations on speech/press? The media will have friends on those boards. They will be able to do and say things their competition will not. Why did Healthcare go through even with so many opposed? Congress, the President and other Ruling Classers are exempt. The entire system is being rewritten to insulate the Ruling Class just as Marx advocated.

It could be argued that the American Revolution was a middle class uprising. The colonial leadership was not made up of the aristocratic elite. Early American leaders thought like middle classers. They wanted to use their businesses to improve themselves. This is why they wanted free trade and lower taxes. This is also why they added provisions to the Constitution banning titles nobility and added amendments forbidding the government from seizing property. These are the protections being eroded in the modern day.

And this is what the Tea Party is really mad about.

The canaries are choking to death in the liberal mines. All across the nation, left wing Democrats are discovering that their “likely” Democrat seats now either “lean” Democrat this election. From Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco being hammered by a brilliant ad campaign, to Barney Frank sweating it against an upstart in Massachusetts politicians who thought their seats were birthrights are starting to learn that they too can be replaced with human beings.

Unfortunately the liberal politicians’ biggest problems are being caused by the very groups they protect and coddle. The most recent example of this is NPR and its firing of Juan Williams. A little over a month ago, liberal journalists lectured us about the first amendment when discussing the Ground Zero Mosque. Now suddenly free speech and free press are out of style. The first amendment states that the government shall pass no law. NPR and PBS are a part of the government – they’re breaking their own rules.

When a protest ensued, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller wrote a truly condescending piece stating Williams “should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and ‘his psychiatrist or his publicist”. She has since apologized for her words, but what she really thinks is already out there. Schiller doesn’t care one wit what anyone thinks. She believes her position at NPR is untouchable.

This attitude shouldn’t be surprising. For decades NPR and other government agencies and projects and boondoggles truly have been untouchable. Every election cycle features some loud fiscal conservatives talking about defunding all the above. And every election cycle when the dust settles, all the above get more money than the year before.  The 2010 election is being compared to the 1994 election. One of the things that Congress tried to get rid of was the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA). Unfortunately when the dust settled the NEA was alive and well.

But things have changed dramatically. We as a nation are now in arguably the worst economic downturn in our history. The insulated, protected entitlement class has no idea just how agitated the people who support them are or they wouldn’t be laughing and sneering. These people are doing themselves a huge disservice. They need to be quiet at least until the election is over.

Instead, they’re doubling down. Jon Stewart is going to have a “Restore the Sanity” rally in DC just days before the election. His friend Stephen Colbert will have a companion “Keep the Fear Alive” rally. Even though they claim to be non-partisan, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are staples of liberal TV viewing. The rallies themselves are mockeries of Glen Beck’s Restoring the Honor rally.

Who do you think is going to be at this demonstration? It’s going to be the children of privilege. College kids living on their parents’ money and trendy liberal elites.

And this event has a very real potential to devolve in to a celebration of how they’re owed everything and how they really do deserve to live off the bloat. Then will come the mocking, condescending and sneering at those these liberals disagree with. It will be a giant reminder to an angry electorate about what exactly Nov 2 is all about. This will probably not help the lefty cause, especially when all the big egos start showing up. The American Left has no idea what is coming. Obama has brought “change” to the political sphere, but the very nearsighted left doesn’t see it.

One of the biggest uniting factors in the opposition is fiscal policy. From the massive Healthcare bill to the choking Financial reform. The Congress’s passage of the trillion dollar “Porkulus” package to the failure to pass a budget this year.

And this expensive regalia are just another reminder.

The left is making other mistakes too. Illegal immigration is hot button issue, but open borders activists are pushing their cause. There are now reports that illegals are being used in get out the vote drives. Organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) can make blanket statements about Americans being “Islamophobic”. Meanwhile one can’t say anything even mildly critical of Islam without CAIR jumping down your throat. Michelle Obama began lecturing voters at a poll in Chicago on the joys of Obamanism – naturally no charges were filed. Meanwhile in Texas are being denied the right to vote because they wear “Don’t Tread on Me” buttons. Connecticut are being warned not to show up WWE tee shirts since Linda McMahon is on the ballot. And it goes on and on.

It’s all just another middle finger from our supposed social betters. The rules apply to little people, not the entitled privileged class never mind the fact that they’re living off those little people. At the very least they could be nice and polite. And this is why there is a conservative ascendency coming.

On second thought maybe we should be thanking the boneheads at Comedy Central.

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.