Obama Resistance

ADVICE FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

2010-12-07T01:47:00.004-06:00

The mainstream media is subtly or not so subtly giving President Barack Obama advice following the Republican Party’s massive 60 seat gain in the House of Representatives. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asks, Will Obama follow Clinton's 1994 playbook? He’s giving unsolicited advice to the administration. It’s no secret that the media actively cheerleads for President Obama. Now in the aftermath of Obama’s election disaster, he desperately needs help.

WOLF BLITZER: So the issue for Obama is what he does next. Does he follow Clinton's playbook and move toward the center -- what was called "triangulation"? Will Obama separate himself from the liberal base of the Democratic Party -- as Clinton did?

It’s no secret the mainstream media loved William Jefferson Clinton, from the moment the smooth southerner emerged on the national scene the media has been pushing him, protecting him and propagandizing for him. Now with the Obama Administration on the ropes, the media elites would love for Obama to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s book. He was re-elected after all. After the 1994 midterm elections that elevated Newt Gingrich to Speaker of the House, the media helped push the Clinton narrative that the Congressional Republicans were too extreme. Media elites like Joe Conason are recounting tails of Bill Clinton fighting the good fight against Republican obstruction.

JOE CONASON: Yet the most important political events in the first year following the ’94 midterm were not compromises over policy, but confrontations that swiftly became disruptive, angry, polarizing -- and that Clinton won. When the Gingrich Republicans twice shut down the government at the end of 1995 in order to win their way on the budget, the president faced them down and portrayed them as right-wing extremists whose ideology portended chaos. He kept that message alive not only as he confronted the Republicans in Washington, but in a series of stealthy political commercials heralding his reelection bid that started airing in the summer of 1995, nearly a year and a half before the 1996 election.

The mainstream media’s mission is to turn 2011 into 1995, all over again. Next year will be filled with stories of Republican obstruction and evil proposed conservative budget cuts that will undoubtedly hurt government employees, poor children and senior citizens. Those horror stories will leave the middle of the field open for President Obama to seem reasonable as he defends those government employees, poor children and senior citizens. Then in 2012, he cruises to re-election. There will be a major difference between 2011 and 1995, back then we didn’t have a conservative media, we didn’t have Fox News (which started in October 1996), we didn’t have amazing conservative bloggers online. This time the media elites won’t control the narrative.

OBAMA AND THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

2010-08-26T00:32:00.002-05:00

On August 13, 2010, President Obama addressed a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan, the holy month in the Islamic religion. During the dinner he made a brief statement on proposed controversial Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan.

“Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

After that statement every major news organization in the world reported that President Obama strongly supported the construction of the Islamic center. Confronted with his words, the next day in Florida, Obama back peddled.

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there … I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

I’m not sure what’s more repulsive. Obama pandering to Muslims during a Ramadan dinner or denying that his heavy pandering amounted to support for the Ground Zero mosque. I’d have more respect for him if he just clearly admits that he supports the Islamic community center.

We know Barack Hussein Obama is a citizen of the world, he lived in Indonesia, his father was a Muslim before becoming an atheist, he denounces American arrogance at every opportunity, we know his heart is behind the mosque. He should have the political courage to stand on his beliefs. His statement at the Ramadan dinner was a carefully crafted legal statement. It gave the impression to everyone in the room that he supported the Lower Manhattan mosque. When confronted with his words the next day he had plausible deniability to say he didn’t address the issue, he was speaking merely to the right of religious freedom.

On September 11, 2001, Islamic militants murdered more than 3,000 Americans several yards away from the proposed mega mosque. Muslims around the world would view the construction of this mosque as a victory for Islam against the west. What Obama doesn’t understand about the Ground Zero mosque is that not ‘officially’ opposing the construction means he supports it. He can’t have it both ways.

HOW OBAMA EXPLOITS ICONOGRAPHY

2010-08-05T18:04:00.000-05:00

I’ve always been intrigued and fascinated by how Barack Obama has used imagery to create his dangerous cult of personality. Without question the major thing that separates Barack Obama from the placid, pedestrian progressive Democrats of the recent past is his cult of personality. Democratic standard bearers like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry couldn’t convince progressives to idealize them, they simply carried the progressive banner without holding the bleeding hearts of liberals. Barack Obama holds the hearts and carries the aspirations of liberals. Why?

He has affectively used imagery and iconography. His campaign posters and logos will be remembered for decades. Older traditional politicians of both parties pale in comparison. This is another reason why Barack Obama is a threat to freedom. He has the power to rally millions of useful idiots to his socialist agenda, while Democrats like Mike Dukakis couldn’t draw a crowd if they set themselves on fire. We have seen the power of imagery in the past, leaders exploited powerful symbols to burn their message into the brains of their followers. This is a fine primer from our friends at PJTV on Obama’s use of iconography.

HONEST AND REFRESHING

2010-05-16T09:52:00.012-05:00

New Jersey Republican governor Chris Christie has only been in office a few months but he’s already leaving his mark on politics. During the Obama Era, Americans have come to expect their political leaders to be constantly moderating their positions, always apologizing, frequently flip-flopping, persistently pandering and constantly cultivating the ever elusive consensus position. So when Governor Christie addressed a reporter’s question about his supposed combative and confrontational tone, the governor responded with a classic comeback. After watching this honest and refreshing video, I thought about President Obama campaigning enthusiastically for Christie’s opponent former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, last November.

Since taking office, Governor Christie has attacked his state’s massive deficit with spending cuts instead of tax increases and he has declared war on over-paid, under-performing teachers. The teachers' unions have picketed, protested and disparaged the governor but he’s standing his ground. His approval ratings have taken a hit, conservative principles of less government and lower taxes don’t always lead to immediate popularity. They always lead to lasting growth and prosperity. I’ve always believed that conservatism isn’t an ideology for the weak willed and faint of heart, conservatism demands toughness, strength and boldness. Those are qualities that Chris Christie is using to turn New Jersey around.

WHAT IF THE TEA PARTY WAS BLACK?

2010-05-04T12:16:00.002-05:00

HBO’s Real Time host and comedian Bill Maher invoked some powerful imagery on ABC’s This Week on May 2, 2010. Maher said, “Can you -- can you imagine if some of the -- what's going on with the Tea Party rallies, if they were a group of black people, …” How would the American people react to a group of black people, peacefully assembling, demanding Constitutional protections and denouncing violence from their political opponents?

Most of the protest violence in this country has come from left wing anti-war groups like the ones that committed felonies and fought with police officers in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2008. Certainly some people would reject black tea partiers because of their race, but the majority of Americans would ultimately embrace them the same way they embraced the black freedom marchers from the 1960’s. I’m not sure Bill Maher knows any tea party patriots, he should talk to them before he tries to immune their motives.

THE RISE AND FALL OF BARACK OBAMA

2010-02-08T17:26:00.000-06:00

Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America, more than one year ago. In his soaring inaugural address, he proclaimed “we have chosen hope over fear”. Translating Obama to English, he's the “hope” & the politics of George W. Bush is what we “fear”. Then he put his election on a grand transformational pedestal. Voting for him over his Republican opponent put an end to, “the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.” With that kind of sweeping inaugural address there's only one way to go. That's down. During 2008, he assured the moderate voters in Republican states like Indiana, Montana, North Carolina & Virgina that he's not some left wing radical. He assured them, he's not palling around with terrorists, he's not a typical tax and spend Democratic presidential nominee like previous losers John Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis. He projected a post-racial, post-partisan, post-ideological image that was hard to resist. The problem is, that image was a mirage, a carefully constructed facade designed to fool the electorate.

By February, less than a month into his presidency, he signed a massive fiscally irresponsible budget busting $ 787 billion spending bill. Obama sold the bill as an economic stimulus to boost the sagging economy. In reality, it was a Democratic wish list of mix and match spending programs that had little or nothing to do with job creation. As unemployment soared, Obama's attention moved from the pesky jobs situation to health care reform. As Americans started to learn details of the health care reform legislation, Obama's allies in Congress got bombarded with questions at town hall meetings. Did Obama respond to anger expressed at those town hall meetings? No, he pressed on and continued to push the Democrats unprecedented health care takeover. He made promise after promise. Health care reform would be deficit neutral, health care reform would cover the uninsured, health care reform would eliminate the term “pre-existing condition” & health care reform would put a chicken in every pot. Well, maybe he didn't say the last one.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid & President Obama pushed forward on health care reform. Then in the November elections, voters pushed back electing Republican governors in New Jersey & Virginia, both states President Obama won against John McCain. Then Republicans gained another U.S. Senate seat when Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. Did this make Obama and his liberal allies in Congress stop pushing their massive health care reform bill? Of course not, after the Democrats lost in Massachusetts, Speaker Pelosi dramatically stated her intention to pass health care reform, “You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed.” Apparently Democrats are slow learners. When a Republican candidate in one of the most Democratic states, campaigns as the final vote to kill health care reform and wins, you should know there's a problem.

After one year of Barack Obama as the Commander-in-Chief of America's armed forces, there's one indelible moment that sums up his attitude about this country. In April, the President spoke in Strasbourg, France and he notoriously said, America has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive”. From then on, it was clear the President disdains America's role as the preeminent super power in the world. Obama criticizes America more than he criticizes any of her enemies.

One year into Barack Obama's historic presidency. Mythical proclamations of change have given way to the hard reality of governing. With falling approval ratings and high unemployment, Obama's prestige has taken a major hit. Will Obama get the economy turned around in time for the mid-term elections? Will Obama stop pushing health care reform against the will of the people? Will Obama change his tone and stop apologizing for America? Great questions. From what we've seen so far in his presidency, the answer is definitely 'no'. If the president continues on his radical left wing path he will eventually stop falling and finally hit rock bottom.

REALITY BITES BARACK

2009-12-18T08:28:00.009-06:00

During the powder puff interview portion of Christmas at the White House on Sunday, December 13th, Chicago friend and 2008 campaign supporter Oprah Winfrey asked the president to grade his first year performance. This was a moment the president could have brilliantly exploited to portray himself as a humble statesman diligently working to fix America's problems, instead he once again revealed himself to be as detached from reality as possible. “A good solid B-plus ...If I get health care signed, we tip into A-minus,” Obama said. This quick almost off handed statement is frighting in it's disconnection with reality.

With disappointment and doubt growing among progressives over Afghanistan. With liberal advocates of universal health care disaffected over compromises stripping the “public option” from health care reform. With unemployment rising to 10% and climate change legislation taking a back seat, even ultra-liberal Democrats would be hard pressed to give Obama “A good solid B-plus”. It goes without saying conservatives and libertarians think he's failing big time. So how can he give himself a passing grade? Extreme narcissism and stunning detachment. Every president lives in the Victorian bubble of the White House, the aristocratic George H.W. Bush was famously detached from average Americans. During a Florida campaign stop in 1992, he marveled at the technology of a supermarket checkout scanner. George Bush was a man from a wealthy family that spent most of his adult life in public service. Barack Obama was a community organizer on the poverty filled streets of Chicago, how could he be detached from everyday life? Class and privilege don't separate Obama, in his case it's intellectual liberal arrogance. Former Massachusetts Governor and 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee Mike Dukakis had it despite being from a working class immigrant family. Intellectually superior liberal elitists don't inhabit the same reality as their persevered enemies.

During a closed door meeting on Capitol Hill, President Obama asked a group of Democratic lawmakers, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?” Hardworking, patriotic Americans from across the nation gather to protest unconstitutional spending and massive deficits and the president dismisses them as “teabag, anti-government people”. In August, Obama dismissed his Republican critics in Congress in much the same way, “But -- but I don't want the folks who created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. ... I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking” If you don't support his radical agenda, sit down and shut up. The work of government should be performed by intellectual liberal elites like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

The isolated intellectual liberal world of academia, which Barack Obama inhabited with ease is far different for the daily reality of governing. Theories about economic justice are just that theories. Radical college professors like infamous Obama friend William Ayers can be wrong every day and never face the reality of their ideology. Anti-establishment anarchists like Van Jones can theoretically advocate wealth redistribution without having to face the citizens that had their wealth redistributed. Given his record it makes sense for Barack Obama to give himself, “A good solid B-plus” , his grade is a result of ivory tower isolation. His liberal pals and progressive advisors tell him he's doing great, the mainstream media praises him non-stop, in his world everything is fine. Except for the stuff George Bush messed up. With sinking poll numbers and high unemployment, it's very likely that 2010 will be a reality check for the ivory tower president.

NATTERING NABOB IN NORWAY

2009-12-11T23:41:00.005-06:00

During President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10th, in Oslo, Norway, he revealed that his moral standards for war are confused and strikingly incoherent. The mainstream media praised his speech, so-called conservative leaders praised his speech, the adulation was universal. I wasn't impressed, the president's speech was more of an adolescent fantasy than a statesman-like call for reason. There were plenty of intellectual blunders, so I'll spare you and focus on one.

Mr. Obama tried to modernize the “just war” doctrine. He started by stating the historical “just war” standard, “The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met, if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.” Several prominent hawkish conservatives praised the president for justifying America's fight in Afghanistan. How can I praise that while he bashed the previous administration's anti-terror tactics in the same speech? “And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend”. Obama parroted every Michael Moore, Code Pink talking point. America hasn't tortured anybody, Mr. Obama. America hasn't violated the Geneva Conventions. Obama never misses an opportunity to spew that disgraceful, disgusting, demagoguery.

Back to Obama's “just war” doctrine. During his speech he lauded almost every American military conflict. With one giant exception, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He hailed the first Gulf War, but he couldn't bring himself to say George W. Bush's war was just. By Obama's own standard stated in this speech, Iraq is justifiable. “The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail.” By any reasonable measure Iraq was a humanitarian nightmare. Saddam Hussein tortured (Real Torture, Not Waterboarding) his people for decades, he had rape rooms and torture chambers. He violated every international law, he abused every human right. With that record of atrocities, why can't Obama call it a “just war”? If he did he would need to most certainly repudiate his October 2002 rebuke of Bush's Iraq War.

This is how Obama characterized Iraq in 2002, “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."

After leveling accusations like those, it's hard to admit the subject of your scathing criticism was justifiable. Either his speech in Norway was meaningless, which given his history of empty rhetoric it's possible or his 2002 Anti-Iraq rant wasn't heartfelt and was politically designed to appeal to the hard left, given his history of conveniently changing positions that's also possible. One thing is certain the phrase “just war” is just another vapid Obama platitude.

THE MICHELLE O' RACE FACTOR

2009-12-08T17:17:00.008-06:00

I was motivated to post this commentary after PGA Golfer Tiger Woods' recent controversy. While surfing around online for titillating & tantalizing details about Wood's many mistresses, I stumbled across this article from the New York Daily News.

Click Here For Full Article

“The color of one's companion has long been a major measure of "blackness" — which is a big reason why the biracial Barack Obama was able to fend off early questions about his black authenticity.
"Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him," Johnson Cooper said.
So do Woods' women say something about the intensely private golfer's views on race?
"I would like to say no, but I think it garners a bit of a yes," Johnson Cooper said”

This portion about the Obama's marriage supports a long held belief I have about Barack Obama's black supporters. On many levels Obama is foreign to the average African American. He was raised in the exotic locations of Hawaii and Indonesia. His mother is white, his father is Kenyan and his step-father Indonesian. Throw in an elite Ivy League education and he's certainly not your average African American male. Distance between him and the black community is understandable. One way to bridge that distance is through marriage. A marriage to an Asian woman or God forbid a white woman doesn't connect him to his constituents in the black community.

Enter Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, the perfect partner for Barack Obama. Born in Chicago, raised on the predominately black South Side, high school classmate of Jesse Jackson's daughter even her great-great grandfather was a slave in South Carolina, her black credentials are impeccable. She is Obama's ambassador to the mainstream black community. Conservatives have missed this point for the last several years, Michelle is Barack's direct link to the portion of the black community dominated by figures like Jeremiah Wright. If Barack Obama had married a blond Swedish white woman like Tiger Woods' wife Elin Nordegren, those connections would not exist and he would most likely not be our president.

During Obama's political career, he has heavily relied on African American support to win elections. He needed it to win a contentious Illinois U.S. Senate primary in 2004 and he needed it to beat the formidable presidential campaign of New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. Without Michelle, these things aren't possible. The quote from the New York Daily News article is 100% honest, many African Americans would have viewed Obama much differently if the woman on his arm was white. Sure political views are part of the reason blacks don't support Clarence Thomas, but another factor is his marriage to Virginia Lamp Thomas, who is white. In this Washington Post article an African American is quoted saying about Thomas, “Here's a man who's going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can't paint himself white he'll think white and marry a white woman”.

Click Here For Full Article

That kind of backwards thinking is alive and well in the black community. Barack Obama has been completely embraced by African Americans and Michelle Obama's appeal to blacks especially black women is crucial. Michelle Obama has become a regular cover girl on black lifestyle magazines Ebony and Essence. This is a direct result of her popularity among black women. The very passionate critiques of America that make Michelle Obama controversial outside of the black community make her a rock star among socially isolated black women. Black women are extremely resistant to the idea of marring outside of their race. So when black women see Tiger Woods with multiple white female lovers, there's an immediate alienation to the golf superstar. Woods isn't a politician, he doesn't need millions of black female votes to win an election. Barack Obama political career couldn't survive that kind of alienation. Was Barack Obama's decision to marry Michelle Robinson, political? No, nobody could have foreseen Barack Obama's unlikely rise to the presidency. His marriage was a pure good fortune for him and a misfortune for the nation.

WHY DID OBAMA DECLARE WAR ON FOX NEWS?

2009-10-30T15:49:00.004-05:00

Since it's first broadcast on October 7, 1996, The Fox News Channel has been the target of liberal attacks. In a media landscape dominated by phony Dan Rather documents, condescending Katie Couric interviews and leg tingling MSNBC moments, Fox News has always stood apart. Former Republican Strategist Roger Ailes has helped push Fox News to the top of the cable news ratings mountain by offering time to conservative voices. The other networks mock conservatives and Fox News benefits in the ratings quest. The high watermark for Fox bashing came with the release of Robert Greenwald's 'documentary' "Outfoxed", which charged Fox News with being bias, promoting Bush Administration propaganda, helping to steal the 2000 election, cheer leading for war in Iraq and starting global warming. Well maybe not starting it, but certainly the film charges Fox News with promoting the “big oil” anti-environment agenda. Now the Obama Administration has taken liberal anti-Fox News insanity to a new level.

“First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” That's what President Obama told CNBC's John Harwood this summer. With growing opposition to Obama's government health care takeover, the administration needs an enemy. The Republican minority in congress is so small they pose no threat to Obama's agenda, so attacking them is pointless. That's the reason Fox News is under fire. Their reporting on Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings and ACORN's illegal activity has damaged the Obama Administration. Fox's affective journalism has caused White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and White House Senior Political Advisor David Axelrod to recently assail the credibility of Fox News. First the White House slammed the credibility of Fox News, then they tried to limit Fox's access to a key government official. They alerted the White House Press Pool that “Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg would be doing several interviews with the networks. Then the Obama Administration specified that everyone was invited except Fox News. Thankfully the White House Press Pool pushed for Fox News to be included. This was a test case. The Obama Administration wanted to test the limitations of it's Fox News isolation strategy.

The Obama Administration knows it can't silence Fox News, America is still a country with freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Their strategy is to isolate Fox News from the rest of the mainstream liberal media. Stories that Fox News covers will eventually make their way into the national news cycle. Fox covers ACORN, Van Jones and the Tea Parties, which influences NBC, ABC, CBS and the New York Times to at minimum cover the controversies that Fox News is focusing on. Prominent liberal media figures have used the word "quarantine" to describe their intentions. They what to quarantine the Fox News organization and cut off it's influence. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “it's important to not have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox.” If Obama can successfully isolate Fox, then the traditional liberal media can continue business as usual. Business as usual means unchecked liberal bias.

For decades liberal journalists dominated the mainstream media, they crusaded against the Vietnam War, advocated for the “Great Society” programs and vilified the Reagan Administration. Now progressive politicians like Barack Obama have to contend with hard hitting coverage from Fox News, which keeps NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN on their toes and makes their coverage more “fair and balanced”.

CHENEY EVISCERATES OBAMA'S WAR POLICY

2009-10-22T23:02:00.009-05:00

Recently major conservative leaders have been reluctant to criticize President Obama's dangerous dithering over the 'War on Terror', yes, that's what I called it. Tea Party protests have launched nation wide over spending, bailouts and big government. Congressional Republicans are united against Obama's Health Care takeover, but where is the fire against his foreign policy? This administration seems afraid to call out America's enemies. Obama is more concerned with appeasing Anti-American European elites. When I heard Former Vice President Dick Cheney's address to the Center For Security Policy, I got excited. So here are several large portions of this masterful speech.

Click here for the complete transcript

Thank you all very much. It's a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country's word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith. It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that - with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.
You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire - and thought they had - a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

In the short of it, President Obama's cancellation of America's agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won't be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well. Big events turn on the credibility of the United States - doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.
I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979.
Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we've made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq. Former President Bush's bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly - and despite our success in Iraq - we're hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.
Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission. President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." End quote.

It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger.
Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.
Recently, President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President's chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn't asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.
In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision - a good one, I think - and sent a commander into the field to implement it.
Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.
Then there's the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots - and that's an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn't want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts. It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn't mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.
The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we're really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Instead, they've chosen a different path entirely - giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they'll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.
On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means. We're invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.
In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program's legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country's name and in our country's cause. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.
For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings - and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail. We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I've ever met.
What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America's enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.
There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.
We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work - the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.
Thank you very much.

MAN OF PEACE

2009-10-14T03:44:00.007-05:00

When word of President Barack Obama winning the Alfred Nobel Peace Prize spread through the country many Americans were asking, why? Why did the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee select Obama? Did he negotiate a complicated peace agreement? No. Did he end an ongoing military conflict? No. Did he lead an oppressed group of people to peace? No. Did he risk his life for the freedom of others? No. Barack Obama was given this award because he wasn't George W. Bush. In the view of enlightened socialist European leaders, Bush represents the worst American stereotypes, he's an evangelical Christian cowboy gunslinger from Texas. After eight years of his presidency, the world needed an open-minded internationalist Democrat to save it. Obama benefits from being the right Democrat, at the right place, at the right time. In an attempt to rebuke George Bush over climate change, the committee awarded Former Vice President Al Gore the prize in 2007, which means two of the last three Democratic Presidential nominees have won the award. Both men have contributed as much to world peace as 1994 Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat.

It's clear the Nobel Committee, which is selected by the Norwegian Parliament has been playing political games with an award that once honored great leaders of peace. Now it's given as a lifetime left wing achievement award. If the committee was serious they would have awarded the prize to Former President George W. Bush. Yes, that George W. Bush. Elite opinion has been trashing him for several years, but ultimately they don't decide whether our world is more or less peaceful. Ending the murderous regime in Iraq, liberated almost 29 million people. American and European elitist liberals living comfortably in free nations don't care about how Saddam Hussein terrorized his people. They just hate Bush. Giving women opportunities to participate in society, giving millions an opportunity to participate in free and fair elections, that's real peace. These accomplishments belong to our troops and their Commander-in-Chief. For years liberals have called it Bush's war, if so those are Bush's successes. When appeasing, apologetic and apathetic Democrats bailed on Iraq and our military, Bush held his ground. On January 31, 2005, Iraq held it's first free election in half a century. On that occasion President Bush said, “Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East, … The Iraqi people themselves made this election a resounding success.” Playing the part of cautious Statesman President Bush warned that free elections would not end the struggle in Iraq, “Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy, and we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against them.” Bush focused on freedom, while liberals in America focused on investigations, conspiracy theories, protests and name calling.

Peace isn't an absence of war, Obama and his comrades on the left see war as the enemy. The real enemies are totalitarian regimes, dictators and oppressors. Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman waged war and won the ultimate peace. George W. Bush followed in their footsteps. Hopefully next year, when the Committee meets in Oslo, Norway, real peacemakers will be considered. I'm not holding my breath on that one. Whether you supported or opposed the decision to wage war in Iraq, one thing is certain the victory over Saddam Hussein brought unprecedented liberty, freedom and hopefully peace to Iraq, and Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE LEARNING? PART II

2009-10-07T04:11:00.028-05:00

“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me … Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,” Candidate Obama jokingly told the radical pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood in 2007. “Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter). But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.” Obama's openness and willingness to publicly advocate teaching sexuality to very small children was shocking. This moment of candor in front of an extreme pro-abortion group, friendly to Obama revealed the leftist agenda for our children. Leftists want to sexualize our children. They believe in the promiscuous risky sex culture, which caused candidate Obama to advocate sex education for small children, also caused President Obama to appoint a man the New York Times called a “gay crusader” to the position of Assistant Deputy for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools in the Education Department.

That man is Kevin Jennings, a life long homosexual activist, he co-founded the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Boston. In 1998, while teaching high school at Concord Academy, a sophomore male student (whether the boy 15 or 16 doesn't matter it was still wrong), confessed to Jennings, he was having a sexual relationship with a much older man he met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Instead of telling the young man to end the inappropriate relationship, Jennings advised him to use a condom during his sexual encounters. Today Jennings admits he handled the situation badly. The truth is scarier, this wasn't a mistake, Jennings' advice was right from the radical pro-promiscuity, pro-homosexual leftist playbook.

At one point Jennings said, “One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay.” Who is Harry Hay? In 1948, he started the longest ongoing gay rights group in America. That's not where I have a problem with Mr. Hay. In 1983, he gave a speech to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), where he said “I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience.” This devil publicly advocated that 13,14 and 15 year old boys have sex with adult men! Now a top Obama official in the Department of Education calls this monster an inspiration! This is outrageous, Kevin Jennings should resign immediately.

When Kevin Jennings was exposed, the liberal media tried to smear critics of Jennings by calling them “homophobic”, which should offend gays in America. This isn't about straight or gay, this is about pushing young people into sexual activity. I'm a live and let live libertarian, I support same-sex marriage. I agree with our former Vice President Dick Cheney, “I think that freedom means freedom for everybody.” Adults whether gay or straight should be able to enter the relationships of their choice. That's 'adults', not teens or kindergarten kids! If a young girl told me she was having sex with an old man at bus stations, I wouldn't tell her to get a condom. I wouldn't encourage her dangerous behavior. Encouraging young school age children to have sex, that's education in the ago of Obama.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE LEARNING?

2009-09-30T05:03:00.008-05:00

When video surfaced of an elementary school class in Burlington, New Jersey singing Pro-Obama songs, parents across the nation were terrified. I wasn't surprised, praising President Obama is the ultimate extension of Obama's youth cult of personality. More than any president in the television era, Obama's appeal is personal. His looks, his race, his charm, his intelligence, his cute family, his style & most importantly his beach body. He has been worshiped by the mainstream media. The artistic manifestation of Obama mania, the iconic Hope Poster, adorns shirts, hats, bumper stickers, building & buses. Obama exists for our glorification. Simple equation, constantly adored, attention seeking, political leader plus impressionable young children equals …

“Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand To make this country strong again.

Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today Equal work means equal pay

Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance.

Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mm!Barack Hussein Obama.”

That elementary school song filled with liberal talking points sounds ridiculous but mindless glorification of political leaders often sounds absurd. Images from North Korea of brainwashed crowds praises their “Dear Leader” have the same ridiculous quality. It's easy to mock this kind Obama obsession, but it has serious consequences. For decades groups like the National Education Association, have been pushing a left wing agenda in our schools, that's wrong but indoctrinating young children to praise one man! That's disgraceful.

Liberals smeared dedicated parents that were concerned about Obama's address to America's students on September 8, 2009, accusing them of racism and hatred of our first black president. This is what those parents feared. The placid words of Obama's benign speeches aren't the problem, it's the cult of personality that liberals have skillfully exploited to build support for Obama and his agenda. When Obama's speech was first announced educators were instructed to find ways for their students to “help President Obama”, not our country or their local community, the Department of Education wanted America's children to assist our fearless leader.

Political analysts in the mainstream media credited the youth vote for Obama's election victory. America's most impressionable voting age citizens, after years of liberal indoctrination in our schools voted for the most progressive presidential candidate in history. That wasn't an accident, that was by design. Liberal activists infiltrate our education system and influence our children. From elementary school songs to lectures from radical college professors, they control the agenda. Enter stage left, Barack Obama, the man pushing the leftist agenda through the indoctrination machine. He didn't create the structure but he is skillfully using it to his advantage. Every parent in this country should be concerned about sending their children to schools that focus more on Obama glorification and leftist indoctrination than education.

RAGE, RACE AND THE RISING RIGHT

2009-09-23T05:01:00.008-05:00

“I live in the south, and I've seen the south come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the south's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans. And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” Those provocative words made Former President Jimmy Carter the most prominent liberal to express the 'Obama's opponents are motivated by race theory'. It's tired and lazy liberalism. When The Left wants to silence or smear political opponents, calling them 'racist' is the easiest way to accomplish that goal.

On September 9, when President Obama addressed a Joint Session of Congress to make another desperate appeal for health care reform, one of Obama's dishonest platitudes was interrupted by South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouting “You lie!” The liberal reaction to a white male Southern Christian Conservative interrupting America's first black president was predictable. 'He must be racist' the liberals responded. Immediately black elected officials brought up the worst racial images from America's past. Black Georgia Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson said, “I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside.” Didn't angry disaffected Democrats start the Ku Klux Klan? I'm sure Congressman Johnson knows that, he's just intellectually dishonest. His party had guys riding through the countryside in white hoods. The reaction to Joe Wilson reached it's peak when the House of Representatives voted to rebuke the South Carolina Congressman for his outburst.

During the emotional town hall meetings and tea party protests this summer liberals responded by accusing citizens concerned about government spending of being motivated by racism, because only racists oppose big government. If opponents of President Obama aren't motivated by racism then what drives the opposition? Concern about the direction of the country. It started during the Clinton years and now it's reached the boiling point. Massive government spending, tax increases, bailouts of failed corporations, record deficits, government violating civil liberties, restricting the second amendment and unelected judges making law are fueling the backlash against the government. This tidal wave against bureaucracy can't be solved by liberalism, that's why liberals are troubled by the uprising. The solution is a return to the Constitution. Liberals view the Constitution as a living document to be molded to fit the latest political fad. Unwilling to defend their real positions they accuse their opponents of being motivated by race. This fight is bigger than one man's race.

MR. JONES AND ME

2009-09-17T02:34:00.007-05:00

First thing, Van Jones is irrelevant. He's one of many radical leftist environmental activists from the streets of California. I'm concerned about what he represents. He was appointed Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on the White House Council on Environmental Quality by President Obama. Van Jones offers a window into the twisted liberal world view of Barack Obama. Examining the Jones appointment is important.

In 1992, After the Rodney King verdict Van Jones joined angry black protesters in San Francisco. He was among those briefly arrested and released during the chaotic protests, Jones claimed this event, “deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization.” After years of collaborating with communists and anarchists, Jones followed the path of his future boss Barack Obama. “I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of the radical ends” Jones said during a 2005 interview. Translation, he went mainstream, posing as an enlightened liberal peacefully advocating social justice in minority communities. He was Barack Obama. Harvard educated Obama was radicalized on the Southside of Chicago and Yale educated Van Jones was radicalized on the Bay Area streets after the King protests. In 1995, the newly radicalized urban revolutionary Van Jones started Bay Area PoliceWatch,which was designed to monitor law enforcement for cases of police brutality. Groups like this operate on the premise that white cops are always wrong in their disputes with blacks. Where have we heard thinking like that before? Community agitators like Barack Obama and Van Jones pray on the racial resentment in poor black neighborhoods, they stir up anger by blaming problems in the black community on whites. Cops make an easy target!

Sometimes even the most carefully rehearsed closet fanatic slips up and reveals his real motives. On March 10, 2009, Van Jones said, “No, we gonna change the whole system! We gonna change the whole thing! We not gonna put a new battery in a broken system, We want a new system!” That's Van Jones passionately calling for a new system of social justice in America. On the left, social justice is code for massive redistribution of wealth. Wait, those sound like Obama's economic goals. The adviser's ideological fruits don't fall far from the President's leftist tree. When Obama appointed Van Jones, his radicalism wasn't a drawback, it was an asset. Jones and Obama are brothers in arms struggling against social injustice in America.

After the Hurricane Katrina, Van Jones joined other black crusaders to exploit the raw misplaced rage among poor uneducated blacks. He helped found the black advocacy group, Color of Change. When conservative commentator Glenn Beck spotlighted President Obama's racial bias, the group lead boycotts against Beck. Then Beck retaliated by exposing Van Jones, under pressure he resigned his White House post. Van Jones was a symptom of Obama's extremism. Americans should be concerned about the president's beliefs, he's been skillful at deceiving the public. When Reverend Jeremiah Wright speaks out or Van Jones comes out, Obama's deception gets clarified. He's every bit as frighteningly fringe as his appointments and associations.

THE TORCH HAS BEEN PASSED TO … OBAMA?

2009-08-31T23:59:00.006-05:00

"There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party, and John Kennedy replied, 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do... It is time for a new generation of leadership … So it is with Barack Obama," That was part of the Late Senator Ted Kennedy's 2008 American University endorsement of then Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Before this almost Biblical anointment and certainly after, the media has repeatedly claimed Barack Obama is the heir to the John Kennedy Legacy. Liberal media elites with nostalgia for Camelot have even enjoy comparing Michelle Obama to former First Lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. The New York tabloids dubbed her “Jackie O” and now the media affectionately call our First Lady, “Michelle O”.

Behind this mainstream media euphoria is a real point about the direction of the Democratic Party. In 1960, America elected an Anti-Communist, Tax Cutting, Defense Hawk as president. No, Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. We started the New Frontier with John Kennedy. President Kennedy and President Obama share many of the same challenges, but their responses to those challenges is vastly different. Facing an under-performing economy, Barack Obama proposed raising taxes and massive increases in deficit government spending. John Kennedy picked a different course. On January 14, 1963, President Kennedy proposed $ 11.1 Billion in primarily income tax cuts to boost the economy. His tax reductions were similar to the later tax reductions of Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. Barack Obama's Robin Hood rhetoric about soaking the rich doesn't connect to John Kennedy's pro-growth economic agenda.

During his inaugural address in 1961, America's new young President warned of the dangerous of appeasement, “We dare not tempt them (our adversaries) with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.” Those comments are prologue to Ronald Reagan's “Peace through Strength” philosophy. Reagan and John Kennedy understood the treat posed by Soviet Communism, it's clear that Barack Obama doesn't understand the treat posed by Islamic Terrorism. It's incredibly difficult to twist those powerful words of President Kennedy into Obama's European apologies for American arrogance. The Modern Ultra Liberal Democratic Party has strayed a long way from, “..pay any price, bear any burden” for liberty, now Democrats are more like 'appease any dictator, surrender to any foe', Defense Hawks like Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman are outcasts in the Democratic Party.

When Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, he rhetorically passed the torch from his brother John Kennedy to Obama because calling someone 'another Ted Kennedy' is an insult. Teddy's tarnished legacy isn't worth inheriting, that's why he compared Obama to his brother. Obama is really Teddy's heir, they're both big government, high tax, weak on defense, left wing liberals. Without question Ted Kennedy was the heart of the extreme leftist modern Democratic Party. During his long Senate tenure he opposed The Wars in Vietnam and Iraq, he politicized the courts with Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, he voted against Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts, his political record is disgraceful. His personal life is equally despicable. He combined his brothers' womanizing with stunning, reckless illegal behavior. His death is certainly the latest tragedy in the Kennedy family and I fear Barack Obama's Presidency will be America's tragedy.

OBAMA'S RACE TO THE BOTTOM

2009-08-06T23:47:00.007-05:00

“I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts.” That's the astounding way, Barack Obama, President of the United States started to answer a controversial racial question during a press conference. When the leader of the free world, admits to bias and ignorance and answers the question anyway, it's clear he's motivated by racial animosity and unconstrained arrogance.

Obama's racial animosity is directed at the source of all racism in America, working class white people. During an elitist San Francisco fund raising event in 2008, he described the feelings of people in small towns this way, “they get bitter, and they cling to guns, religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment.” Does anybody believe these comments were colorless? Did Obama envision small town blacks hating immigrants, of course not. These carefully phrased comments were directed at working class whites. Even Obama's description of his white grandmother dripped with the same animosity, “..she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know- there's a reaction in her that's bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's the nature of race in our society.” When Obama mentions 'race in our society' it's clear that Obama means his grandmother had a deeply embedded fear of blacks. What a terrible thing to say and more importantly, believe. Obama's rage against whites doesn't extend to all whites. He is actually fond of upper class elites like the Kennedys, intellectual elites like Professor Bill Ayers and the liberal elites of Hollywood.

On July 20, prominent black Harvard Professor and Obama friend Henry Louis "Skip" Gates was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home for disorderly conduct. Gates attempted to break into his own house, which prompted one of his concerned neighbors to contact police and a white officer, James Crowley was first to respond. Gates greeted the him with racial insults and out of control screaming. When Obama was asked about his friend's arrest his instinctual racial animosity and emotion took over, he immediately blamed the police and assailed their conduct. His unruly black friend was virtually blameless, “the police acted stupidly”. Obama couldn't see it any other way. He was indoctrinated by the racially charged sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, while working as a community organizer in poor black neighborhoods ravaged by police brutality and racial profiling. White working class cops like James Crowley are the enemy.

I may be alone in believing that race will destroy Obama's Presidency, not racist whites and their attacks against him rather his own rage against the perceived cause of racism in America, working class whites especially those in middle America. Obama won't be the first leader destroyed by his own insecurities and animosities. When Obama brings up the issue of race it's a race to the bottom. How low will he go?

OBAMA CARE: SOCIALIZED MEDICINE THE NEXT GENERATION

2009-07-31T23:57:00.003-05:00

In 1948, Harry S. Truman told the Democratic Convention he wanted to provide every American with basic health care. After World War II, liberals in America's ally Great Britain promised “universal health coverage”, which resulted in The National Health Service Act of 1946. By 1948, The NHS was being implemented in Britain and American liberals were jealous. After the Democrats super majorities were diminished and they lost the White House in 1952, American Universal Health Care was on the shelf. During the 1960's Lyndon B. Johnson envisioned a “Great Society”, which lead to an expanded role for government in health care, education and civil rights. Johnson told advisers about his second term plans for national health care. In 1968, the Vietnam War killed those dreams. After that, Nixon flirted with it, Carter endorsed it and numerous losing Democratic nominees for President promised it.

It wasn't until Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's election in 1992, that universal health care was back on the agenda. President Bill Clinton addressed a joint session of Congress after he made the controversial decision to appoint his wife Hillary Rodham to head the closed door Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Before making a formal proposal, Clinton's health care reform ideas were already in trouble. “..Over 37 million Americans, most of them working people and their children have no health insurance at all.” Clinton's attempt to personalize the health care reform issue ultimately failed.

The election of America's newest liberal icon once again started the health care debate. On July 22, President Obama made every promise imaginable to save his health care program. The most absurd of his promises was the mythical 'we need competition for private insurance companies', “It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it.” That sounds good, but private insurance companies can't compete with government health care. Why? Private companies must make a profit to survive, government programs can lose money every year and stay in business. Social Security and Medicare are Trillions in the red, who cares? Big spending liberal politicians don't. Obama's fantasy reached epic levels with this statement, “So let me be clear. If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket.” That's right America, spending trillions more on government health care will lower the cost. If it wasn't so serious, it would be the number one comedy this summer.

After more than 60 years, Britain's National Health Service is an unqualified failure. In 2006, a commission found the NHS neglected elderly patients and treated them as a “low priority”, while an advocate for the elderly said they were “second class citizens” in the NHS. In 2003, a scandal emerged with reports of massive abusive "drugging" of older patients. Horror stories like these are all to common under the NHS. So why would liberals like Obama want to emulate the failed British System? That's what liberals do, they expand government and American liberals won't stop trying to nationalize health care. If we stop Obama today, we'll need to stop someone else tomorrow.

PALIN'S RENDEZVOUS WITH DESTINY

2009-07-11T02:22:00.007-05:00

“Sarah Palin is a star in Evansville and all the many Evansvilles of America, but there is a big part of the Republican Party—the Wall Street wing, the national-security wing—in which she cuts no ice.” Those words from Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair could have described the elite opinion of California Governor Ronald Reagan in the late 1970's. From the moment the notoriously moderate Republican Presidential nominee John McCain selected the charismatic, conservative pro-life governor of Alaska as his running mate, the elites in both major parties and the mainstream media have been mystified by the frontier governor's folksy appeal. The elites are still grappling with the affection Americans have for Reagan. The former baseball announcer and actor connected with Americans in the same way the former sportscaster and pageant contestant does, it's unexplainable to liberal elites. He wasn't Ivy League, he was a proud graduate of Eureka College and he didn't have aristocratic pedigree, his background was working class. Prominent political pundits assailed his intellect and feared his ideology. His relationship to elites of the time is prologue to Sarah Palin's struggles with today's elite.

As word of John McCain's unconventional vice presidential selection trickled through the media, immediately eyebrows were raised. Does she have the experience to step in for the 72 year old McCain? How can she be a mother to five children and vice president at the same time? I'm not opposed to questioning candidates, but the questions should be fair. The mainstream media questioned Governor Palin's experience despite the fact she had more executive and management experience than Barack Obama and his running mate Senator Joseph Biden. The targeting of Palin's family has been the most troubling, the media hasn't raised questions about Obama's ability to balance parenting and politics. Palin even became the punchline of rude sexual insults by a talk show host joking about her teen daughter getting “knocked up” and the governor having a “slutty flight attendant look”. Feminists and the media elite passively tolerate the insults against Palin. This treatment isn't the result of sexism or gender bias, the media coverage of Hillary Clinton was never comparable. The elite opposition is ideological, Sarah Palin is a strong pro-life conservative woman, the embodiment of America's heartland values. During the Reagan Era, media elites seemed more than willing to spotlight Reagan's family. From the senseless Nancy Reagan criticism over clothes and crockery to conflicts between Patti and her parents. Any true conservative icon will have their family relationships targeted. Reagan smiled past his critics insanity, Palin must do the same.

From October 27,1964 forward some of Reagan's strongest critics were in the Republican Party. That night wealthy friends of Reagan and supporters of Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, bought time on NBC for Reagan to deliver a speech endorsing Goldwater. The response to Reagan's speech “A Time for Choosing” was tremendous, the grassroots of the Party were energized. The Rockefeller wing of the party was concerned. Since Sarah Palin's well received speech last summer in Minneapolis, McCain Campaign staffers have been undercutting Palin by anonymously criticizing her through the mainstream media. Remember, McCain has been the leader of the moderate wing of the party for a decade. Selecting Palin was a desperate attempt to save his sinking campaign in 2008, he was never comfortable with or connected to Sarah Palin. The same elites that objected to Governor Reagan's principled conservatism, embraced the successful legacy of President Reagan. During Ronald Reagan's famous “A Time for Choosing” speech he said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny … you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.”, those were spiritually the first words of the Reagan Presidency. What does Governor Palin's future hold ? I'm sure her future is bonded to America's future.

OBAMA, SOTOMAYOR & THE NEW RACIAL POLITICS

2009-06-30T15:04:00.007-05:00

In 2008, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city of New Haven, Connecticut could throw out it's test for firefighters because no blacks qualified for promotion. This controversial ruling was the ultimate result of the modern race inequality advocates. They don't want equal opportunity, they desire positive results for certain favored minorities. One of the Second Circuit judges that ruled against the passing New Haven Firefighters was Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

When President Obama announced his first selection for the high court he said, “When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court in the land... America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above it's entrance: Equal justice under the law” Why would her appointment be a step towards equality? Did then Senator Obama believe that John Roberts or Samuel Alito's appointments were steps towards equality? The answer is clearly, no. Appointing white males to the high court won't bring the court in line with the changing demographics of America. When Obama speaks of equal justice he means equal outcomes. There are no Hispanics on the court then the court needs a Hispanic judge. There's the ideology behind every racial quota and affirmative action program, equal results. Sotomayor believed that New Haven needed more black firefighters, the qualified white firefighters were the casualties in the quest for equal outcomes.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who wasn't lived that life.” Sotomayor made those statements in ultra liberal Berkeley, California in 2001. During one of his racially charged sermons, President Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright screamed, “Barack knows what it means to be a black man raised in country and a culture controlled by rich white people, Hillary will never know that! Hillary ain't never been called a nigger.” According to the new politically acceptable racial politics in America, whites and minorities aren't equal, blacks and Hispanics are superior in judgment, empathy and life experience. Barack Obama's former pastor and Supreme Court nominee spew the same insidious racial bias. The positive legacy of the real Civil Rights movement has been pushed aside for divisive rhetoric that seeks to diminish whites and build up minorities.

New Haven Firefighter Frank Ricci has dyslexia, he studied hard, hired a coach, prepared for the written promotional exam and passed. He was elated until the city dismissed the results because not enough blacks passed along with Ricci. Judge Sotomayor didn't want equal opportunity, she wanted blacks to beat Frank Ricci, because that outcome would exemplify the new more progressive notion of fairness. That's equality in the age of Obama.

OBAMA: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF APPEASEMENT

2009-05-26T08:10:00.005-05:00

“Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because America was too strong.” Those simple insightful words from Ronald Reagan are as relevant today as anytime history. America's new President Barack Obama campaigned against war, but his weakness and appeasement make another conflict more of a reality. On May 25, 2009, when North Korea tested a nuclear weapon with the strength of the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima, elites in the international community seemed surprised, I wasn't. The North Koreans bold show of aggression came two months after Obama addressed thousands of adoring European admirers in the Czech Republic. He strutted on stage in Prague with the confidence that he has trademarked. During his speech he promised that America would lead the world in reducing nuclear weapons. Halfway around the world news reports about North Korea firing missiles in the Pacific dominated the headlines. The result was simple, Obama played the part of useful idiot in the face of North Korea's desperate despotic aggression.

Imagine the implications of Obama's appeasement in the Mideast. When President Obama meet 84 year old Middle Easterner monarch King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Obama bowed before him. The symbolism was striking, an American President bowing before an authoritarian Islamic King. With Israel under constant threat from the insane increasingly hostile Iranian Islamic Republic, with critical continuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's weakness gives hope to America's adversaries.

While speaking in Strasbourg, France, on April 3, 2009, President Obama did his best to appease the Anti-American liberal elitists in Europe by forcefully criticizing American arrogance. “In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Obama's comments echoed the tone and spirit of his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “We need to change the way we've been doing things, as an arrogant, racist, military superpower.” President Obama leveled the most disgraceful intellectually dishonest criticism of his country in presidential history, what did it accomplish ? Are our European allies more willing to assist America in Iraq or Afghanistan ? Are they more willing to accept our detainees from the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay ? The answer to all of those important questions is no.
The President's affinity for embracing America's enemies was on full display at the Summit of the Americas. He smiled, laughed and held hands with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Forget the human rights violations, forget his past misdeeds the supreme principle of Obama's foreign policy is global accommodation. Make our enemies feel better about America. I'm sure they do. After more than 100 days, President Obama has embraced the appeasement, passivity & weakness of the elite international community. The problem is that America can't risk that, our strength keeps the world safe. If dictators and tyrants fear America the world is better off.

CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITY

2009-03-31T10:57:00.006-05:00

On December 7, 1931, President Herbert Hoover's staff, shell shocked by the massive unemployment and growing hunger sparked by the 'Great Depression', turned away hundreds of protesters, known as 'Hunger Marchers' at the White House. The disgruntled picketers wanted the president to provide more assistance to help the jobless. The key is more assistance, because a year earlier Hoover and congress spent approximately $ 100 million on public works programs. This minor detail is usually left out of history books. After a year Hoover's 'stimulus' failed to boost the failing economy. In the election of 1932, Americans elected New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt. He promised that his 'New Deal' would fix the economy and get Americans working again.

Roosevelt used the crisis of 'Great Depression' to push liberal policies unrelated to fixing the economy, collective bargaining, expanding labor union membership, packing the Supreme Court and government health care. The crisis provided 'New Dealers' with an opportunity to expand government. Fast forward to today's financial crisis, during an interview on 'Meet the Press', Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, “we have a great moment of opportunity for this country.” Last year after Barack Obama's election, incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel echoed those words, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” During his first address to congress last month, President Obama described America this way, “We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal.”

What 'opportunity' are they talking about ? In an attempt to stimulate the economy, Nancy Pelosi and her ultra liberal House colleagues passed a stimulus bill loaded with goodies that weren't designed to help the economy. Global warming research money, funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, billions for digital television conversion, more funding for food stamps and public housing, the list of government handouts is endless. The House stimulus package was just the beginning. Democrats want universal health care and another stimulus bill. With America suffering it's highest unemployment rate in a decade, anything done in the name of economic recovery seems reasonable. The crisis provides liberals with an opportunity to pass anything they want. With Republicans in disarray, the only limit on the Democrats is their imagination.

When the public discovered that AIG employees would receive their scheduled bonuses, despite the fact that AIG received billions in bailout money. Democrats in congress quickly passed a retroactive 90% tax on employee bonuses at companies receiving government bailout money. Normally legislators should care about passing unconstitutional legislation, remember this is a crisis, the rules don't apply during a crisis. Democrats have their opportunity to erase the tax cutting of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush by raising taxes back to 'New Deal' levels. Barack Obama and his big government friends in a craven attempt to grab power are intent on exploiting the current crisis. This is their opportunity to permanently expand the size and scope of government.

SPECIAL REPORT: OBAMA'S AN IDIOT

2009-03-20T20:16:00.006-05:00

Barack Obama decided to appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Thursday night to garner support for his controversial left wing economic agenda. The appearance marked the first time an incumbent president appeared on the Tonight Show. The president seemed inarticulate and boring without his teleprompter. Obama botched several of the canned jokes he was provided with, no surprise. While talking about sports the president insulted millions decent Americans struggling with disabilities, when he joked about Special Olympians.

OBAMA: I bowled a 129.
(applause)
LENO: That's very good, Mr. President.
OBAMA: What is this like the Special Olympics or Something ?
LENO: No. No.

The day after his appalling comments, the president called the chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver to apologize. I'm sorry, Mr. President, calling Tim Shriver, the handsome privileged son of Eunice Kennedy to apologize, won't cut it. Mr. Shriver has done great work with the Special Olympics, but he hasn't struggled with the same disabilities that the brave Olympians deal with everyday. The president needs to focus on those courageous Americans living with disabilities. Maybe it's permissible for shock jocks and clownish comedians to mock the disabled, but the President of the United States, that's shameful. What would you expect from a man that slithered under characters like Reverend Wright and William Ayers for 20 years.

BARACK HUSSEIN MUGABE

2009-03-17T18:50:00.006-05:00

Several days ago, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford criticized Barack Obama's economic policies this way, “What you're doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don't have, send it to different states -- we'll create jobs... If that's the case why isn't Zimbabwe a rich place?... Why isn't Zimbabwe just an incredibly prosperous place?” Sanford continued “(Zimbabwe's government is) printing money they don't have and sending it around to their different - I don't know the towns in Zimbabwe -- but that same logic is being applied there with little effect.” Literally before those words came out of the Republican governor's mouth, liberals started labeling his comments as racist. Congressman Jim Clyburn called Sanford's comment “beyond the pale”, because of the obvious racial subtext. Anytime you compare Obama to another black guy you're automatically called a racist, unless the black guy is Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King or Will Smith.

In my opinion the governor's comments are more accurate than even he cares to admit. Barack Obama is an economic ideological soul mate with Zimbabwe's megalomaniacal dictator Robert Mugabe. In 1980, Mugabe received overwhelming support from the blacks and was elected promising change. Sound familiar ? After coming to power, the President wanted to reverse policies which favored the wealthy elite. For Mugabe it was commercial farms owned by the privileged wealthy white minority. For Obama it was tax cuts for corporations and the rich, I'm sure that most of those rich people are white! Mugabe's agenda of racial redistribution hurt the productive whites, that built the former Rhodesia into one of the most prosperous countries in Africa and favored poorly educated unskilled black mobs. This isn't a similarity between Obama and Mugabe, yet.

The Mugabe regime's policy of land redistribution caused the country's economy to collapse, today Zimbabwe suffers from the highest inflation rate in the world. In 2008, 100 million dollars in Zimbabwe was equivalent to 30 cents in the United States. Zimbabwe's currency is worthless. A continuation of Barack Obama's massive spending will certainly lead to a weaker dollar and higher inflation. The president (Obama or Mugabe, it doesn't really matter) doesn't understand that you can't redistribute your way to prosperity. It's not just their support for failed economic policies, the two great African messiahs are similar in other ways. Both leaders were abandoned by their fathers and both men sought the guidance of radical charismatic black preachers. There is one big difference, Barack Obama was a community organizer and Mugabe was a community activist.

Governor Sanford stumbled upon an incredibly accurate comparison. If Obama continues to govern in the same radical socialist way, America's decline will start to resemble the decline in Zimbabwe. After America's decline, Barack Obama's legacy will mirror his African counterparts shameful legacy.

THE FACE OF CAPITALISM ?

2009-03-12T23:34:00.016-05:00

On March 12, 2009, Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to organizing one of the biggest criminal Ponzi schemes in American history. (The biggest non-criminal Ponzi scheme is Social Security) Madoff cheated investors out of billions, starting in the early 1990's. I'm glad that Madoff might spend the rest of his days in prison. I enjoy watching all criminals get jail time, while liberals pray for murderers and rapists to go free, their concern about justice only applies to rich white guys like Bernie Madoff. My problem is with Barack Obama and his socialist allies in the mainstream media that are trying to make Madoff the symbol of unfettered capitalism. If they succeed in making Madoff the poster boy for capitalism in America then socialism seems like a reasonable alternative.

Ultra liberal MSNBC anchors lead with the Madoff story every hour, their website gleefully displays photos of a jail cell similar to Madoff's while the left wing Huffington Post used a banner publicizing 'Bernie Madoff's Jail Cell'. Media elite liberals are gladly expressing their outrage at Madoff while the new president and his propaganda minister can't help themselves, they had to add to the liberal chorus of criticism against Madoff. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The president is glad that swift justice will happen.” Gibbs also promised that the Obama administration will engage in draconian law enforcement efforts against Wall Street executives. This is a war on capitalism. Obama's surrogates talk about the dangers of “greed”, when liberals talk about corporate greed they mean corporate profits.

They hate the idea of businesses making money. Those lame brain liberals don't understand that profits pay workers, profits pay taxes, profits fund their liberal social programs, business profits are the fuel in America's engine. The advocates of socialism want you to feel comfortable attacking profits, because that's the first step to socialism. When public anger against the private sector reaches it's peak then left wing politicians promise to confiscate the profits. GAME OVER! Bernie Madoff is being used as political propaganda by the left wing media and the Obama administration to stir up anger against corporate America. For months they've blamed former President George W. Bush and greedy executives for our current economic problems. They intentionally leave out liberal Democrat congressional leaders like Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, that pushed for regulations which caused our housing market to crumble. If liberals brand Madoff as the new face of capitalism, then we should make Barney Frank and Chris Dodd the faces of socialism.

RADICALS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

2009-03-10T12:24:00.005-05:00

For years Barack Obama associated with him, gave speeches with him and even held political fundraisers in his house. University of Illinois Chicago Professor William Ayers and Barack Obama formed a close relationship in the mid-1990's, so imagine how concerned Obama was to find out that his peaceful mainstream friend committed acts of domestic terrorism. Apparently, Barack Obama wasn't that concerned because he continued to associate with the former Weather Underground leader. Don't worry, who cares if the president's pal bombed the Pentagon ?

Ayers is now teaming up with a fellow radical from the world of academia, fraudulent former professor Ward Churchill. On Thursday, March 5, 2009, William Ayers and Churchill spoke to impressionable young college students in Boulder, Colorado. The title of their lecture at the University of Colorado was “Forbidden Education and the rise of Neo-McCarthyism”, sounds boring, hopefully most of the students fell asleep during the lecture. If you don't remember, Churchill wrote an inflammatory essay titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". That title conjures up images of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, (Another radical friend of Obama) screaming, “America's chickens are coming home to roost.” In his essay, the disgraced former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado blamed the U.S. for provoking the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Churchill disputed the innocence of the people that died at the World Trade Center, “Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly.” That's disgusting! I don't expect Churchill to apologize for labeling the victims of 9/11 “Little Eichmanns” because he isn't remorseful, he stands behind his outrageous comments. Churchill and unrepentant terrorist Ayers teamed up to bash America again. Ayers cited “real victims” in his presentation, not the people that died at the World Trade Center or the victims of the Weather Underground, Ayers believes that Churchill is a victim because evil Americans opposed his comments and caused him to get fired from his exalted position as a tenured professor.

When he wasn't bashing America, Ayers was praising Obama's election (that's illuminating) Ayers called Obama's election, “Something you wanted to revel in and celebrate. Can you think of another U.S. president in history comfortable with knocking on doors in the south side of Chicago and going inside and having a cup of coffee. He did that for years.” Ayers clearly has a certain ideological connection with our new president. Think about Obama's radical and extreme friends, Churchill seems almost reflexively patriotic compared to Ayers and Reverend Wright. Barack Obama's case is simple, he's not a normal mainstream politician with a few radical connections, he's every bit as radical as his friends. Obama's friends love to talk about roosting chickens, well birds of a feather flock together.

MORE RIGHT THAN RUSH

2009-03-03T21:28:00.005-06:00

When Barack Obama and his left wing henchmen started to attack Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh because he said he wants Barack Obama's dangerous socialist agenda to fail, I listened to their distorted and deceptive attacks very closely because I'm more aggressive than Limbaugh. I don't hope that this arrogant, unqualified, affirmative action president fails, I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA HAS ALREADY FAILED! His administration is giving Jimmy Carter a run for his peanuts.

Look at Obama's record. In more than one month, he has tripled the deficit, made a down payment on socialized medicine, attempted to appoint some of the most corrupt public officials in decades, lurched from one scandal to another, announced the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, potentially allowing some of the world's most dangerous terrorists to kill again, announced massive cuts in the defense budget during wartime and the list goes on. That's failure, that's bad for America. I'm glad that Limbaugh has the courage to confront this wanna be socialist dictator. The mainstream media is walking in lockstep with the Obama and the socialists. They covered up his radical connections during the campaign and now they're covering up Obama's real agenda.

I'm grateful that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the beautiful blonde conservative goddess Ann Coulter are fighting Obama's radical agenda. Limbaugh's defiant address to the nation at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was masterful. My point is simple, where is the political class ? Where are the elected Republicans? Where are the congressional leaders ? Stand up. The grassroots are fired up, Obama's extremism has motivated regular Americans from coast to coast to protest this president's policies. Rush Limbaugh is speaking for concerned citizens that oppose Obama's anti-American agenda. That's right. Socialism goes against the principles of America, socialism is quintessentially anti-American. I'm an average American patriot that cares about the direction of this country. That's why I started this blog. I want to connect and communicate with fellow patriots that oppose Obama. Speaking out against this administration is the most patriotic thing an American can do. Consider me more right than Rush.

COMRADE-IN-CHIEF

2009-02-25T05:19:00.007-06:00

Days after spending a trillion dollars on left wing pork barrel projects designed to redistribute the wealth of hard working Americans, Barack Obama addressed a joint session of congress and skillfully used the dramatic and historic theatrics to persuade Americans to except his remaining big government agenda. “Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't”, Obama suggested with a straight face. Starting your speech with a whopper like that takes serious arrogance. Later in the speech, an extreme moment of candor from our fearless leader revealed his true agenda,“We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal.” Translation, the financial crisis gives Democrats the opportunity to pass liberal programs, they've been dreaming about for years.

I'm not sure that most Americans understand the scope of Obama's proposed government spending. The 2007 Fiscal Year budget for the federal government was $ 2.7 Trillion. FOLKS, THEY JUST SPENT ONE TRILLION DOLLARS BEFORE THEY PASSED THE BUDGET! I'm not frustrated, I'm pleading for Americans to wake up. Without getting to deep into budgetary affairs, we should get ready for massive cuts in defense spending. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), other safety net programs and interest on the debt account for over 60% of the federal budget. With those figures the only place that Obama and congressional liberals will target for their “hard choices to bring our deficit down ” is the defense department. Get ready for a weaker national defense.

Under Barack Obama the federal government won't secure the borders and protect us from dangerous threats, the federal government will raise taxes on working people to support programs for people that don't work. Universal health care, universal preschool, food stamps, free lunches, free daycare, government housing and college for everybody, the list of government promises is long. Obama said that his budget, “does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue.” With that liberal wish list, Obama's big spending basically provides certain people with cradle to grave care. I said 'certain people', because responsible hard working citizens will have to pay the bills for this socialist fantasy.

The reality of Obama's big spending could develop into a national nightmare, higher taxes, fewer jobs, high unemployment, slow growth, massive deficits, weaker currency and a lower standard of living. That could be America's future. In most of socialist Europe and formerly communist Russia that's the present.

BLACKS GONE WILD!

2009-02-21T03:47:00.014-06:00

This week several of Barack Obama's most radical, crazy, racist black supporters, shamefully injected race into the national conversation. Sleazy perpetual race pimp Al Sharpton made news protesting a New York Post cartoon that criticized the recent economic stimulus bill. Ultra-liberal South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn called the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, racist for considering not to accepted their state's share of the stimulus cash. Even the new U.S. Attorney General joined the fun by attacking the racial courage of white Americans. The election of Barack Obama has emboldened radical blacks to attack the remaining white power structure in America. This is the opening shot.

On Thursday, February 19th, Al Sharpton lead protests outside the New York Post's office in Midtown Manhattan. The Reverend was upset that the post published a cartoon that allegedly compared Barack Obama to a chimp. The post is also owned by the same company that owns the evil right-wing Fox News. That's not connected, right ? Watching Sharpton arm and arm with Charles Barron, protesting the New York Post is ridiculous. You're probably asking, who is Charles Barron ? Barron is a racist New York City councilman and militant former Black Panther, during another protest he said, “I want to go up to the closest white person and say, 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap them for my mental health.” Giving credibility to thugs like Charles Barron, that's change you can believe in.

Next up, Nancy Pelosi's loony liberal lackey, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn. When his home state's governor Mark Sanford and the governors of Louisiana,Mississippi and Texas expressed their concerns with accepting their state's share of economic stimulus funding, Clyburn felt insulted, “These four governors represent states that are in the proverbial black belt.” The 'proverbial black belt', that's insanity. Allow me to translate this non-sense to English. These racist Republican southern governors, won't take the stimulus money because they want to hurt poor black people. This madness makes the racist rants of Reverend Jeremiah Wright seem logical.

Then there are the comments of Attorney General Eric Holder. The Columbia educated lawyer is clearly more articulate than race hustler Al Sharpton, but he's pushing the same 'blame whitey' mentality. During a speech at the justice Department, Holder said, “In things racial we always have been and continue to be essentially a nation of cowards.” Obviously he wasn't talking about black people, he was critiquing white America. The same white America that elected Barack Obama to the presidency. The same white America that elected senators that confirmed his nomination. The same cowardly white America that listens to his racial dribble. I'm sure that some white people believed electing Obama would tamp down the racial anger from black America, they were wrong. Obama's election has basically given the most radical elements in black America permission to assail white people and label them 'racist', when in fact they are the real racists.

OBAMA WANTS YOU TO BECOME A SOCIALIST

2009-02-16T22:13:00.003-06:00

When the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed President Obama's pork filled, trillion dollar economic stimulus plan, along essentially party lines, that was the first step of a long awaited liberal plan to radically change America. Obama and the Democrats want to turn America into a socialist country like many of the countries in western Europe. Imagine, Sweden without the hot blondes! That's horrible.

Socialism: The socialist doctrine demands state control of the means of production and redistribution of wealth, this should be achieved by restructuring the existing capitalist system of a country through democratic and legislative means.

Now, that we've defined the term, next we should explore the reasons behind this left-wing plan to change America. Since our founding, America has been a country that believed in freedom, entrepreneurship and capitalism. Look at American icons like the cowboy. The wild west cowboy didn't want a government hand out. He was independent, he made his own way. For better or worse, that's the American tradition. With that backdrop, look at the modern Democratic party, hopelessly out of step with America, right ? Wrong. Since Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal' of the 1930's, the Democratic party has been the party of the government hand out. Without the 'Great Depression', FDR's welfare state dream would have never occurred. The crisis created the condition to change America. When Democrats can promise government health care, government jobs and government education, they win elections by playing to American's economic fears. Running on the 'New Deal', Democrats won seven of nine presidential elections from 1932-1964, then came the Goldwater-Reagan Revolution. The American people started to believe that the government was too big and too expensive. From 1968-1988, the GOP won five of six presidential elections.

Now America is facing more economic problems. Enter stage left, a bleeding heart politician that cares about helping the poor and the jobless, just like FDR. Obama doesn't care about helping the poor any more than the aristocratic Roosevelt. If he did he would have donated the millions he pocketed from those terrible books he wrote to charity. Obama and the Democrats care about winning elections. They understand that creating more recipients of welfare than taxpayers, gives them a large constituency. That's redistribution of wealth. The alluring liberal promise of having some rich guy pay for your health care, housing, food and education sounds great. If you're living on the government dole, smaller government is a threat to your very survival. Then it only makes sense for you to vote for the party of big government. Obama's Ohio conversation with 'Joe the Plumber' was very illuminating. Obama said, “I believe that if you spread the wealth around that will be good for everybody.” That sounds like redistribution. There's that word again. If Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can institute greater wealth redistribution then they'll have more voters and followers of the their socialist ideology.

THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OBAMA

2009-02-12T12:51:00.011-06:00

Advocates of limited government have an uphill battle. When I watched people begging Barack Obama for better benefits, housing, health care and flat screen televisions (that's next), I started to feel that the American dream is on life support. During Obama's town hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida, on Tuesday, February 10th, one person after another begged the wonderful wizard for every conceivable gift. They told stories about how far they had traveled. They tried to gain some measure of sympathy from our merciful leader. They thanked him for taking the time to listen to their depressing stories of hardship. They keeled down at the alter of government largess.

The poster boy for this phenomenon is Julio Osegueda, a college student and part-time McDonald's employee for approximately four years. He enthusiastically thanked Obama for even talking to him, “This is such a blessing to see you, Mr. President! Thank you for taking time out of your day! gracious God! Thank you so much!” After praising the wonderful wizard, Mr. Osegueda asked the president for better benefits because his evil corporate employer, McDonald's doesn't provide them. What happened to America ? This pathetic loser should get another job to earn enough money to buy a low cost health insurance policy, it's not the government's responsibility to provide people with free health care. I'm not calling this guy a loser because he works at McDonald's, I'm calling him a loser because he begged a politician to shower him with taxpayer funded goodies. Then there's the ordeal of Dorothy, I mean Henrietta Hughes, a 61 year old homeless black woman living in a pick up truck with her son. She's been homeless for more than a year, so logically she pleaded and begged for the wizard to give her a home, because “there's no place like home”. How did the wizard respond to the plight of Mrs. Hughes ? He told her to talk to his staff. That seems almost insensitive. Never mind, liberals can't be insensitive, they feel our pain.

Remember the moral of the 1939 Classic movie, I hope you do. When Dorothy finally arrived in the Emerald City, she discovered that the wonderful wizard was just an ordinary man and without even knowing she possessed the power to get home all along. American people, you have the power to get a better job, you have the power to buy health insurance, you even have the power to afford a home, if you are willing to work hard and save for your future. Don't hope that the wonderful wizard of Obama, gives you something. Don't depend on the government because the government will disappointed you every time.

THE ADVENTURES OF THE EVADERS

2009-02-10T13:50:00.011-06:00

During the campaign last year, bombastic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden implored the wealthy to be more patriotic and pay higher taxes. Imagine my shock when I heard that some of the Obama administration's nominees had problems paying their taxes. The biggest shock was not the failure of HHS nominee Tom Daschle, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or chief performance officer nominee Nancy Killefer to pay their taxes, the biggest shock was the reaction to this blatant tax evasion. In the lexicon of liberalism, tax evasion is basically treason. Exhibit A, the statement of our vice president. Why didn't Obama quickly disassociate himself from people that hate America ? Why didn't the media slam these selfish, greedy, rich, fat cats for literally taking money from the poor and the needy ? When you don't pay your taxes, you are depriving the government of vital funding that could be used to help the poor, right ? Look at how much money Daschle, Geithner and Killefer avoided giving the government.

In 2005, a wealthy business partner of Tom Daschle decided to give Daschle daily access to a limousine. Did you expect Daschle to drive himself around Washington ? So his friend added the services of a chauffeur. Seems expensive. What did Daschle do ? He didn't do anything, he didn't report or declare this luxurious gift as income. That's not all, Daschle also decided to not pay taxes on $ 80,000, that he made consulting his friend's business. Daschle makes Geithner look like an amateur evader. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay over $ 30,000 over the past several years. The treasury secretary not paying his taxes, that's a real public relations problem. I shouldn't even mention poor Nancy Killefer, she just forgot to pay state employment taxes for her housekeeper. We've all done that, right ?

These tax evaders don't get criticized because they're liberal. On the elitist left, it's 'do as I command and not as I do'. Taxes should be paid by the middle class, rich Republicans and people in red states like Missouri. For any Republican administration, the failure of several high profile nominees to pay their taxes in full, would cause a crisis. Obama simply shrugged off the potential problem with, “I screwed up.” I sincerely hope the left is as forgiving the next time a rich conservative businessman forgets to pay a few taxes.

THE GOLDEN BOY GETS ANGRY

2009-02-07T05:36:00.011-06:00

It started as an ordinary short presidential trip. The president traveled from the White House to Williamsburg, Virginia, to address House Democrats on Thursday night, February 5, 2009. During Barack Obama's speech, he revealed an immaturity that has been rarely seen since his presidential campaign started two years ago. His immaturity has been rarely seen because the mainstream media helped him glide through the election without facing adversity. Now the real challenges begin. This is essentially the first time that the golden boy might not get everything that he wants. When the golden boy doesn't get what he wants, he cries, he pouts and he whines. The golden boy is angry because, Americans are starting to question the wisdom of spending a trillion dollars on previously stalled, liberal, pork barrel projects under the auspices of economic stimulus. Some of Obama's angry rant against House and Senate Republicans, revealed his true lack of knowledge about economics, “We are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin.” That comment ignores the reason for the big deficits during the Bush Administration. GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Our young president's wild outburst also revealed how he will handle a crisis. Obama comes to the White House with no executive experience, no business experience, no military experience and very limited legislative experience. If you haven't been paying attention, Obama has compared our current economic situation to the 'Great Depression' and has characterized America's crisis as catastrophic. Sounds bad. Sounds like an economic red alert. Are you comfortable with the way Obama has handled this situation ? First, he outsourced the writing of the economic stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Then he stood back and allowed House Democrats to engage in an orgy of spending that made most Americans sick. Finally, he lashed out at Republicans, conservative Democrats and Americans that oppose this disgusting piece of legislation. That's not leadership. Apply that same template to Iran, the War on Terror, the war in Afghanistan, the situation in North Korea and the saber rattling of Vladimir Putin. Crying won't make the bad man in Russia behave. The golden boy's toddler-esque temper tantrum wasn't irrelevant, it was instructive. It allowed the American people to see Obama's leadership style in action. Judge for yourself.

A SCAMS ANATOMY

2009-02-03T18:25:00.007-06:00

One man can’t perpetrate a scam on millions of people without serious help. From the beginning the mainstream media has been collaborating with Barack Obama and his presidential campaign. Why would mostly white reporters and commentators try to help the black candidate ? The answer is simple. White guilt. The election of Barack Obama allows white liberals to wash away the stain of America’s past, slavery, segregation and Jim Crow. This election was therapy for white liberals. With that motivation the media set out to glorify Obama and destroy all of Obama’s opponents and critics. Cable news commentator Chris Matthews argued that his network MSNBC embraced change. After one of Obama’s over the top, soaring, long winded speeches, Matthews notoriously said that he had a thrill running up his leg. The adoration, adulation and admiration of MSNBC is one thing but the systematic destruction of political opponents is another.

When John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate the mainstream media quickly recognized the threat that the Alaska Governor posed. She was attractive, charismatic and she energized the Republican base. These qualities caused the media to relentlessly attack Governor Palin. They had to neutralize her and they did by questioning her qualifications. Even though she was more qualified than Barack Obama. The media manipulation was at it’s pinnacle when the McCain campaign produced an accurate commercial which highlighted Obama’s support for sex education in kindergarten. The media immediately labeled the ad as false, misleading and dirty. Despite the fact that Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007 that sex education for kindergartners was quote, ‘the right thing to do’. I don’t agree with conservatives that argue the media doesn’t understand middle America. They understand middle America, they don’t agree with the values of middle America. When the issue of sex education came up the media realized the potency of that issue with parents and they quickly neutralized the issue. Problem solved.

White liberals in the media have been shepherding Obama through the perils of American politics for the last few years. In the past slamming Democrats like Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton & John Kerry was easy because their campaigns couldn’t erase the stains of America’s past. Elitist white liberals love the idea of an African American in the White House. They love the symbolism of Obama. With a story this good, who cares about the truth ?

THE ORIGINAL LIE

2009-02-03T14:21:00.005-06:00

Barack Obama is a calculating liar. He built his early political career on lies, he started lying on the Southside of Chicago and he is building his new administration on lies. When Obama started community organizing in the predominately black neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago, he encountered a problem. He wasn’t black enough. As an Ivy League educated, biracial yuppie his arrival was greeted with immediate skepticism. In the face of this skepticism did he decide to earn the trust of the community with dedication and hard work ? Of course not, that would have been the honorable thing to do. Instead he decided to start attending the Trinity United Church of Christ. At that church he formed a relationship with the church’s radical pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Joining Trinity United helped Obama form connections that he exploited throughout his political career. Jeremiah Wright had cultivated an image as a religious revolutionary preaching ‘Black Liberation Theology’.

Black Liberation Theology is an ideology created in the 1960’s, with the premise that traditional Christianity supports white supremacy and oppresses blacks.

It’s hard to look like a sellout when you’re attending a church that believes in Black Liberation Theology. With increased credibility in the black community, Obama finally had the credentials to get elected. The connection with Reverend Wright was extremely useful until Obama’s constituency changed. In 2007, Barack Obama was preparing to run for President of the United States, to win that election he would need millions of white middle class votes. You can’t appeal to those voters with Reverend Wright as your spiritual adviser. In 2007, Reverend Wright was in Springfield, Illinois, preparing to give the invocation at Obama’s campaign kick-off. Then Obama motivated by his national ambitions withdrew his offer and decided not to have Wright in such a public position. That’s the moderate lie, the moderate myth. So logically, when Obama told the media in 2008 that comments like this …

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law, and then wants us to sing “God Bless America?” No, no, no! Not “God Bless America!” God damn America! God damn America! That’s in the Bible for killing innocent people!”

…were unexpected from Jeremiah Wright, he was lying. Barack Obama telling a lie, that’s completely expected.