The Obama Implosion

It's kind of fun watching the Democratic Party collapse in on itself as they continue to realize just how slim their chances are in next month's elections.  They've gone into full-fledged panic mode, because all indications now show that they face monumental losses in the House, and if they manage to hold on to their majority in the Senate, it will be by the slimmest of margins.

But as the pressure on the Democrats increases, their campaign rhetoric becomes more and more dangerous.  While their recent attack on the Chamber of Commerce has absolutely no basis in fact, President Obama is sticking with it, offering more and more baseless speculation as to where the GOP's campaign funding is coming from.

Now, you would think that if the GOP is doing something illegal in funding their campaigns, and the President knows about it, he would start an official investigation into the matter.  The fact that there is no investigation is telling: there is no wrongdoing, just more and more ambiguous accusations by the President of the United States.

This is just one more instance of President Obama making accusations against unnamed "special interests."  Before, his only complaint was that "they talk about me like I'm a dog."  But now that they're truly threatening his ability to push his corrupt socialist agenda onto America, he is calling them "a threat to our democracy."  Think about that: that's quite an accusation for a sitting president to make with absolutely no evidence to back him up.

See the video on RealClearPolitics

As much as I would love to see the GOP run roughshod over the Donkey Party next month, if they're taking illegal campaign contributions, it should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted.  If, on the other hand, President Obama, his administration and his party are just making up false accusations in the hopes of whipping up their base and maintaining power, then it becomes a question of whether President Obama should be impeached.  He is, after all, making a very serious accusation - he's right on the edge of accusing the GOP of treason.  High crimes and misdemeanors?  Possibly.  It's already come to light that the First Lady directly violated Illinois election law by campaigning at a polling place in Chicago, and Illinois elections officials and the Obama administration have made it abundantly clear that they plan to do absolutely nothing about it.

It seems that there are no depths to which the Democrats will not go in order to maintain power.  All citizens should definitely be vigilant come election day.

Debating The Religion Of A Functioning Atheist

With the release of a recent poll showing that 20 percent of Americans think that Barack Obama is a Muslim, the leftist media has gone apoplectic...and, of course, the media on the right has gone apoplectic as well, in response to the left.

Basically, the Left points out that the right is stupid for believing that President Obama is a Muslim, and the Right defends the 20 percent by pointing out President Obama's Muslim heritage and all of the favoritism President Obama has shown to Islam during his tenure as president.

I say, who cares?

There is no reason to defend or rebuke anyone over this poll result, because it really doesn't matter what religion President Obama says he identifies with, or what religion or religions he shows particular favor to in his policy decisions: President Obama is, for all intents and purposes, a functioning atheist.  His religion is anti-Americanism.  He is god unto himself.

As soon as he was elected, President Obama stopped attending church. He says that this is because he doesn't want to tie up traffic, but I'm not buying it - he ties up traffic wherever he travels, and I have yet to hear him apologize for it.  What's more, he doesn't seem to have any issues with tying up traffic at the country club - he plays a round of golf almost every weekend.

President Obama professes to be a Christian, but his Christianity is not something he is proud of - the church he attended in Chicago was part of one of the most extreme sects of American Christianity I have ever heard of.  But it does make sense: the anti-American aspects of Black Liberation Theology seem to fit pretty well with President Obama's overall opinion of America.  The only problem for the President is, to normal Americans, Black Liberation Theology comes across as extreme as the Westboro Baptists - you know, the "God hates fags" church.  The only difference is, because Black Liberation Theology fits more with the liberal worldview, it doesn't generate as much press as Wesboro.

But it really doesn't matter whether President Obama is a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, because according to his actions, he may as well be an atheist.  After all, Atheism is the best fit with modern liberalism, where the State basically functions as God.

So what does it matter if 1 in 5 Americans think President Obama is a Muslim?  He gives more deference to Islam than he does to Christianity, but as far as his public policy & lifestyle since taking office go, it's quite obvious that religion doesn't play a significant role in the Obama presidency.

The only reason this poll garnered so much media attention is because it gave the leftist media another opportunity to portray the right as a bunch of stupid hicks, and it gave the right another opportunity to point out the favoritism Obama has shown toward Islam.  In the end, though, it's all just a bunch of hot air.  Obama is just another liberal atheist.  He is god, and the Congress, the courts, and the bureaucrats are his angels as he sits in Washington D.C. (or wherever he happens to be vacationing this week) and dispenses his benevolent tyranny.

  

Setting Up The American Monarchy

President Obama and various members of his administration have been out touting America's supposed economic "recovery," but recent evidence proves that their claims are nothing but more lies and propaganda from an administration built entirely on lies and deception.

The jobs gains President Obama was touting just a month ago are gone.  This was inevitable: most of the jobs gains were temp jobs to begin with - hiring done by the Census Bureau...plus the fraud of firing and hiring in cycles in order to artificially inflate those numbers so the President would have some kind of success to talk about.

The President loves to talk about how the nation is recovering, but that just isn't the case.

The Obamas have spent a lot of time telling America all about how we're in lean times, and it's time for the people of America to conserve, to tighten their belts and buckle down for the rough times that are ahead.

In the meantime, the Obamas have been taking expensive vacations and throwing lavish parties, living the "do as I say, not as I do" lifestyle all too prevalent in today's political culture.  Americans are wondering whether they'll be able to keep their homes, and the Obamas are flying their dog up to Maine on a separate plain for their vacation.  A recent column in the New York Daily News comparing Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette became immensely popular this week in light of her extremely extravagant vacation in Spain.  It wouldn't be as much of an issue had the Obamas covered the entire expense of the trip, but a hefty chuck of the bill was paid by the US taxpayers - and in a day when wasteful government spending has reached epic levels and already overtaxed Americans are looking at tax hikes next year, this kind of extravagance is most definitely unwelcome.

It seems that Barack Obama, in his constant push toward socialism, is trying to set up a new ruling class in America.  As a socialist, Obama loves to demonize our current capitalist economic system, all the while pretending to be a friend to American workers and an advocate for small business.  Under the Obama administration, the corporate world has come under attack...but while the large corporations have been Obama's primary target, but in his push for over-regulation and ever-increasing taxation, small businesses are feeling the pain as well, and the main victims are everyday working Americans who cannot find jobs because companies can't afford to hire.

But the President's main objective is to set himself and his party up as a permanent ruling class.  All of their efforts so far have primarily focused on grabbing up as much power as they possibly can as quickly as they possibly can, all the while ignoring the Constitution they swore to protect, plowing roughshod over the freedoms of the people.

The Obamas are living as the new American monarchy: the King and Queen, with the Democrats in Congress as their royal Court.  Instead of the "two Americas" the Democrats so love to preach about during their campaigns, pitting the rich vs. the poor, but instead of the rich vs. the poor, we are now looking at the government vs. the people.  It really is the same old setup that socialist and communist dictators have gone for each and every time they take power.  It's the same setup they had in Soviet Russia, in China, in North Korea, in Vietnam...the pattern goes on and on.  The political class demonizes their opponents and either eliminates them, as they're trying to do to Fox News and the right-wing media, or they absorb their opponents, as they did with General Motors and they are trying to do with the health care and banking industries.

Barack Obama may be the President of the United States, but he and his political allies have proven themselves to be dangerous to America's way of life.  The US economy is under attack, but the Obama administration continues to get in front of the cameras singing "Happy Days are Here Again," trying to convince us the economy is recovering, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress cannot lie to us forever. We have an election coming up, and even if the Republican party isn't able to win enough of a majority to roll back at least some of the damage the Democrats have done, at the least they may be able reign in the Left and prevent them from doing any more damage until Obama is voted out of office in 2012.

Sherrod To Sue Breitbart

Shirley Sherrod has announced that she plans to sue Andrew Breitbart for outing her as a racist.

The problem is, the entire controversy over Shirley Sherrod has been completely and entirely contrived by the media and the White House.

Andrew Breitbart's original post made reference to the fact that Sherrod's speech was about her realization that rich vs. poor was more important than black vs. white - and that context was even included in the edited video posted on Breitbart's website Big Government.

In fact, Breitbart's real target was the NAACP audience, who were laughing and agreeing with Sherrod as she described how she discriminated against a poor farmer because he was white.

In fact, Breitbart had been railing against the NAACP for a few days on Big Government due to the NAACP's baseless accusations of racism in the Tea Party movement.

But none of the facts have stopped the Left from re-branding the incident as an indictment of Fox News and right-wing bloggers taking someone on the Left out of context - something the Left is very, very good at - just take a look at Media Matters for America, the true masters of taking things out of context...and the liberal media tend to pick up on Media Matters' material all of the time and report their out-of-context videos as fact.

The truth of the Sherrod case is that the liberal media and the White House jumped all over the point they thought Breitbart was making by posting the Sherrod video, and in doing so, they missed the true point completely and overreacted before getting all of the facts.  Personally, I'm not convinced that Shirley Sherrod isn't a racist - she made several comments in her speech and in the media frenzy that followed its posting that show quite clearly that she still views people primarily through the prism of black vs. white.  But the truth is that I and many other Americans would be perfectly willing to overlook her views due to the troubles in her past, as long as those views don't influence her decisions in her position in the federal government - and in her speech, she was saying just that: her first reaction was to allow her racist views to influence her decisions as an employee of the Department of Agriculture, but then she realized that was wrong, and in the end she helped the poor white farmer.

The truth is that the White House and the Leftist media are shifting blame in this incident to Breitbart and Fox News because the Obama administration and the media took the entire situation out of context and it was they, not Breitbart or Fox News, who smeared Sherrod and fired her before examining all of the evidence.  In many ways, this case is reminiscent of the incident last year where President Obama publicly smeared the Cambridge Police, saying the "acted stupidly," without first getting all of the facts about the case.

This is the Left's version of a "post-racial" society: they get to determine who is racist and who isn't.  Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are the racists, but President Obama and former President Clinton are allowed to rewrite history in order to praise liberal icon Robert Byrd at his funeral, saying he was only a member of the KKK in order to get elected in the South, when there is plenty of evidence to show that Byrd was an unapologetic racist.

The American Left cannot be trusted to run the United States, and they can not be trusted in issues of race.  They are all too willing to smear, lie, obfuscate, and label, all while claiming victim status and using the liberal media to spread their lies. 

Why Sestak Matters

The press on the Sestak affair seems to have died down somewhat, but personally, I don't think the importance of this scandal could be overstated: This is Obama's Watergate.

Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change.  He promised to do away with the "failed policies of the past" and to fight to clean up corruption in Washington.  Instead, he has not only accelerated the failed policies of the Bush administration - out-of-control spending, but now it's plain to see that he has also brought Chicago to Washington, adding even more corruption to a city filled with liars, thieves and swindlers.

The Democrats have been selling this same bill of goods for far too long.  When Nancy Pelosi was sworn in, she promised to "drain the swamp."  She then proceeded to do absolutely nothing when thousands of dollars of bribe money was found in Congressman William Jefferson's (D-LA) freezer.  In fact, it seems that the only scandals Pelosi has the slightest interest in investigating are those involving Republicans.

Now we have a president who rose to prominence in a city known for corruption and machine politics - it only figures that he would bring the same tricks that got him to where he is to the White House.  The irony is that with Congressman Sestak's revelation that the Administration offered him a job in exchange for dropping out of his Senate race, more scandals have come to light.  Now it has come out that Obama's administration was similarly trying to influence Andrew Romanoff's Senate bid in Colorado.  There is even some unconfirmed speculation that President Obama may have been involved in the Blagojevich scandal, trying to facilitate a deal between Blagojevich and SEIU to get a union-friendly replacement into Obama's vacant Senate seat.

All of President Obama's lofty promises have turned out to be a lot of hot air.  The change he has brought has brought no hope to America.  He brings nothing new to the table - just a lot of lies, corruption, and more of the failed policies of the past.  Here in California, the primaries are coming up.  We can only hope the voters will usher in some real change - God knows our state, and our nation, could use it.

Read Obama's Lips: No New Taxes

On April 15, tax day, thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest wasteful government spending and high taxes.

President Obama's response to the event was to say that he's cut taxes..."You would think they'd be saying thank you"

Why should we?  Yes, Obama has cut some taxes, but he's raised others.  And if Obama truly was a tax-cutter, then maybe the press would actually call him on all of his Bush-blaming.

Then, mere days after his snide remark, the news comes out the president is considering a Value Added Tax.  Now, there are few ways that Obama could damage our economy more than through a VAT, which would raise prices for consumer products across the board. 

Obama's spending has already been so bad that the Democrats have decided to wait until after the November elections to vote on the budget.  As idiotic as his policies are, the President isn't stupid.  He knows that he'll have to raise taxes in order to pay for all of the entitlements & bailouts that have embodied his agenda.

The question is, why does Barack Obama seem to assume that the people of America are all stupid?  We know what tax cuts are.  We know what fiscal conservatism is.  We know that Barack Obama isn't moving our nation toward either one.

The Left has made a game out of minimizing and slandering the Tea Party movement, but they do so at their own risk.  The voters can see who is right and who is lying, and right now, the President and the Democrats are lying almost with their every breath.

This November's elections should be very interesting, indeed.

Obama Tells The Right To Tone It Down

In an interview with CBS News, President Obama was asked what he thinks of his critics on the Right.

From Politico's coverage of the CBS story:

"I’ve been listening to talk radio, the kindest of terms is a socialist, worst of which I’ve heard is you called a Nazi, are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves about you?" asked Smith.

"Well I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out," said Obama. "It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious, but that's not the vast majority of Americans. I think vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard. I want what's best for the country. They may disagree on certain policy issues but I didn't buy all the hype right after inauguration where everybody was only saying nice things about me and I don't get too worried when things aren't going as well because I know that, over time, these things turn.

"I do think that everybody has a responsibility — Democrats or Republicans — to tone down some of this rhetoric, some of these comments. …It used to be that someone who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial and now with the blogs, it ends up getting a lot more attention and you guys end up covering it a lot more. It's not as if there haven't been a lot of crazy things said out and about over the years, it's just that it gets much more magnified much more quickly."

In a nation that was founded on values of Freedom and Liberty, where the nation was born when the people rose up in revolt against government tyranny, excessive taxation, and a government that would not listen to the people, we have seen the government increasingly spending more and more money on wasteful programs, redistributing wealth based on their arbitrary standards of who is deserving and who isn't, taking over private industry, and constantly increasing the size and power of government.

The Right has been criticized for not standing up in opposition to George W. Bush like they have stood against Barack Obama, even though they are committing many of the same offenses against the Constitution.  Well, Barack Obama is to many on the Right what Abraham Lincoln was to the South.  The difference between then and now is that when Lincoln was elected, the South secceeded because they believed in their right to own slaves.  Today, the Right is standing against the government's attempt to enslave the populace.  The government has been buying the people off, little by little, through government programs and so-called "entitlements."  It has gotten so bad that today, large portions of the population will support a candidate solely on the basis of what handout they can expect that candidate to give them - bribery for votes, all with taxpayer dollars in the name of compassion and charity.

The leftist progressives in our government, with the aid of the mainstream media's pro-left propaganda machine, have set themselves up as the modern-day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  They seem to forget the fact that in the tale of Robin Hood, the rich were the fat-cats in government, and the poor were the citizenry living under oppressive taxation.  Over the long run, all their socialist policies will lead to is a universally poor populace, enslaved by the government, while those in power live as kings.  We've seen it before - the only difference between modern America and Soviet Russia is that while Russia transformed their society very quickly through revolution, the United States is going about it more slowly, through the use of propaganda and government policy.

And now, in the face of a socialist revolution undertaken and led by those in the government who will benefit the most from their own policies, we are told to tone it down.  Never mind that we see more and more of our freedoms slip away on a daily basis, this kind of "vitriol" has no place in American politics.  Never mind that those on the Right are constantly made out to be racists, bigots, and even criminals because of our opinions, it's wrong for us to speak our minds.

When George W. Bush was president and the anti-war activists were shouting all kinds of crazy things, up to and including comparing Bush to Hitler and expressing how they would like members of the Bush administration to die, we were told by the Democrats that "protest is the highest form of patriotism" (Nancy Pelosi herself said paraphrases of this several times).  Now that the Left is in power, protests are no longer patriotic.  Protest is dangerous, insidious, and wrong.

As freedom-loving Americans, we should not allow this kind of rhetoric from the President to slow us down.  We have just as much freedom of speech as the rabid leftists who turned out in droves to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have First Amendment rights, whether those in the government like it or not - after all, the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the people when the government doesn't like what they're saying.

Which President Would You Rather Have?

A study in contrast:


November 2009

A Muslim soldier had just opened fire on a US military base, killing 13 and wounding 32 others.  When President Obama gets up to give his remarks on the incident, he spends the first couple of minutes giving a "shout out" and making other remarks about the event he had been attending before addressing the issue at hand in mild tones, offering condolences and promising that authorities would investigate & get to the bottom of the incident.  Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, in the Middle East at the time, expressed concerns about a violent backlash against innocent Muslims.

March 2010

Muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up on Moscow metro trains, killing 39.  Russian Prime Minister Putin states "I am confident that law enforcement bodies will spare no effort to track down and punish the criminals. Terrorists will be destroyed," and later says "We know they are lying low, but it is already a matter of pride for the law enforcement agencies to drag them out of the sewer and into broad daylight."


Now, I know for a fact that I wouldn't  want to live in a nation where the head honcho is a former KGB thug...but when America comes under terrorist attack, I would much rather hear what Vladimir Putin said coming from my president, rather than politically correct nonsense.

Obamacare, Whether You Like It Or Not!

The Democrats are showing their true colors this week, as debate heats up over the so-called "bipartisan" health care summit.

First, President Obama has published his "health care plan" on the White House website...though when I was poking around the site, I couldn't help but notice that there are a lot of summaries and overviews.  If there is a way to view the actual legislative language of the president's proposal, I could not find it.  The site is primarily full of the same rhetoric we've been getting from Obama since before he was elected, so the site basically just amounts to a dressed-up Obama speech.

This, of course, is leading up to the summit that is scheduled for next week, and supposedly in response to rising health insurance rates...which begs the question: Why are health insurance rates going up so drastically all of a sudden?  Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that two branches of the federal government are actively working to put the medical insurance industry out of business and everything to do with evil corporations exploiting the workers for their own gain. 

House Republican leader John Boehner has issued a press release stating that Obama's health care bill is pretty much the same crap we've seen coming out of Congress thus far - and he's right.  The president isn't offering anything new; his proposals are the same old liberal tripe that came out of the House and Senate (including taxpayer funding for abortions).

This also proves that the upcoming health care summit is a sham.  Obama is claiming to have incorporated Republicans' ideas in his plan, and while this is true, it hardly makes Obama's plan bipartisan - and his claim that it is bipartisan only makes it blindingly obvious that he doesn't understand why Republicans and conservatives oppose both the House and Senate bills...which begs the question: is Barack Obama really that stupid?

Of course, there are more reasons why the summit is a sham: The Democrats have basically said that the Republicans can show up (which will gain them nothing), or they will pass a reconciliation version of the existing bills without them.  Using the reconciliation rules, the Democrats can pretty much jumble together whichever pieces of either bill that they want, and push it through despite Republican opposition.

So it all comes down to this: either Republicans can come to the summit and accomplish nothing (other than generating free publicity for the Democrats), or they can continue to fight.  Either way, we will get a health care bill that will increase taxes on all US taxpayers, turn the US health insurance industry into even more of a shambles, and screw over each and every hard-working, tax paying American.

Is Obama Actually Doing Something Right?

Barack Obama actually seems to be following through on one of his statements from the State of the Union: he is announcing an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the building of new nuclear power plants.

While this is good news, I'm still skeptical as to whether Obama will follow through: for starters, the US government does not have the money (not that that would stop them from borrowing it from China), though it is a loan program, which means that the energy companies will need to pay the money back...but the second thing that makes me skeptical is that Obama is such a stereotypical left-winger, it wouldn't surprise me if he made this announcement and then bowed to the anti-nuclear lobby and didn't follow through.  After all, as the article points out, there are no timelines for the loan guarantees, which would make it quite easy for Obama to make the announcement and then never follow through.

I'll believe it when I see it, but if it does happen, this will be a step in the right direction.

Is There Anyone Obama Won't Bribe?

President Obama met with union leaders on Friday, where he agreed to exempt them from the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-value insurance plans.

Of course, the first question should be how, exactly, the Cadillac tax makes any sense at all.  If the entire purpose of health care reform is to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance, how does it make sense to tax people and employers who have high-quality insurance plans?  One of my favorite quotes comes from Winston Churchill, when he said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."


If the goal of health care reform were simply to ensure that all Americans can be insured, there would be no reason to tax "Cadillac" insurance plans - the people with high-value insurance plans are insured, so leave them alone!  The government, however, doesn't seem to know the meaning of the phrase "leave them alone."  The government meddles, and because they can't leave well enough alone (and the government can't afford to cover all Americans), they have to tax whatever they can.


What the Cadillac tax means over the long run is that people with high-value health insurance will no longer have high-value health insurance.  The 40% excise tax will make high-value health insurance unaffordable, forcing people and companies to settle for health insurance that offers less coverage.


Now bring in the unions, who negotiated high-value health insurance for the workers they represent.  The unions have to cover pensions for their members, and they have to cover their health plans.  With the 40% tax in Obamacare, the labor unions won't be able to afford those insurance plans - but they're written into the union contracts.  They would either have to renegotiate the contracts so union members get lower-grade health insurance, or the unions would simply go bankrupt.


Enter the Obama political machine.


The Democrats depend on labor unions to maintain their power base.  Millions of dollars pour in from labor unions into liberal politicians' campaign coffers every election cycle...so of course Obama isn't going to let his union friends down.  Instead of making the law apply uniformly, the health care bill (if passed) will exempt labor unions from the Cadillac tax.


This is bulls**t.  Obama pledged openness and honesty, but all we get are backroom deals, bribes, and kickbacks to Democrat political allies.  He promised bipartisanship, but all we get is hard-core liberal socialism.  And they're going to keep pushing and pushing right up until the voters take away their power - and it's possible that even that won't stop them.

The Most Un-Stimulating Stimulus Ever

Where are the jobs?  When President Obama pushed through his massive pork bill disguised as an economic stimulus package, his administration projected that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 9%.

Well, the unemployment rate is still 10%.  It was reported as great news when a 0.2% drop was registered in November...but now that the December jobless numbers are out, the rate has not changed.

This is very significant, due to the fact that usually, people who have a hard time finding jobs the rest of the year can at least find temporary seasonal employment during the month of December.  But Obama's stimulus package hasn't stimulated anything other than US government debt.

When will Obama declare his stimulus plan a failure?  Where is the exit strategy?  We've already seen the scam behind the Obama administration's "jobs saved and created" claims, with saved and created jobs being attributed money spent in nonexistent Congressional districts.  Now it's coming out that stimulus money is being sent to zip codes that don't exist!  The whole thing sounds like some kind of bizarre government-run money laundering scam...and the sad thing is, that's probably exactly what it is.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is not going to help the US economy recover.  If it were, it would have by now.  The jobs that it has created are temporary (all of those "shovel-ready" projects won't keep people employed over the long term).  The whole thing is a sham - an attempt by the Democrats to make themselves look good.  In fact, they haven't even spent all of the money yet.  They're holding a bunch of the money in reserve, so they can start spending closer to the mid-term elections in an attempt to make themselves look good.

They're All Liars

It is now officially on the record: when the Democrats took power, they did so based on lies.  When Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House, she promised that hers would be the most open, transparent Congress in history.  When President Obama was campaigning, he promised that the process to push through health care reform would be carried live on C-SPAN. 

As it turns out, they were both lying.

The head of C-SPAN sent an open letter to congressional leaders yesterday urging them to open up the health care negotiations and let the C-SPAN cameras televise the proceedings.  Obama promised as much during his campaign...but when Nancy Pelosi was asked about the letter, she lied, saying "There has never been a more open process for any legislation."  Her evidence: the town hall meetings that took place in August...the very town hall meetings where thousands upon thousands of Americans showed up to voice opposition to the health care take-over.  In fact, Pelosi was a driving force behind the liberals trying to minimize the people's voice at the town hall meetings, calling those in opposition frightening and implying that they were some kind of neo-Nazis.  And that was right before they called Congress back into session and put an end to the town halls because the liberals were getting too much bad press.

Pelosi knows that no matter what she or President Obama may have promised, the Democrat Party cannot afford to open up the health care negotiations.  The only way the health care bill passed in the Senate was through Democrat bribes (Ben Nelson) and hijacking the legislative process to shut down debate.  If they were truly being open and honest, the response from the people would be so deafening and undeniable that no Congressman who wished to stay in office would vote for the bill.  Pelosi knows that.  Harry Reid knows that.  Obama knows that.  And all of them are willing to push the bill in through the shadows and under the radar because all they truly care about is getting as much of their progressive agenda pushed through before the midterm elections.

Pelosi Proves It

Many conservatives have long known that whenever the Democrats called for bipartisanship when Republicans held the Congressional majority, they were lying. Now we have proof.

The Democrats have put forth their ultimate masterpiece in pork-barrel spending under the guise of an "economic stimulus" bill (at least it's not all attached to a military appropriations bill for a change). Now Pelosi is complaining that Congressional Republicans are holding up the process, saying that the process needs to be moved forward regardless of the level of bipartisan support. From the article:

“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,” the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.

Now, when the Republicans held the White House and the majority in Congress, the Democrats wouldn't stop whining and crying about the need for bipartisanship, even despite the fact that the Bush administration was anything but conservative when it came to spending money and they had plenty of support from Congressional RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)...but now the Democrats are showing the nation their true colors: when they're down, we have to work together, but when they have the majority, it's "to hell with the rest of you." This was further evidenced by Obama's mocking of Republicans' concerns that this 'stimulus' amounts to nothing more than a massive spending bill, saying, “What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously, that’s the point,” to a laughing audience. If Obama knew anything about elementary economics, he would know that government spending doesn't really stimulate the economy over the long term: tax cuts do. But this is what we get for electing an inexperienced liberal buffoon to be President.

Personally, I'm split when it comes to this spending bill. Part of me wants to see it pass and fail, to show the American people once and for all that liberalism is a self-destructive philosophy that cannot lead a nation into a prosperous future. At the same time, I love my country, and with the understanding that the Democrats' spending bill will hurt America, I would like to see it fail miserably and never be implemented. However, it may just be time for America to learn the lesson the hard way...and if the Democrats get their way, it will be a hard lesson, indeed.

Could a New President Tear the Democrats Apart?

The Democrat primary truly is turning into an entertaining race. Hilary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama have been in a virtual dead heat for the past several months, with Obama holding a slight lead and Clinton not far behind in the primary race. Throw in Florida and Michigan (which unfortunately don't count), and they're pretty much neck-and-neck.

So, it looks like the outcome of the Democrat primary will be determined by the superdelegates, which could very well wreak havoc throughout the party...think Florida in 2000, only on a smaller scale: in that election, the Democrats basically blamed the Supreme Court of appointing George W. Bush president (in actuality, they voted to uphold standing Florida state law, which the Florida Supreme Court violated). Instead of the people of the Democrat party choosing their presidential candidate, the candidate will be chosen by the superdelegates, essentially meaning that half of the party's population would be overruled through the hijacking of the election process. According to Chris Dodd, as well as the Boston Globe, this primary election fight could potentially shake the party to its foundations.

What's more, apparently there is some infighting between Clinton's camp and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has been urging the superdelegates to follow the voters when they vote to choose a candidate...which would essentially make the superdelegates redundant. Of course, the irony of the party that calls itself "Democratic" subverting the democratic process through the use of superdelegates even further shows the hypocrisy of the Left.

Obama's Excuses

Barack Hussein Obama today gave a speech which essentially amounted to damage control for the comments of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama finally denounced Wright's comments, though in my opinion his words rang hollow. Were Obama a conservative, he would have been disgraced, driven out of the race, and his political career would be over - and all of that would have happened before the beginning of the primaries.

The truth is that nothing Obama could say would convince me that Rev. Wright's words didn't effect Obama, or that he didn't agree with them in some way. I can understand Obama having respect for the man who brought him to Christ, but there is no conceivable way that anyone would be a member of a church for twenty years if they disagreed with their pastor's political preaching as much as Obama professed to today.

Based on his comments, rants, and conspiracy theories, Obama's pastor is roughly the left-wing equivalent of Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. As I stated earlier, were Obama a conservative, he would be receiving the political equivalent of being tarred, feathered, and run out of the campaign on a rail. As it is, he's largely gotten a pass thus far, probably due to some form of "white guilt" in the media - because it's a black church, Obama has cast this as a racial issue going all the way back to the existence of slavery at the founding of the nation...and because he's black, he'll probably get away with it.

The problem with this is that Obama has run his campaign on the platform that he will unify the nation. Bringing race in as an excuse for Rev. Wright's insanity does nothing more than to further the divide between races, religions, and political parties and ideologies.

Personally, I have no problem with Obama's faith - he has the right to worship as he pleases. But when his religious adviser is a left-wing radical conspiracy theorist, that worries me. Barack Obama may be a brother in Christ, but that doesn't mean I want him as my President.

Ann Coulter: Hillary over McCain

In an interview on Glenn Beck's show on Headline News, Ann Coulter stated that she'd rather have Hillary Clinton in the White House than John McCain.



I'm not sure I totally agree - just hearing Hillary's voice gives me a headache, so just listening to the State of the Union every year would become a major undertaking.

Coulter definitely has a point, though: of the three candidates, Hillary looks to be the most conservative. It's a close call (and a bit frightening to any conservative who may be wondering what the U.S. will look like in 2012), but there it is.

John McCain has tried pandering to the conservative base of the Republican party, but in doing so, he seems to have forgotten that conservatives aren't fools - real conservatives aren't mind-numbed Republican robots - we remember McCain-Fiengold. We remember McCain-Kennedy. We remember the "Gang of Fourteen." And we know that's not who we want in the White House.

One other important point that Coulter brings up in her column: one of the things that has endeared McCain to Republicans is the fact that he's a Vietnam Vet. So is Duncan Hunter, and he would've made a much, much better choice for president.

Personally, I can't say that I'd rather have Hillary than McCain - any of the big three (Clinton, McCain & Obama) would be horrible choices for America, and I wouldn't vote for any of them.

At this point, given the choice of Clinton vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain, I think I'll probably write in Ann Coulter.

The Woman Versus The Black...And The Evangelical Red Herring

The Democrat primary has heated up. With the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries now done & over with, the candidates have moved on to South Carolina, and the race between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama is becoming quite entertaining as both candidates fall back on their same-old liberal playbooks.

With Martin Luther King Day just a week away and the first southern primary coming up, Clinton and Obama have both attempted to inject race into the debate. When it comes to playing the race card, though, Hilary has one big factor going against her: the vast majority of South Carolinians can see. Let's face it: it doesn't matter that Hilary is married to "America's first Black president." No matter how much Hilary plays the race card, she's still white...and her commentary thus far hasn't helped her campaign any among black voters, especially since she has been crediting Lyndon B. Johnson with fulfilling Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream by signing the Civil Rights Act into law. Meanwhile, her husband has been touring black radio stations trying to do some damage control.

Personally, I couldn't care less about which candidate on the left is more racially sensitive - political correctness rarely (if ever) impresses me. It is fun, though, to watch the white woman try to out-PC the black man on racial issues.

What really bothers me about the Democrat campaign is that Obama has been doing quite well...and frankly, I believe that if Obama gets the nomination, our next president will definitely be a leftist wacko. Obama is young, charismatic, and presents a fresh, new face...everything Hilary is not. Put Hilary up against any of the Republican candidates, and the Republicans may actually have a fighting chance. Put Obama up as the candidate, and it's four years of excruciatingly PC news reports about America's first black president.



Meanwhile, the Republican side is turning into a two-man race...and unfortunately it's between the wrong two men. Huckabee has continued to be strong in the polls, with McCain close behind him. Personally, I wouldn't vote for either of them - I'd much rather have a conservative in office. However, if I had to choose, I think I'd rather have the war hero than someone as willing to use religion to get votes as Huckabee has shown himself to be.

Frankly, Huckabee's transparent use of his religious views to get votes is a bunch of bunk: Huckabee's record shows that he is not a part of the so-called "Religious Right," but is in fact a leftist in "Religious Right" clothing. The problem for Republican conservatives is that McCain isn't much better, what with McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the so-called "gang of fourteen," and the recently defeated amnesty bill. McCain has shown himself to be on both sides of the aisle...about the only thing he has going for him is his stance on the war.

My candidate of choice is still Duncan Hunter...but unfortunately he doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination. My second choice is Fred Thompson, and thankfully Thompson has been showing some passion (FINALLY). Thompson came out strong against Huckabee in the last Republican debate, and now his supporters are urging him to stay strong throughout the rest of the campaign.

Thompson has had a couple of things going against him from the beginning: first, he came into the campaign on time...about when presidential campaigns normally start. Everyone else started early and already had some momentum going. Second, Thompson has tried to run a rather laid-back campaign, which the media has taken the opportunity to either ignore or translate into a lack of passion. In times as partisanly-charged as these, candidates need to be recognized, and no one wants a dispassionate candidate, so these have been major stumbling blocks for Thompson's campaign.

I believe Fred Thompson could really make a comeback if he continues to address the issues strongly and call Huckabee out for what he is: a Republican liberal using religion to woo voters. So many on the right are looking for another "Reagan Revolution" - an injection of true conservatism into the debate, and Thompson is the candidate who could bring conservatism to the forefront...he just needs to get his face and his name out there as strongly as possible so that the true conservatives can know that he's serious, he's for-real, and he's the best candidate on the Republican ticket this primary season.